Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #721
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, September 3 2001          Volume 01 : Number 721

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

Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 23:55:38 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] geographicals

Some system different than what we have must be developed to assure geographic
representation and also popular representation.  We have 244 plus nations
acknowledged, let them each have a vote and just throw them into the mix. I
will personally do the emails to each Nic that has one and lick the stamp to
those who do not.  I will cc and or forward them all to WXW for verification.
Done deal end of geographic debate.  Yes it is sad that the US with an
overwhelming majority of participants gets only one vote and unfair that the
many with none get the same vote, but that is geographicals for you.

Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Ladi and all assembly members,
>
> Ladi wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
>   Agreed.  And this has been the predominant position that our members
> [INEGroup]
> have stood for some time now.  Although there are some good reasons
> to insure geographical diversity amongst the BoD members, and this issue
> has been discussed and debated at least three previous times here, it
> should not matter to a great extent with respect to the most important
> requirement of ICANN.
>
> > Let the best (wo)man with the most popular views win.
>
>   Here here!
>
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 10:00:06 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Public Forum?

Danny,
thank you for your question. It is always the intent for NC physical
meetings to have a session at the end as a public forum. This will be no
different in Montevideo.

Philip
NC Chair

- --
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, 3 Sep 2001 10:03:07 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Reminder -- Personal poll: Domain name holder yes/no?

Dear all,

thanks for all the responses I have received so far!
This is only a reminder for those who haven't responded yet:
Please reply now, until Wednesday at the latest!

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

Best regards,
/// Alexander

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

_____________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________

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

Privacy: All the individual data (name, e-mail address, DN holder
or not) will be kept secret. I will publish aggregate statistics
on the number of DN holders in each category if I receive enough
answers.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 03:08:23 -0800
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

In the absence of a "jurisdiction clause". The "implied contract" might
just as well be in the country of the ccTLD manager.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 7:33 PM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: 'Elisabeth Porteneuve'; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[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, 3 Sep 2001 06:25:56 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Elisabeth,

I agree fully that the ccTLDs deserve to be treated with equal
consideration.  I hope I did not imply differently.  I also recognize that
many of them do come under varying forms of national law and jurisdiction
and that issue certainly needs to be dealt with.  The question that I don't
have the answer to yet is whether or not that demands a ccSO or some other
major organizational change.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 1:24 PM
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

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

Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 06:39:55 -0800
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

To all:

The ccTLD constituency is presently engaged in achieving rough consensus
on what these (most significant) issues are. Much of that work should be
completed by the end of the Montevideo meeting.

Until we have agreed on a communique of those issues, it would be
premature to publish.

However, I can refer you to our stockholm communique:
http://www.wwtld.org/ccSO_Formation_Statement-Stockholm_010601.htm

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Sotiris
Sotiropoulos
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 11:40 PM
To: William X Walsh
Cc: Peter de Blanc; 'Elisabeth Porteneuve'; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [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

- --
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, 3 Sep 2001 12:51:40 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

==> This is the most frequent erroneous assumption.

    The Internet network was built up by researchers and engineers, 
    from the US and from several other countries. 
    To have the simplest network, you need 2 sides, and you need
    that the both sides wish to built it up. It is the exact story
    of the intial Internet. No "delegations" - collaborative work.

    The establishment of ccTLD started in 1985. It was an era of 
    ancestors EARN-BITNET, SPAN - Space Physics Analysis Network, 
    HEPNET - High Energy Physics Network, etc ....
    Actually if you recall the naming scheme used for EARN or for SPAN
    - it was based on ISO 3166 code, at the time the names of "nodes"
    were limited to 8 characters!

    At this pioneers time, the network deployment followed the 
    international research and education communities needs.
    Starting in 1987 the US National Science Foundation and its 
    management were leading in international efforts helping 
    the worldwide Internet to take shape (see the Project Solicitation 
    for International Connections for the NSFNET, NSF90-69, July 1990,
    prepared after many discussions with Europeans, with the idea 
    to connect the NSFNET to European backbones, and share expensive
    lines cost - I have an original paper copy in my archives, 
    I have been there).

    There was no contract under US law or any other law, there was 
    collaborative work, and we were putting European taxpayers money 
    to make Internet happen. 
    In that pioneers time when the new country were connecting
    (which means putting enormous resources on international connectivity),
    it was using its own ISO 3166 code. The ccTLD happened this way.

    Elisabeth Porteneuve

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

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

Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 03:54:49 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Monday, Monday, September 03, 2001, 7:39:55 AM, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> To all:

> The ccTLD constituency is presently engaged in achieving rough consensus
> on what these (most significant) issues are. Much of that work should be
> completed by the end of the Montevideo meeting.

> Until we have agreed on a communique of those issues, it would be
> premature to publish.

> However, I can refer you to our stockholm communique:
> http://www.wwtld.org/ccSO_Formation_Statement-Stockholm_010601.htm

So if the ccTLD community doesn't even know itself what the issues it
needs addressed are, I fail to see the importance of their complaint
that they have not been dealt with by ICANN.

- -- 
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, 3 Sep 2001 04:04:49 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Elisabeth, if the ccTLDs had been delegated to countries and their
governments, this might be relevant, but in fact that is not the case.
The few countries where the delegation has anything to do with the
government in that country are the exception, not the rule.

The contract between the IANA (and now ICANN) and most ccTLDs was
RFC1591 as it was written at the time of the delegation.  For ccTLDs
delegated prior to the first release of 1591, there would only be an
implied contract of questionable enforcement value.

That is how the ccTLDs were delegated, simply to those who requested
them, nothing more was required.

Monday, Monday, September 03, 2001, 3:51:40 AM, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>> 

==>> This is the most frequent erroneous assumption.

>     The Internet network was built up by researchers and engineers, 
>     from the US and from several other countries. 
>     To have the simplest network, you need 2 sides, and you need
>     that the both sides wish to built it up. It is the exact story
>     of the intial Internet. No "delegations" - collaborative work.

>     The establishment of ccTLD started in 1985. It was an era of 
>     ancestors EARN-BITNET, SPAN - Space Physics Analysis Network, 
>     HEPNET - High Energy Physics Network, etc ....
>     Actually if you recall the naming scheme used for EARN or for SPAN
>     - it was based on ISO 3166 code, at the time the names of "nodes"
>     were limited to 8 characters!

>     At this pioneers time, the network deployment followed the 
>     international research and education communities needs.
>     Starting in 1987 the US National Science Foundation and its 
>     management were leading in international efforts helping 
>     the worldwide Internet to take shape (see the Project Solicitation 
>     for International Connections for the NSFNET, NSF90-69, July 1990,
>     prepared after many discussions with Europeans, with the idea 
>     to connect the NSFNET to European backbones, and share expensive
>     lines cost - I have an original paper copy in my archives, 
>     I have been there).

>     There was no contract under US law or any other law, there was 
>     collaborative work, and we were putting European taxpayers money 
>     to make Internet happen. 
>     In that pioneers time when the new country were connecting
>     (which means putting enormous resources on international connectivity),
>     it was using its own ISO 3166 code. The ccTLD happened this way.

>     Elisabeth Porteneuve

- -- 
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, 3 Sep 2001 07:02:48 -0800
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

William:

Apparently you did not read the document. The document outlines what we
(ccTLD) already have reached consensus on. 

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 2:55 AM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'; 'Elisabeth Porteneuve'; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Monday, Monday, September 03, 2001, 7:39:55 AM, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> To all:

> The ccTLD constituency is presently engaged in achieving rough 
> consensus on what these (most significant) issues are. Much of that 
> work should be completed by the end of the Montevideo meeting.

> Until we have agreed on a communique of those issues, it would be 
> premature to publish.

> However, I can refer you to our stockholm communique: 
> http://www.wwtld.org/ccSO_Formation_Statement-Stockholm_010601.htm

So if the ccTLD community doesn't even know itself what the issues it
needs addressed are, I fail to see the importance of their complaint
that they have not been dealt with by ICANN.

- -- 
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, 3 Sep 2001 04:13:42 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Monday, Monday, September 03, 2001, 8:02:48 AM, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> William:

> Apparently you did not read the document. The document outlines what we
> (ccTLD) already have reached consensus on. 

Yes, but all of that is recent consensus, if the document had been
written prior to these demands from the ccTLDs to get their own SO as
a result of their issues being ignored, and the issues had been
presented to ICANN and the DNSO community for consideration, then the
criticism might have more validity.

- -- 
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, 3 Sep 2001 13:13:53 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: ICANN Update on ccTLD Agreements

ICANN Montevideo Meeting Topic: Update on ccTLD Agreements
http://www.icann.org/montevideo/cctld-update-topic.htm

 A. Background on Development of ccTLD Delegation and
    Administration Policies
 B. The Need to Move Forward with More Formal Arrangements
 C. Structures of Agreement Approaches Being Pursued
    - Basic Subjects of Agreement
    - Variations of Agreement: Legacy and Triangular Situations
    - Applicability of Triangular Model
    - Provisions of the "ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement" in
      Triangular Situation
    - Applicability of Legacy Model
 D. Progress to Date and Next Steps

Model ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement - Triangular Situation
http://www.icann.org/cctlds/model-tscsa-02sep01.htm

Model ICANN-ccTLD Manager Memorandum of Understanding - Legacy Situation
http://www.icann.org/cctlds/model-legacy-mou-02sep01.htm

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: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 07:13:21 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] More BC Shenanigans

I don't know if I am missing something here but the ICANN Bylaws state the
following in Article VI-B:

"Section 3. THE CONSTITUENCIES

(a) Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its own
criteria for participation, except that no individual or entity shall be
excluded from participation in a Constituency merely because of
participation in another Constituency, .. "

How is the following possible within the Bylaws requirements?  "No ISP,
Registrar, gTLD can be a Member of the BC."

Chuck 

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
Comments concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site 
should be sent to [email-masked].

Page Updated 08-October-00
(c) 1998-2000  The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers All
rights reserved. 

  

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 3:10 PM
To: [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
- --
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, 3 Sep 2001 07:17:03 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Leah,

Should ccTLDs then be able to freely compete with gTLDs without having the
same controls that are imposed on gTLDs?

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 4:18 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 2 Sep 2001, at 9:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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.

This is where we have fundamentally different views, Chuck.  I 
contend that the ccTLDs should not be ruled by anything that 
intereferes with their autonomous rights.  If they choose to market 
beyond their own region, they have that right, just as .US would 
have that right.  They are still "regionally" based and their policies 
should reflect those regional requirements and choices.  If a 
potential registrant is interested in a ccSLD, they should 
understand they are going to have to follow the rules of that ccTLD. 
 If a US or other country based registrar or contracted registry 
service offers registrations in a ccTLD, they should have to operate 
based on the country of origin's laws plus their own.  However, it 
should still not prevent the ccTLD from contracting out such 
services.  

As for other gTLDs controlled by the USG/ICANN, they can be 
controlled, I suppose.  Those companies willing to spend 
multimillions of dollars to pay for a five or so year contract to 
operate under those rules have made that choice.  What is truly 
wrong about it is just that.  Only major corporations have any hope 
of playing in that arena and have to be willing to put the screws to 
the public to do so.  Apparently they are not only willing, but 
anxious to do it.

Let's face it, Chuck.  The model isn't working - at least not for the 
greater community.  This list is totally insufficient in that the 
majority of the public is not even aware of it or ICANN.  They won't 
know they've been harmed until it's too late because there is not 
enough outreach to do any good.  ICANN was set up by the USG 
to avoid the APA and any meaningful participation by the public.  
So far it has succeeded.

The ccTLDs must be able to operate in their own right and not be 
controlled by ICANN.  Interaction is always good, as is 
cooperation.  Control is not good.  ICANN wants to control and 
rule.  It sets public social policy.  It wants to determine business 
models.  Lip service doesn't change that.  The bottom line for the 
corporations is the only thing that counts and they will do whatever 
they can to ensure that bottom line.  Guess who gets it in the 
neck.  Yep, individuals, users, small business, the public.  

I'm all for a free market.  I'm for as little governmental control as 
possible.  I'm also concerned for the rights of individuals and small 
business to operate without monopolistic control preventing those 
rights.  ICANN is a monopolistic, controlling pseudo government, 
trying to prevent any independent operations.  To do so would go 
against the special interests who are paying so dearly for that 
control.

Leah

> 
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #721
************************