Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #722
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, September 3 2001          Volume 01 : Number 722

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

Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 13:28:19 +0200 (MET DST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Domain NIC.INFO now on appraisal on Afternic

That's right. In fact it is the domain nic.info registered through name.space.

- --> if you use advanced DNS: http://www.nic.info
- --> if you use antique (ICANN) DNS: http://nic.info.xs2.net

- --> http://www.afternic.com/~nic.info

My theorie is, that the "alt" or Original TLDs/Domains will profit from the duplication
of TLDs/Domains by ICANN and Afilias/Neulevel.

The Original top level domain (TLD) .info was established long before the one from Afilias. Therefore Afilias is introducing duplicate domain names. Because of this damage on the DNS Afilias' .info is not supported by the whole internet. Following root server corporations don't support Afilias' .info and support an other version of the .info TLD:*
Name.Space
The PacificRoot
The Universal Registry
This means that only 90 to 95% of the internet users can access the .info domain from Afilias. In the reverse conclusion this means that the Original .info domains get 5 to 10% of the traffic of the Afilias' .info domains!**

Imagine you were the registrant of the Original domain sex.info. You could get up to 10% of the traffic of the domain sex.info from Afilias!

What do you think? Could that theorie come true?

*according to the IRON data on 2001-08-27
**according to figures from The PacificRoot and The Universal Registry
- --
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 13:29:05 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Final WIPO-2 Report released

Final Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process
http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/report/index.html

WIPO does not recommend UDRP expansion into personal names,
geographical identifiers and trade names, but recommends
a UDRP-like mechanism for names and acronyms of intergovernmental
organizations (IGOs) and a cancellation (!) mechanism for
International Nonproprietary Names (INNs) for pharmaceutical
substances.

Excerpts from the Executive Summary:

 (i) For INNs, which are examined in Chapter Three of the
 Report, it is recommended that a simple mechanism be
 established which would protect INNs against identical
 domain name registrations. The mechanism would allow any
 interested party to notify WIPO that a domain name
 registration is identical to an INN, whereupon WIPO would,
 in conjunction with the World Health Organization (WHO),
 verify the exact similarity between the domain name and
 the INN and notify this to ICANN, which would, in turn,
 notify the registrar with which the registration was made
 that the domain name registration should be cancelled.

 (ii) For the names and acronyms of IGOs, which are examined
 in Chapter Four of the Report, it is recommended that States,
 as the constituents of IGOs, should work towards the
 establishment of an administrative dispute-resolution procedure,
 akin to the UDRP, where an IGO could bring a complaint that a
 domain name was the same or confusingly similar to the name or
 acronym of the IGO, that it has been registered without legal
 justification and that it likely to create a misleading
 association between the holder of the domain name registration
 and the IGO in question.

 (iii) For personal names, which are the subject of Chapter Five
 of the Report, it was found that there no existing international
 norms dealing with their protection and that national legal
 systems provide for a wide diversity of legal approaches to their
 protection. The sensitivities offended by the registration of
 personal names as domain names by parties unconnected with the
 persons in question is recognized, and it is suggested that the
 international community needs to decide whether it wishes to work
 towards some means of protection of personal names against abuse
 of domain name registrations.

 (iv) For geographical identifiers, which are dealt with in Chapter
 Six, it is recognized that certain norms exist at the international
 level which prohibit false and deceptive indications of geographical
 source on goods and which protect geographical indications, or the
 names of geographical localities with which goods having particular
 characteristics derived from that locality are associated. However,
 these rules apply to trade in goods and may require some adaptation
 to deal with the perceived range of problems with the misuse of
 geographical indications in the DNS. Furthermore, the lack of an
 international agreed list of geographical indications would pose
 significant problems for the application of the UDRP in this area
 because of the need to make difficult choices of applicable law.
 It is suggested that the international framework in this area needs
 to be further advanced before an adequate solution is available to
 the misuse of geographical indications in the DNS. As far as other
 geographical terms are concerned, the Report produces considerable
 evidence of the widespread registration of the names of countries,
 places within countries and indigenous peoples as domain names by
 persons unassociated with the countries, places or peoples. However,
 these areas are not covered by existing international laws and a
 decision needs to be taken as to whether such laws ought to be developed.

 (v) For trade names, which are the subject of Chapter Seven, the
 situation is similar to that of geographical indications, insofar as
 certain international norms exist for the protection of trade names,
 but fundamental problems exist in identifying across differing
 national approaches what constitutes a protectable trade name, and
 consequently, in avoiding highly complex choices of applicable law
 on a global medium. It is recommended that no action be taken in
 this area.

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 07:34:03 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

What contract?  What implied contract?  RFC 1591?

On 3 Sep 2001, at 3:08, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> 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 07:48:59 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Precisely.  There is no contract.

On 3 Sep 2001, at 4:04, William X Walsh wrote:

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

- --
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 13:26:29 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Dear Eric,
you may have noted that Peter de Blanc by his own responded positively to 
the nicSO and the multi SO Membership for constituencies proposition. This 
would permit ccTLDs to address their TLD Registry obligations with other 
registries and to address their TLD Manager obligations and interests in an 
appropriate forum with appropriate interlocutors.

I am sorry but the DNSO/GA is by no means legitimate to question and debate 
IANA, ASO or BoD related issues. No more than to debate non ICANN related 
issues of international or regional interest to local NICs.

I underlilne that the very poor way the ICANN manages its own NIC functions 
leads many to believe the local NIC issues would be more efficiently 
debated elsewhere.

ccTLDs are part of the DNSO as Registries. These registries are under local 
law and have their own naming plan and charter. I only wish they would be 
more actively innovative and teach the ICANN how to run a NIC.

Jefsey

On 08:31 03/09/01, Eric Dierker said:
>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

- --
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 08:15:40 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: (Fwd) RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 3 Sep 2001, at 7:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

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

In a word, Yes.  Let's see what the market says about it.  People
speak with their wallets.  The registries that do the best for their
customers will do well.  Those who don't, well...  They are 
competing
now, for that matter.  I don't see it endangering Verisign. 
 Of course, things could change.  Good, honest service brings 
customers.  

The night is young, Chuck.

Leah

> 
> Chuck

- --
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 12:29:47 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Montevideo GA meeting, 8 Sep 2001, agenda

Chuck,

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

I have no doubts about it, but this does not address my concern.

There is a major difference, according to my philosophy, between each 
Constituency separately establishing a dialog with the candidates, and the 
DNSO collectively establishing this dialog.
This "collective" dimension is lost.
Partly, the GA recuperates it. I say partly because the GA is not the body 
that will be in charge of the next step, therefore the most appropriate 
forum would have been the NC open meeting.

You may wonder why I give importance to this collective dimension.
If the DNSO should try to reach consensus, it is much better to see the 
candidates to express their positions addressing the whole DNSO community, 
rather than the individual constituencies (to whom, incidentally, they could 
say different things).

I am deeply frustrated in seeing that the constituencies have evolved from 
something that in the beginning was intended to ensure that all positions 
were represented, into an organized power structure. This transition is the 
very fact that is paralyzing the DNSO: losing the "collective" dimension 
makes the NC rule not by trying to achieve consensus, but obeying to the 
corporative logic of the number of votes.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

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

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

Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 16:26:36 +0200 (MET DST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Afilias is cybersquatting

Afilias has registered many domain names which are in fact trademarks by other 
parties. Afilias has registered directory.info and squatted on UK trademark 276801 
(word only). But that is only one example. Below you can find some more. 

SEARCH.INFO: They are squatting on UK trademarks (word only) 1056333, 1380291, 
1380292, 1436692, 1436693, 1459763 and 1572389

DOT.INFO: They are squatting on European trademark (word only) E1143700, on UK 
trademarks (word only) 343477, 550623, 840483, 898994, 900985, 957376, 1121916, 
1534077 and 2151274

EMAIL.INFO: They are squatting on UK trademarks (word only) 987603, 987604 and 
1055042

Afilias has registered 150+ domain names. In fact they could register up to 10000 
domain names according to the contract with ICANN. If we would check all the 
registered domain names, I think this could proof that Afilias is one of the biggest 
.info cybersquatter like YesNIC Co., LTD., an Afilias-authorized registrar.

Is a trademark "directory" or "dot" less worth than a trademark "apple" or "amazon"?
Is there a law for Afilias and another for us?
Why have a sunrise period, if even the registry is squatting on trademarks?

To view the sources of the information you can use these links:
http://nic.info.xs2.net (if you use name.space DNS: http://www.nic.info)
http://www.url.free.new.net/nicinfo/news.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 16:27:44 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Dear Elisabeth,
You right recalling us that the internet is exactly that: an inter-nets. 
This helps a lot to understand why the ICANN is only one of the legitimate 
Internet governance centers and why it trying to be unique is a threat on 
the stability of the most distributed inter-connect system ever. 
Development, investments and governance has always been balanced. Actually 
long before the dates you quote.

You may recall that the international public data services (in France the 
NTI: noeud de transit international) operated since 1978 linking the 
International Gateways in New York and the public US networks, the European 
Space Agency in Frascatti, the private Tymehare network, GE, IBM, etc... 
The Netherlands and Belgium implemented the first public non-US 
international interconnect.

Several international interconnects started developping (France got an 
interconnect with Spain) while we were providing public interconnects with 
Euronet (and Diane) and Arpanet. We covered most of Europe and then the Far 
East and some Latin-America - Agentina, Brazil and Australia, South Africa.

The international data-network naming scheme was stabilized since 1978 
(registry, host, application, unlimited size, ISO 3166). The fist 
interconect I personally investigated but not concluded was with Louis 
Pousin and his team from INRIA (ie. the AFNIC place) in may/june 1978. His 
network was Cyclades and many in here know what TCP/IP owes to Cyclades 
more than me.

We then interconnected the near-by Bull site (Louveciennes) for their 
development of the ADDA language by Ichbia on the Multics machines on 
ARAPnet, the gateway was in Phoenix. We lead the transfer from TII protocol 
to X.75 and X.121 adressing scheme and the support of the DNICs (numeric 
country codes). That was after the ARPA team from BBN incorporated as 
Telenet and made X.25/75 voted by the CCITT (ITU/T) together with with 
INRIA and NorthernTelecom.

The interconnect public services/ARPAnet asked a very simple naming 
conversion mechanism. It was  implemented as a patch on the public node (on 
ARPA/Telenet it was probably very simple through IP 
adresses?).  International public naming scheme used the ISO 3166 Radio 
list. The two letters list was used by ARPA - if I was told correctly - to 
avoid confusion with gTLDs and because of the old use of "UK". Is someone 
in here from the early 1980s US ARPA side? At that time there were already 
tens of thousand of international public users undr that naming scheme.

The first international UN public discussion and motion analysis on the 
international data-network services using the international data-network 
naming scheme was at the IBI meeting in Torremolinos (in 1979 if my memory 
is true) under the chainig of the ... King of Spain! The first 
South-African Universities association to interconnect the US and European 
Database services and university machines was in 1979. There were several 
very active University persons in various African countries too. They had a 
meeting back in the early 1980s.

One may also recall that we established the fist international connexion as 
per the international standard with Japan (KDD in X.75) then with UK (BT). 
I am not sure, but I hardly see how the interconnect could have been 
performed without using at least in parallel the international naming 
scheme format since X.121 was still under discussion. We stabilized the 
X.75 parameters for public operations and addressing under the chairing of 
Radio Austria in Vienna - they interfaced the Eastern Bloc through Hungaria 
and Russian Univesities since 1982-1983 if I am right. Congo tested a 
puiblic link for Elisabethville in 1984. All that was work, investment, 
commitment by hundreds of people round the world.

IRT the web itself may be WXW can access http://www.w3.org/Consortium/ and 
see how it was engineered by Tim Berners-Lee at the CERN in Geneva. May be 
Elsiabeth you cann add what comes from the INRIA there?

No one will forget the huge contributions from Doug Engelbart on ARPA and 
then at Tymshare/Tymnet. At the Tymnet/Eurolab we interfaced his Augment 
system through public services in Feb 1986 and accessed the French Minitel 
service from public US accesses since 1984 with gateways in several cities.

I can testify the first time I heard the word *delegation* was in IANA 
documents. I had hard time to understand what it meant in an 
interconnect... As you say, Elisabeth, to interconnect you need to be two 
and equal.  Such a wording seems to be part of the "single authoritative 
point of failure" misunderstanding with an unique US root of the world. I 
am afraid this is not the way it was implemented and the way it works... 
ask the Irish citizens in charge of the traffic analysis in 1984/1987. And 
the Hong-Kong British Subject who was installing most of the international 
interconnects. But true the whole system was co-administered by a nice US 
person in San Jose and another one (now an Uninet manager) in Paris.

Dear WXW, International networks are just that: network of international 
systems, investments and people.

BTW, Peter, V.I. were interconnected long before the Internet name was ever 
coined. International e-commerce probably started there and in Bermuda in 
1983. With credit card payment authorisations and airline reservation on 
public accesses. Ask Jack McDonnell and Bob McCormick.

Jefsey

n 12:51 03/09/01, Elisabeth Porteneuve said:
>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

- --
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 16:37:31 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] More BC Shenanigans

Dear Chuck,
The point in the BC rules is not that they participate or not into another 
constituency. It is that they do not belong to a business area outside of 
the BC constituency scope. That ATT is a member or not of the ISP 
constituency has no impact. What is important to know is if a Telco is or 
not an ISP or a Registrar. Marilyn explains that she is on the e-business 
side. And there are documents showing that ATT does not sell Domain Names 
but has a deal with NSI.

There is a BC Membership committee anyway. I do not know if they decided or 
where asked about Marilyn and Grant.

Jefsey

On 13:13 03/09/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
>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 13:00:39 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  More BC Shenanigans

Dear Chuck,

Part of the problem within the BC is that decisions are made without the 
benefit of a vote of the membership.   For example, on the "Issue Management 
Procedures" page of the BC website it states:

"Solidarity:
BC members shall abide by approved positions and the BC representatives to 
the Names Council will be required to support such positions en bloc."

There was never a vote taken on this... and even if a vote were to be taken, 
it would not be representative of the business community as the voice of 
small business is not to be heard within the Business Constituency.

If the BC Charter is to be re-drafted, one NC member should always represent 
small business, another medium-sized businesses, and the other large 
business.  This would be entirely appropriate as small and medium-sized 
businesses account for more than two-thirds of all domain name registrations. 

Unfortunately, the BC will never reform itself into anything more than a 
power-bloc that promotes the interests of Telcoms and intellectual property 
groups.  A few active members dominate the constituency, and have every 
reason to continue abusing their power to the detriment of the rest of the 
business community.   

During the entire time that I was subscribed to the BC mailing list, I never 
received one email from anyone other than Phil Sheppard, Marilyn Cade or the 
BC Secretariat.  There is no dialogue amongst the current members because 
they can't be bothered to participate.  Every three months they are afforded 
the opportunity for a business-paid junket to an exotic corner of the world, 
and that is the full extent of their involvement.

When the BC reps claim that they are in consultation with the membership, 
they are only in consultation with themselves.  There is certainly no 
dialogue on the BC list (which, of course, is one of the reasons why it is 
not publicly archived).   The constituency is a sham.  It is a vertiable 
clone of the Intellectual Property constituency, and in truth, those two 
groups should be merged as they are nothing more than two sides of the same 
coin.

While the membership roster of constituencies like the Non-Commercial 
continues to grow at a steady pace due to ongoing efforts at outreach, the 
membership roster of the BC shrinks rapidly.  There is no outreach, only 
lip-service paid to the need to involve small businesses.

It is no wonder that in this environment, no small business seeks to be 
associated with the BC.  There is no possibility of involvement if small 
business concerns can routinely be voted down "en bloc".

The BC is a cabal, not a constituency.  There have been a sufficient number 
of Charter violations to warrant revoking their membership in the DNSO until 
such time as the deficiencies are cured, and there are certainly questions 
with respect to lost paperwork and their handling of finances that would 
probably warrant an audit.

- --
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 19:02:18 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NCtelecon 16 August 2001, minutes

[ To [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010816.NCtelecon-minutes.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

       DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 16 August 2001 - minutes

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

Scribe version amended v.2 (27th August 2001)

Proposed agenda and related documents:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010816.NCtelecon-agenda.html

List of attendees:

Peter de Blanc        ccTLD
Elisabeth Porteneuve  ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay    ccTLD  (left at 16:17, proxy to E. Porteneuve then P. de Blanc)
Philip Sheppard       Business
Marilyn Cade          Business
Grant Forsyth         Business
Greg Ruth             ISPCP
Antonio Harris        ISPCP
Tony Holmes           ISPCP  (absent apologies, proxy to T. Harris)
Erica Roberts         Registrars
Ken Stubbs            Registrars
Paul Kane             Registrars
Roger Cochetti        gTLD
Richard Tindal        gTLD
Cary Karp             gTLD
Caroline Chicoine     IP
Axel Aus der Muhlen   IP
Guillermo Carey       IP     (absent, apologies, proxy to C. Chicoine)
Milton Mueller        NCDNH  (left the meeting and returned at 15:42)
Youn Jung Park        NCDNH  (joined the meeting later)
Vany Martinez         NCDNH
Louis Touton          ICANN staff
Maca Jamin            Scribe

Quorum present at 15:05 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +2:00
during the Summer in the Northern hemisphere)

Agenda item 0: NC Chair position

P. Kane took over chairmanship for this item.

Ph. Sheppard's first term as the NC Chair was from February to July 2001 and
NC had to consider this position again according to:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00664.html

P. Kane moved the following motion, seconded by E. Porteneuve to re-elect
Ph. Sheppard:

     Decision D1: "The NC resolves to re-elect Philip Sheppard as Chairman
     for a further term of six months starting from this meeting."

     This motion was unanimously passed.

Ph. Sheppard chaired the rest of the teleconference.

Agenda item 1: Approval of the Agenda

Ph. Sheppard suggested adding the following items under AOB

   * ICANN Group on Evaluation Process of new TLDs
   * Recompense for B. Fausset's recording services

Including these changes the agenda was unanimously approved.

Agenda item 2: Approval of summary of 29 June 2001 meeting

   * http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010629.NCtelecon-minutes.html

P. Kane moved a motion to approve the summary of 29th June, seconded by K
Stubbs:

     Decision D2: The Minutes of June 29th 2001 were approved by 20 votes in
     favour, no votes against and one abstention (A. Aus der Muhlen)

Agenda item 3: DNSO Election Timetable

Ph Sheppard opened a discussion by summarising different stages of this
election process:

   * there are five candidates currently running for the ICANN Board
     election. Four of them have got the necessary ten endorsements,
   * endorsement period will end August 28th 2001,
   * remaining question is deciding on a date of the election, taking into
     account two important aspects:
        o according to the Bylaws ICANN has to be notified of the result on
          September 16th 2001
        o the NC is having its next physical meeting in Montevideo in early
          September

Ph. Sheppard proposed holding this election between August 29th and
September 1st.

E. Porteneuve stated the ccTLD constituency's willingness to take the
opportunity at the Montevideo meeting to meet with the candidates and
therefore expressed her opposition to hold election before Montevideo.

P de Blanc was supportive of E. Porteneuve's suggestion and added that
candidate running for such a position should be able to make this effort and
attend the Montevideo meeting.

M. Mueller left the meeting and gave his proxy to Ph. Sheppard stating that
in case of a vote he was in favour of holding the election before the
Montevideo meeting

M. Cade pointed out several aspects of the problem:

   * Due to the robust schedule in Montevideo and important discussion
     topics on the agenda, it is important each NC representative had enough
     time to participate actively;
   * All representatives would like to consult with their constituency
     between the rounds, a rather time consuming task easier to perform from
     the office,
   * The election should be fair. Enabling candidates to express their views
     through electronic means of communication gives them all equal chance
     to talk to all parties, participate in teleconferences. Not all of them
     will be able to make the Montevideo meeting,
   * Having had the election before Montevideo would give an opportunity to
     the elected candidate to participate actively in issues with the DNSO
     at Montevideo.
   * E. Roberts stressed the practical difficulties related to travel
     arrangements. She opposed the idea of having the election in
     Montevideo.
   * K. Stubbs also expressed his concern about the timeline and insisted
     that this situation could have been avoided, if we had made a more
     careful planning beforehand.

Ph. Sheppard put forward the motion, seconded by E. Roberts

     Decision D3: The NC will hold election of the ICANN Board director
     prior to the Montevideo meeting between 28th August and September 1st
     2001.

     First round of vote gave the following results:

     Ten votes in favour (M. Cade, G. Forsyth, K Stubbs, M. Mueller, E.
     Roberts, T. Harris, T. Holmes by proxy to T Harris, G. Ruth, V.
     Martinez, Ph. Sheppard) ;

     Nine votes against (C. Chicoine, A. aus der Muhlen, G. Carey, by proxy
     to C. Chicoine, Y.J. Park, P. de Blanc, E. Porteneuve, R. Cochetti, R.
     Tindall, C. Karp)

     One abstention (O. Robles).

     The vote failed.

At 15:48 Y.J. Park had joined the meeting, (she had been untill then a
listen only participant) and took part in the vote.

Due to the closeness of the result P. de Blanc requested to call the
question and take a motion again.

Ph. Sheppard asked that two opinions be expressed : one in favour and one
against.

P. de Blanc and M. Cade re-iterated their statements.

Second round result

Ph. Sheppard proceeded to the second round of the vote on the motion.

     Decision D4: The NC will hold election of the ICANN Board director
     prior to the Montevideo meeting between 28th August and September 1st
     2001

     and the following result was obtained:

     Nine votes in favour (M. Cade, G. Forsyth, K Stubbs, E. Roberts, T.
     Harris, T. Holmes by proxy to T Harris, G. Ruth, C. Chicoine, Ph.
     Sheppard)

     Eight votes against (Y.J Park, V. Martinez, P. de Blanc, E. Porteneuve,
     O. Robles , R. Cochetti, R. Tindall, C. Karp)

     Three abstentions (A. aus der Muhlen, G.Carey, by proxy to C Chicoine,
     M. Mueller)

     This motion failed.

L. Touton confirmed the imperative of providing final results to ICANN not
later than September 16th 2001, as requested by the Bylaws:

     Section 9. SELECTION AND TERM

     (b) Prior to October 1 of each year beginning in the year 2000, each
     Supporting Organization entitled to select a Director (other than an
     Original Director selected by the Supporting Organization under Section
     2 of this Article) shall (i) make its selection according to the
     procedures specified by Article VI (including Articles VI-A, VI-B, and
     VI-C), and (ii) give the Board and the Secretary of the Corporation at
     least fifteen days written notice of that selection. The term of such a
     Director shall commence on the October 1 after the Secretary's receipt
     of such written notice.

Any infringement to this would imply changes of the Bylaws and so
substantial delay.

The NC further discussed various possibilities and dates and it was commonly
agreed to take the opportunity of most NC members being in Montevideo and
start the election there.

P. de Blanc moved the motion

     Decision D5: the Names Council will hold election of ICANN Board
     Director according to the following calendar:

          September 8th first round
          September 10th second round
          September 13th third round
          September 14th fourth round, if necessary
          September 15th NC teleconference will be organised to affirm the
          result to be communicated to ICANN by September 16th midnight Los
          Angeles time.

     This motion was passed with 19 votes in favour, no votes against and
     one abstention (M. Mueller)

Agenda item 4: Report from Budget/Search committees on secretariat services
provision

4.1 Search Committee report

E. Roberts summarised the Search Committee report (annex 1) and the process
of selecting candidates (eight proposals were received) for provision of
secretariat services to DNSO according to transparent evaluation criteria.
On its meeting on August 2nd Search committee:

   * Noted the report of the Interview Panel that:
        o All three short listed applicants could be expected to do a good
          job;
        o Lodger Inc is recommended for appointment subject to their
          agreement to contract terms.
   * Noted that the Lodger Inc proposal involved the provision of Part A and
     B services. Part A (Information and Technical Services Manager)to be
     provided by Ms Glen Van Oudenhove de Saint Géry and Part B (ISP/web
     hosting, etc) to be provided by AFNIC
   * Noted that after the closure of the RFP four expressions of interest
     had been received from members of the registrars constituency to
     provide Part B services (ISP/hosting services) on a sponsorship basis
     (at a potential saving to the DNSO of $20-30,000 pa);
   * Agreed that expressions of interest for the supply of ISP/Hosting
     services on a sponsored basis should be followed up and that, if
     appropriate, the ISP/hosting services should be transitioned to a new
     supplier at the conclusion of the proposed 12 month contract with
     Lodger Inc.
   * Endorsed the recommendation of the Interview Committee that Lodger Inc
     be appointed to provide Part A and Part B services subject to their
     agreement to contract terms;
   * Agreed: that Chuck will prepare initial draft of key terms to be
     incorporated into proposed contract by ICANN.

Y.J Park asked about the possibility of communicating the evaluation table.
E. Roberts restated that the whole evaluation process was led according to
widely distributed evaluation criteria.

As far as the contract is concerned, detail is yet to be determined . M.
Cade clarified that this contract will bring the usual guarantees on quality
of services, business performance and means for appeal if not provided.

Ph. Sheppard proposed to vote on the following motion moved by P. de Blanc
and seconded by K . Stubbs

     Decision D6: Accept recommendations stated in a Search Committee report
     as to the recommended service suppliers and proceed with further work
     to prepare a contract with the chosen candidate. (The NC will approve
     the terms of the contract subsequently).

     This motion passed with 19 votes in favour, one vote against (V.
     Martinez against the recommendations) and one abstention (E.
     Porteneuve).

Ph. Sheppard thanked E. Roberts for a valuable work she has done.

4.2 Budget Committee Report

R. Cochetti reminded that the full report was sent to the members of the NC
prior to this meeting (see annex 2 ) and drew attention to the need for
approval of changes in cost lines within the DNSO Budget.

The original 2001 DNSO Budget is

   Administrative                                $12,000
   Telecommunications                            $18,100
   Travel                                        $25,500
   Web/Listserv Maintenance                      $30,000
   Language Translations                         $10,000
   Professional Services                         $12,000
   Contingency                                   $35,000

The proposed DNSO 2001 Budget is:

   Administrative                                $12,000
   Telecommunications                            $18,100
   Travel                                        $10,000
   Information Management & Technical Services   $70,000
   Language Translations                          $5,000
   Professional Services                          $5,000
   Contingency                                   $22,500

There was no further request for funds required. In addition to date $8,000
had been raised by the fund-rising process, which will be matched, by
another $8,000 by VeriSign.

P. de Blanc moved the following motion seconded by K. Stubbs:

     Decision D7: The NC adopts the Budget Committee Report and proposes
     revision of the spending allocation accordingly to the Committee's
     recommendations.

     This Motion passed with 19 votes in favour, no votes against and two
     abstentions (M. Mueller, Y.J Park).

Agenda item 6 & 7 : Reported problems in TLD transfers & Reported problems
in lapsed TLDs renewals

Ph. Sheppard invited K. Stubbs to inform the Council on the subject and
actions required.

K. Stubbs mentioned a letter sent by Registrar Constituency to Stuart Lynn
(see annex 3) on existing transfer policy and the restrictions that appear
in these areas causing confusion and registrant's dissatisfaction.

G. Forsyth asked about the contractual aspects of the issue (see the BC
contribution sent by e-mail to the Names Council)

C. Chicoine pointed out that ICANN 's second advisory stated: ICANN's Domain
Name Supporting organization has already been advised of the situation and
has begun to discuss possible measures for handling expiring names and
queried L.Touton since she unaware of any such formal measures.

L. Touton stressed that this reflects typically a bottom-up approach:
subject launched by the constituency and spreading for larger input.

Ph. Sheppard suggested the registry-registrar dialogue be carried on and
brought up in Montevideo.

K. Stubbs informed that the Registrar Constituency will review a document
and does welcome input from other parties and promised on C. Chicoine's
request, to provide URL containing all useful information.

R. Tindall informed that Registry Constituency has a task force on a
subject.

The NC agreed to seek further briefing by Constituencies and further
discussion in Montevideo.

Agenda item 8: Montevideo agenda

Ph. Sheppard asked the Council to provide ideas to be put forward to the
Intake Committee for finalising the Montevideo Agenda. The topics should
enable putting forward DNSO views during the ICANN Public Forum Session and
enable plans for the future action.

M. Cade proposed discussion on the At-Large Study report.

M. Mueller suggested discussing ccSO. C. Chicoine thought the subject needed
to be dealt with separately.

Ph. Sheppard inquired about the ccTLD invitation to the NC to attend their
meeting in Montevideo and the conflicting time with other Constituencies'
meetings. To remedy this situation P. de Blanc invited the Council members
to mail him their time availability and he will try to make necessary
arrangements as ccTLDs are holding two-days meeting and would like to have
other constituencies position on the future of the ccs.

M. Cade suggested to group several topics under common topic on
re-structuring and reviewing process such as:

   * At Large report
   * Individuals Constituency
   * cc SO

The Intake Committee will note the above suggestions.

Agenda item 9: Updates on business plan task forces

   * UDRP TF formation update

     C. Chicoine, informed that they have received nominees for all
     categories and once she receives all bios, M. Mueller and her will
     review and make final selections, hopefully early next week. M. Mueller
     informed that they are running two weeks behind schedule.

   * IDN TF formation update

     Y.J. Park informed the Council that she has stepped down as a Chair of
     this TF and that there is currently no activity due to a lack of
     leadership. Ph. Sheppard proposed to contact by e-mail all TF members
     inviting them to elect the Chair and proceed with their work

   * Dot org TF formation update

     M. Mueller informed that the group is still in its initial stage and
     still missing some members He had a chance to have some face-to face
     meetings with the BC and IPC. There is some disagreement on a draft and
     the whole process may take longer than planned and the report will most
     probably not be ready for the Montevideo meeting but for November
     Annual Meeting. Ph. Sheppard invited him to report at Montevideo on the
     areas of agreement.

   * WHO Is survey update

     P. Kane informed that 2,800 responses to the WHOIs survey in different
     languages had been received. Committee will meet in Montevideo to
     propose a process to analyse results.

   * Review TF update

     Ph. Sheppard informed that the TF would shortly be circulating a set of
     guidelines for DNSO working groups, that the TF was evaluating use of
     web-based for a by using one for the work of the TF. Work had started
     on defining guidelines for new constituencies, evaluating
     auto-translations and seeking a practical definition of consensus.

Agenda item 10: A.O.B.

10.1 ICANN TLD Evaluation Group

L. Touton informed the Council that this group comprises nine members: six
representatives coming from the DNSO, together with IETF, GAC and PSO
representatives. S. Lynn, ICANN CEO is chairman. Initial report is expected
for the Montevideo meeting. The purpose of this group is to design a process
for evaluating the new TLDs.

10.2 Recompense for B. Fausset's recording services.

K. Stubbs recalled that B. Fausset is now providing MPEG recordings of NC
teleconferences. He proposed that all costs incurred by this activity be
reimbursed to B. Fausset. Ph. Sheppard said that his understanding was that
the issue of voluntary services and recompense had already been referred to
the Budget Committee.

C. Chicoine raised the question on 'conflict of interests' and the NC role
concerning this. Ph. Sheppard said that disclosure was the key.

M. Cade agreed adding that the nature of ICANN is that people participating
are those with vested interests.

K. Stubbs inquired why there is no representative from the Registrar
Constituency on the ICANN new TLD Evaluation Group. Ph. Sheppard responded
that he has received no response from the Registrars Constituency even
though at least three requests had been sent.

Close

Ph. Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked R. Tindall and NeuStar for
sponsoring the call.

17:15 end of call.

Next NC meeting will be held on 8 September 2001, in Montevideo, Uruguay.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annex 1

16 August 2001, Search Sub-Committee report by Erica Roberts
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010816.Search-RFP-DNSO-report.html

                           SEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT

  1. Search Committee Task:

        o To undertake an objective selection process for an entity or
          entities to provide DNSO Secretariat information and technical
          services on a contractual basis. (Similar such services are
          currently being provided by Elisabeth Porteneuve and AFNIC under
          legacy arrangements).

  2. Search Committee Membership:

        o A sub-committee of the NC Budget Committee;
        o Members: Erica Roberts (Chair), Chuck Gomes, Vany Martinez,
          Elisabeth Porteneuve. Phillip Shepard joined the committee at the
          beginning of the evaluation process.

  3. Consultant

     The Domain Name Supporting Organisation of ICANN Search Committee
     engaged Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd on 24 May 2001 to manage a
     Request for Proposal process to engage a Information and Technical
     Services Manager and optionally Internet Services Provision.

     The task, as outlined in the agreement was to manage a request for
     proposal process (RFP) for DNSO, including

        o Activation of the bid process
        o Preparation of documents
        o Preparation of evaluation criteria
        o Handling of information requests
        o Evaluation of submitted documents
        o Preparation of a short list
        o Final report to DNSO NC
        o Any recommendations for contractual conditions, further actions,
          etc arising from the process.
        o A consultant (Ian Peter and Associates) was identified and
          appointed in late May to manage the RFP selection and evaluation
          process.

  4. Processes

     The requirements of DNSO were primarily determined by the Search
     Committee before the Consultant was engaged, as were the Selection
     Criteria for successful applicants. These were refined and clarified by
     the Search Committee with the Consultant, and a document outlining the
     RFP requirements was posted on the DNSO web site on 5 June 2001. At the
     same time Chairs of all DNSO constituencies were requested to inform
     their members and other interested parties that the process was
     underway. It was also announced at the Stockholm meeting of DNSO NC
     (June 3).

     It was agreed before the process began that it was mandatory for
     respondents to offer Section A, and that Section B was an option at
     this stage which DNSO NC may or may not pursue.

     At the close of the evaluation period (extended to 23 June 2001) eight
     complete responses had been received.

     Five of the eight respondents (Z,Y,W, V, and T) responded to Part A
     only. Three respondents (S, R, and Q) responded to both sections.

  5. Evaluation

     First Round Evaluation: was conducted by the consultant and resulted in
     an initial shortlist of five applicants..

     Second Round Evaluation:

        o Conducted during a teleconference including the consultant and the
          Search Committee
        o A shortlist of three applicants was agreed. :
        o Of the three applicants short listed, one offered Part A services,
          the other two offered both Part A and Part B services.
        o The fees charged by all three were comparable for the services
          offered.

     (Apology received from Vany providing late advice she was unable to
     attend teleconf))

     Third Round Evaluation:

        o Conducted by Interview Committee comprising Philip Shepard and
          Chuck Gomes. (Elisabeth and Erica withdrew from the evaluation
          process on the ground of potential conflict of interests.)
        o Proposals from shortlisted applicant were forwarded to the
          Interview Committee.
        o Interview Committee reported that:
             + All three shortlisted applicants could be expected to do a
               good job;
             + Lodger Inc recommended for appointment subject to their
               agreement to contract terms.

  6. Search Committee Meeting 2 Aug 2001.

          Apology received from Vany providing late advice she was unable to
          attend teleconf. Committee members present:

        o Noted the report of the Interview Panel that:
             + All three shortlisted applicants could be expected to do a
               good job;
             + Lodger Inc is recommended for appointment subject to their
               agreement to contract terms.
        o Noted that the Lodger Inc proposal involved the provision of Part
          A and B services and that these cannot be separated. Part A
          (Information and Technical Services Manager)to be provided by Ms
          Glen Van Oudenhove de Saint Géry and Part B (ISP/web hosting, etc)
          to be provided by AFNIC
        o Noted that four expressions of interest had been received from
          members of the registrars constituency to provide Part B services
          (ISP/hosting services) on a sponsorship basis (at a potential
          saving to the DNSO of $20-30,000 pa) after the closure of the RFP;
        o Agreed that expressions of interest for the supply of ISP/Hosting
          services on a sponsored basis should be followed up and that, if
          appropriate, the ISP/hosting services should be transitioned to a
          new supplier at the conclusion of the proposed 12 month contract
          with Lodger Inc.
        o Endorsed the recommendation of the Interview Committee that Lodger
          Inc be appointed to provide Part A and Part B services subject to
          their agreement to contract terms;
        o Agreed: that Chuck will prepare initial draft of key terms to be
          incorporated into proposed contract.

     In discussion following the last meeting of the Search Committee, Vany
     has requested that it be noted that she does not support the
     recommendation of the Interview Committee to appoint Loder Inc.

Erica Roberts

Chair, Search Committee

16 August 2001

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

Annex 2

8 August 2001, Budget Committee report by Roger Cochetti
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010808.NCbudget-report.html

REPORT OF THE NAMES COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE

8 August 2001

The Names Council Budget Committee met twice since that last Council meeting
and addressed three important topics:

     1) The status of dues payments by Constituencies pursuant to the new
     procedures adopted by the Council for failures to pay; and

     2) The status and outlook of the campaign to generate voluntary
     donations to the DNSO; and

     3) Revisions to the spending allocations under the DNSO's 2001 budget.

A brief report on each follows.

1. STATUS OF DUES PAYMENTS BY DNSO CONSTITUENCIES

In an effort to improve the payment of DNSO mandatory dues by
Constituencies, on the Committee's recommendation, the Council adopted the
following procedures earlier this year:

     NC PROCEDURES FOR CONSTITUENCIES PAYMENT OF DUES

     (Published at
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010409.NCbudget-report.html)

     Regarding the procedures of the Budget Committee, the Committee decided
     that its meetings should not be routinely open, but rather should be
     open to members of the Committee and any member of the Names Council
     who would like to observe. The Committee reached this conclusion
     because:

     (1) it often discusses financially sensitive information; (2) members
     felt that the work of the Committee would benefit greatly by an
     atmosphere in which innovative ideas could be floated; and most
     importantly, (3) all of the Committee's reports to the Council and
     actions by the Council are publicly accessible.

     Regarding procedures to address the failure of DNSO Constituencies to
     pay their assessed dues, the Committee discussed this matter during
     three different meetings and in its January meeting agreed to propose
     to the Council the following procedures:

     From the date that invoices are mailed/e-mailed to representatives of
     Constituencies, if payment is not received by the DNSO or its agent by:

          ** 30 days, the Constituency is sent a reminder letter and another
          invoice

          ** 60 days, the Constituency is sent a delinquency notice and the
          delinquency notice is posted on the DNSO Website

          ** 90 days, the Constituency is sent a "show cause notice" (in
          which they are asked to show cause as to why their voting rights
          in the Names Council should not be suspended) and they are charged
          a 5% late payment fee to cover the cost to the DNSO of the cost of
          money. The 5% penalty is added to that Constituency's dues for the
          next (not the current) DNSO budget year.

          ** 120 days, the Constituency is sent a "final notice to pay" and
          charged an additional 5% late payment fee, which is also due as a
          added payment for their next year's DNSO dues

          ** 180 days, the voting rights, but not the right to participate,
          of that Constituency's representatives to the Names Council are
          suspended until such time as the DNSO or its agent receives all
          past due amounts including the varies late payment fees.

On July 11th, ICANN management reported the following status of dues
payments by DNSO Constituencies for 2000 and 2001 (The DNSO operates on a
January-to-January, calendar year. So, 1st Call refers to 1999, 2nd Call to
2000, and 3rd Call to 2001):

(Published at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010711.ICANN-DNSO-budget.html)

   Amounts in US$.

   Receipts:
                             1st Call    2nd Call  3d Call    Total Recd
   Business Constitutency   $5,000.00  $13,642.86       $0.00  $18,642.86
   ccTLD Constituency       $5,000.00   $1,292.59       $0.00   $6,292.59
   gTLD Constituency        $5,000.00  $13,642.86  $15,371.00  $34,013.86
   IP Constituency          $5,000.00  $13,642.86  $15,371.00  $34,013.86
   ISP Constituency         $5,000.00       $0.00       $0.00   $5,000.00
   NCDNHC                   $5,000.00       $0.00      $50.00   $5,050.00
   Registrars Constituency  $5,000.00  $13,642.86  $16,857.14  $35,500.00
   Total Paid              $35,000.00  $55,864.03  $47,649.14 $138,513.17
   Total Called For        $35,000.00  $95,500.00 $107,597.00

   Other Donations            $9,050.00
   Constituency Donations   $138,513.17
   Total Donations          $147,563.17
   Earned Interest &
      (Bank Charges)          $1,487.46
   Disbursements            $(14,008.16)
   Total Funds on Hand      $135,042.47

In addition, ICANN management reported that invoices for all DNSO
Constituencies, except the Non-Commercial Constituency, had been sent out on
April 18, 2001. (The NCDNHC invoices is being sent out by ICANN management
this week.) According to this report, three Constituencies ( ccTLDs, ISPs,
and NC) have failed to pays their dues from 2001 and the same three
Constituencies, along with one more (Business Constituency) have failed to
pay their deus for 2001.

Importantly, the Committee took note of the fact that since the 2001
invoices were sent out on April 18th, the DNSO had failed to send out to
Constituencies 30, 60, or 90 day notices as provided in the procedures
(There was some confusion with ICANN management on this matter, which
resulted in the failure by the DNSO to act.)

Under these circumstances the Committee addressed two questions: (1) Did the
Council intend that arrearages resulting from Constituencies failure to pay
dues that were invoiced during 2000 would trigger the new procedures (or do
the new procedures only apply to dues invoiced in 2001 and later/). On this
question, the Committee concluded that the new procedures do not apply to
invoices prior to 2001; and (2) Does the failure by four Constituencies to
pay their 2001 dues trigger any of the actions envision in the new plan
notwithstanding that the DNSO failed to provide the follow-up notices that
were contemplated under the plan. On this question, the Committee concluded
that since the DNSO had failed to provide 30, 60, and 90 day notices as
contemplated under the plan, then Constituencies that were invoiced on April
18, 2001 should not be held liable under the terms of plan. Accordingly, the
Committee decided to have the 30 day notices sent out as soon as possible by
ICANN management and recognized that the 60, 90, 120, and 180 day penalties
would kick in over 30 day increments after the 30 day notices were actually
sent.

2. STATUS AND OUTLOOK OF THE CAMPAIGN TO GENERATE VOLUNTARY DONATIONS TO THE
DNSO

The Committee discussed the state of the current campaign to generate
voluntary donations to the DNSO. (These will be used by the DNSO to cover
the costs of providing professional support for the DNSO and such donations
will be matched by the VeriSign Registry on a dollar-for-dollar basis up to
$100K.) Unfortunately, no donations had been recorded as of July. The
Committee again encourages each Constituency to request that its members
donate funds to the DNSO to permit it to operate more professionally and
competently. (If each member organization of each Constituency would donate
to the DNSO one tenth of the amount of money that they spend on
travel/entertainment for ICANN meetings, then the Budget Committee's goal of
raising $60,000 --or $120,000 after the VeriSign Registry match-would easily
be met!!)

The Committee gratefully accepted four volunteers who stepped forward and
agreed to serve as DNSO fundraising chairs: One will focus on donations from
outside of the DNSO and three will focus on donations from members of the
Constituencies. Together, they make up a new fund-raising work group of the
Budget Committee.

3. REVISIONS TO THE SPENDING ALLOCATIONS UNDER THE DNSO'S 2001 BUDGET

The Committee re-examined the spending categories and allocations that were
approved by the Council for the DNSO's 2001 Expense Budget and recommends
several changes to the Council in light of changed circumstances. (Thus far
this year, the DNSO has spent around $37,000, mostly in charges from AFNIC
for the provision of technical management services) These proposed changes
DO NOT CHANGE THE TOTAL DNSO SPENDING and THEY DO NOT CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF
DUES. The proposed changes re-name of category and re-allocate spending
among the several categories.

The original 2001 DNSO Budget is

   Administrative                                $12,000
   Telecommunications                            $18,100
   Travel                                        $25,500
   Web/Listserv Maintenance                      $30,000
   Language Translations                         $10,000
   Professional Services                         $12,000
   Contingency                                   $35,000

The proposed DNSO 2001 Budget is:

   Administrative                                $12,000
   Telecommunications                            $18,100
   Travel                                        $10,000
   Information Management & Technical Services   $70,000
   Language Translations                          $5,000
   Professional Services                          $5,000
   Contingency                                   $22,500

Essentially, these changes re-label the category "Web/Listserv Maintenance"
to Information Management & Technical Services and re-allocate an additional
$40,000 to that category, with the reductions coming from Contingency,
Travel, and Language Translations. The under-spending in these categories
mainly reflects the fact that the increase in professional support that was
envisioned for the DNSO has not occurred by mid-year.

Roger Cochetti, Chair
Names Council Budget Committee
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annex 3

16 August 2001, Registrar Statement on Transfer Problems,
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010816.RegistrarsStatement-xfer.html

Registrar Constituency Statement on Transfers

From: "Michael D. Palage"
To: "Ken Stubbs" ; "M. STUART LYNN" ;
"Louis Touton" ; "Roger J. Cochetti"
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 2:18 AM
Subject: Registrar Constituency Statement on Transfers

Dear Ken:

Attached please find the Registrar Constituency Statement regarding domain
name transfers. I have been advised that the DNSO Names Counsil has set
aside some time in its agenda for this topic. At this time the Registrar
Constituency would just like to submit this letter which it believes more
accurately addresses the issue from the viewpoint of the Registrar
Constituency. The Registrar Constituency is actively engaged in resolving
this issue internally. However, if it cannot be resolve in the next couple
of weeks, the Registrar Constituency will be submitting proposed solutions
to the Names Counsil in Montevideo.

Please note that Register.com, NSI Registrar and NameSecure expressed stated
their non-support of this letter.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage
Registrar Constituency Chairperson

16 August 2001, Registrar Letter to Stuart Lynn,
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010816.RegistrarsLetter-xfer-2.7.html

Letter from Registrars Constituency to Stuart Lynn

August 16, 2001

Mr. Stuart Lynn
President and Chief Executive Officer
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA

Dear Stuart;

The Registrar Constituency respectfully submits this letter to express its
concerns regarding recent correspondence that Mr. Roger Cochetti, Senior
Vice President of Policy at VeriSign, submitted to you. The Registrar
Constituency (Constituency) believes that these letters do not accurately
convey the underlying issues facing the constituency involving transfers.
Additionally, the approach that VeriSign is implementing attempts to
circumvent the bottom-up effort to develop consensus solutions to these
problems that the Constituency has been engaged in to date.

Existing Transfer Policy

The existing transfer process is documented in Exhibit B (Policy on Transfer
of Sponsorship of Registrations Between Registrars) of the ICANN
Registry/Registrar License and Agreement.

The key elements of this process are as follows:

For each instance where a domain name holder wants to change its Registrar
for an existing domain name (i.e., a domain name that appears in a
particular top-level domain zone file), the gaining Registrar shall:

Obtain express authorization from an individual who has the apparent
authority to legally bind the SLD holder (as reflected in the database of
the losing Registrar).

a) The form of the authorization is at the discretion of each gaining
Registrar.
b) The gaining Registrar shall retain a record of reliable evidence of the
authorization.

Request, by the transmission of a "transfer" command as specified in the
Registry Registrar Protocol, that the Registry database be changed to
reflect the new Registrar.

a) Transmission of a "transfer" command constitutes a representation on the
part of the gaining Registrar that:

(1) the requisite authorization has been obtained from the domain name
holder listed in the database of the losing Registrar, and
(2) the losing Registrar will be provided with a copy of the authorization
if and when requested.

In those instances when the Registrar of record denies the requested change
of Registrar, the Registrar of record shall notify the prospective gaining
Registrar that the request was denied and the reason for the denial.

Instances when the requested change of sponsoring Registrar may be denied
include, but are not limited to:

1) Situations described in the Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
2) A pending bankruptcy of the domain name Holder
3) Dispute over the identity of the domain name Holder
4) Request to transfer sponsorship occurs within the first 60 days after the
initial registration with the Registrar

In all cases, the losing Registrar shall respond to the e-mail notice
regarding the "transfer" request within five (5) days. Failure to respond
will result in a default "approval" of the "transfer."

Upon receipt of the "transfer" command from the gaining Registrar, the
Registry will transmit an e-mail notification to both Registrars.

The Registry shall complete the "transfer" if either:

          1) the losing Registrar expressly "approves" the request, or
          2) the Registry does not receive a response from the losing
          Registrar within five (5) days.

When the Registry's database has been updated to reflect the change to the
gaining Registrar, the Registry will transmit an email notification to both
Registrars.

Problem

A small number of registrars, representing a very large portion of the total
market, have recently adopted procedures to require domain name registrants
to explicitly acknowledge to the losing registrar that the registrant has
authorized a transfer request. These changes are restricting the ability of
a gaining registrar to transfer the domain at the request of the registrant.

More specifically, the procedures employed by the small number of registrars
in question are as follows:

Following the email from the registry to a losing registrar seeking
confirmation of a domain name transfer initiated by the gaining registrar,
the losing registrars are contacting the domain name holder directly to seek
confirmation within the 5 day window set by the registry. If the domain name
holder DOES NOT RESPOND, the losing registrar is denying the transfer on the
grounds that there is a dispute over the identity of the domain name holder.
This is a deviation from the spirit of the existing policy (note the
registry assumes approval if the losing registrar does not respond within 5
days, and so it would be reasonable if the losing registrar assumed approval
if the domain name holder does not respond within 5 days).

The emails sent by the registrars who are changing the procedures, are
generally confusing to the domain name holder (and in some cases in the
wrong language), and it is typical for the domain name holder not to
respond. The domain name holders assume that the transfer will go ahead as
they have explicitly approved that action to the gaining registrar, or the
domain name holder has simply not had time to read and respond to the email.

Registrar's Efforts to Date

This transfer issue first emerged on the Registrar Constituency's agenda at
the Stockholm meeting in June. Because of the significant impact that this
issue was having on most operational registrars, an emergency meeting was
called on Sunday to further discuss the issue.

During this meeting by a vote of 23 to 2, the registrars in attendance
expressed their strong desire to adopt a procedure that would automatically
acknowledge a transfer when a registrant failed to respond to a losing
registrars inquiry (autoACK). Although most registrars acknowledged an
ambiguity in the current language, it was believed that relying on the
status quo was the most prudent course of action until a more thorough
analysis of the problem could be undertaken. The registrars agreed to work
on solutions as a follow up to Stockholm.

Following the Stockholm meeting, there was a follow-up teleconference for
the benefit of those registrars that were unable to attend the Stockholm
meeting. This meeting further reinforced the consensus that had been forged
in Stockholm. In an attempt to resolve this matter internally, those
registrars advocating an autoNACK policy engaged in consultations among
themselves and with other registrars in an attempt to seek a compromise
position.

During these negotiations a straw poll was conducted among the Constituency
to further define the issues. This vote reaffirmed for the third time the
strong support within the Constituency for an autoACK policy. Although the
straw poll supported moving this issue forward to the Names Council for
discussion and suggested resolution, it was decided that those registrars
supporting the autoNACK policy would be given additional time to resolve
this matter

On June 29th, one of the registrars that had been advocating an autoNACK
policy, submitted to the Registrar list a proposed compromise. Although
there was some concern regarding the potential implementation of this
solution voiced by certain registrars, the attempt to proactively engage in
dialog with the Constituency was true to the ICANN bottom-up consensus
building effort.

On July 13th, Paul Kane, a Registrar Constituency Names Council
representative posted an email to the Constituency list inquiring about
VeriSign's much anticipated document so that the Constituency could engage
in further consensus building efforts. Regrettably, rather than responding
to this request from the Registrars, on July 16th, VeriSign instead
submitted its first letter directly to ICANN. Only after public inquiries to
the Constituency list did a VeriSign representative provide any further
explanation to the Registrars.

A Registrar meeting was held on July 23, 2001 to discuss the options.

The Constituency is concerned that VeriSign sought to go directly to ICANN
on this issue, ignoring the bottom-up consensus building efforts that had
been engaged in for several weeks. Moreover, there is an important issue
that Mr. Cochetti did not make clear in his July 16th letter, that is
significant.

During both Constituency meetings in Stockholm, Dan Halloran, ICANN
Registrar Liaison, stated that he was not aware of any complaints that ICANN
had received about domain name slamming. Mr. Halloran latter qualified this
statement in an email to the Registrar Constituency stating, that ICANN has
received reports of unauthorized transfers but that they were usually
associated with domain name "hijacking" (an issue that the Registrar
Constituency takes seriously and has addressed in the past). Additionally,
Mr. Halloran also indicated that he had been informed of one other registrar
that had raised concerns about transfers deceptively initiated by resellers
or registrars without the registrant's informed consent. The Registrar
Constituency has requested that ICANN provide the constituency with any and
all information they have on this subject, and looks forward to working with
ICANN staff in resolving this matter.

The Registrar Constituency would like to thank VeriSign for making public
its previously private survey on July 26th.

Clarification From ICANN

The Constituency universally agrees that protecting a registrant's'
interests is paramount; unfortunately there is a disagreement on how to best
achieve this end result. We are seeking clarification from ICANN: what are
our options in addressing this situation. If ICANN deems this to be a policy
change, we assume that it would require DNSO approval and that we should
bring it before the DNSO. If ICANN believes this to be a procedural
interpretation of existing ICANN Policy, we assume that the Constituency can
implement their preferred solution, without full DNSO review. In any case,
the Registrar Constituency would look to ICANN staff for support in
enforcement of any solution arrived at by the parties.

As time is of the essence, the Registrar Constituency would like to move
forward down one of the above two paths within the next couple of weeks. If
the Constituency does not receive guidance from ICANN on this issue during
this time, the Constituency will advise its Names Council representatives to
bring proposed solutions to this issue before the full Names Council for
consideration and action in Montevideo.

Conclusion

The Constituency is clearly concerned that certain registrars are employing
new and onerous transfer policies that create confusion and registrant
burdens and dissatisfaction. Further frustrating to the Constituency is that
this argument ignores the very fact that this radical departure from adopted
policy and procedure has created the very consumer confusion that they claim
to be protecting against. The Constituency eagerly awaits guidance from
ICANN on how to proceed in implementing its consensus-based solution, and,
if necessary, stands willing to participate with the other DNSO
constituencies in resolving this problem.

Best regards,

Michael Palage,
Registrar Constituency Chairperson

Cc: Louis Touton
ICANN DNSO Names Council
Rodger Cochetti

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

                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council
- --
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 #722
************************