Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #723
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, September 4 2001          Volume 01 : Number 723

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

Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 13:39:00 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] RE: Montevideo GA meeting, 8 Sep 2001, agenda 

On the topic of candidate presentations Roberto writes:  

"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."

There was an attempt made by Vany (in her comments to the NC Intake Committee 
- - Aug. 21) to set this up.  She wrote:  

"Hi to all:  I suppouse that a presentation of every candidate will be in the 
agenda
of the NC, right?  If not, let me know, please."

The NC Chair (eight days later) provided the Agenda for the NC which included 
"update on GA session with candidates (Philip) 5 mins".   This is presumably 
necessary because it can be expected that some NC candidates cannot be 
bothered to show up for the GA candidates session (their decision to elect a 
certain candidate already made).

Within Phil Sheppard's agenda for the NC there is no session with the 
candidates... and more importantly, no member of the NC has vocally 
remonstrated about this.  Why should they require a session with the 
candidates if they have already received voting instructions from their 
constituency?  They will not be voting their conscience, they will be voting 
the party-line.

- --
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 13:39:25 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Public Forum?

Philip Sheppard wrote:

> 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,

"Intent" and "practice" are not always coincident.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 12:18:03 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Public Forum?

Oh Sotiris,

No it is lies as to intent that create such a difference.  Where I come from
Intent culminates in Practice.  Here is is touton saying they will and knowing
they won't.  Staff and Karl are opposites.  How can that be?  How can a CEO
admonish a BoD member.  Man this is messed up and I quit, sorry WXW only so
long as to surf, swim and enjoy with my children.  Remember we must first love
life in order to protect it.

to my Norte Americano muchachos y muchachas happy labor day; enjoy.  Felice
dias por el trabajaros.  I am poor in language but rich in friends.

Eric

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Philip Sheppard wrote:
>
> > 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,
>
> "Intent" and "practice" are not always coincident.
>
> 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 16:54:49 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: More BC Shenanigans

Danny,

Has there ever been a formal complaint to ICANN with regard to any Bylaws
violations?

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 1:01 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: 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 23:53:00 +0100
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: FYI: Final WIPO-2 Report released

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_00C6_01C134D3.905F6800
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

From: http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/report/html/report.html

59.   Several cases regarding place names within countries also have =
been filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center under the =
UDRP.[251]  Two of these cases that involved city names have received =
much attention.  These two cases concerned the domain names =
barcelona.com and stmoritz.com.  By decision of August 4, 2000, the =
complaint regarding barcelona.com was upheld and, by decision of August =
17, 2000, the complaint regarding stmoritz.com was denied.[252]  Other =
more recent such cases filed with WIPO concerned the domain names =
lapponia.org/lapponia.net (complaint granted),[253] portofhelsinki.com =
(complaint denied),[254] portofhamina.com (complaint denied),[255] =
brisbanecity.com (complaint denied),[256] brisbane.com (complaint =
denied),[257] olkiluoto.com/olkiluoto.net (complaint denied),[258] =
rouen.com/rouen.net (complaint denied)[259] and arena-verona.com =
(complaint denied).[260]

260.   It should be noted that the complaints in many of the court and =
UDRP cases referred to above were based on the alleged abuse of a =
trademark registered in the name of the complainant and incorporating =
the place name subject to the dispute.  Furthermore, usually the domain =
names were deemed infringing in light of the nature of the activity =
conducted under the domain name and the motivation of the registrants.  =
The cases therefore do not necessarily stand for the proposition that =
the registration of a city name or the name of a region, as such, is to =
be deemed abusive.
** end **

Shouldn't each of the 3 prongs of the udrp (tm / lack of legitimate =
interest / bad faith) be seperate entities rather than influencing each =
other?

Barcelona never held a live tm for "barcelona" as I recall.

If I read that correctly, it implies that if lack of legitimate interest =
or bad faith is found that the strength of the tm doesn't really matter =
- - that seems at odds with the UDRP rules.

Why bother with 3 seperate tests if you can imply guilt in all of them =
from just one.

Regards
Paul Cotton

- ------=_NextPart_000_00C6_01C134D3.905F6800
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY background=3D"" bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>From: </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/report/html/report.html"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/report/html/report.html</FONT></A=
><BR><BR><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>59.&nbsp;&nbsp; Several cases regarding place =
names within=20
countries also have been filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation =
Center=20
under the UDRP.[251]&nbsp; Two of these cases that involved city names =
have=20
received much attention.&nbsp; These two cases concerned the domain =
names=20
barcelona.com and stmoritz.com.&nbsp; By decision of August 4, 2000, the =

complaint regarding barcelona.com was upheld and, by decision of August =
17,=20
2000, the complaint regarding stmoritz.com was denied.[252]&nbsp; Other =
more=20
recent such cases filed with WIPO concerned the domain names=20
lapponia.org/lapponia.net (complaint granted),[253] portofhelsinki.com=20
(complaint denied),[254] portofhamina.com (complaint denied),[255]=20
brisbanecity.com (complaint denied),[256] brisbane.com (complaint =
denied),[257]=20
olkiluoto.com/olkiluoto.net (complaint denied),[258] rouen.com/rouen.net =

(complaint denied)[259] and arena-verona.com (complaint=20
denied).[260]<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>260.&nbsp;&nbsp; It should be noted =
that the=20
complaints in many of the court and UDRP cases referred to above were =
based on=20
the alleged abuse of a trademark registered in the name of the =
complainant and=20
incorporating the place name subject to the dispute.&nbsp; Furthermore, =
usually=20
the domain names were deemed infringing in light of the nature of the =
activity=20
conducted under the domain name and the motivation of the =
registrants.&nbsp; The=20
cases therefore do not necessarily stand for the proposition that the=20
registration of a city name or the name of a region, as such, is to be =
deemed=20
abusive.<BR>** end **<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Shouldn't each of the 3 prongs of the =
udrp (tm /=20
lack of legitimate interest / bad faith) be seperate entities rather =
than=20
influencing each other?<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Barcelona never held a live tm for =
"barcelona" as I=20
recall.</DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If I read that correctly, it implies =
that if lack=20
of legitimate interest&nbsp;or bad faith is found that the strength of =
the tm=20
doesn't really matter - that seems at odds with the UDRP =
rules.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Why bother with 3 seperate tests if you =
can imply=20
guilt in all of them from just one.<BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Regards<BR>Paul =
Cotton</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_00C6_01C134D3.905F6800--

- --
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 20:16:04 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: More BC Shenanigans

Trash simple trash,

The BC is acting in a socially irresponsible manner.  Do they clean the boots of
the IP folks with their tongues?

If you lay at the beach on a cloudy day you still get burned, If you don't watch
every move the Staff will third degree burn you like nobody's business.  We must
have a totally independent from ICANN Staff, At Large.

Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Chuck and all assembly members,
>
>   Yes there has on at least three occasions that I can recall.  In fact
> if you look at some of the older archives of this ML, you will see them.
>
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > Danny,
> >
> > Has there ever been a formal complaint to ICANN with regard to any Bylaws
> > violations?
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 1:01 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: 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
>
> 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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 23:13:10 -0800
From: Peter de Blanc <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  More BC Shenanigans

Danny:

( In this posting I am speaking personally )

Your agenda would be better served by being more diplomatic, and
separating fact from speculation and "broad-brush" name calling.

Also, I am unclear about whether you are making this, and other recent
postings as GA chair, or as an individual.

I appreciated your initial enthusiasm when you gained the chair of trhe
GA. Your call to the Names Council `to "parcel out some of the work" to
the GA was eloquent and passionate. I really felt a desire to be
supportive of your new leadership.

Now, I am starting to be disappointed by your lack of objectivity and
diplomacy. The chair is supposed to facilitate consensus building, and
be a mediator and negotiator of positions.

You are not doing that anymore.

It makes me sad.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 9:01 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [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

- --
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 20:49:24 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  More BC Shenanigans

Peter this is so much garbage,

Why is it with this weighty statement I do not hear a word about the people
of VI?  Are you a what? Do you represent a ccTLD?  At least we know Danny,
but you are a what?  Who do you care about?  I assume you have invested in
IPv6 and are hurting concepts intentionally to break my Internet.

Best to you Sir de Blanc

Eric

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Danny:
>
> ( In this posting I am speaking personally )
>
> Your agenda would be better served by being more diplomatic, and
> separating fact from speculation and "broad-brush" name calling.
>
> Also, I am unclear about whether you are making this, and other recent
> postings as GA chair, or as an individual.
>
> I appreciated your initial enthusiasm when you gained the chair of trhe
> GA. Your call to the Names Council `to "parcel out some of the work" to
> the GA was eloquent and passionate. I really felt a desire to be
> supportive of your new leadership.
>
> Now, I am starting to be disappointed by your lack of objectivity and
> diplomacy. The chair is supposed to facilitate consensus building, and
> be a mediator and negotiator of positions.
>
> You are not doing that anymore.
>
> It makes me sad.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 9:01 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [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
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 00:16:16 -0800
From: Peter de Blanc <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

William, I am probably wasting several of my alloted 5 posts per day
here, answering you. 

What is your point?

That we (ccTLD) should have done more prior to Stockholm?

If you are interested in history, take a look at
http://www.wwtld.org/communique/

I am working in  ccTLD to move forward, into a satisfactory
relationship with ICANN. I do not have any criticism here. We (ccTLD)
are working towards a relationship that is fair to all concerned.

It is that simple.

What are you looking for?

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of William
X Walsh
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 3:14 AM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'; 'Elisabeth Porteneuve'; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [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

- --
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 21:32:55 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Tuesday, Tuesday, September 04, 2001, 1:16:16 AM, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> William, I am probably wasting several of my alloted 5 posts per day
> here, answering you. 

> What is your point?

> That we (ccTLD) should have done more prior to Stockholm?

> If you are interested in history, take a look at
> http://www.wwtld.org/communique/

> I am working in  ccTLD to move forward, into a satisfactory
> relationship with ICANN. I do not have any criticism here. We (ccTLD)
> are working towards a relationship that is fair to all concerned.

> It is that simple.

> What are you looking for?

Something to support the ccTLD community's claims that it's issues
have been ignored by ICANN.

What I have found though, is that the ccTLD community has been the one
to fail to bring their issues to ICANN or the DNSO NC or GA.

That they are discovering their issues now is of little relevance to
the discussion about whether the ccTLD's justification for their
demand to become an SO was a valid one.

What I am trying to get to is the legitimacy of that demand the
premises it was based on.

But the facts and the record do not support the claim of the ccTLD
that their issues have been ignored, and that as a result they do not
belong in the DNSO.  What I see is that the ccTLD community has, until
now, failed to organize itself and present its issues in a proper
fashion so that they get the attention they deserve.

I see nothing to support the ccTLD's suggestion that they do not fit
in the DNSO, or that their issues are not relevant in the DNSO, and
that they should have their own SO.

I'm trying to get you to show me where I am wrong.  Where has the
ccTLD community attempted to bring issues before ICANN and been
ignored?  Where has the ccTLD community brought its issues to the NC
and the GA for consideration, comment, and recommendations?

I say that the situation the ccTLD community finds itself in is one of
it's own making, and not one that warrants a restructuring of the
ICANN SO setup, nor the granting of the ccTLDs a greater degree of
control over ICANN by granting them the ability to directly elect
members of the board (which is why they want the SO status).

- -- 
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: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 06:52:34 +0200
From: "Alf Hansen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Well said, Elisabeth.

There is no "fight" between gTLDs and ccTLDs. Let the Registrants choose the
addresss space they want to be in. The ccTLD managers are trying to do the
"best" for their local Internet communities, most of them on an
non-commercial basis, with some kind of relation with their local
governments.

Among ccTLDs there is a consept of "Best Practice" built on the belief that
the best practice will serve the interests of the local internet communitiy
as a whole (not neccessarily serving the intersts of the ccTLDs themselves
or the Governments only). For ccTLD managers ICANN is a "partner" because
ICANN contributes to stability in a global open Internet, which is extremely
important for the local Internet community.

I don't mind if there are thousands of new gTLDs, as long as Internet
stability is preserved. Let the Registrants choose where they feel they
belong in the address space. If they feel at home with local law under a
country code, they will register their names with ccTLDs. If they are
comfortable in a g-name space, they will choose a gTLD with the best suited
policy and law.

In any case DNS has to work in a globally interconnected Internet. The gTLDs
and the other constituencies in the current DNSO may have different
motivations for SUPPORTING ICANN than the ccTLDs. Therefore a separate ccTLD
SUPPORT ORGANISATION may be a good thing, also for ICANN.

Best regards,
Alf H
.NO

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Elisabeth
> Porteneuve
> Sent: 2. september 2001 19:24
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
>
>
>
>
> The ccTLDs represent Local Internet Communities, and contrary to the
> gTLD Registries, ccTLD Registries do not operate under the US law
> and jurisdiction, but under national law and jurisdiction.
>
> This is the main and most important reason.
>
> The ccTLD form the genuine global worldwide network, using all languages,
> implemented in all countries, operating a large spectra of
> business models.
>
> Note that ccTLD has been very positive to ICANN creation, sending
> money and expecting the real international body for all Registries.
> Since two years the ccTLD has been contributing 35% of ICANN budget,
> 1.5 million US dollars, all from foreign countries !
> During the same two years ICANN Staff spent all their time on contracts
> with gTLD registries and registrars.
>
> I agree with you Chuck: the ccTLD are certainly not really very
> different from gTLD, they demand equal considerations within ICANN.
>
> The real stability of global Internet depends on all components,
> not only 3+7=10 gTLD, but also 242 ccTLD.
>
> Elisabeth
> --
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From [email-masked] Sun Sep  2 15:52 MET 2001
> Message-ID:
> <[email-masked]>
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
> To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
> Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 09:40:50 -0400
>
> Probably over one third of the ccTLDs are really not very
> different from the
> gTLDs.  Also, sTLDs (one subset of gTLDs) are similar to many of the
> restricted ccTLDs in that they both have organizations implementing policy
> over TLD registrations.
>
> I understand that it is convenient at this point in time for
> those wanting a
> separate ccSO to argue that they are different, and some may
> really be quite
> different at this point in time, but even that could change in the future.
> If they want to play in the global Internet, I contend that they are more
> like gTLDs than different.  If they want to set up their own
> private network
> within their region of control, then they would not need access to the
> global Internet and then it could be justified that they are very
> different.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 12:29 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
>
>
>
>
> On 31 Aug 2001, at 19:01, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > gTLDs would like autonomy also.
> >
>
> Sure they do, Chuck, but they are "owned" by the USG.  Their autonomy is
> there - under the control of the TLD holder - DoC.  The others
> signed away
> their autonomy by allowing themselves to be granted a contract to operate
> the TLDs for a fixed number of years.  The ccTLDs have not done
> that to my
> knowlege, at least not yet.  In addition, on the IANA website it
> states that
>
> country code domains were created to be used by each individual
> country as
> they deemed necessary, although this is a bit misleading because
> they were
> assigned to individuals or entities within those countries and not to the
> countries themselves.
>
> It is interesting, indeed, that the gTLDs want autonomy and wish to be
> compared to the ccTLDs when they are different animals.  .US is the ccTLD
> and it, too, should have autonomy as the other ccTLDs should.  As
> a ccTLD,
> .US is almost worthless as it stands right now.  It is being
> handled badly,
> IMO, and will be tired up in bureaucratic red tape for who knows
> how long.
> Whether it will become useful for the US public remains to be seen.
>
> Leah
>
>
>
> > Chuck
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 4:00 PM
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Roberto Gaetano
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 31 Aug 2001, at 16:50, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >
> > > Leah,
> > >
> > > >
> > > >It seems that the ccTLDs are forming their own organizations that
> > > >would actually be in a much better position to determine what is a
> > > >valid ccTLD.  Things do not happen by themselves, but it just
> > >
> > > Do you *really* think that the ccTLDs would want to get into the
> > > trouble of doing this? For instance, the trouble of deciding if
> > > there should be a .ps, and who manages it. Don't you think that some
> > > of the ccTLDs may take a position that will reflect the interest of
> > > their respective governments, and that what should be a
> > > technical/professional coordination among ccTLDs may turn out in a
> > > mini-GAC?
> > >
> >
> > As I said, I don't know what the ccTLDs would want.  My
> > comments are simply suppositions and the recognition that their
> > policies may be and very likely are different from ICANN's and
> > many areas.  Being friendly to ICANN and supportive in some
> > areas is a liklihood, I would think.  I also believe that autonomy is
> > most important for them.
> >
> > > We might ask some of the ccTLD managers what they think. Peter?
> >
> > Precisely.  Isn't that the idea behind their SO activity?
> >
> > >
> > > Anyway, by proposing to create an SO they have implicitely answered.
> > > Were they thinking to phase out from ICANN, they would have left
> > > instead of looking for a solution that will give them more influence
> > > on ICANN.
> >
> > I believe they have left that as a possibility, but not the preferred
> > action.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >seems logical that cc's should take care of themselves in this
> > > >manner.  Entry of a new ccTLD should be up to those organizations
> > > >as opposed to ICANN, IMO.  ICANN should simply perform the clerical
> > > >entry of the information provided by the ccTLD organizations.  IOW,
> > > >cooperate with them.  Let ICANN handle the TLDs they now control
> > > >and let the ccTLDs remain autonomous.  I see no need for ICANN to
> > > >micromanage them or force them to comply with policies that could
> > > >very well go against their cultures and laws.
> > > >
> > > >Leah
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> > > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #723
************************