Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #732
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Tuesday, September 11 2001         Volume 01 : Number 732

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 15:00:11 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Amadeu Abril i Abril elected for a 3 year term to theICANN Board

Why would we care so much about geographic diversity and then have a person
placed upon the board that comes from the registrars constituency.

Mr. Abril may be a fine BoD member but some were excluded from eligibility
because of where they live but he was not excluded even though he comes from a
overly represented group.

This example makes it even more clear that the At-Large needs to be users and
not another exclusive group like domain name holders.  I was probably fairly
shortsighted to keep such an interest on the board.  Had they placed more of a
bottom-up person they at least could make a colorable claim to wanting to work
with users.

Sincerely,

- --
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, 10 Sep 2001 19:36:18 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] taking positions on country specific legislation

I review this older post and ask if it is not exactly on point today as the
ccTLDs fight to take away seats from the at large while power brokers promise
certain votes to certain interests.

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Marilyn,
>
> Thursday, July 05, 2001, 12:16:20 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > Folks, I have a question about process and topics for a minute.  I was not
> > aware that the GA thought that  it's role included endorsing country
> > specific legislation and find this of concern.
>
> Even when this legislation effects ICANN and the DNSO and their work?
>
> --
> 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, 10 Sep 2001 20:55:01 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Dear Ms. Porteneuve,

How wrong could you be.  There are contracts and that is how ICANN was formed
and obtained the contract with the DoC.  People who engage in  contracts and
then ignore their obligations are not honest.

Your attitude and perspective are wrong.  Like it or not!

Sorry if you do not like the truth!

Eric

Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 21:19:24 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] failed leadership

Well now is a good time to reflect upon our inefficiency.  Danny you can make it
happen now.  Get it down and move forward.  You have the ability to and you can
put your own house in order.

Give us one reason you cannot enact best practices.  Money for votes is a
non-starter.

Eric

"babybows.com" wrote:

> My thoughts on "motions":
>
> "The DNSO General Assembly is composed of those persons who want to be
> members of that assembly.  At present, this includes "ex-officio" the
> subscribers to the GA-lists, the participants to the DNSO Constituencies and
> the participants to the Working Groups."
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-working-procedures.html
>
> At this time, we have:
>
> a. 300 members listed in the GA Voting Registry
> b. no listed membership records for the Intellectual Property Constituency
> c. approximately 180 Registrars (each with more than one participant)
> d. 165 members of the Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency
> e. The Internet Service Providers' and Connectivity Providers' constituency
> has 38 members
> f. The gTLD Constituency will soon have 8 members
> g. The business Constituency has 68 members currently listed
> h. CcTLDs - 245
> i. Additional former working group participants not in above - unknown
>
> By my count, the composition of the General Assembly thereby includes over
> 1000 voices.  At this time I cannot even be sure that the DNSO Secretariat's
> Announce List includes all of these members, but this matter will be
> reviewed in due course.
>
> What I am sure of is that when the GA last tackled a major concern (for
> instance the issue of the .org charter), only 12 members cast an affirmative
> or negative opinion.  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01414.html
>
> Had this been a response to a formally seconded motion, I am confident that
> there are those who would have been loudly declaring **consensus of the
> GA!!!** on the basis of the 7 votes that prevailed.  I choose to call it
> what it is... a pathetic response from an organization that suffers from an
> acute lack of participation.
>
> It is this horrid lack of participation that invalidates all our efforts and
> denies the GA its legitimacy.
>
> Our goal is to have "substantive" discussion that involves a large number -
> let me repeat - large number of our members followed by a motion and a
> second to generate a ballot, which when accepted by the Chair will result in
> a vote being taken.  I have yet to see either widespread substantive
> discussion on an issue followed by a motion, or participation to a degree
> that would validate putting our volunteer Secretariat through several hours
> of work per ballot.  The Secretariat is not the employee of the GA.  I will
> not allow her generosity of spirit to be abused by the frivolous motions
> being put forth by members that could just as easily have chosen recourse to
> a polling booth or to additional posts to make their collective sentiment
> known.
>
> I have noted these motions (among others):
>
> I move that the GA form a WG to examine the finances of each of the
> directors, and to recommend the removal of all directors with any conflicts
> of interest.  **** (WGs are created by the NC, not the GA;  ICANN ByLaws
> already provide for removal of directors; limited discussion on removal of
> directors was started in a thread by Siegfried Langenbach)
>
> I move that the GA form a WG to examine the desirablitiy of turning ICANN
> into a for-profit corporation.  **** (WGs are created by the NC, not the GA;
> there has been almost no discussion on this topic)
>
> I move that the GA petition the NC for the immediate adoption of the GA as a
> constituency.  **** (ICANN ByLaws grant no such powers to the NC; some
> discussion of the topic of a GA Constituency in the Review  Working Group,
> but none in the GA as of late)
>
> I move that control of all DNSO mailing lists be immediately turned over to
> a committee of volunteers, chaired by Kent Crispin.     ***** (the GA has no
> authority over the NC mailing lists; committees should elect their own
> Chairs)
>
> I move that the GA forward a resolution to the NC calling for the immediate
> suspension of the UDRP.  **** (any member of the GA has a right under the
> Bylaws to petition the NC to consider a domain name policy issue... this
> action requires no motion)
>
> motion to the Chair to create a dedicated sub-ML to the end of discussing
> and documenting the request of a WG to review and advise the management of
> the Inclusive Name Space by the ICANN.  **** (NC is already considering a
> petition to establish such a working group, and a GA topical mailing list on
> this issue has been proposed and awaits near-term inauguration)
>
> I move that the General Assembly set up a WIPO mailing list to discuss the
> third interim report of the second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process.  *****
> (Such a GA list is now pending)
>
> I move that the General Assembly set up a DNSO Review mailing list to
> continue discussion on ways to improve the structure and functioning of the
> DNSO  **** (Such a GA list is now pending)
>
> I move that the General Assembly set up an alternative roots mailing list to
> provide a specific forum for the subject in terms of what bearing if any
> they have on ICANN  **** (Such a GA list is now pending)
>
> I will quote LDG because I share this view:  "A motion is the step prior to
> a vote and should not be brought
> until there  has been enough discussion and background to warrant it."
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01110.html  I will not
> acknowledge any motion that has not had the benefit of widespread member
> involvement and exhaustive debate.   We will soon have a number of new
> mailing lists, each of which can result in a committee that can generate a
> consensus-based report after a reasonable period of discussion on the part
> of a reasonable amount of interested parties.  The  GA Chair will be
> delighted to accept motions that may lead to the adoption of committee
> reports that may then be put forward as a reflection of the consensus of the
> GA.
>
> First you bring in more members, then you work, then you motion, then you
> vote.    If you have good recommendations, suggestions, you do not need a
> motion to put them forth.
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:09:39 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: 

|> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 1:08 PM

|> Folks,
|> Please have a look at the presentation on ENUM delivered 
|> today at the Board 
|> (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/e
|> num.html).
|> I think that this raises matters to be debated in the DNSO, like:
|> - the use of the DNS for a different purpose
|> - the implication on policy of the possible implementation 
|> (is the service 
|> optional? What about the impact on privacy? Who will manage 
|> it (guidelines 
|> for cost?), and so on)
|> Personally, I commented in the public forum that on one hand 
|> we experience 
|> delays over delays in the introduction of a handful of 
|> "normal" TLDs, with 
|> concerns about the stability of the Internet, and on the 
|> other hand the 

|> Board seems to accept without discussion an use of the DNS 
|> that is not what 
|> it was intended for (with a potential of hundreds of 
|> millions entries below 
|> e164.arpa, and a nesting level of some 15).
|> What do you think?

I think that those are two entirely separate issues. There is a lot of stuff
I use DNS for that is not the original intent or purpose. No one has any
business telling anyone else, how to use their systems or software. There is
the old principle of "what doesn't harm, is allowed". That said, those same
systems are not normally visible on the Internet, or if they are, those
using those systems are very well aware of what is being done. As far as the
"e164.arpa" project is concerned. If their zone servers can handle the gaff,
what's the problem? I see no difficulty configuring a zone server cluster
for such a load. It *is* part of what MHSC does.

On the other hand, the Internet stability FUD, wrt DNS TLDs, has been around
a long time. Thank D'Crock for that. Although much of the BoD knows better,
they chose to go along with the FUD for political reasons. After four years,
that much is, at the least, very clear. Don't act surprised, just embarrasss
them sufficiently with the facts, such that they can't agree with the FUD
without looking very foolish. Knowlege conquers FUD and publicized knowlege
conquers politically motivated decisions.
- --
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, 11 Sep 2001 00:22:07 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: your mail

|> From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 1:39 PM

|> Although I think the questions you raise are very serious, I am not
|> worried. Enum will not fly. Who wants to remember numbers? ibm.com is
|> not more trouble to key into most mobiles than 8392846392.

Once upon a time, there was an MCI project. This project intended to modify
the DNS software such that; You feed it a number and instead of getting back
a host name, you get one or more persons assigned to that number. If you
feed it a name, you get one or more telephone numbers associated with that
name. The intent was to distribute it among the other telcos, for directory
synchronization. The problem is that telcos generally get along with each
other like rabid dogs (and ex-bells treat MCI like plague virus anyway). I
have no idea what happened after WorldCom took over.
- --
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, 11 Sep 2001 10:21:30 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Post-Montevideo: Eight issues and links

Dear all,

I don't know if it's possible for the GA to look at
eight issues at the same time, but I think we have to
somehow (and of course there are others, this
is just my proposal...):

- - Domain transfer policy
- - Country name domains reservation at GAC request
- - The Great Restructuring
- - Dot org referral
- - ccTLD agreements
- - New gTLD status and evaluation
- - ENUM -- ICANN role?
- - Whois

1. Domain transfer policy
  (Registrar constituency formal consensus vote on its position paper
  beginning next week September 17, 2001)
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/scribe-ga-090801.html#registrars
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/scribe-pf-090901.html#transfer
http://www.icann.org/montevideo/registration-transfer-topic.htm
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/transfers.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/

2. Country name domains reservation at GAC request
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46680,00.htm
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/scribe-bod-091001.html#geographic-names
http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/communique-09sep01.htm
http://www.din.de/gremien/nas/nabd/iso3166ma/codlstp1/index.html
http://www.afilias.info/whois
http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/report/index.html

3. The Great Restructuring: ccSO/gTLDSO? Provider/Developer/User SO?
   At Large/individual users/individual domain holders?
http://www.atlargestudy.org/draft_final.shtml
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/alsc-ga.html
http://www.naisproject.org/report/final/
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/nais-ga.html
http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/mail20.shtml
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/palfrey/ALSC-NAIS-comparison/
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/scribe-ga-090801.html#publicforum
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/scribe-ga-090801.html#individuals
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/scribe-nc-090801.html#review
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/scribe-nc-090801.html#dnsoreview
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/cctld-ga.html
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/cctld-nc.html
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/scribe-nc-090801.html#cctld
http://www.bizconst.org/positions/BCatlargepositionv5.doc

4. Dot org referral
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-org/Arc00/
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-org/Arc00/
http://www.bizconst.org/positions/BCpositiondotorg.doc
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/scribe-pf-090901.html#dnso

5. ccTLD agreements
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/cctld-update.html
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/scribe-pf-090901.html#dnso
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/cctld-communique.html
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/cctld-managers.html
http://www.icann.org/montevideo/au-agreement-topic.htm
http://www.icann.org/cctlds/model-tscsa-02sep01.htm
http://www.icann.org/cctlds/model-legacy-mou-02sep01.htm
http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm
http://www.wwtld.org/ongoing/bestpractices/
http://www.iana.org/reports/au-report-31aug01.htm
http://www.icann.org/cctlds/au-proposed-sponsorship-agmt-04sep01.htm

6. New TLD status and evaluation
http://www.icann.org/montevideo/new-tld-topic.htm
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/scribe-ga-090801.html#newtld
http://www.icann.org/montevideo/new-tld-planning-topic.htm
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/tldprocess.html
http://www.icann.org/tlds/
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=340
http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?newtldagmts;3B97A21E00000836

7. ENUM -- ICANN role?
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/scribe-pf-091001.html#enum
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/enum.html
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=335
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-000071061sep02.story
http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/infocom/enum/

8. Whois
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/whois-pf.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/

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: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 21:18:23 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

On Sat, 8 Sep 2001 23:04:16 -0700, Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> But GAC is showing no signs of trying to force ccTLDs to sign
>> contracts forcing them to fund ICANN with unlimited money and next to
>> no representation.
>
>Since no such contracts have ever even been contemplated, that isn't
>surprising, is it?

Actually GAC in its early days was quite naive about how ccTLDs should
interact with ICANN and the early drafts of some contracts were pretty
bad.  Things are much better now.

It is only in the last 12 months ICANN stopped sending invoices and
started asking for donations.  

>[...]
>> Some ccTLDs have oversight from their local internet community.  If
>> people don't like what is happening they sack people at the AGM -
>> which is exactly what happened in NZ last year.  Much better oversight
>> than ICANN could do.
>
>But ICANN really is not concerned with local oversight issues.

If there is an alternative to global oversight then this is relevant
to ICANN which needs less of a role in global oversight compared to
gTLDs.

>> >This is why the ccTLDs want disproportionate
>> >representation on the board -- they fear the collectivity of their own
>> >governments, and they think that they need control through the ICANN 
>> >board.
>> 
>> One could argue that representing 242 out of the 257 TLDs even six
>> Board Members would be under-represented.  I don't actually support
>> this and think three would be sensible.
>
>But they represent only a fraction of total domain name registrations... 
>and the number of non-cc TLDs will grow.

A fairly large fraction - around a third I think.

>> I don't think the ccTLDs was control of the ICANN Board - they just
>> want a decent level of representation.
>
>If we go by number of registrations, if the ccTLDs got 3 seats, 
>Verisign should get 9.

You mean they don't? :-)

Why else did the Board ignore the Names Council and give them more
favourable terms for their contracts which shot their share value up
by several billion and since the new contracts have allowed them to
act unilaterally with impunity on issues like transfers because now
there is no risk of losing .com.

>[...]
>> You assume GAC could come to a uniform policy.  Have you seen how long
>> treaties take to negotiate sometimes?
>
>I think it is quite possible that the GAC could come up with policies
>much quicker than that.  While the process is indeed painful, they
>already have produced effective policies -- for example, in the gTLD
>approval process they have effectively asserted control over SLDs that
>duplicate ISO3166 names. 

Yes.  Now can some-one explained why this policy was not referred to
the DNSO as it is clearly a policy issue affecting domain names?

>> >Then why do ccTLDs so desparately want direct positions on the board? If
>> >things were as you describe, then there would be no need for that. 
>> 
>> Because many ccTLDs are not selfish and want ICANN to succeed and
>> would rather be part of ICANN than fighting it.  They want to specify
>> and limit the authority of ICANN but they do want it to succeed.
>
>Sorry, I'm a little too cynical to take that straight, I'm afraid :-). 
>Indeed, I have the very highest respect and warm feeling for several
>ccTLD managers I know personally.  But "specify and limit the authority
>of ICANN" somehow seems just a wee bit selfish, to me, no matter how you
>try to sugar coat it.  And of course, if they controlled ICANN, they 
>would want it to succeed...

Look let me speak just for myself and how I have seen .nz's
involvement.  While Jon Postel was alive we followed with interest but
little more what was happening.  We were quite happy running .nz.

Then as ICANN was formed it seemed prudent to be involved as they were
to assume control of Root Server A.  Now since then .nz spends around
$200,000 a year of funding ICANN, DNSO, ccTLD, APTLD and travel to
meetings etc which is around 10% of every .nz domain name registered.
This is a very high level of expenditure which frankly I would rather
we didn't have to spend.

But if we are not involved we may one day find someone telling us we
must adopt the UDRP or we must exclude these names from registrations
or we must allow registrations at the 2nd not third level.

I don't know anyone who wants .nz to become big and powerful and to
run ICANN.  We would like to either be left alone or failing that to
make sure we have some influence so stupid polices are not imposed on
us from afar.

>> >The reason that ccTLDs want
>> >positions on the board is because they don't want to be under the
>> >control of their governments.  They want to control ICANN so they can
>> >use ICANN as a lever against their own governments. 
>> 
>> Most ccTLDs recognise that if their Governments want a redelegation
>> the Government will win out eventually.  They would like there to be
>> some sort of due process so it can not be done at whim.
>
>Yes, of course: that is, they would like to control ICANN so that can
>use ICANN as a lever against their own governments.  That is, you are
>just putting a different spin on exactly what I said. 

No.  If a Government really wants to control a ccTLD it could pass a
law forcing it to be handed over etc.  The Governments will always
win.  But there is merit in arguing that a Government should be forced
to either go through due process via ICANN or transparently pass a law
rather than just be able to have an official write a letter to ICANN
and a week later it is re-delegated.

Most reasonable Govts agree with this also IMO.

>By the way, could you point out to me any indication from ICANN that
>ICANN is in favor of redelegation at whim?  Every case of redelegation 
>that I have observed has been conducted with incredible care.

I would never have thought ICANN was in favour of allowing NSI to
remain a Registrar as well as Registry - things can change very
quickly in ICANN.

I also believe the re-delegation of .au does raise serious issues of
no-compliance of policy.  Personally I believe .auDA is the logical
next manager of .au but OTOH I do not support the process where
existing policy is ignored and new policy invented to justify the
transfer.

>> >> Don't think that ICANN would have a shit show in hell of surviving a
>> >> war with the ccTLDs as long as the major ccTLDs had their Govt onside.
>> >
>> >...as long as, indeed.  That is precisely the issue.
>> 
>> I have never argued otherwise.  But if ICANN tried to do what William
>> proposed then most Govts would back their ccTLD.
>
>Sure sure.  The real question is whether the ccTLDs position really 
>merits another SO and unique representation on the board.  It certainly 
>isn't clear to me at this point that it is warranted.

The argument has been that most of their concerns are negotiated
directly with Board and staff anyway.  This may be because the DNSO is
dysfunctional.  

I would question whether there needs to be a PSO for that matter.
There doesn't seem to be any reason for a PSO except to elect Board
Members.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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, 11 Sep 2001 11:01:01 -0300
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] taking positions on country specific legislation

Eric:

The ccTLDs are NOT fighting to take seats away from the at-large. Our
model involves a re-aportionment of other seats, so we get at least some
direct board representation. ccTLD in general supports at-large and
individual domain name holders constituency, (but not the idea that
at-large and IDNHC is one and the same.)

Please get your facts straight

Peter de Blanc
Chair, AdCom, ccTLD

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eric
Dierker
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 11:36 PM
To: William X. Walsh; Don Evans
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'Bruce James'; Roberto Gaetano; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] taking positions on country specific legislation

I review this older post and ask if it is not exactly on point today as
the ccTLDs fight to take away seats from the at large while power
brokers promise certain votes to certain interests.

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Marilyn,
>
> Thursday, July 05, 2001, 12:16:20 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > Folks, I have a question about process and topics for a minute.  I 
> > was not aware that the GA thought that  it's role included endorsing

> > country specific legislation and find this of concern.
>
> Even when this legislation effects ICANN and the DNSO and their work?
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 07:44:48 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Condolances

Dear All,

I wish to extend my sympathy and prayers to all who will suffer from the
horrible tragedy which befell New York this morning.

May we all try to do our part to use this tool, the Internet, to move
the world toward a higher understanding of each other and rid us of such
hatred.

Sincerely,
Eric

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

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

Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 12:34:30 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Condolences

I too wish to express my condolences and sympathies to all the victims and
families affected by these heinous acts.

Most Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I wish to extend my sympathy and prayers to all who will suffer from the
> horrible tragedy which befell New York this morning.
>
> May we all try to do our part to use this tool, the Internet, to move
> the world toward a higher understanding of each other and rid us of such
> hatred.
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> --
> 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, 11 Sep 2001 13:50:01 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Condolences

There is no question as to the enormity of this attack.  New York is 
one of the largest financial and political capitals of the world.  All 
the major financial buildings have been closed.  The stock 
exchange is closed as far as I know.  There could be structural 
undermining, electrical and gas problems.

The Atlantic Fleet is sending ships to assist.  The US and Canada 
have shut down all air traffic.

This will effect the world economy and all our lives for some time to 
come.  It is not just a US problem.  There is a critical blood 
shortage in New York right now.  They are asking for donations, if 
there is anyone on this list who could participate.  

We have no idea what the death toll will be, but it will be bad.  My 
heart goes out anyone with family or friends in Manhattan or on 
any of hijacked planes involved.  Another plane has crashed in 
Pennsylvania near PIttsburgh.

Perhaps the members of the GA could now consider the meaning 
of a single point of failure with a non-distributed root.  

Leah

On 12 Sep 2001, at 5:21, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 07:34 12/09/01, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >I too wish to express my condolences and sympathies to all the
> >victims and families affected by these heinous acts.
> 
> So do I.
> Before anyone says that this is offtopic, some topics are so large
> that they are relevant even to the debate of ICANN restructuring.
> 
> 
> --Joop
> 
> --
> 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, 11 Sep 2001 11:08:56 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Condolences

Tuesday, Tuesday, September 11, 2001, 10:50:01 AM, L Gallegos wrote:
> Perhaps the members of the GA could now consider the meaning
> of a single point of failure with a non-distributed root.  

While I supported the sentiment of the rest of your message, I find
this not only an incorrect characterization, but I find it offensive
to use this event to further that agenda.

- -- 
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, 11 Sep 2001 12:00:35 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Condolences

I'm sure all of here in the U.S. would join me in expressing our appreciation
for the comments of Eric and Sotiris and others from outside of the U. S.
Speaking personally, I particularly appreciate Eric's comment about the role
of the Internet in fostering international understanding -- not a day goes by
that I do not get from these pages new insight concerning the perspectives of
those who may be "foreigners" from a national point of view, but in the
international community, particularly as to the Internet, there are no
"foreigners."
The potential that the Internet has in that regard is why I work at this whole

bit, hoping firstly that we work harder at developing a tolerance for the
views
of others, and secondly that we become more and more creative in seeking
out means by which such new understanding as we may acquire will be put
to practical use.

Bill Lovell

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> I too wish to express my condolences and sympathies to all the victims and
> families affected by these heinous acts.
>
> Most Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > I wish to extend my sympathy and prayers to all who will suffer from the
> > horrible tragedy which befell New York this morning.
> >
> > May we all try to do our part to use this tool, the Internet, to move
> > the world toward a higher understanding of each other and rid us of such
> > hatred.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Eric
> >
> > --
> > 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

- --

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 12:24:02 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Condolances

Some of you may already know this. Reports are that both towers of the WTC
have collapsed. I have seen the videos. My deepest sympathy to all of those
directly involved in this tragedy. Other reports may be rumors. Senator
McCain is correct, this was a concerted effort by a large and well funded
group. There is no certainty as to the identity, of the group, at this time.
President Bush has promised the full resources of North America to "hunt
down and punish" those responsible. The media seems fixated on bin Ladin, I
have my doubts.

From reports at NANOG, and other sources. Although certain media sites have
been overloaded, internet traffic seems to have reduced today. Prognosis is
that much traffic reductions will be explained due to folks having more
important things to do, relevant to the tragedy. Some reports are over a 50%
reduction in bandwidth requirements, while attention is diverted from the
internet, mostly to broadcast media sources. However, all sources of
communications into and out of NYC are congested and/or controlled. One of
the less congested sites is http://www.sfgate.com/ and they mirror much of
the AP and Reuters news items.

This is going to be a serious business effecter. US stock exchanges have
been closed, as all Federal buildings and many State facilities. It appears
that the FAA has also grounded all non-military aircraft. In North America,
if it isn't a military flight, it isn't a flight. All national borders have
been closed, according to some reports. This is all consistent with national
high alert status declarations. On the legal front, this means that various
emergency war powers acts have been invoked, for both Canada and the US,
while our leaders try to see what comes next, if anything. What this comes
down to is that much business is suspended for today, at least. Hopefully,
not much beyond that.

The perpetrators chose a suicide attack. That type of attack is impossible
to defend against without advanced warning. It is very effective. No amount
of martial law could have prevented it, or something like it. The timing was
such that it came just at the start of the business day, maximizing impact.
The collapse of the towers means that NYC will be virtually paralyzed for
the remainder of the business week, while they recover from this terrible
tragedy. The shockwave, from this terrorist act, expands in both time and
distance. Coming as it does, during a time of economic weakness, it could
trigger incidental economic events. The only prevention of further tragedy
is mental strength and resistance to fear. Have faith, stay calm, go about
normal business, where possible and prudent, and above all, do not over
react.

Again, my heartfelt sympathies to those directly involved in this tragedy.

- --
R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
tel: +1 925 373 3954
cel: +1 925 352 3615
fax: +1 925 373 9781 
http://www.mhsc.com

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 7:45 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] Condolances
|> 
|> 
|> Dear All,
|> 
|> I wish to extend my sympathy and prayers to all who will 
|> suffer from the
|> horrible tragedy which befell New York this morning.
|> 
|> May we all try to do our part to use this tool, the Internet, to move
|> the world toward a higher understanding of each other and 
|> rid us of such
|> hatred.
|> 
|> Sincerely,
|> Eric
|> 
|> --
|> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
|> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
|> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
|> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #732
************************