Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #753
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, September 22 2001         Volume 01 : Number 753

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

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 03:04:31 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Alleged links between WTC attacks and domain names

> 2) Two of the names refer to the year 2001, not
> to 1993 (year of first WTC attack).

Yes, and potential pope names are registered up through JohnPaul6.com and
beyond, for every pope name permutation.  That's the nature of speculation -
making guesses.  If, in successive years, I register PapalVote2001,
PapalVote2002, PapalVote2003, and so on, then sooner or later I'm going to
get lucky.

So, pick a likely and/or known terrorist target, and register it with
"attack" and a numeric year for a single annual term each year... it only
costs ten bucks.

You'll notice that sept12.com was registered on September 11, 2001,
apparently by someone who thought perhaps things might become more dramatic
the next day.

As far as *any* relevance to whois data, it is well beyond obvious that the
only data which counts is the credit card data used to purchase the domain
names, and which is readily available to law enforcement.

The media blurb on these unregistered names, while other domain names remain
registered and used by governments and organizations which have been deemed
terrorist organizations in the US and with whom doing business is illegal in
the US, demonstrates an odd set of priorities.  The revenue derived by US
registrars from domain names registered to parties in Iraq, Libya, Cuba, and
other embargoed countries is well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars,
according to one estimate I have been provided.

Additionally, ICANN itself maintained operation of the .yu top-level domain
during the entire time that doing business with the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia was contrary to US law.  Not only that, but ICANN had the
unmitigated gall to send a bill of $1446.05 to Yugoslavia (see
http://www.icann.org/financials/cctld-contribution-chart-10may00.htm )
so that an indicted war criminal could continue to spew his propaganda at
www.gov.yu during our armed conflict with him.  The FRY was the subject of
OFAC regulations, and their service should have been shut off immediately.

If Mike Roberts doesn't want "terrorists" voting in the At-Large, then it is
well beyond time that he and others who support ICANN wake up and remember
that their sole claim of authority rests on an agreement with the Government
of the United States, and ONLY the United States, and that their maintenance
of a market which is actively engaging in commercial transactions with
enemies of the United States should be discontinued.

- --
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: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 13:08:26 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] rolling up the sleeves.

At 10:55 21/09/01 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:
>Perhaps I am confused here...
>
>The URL belo includes "/idno". Is that "Individual Domain Name Holders"?
>
>Are we talking about an "Individuals'" constituency or an "Individual
>Domain Name Holders'" constituency ?

Peter,

Sorry about the location of the draft Charter document on the site 
currently used for the benefit of the idno.
To avoid confusion I will move the document to 
www.democracy.org.nz/iccharter.htm and also post it on ga-icann.

We are talking about an Individual Domain Name Holders' constituency. This 
is clear enough when you read it.
Since it is about a constituency of the DNSO (or whatever is left of it), 
the name is abreviated to IC. It could also be the IRC (Individual 
Registrants C). Whatever the consensus is.

The ALSC has now also come up with Individual DN Holders as "members" of ICANN.
If in their final position the criteria for membership of the two will be 
alike , then obviously, the two will merge.
(In the near-final draft of the ALSC they are not alike--the draft speaks 
about "contact" in their current definition of Individual Domain Name Holder.)

The DNSO constituency role is to be actively involved with policymaking and 
al Large members who are satisfied with electing regional directors or 
involvement in regional councils can restrict their participation to that.
Participation in the work of the DNSO would be the logical proving ground 
for candidate at Large Directors.

But the at Large is still in the future. The DNSO and its Individuals 
Constituency is here and now.
The Task Force now has a proposal to look at.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 20:12:34 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] rolling up the sleeves.

On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 13:08:26 +1200, Joop Teernstra
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>The ALSC has now also come up with Individual DN Holders as "members" of ICANN.
>If in their final position the criteria for membership of the two will be 
>alike , then obviously, the two will merge.
>(In the near-final draft of the ALSC they are not alike--the draft speaks 
>about "contact" in their current definition of Individual Domain Name Holder.)

I would put it stronger than that.  The more I study it the more I
believe that what the ALSC has proposed will not be anything like a
true voice for individuals but a mixture of the Business and IP
Constituencies which will merely allow others to join.  With possible
annual fees of US$100 it will in fact destroy the at large membership
while being used as a justification for not needing more individual
representation.

>The DNSO constituency role is to be actively involved with policymaking and 
>al Large members who are satisfied with electing regional directors or 
>involvement in regional councils can restrict their participation to that.
>Participation in the work of the DNSO would be the logical proving ground 
>for candidate at Large Directors.
>
>But the at Large is still in the future. The DNSO and its Individuals 
>Constituency is here and now.

I agree that work on an individuals constituency until such time as
the DNSO is changed.

>The Task Force now has a proposal to look at.

But unfortunately a proposal put together by just one person with no
effort at consensus or wide-spread participation.  

If the proposal though is open for modification then I would suggest
the GA itself would be the best place to debate it to get wide
participation.

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: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 04:20:11 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] rolling up the sleeves.

Joop and all assembly members,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 10:55 21/09/01 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:
> >Perhaps I am confused here...
> >
> >The URL belo includes "/idno". Is that "Individual Domain Name Holders"?
> >
> >Are we talking about an "Individuals'" constituency or an "Individual
> >Domain Name Holders'" constituency ?
>
> Peter,
>
> Sorry about the location of the draft Charter document on the site
> currently used for the benefit of the idno.

  Not only that Joop, but the Charter looks almost like and exact copy of the
IDNO Charter.  Perhaps you can explain??

>
> To avoid confusion I will move the document to
> www.democracy.org.nz/iccharter.htm and also post it on ga-icann.
>
> We are talking about an Individual Domain Name Holders' constituency. This
> is clear enough when you read it.

  Well actually it isn't all that clear really as I pointed out earlier on my
original response. See: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg01487.html

>
> Since it is about a constituency of the DNSO (or whatever is left of it),
> the name is abreviated to IC. It could also be the IRC (Individual
> Registrants C). Whatever the consensus is.
>
> The ALSC has now also come up with Individual DN Holders as "members" of ICANN.
> If in their final position the criteria for membership of the two will be
> alike , then obviously, the two will merge.

  I am not so sure anyone could say that the two would merge.

>
> (In the near-final draft of the ALSC they are not alike--the draft speaks
> about "contact" in their current definition of Individual Domain Name Holder.)
>
> The DNSO constituency role is to be actively involved with policymaking and
> al Large members who are satisfied with electing regional directors or
> involvement in regional councils can restrict their participation to that.

  Individual members are not in any way restricted to simply electing
regional directors and/or just involved in regional councils.  They too
are to be involved in policy making as well.  So it seems that you are a
bit confused Joop...

>
> Participation in the work of the DNSO would be the logical proving ground
> for candidate at Large Directors.

  It could be.  But thus far that doesn't seem to have worked out very well...

>
>
> But the at Large is still in the future. The DNSO and its Individuals
> Constituency is here and now.

  Well than submit your petition and start gaining membership!  >;)

>
> The Task Force now has a proposal to look at.

  Ok we [INEGroup] Looked at it.  And we see some very
troubling concerns.  Again see:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg01487.html
for some of the detail.

>
>
> --Joop
>
> --
>

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: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 04:35:22 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Alleged links between WTC attacks and domain names

John and all assembly members,

  Good points here in your post John!  Well done!

  Indeed the leadership of ICANN in the past and currently, to include
Mike Roberts, Stuart Lynn, Joe Sims and especially Louis Touton
have been extremely negligent in their lax oversight which they are
responsible in part for.  I am the spokesman for our members
have repeatedly warned these gentlemen in various way to
shape up or ship out, as the say...  To date, they have done neither.
As a result, terrorists have been able to garner funding from
citizens of the US, without their knowing it, yet the ICANN
leadership did!  I find that appalling and negligent in the extreme!

  It is in my humble opinion that these gentlemen be hauled
in front of a federal judge to explain their negligence without
further delay!

John Berryhill wrote:

> > 2) Two of the names refer to the year 2001, not
> > to 1993 (year of first WTC attack).
>
> Yes, and potential pope names are registered up through JohnPaul6.com and
> beyond, for every pope name permutation.  That's the nature of speculation -
> making guesses.  If, in successive years, I register PapalVote2001,
> PapalVote2002, PapalVote2003, and so on, then sooner or later I'm going to
> get lucky.
>
> So, pick a likely and/or known terrorist target, and register it with
> "attack" and a numeric year for a single annual term each year... it only
> costs ten bucks.
>
> You'll notice that sept12.com was registered on September 11, 2001,
> apparently by someone who thought perhaps things might become more dramatic
> the next day.
>
> As far as *any* relevance to whois data, it is well beyond obvious that the
> only data which counts is the credit card data used to purchase the domain
> names, and which is readily available to law enforcement.
>
> The media blurb on these unregistered names, while other domain names remain
> registered and used by governments and organizations which have been deemed
> terrorist organizations in the US and with whom doing business is illegal in
> the US, demonstrates an odd set of priorities.  The revenue derived by US
> registrars from domain names registered to parties in Iraq, Libya, Cuba, and
> other embargoed countries is well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars,
> according to one estimate I have been provided.
>
> Additionally, ICANN itself maintained operation of the .yu top-level domain
> during the entire time that doing business with the Federal Republic of
> Yugoslavia was contrary to US law.  Not only that, but ICANN had the
> unmitigated gall to send a bill of $1446.05 to Yugoslavia (see
> http://www.icann.org/financials/cctld-contribution-chart-10may00.htm )
> so that an indicted war criminal could continue to spew his propaganda at
> www.gov.yu during our armed conflict with him.  The FRY was the subject of
> OFAC regulations, and their service should have been shut off immediately.
>
> If Mike Roberts doesn't want "terrorists" voting in the At-Large, then it is
> well beyond time that he and others who support ICANN wake up and remember
> that their sole claim of authority rests on an agreement with the Government
> of the United States, and ONLY the United States, and that their maintenance
> of a market which is actively engaging in commercial transactions with
> enemies of the United States should be discontinued.
>
> --
> 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: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 04:43:34 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] rolling up the sleeves. - Joops "IC" proposal Charter

Dave and all assembly members,

DPF wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 13:08:26 +1200, Joop Teernstra
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >The ALSC has now also come up with Individual DN Holders as "members" of ICANN.
> >If in their final position the criteria for membership of the two will be
> >alike , then obviously, the two will merge.
> >(In the near-final draft of the ALSC they are not alike--the draft speaks
> >about "contact" in their current definition of Individual Domain Name Holder.)
>
> I would put it stronger than that.  The more I study it the more I
> believe that what the ALSC has proposed will not be anything like a
> true voice for individuals but a mixture of the Business and IP
> Constituencies which will merely allow others to join.

  Unfortunately I believe you may be correct here...  :(   Indeed this
is a sad commentary upon the ICANN BOD and staff....

>  With possible
> annual fees of US$100 it will in fact destroy the at large membership
> while being used as a justification for not needing more individual
> representation.

  Yes, unfortunately this is could be used for that purpose.  With such a
which membership fee as you state here, many in under developed countries
that are stakeholders will be unable to be participants in the process of
policy making that shall have the greatest effect upon them specifically.

>
>
> >The DNSO constituency role is to be actively involved with policymaking and
> >al Large members who are satisfied with electing regional directors or
> >involvement in regional councils can restrict their participation to that.
> >Participation in the work of the DNSO would be the logical proving ground
> >for candidate at Large Directors.
> >
> >But the at Large is still in the future. The DNSO and its Individuals
> >Constituency is here and now.
>
> I agree that work on an individuals constituency until such time as
> the DNSO is changed.
>
> >The Task Force now has a proposal to look at.
>
> But unfortunately a proposal put together by just one person with no
> effort at consensus or wide-spread participation.

  God point...

>
>
> If the proposal though is open for modification then I would suggest
> the GA itself would be the best place to debate it to get wide
> participation.

  Agreed.  And the whole proposed Charter must be open for
modification and amendment as well...

>
>
> DPF
> --
> [email-masked]
> ICQ 29964527
>

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: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 14:51:37 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

Dear Joanna and WXW,
all this shows the oddity of the US legal system and the need for the UDRP 
WG to start making difference between USDRP and other DRPs. There will 
never be ccTLD DRP established if we try to force one of the DRPs (the US 
one) as a common basic reference. I would therefore suggest to the WG to 
take advantage from the UDRP experience to publish a "DRP generation guide" 
independent from local legal oddities. An to work on the DRP principles and 
arechitecture.

This also shows the oddity of the archaic NSI approach that some ccTLD have 
corrected but the ICANN contract strategy still enforces at new gTLDs as 
part of its mission creep: that the name of something may be transferred 
without the transferring the concerned thing. As if Joanna was selling me 
her name or WXW his shadow.

I understand that people may want to make money on everything, but this has 
to be consistent. The anticybersquatting act is inept: rather than 
regulating cybersquatting, it should have forbidden DN resell as does the 
AFNIC for example (there are no cybersquatting case in .fr).

May be Peter could tell us how many ccTLD forbid DN transfers. Sometime you 
have to learn from others.

Jefsey

On 08:45 22/09/01, William X Walsh said:
>Friday, Friday, September 21, 2001, 1:20:49 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > Hello William,
> > on 9/20/01 10:41 PM, William X Walsh at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >> Thursday, Thursday, September 20, 2001, 1:44:07 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why does the Losing Registrar need to know whether the Domain is in a 
> UDRP
> >>> situation, or more important, whether the Registered Name Holder is 
> pending
> >>> bankrupcy? Surely, as long as the Losing Registrar's bills are paid, 
> and the
> >>> Domain will still be subject to the same UDRP procedures whoever the 
> gaining
> >>> Registrar may be, it's none of their business? It seems to me another 
> reason
> >>> for delay, also an intrusion of privacy into a Registrant's personal
> >>> affairs. Anyway, how on earth can a Registrar check whether a foreign
> >>> national is subject to a pending bankrupcy?
> >>
> >> These parts of the "rules" are not new, they are in the existing
> >> policies as well.  It provides for a reason why the losing registrar
> >> may deny a transfer, not that they are obligated to do so.
> >>
> >> Remember, the UDRP provides that someone filing legal actin may do so
> >> in the jurisdiction of the registrar, so a change of registrars during
> >> a UDRP proceeding would change the entire dynamics of the process.
> >> (By the way, I strongly disagree with that provision of the UDRP).
>
> > I understand that, but it's no different from a business changing its
> > registered office while involved in legal proceedings, which can result in
> > change of jurisdiction, and where I come from, that's not illegal. UDRP is
> > under review and it may be better to reword this agreement to be less
> > specific, stating a requirement to be consistent with UDRP rules, whatever
> > they may be. (IANAL). A domain name is either in UDRP or it is not, and
> > fairly easily discernable, so although I do not agree with compounding UDRP
> > errors in this way, it is not something that the Losing Registrar can turn
> > to advantage at whim. That is not the case for the Bankrupcy clause. The
> > bankrupcy clause is onerous on the Registrant. I have yet to receive any
> > answer from the Regisrar community to my question: how can a Registrar 
> check
> > whether a foreign national is subject to a pending bankrupcy? If one is
> > looking for an excuse to deny transfer, this is it, and I thought the whole
> > point of redoing these Registrar Agreements was to avoid exactly that.
>
>They don't have to check, Joanna.  The agreement places no obligation
>for them to do that.  But, let's say that the court has notified the
>registrar the company is in bankruptcy, and that the domain name is
>being considered as one of the assets to pay off the debts of the
>company.  Transfer of the domain name may make it difficult, or
>impossible, to recover the domain name, again because of
>jurisdictional changes.
>
>The provision doesn't require the registrar to deny, it provides it as
>one of a list of valid reasons a registrar can use.  The list is not
>exhaustive either, presumably any legal dispute regarding a domain
>name would be under the same kind of sufficient grounds.  A court may
>hold that the registrar who is informed of the case, and permits a
>domain transfer to another registrar anyway, acted negligently.  This
>provides a way for registrars concerned about that to use that as a
>permissible excuse to deny the transfer.
>
>We can argue if it is the right thing to do, and I'd probably agree
>with you.  But this battle is not about repairing these parts of the
>policy, and if you try and turn this into a complete revamp, it makes
>accomplishing the immediate goal more difficult, perhaps impossible.
>
>So those issues would be resolvable in future proceedings to flesh out
>the full scope of the policies surrounding registrar transfers. Right
>now, the issue of auto Nak is much more important, and needs to be the
>focus of the current discussion.
>
>--
>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: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 15:15:50 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Location of the next ICANN meeting

I obviously responded "yes" to the question about holding the next ICANN 
meeting or not. As an after though I would like to know you opinion on an 
additional option both as a tribute to the deads and a support to those who 
suffer in their families and in their city, and as a samrt challenge to 
terrorism.

Internet is an anti terrorism symbol. It is a link among all of us. Our 
consensus to share the same technical solutions. Our message would be bold 
and strong if just sent if rom NYC having the next ICANN meeting there.

I must say that I would be proud of us if we just doing that. It would be 
quite a joint International and American symbol for many, 
suffering  friends and satisfied foes.

What do you think?
Jefsey

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

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

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 06:54:33 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] rolling up the sleeves.

No fees for membership and no criteria other than proof of identity by reasonable
means.

No change in board seats from previous model.

I now believe this should apply to the IDNO, which should be the IC and to the
At-Large and should also apply to the New ccTLD thing whatever it ends up as being.

We are seeing, not capture, but undue manipulation of these bodies by those who are
in positions to gain more positions by their implementation.  Good or bad it is poor
for dotcommoners.

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: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 09:37:37 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Location of the next ICANN meeting

Jefsey and all assembly members,

  Our members share you sentiments.  We really don't care where the next
ICANN meeting is held, in fact holding it in Afghanistan would even be
expectable as long as additional physical security is provided in order
for terrorist attempts to be thwarted and as an additional safety measure.

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> I obviously responded "yes" to the question about holding the next ICANN
> meeting or not. As an after though I would like to know you opinion on an
> additional option both as a tribute to the deads and a support to those who
> suffer in their families and in their city, and as a samrt challenge to
> terrorism.
>
> Internet is an anti terrorism symbol. It is a link among all of us. Our
> consensus to share the same technical solutions. Our message would be bold
> and strong if just sent if rom NYC having the next ICANN meeting there.
>
> I must say that I would be proud of us if we just doing that. It would be
> quite a joint International and American symbol for many,
> suffering  friends and satisfied foes.
>
> What do you think?
> 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

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: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 07:45:02 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Location of the next ICANN meeting/both

Logistically I do not believe it should be moved.  However I think the premise
is good.  The US is big and travel from east coast to west coast further than
most international.  New York should be given special dispensation.

A small vision;
Preface:  We have been troubled by our connectivity as we have done remote
through locations around the world.  NY to LA is a couple thousand miles. (but
except hear in San Diego) Our national connectivity is great.  Our
infrastructure remarkable.  Berkman, Verisign, Herndon Virginia, NY and DC are
all on the east coast.  It is far easier for many to reach the East coast.
- ----  MDR and ICANN are on the west coast, it is far easier for Latin America
and East Asia to reach the west coast. Can you see where I am going with this?

Request:  Let us Simulcast our meeting.  Let us hold it both in LA and NY.  We
have the infrastructure and the technology.  Let us use this moment to show the
world that our side of the digital divide has great promise and leadership and
open and transparent methods to lead us through these changing times.  We
should not whine that the WWW is used for improper purposes and then fail to
use it to the best advantage of great purpose.

Conclusion:  This is very doable, this should be very fundable.  While the top
guns may not like the added exposure to us unfettered masses, they should love
the added attention and spotlights.  Corporate Sponsorship donations and cheap
gratuitous grandstanding should all be a part of it.

Sincerely,
Eric

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> I obviously responded "yes" to the question about holding the next ICANN
> meeting or not. As an after though I would like to know you opinion on an
> additional option both as a tribute to the deads and a support to those who
> suffer in their families and in their city, and as a samrt challenge to
> terrorism.
>
> Internet is an anti terrorism symbol. It is a link among all of us. Our
> consensus to share the same technical solutions. Our message would be bold
> and strong if just sent if rom NYC having the next ICANN meeting there.
>
> I must say that I would be proud of us if we just doing that. It would be
> quite a joint International and American symbol for many,
> suffering  friends and satisfied foes.
>
> What do you think?
> 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: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 10:19:01 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Alleged links between WTC attacks and domain names

John,

It is not only DN registrations. How do they pay for them? Aren't VISA,
MASTERCARD, AmEx, et al, also US based companies?

|> From: John Berryhill [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 12:05 AM

|> As far as *any* relevance to whois data, it is well beyond 
|> obvious that the
|> only data which counts is the credit card data used to 
|> purchase the domain
|> names, and which is readily available to law enforcement.
|> 
|> The media blurb on these unregistered names, while other 
|> domain names remain
|> registered and used by governments and organizations which 
|> have been deemed
|> terrorist organizations in the US and with whom doing 
|> business is illegal in
|> the US, demonstrates an odd set of priorities.  The revenue 
|> derived by US
|> registrars from domain names registered to parties in Iraq, 
|> Libya, Cuba, and
|> other embargoed countries is well into the hundreds of 
|> thousands of dollars,
|> according to one estimate I have been provided.
|> 
|> Additionally, ICANN itself maintained operation of the .yu 
|> top-level domain
|> during the entire time that doing business with the Federal 
|> Republic of
|> Yugoslavia was contrary to US law.  Not only that, but ICANN had the
|> unmitigated gall to send a bill of $1446.05 to Yugoslavia (see
|> http://www.icann.org/financials/cctld-contribution-chart-10ma
y00.htm )
so that an indicted war criminal could continue to spew his propaganda at
www.gov.yu during our armed conflict with him.  The FRY was the subject of
OFAC regulations, and their service should have been shut off immediately.

If Mike Roberts doesn't want "terrorists" voting in the At-Large, then it is
well beyond time that he and others who support ICANN wake up and remember
that their sole claim of authority rests on an agreement with the Government
of the United States, and ONLY the United States, and that their maintenance
of a market which is actively engaging in commercial transactions with
enemies of the United States should be discontinued.
- --
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: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 16:13:29 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Restructuring Working Group

In an effort to assist the ALSC, I have noted the areas in their draft report 
where they request the benefit of additional input.   Your comments on these 
topics would be appreciated.

01.  the risk of capture or fraud  -- 
"There are issues with a system in which domain name holders are given the 
option of becoming part of an ALSO and taking part in elections that need 
further discussion and elaboration (e.g. there might be some risk of capture, 
although less than in the email-based case)."  "...assumption that 
organizations will not attempt to create or influence large numbers of 
individual domain name holders voting on their behalf, and we are looking for 
input on ways to detect and avoid such behavior."

02.  defining geographical zones --
"...six different regions in the world, and have suggested for discussion, a 
division we believe is appropriate..."

03.  providing financial assistance to users -- 
"(Any e-mail address holder can acquire a domain name at minimal cost, but 
with some effort. To help ensure that this is not an impediment to those who 
want a domain name and want to be an At-Large member, the ALSC suggests that 
the ICANN community identify and encourage organizations that could provide 
appropriate assistance to such users.)"  "To help ensure that this approach 
to At-Large membership is not an impediment to those who want a domain name 
and want to participate in an ALSO, the ALSC suggests that the ICANN 
community identify and encourage organizations that could provide appropriate 
assistance to such users. We encourage input on this and hope to include 
specific suggestions and named institutions in our final report."

04.  individual/institutional dichotemy -- 
"…but only individuals may vote. Institutions already play a greater role in 
the existing Supporting Organizations, so this seems an appropriate balance. 
We encourage your input on this issue."  "We recognize that using "individual 
domain name holders" for At-Large membership could include a named person 
behind large and small institutions' domain name registration. We invite 
comments on this point."

05.  implementation and management measures -- 
"The ALSC assumes there will be a need for committees or working groups and 
requests input on potential implementation measures. We will seek to develop 
specific, consensus recommendations on execution for the Board's 
consideration."  "…initial outreach and organizing efforts be undertaken. The 
ALSC assumes committees/working groups and specific guidelines will be 
needed, and requests input on potential implementation and management 
measures. We will seek to develop specific, consensus recommendations on 
execution of these recommendations for the Board's consideration."  
"...structure and processes for an At-Large membership election:  The ALSC 
recognizes the complexity involved in planning, executing and managing such 
processes, and encourages discussions, analysis and input on implementation 
options. We expect to provide more detailed process recommendations in our 
final report after we receive public input."  "...Guidelines for the creation 
of an ALSO with the mission of At-Large outreach and education, engaging 
members, aggregating views, enabling consensus decision-making, and working 
closely with other Supporting Organizations to address issues and develop 
policy on Internet user issues that fall within ICANN's specific technical 
and administrative mission."

06.  pluralism --
"The ALSC also is aware that potential would exist for holding domain names 
to influence the At-Large membership and representation, and encourages input 
on potential mechanisms to ensure geographic diversity and pluralism"  "By 
giving the At-Large Council the responsibility to help organize local and 
regional organizational structures, the ALSO will have a critical framework 
that enables At-Large members to learn about and discuss At-Large issues in 
their own language, find common ground with users in other localities and 
regions and ultimately provide meaningful user advice to the Board. We 
welcome comments on potential by-country diversity requirements among these 
various individuals."  "...Guidelines for establishment of local and 
regional-based ALSO entities to build a global ALSO framework."

07.  privacy protections -- 
"...sudden large numbers of individual holders representing the domain names 
of a single entity will most likely be visible, depending on the final 
decision about privacy protections for At-Large members."  "...we solicit 
input on specific mechanisms - including user choice - to protect the privacy 
of At-Large members while simultaneously encouraging open, transparent 
communication among them and with the various organizations and interest 
groups that wish to educate them and solicit support for their policies."  
"...Methods for ensuring At-Large member privacy while maximizing the 
opportunities for open, transparent education and discussion among members 
about ICANN issues."

08.  free speech --
"…any attempt by organizations to influence votes on a broad scale is likely 
to backfire, as at least some of the subjects of such attempts will publicize 
them and complain. We welcome input on what specific rules or procedures may 
be appropriate, while recognizing institutions rights to free speech."

09.  mobilizing the grassroots community --
"The ALSC also sees great benefit in immediately "jumpstarting" the ALSO with 
voluntary, grassroots efforts and encourages input how this could be 
accomplished."  "...Global outreach and organizing campaign focused on 
engaging Internet users at the local and regional level."

10.  additional funding issues --
"The ALSC is in the process of developing specific const estimates for 
implementation of its recommendations. ICANN may want to consider financial 
contributions from outside sources to help offset this cost. The ALSC has 
considered a number of approaches to address the outreach, development and 
management issues involved in simultaneously launching and funding an ALSO 
and conducting a global election. The ALSC requests input on potential 
implementation mechanisms and processes and will seek to develop specific, 
consensus recommendations on execution for the Board's consideration."

11.  technical issues --
"There are also significant technical issues that need to be addressed."  
"... Detailed investigation of using the Extensible Provisioning Protocol for 
automatic updating and gathering of registrant data for those that opt-in to 
At-Large membership."  "... Membership registration processes and issuance of 
a request for proposals for management of a database/processing system to 
receive payments and membership information from registrars."  "... 
Agreements with TLD registrars for implementation of At-Large membership 
registration and collection of membership fees."
- --
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 #753
************************