Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #755
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, September 24 2001          Volume 01 : Number 755

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

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 23:17:00 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] rolling up the sleeves.

At 20:12 22/09/01 +1200, DPF wrote:

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

Not quite. I owe several of its proposed provisions to esteemed members of 
this Assembly here.  They have had input in the first two drafts and saw 
the third.
Other provisions (dealing with accountability checks)  had the approval of 
43 IDNO voters, after  intense debate.
Now it is open for comment by all.

>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.

Of course it is open for modification. It is only a start. Someone has to 
provide a starting document. I am just inviting all and sundry to provide 
their constructive comment and improvements.

If it is of any help, I will put the "wide open" items of this proposal up 
in the Polling booth so that we can get an idea of where consensus lies. 
(Name, Funding, Website rules)

Our Chair could help the process by providing some authority in keeping the 
discussions in one "authorized" place, (GA list or sub-list) keep them 
focused  and sum up its progress from time to time.

We have about one month.
Can we rise to the occasion?

(Sorry for re-sending this message , but it seems it did not make it to the 
GA).

- --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: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 09:20:13 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Expectations

Undoubtably, there will be those that (fearing a loss of influence) will 
seek, at the last minute, to "reorganize and save the DNSO".   It can be 
reasonably expected that the Assembly will be offered  the opportunity to 
join the Council as a new constituency.  The members of this body need to 
reflect upon such possible choices as we travel down this road.   If such an 
offer is tendered, will we accept three seats out of twenty-four, or do we 
take the position that no less than half the seats will suffice?  Could we 
even consider such an offer before recognition of an individuals' 
constituency is granted?

Do we see a value in saving this Supporting Organization, or is ICANN best 
served by transforming the GA into a cross-SO Assembly in the new proposed 
structure?  It is time for debate.

- --
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: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 17:11:16 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] GA Chair

On 10:57 23/09/01, William X Walsh said:
>None of which has anything to do with your feelings about the DNSO
>which predate the 11th.  My point is that your anti-DNSO anti-ICANN
>predisposition makes the lack of leadership in the GA something that
>is really not that important to you, and hence why you feel it is
>a non-issue.

Oh! yes it is important: it leads it to its doom! No one at the wheel and 
full spead ahead!
But as much Danny is a poor Chair, as much he is a good leader.
And today we need just that.

- --
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: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 17:20:55 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Expectations

Danny,
here are good and reasonable questions.

On 15:20 23/09/01, [email-masked] said:
>Undoubtably, there will be those that (fearing a loss of influence) will
>seek, at the last minute, to "reorganize and save the DNSO".

The main point is that the ICANN would lose legitimacy if closing the
DNS support organization - what left as an alibi for them to exist?

>  It can be
>reasonably expected that the Assembly will be offered  the opportunity to
>join the Council as a new constituency.

Yes. This is partly the case today with representants.

>The members of this body need to
>reflect upon such possible choices as we travel down this road.   If such an
>offer is tendered, will we accept three seats out of twenty-four, or do we
>take the position that no less than half the seats will suffice?

Let be pragmatic. We have to accept anything which makes the DNSO
survive and the GA to take influence. We will the proceed from there.

>Could we
>even consider such an offer before recognition of an individuals'
>constituency is granted?

Absolutely. Once in the NC we will be in position to help the
creation of the missing constituencies: Registrants, Internet Users,
SMEs. Designers.

>Do we see a value in saving this Supporting Organization, or is ICANN best
>served by transforming the GA into a cross-SO Assembly in the new proposed
>structure?  It is time for debate.

This is a very complex issue as itis necessary to have a global consensus
on the need of an Internet governance analysis first. Otherwise is building
on sand.

IMHO our priority is to get the DNSO into the network age: to have it sign
an MoU with the ICANN, to incorporate and welcom the missing constituencies.

First survival and organization. Then outreach.

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: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 10:37:51 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] GA Chair

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 1:57 AM
|> 
|> Sunday, Sunday, September 23, 2001, 1:38:49 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> 
|> > Those whom may wonder at the lack of my usual optimism may see
|> > http://www.mhsc.com/news.htm.
|> 
|> None of which has anything to do with your feelings about the DNSO
|> which predate the 11th.  My point is that your anti-DNSO anti-ICANN
|> predisposition makes the lack of leadership in the GA something that
|> is really not that important to you, and hence why you feel it is
|> a non-issue.

Wherever did you get the idea that I was anti-anything ICANN? For DNS
registries, there is a serious need for a clearing-house WRT DNS names and
IP addresses. Stef convinced me of that long ago. However, it needs to be
very light-weight and very efficient and, according to the green/white
papers, IFWP, and the DOC MoU, needs to have a reasonable consensus support.

The ICANN are managing to turn it into a very much top-down bureaucracy that
is afraid of consensus. They seek a type of authoritarian control over the
Internet and thereby, all network communications. Please, don't mind if I
object to that. The evidence of this consensus fear is found everywhere,
from the end-days of the IFWP to the present. 

There are a few control-freaks/social-bureaucrats that have managed to
capture the ICANN process (regardless of $motivation$). Jefsey will
recognize my reference to the "Old Republic" when I state my aversion to
that circumstance. The first thing to get sacrificed in such an institution
are individual rights, followed closely by small business. Bureaucracy likes
bureaucracy and there is almost nothing more bureaucratic than a large
corporation, outside of halls of government. That is why governments like
large corporations.

That said, in the days when the DJ Industrials can drop 1300 points in one
week, most folks (including moi) are worried about other things, like making
the next month's  burn-rate. In such circumstance, most will reduce time
spent on non-revenue projects and concentrate more efforts on
revenue-producing projects. This is natural. Even if ICANN becomes
revenue-effecting, it will be some time in the nebulous future. Meanwhile,
the alligators are in the pool now!

What upsets me the most is that ICANN, while setup to be a technical
co-ordination body, has thouroughly moved to being an Intellectual Property
enforcement house, in violation of many long-standing International
treaties, understandings, and agreements. If non-US governments seem to get
upset with that, I can't blame them. In that process, we seem to be losing
the pure technical co-ordination functions that ICANN was created to do. Can
we say "loss of scope"? Yet, we have some serious mission creep in the IP
area.

- --
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: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 13:16:54 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Expectations

Danny and all assembly members,

  Danny this debate has been ongoing for almost two years now.  Where
have you been!?

[email-masked] wrote:

> Undoubtably, there will be those that (fearing a loss of influence) will
> seek, at the last minute, to "reorganize and save the DNSO".   It can be
> reasonably expected that the Assembly will be offered  the opportunity to
> join the Council as a new constituency.  The members of this body need to
> reflect upon such possible choices as we travel down this road.   If such an
> offer is tendered, will we accept three seats out of twenty-four, or do we
> take the position that no less than half the seats will suffice?  Could we
> even consider such an offer before recognition of an individuals'
> constituency is granted?
>
> Do we see a value in saving this Supporting Organization, or is ICANN best
> served by transforming the GA into a cross-SO Assembly in the new proposed
> structure?  It is time for debate.
>
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 13:25:15 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO - Continued existance..

All assembly members,

  DUe to the many attempts of divisiveness and political wrangling with
arcane GA List rules, it is unlikely that the restructuring that the
ICANN
BoD and staff has in mind will allow for the DNSO and specifically
the GA to exist.  The ICANN BoD has already pretty much made up
it's mine on this eventuality.  And for the time being we have a ICANN
BOD that is a top down policy making structure with insufficient or
no broad stakeholder representation or membership.

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

- --
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

- --
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 23:31:17 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Restructuring Working Group

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Danny and all stakeholders or interested parties,
>
> [email-masked] wrote:
> > 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."
>
>   This is of course pure political nonsense and is being used as a method of
> excluding those stakeholders that are not and do not wish to be Domain Name
> holders/owners yet are contributors to the internet in any number of already
> well known ways...

Jeff et al.

What you say is true, there are many who contribute to the Net but do not hold
domains.  However, what we are talking about here in the General Assembly of the
Domain Name Supporting Organization are subjects that pertain to the Internet
Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers.  I wish to draw attention to the term
"assigned".  Assignation involves responsibility.  IMHO, it is reasonable to expect
that one responsibility of all `assignees' is to fulfil certain basic qualification
requirements.

Look at it this way, in order to vote in America, one needs be a citizen.  How many
non-citizens are there currently living and working in the United States?  Surely
obtaining the 'rights and responsibilities' of 'assignation' is a whole lot easier in
an ALSO based on domain qualification, than becoming an American citizen is in the
real world?

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: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 02:06:40 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] GA Chair

Sunday, Sunday, September 23, 2001, 1:49:51 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

|>> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|>> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 1:35 AM
|>> 
|>> Sunday, Sunday, September 23, 2001, 1:14:07 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|>> 
|>> > William, I can't believe that your still going on about 
|>> this. As if it
|>> > mattered.
|>> 
|>> If does, at least to those of us who don't believe that "DNSO, as
|>> currently structured, is a canard anyway" as you said in another
|>> message tonight.  Perhaps it is ok for the DNSO GA to have a complete
|>> lack of leadership by its chair, since you see the DNSO in such a
|>> light, but those of us who don't deserve much better from a chair.

> Your alternative perspective on the DNSO elephant, doesn't make it less of
> an elephant.

As your perspective that it an elephant doesn't mean that lack of
leadership in the Chair is, or should be acceptable.

- -- 
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: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 17:11:16 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] GA Chair

On 10:57 23/09/01, William X Walsh said:
>None of which has anything to do with your feelings about the DNSO
>which predate the 11th.  My point is that your anti-DNSO anti-ICANN
>predisposition makes the lack of leadership in the GA something that
>is really not that important to you, and hence why you feel it is
>a non-issue.

Oh! yes it is important: it leads it to its doom! No one at the wheel and 
full spead ahead!
But as much Danny is a poor Chair, as much he is a good leader.
And today we need just that.

- --
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 #755
************************