Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #756
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Tuesday, September 25 2001         Volume 01 : Number 756

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

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 01:35:22 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA Chair

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.

- -- 
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 01:49:51 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] GA Chair

|> 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.
- --
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 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

- --
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, 24 Sep 2001 09:25:18 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] GA Chair

It looks like we're having problems with a mail queue and who the heck is
blueyonder?

|> -----Original Message-----
Received: from dnso.dnso.org (dnso.nic.fr [192.134.4.239]) by
condor.mhsc.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version
5.5.2650.21)
	id TQV6PBCP; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 06:30:10 -0700
SMTPSVC;
	 Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:18:46 +0100
Received: from dnso.dnso.org (unverified) by pcow058m.blueyonder.net
 (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id
<[email-masked]> for
<[email-masked]>;
 Sun, 23 Sep 2001 18:12:16 +0000
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
To: "'William X Walsh'" <[email-masked]>,
        Roeland Meyer
	 <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] GA Chair
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 10:37:51 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
|> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 10:38 AM
|> 
|> |> 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 

- --
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, 24 Sep 2001 11:39:04 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] GA Chair

At 9:25 AM -0700 24/9/01, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>It looks like we're having problems with a mail queue and who the heck is
>blueyonder?

IIRC BlueYonder is a "branding change" for lineone.net in the UK.

Surprisingly, when they changed brand, they made all their users change
email address, and may have even broken mail to the old addresses.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
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, 24 Sep 2001 14:06:49 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] GA Chair

|> From: Andy Gardner [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 9:39 AM
|> 
|> At 9:25 AM -0700 24/9/01, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> >It looks like we're having problems with a mail queue and 
|> who the heck is
|> >blueyonder?
|> 
|> IIRC BlueYonder is a "branding change" for lineone.net in the UK.
|> 
|> Surprisingly, when they changed brand, they made all their 
|> users change
|> email address, and may have even broken mail to the old addresses.

So, why is blueyonder between me and DNSO.ORG?
- --
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, 24 Sep 2001 17:03:28 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

on 9/24/01 10:04 AM, Ross Wm. Rader at [email-masked] wrote:

>> Ross,
>> In that case, it seems appropriate and not an unreasonable to request to
> at
>> least clarify the bankrupcy clause. For the benefit of individual and
> small
>> business Registrants, would the Registrar community please expand on how
> it
>> determines/ proposes to determine a Registrant is pending bankrupcy:-
>> 
>> 1. with respect to Registrants based in the USA
>> 2. with respect to Registrants based in other territories
>> 
> 
> This is entirely Registrar dependant and is not an mandatory condition.
> Specifically, if a registrar chooses not to verify "pending bankruptcy",
> there is no requirement to do so. If the implication is that this is largely
> a useless condition, I would agree. Other registrars might think otherwise,
> but within this agreement, that is there perogative.
> 
> -rwr
> 

Ross,

If the Regisrars can agree that this condition is largely useless for it's
stated purpose, it follows that there would be no harm done from deleting
it, neither would it constitute a change of policy. In fact, it would be a
change of policy to include something that it has now been discovered does
not fulfill its stated purpose, but rather another purpose for which it was
not intended - namely unreasonable delay in DN transfers, not to mention
invasion of privacy. IOW, the situation has changed since this clause was
first written, and we must now clarify the agreement by removing something
from it that does not work, as well as adding to it.

With the world situation being what it is, I fully understand that the civil
liberties organizations are pre-cccupied, but it's about time one of them
stood up and objected to the ratification of this clause in this agreement.

In my book, it is simply NOT OK to permit a bankrupcy check on any
individual as a standard part of any agreement to change Registrar, and the
fact that it is an optional part of the process is a weak excuse, if it
accomplishes nothing anyway, it can be deleted.

Please do your best to pass this viewpoint forward on behalf of Registrants,
this one at least (I don't hear any Registrants fighting to retain it,
neither any Registrars).

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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, 24 Sep 2001 16:39:37 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] GA Chair

Monday, Monday, September 24, 2001, 2:06:49 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> So, why is blueyonder between me and DNSO.ORG?

It's not.  It was a mailloop problem.  A user at that machine was
subscribed, and the box had been selected to allow relaying for the
old domain, and it caught itself in a loop.  Looks like they fixed it.

- -- 
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, 25 Sep 2001 17:44:56 +0200
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC minutes, 08 September 2001, minutes

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

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010908.NCmontevideo-minutes.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

   DNSO Names Council Meeting in Montevideo on 8 September 2001 - minutes

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

21 September 2001.

The DNSO Names Council meeting in Montevideo held on Saturday 8 September
2001, 14:00 - 17:00, [@ Ballroom] .

(10:00 LA, 13:00 New York, 17:00 UTC, 19:00 Paris, 02:00 Japan/Korea next day)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Local time between April and end October, SUMMER in the NORTH hemisphere
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         17:00
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    California, USA                            UTC-8+1DST  10:00
    Missouri, USA                              UTC-6+1DST  12:00
    Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+1DST  12:00 since 6 May
    Panama, Panama                             UTC-5+0DST  12:00
    Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+1DST  13:00
    St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST  13:00
    Santiago, Chile                            UTC-4+0DST  13:00 since 11 Mar
    Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST  14:00
    London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+1DST  18:00
    Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+1DST  19:00
    Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+1DST  19:00
    Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+1DST  19:00
    Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+1DST  19:00
    Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST   2:00 next day
    Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST   2:00 next day
    Melbourne, Australia                      UTC+10+0DST   3:00 next day
    Auckland, New Zealand                     UTC+12+0DST   5:00 next day
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    The DST ends/starts on last Sunday of October (with some exceptions)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

Agenda http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010908.NCmontevideo-agenda.html

List of attendees:

   Peter de Blanc                 ccTLD
   Elisabeth Porteneuve           ccTLD
   Oscar Robles Garay             ccTLD
   Philip Sheppard                Business
   Marilyn Cade                   Business   Proxy for Grant Forsyth
   Antonio Harris                 ISPCP
   Greg Ruth                      ISPCP
   Tony Holmes                    ISPCP
   Ken Stubbs                     Registrars
   Paul Kane                      Registrars
   Erica Roberts                  Registrars
   Roger Cochetti                 gTLD
   Cary Kamp                      gTLD
   Richard Tindal                 gTLD
   Axel Aus der Muhlen            IP
   Guillermo Carey                IP          Proxy for Caroline Chicoine
   Youn Jung Park                 NCDNH
   Vany Martinez                  NCDNH
   Milton Mueller                 NCDNNH
   Glen de Saint G?ry

List of absentees:

   Grant Forsyth                  Business   (Grant Forsyth was present online)
   Caroline Chicoine              IP

Quorum (11) present at 14:00 Montevideo time (UTC 17:00)

Ph. Sheppard chaired the NC meeting.

  1. ICANN Board elections:

        o The voting procedure for the ICANN board member for a 3 term of
          office was explained by Elisabeth Porteneuve.
          http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/electionrules.html

          http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010908.DNSO-vote-2001.ppt

          Voting starts on September 8 and ends on September 15 using
          convention style voting. Voting is by secret ballot but once the
          results are confirmed by ICANN Board after a NC meeting or
          teleconf., the full list with how people voted is public.

          Proxy votes are as stated above in the attendance list.

        o Update on GA session with candidates.

          Presentation by 4 candidates. Audio and video archives available.
          http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010908.GAmontevideo-scribe.html

  2. Re-structuring and review process:

     At Large report and reactions received: Carl Bildt
     http://www.atlargestudy.org/draft_final.shtml

     Concern was expressed that decisions had to be made before November. It
     was generally agreed that the At Large involvement is important to
     underlie the legitimacy of ICANN decisions. There remains debate as to
     the optimal number of At Large directors on the board. The ALSC accepts
     that its current proposal for an SO is not intended to replicate the
     existing policy role of SOs but was chosen more as a symbol of
     equality. There are some problems in defining At Large members as
     domain name holders. People with multiple domain names could be
     considered having multiple votes. There has been a lot of outreach in
     the ALSC and the ALSC draws a distinction between those who should be
     able to vote and those who can participate. The report sets out ways of
     participation facilitating mailing lists, physical meetings, financial
     and structural independence in each region. The ALSC will now draft a
     final report based on comments received.

  3. Future of Dot org (Item 5 on the agenda):

     Milton Mueller reported that the TF consisted of GA representatives
     plus all the constituencies except the ISPs.

     The basic points put forward were that dot Org should be sponsored but
     unrestricted, defining the community its seeks to serve, have focused,
     efficient and reliable marketing, with services in all feasible time
     zones and languages. No evictions should be made from dot Org because
     of this change. Administration must be consistent with ICANN process
     policies, including the UDRP and WHOIS. The technical functions have
     not been worked out yet and it has not been decided if these are
     technical or policy decisions. The main objective is to move dot Org
     away from Verisign to a new registry.

     A report will be ready in October and will be voted on at the Marina
     del Rey meeting in November.

     All documents are published on the dnso.org website.

  4. UDRP Review (Item 6 b on the agenda):

     Milton Mueller reported that the UDRP review TF consisted of
     representatives of each dispute resolution provider ( panellists and
     administrators) as well as respondents, complainants and independent
     experts. The task force had discretion in the selection of nominees for
     respondents, complainants, and independent experts. The result was 14
     North Americans and 4 people from other regions, which questions the
     geographic representation of TFs in the future.
          Decision 1. It was decided to add 2 non-North Americans - Erik
          Iriarte Ahon (LAC) and Ramesh Kumar Nadarajah (AP) - who are
          qualified and were previously nominated rather than redefine the
          TF. As the above names were not available at the meeting it was
          agreed to do a formal vote by e-mail. Action: Milton Mueller.
          Agreed: unanimously.

     There is a month and a half delay in getting out the report so it will
     not be ready for Marina del Rey meeting. Questions will be posted in
     October.

  5. Equitable Allocation of SRS Resources (Item 3 on Agenda):

     The registrar constituency has been working to identify the problem and
     make sure that Verisign and Registrars agree on the nature of the
     problem.
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010908.GAmontevideo-scribe.html#verisign-srs

     Chuck Gomes reported that there had been an increase in the "rush" for
     deleted names since January 2001 resulting in restrictions on registrar
     bandwidth (max of 256kbps per registrar) and simultaneous connections
     (max of 250). Effects on registrar performance were enforced and small
     registrars were most affected.

     "The problem": A few registrars used many system resources to perform a
     few domain registrations. Some registrars execute the same command 1000
     times per minute. Sometimes, 100000 check commands for each name
     successfully registered. Only a limited number of registrars did so.
     These are not just speculative registrations but also legitimate
     business activity and the small registrars are the most affected. There
     is a sincere desire to get the issues resolved. Agreement has been
     reached to return to the established system but with some additional
     safeguards for users. Chuck Gomes will present a report at the next NC
     teleconference.

  6. Restructuring and Review Process Ð ccSO and implications for DNSO (Item
     2b on Agenda):

     Presentation delivered by Peter de Blanc Ð Inter-relationship in
     matching policies is a key question. Cross SO work makes sense and is
     necessary.
     http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/cctld-nc.html

     At the moment all the other constituencies know too little to actually
     comment but it is noted that a proliferation of SOs is not supported
     and that the DNSO, as a forum for suppliers and users should remain.
     The ccTLD constituency is currently thinking to leave and so stop
     paying the DNSO at the end of the year. A formal proposal from the
     ccTLDs is forthcoming.

  7. DNSO Review (Half Item 6 and half Item 2b on Agenda):

     Individual constituency and DNSO review.

     The existing Review task force will issue an interim report shortly
     after Montevideo. This will cover items relevant to the existing
     structure of the DNSO: guidelines for working groups, translations,
     alternatives to email, elections of GA chair, definition of consensus.
     After the TFÕs final report its work will be complete.

     There is also a need to have a task force considering matters which
     impact of the structure of ICANN and the DNSO such as At-Large and ccSO
     on DNSO.
          Decision 2: To establish a task force. Philip Sheppard will
          propose terms of reference and the TF will work to a tight
          timeline consistent with the ALSC and ccTLD proposals. Agreed:
          unanimously.

  8. WhoIs survey:

     http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/whois.html
     was presented by Paul Kane. An interim report will come out in April
     2002 and there will be an updated report in Marina del Rey.

  9. Budget Committee:

     Roger Cochetti reported that there had been both under-spending and
     under-collecting so the situation is satisfactory. Some constituencies
     had not paid dues for 2000 and/or 2001. The clock had started ticking
     for the NC sanctions procedure for 2001 defaulters.

     Voluntary fundraising remains low but there are pledges of $8000
     (before Verisign matching).

 10. Other business:

     There was a call for greater public transparency in the selection of
     secretariat but it was accepted that there are limits to what can be
     made public where issues of personnel and personal privacy are
     concerned. The search committee in now in discussion, with ICANN staff
     to draw up a contract and the relevant details of this will be made
     available to the NC.

 11. Public comments:

     Jef Neuman of dot biz expressed concern that gTLDs had contracts with
     ICANN while some ccTLDs that were being marketed as gTLDs did not have
     the same contracts. The speaker felt that there should be consistency
     in contracts to assure consistency in end user experience. ccTLDs have
     similar contracts with their governments via consumer protection and
     related guidelines in various countries.

     In discussion individual NC members commented that:
        o 30 to 40% of registrations are in ccTLDs and that there is a
          faster rate of growth than in gTLDs.
        o It is a dangerous game to look at numbers in ccTLDs: Germany and
          the United Kingdom have a large number of registrations but do not
          use their ccTLDs as gTLDs.

The meeting ended at 17.45. Montevideo time

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

                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #756
************************