Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #760
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, September 28 2001          Volume 01 : Number 760

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:38:42 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

It is inconceivable that the US National Infrastructure Protection Centre
(NIPC) http://www.nipc.gov would not have established a relationship with
ICANN prior to September 11th. The question is with whom. Is IANA an ISAC?
If not, why is the ICANN MdR meeting being coordinated to protect national
security interests, as if it is part of the intelligence community?

Quote: "The National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) is the national
focal point for gathering information on threats to critical
infrastructures. It is the principal means of facilitating and coordinating
the federal government's response to an incident, mitigating attacks,
investigating threats, and monitoring reconstitution efforts.

The NIPC includes investigators and analysts experienced in computer crimes
and infrastructure protection. It is linked electronically to the rest of
the federal government, including other warning and operation centers, as
well as private sector Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISAC)."

"The NIPC provides law enforcement and intelligence information and reports
to relevant federal, state, and local agencies, private sector ISACs. Before
disseminating such information, the NIPC coordinates with the intelligence
community to protect national security interests.

The NIPC issues attack warnings to increase in threat conditions to private
sector ISACs and the owners and operators along with appropriate guidance on
additional protection measures to be taken."

End quote.

on 9/27/01 8:17 PM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law at
[email-masked] wrote:

> 
> "Exploiting a National Tragedy"
> http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=388
> 
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> 
>> Yesterday ICANN announced (see www.icann.org) that the next meeting
>> in MdR (LA) will be different and mainly devoted to security issues
>> following the September 11 tragedies. Other topics on the agenda will
>> probably be postponed.
>> 
>> I am amazed not seeing any comment on this, here or elsewhere. Am I
>> the only one who gets the funny feeling that there is something wrong
>> here? Not that I am against the stability of the internet. But I would
>> think that if there is one subject that is not really suited to deal
>> with in an open transparent and bottom up process it is security
>> measures. And nobody is against getting some root-servers.net out of
>> Virginia into other parts of the world anyway.
>> 
>> Now, I know, I may be in a very bad mood, because of Autumn, or
>> something else, but I have this funny feeling, that this is an attempt
>> to postpone some other serious issues, mainly the At Large, perhaps
>> ..ORG, because certain people are uncomfortable with them.
>> 
>> Please, tell me why I am mistaken!
>> 
>> 

- --
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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 05:55:41 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nuelevels .BIZ in the news and courts again...

On 03:57 28/09/01, Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc. said:
>We at ICANN should question the .biz management and investigate what is
>really going on at their operations in our upcoming Marina Del Rey meeting
>and ask them to prove honesty and ethics. Who knows how many times they will
>be served with lawsuit during Nov 13-15?

As part of the proof of concept that these new generic TLDs are, I suggest 
we experiment a redelegation process. The NeuL.evel TLD management could be 
redelegated to ARNI which is already performing the job for several years.

My half cent.
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: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:39:35 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

Jefsey and all assembly members,

  I disagree to and extent Jefsey.  ICANN is being increasingly ignored if
it's proposed policies are not in line with what is broadly perceived,
correctly
or not, with the internet community as a whole.  Whole chances of the world
such as China are ignoring by in large ICANN as the BOD and staff have shown
in too many instances to ignore the broad internet community/stakeholders.

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Marc,
> let face it: the ICANN is the Internet Dominance. For some mysterious
> reasons the real policy is not discussed but carried. Some may think that
> some objectives are:
>
> - use the 11 Sept. to push for DNS security - i.e. to declare inclusive
> roots terrorist - to repatriate  root machines on US soil - to develop a
> secondary DNS management system by SAIC under a new directory system and
> White House control. VeriSign has M$ 200 planned for that and wants to make
> believe it is of common interest - but when proposed to get the result
> under GNU licence ... Chuck responded "what is GNU?" :-)
>
> - use the security issue to delay the @large and the .org issue until it is
> necessary to decide it in ten days. You may remember that Vint committed to
> me on this list that appropriate changes will be made to the ByLaws for the
> current @large Directors to stay seated until replaced. So don't be afraid
> that the 2002 general meeting could decide of the end of the @large and of
> the take over of the .org by an ICANN non-profit, no-member, Louis Touton
> chaired and Joe Sims advised affiliate.
>
> - use the whole disputes this may lead as a way to delay many things until
> the huge ".com" and ".info" gTLDs make the small ".net" a nice compensation
> for poor Microsoft waiting for so long to get a TLD when Verisign is to
> release it according to Plan B. Microsoft having in the meanwhile
> contributed to the free world security effort in banning free root access
> from XP.
>
> I am certainly biased. I just looked at the http://www.projectliberty.org
> site. I do not know about it yet and if they will accept non-profit
> organizations. I just have the feeling that the "people for the people" is
> somewhat outdated right now. But I have the strange feeling too that the
> people may  also occasionally the "market" and that all these "money
> makers" tend to forget about it?
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 23:16 27/09/01, Marc Schneiders said:
> >Yesterday ICANN announced (see www.icann.org) that the next meeting
> >in MdR (LA) will be different and mainly devoted to security issues
> >following the September 11 tragedies. Other topics on the agenda will
> >probably be postponed.
> >
> >I am amazed not seeing any comment on this, here or elsewhere. Am I
> >the only one who gets the funny feeling that there is something wrong
> >here? Not that I am against the stability of the internet. But I would
> >think that if there is one subject that is not really suited to deal
> >with in an open transparent and bottom up process it is security
> >measures. And nobody is against getting some root-servers.net out of
> >Virginia into other parts of the world anyway.
> >
> >Now, I know, I may be in a very bad mood, because of Autumn, or
> >something else, but I have this funny feeling, that this is an attempt
> >to postpone some other serious issues, mainly the At Large, perhaps
> >.ORG, because certain people are uncomfortable with them.
> >
> >Please, tell me why I am mistaken!
> >
> >--
> >[email-masked]
> >
> >--
> >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

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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 01:12:03 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

Joanna and all assembly members,

  Well perhaps you should take a few seconds are reconsider, Joanna.
Recently as well as on several other instances, NIPC officials have
commented to me in several private posts that the ICANN BoD and
staff are particularly uncooperative and many times untenable to
deal with...

Joanna Lane wrote:

> It is inconceivable that the US National Infrastructure Protection Centre
> (NIPC) http://www.nipc.gov would not have established a relationship with
> ICANN prior to September 11th. The question is with whom. Is IANA an ISAC?
> If not, why is the ICANN MdR meeting being coordinated to protect national
> security interests, as if it is part of the intelligence community?
>
> Quote: "The National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) is the national
> focal point for gathering information on threats to critical
> infrastructures. It is the principal means of facilitating and coordinating
> the federal government's response to an incident, mitigating attacks,
> investigating threats, and monitoring reconstitution efforts.
>
> The NIPC includes investigators and analysts experienced in computer crimes
> and infrastructure protection. It is linked electronically to the rest of
> the federal government, including other warning and operation centers, as
> well as private sector Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISAC)."
>
> "The NIPC provides law enforcement and intelligence information and reports
> to relevant federal, state, and local agencies, private sector ISACs. Before
> disseminating such information, the NIPC coordinates with the intelligence
> community to protect national security interests.
>
> The NIPC issues attack warnings to increase in threat conditions to private
> sector ISACs and the owners and operators along with appropriate guidance on
> additional protection measures to be taken."
>
> End quote.
>
> on 9/27/01 8:17 PM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law at
> [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >
> > "Exploiting a National Tragedy"
> > http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=388
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >
> >> Yesterday ICANN announced (see www.icann.org) that the next meeting
> >> in MdR (LA) will be different and mainly devoted to security issues
> >> following the September 11 tragedies. Other topics on the agenda will
> >> probably be postponed.
> >>
> >> I am amazed not seeing any comment on this, here or elsewhere. Am I
> >> the only one who gets the funny feeling that there is something wrong
> >> here? Not that I am against the stability of the internet. But I would
> >> think that if there is one subject that is not really suited to deal
> >> with in an open transparent and bottom up process it is security
> >> measures. And nobody is against getting some root-servers.net out of
> >> Virginia into other parts of the world anyway.
> >>
> >> Now, I know, I may be in a very bad mood, because of Autumn, or
> >> something else, but I have this funny feeling, that this is an attempt
> >> to postpone some other serious issues, mainly the At Large, perhaps
> >> ..ORG, because certain people are uncomfortable with them.
> >>
> >> Please, tell me why I am mistaken!
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 20:03:38 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:16:10 +0200 (CEST), Marc Schneiders
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Yesterday ICANN announced (see www.icann.org) that the next meeting
>in MdR (LA) will be different and mainly devoted to security issues
>following the September 11 tragedies. Other topics on the agenda will
>probably be postponed. 

What I would be very interested to know is who actually made this
decision?  Was it a staff member?  Was it the Executive Cmte or was it
the Full Board?  Were any SOs consulted?

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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 04:06:25 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

Dave and all assembly members,

  One thing is clear, that is that the DNSO GA was not consulted
directly.  And as far as I know, neither was the NCDNHC (Noncom).
And certainly the At-Large was not consulted.  So I would have to
gander a educated guess that this was strictly a ICANN BoD and
staff decision alone.

  I am very disappointed in this sort of "Fear Mongering" in the face
of adversity.  To me anyway it shows a certain lack of integrity
and displays some cowardice in the face of terrorism.
That's utterly disgusting!!  :((

DPF wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:16:10 +0200 (CEST), Marc Schneiders
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >Yesterday ICANN announced (see www.icann.org) that the next meeting
> >in MdR (LA) will be different and mainly devoted to security issues
> >following the September 11 tragedies. Other topics on the agenda will
> >probably be postponed.
>
> What I would be very interested to know is who actually made this
> decision?  Was it a staff member?  Was it the Executive Cmte or was it
> the Full Board?  Were any SOs consulted?
>
> 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

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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 06:08:16 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Net security's a losing battle

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2814883,00.html

Expert: Net security's a losing battle

By Wendy McAuliffe
ZDNet (UK) 
September 26, 2001 11:39 AM PT

"The complexity of the Internet is increasing more rapidly than our ability
to secure it, according to Internet security expert Bruce Schneier.

At the opening of the annual Information Security Solutions Europe (ISSE)
conference in London on Wednesday, Schneier, who is chief technology officer
of Counterpane Internet Security, claimed that the problem of Internet
security will never be resolved.

"Traditionally, Internet security has been thought of as a technology issue,
based on the notion that you can build products to plug the holes," said
Schneier. "But we are losing the battle with computer security. We are
building new products, but every year gets actively worse."

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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 12:32:24 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Nuelevels .BIZ in the news and courts again...

Come on, do you realy think the whole thing is worth anything?

You humour detector is to be upgraded. Now since you rise the economic 
issue, from Neuman and from Leah own mouths, it seems that Leah is making 
more money at .biz than Neuman.

It only tells ICANN toll.

On 07:26 28/09/01, William X Walsh said:
>Thursday, Thursday, September 27, 2001, 8:55:41 PM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > On 03:57 28/09/01, Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc. said:
> >>We at ICANN should question the .biz management and investigate what is
> >>really going on at their operations in our upcoming Marina Del Rey meeting
> >>and ask them to prove honesty and ethics. Who knows how many times they 
> will
> >>be served with lawsuit during Nov 13-15?
>
> > As part of the proof of concept that these new generic TLDs are, I suggest
> > we experiment a redelegation process. The NeuL.evel TLD management 
> could be
> > redelegated to ARNI which is already performing the job for several years.
>
> > My half cent.
>
>Less than that.  Come on, do you really think ARNI has the resources
>to manage something like that?  They can't even get an attorney to
>represent them.
>
>--
>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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 12:38:39 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

Dear DPF,
you should know better: it is an ICANN Community consensus. ICANN Community 
consensa permit to forget about such outdated details as consultations, 
debates, votes, bylaws, rules, SO, Councils, GA.

Some say they come from the "Single Internet Management Source".

On 10:03 28/09/01, DPF said:
>On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:16:10 +0200 (CEST), Marc Schneiders
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >Yesterday ICANN announced (see www.icann.org) that the next meeting
> >in MdR (LA) will be different and mainly devoted to security issues
> >following the September 11 tragedies. Other topics on the agenda will
> >probably be postponed.
>
>What I would be very interested to know is who actually made this
>decision?  Was it a staff member?  Was it the Executive Cmte or was it
>the Full Board?  Were any SOs consulted?
>
>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

- --
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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 15:10:20 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: .INFO stats

     52,245 .INFO Sunrise domains activated
ca. 700,000 .INFO domain name applications received
ca. 250,000 additional .INFO domains to be activated
            after selection process

Sources:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7228852.html
http://www.europemedia.net/shownews.asp?ArticleID=5726

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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 07:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Net security's a losing battle

On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Joanna Lane wrote:

> "Traditionally, Internet security has been thought of as a technology issue,
> based on the notion that you can build products to plug the holes," said
> Schneier. "But we are losing the battle with computer security. We are
> building new products, but every year gets actively worse."

F.U.D. The problem is *with* the new products, because organizations are
so rushed to shove product out the door security if it is considered at
all is largely an afterthought. This does not render the problem
unsolvable. Do away with laughable EULA's(would you buy a car that said
"may blow up or not run at all but we're not responsible?") and start
holding companies accountable for the crap they are foisting upon the public
and I guarantee you'd see a world of change.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                 "There should be warning labels for politicians."
                            --  Derek Smalls
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:13:11 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Net security's a losing battle

Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2814883,00.html
> 
> Expert: Net security's a losing battle
> 
> By Wendy McAuliffe
> ZDNet (UK)
> September 26, 2001 11:39 AM PT
> 
> "The complexity of the Internet is increasing more rapidly than our ability
> to secure it, according to Internet security expert Bruce Schneier.

For more of Bruce's papers:
http://www.counterpane.com/publish.html

and for a subscription to his newsletter:
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram.html

His book "Secrets and Lies"  ISBN 0-471-25311-1 is the best overview of
security issues for non-specialists I've seen. A security consulting firm
I work with often gives copies to client company managers. They understand
it and find it relevant to their issues.

For the politics of cryptography, and the long complex battle against
gov't (particularly US gov't) obstruction of security measures that
might block their monitoring, see Steven Levy "Crypto: How the Code
Rebels Beat the Government -- Saving Privacy in the Digital Age",
ISBN 0-670--85950-8. 

An online intro to those issues is my:
http://www.freeswan.org/freeswan_trees/freeswan-1.91/doc/politics.html#politics 
 
> At the opening of the annual Information Security Solutions Europe (ISSE)
> conference in London on Wednesday, Schneier, who is chief technology officer
> of Counterpane Internet Security, claimed that the problem of Internet
> security will never be resolved.
> 
> "Traditionally, Internet security has been thought of as a technology issue,
> based on the notion that you can build products to plug the holes," said
> Schneier. "But we are losing the battle with computer security. We are
> building new products, but every year gets actively worse."

Yes, but there are things that would have a positive impact. Notably, the
IETF has been at work for some years on protocols for a secure DNS. See:

http://www.toad.com/dnssec/index.html
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsext-charter.html

Currently, DNS is almost completely insecure. All the servers just accept
whatever another server tells them as gospel.

Currently, if an EvilDoer can intercept DNS queries or subvert a server,
then he or she can do almost anything. Tell you bigcompany.com does not
exist, send anyone who asks for that company to big_company_sucks.org
instead, or send everyone to Pornographic Priscilla's Punishment Pagoda.
Or, by subverting the DNS an e-commerce site relies on, send all that
site's customers to a bogus bank for their credit card transactions.
Or ...

If critical infrastuture relies on the net and therefore on DNS, then
clever variants of DNS attacks can do enormous damage. Other measures
- -- such as PGP-signing any important email and widespread use of secure
IPsec tunnels -- can vastly reduce the risks here, but it is far from
certain they can reduce it to zero. 

The obvious fix is to build authentication into the DNS software so
that servers can tell what information they can trust. Most of the
work of specifying appropriate protocols for this has been done.
See the IETF site above. 

I'm not certain what state the implementations are in. Certainly some
work has been done, e.g. in BIND 9 (www.isc.org), but I don't know
how complete that is, or how widely deployed, or whether other DNS
servers have DNSsec support yet.

Once there are viable implementations, questions arise of how to get
zone records (especially the root zones) signed, and more generally
how to run a secure DNS. These will largely be decided in the IETF 
DNS Operations working group:

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsop-charter.html

However, methinks ICANN might have a role to play in ensuring that
the registrars actually act on this in a timely fashion, and that
Verisign or others do not attempt to hijack the process into becoming
a marketing scheme for proprietary signature technologies.

I raised these questions about a year ago and got responses indicating
that some knowledgable folk considered this out of scope for ICANN and
that, in any case, the IETF work was not finished so the questions did
not arise yet.

That was then, this is now.

If the focus of the next ICANN meeting is to be security, methinks
the question of what ICANN needs to do about DNSsec depolyment goes
right at the top of the agenda.
- --
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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 10:21:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Tomasz Kaczmarski <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Domain name squatting by the registrars

Has the issue of registrars not removing expired domains from the
databases been addressed?  It appears that some registrars, namely NSI or
now Verisign, do not remove expired domains for a long time if ever.

Tom

- --
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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 17:54:11 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] icann-sme ML for SME excutive managers

FYI any SME executive manager on this list may
want to join the [email-masked]
discussion list. This list sponsored by the world@wide
foundation intends to be an open forum on the SME
matters.

Its first target is to contribute to the SME
Consultative Committee delayed election (as per
the DNSO/BC rules) and to share into the
writing of a DNSO/BC position paper on the
Internet Security issues.

However, this ML is not dedicated to the DNSO/BC
only. One of its target is to permit SMEs to review
their representation needs and possibilities through
the DNSO/BC or through an SME Constituency.

Among the topics we would like to address:
- - position link oriented working procedure
- - consensus management efficient tool
- - governance Membership and @large associations
- - a title for the domain name
- - value added domain name management to be
   discussed with Registries
- - ISO 9001 agreement for Registries
- - DNS innovation and business opportunities
- - Domain Name definition, Efficient DRP;
   new forms of domain names
- - international local operation support
- - EDI and Internet
- - IPv6
- - relations with SME administrations
- - proposition of an Internet Company status
- - creation of an International structural venture
   financing Foundation
etc...

To subscribe send a mail to:
- -  [email-masked]

Membership is to be sponsored by one of the
existing Members. The target is to male sure
there is no Membership creep.

I thank you for your attention.
Jefsey Morfin

- --
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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 15:54:25 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Review Task Force

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_2c98_1e5c_2b1f
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

Good afternoon.
Please find below the comments I have sent to the DNSO Review Task Force 
interim report.
I also attach the report itself (converted in plain text).
Regards
Roberto

- ---------------------------
Philip,

These are my comments on the document.

1. Consultation
I concur with both recommendations (creation of WGs and use of Web-based 
fora).

2. Election of GA Chair
The GA has stated several times its preference for direc election of its 
Chair without adult supervision by NC.
IMHO, the validation step by NC of the results of the GA vote is unnecessary 
and dangerous: if the NC only endorses the GA vote, it adds process without 
adding value, if the NC chooses a different candidate, it creates a very 
dangerous conflict with the GA.
I respectfully disagree with the reasons given to maintain the statu quo 
because:
a) it is true that the GA Chair must represent all constituencies, but being 
vote in the GA open to everybody, all constituency members are able to 
register to vote (subscription to the voting registry will not expose the 
registrant to the GA traffic, he/she will only receive the voting ballots)
b) the objections to the 2001 electoral process were handled egregiously by 
the DNSO Secretariat and the Watchdog Committee, assisted by the former GA 
Chairpersons, and there has been no need for NC intervention - on the 
contrary, the delay created by the additional step has created more 
confusion and irritation.

3. New Constituencies
While the Apeendix B constitutes a useful guideline for the applicants to 
address the major points of concern the NC may have, the principle that the 
creation of new constituencies shall have no higher burden or more 
restrictive condition than the creation of the initial constituencies shall 
apply.
Reference to the application of the initial constituencies should provide 
guidance on this subject.

4. Language diversity
I am not happy with the outcome, but I have to concur, obtorto collo, that 
the financial burden on the DNSO to provide an acceptable solution goes 
beyond the reasonable budget.

5. Consensus
While I agree on the second part of the recommendation, i.e. the distinction 
of the 2/3 vs. 1/2 NC vote as consensus, I do believe that the Working Group 
should be allowed to declare "consensus of the Working Group" following a 
straw poll in the WG itself.
It should be made clear that "consensus of the WG" is not equivalent of 
"consensus of the NC", but it should nevertheless be kept on record.
Similarly, when I was the Chairman of the GA, I have declared a couple of 
times "consensus of the GA". This has never been misinterpreted as 
"consensus of the DNSO", but has nevertheless be put on record.
Failure to do so may have negative ripercussions on the activity and 
participation of the Working Group, as one of the motivators for the attempt 
to find a convergent solution is exactly the attempt to find a "consensus". 
If this primary objective of a Working Group is nullified, the participants 
will have no reason for trying to compromise, and the result of the work 
will suffer.

I am reporting to the GA by copying this text and the original document to 
the GA-list.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

- ------=_NextPart_000_2c98_1e5c_2b1f
Content-Type: text/plain; name="Interimreportreviewtaskforcev1.txt"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Interimreportreviewtaskforcev1.txt"

Interim report of the Names Council review task force September 2001 v1

Timeline and process
30 September	Deadline for task force comment on draft.
21 October 	Deadline for comment on interim report sent for public comment 
and to NC.
28 October	Deadline for final report produced by task force.
13 November 	Final report adopted by NC at LA meeting

Authority and terms of reference
Names Council business plan 2001-2002 and NC endorsed proposal of interim 
review task force May 2001.

6.2. Consultation. Review the recommendations of WG D and the Review Task 
Force and Working Group Report and implement a means of outreach and 
stakeholder consultation with built-in mechanisms for fulfilling the 
objectives.

ACTION: Accept the framework proposed by WG-D as is, and turn the WG D 
procedures into a sharper set of guidelines. Give it a chance to work, if it 
doesn't, then take steps to make alternative proposals. Related to this, 
determine alternatives to conducting working group activities, such as using 
web-based fora where proposed text is actively amended and worked on towards 
consensus.

6.3. GA Chair. Review the current system of election for the General 
Assembly Chair and propose changes if required.

ACTION: Form a small group (or include in a possible implementation task 
force mandate) to report on the current system of elections for the GA 
chair, and assess whether changes are beneficial or required.

6.4. Individuals Constituency. Review the need, uniqueness, potential 
contribution and representativeness of an individual domain name holder's 
constituency.

ACTION: There is strong support for an individuals constituency. The 
outstanding issue is next steps. Options to discuss on next steps are: 1) 
Making the GA the basis for the constituency, or 2) Accepting independent 
proposals by a certain date, or 3) Form a task force (7 constituencies) to 
set the criteria for an individual constituency (reviewing work already done 
and consolidating it into a proposal).

6.5 Language diversity. Recommend cost effective means to provide language 
diversity in the context of DNSO decisions. Form a small group (3-5) who may 
co-opt translation experts to make recommendations.

ACTION: Determine costs, and next steps to implement a cost effective means 
to provide translations.

6.6. Consensus. Recommend to the NC a practical definition of consensus for 
the purposes of NC consultation activities.

ACTION: Form a task force (7 constituencies) to review consensus models used 
elsewhere and outline practical definition.

1. Consultation (business plan reference 6.2)

Recommendation on working groups
The adoption of the guidelines for working groups in appendix A is 
recommended.

Web-based fora as alternatives to conducting working group activities
The task force intentionally decide to use for its own work, and thus trial, 
a web-based fora recommended by a member of the task force. The results of 
the trial were inconclusive but in comparison with the exchange of e-mail 
via lists there seemed little advantage. Most notably, the following 
irritations were found:
* there were too many options for posting information
* an announcements section truncated long messages
* an auto-notification option had to be activated and offered too many 
options
* the system was overly geared to frequent voting
* there was no neat way of segregating separate threads, to enable several 
discussions to occur simultaneously.

A separate trial of a free service enabling audio and video conferencing was 
also undergone by some task force members.  Getting the system to work was 
not easy. It was subsequently found also that the system will not work when 
the user is behind a NAT. This was felt to be a severe limitation given the 
increasing need for network security.

Recommendation
Further input from other web-based fora is welcome but at this time adoption 
of any one model in place of e-mail lists is not recommended.

2. Election of the General Assembly (GA) Chair (business plan reference 6.3)

Article VI-B.2.i of the by-laws states:
"The NC shall elect the Chairman of the GA annually".

The NC for the years 2000 and 2001 has interpreted this by adopting the 
following practice:
* the GA is invited to make nominations
* nominations receiving 10 endorsements go forward to an election by the GA
* the GA proposes to the NC the winner and runner-up as the new GA chair and 
alternate chair respectively
* the NC endorses the recommendation by a formal vote.

In considering the practice the task force believes this process allows full 
democratic participation within the GA, and presents the NC with a simple 
decision when all is satisfactory with the election process.

The additional safeguard of an NC vote (in compliance with the by-laws) 
seems appropriate for two reasons:
a) despite the  tendency for the GA mail lists to be dominated by people not 
choosing to participate via constituencies and sometimes excluded from 
participation, the GA chair should nevertheless represent all constituencies 
and so participation by the NC as a body elected by current constituencies 
seems to be correct,
b) the endorsement process provides a safeguard in the event of objections 
to the electoral process. Discussion following the 2001 election would 
appear to vindicate the existence of such a safeguard.

Recommendation
No change to the current procedure is recommended.

3. New Constituencies (business plan reference 6.4)

The task force chose option three from the terms of reference but did not 
consider itself the competent body to set criteria for an individuals 
constituency per se. The task force decided therefore to produce a set of 
criteria which would help to clarify questions of purpose, duplication and 
representation for any new DNSO constituency.

ICANN by-laws VI-b.3.d
"Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition 
as a new or separate Constituency. ... The Board may create new 
Constituencies in response to such a petition ... if it determines that such 
action would serve the purposes of the Corporation. .....Whenever the Board 
posts a petition ... it will notify the names council and will consider any 
response to that notification prior to taking action."

In other words any group may ask the Board and the Board will consult with 
the Names Council.  It is therefore necessary for the Names Council to have 
a basis upon which to evaluate any such petition.

Recommendation
It is recommended that the petitioner for a new DNSO constituency is 
requested by the Names Council to include in any petition the answers to the 
questions specified in appendix B.

4. Language diversity (business plan reference 6.5)

In seeking to recommend cost effective means to provide language diversity 
in the context of DNSO decisions, the task force was cognisant of current 
DNSO finances. The entire costs of running the DNSO are born by 
contributions raised by the constituencies - a process which both imposes a 
burden on some constituencies and wastes time for all. The task force 
quickly agreed not to waste time in seeking translations from commercial 
suppliers because, at this time, there is no finance available.

Given also that throughout the existence of the DNSO there has been a call 
for consistent voluntary translation that has not been answered the task 
force also decided not to pursue this option further at this time. The task 
force would be delighted to hear from volunteers alerted to this need during 
the public consultation phase of this report. However, the task force also 
recognises that a piecemeal approach to translation is not desirable and 
that any voluntary effort has to be sustainable, based on a coherent set of 
languages, and be of reliable quality.

The task force therefore chose to explore options for machine translation. 
It was however unable to find a recommendation by any professional 
translator for any of the free internet-based translation services.

Further more, should it be the case that one or other of these services are 
useful if not optimal, they are of course available now for any internet 
user to translate any page from the DNSO web site. This possibility is at 
present the best option for cost-effective translation. It would not seem 
appropriate without extensive trials for the DNSO to recommend one site 
above others. The task force would welcome any intervention which would 
advance this objective further.

Recommendation
Given its highly limited resources and the higher priority of substantive 
policy issues, the DNSO should not spend more time on this, but note the 
progress being made by ICANN staff in this regard and where appropriate to 
participate in any cost-effective solution.

5. Consensus (business plan reference 6.6)

Relevance
The task force was asked to recommend to the NC a practical definition of 
consensus for the purposes of NC consultation activities. Consensus is 
relevant to DNSO decision making as it is referenced in the by-laws and 
provides certain information to the Board.

VI-B.2.b. "The NC is responsible for the management of the consensus 
building process of the DNSO."
VI-B.2.d. "If two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the NC determine that the 
DNSO process has produced a community consensus, that consensus position 
shall be forwarded to the Board as a consensus recommendation."
"If more than one-half (1/2) but less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members 
of the NC determine that the DNSO process has produced a community 
consensus, that position may be forwarded to the Board as a NC 
recommendation."

In the past the chairs of DNSO working groups have tried to establish 
guidance to the NC about the degree of consensus within the working group on 
issues, in order to help with the subsequent NC recommendation to the Board. 
There has not been consistency in this guidance.

Definitions and usage
Lexicon definitions provide some help.
Consensus, n. Agreement (of opinion, testimony, etc.) Concise Oxford 
Dictionary
Consensus, n. a) general agreement, unanimity.
b) the judgement arrived at by most of those concerned. Merriam-Webster's 
Dictionary

The most useful definition here is "judgement arrived at by most of those 
concerned" but to make this practical needs two enablers:
- - a representative sample of DNSO stakeholders
- - a vote of this sample with a pre-determined threshold.

Where do we find a representative sample of DNSO stakeholders?
DNSO working groups as currently formed are by construction not a 
representative sample of DNSO stakeholders because they are open to 
participation by anyone who chooses. It is possible but improbable that such 
a group will at any moment in time be so representative. This suggests that 
discussing consensus in such groups is unlikely to be productive and that 
the guidance given to the NC will be poor.

The Names Council is constructed to represent DNSO stakeholder interests 
and, notwithstanding demands by individuals to participate, is the best 
structure we currently have to be representative. This validates the by-laws 
faith in the NC as being a possible home for consensus itself but does not 
help the NC in its task of having to "determine that the DNSO process has 
produced a community consensus".

In essence the by-laws charge the NC with a task but offer no help as to how 
the task should be done. It seems therefore that the most logical route (and 
indeed the route that experience shows us is the one that has been followed) 
is to say that the NC vote itself on a recommendation, being reflective of 
the elected representatives of DNSO stakeholders, is the only practical 
means of determining community consensus.

Recommendation
Working groups with open participation may hold straw polls but should not 
describe the results using the terminology consensus.

A 2/3 vote of the NC should be taken as meaning consensus on the issue and 
the by-laws should be changed to remove the obligation on the NC to 
"determine community consensus"  with the implication it is an external 
factor. Proposed wording for the by-laws change follows.
VI-B.2.d. NEW
"If two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the NC vote on a recommendation that 
recommendation shall be forwarded to the Board as a consensus 
recommendation."
"If more than one-half (1/2) but less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members 
of the NC vote on a recommendation that recommendation shall be forwarded to 
the Board as an NC recommendation."

Appendix A
DNSO procedures for Working Groups
Source: Implementation and adaptation of the recommendations of WG D 2001

1. Definition of working group
A working group is a group established by the Names Council (NC) of the 
Domain Name Supporting Organisation (DNSO) of the Internet Corporation for 
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) at its own initiative or by way of 
considering a petition from the General Assembly, and charged with a 
specific task.

2. Objective
The objective of a Working Group is to:
a) formulate positions on policies,
b) facilitate the development of consensus support for policies
c) produce a report to the NC highlighting these positions and level of 
support.

3. Membership.
Working Groups are open to all DNSO participants defined as follows:
- - members of the Names Council
- - the Names Council secretariat
- - members of the ICANN Board
- - the ICANN officers and staff
- - the GA Chair and Co-Chair
- - members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to the 
[email-masked], [email-masked] or the GA voting register.

Persons new to the ICANN process who wish to participate in a working group 
will be asked to join the ga-announce list to qualify for membership.

Working Group membership is open throughout the life of the Working Group.

4. Criteria
Before establishing a working group the Names Council will consider the 
following criteria:
a) whether the issue is relevant to the mission of the DNSO
b) the need for a consensus policy
c) whether the issue overlaps with that of an existing Working Group
d) whether there is sufficient interest within the DNSO in the issue and 
enough people willing to expend the effort to produce the desired result
e) whether there is enough expertise within the DNSO on the issue.

5. Terms of reference.
The Names Council will establish a small interim committee to draft terms of 
reference (a charter) which will at minimum specify:
a) a narrow and achievable objective
b) a timeframe for achieving the objective
c) a set of interim objectives by which to measure progress
d) a member of the Names Council who will act as a Supervisory Chair.
e) a short descriptive name for the Working Group.

The draft terms will be posted to the NC list and the DNSO ga-announce 
mailing list as a public notice that the formation of the Working Group is 
being considered. After a review period lasting at least a week the NC, 
after reviewing comments, will approve the original or modified terms.

Following this the DNSO secretariat will establish:
* a mailing list or such other electronic forum
* a procedure for subscribing and un-subscribing to the Working Group
* a dedicated web page on the DNSO web site (www.dnso.org)
* an accessible mailing list archive.

6. Supervisory Chair and WG Chair
The Supervisory Chair has five key functions.
a) to be responsible for the initial establishment of the WG.
b) to act as returning officer for holding elections for a WG chair. These 
elections should take place early but not too early once WG participants 
have got to know one another. Specifically, a vote to choose such a person 
from early group participants whose chairing abilities may be unknown should 
be avoided. The Supervisory Chair may themselves stand for election in which 
case another NC member will supervise the election.
b) to take on all the responsibilities of the Chair until the election is 
complete.
c) to provide frequent liaison with the Names Council.
d) to ensure the WG Chair is fulfilling his/her responsibilities.

The WG Chair's key functions are:
a) to be responsible for fulfilling the terms of reference in the time 
specified,
b) to be responsible for working group discipline, focus and achievements,
c) to prepare and chair face-to-face and on-line sessions,
d) to ensure that the Working Group operates in an open and fair manner,
e) to ensure that discussions are relevant (the Chair should propose a set 
of topics for e-mail subject headers),
f) to intervene to stop off-topic communication,
g) to summarise outcomes of each issue,
h) to achieve interim and final objectives in conformance with the terms of 
reference.
And for face to face meetings the WG Chair is required:
i) to ensure an attendance list is made,
j) to publish a short report on the session within 10 days.

The WG Chair and the Supervisory Chair report to the Names Council.

7. Removal of the Supervisory Chair or Working Group Chair
In the event that the WG Chair:
a) acts contrary to these rules and procedures or beyond the scope set forth 
in the Working Group's terms of reference, or
b) fails to achieve interim results
then the Supervisory Chair after consultation with the Names Council, upon 
the reasonable request of one or more Working Group members, shall have the 
authority to remove and hold elections for another WG Chair.

In the event that the Supervisory Chair:
a) acts contrary to these rules and procedures or beyond the scope set forth 
in the Working Group's terms of reference, or
b) fails to fulfil the responsibilities of a Supervisory Chair, as set forth 
above, then the Names Council shall have the authority to remove and appoint 
another Supervisory Chair.

8. New ideas
New ideas that are on-topic will be made in a new thread with a subject 
heading that succinctly and clearly identifies its subject matter. Ideas 
that are off topic will be pointed out by the WG Chair and stopped.

9. Procedural questions
Any member of the Working Group may raise a question to the WG Chair or the 
Supervisory Chair that relates to the procedures of the group (a point of 
order). Any procedural question which is not answered to the satisfaction of 
the person asking it should be directed to the NC Intake Committee for 
consideration. [email-masked]

10.  Voting
From time to time progress will be advanced by holding straw polls to 
determine the majority view. A motion to approve a draft proposal or report 
(or any section thereof) may be made by any member of the Working Group. 
Once seconded and approved by the WG Chair, such motion shall be put to a 
vote of the Working Group members. In such an event, the WG Chair shall poll 
the Working Group members. Motions that receive a majority of votes cast 
shall be deemed approved.

Consensus. Because of the diverse nature of open working groups the results 
of any vote will be taken solely to assist with progress within the group. A 
majority vote of a working group should be described as a majority vote of a 
working group. No claim to DNSO stakeholder consensus should be attributed 
to such a vote.

11. Real time work
Working Group members or subsets of the group may meet in real-time (in 
person or via a form of electronic conferencing). Decisions reached or 
drafts developed during real-time meetings must be reviewed on the mailing 
list or other forum.

12. Proposal development
Groups drafting position statements should publish them to the WG. Groups 
submitting interim position statements should be free to revise those 
statements after reading the reports or others. Working Groups should 
publish the position statements for a period of comment, specifically 
seeking comments not only on the substance of the positions but also on 
impact and cost issues. These positions papers should not be the end result 
of the Working Group's efforts, but should serve as tools for finding common 
ground and addressing concerns of specific groups. Working Group members 
should strive to make compromises when appropriate.

13. Disputes and role of an interim report
Many conflicts can be resolved by simple votes. The majority view goes 
forward and is documented in an interim report. However, where in the 
opinion of the WG Chair, there is a significant minority proposal, this 
proposal should also be documented in the interim report of the Working 
Group.

The interim report should contain:
(a) an abstract of all proposals which achieved a meaningful level of 
support,
(b) a clear statement of what is being proposed and its underlying rationale
(c) an analysis of who and what systems might be impacted by the proposal
(d) the specific steps that would be necessary to take to implement the 
proposal
(e) the costs and risks, if any, of implementing the proposal and how they 
would be borne
(f) a statement of which stakeholders have been consulted about the proposal 
and what support the proposal has in the various stakeholder communities.

14. Draft final report
The goal of the Working Group process is to produce a Report containing 
recommendations for submission to the NC.

The Report should contain the following sections:
a) Executive summary of not more than 1000 words.
b) Terms of reference
c) Conclusion - a clear and concise statement of the proposal discussed in 
the Working Group and the conclusion reached.
d) Impact analysis - a full analysis of who might be impacted, including 
other supporting organisations, and in what ways, by such a policy.
e) Constituency impact reviews - a summary and analysis of evidence provided 
by DNSO constituencies.
f) Record of outreach - a record of outreach to any segment of the Internet 
community that might be affected by the proposed policy.
g) Minority reports - a fair statement of points in opposition and a 
substantive analysis of their merits and the intensity of the opposition.
h) Supporting arguments - a summary of the best arguments for adoption of 
the policy.
i) Risk/Cost analysis - an analysis of the risks and costs of the proposed 
policy.

15. Publication and comment period
The interim report and final report should be published, in draft form, to 
the General Assembly, Names Council and Constituency secretariats for 
debate, comment and criticism prior to their completion. The Working Group 
shall provide such advance notice and comment period as is reasonable 
considering the complexity, importance, and urgency of the policy under 
consideration.

16. Final report
The final report shall be submitted by the WG Chair to the Names Council 
within the time frame specified in the terms of reference.

17. Termination
Working Groups will be disbanded automatically on completion of their task 
or disbanded by the Names Council earlier if deadlock is evident.

18. Revising the terms of reference
The terms of reference may be re-visited by the Names Council on the request 
of the WG Chair or the Supervisory Chair.

Appendix B
Criteria for establishing new DNSO constituencies

1. Need
1.1 What need would the proposed new constituency fill?
1.2 What would the proposed new constituency bring to the DNSO that is now 
lacking?

2. Common interest
2.1 What commonality of interest would the members of the proposed new 
constituency share?

3. Distinction
3.1 How much overlap in membership is there likely to be between the 
proposed new constituency and existing constituencies, the General Assembly 
and other parts of ICANN?

4. Representation
4.1 How representative of the stated common interest would the proposed new 
constituency be?
4.2 What steps have the petitioners taken to establish a hierarchy of 
representativeness and openness within the proposed new constituency?

5. Alternatives
5.1 Are there alternative means of fulfilling the stated need besides 
recognition of a new constituency?
5.2 Are there other places within the ICANN structure where this need could 
be fulfilled?

6. Organisation on a global scale
6.1 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency taken to 
organise the proposed new constituency?
6.2 Has the proposed new constituency demonstrated the capability to command 
the financial and human resources required by a constituency?

7. Support within the DNSO
7.1 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency taken to 
seek support from existing constituencies?

8. Impact assessment
8.1 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on existing 
constituencies?
8.2 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on the 
finances and administration of the DNSO?
8.3 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on policy 
formation within the DNSO?

Interim report NC TF Review September 2001 page 1

- ------=_NextPart_000_2c98_1e5c_2b1f--
- --
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 #760
************************