Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #769
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, October 2 2001           Volume 01 : Number 769

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

Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 21:50:29 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] November 13 GA meeting

On 18:22 01/10/01, Roeland Meyer said:
>|> - short term solution: the end of the root concept and a
>|>   more stable and open resolver system for all as per the
>|>   1978 international public service naming plan.
>
>Could you please mention URL's and document listing when you mention these
>sorts of things? Are you refering to X.500?

Ho! Do you want me to give you a reference for the Independence Bell or the 
Tea Party? I sent a mail on the GA a few months ago quoting all the people 
involved in the naming birth. I will explain again, as this is History and 
also the proof St. Lynn's Good Book is apocryphal.

I am referring to the international public service naming plan in operation 
at every international public data service I stabilized by mid 1978 as (in 
our today words) :
- - registry (ISO 3166 - But I chose the Radio 3 letters list or the private 
registry Name)
- - domain (name of the site, company, service)
- - sub domains (applications, machines, etc).
I think the first two where "itaforsales" and "gerfordsales".

The naming plan supported tens of thousands of public users in 55 countries 
over more than 10 years. This is history. I sold it for the first time as 
such at the IBI (UN specialized agency) meeting in Torremolinos in 1979. We 
switched very progressively from 1982 to the X.121 addressing plan to 
downgrade to the X.75 new standard and I tested numbering for fax and phone 
in 1985. Also the access to Minitel with Intelmatique.

I do not recall for sure when ARPA interconnected. We discussed that a 
short while ago with Louis Pouzin who developed the Cyclades network at 
INRIA (he introduced the end to end datagram and the zones - and permitted 
the TCP/IP to develop [Elisabeth can document that a lot]). ARPANet 
interconnected with the international naming plan in 1984 if I recall - if 
Vint is reading he might remember. I remember we had problems with the 
interface due their IP address structure. I had to approve the solution for 
compatibility: I found absurd to go by IP addresses and proposed to match 
the IP address with international names. But it was not compatible with 
Telenet, making two plans to support.

I quitted the international public services by mid 1986. I understand they 
eventually came to the naming concept but reversing my Latin sequence (it 
made sense once you used the "."  to still match the EDI standard and be 
nearer from the Postal Naming Plan).

At that time b-trees were the big thing in town if you recall. They were 
also easy database. To  get people understand and pay, you had to use a 
tree. But if you look at Postel document he uses ".U" (Universal) as the 
empty root of the tree.

What I can tell you is the network naming plan started with public 
operators (Tymnet, US IRCs, France Telecom, BT (GPO), Telephonica, KDD, 
Televerket, RadioAustra, Italcable, C&W, etc...) plus the European Space 
Agency, HP, Dupont de Nemours, Philips... and international. No one ever 
though that the USA could be the root of the world!!  We had to wait for 
Stuart Lynn to discover it was from every eternity.

The naming plan is not hierarchical, it is sequential. The TLD is not a 
upper level - except in the Bind data base if they want Bind to 
be  DataBase - it is the prefix (now the suffix) of the registry.
Period. Now I understand that to explain the way Bind works the database 
limited analogy helped them.

  In 1978  our boss at Tymnet was Bill Combs, then it was Bob Harcharcik 
who then created MCI Mail and hired Vint and Don Heath. People important 
were Bob Trehin who open the first international services, Jack McDonnell 
who lead most of the US side of the development before creating TNS Inc., 
Warren Prince. Development leaders where LaRoy Times, Joe Rinde, Mike Rude. 
The management of the entire plan was Vida Stafford and Dominique Marchand, 
under Neil Sullivan's management. Bob McCormick developed most of the 
liaisons with US Islands (VI was connected very early), relations with the 
US  IRC. All this was discussed at the ISIS Clubs, the equivalent of the 
ICANN meetings 20 years ago, with bi-yearly meetings on the European and 
then on the Asian side (Australia, Japan, HK, Indonesia, Guam, etc...).

Nothing new with the ICANN, except to create a single point of weakness 
from a distrinuted architecture while we had technically and politically 
succeeded to fully distribute and make resillient and war proof a 
centralized technology.

- --
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, 1 Oct 2001 21:19:32 +0100
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: UDRP News

Whilst on this subject, there are a few of questions about the UDRP I would
love to have answered.

1) How can offering for sale be bad faith seeing as prior to a determination
to the contrary, the domain holder would have rights in the domain, and if
their ownership were vindicated they could rightly offer their asset for
sale at a price that they choose.  To treat an offer for sale as inherent
bad faith is circular logic - take the cheaper.com case.  The onus should be
upon the complainant to show why no other party should be able to use that
common dictionary term.  Trademarks are not granted by the USPTO or any
other tm agency to blanket prevent terms being used and its time the UDRP
panelists stopped pretending otherwise.

2) Where exactly in the UDRP or the UDRP rules does it allow for previous
cases to be treated as precedent?  This is something has been allowed to
happen over time yet it just erodes the UDRP rules and the ethos behind the
UDRP.  Its interesting to note that the UK's new dispute resolution policy
explicitly states that past cases are not to be treated as precedent.

3) If a complainant can refile a complaint doesn't that effectively give
them a route to a form of appeal that does not have a corresponding route
for the domain holder.

Regards

Paul Cotton

- --
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, 1 Oct 2001 17:01:12 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP News

> http://www.cpradr.org/ICANNDecisionCPR0110-010823.htm

Interesting:

"It appears that the domain name CHEAPER.COM was made available for sale for
$50,000 by SEGOD.  This finding is based on an anonymous call made by an
attorney for IDT to SEGOD on July 2, 2001, indicating an interest in buying
the domain name (voice mail message).  "

In most U.S. jurisdictions, it is illegal for an attorney to anonymously
contact an adverse party in order to elicit information in this manner.

- --
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, 01 Oct 2001 21:28:24 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] November 13 GA meeting

At 22:42 30/09/01 -0700, Rick H Wesson wrote:

>Milton,
>
>how much does a room cost?
>
>-

Probably a lot less across the border....
If ICANN will not book rooms for constituency meetings in MdR, the 
constituencies would do well to consider a change of venue. For security 
reasons...:-(

- --
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, 01 Oct 2001 21:23:32 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] November 13 GA meeting

At 23:46 30/09/01 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>I am surprised at how passive you all are being
>about the MdR agenda.
>
>It is exceedingly interesting that those who know
>the most about security (e.g., Rick Wesson) seem
>to be least swayed by the demand to drop everything
>else and focus on it at an ICANN meeting.

Milton,
I initially shared your cynical view about the motives for the agenda change.
But then I see that Karl Auerbach comes out in support of the change of 
focus, saying that focusing on security issues is overdue. Hmm.
I would like to hear Karl expound on that view. I think I know what he will 
be driving at... More root servers. Many more. But I may be missing something.

Do we not need to be driving decisions about "DNS security" that will 
directly impact on the ICANN choke-points?
Does increased DNS security not imply more distribution and less 
centralization?  More edge-control?

For me, if ICANN is here to stay, the representation issues remain central.
ICANN staff can focus on security issues at this time, but ignoring the 
long festering democratic deficit will render all of ICANN moot in the 
longer term.
The GA and the constituencies need the time and the place to discuss 
re-structuring.

- --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: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 16:49:31 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: UDRP News

Paul and all assembly members,

Paul Cotton wrote:

> Whilst on this subject, there are a few of questions about the UDRP I would
> love to have answered.
>
> 1) How can offering for sale be bad faith seeing as prior to a determination
> to the contrary, the domain holder would have rights in the domain, and if
> their ownership were vindicated they could rightly offer their asset for
> sale at a price that they choose.  To treat an offer for sale as inherent
> bad faith is circular logic - take the cheaper.com case.  The onus should be
> upon the complainant to show why no other party should be able to use that
> common dictionary term.  Trademarks are not granted by the USPTO or any
> other tm agency to blanket prevent terms being used and its time the UDRP
> panelists stopped pretending otherwise.

  Is this a question or a statement?  Given that there is no "?" and it seems
to be crated in such a was as to appear to be a statement.  I am not getting
what the question here really is.  However be that as it may, these points
have been brought up before and "Ask", by yours truly, on a number
of occasions in so many words and we are in agreement with Paul's
"Statement/non-question here.

>
>
> 2) Where exactly in the UDRP or the UDRP rules does it allow for previous
> cases to be treated as precedent?

  It doesn't.  But this is still a good question that the ICANN BoD or
WIPO needs to answer officially.  Don't hold you breath...

>  This is something has been allowed to
> happen over time yet it just erodes the UDRP rules and the ethos behind the
> UDRP.  Its interesting to note that the UK's new dispute resolution policy
> explicitly states that past cases are not to be treated as precedent.
>
> 3) If a complainant can refile a complaint doesn't that effectively give
> them a route to a form of appeal that does not have a corresponding route
> for the domain holder.

  Again it is not clear that this is a question, but seem rather to be a
statement.  Again however, we agree with the gist of this comment
entirely...  And also again, this has been "Ask" on several other
occasions to WIPO and the ICANN BoD.  No answer so far...

>
>
> Regards
>
> Paul Cotton
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:55:14 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NC Oct. 11 Agenda posted

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00312.html

Running time 120 mins Allocated time: 90 mins

1. Summary of last meeting (16 August) (5 mins)
Summary of two meetings Montevideo (8 and 10 September)

2. GAC statement on country and geographical names - need for NC response
(15 mins)

3. NC review interim report (10 mins)

4. NC agenda LA meeting - security issues. Decision on possible topics. (30
mins)
a) Contract Compliance -
        Escrow of Registrar data.
        Registry back-up/redundancy
        Ability of Registrant to transfer to domains to Registrars who have 
better security

b) Root Management stability
        Process for managing/updating zone file information in a 
robust/secure manner
        Management of the authoritative database such that there is full 
redundancy

c) DNS Security
        Increase the DNSsec implementation.
        Sufficient geographical diversity of DNS / redundancy.

d) Structure of LA meetings

5. Task forces (10 mins)
- - NC structure TF status
- - new chair of IDN TF
- - UDRP, WhoIs, dot org

6 . Request to recall GA chair (5mins)

7. Various requests on GA  mail lists (5 mins)

8. Marketing ccTLDs as generics - Vany  (10 mins)

9. AOB
- --
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, 1 Oct 2001 19:22:19 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NC Structure TF

Now that the Council list is once more visible, please note the post below.  
Although the Assembly is listed as a participant in yet another Task Force, 
no one bothered to let us know... 

If someone has an interest in participating in this Task Force, please 
advise.  If we wind up with more than one candidate in the next few days, an 
election will be scheduled accordingly.    Hopefully we will be able to 
determine a GA position on re-structuring before we send forth our candidate.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00022.html

As agreed at Montevideo allow me to propose terms of reference for a new NC 
task force to consider the implications on the DNSO of current proposals 
which impact on the structure of ICANN decision making. Please let me have 
your support or comments for amendment by Friday September 21 and your 
nominations for participation. 
Philip
NC Chair
- -----------------------------------------------
Name
NC task force on Structure
 
Composition
one representative from each constituency and one from the GA
 
Terms of reference
To produce a timely impact assessment on ICANN decision making and the role 
of the DNSO as a result of the proposals from the at-large study committee, 
the desire of the ccTLDs to form their own supporting organisation and other 
related proposals.
 
Timeframe
Initial assessment by LA November 2001
Final report by year end.
 
Method
To save time, evaluate a set of possible outcomes (scenarios) for ICANN 
re-structuring by considering their advantages and disadvantages on decision 
making.
 
- --
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, 1 Oct 2001 19:32:25 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>

> hmm, so some don't consider business registrants/others
> a constituency?  We think we are represented by one of the ICANN DNSO
> constituencies. And the non commercial registrants are engaged through the
> N-C Constituency.

Well, let's see.  I saw the "participate in ICANN" web page, so I'd like to
participate.  Now, I have a domain name, and I sometimes use my email address
to conduct business, so that leaves me out of the N-C Constituency.  So I
guess that means I can join the Business Constituency as an individual who
has a domain name and conducts business every now and then, right?

Hmmm... somehow I don't seem to fit those qualifications either.  Who is it
that represents me?

> ...and that security and data escrow are a priority, and should become even
> more so.

ICANN is supposed to have safekeeping registration data, and they are not
doing it.  If a registrar goes down the tubes, the only thing NSI has is the
nameserver data.  This is a massive security hole, and the only thing ICANN
has done along these lines is to file an intent-to-use trademark application
for a service they still aren't providing.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, ICANN firmly agrees that most of the name space
should remain vulnerable to any registrar who decides to go nuts and submit a
large number of falsified registrar transfer requests...

That's real secure.

- --
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, 1 Oct 2001 17:23:07 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] We can't be against it?

Monday, Monday, October 01, 2001, 4:32:25 PM, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> Meanwhile, back at the ranch, ICANN firmly agrees that most of the name space
> should remain vulnerable to any registrar who decides to go nuts and submit a
> large number of falsified registrar transfer requests...

> That's real secure.

Said registrar would quickly no longer be a registrar.  Self
Preservation has made it a non-issue.

- -- 
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: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 19:56:55 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] We can't be against it?

Said registrar would reap a bonanza in the intelligence value of mis-directed
email during that interval.  Said registrar might even be located in a
country hostile to the U.S.

From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
>
> Said registrar would quickly no longer be a registrar.  Self
> Preservation has made it a non-issue.

- --
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, 1 Oct 2001 17:29:27 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] We can't be against it?

Monday, Monday, October 01, 2001, 4:56:55 PM, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> Said registrar would reap a bonanza in the intelligence value of mis-directed
> email during that interval.  Said registrar might even be located in a
> country hostile to the U.S.

Much easier to just hijack the domains from NSI Registrar.  And more
likely to succeed.

- -- 
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: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

John,

On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

>
> From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
>
[snip]
>
> > ...and that security and data escrow are a priority, and should become even
> > more so.
>
> ICANN is supposed to have safekeeping registration data, and they are not
> doing it.  If a registrar goes down the tubes, the only thing NSI has is the
> nameserver data.  This is a massive security hole, and the only thing ICANN
> has done along these lines is to file an intent-to-use trademark application
> for a service they still aren't providing.

yes, they even created a specification for doing registrar data escrow;
however the spec was never passed back to the registrars and registrars
have never been requested to escrow their data, even though some have
asked to.

> Meanwhile, back at the ranch, ICANN firmly agrees that most of the name space
> should remain vulnerable to any registrar who decides to go nuts and submit a
> large number of falsified registrar transfer requests...

I don't think this is accurate, registrars have been working hard on the
transfer issue and just completed their first consensus document. We are
taking a vote on the document to see if we agree that it should go to the
NC.

- -rick

- --
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, 01 Oct 2001 21:00:59 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP News

John and all assembly members,

  I wonder whom this attorney might be?  Joe Sims perhaps?
Or maybe Louis Touton?  Who???

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> > http://www.cpradr.org/ICANNDecisionCPR0110-010823.htm
>
> Interesting:
>
> "It appears that the domain name CHEAPER.COM was made available for sale for
> $50,000 by SEGOD.  This finding is based on an anonymous call made by an
> attorney for IDT to SEGOD on July 2, 2001, indicating an interest in buying
> the domain name (voice mail message).  "
>
> In most U.S. jurisdictions, it is illegal for an attorney to anonymously
> contact an adverse party in order to elicit information in this manner.
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:12:53 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC Structure TF

At 19:22 1/10/01 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>Now that the Council list is once more visible, please note the post below.
>Although the Assembly is listed as a participant in yet another Task Force,
>no one bothered to let us know...
>
>If someone has an interest in participating in this Task Force, please
>advise.  If we wind up with more than one candidate in the next few days, an
>election will be scheduled accordingly.

Yes, I certainly have an interest. I would also nominate Joanna Lane and 
Bill Lovell.  Seconds please.

But a few days for a nomination procedure?

>   Hopefully we will be able to
>determine a GA position on re-structuring before we send forth our candidate.

Considering the experience with determining a GA position on anything and 
absent your guidance for a Polling procedure, do you seriously think this 
possible?

Should we not know the positions and ideas of those we want to elect on the TF?

Has the NC made their own selection of TF members public?

What happens now to the DNSO -review TF? Are the two to be integrated?

- --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: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 23:40:39 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Memo to Stuart Lynn

Stuart,

The prevailing sentiment within the GA is to convene a meeting of the General 
Assembly on November 13, with or without ICANN's blessing.  

The view has been expressed in our forum, and elsewhere, that a three-day 
session devoted exclusively to security-related issues is an attempt to 
hijack the annual meeting to the detriment of the At-Large.   As the ALSC 
plans to tender its highly controversial recommendations to the Board in 
November, and as the Board is required by the Bylaws to "take final action on 
the study no later than the Annual Meeting of the Corporation in 2001", a 
failure to provide a Public Forum for comment on such proposals may brook 
bitter consequences.  Please be advised that any course of action, no matter 
how noble, that serves to stifle dissent will not be viewed favorably by the 
membership, or by the media.  

The Corporation has an obligation to operate consistent with procedures 
designed to ensure fairness.  We trust that such fairness will be apparent in 
your upcoming announcements.

Best regards,
Danny Younger
GA Chair

- --
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, 02 Oct 2001 11:22:38 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Clarification - Was: [ga] DNSO Review Task Force

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_4021_6e1_217f
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

Folks,
Just to make sure that there are no misunderstandings on this issue, let me 
point out that:

1) The status of the report is "Work-in-progress", still internal to the 
Task Force - I transmitted it to the GA for the sake of openness and 
transparency on the current status, not (yet) to solicit comments;
2) a report will be circulated as soon as the task force has agreed a 
suitable version (see below "Timeline and process", extracted from the 
document itself);
3) there will be adequate time for GA and public comment.

Regards
Roberto

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

>
>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

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

- ------=_NextPart_000_4021_6e1_217f
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_4021_6e1_217f--
- --
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 #769
************************