Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #770
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, October 2 2001           Volume 01 : Number 770

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

Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 18:18:11 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

Rick H Wesson wrote:

>
>... [ICANN] 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.

In the early days of ICANN, when the testbed for the Registrars was 
established, the escrow procedures were discussed (March 1999, in 
Washington, DC, if I remember correctly).
For those who remember, the model in effect was the "light Registry - heavy 
Registrar", therefore the data were mosly Registrars' data, not Registry's 
data.
One of the 5 testbed Registrars raised the problem that EU policy prevented 
confidential business data to be exported to the US, and proposed a trusted 
third party in Europe, at least for data belonging to European Registrars. 
The proposal was vetoed: escrow data had to reside in the US.
Since nobody (neither ICANN nor the Registrars) had any intention to let 
this high-visibility operation sink due to this "detail", the question was 
"forgotten".
Obviously, if somebody wants ro re-vamp the issue, the problem will still 
remain: EU will oppose any attempt to keep escrow data of European companies 
(Registries or Registrars) outside Europe, and USG will attempt to force 
ICANN to have them in the US, and we will very likely stall again.

>
> > 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.
>

Yep.

Regards
Roberto

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

- --
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, 2 Oct 2001 11:28:23 -0700
From: "M. Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Memo to Stuart Lynn

Comments on a reply to Danny, please.

Tx
Stuart
________________
DRAFT
Dear Danny:

Thank you for your note.

As I have pointed out to you earlier, the GA would eb welcome to meet 
at the conference hotel on November 12. There will not be meeting 
space available on November 13, although of course the GA can meet at 
some other location.

I know you mean well by your note. However, I think it is based on 
some serious misconceptions. The first is that the security meeting 
is intended to "hijack" the agenda to the detriment of the At Large 
consideration is entirely misplaced.  Security of the Internet is a 
serious matter and must be considered as a matter of urgency and 
priority, more than ever. These are times that require thoughtful 
responses. And there is no question  that every organizational agenda 
across most of the world has been seriously affected by the horrible 
events of September 11.

However, no one in the ICANN community -- and I mean *no one* -- 
would use the events of 9/11 for bureaucratic ends such as postponing 
other actions. Accusing people of such motivations (indulging in 
fantasy speculations with no evidence whatsoever) is trivializing a 
tragedy. I repeat again: *no one*. No one who reads or participates 
in the GA list, no one on the ICANN board, no one in any of the SO's 
or constituent ICANN organizations, no one on the ICANN staff, no 
one, period. Anyone who accuses any member of the community of such a 
motivation will gain no respect whatsoever from me. Let me make that 
quite clear.

Second, I fear there is a serious misreading of the bylaws in your 
note that may cause misunderstanding. The relevant bylaw states:

"a. The results of the study should be presented to the Board no 
later than the second quarterly meeting of the Corporation in 2001;

b. The Board shall review the study, and propose for public comment 
whatever actions it deems appropriate as a result of the study, on a 
schedule that would permit the Board to take final action on the 
study no later than the Annual Meeting of the Corporation in 2001; and

c. Any actions taken by the Board as a result of the study that 
require the selection of any "At Large" Directors should be 
implemented on a schedule that will allow any new "At Large" 
Directors to be seated no later than the conclusion of the Annual 
Meeting of the Corporation in 2002."

Please note that the board is not *required* to take any action in 
November. The schedule must be such as to *permit* it do so. In fact, 
the Bylaw schedule became impossible when the ALSC was not able to 
submit its report by "the second quarterly meeting of 2001", or even 
the third quarterly meeting for that matter. The spirit of the Bylaw 
is precisely that there should be adequate time between submission 
and action for study by the Board and for public comment, and by 
adequate is surely implied reasonable time between report submission 
and board action. Even if the 9/11 events had not transpired, it 
simply would not be possible for the Board to take action at the same 
meeting that the report was submitted. There has to be adequate time 
for public comment. Would the GA list really like the Board to act on 
a report that had just been submitted?

The operative part of the bylaws is the deadline of the 2002 Annual 
Meeting. That is operative because of the expiry of terms of current 
directors. My sense is that the board intends to make every effort to 
meet that deadline, even if it cannot act on the ALSC report until 
Accra in March. I repeat the phrase 'every effort". Until a final 
decision, however, is made, there can be no ironclad guarantees, 
because the content of that decision is unknown. For me to say that 
no slippage will occur would be foolish -- neither I nor the board 
have the power to make such an ironclad guarantee (regardless of what 
happens in November). Perhaps the board may have to take some special 
action to extend the deadline a few months. I does not want that to 
happen, but it may.

I hope the foregoing helps you and those to whom you listen in your 
deliberations. Although I am sure the Names Council may want to think 
about how to allocate the time on November 12, I am sure you can hold 
a productive meeting of the GA at that time. You would also have the 
opportunity of inviting the ALSC to present its final conclusions to 
the GA if you wish.

I am sure the foregoing is of no consequence to those relative few 
who choose to see some sort of evil conspiracy in every ICANN action. 
So be it.

Stuart

At 11:40 PM -0400 10/1/01, [email-masked] wrote:
>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

- -- 

__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: [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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:43:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

why not put the entire escrow in the EU- that way world data would benefit
from the EU's rules?

On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Rick H Wesson wrote:
> 
> >
> >... [ICANN] 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.
> 
> In the early days of ICANN, when the testbed for the Registrars was 
> established, the escrow procedures were discussed (March 1999, in 
> Washington, DC, if I remember correctly).
> For those who remember, the model in effect was the "light Registry - heavy 
> Registrar", therefore the data were mosly Registrars' data, not Registry's 
> data.
> One of the 5 testbed Registrars raised the problem that EU policy prevented 
> confidential business data to be exported to the US, and proposed a trusted 
> third party in Europe, at least for data belonging to European Registrars. 
> The proposal was vetoed: escrow data had to reside in the US.
> Since nobody (neither ICANN nor the Registrars) had any intention to let 
> this high-visibility operation sink due to this "detail", the question was 
> "forgotten".
> Obviously, if somebody wants ro re-vamp the issue, the problem will still 
> remain: EU will oppose any attempt to keep escrow data of European companies 
> (Registries or Registrars) outside Europe, and USG will attempt to force 
> ICANN to have them in the US, and we will very likely stall again.
> 
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                 -->It's very hot and humid here.<--

- --
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 19:23:05 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] November 13 GA meeting

On 11:23 01/10/01, Joop Teernstra said:
>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.

would it not be time to call things by their name? Democracy has nothing to 
do with all this - I do not ask my telephone to be democratic but to work. 
We are the users of an inter-user system. If we are happy, the system will 
continue, if we are not we will change systems. As the entry point is our 
computer, it will only be a new network generation for us to inter-relate 
(actually the end of the root server system).

Usually no one cares about ICANN, so democracy is a good thing. Now Stuart 
Lynn has changed that. He said to the public: "I am the ICANN; I am in 
charge of your Internet, I am not happy with the system's weaknesses". That 
will interest the people and the press. Great!

The press will come in MdR. This is the best thing which can happen to the 
Internet: the world to see the way ICANN manages to be *the* weakness of 
the most resillient network architecture ever. Nothing is more urgent that 
this education. From there on, all the pending issues will be reniewed and 
priorities up-dated.

Enjoy: SMEs, individual DN holders and individual users will not be 
discussed, they will decide (the one who hacks the ICANN site during this 
security meeting will make head lines and decision).

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: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 19:35:25 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

On 01:32 02/10/01, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. said:
>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?

You fit into the DNSO/BC/SME ... with the problems we all know for now :-)
Now, you understand why some oppose the IDNHC and the SMEC.
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: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 18:48:25 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [ga] Review Task Force report

Joop, William,

>
>>As long as he is our chair, the GA will remain in the stalemate it has
>>been in since Roberto's departure.
>
>In the physical GA Danny did allright. Roberto now has the position to do
>something about DNSO review, but results are not showing either.
>

I believe that Danny is doing much better than anybody could expect, given 
the quantity and difficulty of the problems on the floor, and the amount of 
material to read, digest, and discuss.
I have met him in Montevideo, and told him that the only thing he had to 
work on is a more diplomatic approach. But I am not sure that in this 
situation even a more diplomatic approach would have helped much.

Also, we have to admit that we are not giving him a lot of help. Including 
the fact that I used to have an Alternate Chair that was chiming in in the 
(frequent) periods in which I had pressure from other commitments, while 
Danny is absolutely alone.
Can somebody explain me why we talk about replacing a Chair that is doing 
something, even if not everybody agrees with him, and not rather an 
Alternate Chair, that is completely absent?

>>I've asked the NC intake committee to put replacing Danny on the NC
>>agenda, perhaps others will do the same.
>
>Replacing an elected Chair with an appointed one at this time would be an
>extremely undiplomatic gesture by the NC, serving only to inflame the
>situation more and hastening its own demise.

Not only that: it will provide additional ammunition to those in the NC that 
state that the GA needs "adult supervision" by the NC.

>
>If there is any replacing to be done, it should come from the bottom up.
>Unfortunately, the GA lacks the procedure for it.

Danny is struggling for the survival of the GA.
Please don't make things even more difficult to him.

Regards
Roberto

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

- --
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, 2 Oct 2001 11:51:38 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] We can't be against it?

Tuesday, Tuesday, October 02, 2001, 11:43:40 AM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> why not put the entire escrow in the EU- that way world data would benefit
> from the EU's rules?

"Benefit" ?  I don't think so.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

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

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

Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:06:58 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> One of the 5 testbed Registrars raised the problem that EU policy prevented
> confidential business data to be exported to the US, and proposed a trusted
> third party in Europe, at least for data belonging to European Registrars.

My understanding is that, at least for personal data, European privacy law
makes it illegal to export data to a country without adequate (by European
legal definition) privacy measures in place. For example, a European branch
of a US-based bank cannot legally send such data to a US head office.

Last I heard, the US had proposed a 'compromise' involving some 'safe harbour'
provisions and Europe had rejected it. Is my information out of date?

And does any of that apply to corporate data? 

> The proposal was vetoed: escrow data had to reside in the US.

> Since nobody (neither ICANN nor the Registrars) had any intention to let
> this high-visibility operation sink due to this "detail", the question was
> "forgotten".

> Obviously, if somebody wants ro re-vamp the issue, the problem will still
> remain: EU will oppose any attempt to keep escrow data of European companies
> (Registries or Registrars) outside Europe, and USG will attempt to force
> ICANN to have them in the US, and we will very likely stall again.

There was an escrow committee which generated recommendations. How did
they handle this problem?
- --
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, 2 Oct 2001 12:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [ga] Review Task Force report

On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Danny is struggling for the survival of the GA.
> Please don't make things even more difficult to him.

Thank you for your message Roberto, it sums up my feeling on the matter.
If those that choose to expend their energy in attacking
everything/everyone that doesn't meet their narrow view of "right" spent
1/10th of that energy being constructive I imagine the GA would be a much
more effective entity.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:22:35 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[5]: [ga] Review Task Force report

Tuesday, Tuesday, October 02, 2001, 11:48:25 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Can somebody explain me why we talk about replacing a Chair that is doing 
> something, even if not everybody agrees with him, and not rather an 
> Alternate Chair, that is completely absent?

Probably because most of us think the absence to be a good thing.

To be clear, my assumption would be that both would be replaced
simultaneously.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:23:46 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] We can't be against it?

Tuesday, Tuesday, October 02, 2001, 12:06:58 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:

> Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>> One of the 5 testbed Registrars raised the problem that EU policy prevented
>> confidential business data to be exported to the US, and proposed a trusted
>> third party in Europe, at least for data belonging to European Registrars.

> My understanding is that, at least for personal data, European privacy law
> makes it illegal to export data to a country without adequate (by European
> legal definition) privacy measures in place. For example, a European branch
> of a US-based bank cannot legally send such data to a US head office.

> Last I heard, the US had proposed a 'compromise' involving some 'safe harbour'
> provisions and Europe had rejected it. Is my information out of date?

Sounds like the the EU needs to pass an exemption regarding domain
registration information, or it may force ICANN not to accredit
European companies as registrars.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

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

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

Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 14:33:03 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: DNS Security from the DNSO was:Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

Roberto and all assembly members,

  Escrow of Registrar AND Registry data is a serious issue that needs to
be determined and quickly.  We entirely agree with the EU position with
respect to the privacy concerns and the EU's policy, by in large regarding
how this data can be used.

  But this escrow problem is only one of several problems with DNS
security that needs to be addressed, and we feel it is not as and important
a problem as DNS security itself of which I outlined in an earlier post
on this thread.

  DNS security is a DNSO issue.  the DNSO needs to recommend a policy
statement to the ICANN BoD for their consideration and eventual
implementation.  This is long past due.

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Rick H Wesson wrote:
>
> >
> >... [ICANN] 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.
>
> In the early days of ICANN, when the testbed for the Registrars was
> established, the escrow procedures were discussed (March 1999, in
> Washington, DC, if I remember correctly).
> For those who remember, the model in effect was the "light Registry - heavy
> Registrar", therefore the data were mosly Registrars' data, not Registry's
> data.
> One of the 5 testbed Registrars raised the problem that EU policy prevented
> confidential business data to be exported to the US, and proposed a trusted
> third party in Europe, at least for data belonging to European Registrars.
> The proposal was vetoed: escrow data had to reside in the US.
> Since nobody (neither ICANN nor the Registrars) had any intention to let
> this high-visibility operation sink due to this "detail", the question was
> "forgotten".
> Obviously, if somebody wants ro re-vamp the issue, the problem will still
> remain: EU will oppose any attempt to keep escrow data of European companies
> (Registries or Registrars) outside Europe, and USG will attempt to force
> ICANN to have them in the US, and we will very likely stall again.
>
> >
> > > 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.
> >
>
> Yep.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
> --
> 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, 2 Oct 2001 12:43:48 -0700
From: "M. Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Memo to Stuart Lynn

(I accidentally posted to the list an earlier draft of this reply to 
Danny. The following corrects some typos and includes other minor 
edits. Apologies for duplicates. Stuart).

Dear Danny:

Thank you for your note.

As I have pointed out to you earlier, the GA would be welcome to meet
at the conference hotel on November 12. There will not be meeting 
space available on November 13, although of course the GA can meet at 
some other location.

I know you mean well by your note. However, I think it is based on
some serious misconceptions. The first is that the security meeting
is intended to "hijack" the agenda to the detriment of the At Large
consideration is entirely misplaced.  Security of the Internet is a
serious matter and must be considered as a matter of urgency and
priority, now more than ever. These are times that require thoughtful
responses. And there is no question  that every organizational agenda
across most of the world has been seriously affected by the horrible
events of September 11.

However, no one in the ICANN community -- and I mean *no one* --
would use the events of September 11 for bureaucratic ends such as
postponing other actions. Accusing people of such motivations (indulging in
fantasy speculations with no evidence whatsoever) is trivializing a
tragedy. I repeat again: *no one*. No one who reads or participates
in the GA list, no one on the ICANN Board, no one in any of the SO's
or constituent ICANN organizations, no one on the ICANN staff, no
one, period. Anyone who accuses any member of the community of such a
motivation will gain no respect whatsoever from me. Let me make that
quite clear.

Second, I fear there is a serious misreading of the bylaws in your
note that may cause misunderstanding. The relevant bylaw states:

"a. The results of the study should be presented to the Board no
later than the second quarterly meeting of the Corporation in 2001;

b. The Board shall review the study, and propose for public comment
whatever actions it deems appropriate as a result of the study, on a
schedule that would permit the Board to take final action on the
study no later than the Annual Meeting of the Corporation in 2001; and

c. Any actions taken by the Board as a result of the study that
require the selection of any "At Large" Directors should be
implemented on a schedule that will allow any new "At Large"
Directors to be seated no later than the conclusion of the Annual
Meeting of the Corporation in 2002."

Please note that the Board is not *required* to take any action in
November. The schedule must be such as to *permit* it do so. In fact,
the bylaw schedule became impossible when the ALSC was not able to
submit its report by "the second quarterly meeting of 2001", or even
the third quarterly meeting for that matter. The spirit of the bylaw
is precisely that there should be adequate time between submission
and action for study by the Board and for public comment, and thereby
reasonable time between report submission and Board action. Even if the
September 11 events had not transpired, it simply would not be possible for
the Board to take action at the same meeting that the report was 
submitted. There has
to be adequate time for public comment. Would the GA list really like 
the Board to
act on a report that had just been submitted?

The operative part of the bylaws is the deadline of the 2002 Annual
Meeting. That is operative because of the expiration of terms of current
directors. My sense is that the Board intends to make every effort to
meet that deadline, even if it cannot act on the ALSC report until
Accra in March. I repeat the phrase 'every effort". Until a final
decision, however, is made, there can be no ironclad guarantees,
because the content of that decision is unknown. For me to say that
no slippage will occur would be foolish -- neither I nor the Board
have the power to make such an ironclad guarantee (regardless of what
happens in November). Perhaps the Board may have to take some special
action to extend the deadline a few months. I do not want that to
happen, but it may.

I hope the foregoing helps you and those to whom you listen in your
deliberations. Although I am sure the Names Council may want to think
about how to allocate the time on November 12, I am sure you can hold
a productive meeting of the GA at that time. You would also have the
opportunity of inviting the ALSC to present its final conclusions to
the GA if you wish.

I am sure the foregoing is of no consequence to those relative few
who choose to see some sort of evil conspiracy in every ICANN action.
So be it.

Stuart

At 11:40 PM -0400 10/1/01, [email-masked] wrote:
>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

- -- 

__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: [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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 22:29:58 +0200
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 12:23:46PM -0700, William X Walsh took time to write:
> 
> >> One of the 5 testbed Registrars raised the problem that EU policy prevented
> >> confidential business data to be exported to the US, and proposed a trusted
> >> third party in Europe, at least for data belonging to European Registrars.
> 
> > My understanding is that, at least for personal data, European privacy law
> > makes it illegal to export data to a country without adequate (by European
> > legal definition) privacy measures in place. For example, a European branch
> > of a US-based bank cannot legally send such data to a US head office.
>
> > Last I heard, the US had proposed a 'compromise' involving some 'safe harbour'
> > provisions and Europe had rejected it. Is my information out of date?

AFAIK it was accepted.
At least this is what I understand from
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,s2082278,00.html and
http://www.eubusiness.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=30765

(Microsoft PR about it :
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2001/May01/05-15SafeHarbourPR.asp
)

> Sounds like the the EU needs to pass an exemption regarding domain
> registration information, or it may force ICANN not to accredit
> European companies as registrars.

Why so ? What is needed is just to take into account countries' laws.
Otherwise it will be an absurd discrimination.

Many customers are happy to see that their data is protected by EU
laws.

Regards,
Patrick 
Gandi.
- --
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, 2 Oct 2001 19:23:38 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] (ga)NC teleconf agenda 11Oct 2001

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

[ from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011011NCteleconf-agenda.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

       DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 11 October 2001 - agenda

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

2 October 2001.

This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the DNSO
Names Council http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010711.NCprocedures-v3.0.html

Date, time, phones and webcast

  1. The Names Council teleconference will be held on 11 October at the
     following time:

     (6:00 LA, 9:00 New York, 15:00 Paris, 22:00 Japan/Korea, 23:00
Melbourne)
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         Local time between April and end October, SUMMER in the NORTH
hemisphere
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         13:00
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         California, USA                            UTC-8+1DST   6:00
         Missouri, USA                              UTC-6+1DST   8:00
         Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+1DST   8:00 since
6
May
         Panama, Panama                             UTC-5+0DST   8:00
         Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+1DST   9:00
         St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST   9:00
         Santiago, Chile                            UTC-4+0DST   9:00 since
11
Mar
         Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST  10:00
         London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+1DST  14:00
         Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
         Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
         Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
         Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
         Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  22:00
         Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST  22:00
         Melbourne, Australia                      UTC+10+0DST  23:00 since
25
Mar
         Auckland, New Zealand                     UTC+12+0DST  01:00 next
day
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         The DST ends/starts on last Sunday of October (with some
exceptions)
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

  2. The teleconference bridge will be provided by tbd. later

  3. The NC will not be webcast due to budget constraints.

          Dial in number: tbd. later
          International participants should dial: tbd. later

          Conference Company: tbd. later
          Conference Host: tbd. later
          Call Title/Reference: NC tbd. later
          For security purposes your participants MUST know the Host
          and Company or the Confirmation number to join the
          conference.

          10 ports "listen only" will be reserved for remote
          participants

          The full participants are the 21 NC members as listed in
          http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html, DNSO
          Secretariat, ICANN Officers and Invited Guests

          The conference Scribe will be Glen de Saint Géry

          The conference MPEG3 recording will be provided by AFNIC

Agenda and related documents

Philip Sheppard will be chairing the NC teleconference.

Scheduled time for meeting -120 mins. Allocated time - 90 mins.

Deadline documents (7 days): 4 October 2001.

  1. Adoption of agenda - 5 mins
     Summary of last teleconference meeting (16 August) 5 mins
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010816.NCtelecon-minutes.html
     Summary of last two meetings Montevideo (8 and 9 September)
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010908NCmontevideo-minutes.html

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010909.NCmontevideo-election-minutes.html

  2. GAC Statement on country and geographical names - need for NC response
     (15 minutes).
     http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/communique-09sep01.htm

  3. NC review interim report. (10 minutes)

  4. NC agenda LA meeting - security issues. Decisions on possible topics
     (30 minutes)

     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 (5 mins)

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

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

  9. AOB

Next NC meeting will be held on 13 November 2001, in Los Angeles, see dates
for the NC meetings in 2001 in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-calendar.html
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #770
************************