Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #784
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, October 11 2001          Volume 01 : Number 784

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

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:20:51 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Qui Tam

http://www.icann.org/general/amend2-jpamou-07sep00.htm

The above is a must read.

Regarding Security;  Only as it pertains to root servers - 4. e.

Regarding Inclusive Roots;  Not excluded anywhere, therefor included in
the term roots.

Regarding ALSC;  No Where!

Regarding the AL;  In accordance with our by-laws. 1. C.

Regarding funding to provide for the operation of the NC and GA, which
are currently not being funded or supported to a level of real
functionality;

"ICANN agrees to perform the following activities and provide the
following resources in support of the DNS"

Not fulfilling this contractual obligation with the US gov. and yet
still charging world citizens for services pursuant to that contract
would seem to me to be a QUI TAM action on a silver platter.

If you have any doubts as to my interpretation please read Mr. Touton's
formal declaration under penalty of perjury at;
http://www.icann.org/legal/smiley-v-icann/touton-supp-decl-05oct01.htm

In an effort to escape liability in Smiley he seems to have stated his
companies obligations rather broadly and claimed rights via the
aforementioned amendment to the DoC contract.  In my understanding of
Kofeltian Logic (as I am a philosopher and not a lawyer) The claiming of
rights gives rise to the demand of duties and responsibilities.

POLICY is used many times in the contractual amendment and I do not note
any restrictive preceding terms such as "technical" used in conjunction
therewith. Therefor I would conclude that as part of this DNS Project
public policy is a crucial element and from my reading of the by-laws
and articles that is to come from the bottoms up from the GA through the
NC of the DNSO.  Now if they promise to fund this project but instead
take the money and have an ALSC is not that stealing from the US
government.

Please look at; http://www.icann.org/biog/touton.htm  personally in a
public corporation I do not like to have my General Counsel sleeping
with my Vice President and/or my Secretary, it creates a conflict
situation where the General Legal advice to the Corporation may take a
back seat to the interests of the officers, especially when the
corporation is sued and the officers have independent liability. (or
perhaps Mr. Touton cannot sleep with himself)

Sincerely,
Eric
- --
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: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:23:57 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Public Comment Period

Dear Secretariat,

Please advise the address to which we may post public comments
regarding the NC Review Task Force report.
- --
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: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:05:38 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf 11 Oct 2001confirmation number change

C'est un message de format MIME en plusieurs parties.

- ------=_NextPart_000_00FC_01C151C6.EE51D780
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[[email-masked]]

PLEASE NOTE change in confirmation number
Confirmation #9559051

The teleconference bridge will be provided by Verisign.
The teleconference company: MCI WorldCom

Domestic (USA) dial in:  1-877-601-4487
International dial in: 712-271-3829

Passcode:  Names Council
Conference leader: Philip Sheppard
Confirmation # 9559051 (for this call)  note the change

There will be 10 listen only ports

DNSO Secretariat

- ------=_NextPart_000_00FC_01C151C6.EE51D780
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>[[email-masked]]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>PLEASE NOTE change in confirmation=20
number</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Confirmation #9559051</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The teleconference bridge will be =
provided by=20
Verisign.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The teleconference company: MCI=20
WorldCom</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Domestic (USA) dial in:&nbsp;=20
1-877-601-4487</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>International dial in: =
712-271-3829</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Passcode:&nbsp; Names =
Council</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Conference leader: Philip =
Sheppard</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Confirmation # 9559051 (for this =
call)&nbsp; note=20
the change</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>There will be 10 listen only =
ports</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>DNSO Secretariat</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_00FC_01C151C6.EE51D780--

- --
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: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:18:05 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Under $6.00 pricing by NetSol

This is a "must read":

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01333.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 07:42:31 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Under $6.00 pricing by NetSol

On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:18:05 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>This is a "must read":
>
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01333.html

Thanks Danny.

This is "exactly" what I and others predicted would be the outcome of
allowing Verisign to keep registry and registrar business.  

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:54:27 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Under $6.00 pricing by NetSol

At 7:42 AM +1300 11/10/01, DPF wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:18:05 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>
>>This is a "must read":
>>
>>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01333.html
>
>Thanks Danny.
>
>This is "exactly" what I and others predicted would be the outcome of
>allowing Verisign to keep registry and registrar business.

And it's it nice how, since it's "non-technical", Joes Simms and his team
can wash their hands on the matter. "Not our problem", they'll say. Just
like the non-enforcement of the UDRP rules.

I'm getting sick of all this bullshit.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:14:55 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Under $6.00 pricing by NetSol

1. Isn't Verisign in reality being subsidized via contract that provides for
exploitation of a USG resource.
2. Does that subsidy allow them to unfairly compete against non-subsidized
foreign resource, like inclusives.
3. Isn't this a violation of the WTO agreements and treaties.

Just an international bent on the issue.

Sincerely,
Eric

Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 7:42 AM +1300 11/10/01, DPF wrote:
> >On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:18:05 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> >>This is a "must read":
> >>
> >>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01333.html
> >
> >Thanks Danny.
> >
> >This is "exactly" what I and others predicted would be the outcome of
> >allowing Verisign to keep registry and registrar business.
>
> And it's it nice how, since it's "non-technical", Joes Simms and his team
> can wash their hands on the matter. "Not our problem", they'll say. Just
> like the non-enforcement of the UDRP rules.
>
> I'm getting sick of all this bullshit.
>
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:00:53 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Under $6.00 pricing by NetSol

on 10/10/01 2:18 PM, [email-masked] at [email-masked] wrote:

> This is a "must read":
> 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01333.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Using Esther's argument that the ALSO is a stability issue, equally,
survival of competing Registrars is also a stability issue, but I fail to
understand what good the GA could achieve from taking on this issue at this
stage. The consumer is not suffering from lower registration prices, and
there are plenty of competing Registrars around for those who do not want to
do business with VeriSign, so I would have thought it necessary for the
Registrars Constituency to provide evidence of damages being suffered by
them before an argument could be made that stability of the internet/
consumer interests are being adversely affected.

Regards,
Joanna

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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:18:43 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] FYI:  gTLD Registry Restructuring Proposal 

Posted to the NC Structure mailing list:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00003.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:37:30 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Under $6.00 pricing by NetSol

Andy and all assembly members,

Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 7:42 AM +1300 11/10/01, DPF wrote:
> >On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:18:05 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> >>This is a "must read":
> >>
> >>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01333.html
> >
> >Thanks Danny.
> >
> >This is "exactly" what I and others predicted would be the outcome of
> >allowing Verisign to keep registry and registrar business.
>
> And it's it nice how, since it's "non-technical", Joes Simms and his team
> can wash their hands on the matter. "Not our problem", they'll say. Just
> like the non-enforcement of the UDRP rules.
>
> I'm getting sick of all this bullshit.

  Indeed the Joe Simms and Louis Touton's of the legal world give
a bad name to Lawyers and the legal profession.  ICANN in a number
of ways stands as a stain on monumental proportions as and example
of these two legal scavengers behavior as a huge very smelly mess
and getting unfortunately bigger as time passes...

>
>
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com

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: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:02:36 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Under $6.00 pricing by NetSol - ICANN BoD Judgment errors...

Joanna and all assembly members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 10/10/01 2:18 PM, [email-masked] at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > This is a "must read":
> >
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01333.html
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> Using Esther's argument that the ALSO is a stability issue, equally,
> survival of competing Registrars is also a stability issue, but I fail to
> understand what good the GA could achieve from taking on this issue at this
> stage.

  Esther Dyson fails to understand that having competing registrars is
not the predominant stability corner stone.  The above referenced
URL points that up very clearly.  Hence during the time when
Esther was purporting her view, she was dubbed "The Clueless
One".

  The registry issue should have been addressed long before additional
registrars were introduced.  We are now paying the price for that
gross error in judgment from the than seated ICANN BoD.  We
[INEGroup] warned and strongly argued along with a number of
other groups of stakeholders, that the than seated ICANN BoD
had it's priorities reversed.  Again, we are seeing and will continue
to see the error in this judgment from the currently seated ICANN
BoD.

  The effect of the lack in good judgment of not providing for
multiple registries before registrars for .com, .net, .org, .edu, ect,
is that terrorist only have one registry database wy which to attack
through any number of various means, some well known, others
yet to be even discovered yet.  To add insult to injury, there is
for these TLD's not secured RRP DB.  Hence some of the
concerns that have been very recently (OCT. 8th) voiced
in the US Senate to the NIST and NIPC and passed on
to the DOC/NTIA yesterday.

> The consumer is not suffering from lower registration prices, and
> there are plenty of competing Registrars around for those who do not want to
> do business with VeriSign, so I would have thought it necessary for the
> Registrars Constituency to provide evidence of damages being suffered by
> them before an argument could be made that stability of the internet/
> consumer interests are being adversely affected.

  Not only consumers, but some govt agencies and departments as well
as commercial interests that serve the consumer interests to one degree
or another are also being adversely affected or are open to terrorists
attacks by various means.  Of course again, the than ('98 - '99) seated
ICANN BoD were warned repeatedly and bluntly, but were more
focused on the registrar side of the situation.  It was a known mistake
in judgment than, and may loom as an even bigger and much more
costly mistake now.

>
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>

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: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 19:17:29 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ALSC memo to the GA

Dear members,

Please be advised that the following message has been sent to us by Denise 
Michel, the Executive Director of the ALSC:

I wanted to alert you to the fact that the At-Large Study Committee (ALSC)
still intends to submit its report in advance of ICANN's Annual Meeting in
Marina del Rey to promote discussion and action.  The ALSC would appreciate
time on the GA's meeting agenda on November 12 to address our final report.
I also wanted to make you aware of the Board's intention to have an open
meeting on the evening of November 12 to discuss the ALSC's
report.  You will receive the ALSC's final report by the end of this month
to ensure that your members have an opportunity to carefully consider it
before their arrival in Marina del Rey.

The ALSC also is still interested in receiving the GA's (or its members')
views (formal or informal) on the ALSC's draft report before October 26.

Thanks for your help.

Denise

- --
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: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:43:30 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI:  gTLD Registry Restructuring Proposal

Yes, I admit I had to read it four times to get it.

But first let me take the ccTLD issue.  Bullpucky.

Hypothetical:
The country of dotOZ has complete unrestricted nudity laws, %100 open
gambling and no treaties regarding IP laws and treaties.  They don't
need them they make all of their money from tourism and gambling in
Casinos and off shore banking.  (oh by the way they contribute mightily
to anti-terorrism and the Red Crescent)
They offer a ccTLD with absolutely complete privacy and no whois.  They
charge and donate all the money to a water desalinization project to
provide water for the thirsty.

Now here comes this stupid Registry proposal and wham-o-bamo ICANN
insists that their root connection is gone.  Is that right?  Just so
Verisign can sell names they illegally warehoused at $4.95.

No sir, this proposal is exactly the type of thing that makes the world
hate America (not that they do, but you get the ugly American forcing
his will on smaller countries concept).

Assuming all ducks are in a row, ala AU, CA, TV, and PH, that ccTLD is
the sovereign right of the country to dispose of ( we actually use the
word exploit ) as they see fit.  Screw with them too much and I am quite
sure that inclusives will capitalize on such nonsense.

Long live the land of OZ.

Everyone should reject this imperialistic and colonialism for what it
is.  Let the Verisign be our Mayflower corp., I do not think so!

with some cynicism,

Eric

Ps. for anyone who care it is interesting to note that just like ICANN
being ICON (as in forbidden)  Verisign turns out to be version on most
spell checks, as in their version.

[email-masked] wrote:

> Posted to the NC Structure mailing list:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00003.html
>
> --
> 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

- --
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: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 21:45:25 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] The position of the GA?

So far there have been restructuring position papers put forth by the 
registrars, the business constituency, the gTLD registries, and the ALSC.  
The gTLDs have referenced the concept of the Open Forum (GA) in this 
statement:  

"If Supporting Organizations are created to reflect the views of particular 
groups, there should be some new cross-SO mechanism to facilitate inter-SO 
deliberation on policies that might affect various SOs and to generate 
documented consensus (on the basis of which the Board could take action)."

The General Assembly membership should contribute to this debate as well.  I 
would ask those that have already shown an interest in this topic, Kent 
Crispin, David Farrar, Joop Teenstra, Ross Rader, and Tim Langdell, among 
others, to assist in leading a discussion that would result in a GA position 
paper.
- --
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: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:59:31 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The position of the GA?

Wednesday, Wednesday, October 10, 2001, 6:45:25 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> The General Assembly membership should contribute to this debate as well.  I
> would ask those that have already shown an interest in this topic, Kent 
> Crispin, David Farrar, Joop Teenstra, Ross Rader, and Tim Langdell, among 
> others, to assist in leading a discussion that would result in a GA position 
> paper.

I'd feel better if Joanna was also involved (if she has the time).

- -- 
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: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 19:36:14 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The position of the GA? SYS

I note your list is not inclusive or exclusive.  Please Joanna and Jefsey and
Roeland  and WXW and Dr. Lovell take part.

May we delegate a sublist and may we appoint David Farrar as our chairman?  I do
believe Sys. is right

I offer the first proposition:

ICANN has contracted to support these concepts may we first explore mandatory
financing of such work.

Secondly may we change and parrot other groups papers.

Third, may we tie this into security and carry over into the current agenda
(strictly for political purposes)

Fourth, and optimum of all will people please contribute so that Brothers and
Sisters may be heard.

Sincerely,
Eric

[email-masked] wrote:

> So far there have been restructuring position papers put forth by the
> registrars, the business constituency, the gTLD registries, and the ALSC.
> The gTLDs have referenced the concept of the Open Forum (GA) in this
> statement:
>
> "If Supporting Organizations are created to reflect the views of particular
> groups, there should be some new cross-SO mechanism to facilitate inter-SO
> deliberation on policies that might affect various SOs and to generate
> documented consensus (on the basis of which the Board could take action)."
>
> The General Assembly membership should contribute to this debate as well.  I
> would ask those that have already shown an interest in this topic, Kent
> Crispin, David Farrar, Joop Teenstra, Ross Rader, and Tim Langdell, among
> others, to assist in leading a discussion that would result in a GA position
> paper.
> --
> 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

- --
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: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 21:47:32 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The position of the GA?

Danny and al assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> So far there have been restructuring position papers put forth by the
> registrars, the business constituency, the gTLD registries, and the ALSC.
> The gTLDs have referenced the concept of the Open Forum (GA) in this
> statement:
>
> "If Supporting Organizations are created to reflect the views of particular
> groups, there should be some new cross-SO mechanism to facilitate inter-SO
> deliberation on policies that might affect various SOs and to generate
> documented consensus (on the basis of which the Board could take action)."

  Why is a "New" cross section mechanism needed  Danny?  Are the SO's
unable to develop their own mechanisms for deliberation on policies that
might effect them.  The "CC" in Mailing list for instance can be used between
these different SO's easily enough.

>
>
> The General Assembly membership should contribute to this debate as well.  I
> would ask those that have already shown an interest in this topic, Kent
> Crispin, David Farrar, Joop Teenstra, Ross Rader, and Tim Langdell, among
> others, to assist in leading a discussion that would result in a GA position
> paper.

  Kent Crisispin "Leading" in anything is a exercise in demonizing returns.
Many others are much better suited for leadership tasks.  Indeed though you
are quite right in suggestion that the GA take up a predominant position as
a group for a potential Task Force os some sort to elect a small Round
Table or GA Commission, whatever impressive sounding name you would
like to give it, to develop a position paper.  However I believe that
the possible divisiveness that would likely ensue from such a endeavor
would hamper it's progress and results unless any and all Interested
Parties or Stakeholders ( In other words ALL GA members) can
openly and transparently participate.

>

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: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 23:02:33 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: The position of the GA?  

Dear Jeff,

anyone may participate in these discussions, and I have no objection to Kent 
Crispin's participation.    Kent has presented well-drafted position papers 
to the ALSC and he has demonstrated the ability to propose solutions to 
problems.  You may disagree with his views, but at least his views are 
usually well-considered and are reasonably well articulated. We have an 
obligation to make sure that all views are properly represented, and I'm sure 
that Kent will make sure that minority opinions are reflected in any position 
paper that we put forth.

Let's set aside personal differences and focus on the task at hand.  Perhaps 
you could start this off by drafting a position paper on behalf of your own 
INEG membership.
- --
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: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 23:18:26 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: The position of the GA?

Danny and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Jeff,
>
> anyone may participate in these discussions, and I have no objection to Kent
> Crispin's participation.

  On the DNSO GA and all of the sub lists as well as the recently formulated
"Task FOrce" lists participation is still restricted, as you well know.  So
I am a bit puzzled as to you questionable assertion to the contrary.  I
myself have several times tried to subscribe to several of the "Task Force"
Lists, and have yet to be able to participate openly and transparently.
I also share with you that I have not problem with Kent Crispins
"Participation".  However I do have a great concern as others have
also recently expressed in Kent's in any sort of a LEADERSHIP role.

>    Kent has presented well-drafted position papers
> to the ALSC and he has demonstrated the ability to propose solutions to
> problems.

  His recent position papers are of VERY questionable value as posted
to the ALSC, and have been admonished repeatedly as such.

>  You may disagree with his views, but at least his views are
> usually well-considered and are reasonably well articulated.

  I honestly and frankly question Kents views as being well considered
or well articulated.  I do find them to be his views and not broadly shared
as has been made clear for over 5 years now.  And I would add that
his views on membership to the At-Large or any public body dealing
with any Internet related issue has been pretty much as it has always
been.  The only difference, and very small it certainly is, is that he
as rehashed it in slightly different terms.

> We have an
> obligation to make sure that all views are properly represented, and I'm sure
> that Kent will make sure that minority opinions are reflected in any position
> paper that we put forth.

  Perhaps. And perhaps not.  If history is any guide, and I believe it is,
Kent is ONLY interested in HIS views, or having HIS views as being
the predominant ones being expressed.  Hence, as a leader, that
attitude is much less than optimum, and in what has already been
expressed recently yet again, not expectable.

>
>
> Let's set aside personal differences and focus on the task at hand.

  Indeed.  That is exactly what I am doing.  However it is not possible
in some situations given the repeated history, to separate personalities
and political behaviors from the issues at hand.  Erco, my previous
post on this thread.

>  Perhaps
> you could start this off by drafting a position paper on behalf of your own
> INEG membership.

  Good point.  We have done this before with a number of issues
in a open and transparent form on this GA Forum.  We shall if
given the opportunity and if we have a specific set of positions
on an issue, do so again.

>

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: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:33:11 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: ICANN and Internet Security and Stability Protection

Dear Michiel, dear Siegfried,
On 11:26 11/10/01, Michiel Leenaars said:
>I don't think ICANN is an appropriate forum to discuss this sort of 
>matter. I looked into the ICANN agenda too, to find if they had changed 
>course, but there seems to be no mention of anything.
>Am I missing something? They only do domain names, and nothing else.

>agreed. siegfried

The question is not that much if the ICANN is or not the proper place. The 
point is that the ICANN -  under stress or/and pressures from he USG - has 
decided without prior debate to dedicate its coming main yearly meeting to 
Security, to the detriment of its pending urgent issues. Making it a press 
focal point on the matter.

Crash training and inadequate debates as planed will show the world an 
apparent distrust in the current security solutions, an ignorance of the 
matter and an inability to propose (for reasons I develop in the last 
part). This is endangering the security and the stability of the Internet.

>In fact it is the IETF, IAB and IESG (www.ietf.org) who will really be 
>doing this kind of thing, I guess, in cooperation with organisations like 
>EuroISPA, RIPE/NCC and ISOC.

I am sorry: here I disagree. There is a need for an Security and Stability 
Protection Internet governance advisory center. The structures you quote 
and their solutions will be scrutinized as the ICANN, as any other Internet 
aspect. The internal review solutions are to be reviewed. They may just 
fine, but they are the first to probe. This is like virus tracking: we have 
to start with the anti-virus program itself. We are at something serious.

So, this is a good occasion as any to initiate it such a necessary process. 
The ICANN is a good place as any, I would say a better place because the 
dialog will certainly include governments and the GAC is a proper interface.

>I don't think we should be too paranoid and panicky about it all, too.

You are absolutely right. As Talleyrand said: "slow, slow: we are in 
hurry". It has to be an open process by professionals from every area. I am 
just initiating the idea: there are many around to take the lead in many areas.

>There are infrastructures (like the electricity infrastructure) that are 
>more important and far easy to be targeted, IF that would ever be 
>realistic (I personally feel that the recent events showed more symbolism 
>- attacking the military and capitalist heart of the country) than actual 
>mass scale disruptive tactics. There is little terror in my internet 
>connection not working (if you can do that, at any rate). And sane use of 
>internet in critical applications should know fallback on or off the net.

I am afraid we do not speak of the same thing, or quite remotely. To keep 
with your electricity infrastructure image, the situation of the Internet 
is like if most of the current electricity network was still using wood 
poles, had no nuclear controlling agencies, no one cared about its 
stability and no international agreements had been worked on the matter nor 
environment protection. Tchernobyl.

The world has become dependable on the Internet, much more that on the WTC 
business messages. Yet the first problem I had reported on Sept 11th was 
the distress of VietNamese peasants not knowing how they would survive the 
loss of the WTC messages for their current rice campaign.

The first target is that we may tell the press one month from now: the 
Internet Community has acknowledged the need, work is under way, there is a 
method, there are professionals involved, please help them through your and 
your reader contributions. To turn a, initial security and stability break 
into a positive thing.

The second target is to benefit from the permanence and the importance of 
the security theme to proceed to a complete review from a logical and real 
life point of view of the current data network interconnecting solutions of 
the world and future needs. Some planing strategy is necessary. These is 
Internet: a consensus by its users. But it is nevertheless a major 
international industrial, economical, cultural, political, social, legal 
etc.. deployment. Time has come to consider how to make it secure and 
stability protected as such.

I expect from this several major break through. Innovation, architecture 
updates, etc. We have major deployments ahead -TV, new services, proximity 
networks, teleurbanism, etc.. and an dramatic increase of the existing 
usages. This calls for a far more secure and stable system.

Up to now people have too much looked into the "net" and not enough into 
the "inter", to the technicalities and not enough in the social vector, to 
the business and not enough to the infrastructure. Users and applications 
also makes the architecture of the Internet: how they can be used to add to 
the global resilience is an important question. As an example, we cannot 
continue to have the world  most distributed system ever to depend on a 
centralized process on a limited set of 13 machines responding from a data 
file of 66 K 10.000 queries a second, 60% of them being a user typo. Nor to 
have its deployment limited to the capacity of negotiation of confusing 
contracts by two ICANN lawyers. etc... etc...

The concerns range from viruscoms (tricking the DNS in misrouting) or ISP 
hacking to NASDAQ crisis, e-mail spying, whois misuse, international DoS 
attacks, national protection, resilience to a cut from the root servers, 
anti-internet laws, public distrust, e-economy instability, dominance vs 
governance,  alternative architecture, Internet replacement, social 
modelization dependance, reliability in period of crisis, political unrest 
dues to e-cultural unbalances, domain name hijacking and legal definition, 
private greed or business strategy impacts, IPv6 bottle necks, world 
economy dependance, legal status of the Internet corporations, VAT 
organization and money laundering,  collocation industry, noometry and 
authentification, interpol, governance organization, security and stability 
warning definition, etc.. etc...

This is terra incognita. It calls on everyone from the governance with 
experience To work out an analysis methodology and a modelization with 
observatories and test/warning criteria. From then to propose an Internet 
Security and Stability Protection Advisory Committee to Govs and governance.
This to be used to filter out/in innovations and proposed changes.

Jefsey Morfin
[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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #784
************************