Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #788
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, October 13 2001          Volume 01 : Number 788

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

Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 11:16:07 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Outreach

Dear members,

I have received the following request from a participant to the ALSC Forum:

In a couple of weeks I leave my current job in an internet cafe, which 
allowed me free access to the net and the opportunity to learn about ICANN.  
I expect now to have a maximum of 3 (three) hours access per week instead of 
an average of 3 (three) hours access a day, because I will have to pay for 
it.  Even then I am one of the privileged few.  If you are willing to pass on 
matters of concern in ICANN to me, I can guarantee that fifty people in 
Zambia will have that information forwarded to them.  Marginalised does not 
equal Disinterested as has been implied on this forum.  Sorry to have picked 
on you, but it had to be someone.  If it is one cross too many to bear, 
please pass this request on to another who shares our concerns.

Thanks in Advance
Malele

As we consider the recommendations advanced by the At-Large Study Committee, 
I would ask all of you to reflect upon Malele's comments.   There are many 
stakeholders in this world that do not enjoy the many advantages that we 
often take for granted, and we in the General Assembly (as advocates for 
inclusiveness and greater representation) have a moral obligation to commit 
ourselves to actualizing outreach and global awareness.

I am reminded of the recommendations of Working Group E:

The goal should be to create materials that address particular needs of those 
who are prepared to receive and use the information.   

1.  Simplicity will facilitate the widest possible distribution across the 
very diverse population to be reached. Simplicity will make it easier to 
translate materials into different languages as well as to distribute them 
via various means of communication.  Simplicity will also facilitate the 
processes of distributing information quickly and making it easily understood 
and absorbed.  

2.  Customization of information material to local community needs will 
improve the effectiveness of           outreach. Customization can include 
translation into native languages, integration of information into           
familiar settings (e.g., web pages, local newsletters), etc.  

3.  Central control of the content of information materials will reduce the 
likelihood of intended messages being distorted as they are distributed to 
different audiences and via different modes of communication.

4.  Outreach materials will be ignored if the content is not reliable and 
accurate.

As we are all aware, our Names Council has never acted upon the 
recommendations of Working Group E, neither do they wish (as indicated by 
their Interim Review Task Force Report) to spend any DNSO funds to facilitate 
the translation of ICANN documents...  but we in the Assembly cannot ignore 
such a heartfelt plea.  We have an obligation, a duty, to "pick up the cross" 
and to do that which must be done.  It is time to end the lip-service given 
to outreach and to become pro-active.

I am therefore enacting the following:

1.  The establishment of a permanent General Assembly Outreach committee.  To 
chair this committee, I am appointing Eric Dierker (if he will accept), 
because Eric has long-demonstrated a steadfast commitment to worldwide 
outreach.

2.  The Outreach Committee will be asked to convene an Editorial Board that 
will be responsible for aggregating Assembly views and matters of concern in 
ICANN into a regularly published digest.  

3.  The Outreach Committee will secure volunteers that will translate the 
output of the Editorial Board, and key ICANN documents, into a variety of 
languages.  

4.  The Outreach Committee will designate a webmaster. 

5.  To facilitate this outreach I will donate my own website, icannworld.org 
for the exclusive use of the Outreach Committee (which will redesign the site 
as they see fit).

We can make this work.  We have the talent.  We have the motivation.  We 
understand our duty.  

I look forward to your participation in this project, and wish to personally 
thank Malele for exhibiting such a strong commitment to the ICANN process.

Danny Younger
Chair, General Assembly of the DNSO

  
- --
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: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 08:32:46 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

We have a very strange system here where those in power have power over deciding
who gets to elect them or their replacements and who must they share power with.
I have the great fortune to work with a country that is taking an open and
transparent approach to modifying their constitution.  The most clear consensus
that is arising is making sure it is understood that a given set of rules apply,
that they are a nation ruled by law.  It is fun to see Mr. Sheppard and Mr. Cerf
describe ICANN as exactly the opposite.

We have changed the contract with DoC and our own by-laws often enough to be
certain there are no applicable rules in ICANN.  Most unfortunate and clearly by
design as three of our top positions are held by one lawyer. ( imagine the
futball ump deciding that this time blue can use their hands and then changing it
again)
This is sophistry in its' worse use.

Sotiris if any can swim across a river with such changing currents it would be
you.

May you have the courage to charge the things you must, the serenity to accept
that which you cannot do and the wisdom of discernment.  (yes that is a military
adaptation)

Sincerely,
Eric

ps. i do not see anyone trying to silence the detractors and i advise you read
their missives but not propagate by response.

[email-masked] wrote:

> I would like to take a moment to offer my congratulations and encouragement
> to Sotiris Sotiropoulos who has taken on the arduous mantle of leadership of
> the IDNO.   Encouragement is in order as someone (guess who) has already
> written:
>
> "I will not answer any calls by this illegitimate chair. I do not recognize
> you as chair, and I will not answer any of your calls as chair, nor will I
> Recognize any act you take as the pretender who
> claims to be Chair."
>
> It seems that any organization that seeks to advance representation for
> individuals bears the burden of having disruptors in their midst whose
> efforts are focused moreso on attacks against the current Chair than on
> promoting the cause they purport to share.
>
> ...but let's talk for a moment about how this cause may be moved forward.  On
> October 4, I sent the following note to the Council:
>
> With regard to an individual's constituency, Vint Cerf made it clear in
> Stockholm that the Board noted the GA's communication on the topic, and
> further stated that a "proposal should come through the NC."  He also
> commented that, "We would entertain any reasonable proposal in accordance
> with Bylaws."   As the current Interim report of the Review Task Force does
> not appear to offer a reasonable proposal to expedite the creation of such a
> constituency, perhaps the NC would instead consider adopting the following
> language:
>      "In recognition of the relentless demand for an individuals constituency
> and the acknowledged need for better representation of individuals in the
> ICANN process, the Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization
> resolves to advise the ICANN Board to create such new Constituency upon its
> own motion, as such action would serve the purposes of the Corporation, and
> would be in accordance with the spirit of the Bylaws."
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00094.html
>
> The Council (as could be expected) has taken no action whatsoever to develop
> a reasonable proposal on behalf of individuals even after sustained
> encouragement.  They have once more, in their latest teleconference, chosen
> to again ignore the issue.  The only action taken thus far has been the
> proposal of "criteria" in the Interim Review Task Force Report that is
> clearly designed to keep new constituencies out.
>
> Those of you that seek to establish a constituency will need to address this
> issue.  And you will need to do it now -- the public comment period has just
> opened and it will not be open for long.
>
> Even after you present your Charter/petition to the Board, you will still
> need to await the Council's input to the Board on your petition.  That
> "input" will be based on this bogus "criteria" unless you act now to thwart
> the machinations of those whose goal is nothing less than to deny your
> successful application.
>
> The Review report is in:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html
>
> Comments may be posted to:  [email-masked]
>
> The Council is not your friend.  You represent a threat to the balance of
> their power-clique.  You will need to fight them on this issue and break down
> their barriers to entry if you seek to make any forward   progress.  Good
> luck in your endeavors, and I certainly hope that your petition to the Board
> will be presented in Marina del Rey.  Best wishes to all of you.
>
> --
> 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: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 08:44:04 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Naming convention idea

Sorry that I haven't yet read the past week's postings. I've been up to my
eye-balls in Apache/Jakarta-Tomcat, IIS/Tomcat stuff, and web-site design.
However, I wanted to mention a naming convention that may toss a wrench in
the ICANN scheme.

The problem:

For security (yeah Michael I'm late, but paying work gotta be done first),
an org really needs an internal TLD. Many hostmasters have been using .LOCAL
for this. However, this collides when the domain is hosted in a colo. The
colo org's .LOCAL and the org's .LOCAL tend to create some confusion, since
their content varies per org. Needless to say, these orgs are using
replicated copies of the USG root zone file and modifying it to suit this
purpose, on their own internal zone servers, their external zone servers
don't have this zone file.

The solution?

Instead of using .LOCAL, the hostmaster sets up a TLD that is the same as
the orgs SLD/3LD. i.e. MHSC.NET also has 3LD.MHSC. 

Points;
1) This creates a nice bit of conflict with the ICANN TLD lottery, where;
SLD and TLD may not be the same org.

2) This isn't really a proposal since it is already implemented in a few
orgs, on their colo'd servers. IOW, it's already, "running code" on more
than one site, with 200Mbps (switched 100baseTX FDX) access. Yes, these are
also MHSC zone server appliance cluster owners.

ttfn, 

- --
R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
tel: +1 925 373 3954
cel: +1 925 352 3615
fax: +1 925 373 9781 
http://www.mhsc.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: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:07:46 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Outreach

As you well know this is the exact example of my shoe shine boy.  It is
illustrative of the need that global voting and outreach must include the
Internet Cafe' concept. (over 100,000 is Asia)
The model works very well, although I have only used it for cultural educational
purposes.  We forward the email to a few and request they write.  They do and one
or two begin to become friends, not all will click but that is cool.  Next thing
you know they are exchanging pictures and welcoming extended family into the
picture.  Young adults seem the most inclined although my ancient father enjoys
this also.

For the long run I am developing a program which I hope to tie into the UN Tokten
project, here is an example;  http://www.tokten-vn.org.vn/   The expatriate tie
in will help to ease Multilingual problems and can help integrate with
communities at both ends. Here we would provide resources and training through
private Internet Cafe's and develop through post offices similar subsidized
campaigns.  We can use these for voting and educational and probably most
importantly social with a bent toward international understanding.  Of course if
you know me and my lowly status as a Lay Eucharistic Minister you can guess that
I ultimately want this in cross religious settings so that understanding can
replace misinformation and the problems therein.

Please forward to me this courageous persons address and I will arrange for
internet friends and some funding to allow for increased access.  I find that
most good things begin as small infants and if nurtured grow into something
larger and truly wonderful.

Thank you for yet another opportunity to serve.

Sincerely,
Eric

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear members,
>
> I have received the following request from a participant to the ALSC Forum:
>
> In a couple of weeks I leave my current job in an internet cafe, which
> allowed me free access to the net and the opportunity to learn about ICANN.
> I expect now to have a maximum of 3 (three) hours access per week instead of
> an average of 3 (three) hours access a day, because I will have to pay for
> it.  Even then I am one of the privileged few.  If you are willing to pass on
> matters of concern in ICANN to me, I can guarantee that fifty people in
> Zambia will have that information forwarded to them.  Marginalised does not
> equal Disinterested as has been implied on this forum.  Sorry to have picked
> on you, but it had to be someone.  If it is one cross too many to bear,
> please pass this request on to another who shares our concerns.
>
> Thanks in Advance
> Malele
>
> As we consider the recommendations advanced by the At-Large Study Committee,
> I would ask all of you to reflect upon Malele's comments.   There are many
> stakeholders in this world that do not enjoy the many advantages that we
> often take for granted, and we in the General Assembly (as advocates for
> inclusiveness and greater representation) have a moral obligation to commit
> ourselves to actualizing outreach and global awareness.
>
> I am reminded of the recommendations of Working Group E:
>
> The goal should be to create materials that address particular needs of those
> who are prepared to receive and use the information.
>
> 1.  Simplicity will facilitate the widest possible distribution across the
> very diverse population to be reached. Simplicity will make it easier to
> translate materials into different languages as well as to distribute them
> via various means of communication.  Simplicity will also facilitate the
> processes of distributing information quickly and making it easily understood
> and absorbed.
>
> 2.  Customization of information material to local community needs will
> improve the effectiveness of           outreach. Customization can include
> translation into native languages, integration of information into
> familiar settings (e.g., web pages, local newsletters), etc.
>
> 3.  Central control of the content of information materials will reduce the
> likelihood of intended messages being distorted as they are distributed to
> different audiences and via different modes of communication.
>
> 4.  Outreach materials will be ignored if the content is not reliable and
> accurate.
>
> As we are all aware, our Names Council has never acted upon the
> recommendations of Working Group E, neither do they wish (as indicated by
> their Interim Review Task Force Report) to spend any DNSO funds to facilitate
> the translation of ICANN documents...  but we in the Assembly cannot ignore
> such a heartfelt plea.  We have an obligation, a duty, to "pick up the cross"
> and to do that which must be done.  It is time to end the lip-service given
> to outreach and to become pro-active.
>
> I am therefore enacting the following:
>
> 1.  The establishment of a permanent General Assembly Outreach committee.  To
> chair this committee, I am appointing Eric Dierker (if he will accept),
> because Eric has long-demonstrated a steadfast commitment to worldwide
> outreach.
>
> 2.  The Outreach Committee will be asked to convene an Editorial Board that
> will be responsible for aggregating Assembly views and matters of concern in
> ICANN into a regularly published digest.
>
> 3.  The Outreach Committee will secure volunteers that will translate the
> output of the Editorial Board, and key ICANN documents, into a variety of
> languages.
>
> 4.  The Outreach Committee will designate a webmaster.
>
> 5.  To facilitate this outreach I will donate my own website, icannworld.org
> for the exclusive use of the Outreach Committee (which will redesign the site
> as they see fit).
>
> We can make this work.  We have the talent.  We have the motivation.  We
> understand our duty.
>
> I look forward to your participation in this project, and wish to personally
> thank Malele for exhibiting such a strong commitment to the ICANN process.
>
> Danny Younger
> Chair, General Assembly of the DNSO
>
>
> --
> 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: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 10:09:52 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

- --------------11EF2A97EDD757235F40D902
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Skipping past the personality issues, I think a bit of history will help
explain the dilemma in which those who want an individual domain
name holders constituency faces, and this background comes from
some material posted by Amadeu Abril i Abril in the context of the
recent election. He pointed out that ICANN was to be a technical
body, and the original SOs were defined in terms of their technical
function. The purpose was to set up, operate, and maintain a
properly functioning internet system, including a domain name
system, and that was all.  Consequently, no thought was given to
any representation by users, domain name holders, or the like,
since they had no technical role to perform, but only to make use
of whatever ICANN created.

Mr Abril i Abril then went on to discuss the "policy" scene, and
expressed some amusement over the fact that we GA types were
(a) forever agitating over "mission creep" -- ICANN was getting
itself into policy issues -- while (b) at the same time forever advancing
policy issues ourselves out of the GA. We've had numerous instances
of ICANN's policy activities, of course, but the latest definitive evidence
of its stance on the matter comes from Joe Sims.

Karl Auerbach has correctly noted before that Joe Sims does not
speak for ICANN, but in this case Sims expresses correctly the
ICANN stance.  As most of you may know, Prof. Froomkin had
published a seminal paper some time back that questioned the
whole legitimacy of ICANN.  Last Friday, I attended the Seventh
Annual Lewis & Clark Law Forum, at Northwestern College of
Law of Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Oregon, which had the
title "Deciding ICANN Domain Name Disputes: Questioning
Delegation, Fairness, and Consent," and a final paper included
in the proceedings was a Working Draft by Joe Sims and Cynthia
L. Bauerly (neither was present) entititled "A Response to
Professor Froomkin: Why ICANN Does Not Violate the APA
or the Constitution."  I recite all of that just to set out the following
quote from that draft: "ICANN has a very important function --
to manage what is essentially the phone book of the Internet, and
to make policy decisions relating to it."

In short, ICANN (i.e., the BoD, NC, etc.) is having its cake
and eating it.  On the one hand, it was formulated as a technical
body and hence no consideration was given to mere Internet
users or domain name holders, since they had no technical
duties to perform, but on the other hand ICANN itself has
presumed to absorb unto itself all kinds of policy issues that
go quite beyond those technical matters that initially required
only technology-related SOs.  It is thus no wonder that any
attempt to form an individuals constituency of any kind is met
with what appears to be mere disinterest, but is more likely
a concerted opposition.

It is a matter of power, and if one wants to see irony, here
it is: the original "technocrats" I would assume were selected
on the basis of their technical expertise, and rightly so since
there was in fact a fully functional, global Internet that came
out of that.  But nothing suggests that any such persons had
any special expertise in deciding global socio-economic,
political, and other human-related issues as are involved in
a global Internet policy. With Karl Auerbach (also an attorney)
being the only exception I know of, the present BoD remains
in the original "technocrat" mold.  The GA of the DNSO, on
the other hand, has within it people from every imaginable
walk of life, albeit it, too, has its share of technocrats whose
political naivete is demonstrated on the GA lists every day.
So what we are left with is an ICANN that seems essentially
to be run by its business-related lawyers, the technocrats
therein blindly following their guidance, while the one real
source of that broad, people-related perspective that is most
essential for the development of an Internet that would serve
the public, as the Charter and the USG documents require,
has no voice whatever and indeed is actively opposed. (It
is no wonder that ICANN suddenly dumps everything else
so as to take up the technical issue of security -- that is a
field within which the BoD will be more comfortable, and
so let the users and domain name holders eat cake.)

At this stage in the evolution of ICANN, it will only be
through the development of a structure wherein domain
name holders and users have a dominant voice in setting
those global policies that directly affect them that ICANN
can even pretend to act for the public good, and at present
it is only the GA (and hopefully soon the At Large) and the
broad-based expertise that these people represent that can
demonstrate the reality-based perspective on global policies
that is essential for the future functioning of the Internet.
But don't hold your breath.

Bill Lovell

[email-masked] wrote:

>
>
> ...but let's talk for a moment about how this cause may be moved forward.  On
> October 4, I sent the following note to the Council:
>
> With regard to an individual's constituency, Vint Cerf made it clear in
> Stockholm that the Board noted the GA's communication on the topic, and
> further stated that a "proposal should come through the NC."  He also
> commented that, "We would entertain any reasonable proposal in accordance
> with Bylaws."   As the current Interim report of the Review Task Force does
> not appear to offer a reasonable proposal to expedite the creation of such a
> constituency, perhaps the NC would instead consider adopting the following
> language:
>      "In recognition of the relentless demand for an individuals constituency
> and the acknowledged need for better representation of individuals in the
> ICANN process, the Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization
> resolves to advise the ICANN Board to create such new Constituency upon its
> own motion, as such action would serve the purposes of the Corporation, and
> would be in accordance with the spirit of the Bylaws."
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00094.html
>
> The Council (as could be expected) has taken no action whatsoever to develop
> a reasonable proposal on behalf of individuals even after sustained
> encouragement.  They have once more, in their latest teleconference, chosen
> to again ignore the issue.  The only action taken thus far has been the
> proposal of "criteria" in the Interim Review Task Force Report that is
> clearly designed to keep new constituencies out.
>
> Those of you that seek to establish a constituency will need to address this
> issue.  And you will need to do it now -- the public comment period has just
> opened and it will not be open for long.
>
> Even after you present your Charter/petition to the Board, you will still
> need to await the Council's input to the Board on your petition.  That
> "input" will be based on this bogus "criteria" unless you act now to thwart
> the machinations of those whose goal is nothing less than to deny your
> successful application.
>
> The Review report is in:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html
>
> Comments may be posted to:  [email-masked]
>
> The Council is not your friend.  You represent a threat to the balance of
> their power-clique.  You will need to fight them on this issue and break down
> their barriers to entry if you seek to make any forward   progress.  Good
> luck in your endeavors, and I certainly hope that your petition to the Board
> will be presented in Marina del Rey.  Best wishes to all of you.
>
> --
> 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

- --

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html

- --------------11EF2A97EDD757235F40D902
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Skipping past the personality issues, I think a bit of history will help
<br>explain the dilemma in which those who want an individual domain
<br>name holders constituency faces, and this background comes from
<br>some material posted by Amadeu Abril i Abril in the context of the
<br>recent election. He pointed out that ICANN was to be a technical
<br>body, and the original SOs were defined in terms of their technical
<br>function. The purpose was to set up, operate, and maintain a
<br>properly functioning internet system, including a domain name
<br>system, and that was all.&nbsp; Consequently, no thought was given
to
<br>any representation by users, domain name holders, or the like,
<br>since they had no technical role to perform, but only to make use
<br>of whatever ICANN created.
<p>Mr Abril i Abril then went on to discuss the "policy" scene, and
<br>expressed some amusement over the fact that we GA types were
<br>(a) forever agitating over "mission creep" -- ICANN was getting
<br>itself into policy issues -- while (b) at the same time forever advancing
<br>policy issues ourselves out of the GA. We've had numerous instances
<br>of ICANN's policy activities, of course, but the latest definitive
evidence
<br>of its stance on the matter comes from Joe Sims.
<p>Karl Auerbach has correctly noted before that Joe Sims does not
<br>speak for ICANN, but in this case Sims expresses correctly the
<br>ICANN stance.&nbsp; As most of you may know, Prof. Froomkin had
<br>published a seminal paper some time back that questioned the
<br>whole legitimacy of ICANN.&nbsp; Last Friday, I attended the Seventh
<br>Annual Lewis &amp; Clark Law Forum, at Northwestern College of
<br>Law of Lewis &amp; Clark College, Portland, Oregon, which had the
<br>title "Deciding ICANN Domain Name Disputes: Questioning
<br>Delegation, Fairness, and Consent," and a final paper included
<br>in the proceedings was a Working Draft by Joe Sims and Cynthia
<br>L. Bauerly (neither was present) entititled "A Response to
<br>Professor Froomkin: Why ICANN Does Not Violate the APA
<br>or the Constitution."&nbsp; I recite all of that just to set out the
following
<br>quote from that draft: "ICANN has a very important function --
<br>to manage what is essentially the phone book of the Internet, and
<br>to make policy decisions relating to it."
<p>In short, ICANN (i.e., the BoD, NC, etc.) is having its cake
<br>and eating it.&nbsp; On the one hand, it was formulated as a technical
<br>body and hence no consideration was given to mere Internet
<br>users or domain name holders, since they had no technical
<br>duties to perform, but on the other hand ICANN itself has
<br>presumed to absorb unto itself all kinds of policy issues that
<br>go quite beyond those technical matters that initially required
<br>only technology-related SOs.&nbsp; It is thus no wonder that any
<br>attempt to form an individuals constituency of any kind is met
<br>with what appears to be mere disinterest, but is more likely
<br>a concerted opposition.
<p>It is a matter of power, and if one wants to see irony, here
<br>it is: the original "technocrats" I would assume were selected
<br>on the basis of their technical expertise, and rightly so since
<br>there was in fact a fully functional, global Internet that came
<br>out of that.&nbsp; But nothing suggests that any such persons had
<br>any special expertise in deciding global socio-economic,
<br>political, and other human-related issues as are involved in
<br>a global Internet policy. With Karl Auerbach (also an attorney)
<br>being the only exception I know of, the present BoD remains
<br>in the original "technocrat" mold.&nbsp; The GA of the DNSO, on
<br>the other hand, has within it people from every imaginable
<br>walk of life, albeit it, too, has its share of technocrats whose
<br>political naivete is demonstrated on the GA lists every day.
<br>So what we are left with is an ICANN that seems essentially
<br>to be run by its business-related lawyers, the technocrats
<br>therein blindly following their guidance, while the one real
<br>source of that broad, people-related perspective that is most
<br>essential for the development of an Internet that would serve
<br>the public, as the Charter and the USG documents require,
<br>has no voice whatever and indeed is actively opposed. (It
<br>is no wonder that ICANN suddenly dumps everything else
<br>so as to take up the technical issue of security -- that is a
<br>field within which the BoD will be more comfortable, and
<br>so let the users and domain name holders eat cake.)
<p>At this stage in the evolution of ICANN, it will only be
<br>through the development of a structure wherein domain
<br>name holders and users have a dominant voice in setting
<br>those global policies that directly affect <b>them</b> that ICANN
<br>can even pretend to act for the public good, and at present
<br>it is only the GA (and hopefully soon the At Large) and the
<br>broad-based expertise that these people represent that can
<br>demonstrate the reality-based perspective on global policies
<br>that is essential for the future functioning of the Internet.
<br>But don't hold your breath.
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>&nbsp;
<p>[email-masked] wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<p>...but let's talk for a moment about how this cause may be moved forward.&nbsp;
On
<br>October 4, I sent the following note to the Council:
<p>With regard to an individual's constituency, Vint Cerf made it clear
in
<br>Stockholm that the Board noted the GA's communication on the topic,
and
<br>further stated that a "proposal should come through the NC."&nbsp;
He also
<br>commented that, "We would entertain any reasonable proposal in accordance
<br>with Bylaws."&nbsp;&nbsp; As the current Interim report of the Review
Task Force does
<br>not appear to offer a reasonable proposal to expedite the creation
of such a
<br>constituency, perhaps the NC would instead consider adopting the following
<br>language:
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "In recognition of the relentless demand for
an individuals constituency
<br>and the acknowledged need for better representation of individuals
in the
<br>ICANN process, the Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization
<br>resolves to advise the ICANN Board to create such new Constituency
upon its
<br>own motion, as such action would serve the purposes of the Corporation,
and
<br>would be in accordance with the spirit of the Bylaws."
<br><a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00094.html">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00094.html</a>
<p>The Council (as could be expected) has taken no action whatsoever to
develop
<br>a reasonable proposal on behalf of individuals even after sustained
<br>encouragement.&nbsp; They have once more, in their latest teleconference,
chosen
<br>to again ignore the issue.&nbsp; The only action taken thus far has
been the
<br>proposal of "criteria" in the Interim Review Task Force Report that
is
<br>clearly designed to keep new constituencies out.
<p>Those of you that seek to establish a constituency will need to address
this
<br>issue.&nbsp; And you will need to do it now -- the public comment period
has just
<br>opened and it will not be open for long.
<p>Even after you present your Charter/petition to the Board, you will
still
<br>need to await the Council's input to the Board on your petition.&nbsp;
That
<br>"input" will be based on this bogus "criteria" unless you act now to
thwart
<br>the machinations of those whose goal is nothing less than to deny your
<br>successful application.
<p>The Review report is in:
<br><a href="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html</a>
<p>Comments may be posted to:&nbsp; [email-masked]
<p>The Council is not your friend.&nbsp; You represent a threat to the
balance of
<br>their power-clique.&nbsp; You will need to fight them on this issue
and break down
<br>their barriers to entry if you seek to make any forward&nbsp;&nbsp;
progress.&nbsp; Good
<br>luck in your endeavors, and I certainly hope that your petition to
the Board
<br>will be presented in Marina del Rey.&nbsp; Best wishes to all of you.
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>

<p>--
<br>&nbsp;
<p>The URLs for Best Practices:
<br>DNSO Citation:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html</A>
<br>(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
<br>Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
<br>page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
<br>Part I:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html</A>
<br>Part II:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf</A>
<br>(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
<br>available for free down load at
<br><A HREF="http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html">http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html</A>.)
<br>Part III:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html</A>
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------11EF2A97EDD757235F40D902--

- --
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: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 13:27:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

Except that this was never true.  How is a business group or an IP group a
technical constituency?  It isn't and never was.

Much as I like Amadeu, this is revisionism.  But it isn't credible.

On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:

> Skipping past the personality issues, I think a bit of history will help
> explain the dilemma in which those who want an individual domain
> name holders constituency faces, and this background comes from
> some material posted by Amadeu Abril i Abril in the context of the
> recent election. He pointed out that ICANN was to be a technical
> body, and the original SOs were defined in terms of their technical
> function. The purpose was to set up, operate, and maintain a
> properly functioning internet system, including a domain name
> system, and that was all.  Consequently, no thought was given to
> any representation by users, domain name holders, or the like,
> since they had no technical role to perform, but only to make use
> of whatever ICANN created.
> 
> Mr Abril i Abril then went on to discuss the "policy" scene, and
> expressed some amusement over the fact that we GA types were
> (a) forever agitating over "mission creep" -- ICANN was getting
> itself into policy issues -- while (b) at the same time forever advancing
> policy issues ourselves out of the GA. We've had numerous instances
> of ICANN's policy activities, of course, but the latest definitive evidence
> of its stance on the matter comes from Joe Sims.
> 
> Karl Auerbach has correctly noted before that Joe Sims does not
> speak for ICANN, but in this case Sims expresses correctly the
> ICANN stance.  As most of you may know, Prof. Froomkin had
> published a seminal paper some time back that questioned the
> whole legitimacy of ICANN.  Last Friday, I attended the Seventh
> Annual Lewis & Clark Law Forum, at Northwestern College of
> Law of Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Oregon, which had the
> title "Deciding ICANN Domain Name Disputes: Questioning
> Delegation, Fairness, and Consent," and a final paper included
> in the proceedings was a Working Draft by Joe Sims and Cynthia
> L. Bauerly (neither was present) entititled "A Response to
> Professor Froomkin: Why ICANN Does Not Violate the APA
> or the Constitution."  I recite all of that just to set out the following
> quote from that draft: "ICANN has a very important function --
> to manage what is essentially the phone book of the Internet, and
> to make policy decisions relating to it."
> 
> In short, ICANN (i.e., the BoD, NC, etc.) is having its cake
> and eating it.  On the one hand, it was formulated as a technical
> body and hence no consideration was given to mere Internet
> users or domain name holders, since they had no technical
> duties to perform, but on the other hand ICANN itself has
> presumed to absorb unto itself all kinds of policy issues that
> go quite beyond those technical matters that initially required
> only technology-related SOs.  It is thus no wonder that any
> attempt to form an individuals constituency of any kind is met
> with what appears to be mere disinterest, but is more likely
> a concerted opposition.
> 
> It is a matter of power, and if one wants to see irony, here
> it is: the original "technocrats" I would assume were selected
> on the basis of their technical expertise, and rightly so since
> there was in fact a fully functional, global Internet that came
> out of that.  But nothing suggests that any such persons had
> any special expertise in deciding global socio-economic,
> political, and other human-related issues as are involved in
> a global Internet policy. With Karl Auerbach (also an attorney)
> being the only exception I know of, the present BoD remains
> in the original "technocrat" mold.  The GA of the DNSO, on
> the other hand, has within it people from every imaginable
> walk of life, albeit it, too, has its share of technocrats whose
> political naivete is demonstrated on the GA lists every day.
> So what we are left with is an ICANN that seems essentially
> to be run by its business-related lawyers, the technocrats
> therein blindly following their guidance, while the one real
> source of that broad, people-related perspective that is most
> essential for the development of an Internet that would serve
> the public, as the Charter and the USG documents require,
> has no voice whatever and indeed is actively opposed. (It
> is no wonder that ICANN suddenly dumps everything else
> so as to take up the technical issue of security -- that is a
> field within which the BoD will be more comfortable, and
> so let the users and domain name holders eat cake.)
> 
> At this stage in the evolution of ICANN, it will only be
> through the development of a structure wherein domain
> name holders and users have a dominant voice in setting
> those global policies that directly affect them that ICANN
> can even pretend to act for the public good, and at present
> it is only the GA (and hopefully soon the At Large) and the
> broad-based expertise that these people represent that can
> demonstrate the reality-based perspective on global policies
> that is essential for the future functioning of the Internet.
> But don't hold your breath.
> 
> Bill Lovell
> 
> 
> [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > ...but let's talk for a moment about how this cause may be moved forward.  On
> > October 4, I sent the following note to the Council:
> >
> > With regard to an individual's constituency, Vint Cerf made it clear in
> > Stockholm that the Board noted the GA's communication on the topic, and
> > further stated that a "proposal should come through the NC."  He also
> > commented that, "We would entertain any reasonable proposal in accordance
> > with Bylaws."   As the current Interim report of the Review Task Force does
> > not appear to offer a reasonable proposal to expedite the creation of such a
> > constituency, perhaps the NC would instead consider adopting the following
> > language:
> >      "In recognition of the relentless demand for an individuals constituency
> > and the acknowledged need for better representation of individuals in the
> > ICANN process, the Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization
> > resolves to advise the ICANN Board to create such new Constituency upon its
> > own motion, as such action would serve the purposes of the Corporation, and
> > would be in accordance with the spirit of the Bylaws."
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00094.html
> >
> > The Council (as could be expected) has taken no action whatsoever to develop
> > a reasonable proposal on behalf of individuals even after sustained
> > encouragement.  They have once more, in their latest teleconference, chosen
> > to again ignore the issue.  The only action taken thus far has been the
> > proposal of "criteria" in the Interim Review Task Force Report that is
> > clearly designed to keep new constituencies out.
> >
> > Those of you that seek to establish a constituency will need to address this
> > issue.  And you will need to do it now -- the public comment period has just
> > opened and it will not be open for long.
> >
> > Even after you present your Charter/petition to the Board, you will still
> > need to await the Council's input to the Board on your petition.  That
> > "input" will be based on this bogus "criteria" unless you act now to thwart
> > the machinations of those whose goal is nothing less than to deny your
> > successful application.
> >
> > The Review report is in:
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html
> >
> > Comments may be posted to:  [email-masked]
> >
> > The Council is not your friend.  You represent a threat to the balance of
> > their power-clique.  You will need to fight them on this issue and break down
> > their barriers to entry if you seek to make any forward   progress.  Good
> > luck in your endeavors, and I certainly hope that your petition to the Board
> > will be presented in Marina del Rey.  Best wishes to all of you.
> >
> > --
> > 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
> 
> --
> 
> 
> The URLs for Best Practices:
> DNSO Citation:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
> (Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
> Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
> page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
> Part I:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
> Part II:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
> (Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
> available for free down load at
> http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
> Part III:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #788
************************