Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #790
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, October 14 2001           Volume 01 : Number 790

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

Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 00:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects no one.

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

> I just love it when a response has nothing but cute phrases in
> it, with no attempt whatever to address the issue. If one does
> not agree with whatever, if one is to use up electrons one
> might really say why, since such handwaving communicates
> nothing to the discussion -- if any discussion was actually
> wanted.
> 
> Bill Lovell
> 

Bill, You just love it when you completely miss the point? That is indeed
a shame.

Let me spell it out for you, although I thought that you got the point
without me ever having to affirm what you said in the first place - I
guess not, so I'll simplify:

Bill, nothing you do here matters. It is wasted breath - a hobby at most.
And any dialogue you engage in on this GA list only stands to validate the
reason the GA was created in the first place. That reason is to provide a
place where people can waste their efforts in an excercise of futility.

Translated into cute phrases that spells: Duh!

Now you understand. (I just love it when people pretend they don't
understand the obvious).

Perhaps you haven't been around long enough to glean that bit of wisdom.
Perhaps you just seek a way to pass the time engaging in debate (that's
cool too). Whichever the case, any effort spent here by you has affected
absolutely nothing in ICANN - nor will it. Again, that is by design :)

So... "The Issue" has now been addressed without cute phrases.

- --

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.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: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 09:23:19 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Outreach

Dear Eric,
I think that time has come when we should stop talking about people and 
help them to become real in here. I am more interested in hearing from them 
that about them. I suppose that this is what Danny proposes. I had the 
experience of the outreach effort we had in France that I reported for it 
to help similar actions to develop in other countries. This is not easy. 
Governance does not interest many and Joe Sims is felt as far too complex 
and inscredibly costly for that - and obviously is.

The IALNA (Internet @large Network Association) project is about that. We 
experienced a now well understood method. It calls on local stubborn and 
dedicated leaders. But even one person per country or local area is far 
from easy - but there is noway else. If Maele is one and may help others in 
other countries .. this would be great!
Jefsey

On 18:07 13/10/01, Eric Dierker said:
>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

- --
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: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 09:41:09 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Idno-discuss] Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

- --=====================_7649448==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear Bill,
I do not understand you. You well discuss the double absurdity of the Joe 
Sims approach:
" - the ICANN is a policy center due to mission creep
   - the ICANN does a wrong policy."
And you say: "we have to correct that policy together".

No! We have to stop the ICANN from being a policy center. ICANN has a poor 
policy, but even if the ICANN was carrying good policy it would be wrong, 
because this not the appropriate place for any policy at all. Again, I do 
not want my telephone to be democratic: I want it to work.

ICANN is to hold three registries and to address the problem of the 
transfer of the USG root server system to the Global Internet Community. 
Its only policy is to establish (SOs) the prerequisites for being 
registered and how (SSRAC) the root server system single point of failure 
and bottle neck will fade away.

The rest is pure wasted time, effort and money and network/world 
destabilization.
Jefsey

On 19:09 13/10/01, William S. Lovell said:
>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>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>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>http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>--
>
>
>The URLs for Best Practices:
>DNSO Citation:
><http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html>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>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html 
>
>Part II:
><http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf>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>http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.) 
>
>Part III:
><http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html 
>
>

- --=====================_7649448==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Dear Bill,<br>
I do not understand you. You well discuss the double absurdity of the Joe
Sims approach:<br>
&quot; - the ICANN is a policy center due to mission creep<br>
&nbsp; - the ICANN does a wrong policy.&quot;<br>
And you say: &quot;we have to correct that policy together&quot;.<br>
<br>
No! We have to stop the ICANN from being a policy center. ICANN has a
poor policy, but even if the ICANN was carrying good policy it would be
wrong, because this not the appropriate place for any policy at all.
Again, I do not want my telephone to be democratic: I want it to
work.<br>
<br>
ICANN is to hold three registries and to address the problem of the
transfer of the USG root server system to the Global Internet Community.
Its only policy is to establish (SOs) the prerequisites for being
registered and how (SSRAC) the root server system single point of failure
and bottle neck will fade away.<br>
<br>
The rest is pure wasted time, effort and money and network/world
destabilization.<br>
Jefsey<br>
<br>
<br>
On 19:09 13/10/01, William S. Lovell said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>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. <br>
<br>
Mr Abril i Abril then went on to discuss the &quot;policy&quot; scene,
and <br>
expressed some amusement over the fact that we GA types were <br>
(a) forever agitating over &quot;mission creep&quot; -- 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. <br>
<br>
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 &quot;Deciding ICANN Domain Name Disputes: Questioning <br>
Delegation, Fairness, and Consent,&quot; 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 &quot;A Response to <br>
Professor Froomkin: Why ICANN Does Not Violate the APA <br>
or the Constitution.&quot;&nbsp; I recite all of that just to set out the
following <br>
quote from that draft: &quot;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.&quot; <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
It is a matter of power, and if one wants to see irony, here <br>
it is: the original &quot;technocrats&quot; 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 &quot;technocrat&quot; 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.) <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Bill Lovell <br>
&nbsp; <br>
<br>
[email-masked] wrote: <br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>&nbsp; <br>
<br>
...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: <br>
<br>
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 &quot;proposal should come through the
NC.&quot;&nbsp; He also <br>
commented that, &quot;We would entertain any reasonable proposal in
accordance <br>
with Bylaws.&quot;&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; &quot;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.&quot; <br>
<a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00094.html">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00094.html</a>
<br>
<br>
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 &quot;criteria&quot; in the Interim Review Task Force Report that is <br>
clearly designed to keep new constituencies out. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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>
&quot;input&quot; will be based on this bogus &quot;criteria&quot; unless you act now to thwart <br>
the machinations of those whose goal is nothing less than to deny your <br>
successful application. <br>
<br>
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> <br>
<br>
Comments may be posted to:&nbsp; [email-masked] <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
- -- <br>
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. <br>
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe <br>
(&quot;unsubscribe ga&quot; 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><br>
- -- <br>
&nbsp; <br>
<br>
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 &quot;Other Information Documents&quot;; &quot;August 2001: <br>
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA.&quot; 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; </blockquote></html>

- --=====================_7649448==_.ALT--

- --
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: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 10:38:33 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign/RealNames

Dear Tim,
I dont think you are that marketingly and technicaly that naive....

On 19:32 13/10/01, Tim Langdell said:
>Jefsey,
>I'll do my best to answer you - although I find your message a little
>confusing!

Thank you for responding. I am sorry you find it confusing: this would
mean you have not yet fully understood the possibilities of your own
product.

>I dont get your point about Realnames keywords and ICANN and New.net.
>Realnames keywords are single words or several words separated by spaces.

Domain names are single words or several words separated by dots.

>There is no way that anyone could confuse "IBM FRANCE" with "ibm.com" or
>"ibm.co.fr" . They are parallel naming systems which each have their own
>merit but which do not conflict.

I fail to see how "IBM FRANCE" could not be confused withe "IBM.FRANCE".
These are parallel systems in direct commercial conflict. One (RN) pretends 
to be flat (and therefore upper layer), while the other is multi-layers. In 
reality they both are multi-layer as both  are sequential as every 
language. You confirm this in saying that RN are not neutral to the order 
in the sequence (see below). Absolutely no difference between RN and 
NameSlinger.

>I will not comment about New.net, but would point out that others have said
>that in launching a domain that ICANN itself might one day approve of,
>New.net is in potential conflict.

No. New.net is not in conflict. ICANN may create a collision. International 
Trade rules applies. ICANN is not a superpower, howeber it seems to want to 
be a superabsurdity.

>Realnames are in no such danger of conflict. Nor is XTNS by the way, and 
>we are of course quite separate from Realnames.

RN is in direct opposition. The only semantic difference between DNs and 
RNs is a space being used instead of a dot. Initially there was nothing or 
a dot or a slash or a column (1978). The technical difference is that the 
RNs are actually handled as TLDs.

>Is there a difference between "France IBM" and "IBM France"? Yes, there is,
>of course.

This kills your pretence they are keywords. There should be none. This is a 
structured naming sequence as IUN, DNs, EDI, ....

>I do not speak for Realnames but I understand to register a
>keyword with the word "IBM" in it you have to be IBM or acting on behalf of
>IBM. They are even tougher I gather than ICANN/UDRP/WIPO on this. So while
>France IBM and IBM France are similar, it would never be a problem as the
>only owner of either of them would have to be IBM.

Strange that you just "understand" while this is XTNS business. However you 
only show that UDRP is inadequate. Also that RNs are value added and not of 
same nature than DNs while being used as a replacement for them. You 
therefore imply unfair competition.

>As to "new naming plan" Realnames keywords have been around for many years,
>as have AOL keywords and many other keyword systems.

This is no problem as long as it is confidential (I can do the same easily 
by my own in using the Host file). The problem is not RN. The problem is 
NSI taking it over and selling RNs using the ICANN sales network under its 
own prestige with the financial incentive of Real Names rates for 
Registrars and resellers. The problem is Passport and .NET They transform a 
side convenience into a major confusion to the advantage of a single 
manufacturer.

I note that you did not respond to my technical questions:

> > Now let me know about the caracter set: do they support dot, dash, slash,
> > column, or any other separtor or special character? Do they support
>accents?

Quid?

> > Is there a difference between "IBM France" and "France IBM"?

You said yes.

> > Can I reserve all the "Philips something" names?

?

> > Are you not supporting the same technology and annoucing regularly in
> > this GA that you support new TLDs

?

The situation is interesting. I think you should review what you are doing. 
What are your rights at doing it and to build a serious policy - which will 
certainly conflict with ICANN. This would serve everyone. The way you (NSI) 
take it is just leading to major conflicts on the medium range because 
consumers will want to get the same service for more money.

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: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 11:20:41 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects no one.

Hi! Bradley,
Since you are around: could you send me the info I dearly miss :-) ?

I disagree with you one a part of this point: the ICANN acts as a magnet 
for many good and interesting people (you would not be here otherwise).

The hope is that once Bill has accepted what you day, he will accept what I 
say. That is people are worth more than Joe Sims ringmarole and that we 
should proceed from our own common diversed capacities to build the real 
response.

ICANN is a necessary thing - as three registries. What is bad is that Joe 
Sims from the very begining has taken it over (they documented enough the 
way he selected the BoD Members). And that Joe Sims and Louis Touton are 
obviously brillant persons. But ICANN does not need them, at least not the 
two of them (while they obviously need the ICANN).

Jefsey

On 09:12 14/10/01, PacificRoot Hostmaster said:
>On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > I just love it when a response has nothing but cute phrases in
> > it, with no attempt whatever to address the issue. If one does
> > not agree with whatever, if one is to use up electrons one
> > might really say why, since such handwaving communicates
> > nothing to the discussion -- if any discussion was actually
> > wanted.
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
>
>
>Bill, You just love it when you completely miss the point? That is indeed
>a shame.
>
>Let me spell it out for you, although I thought that you got the point
>without me ever having to affirm what you said in the first place - I
>guess not, so I'll simplify:
>
>Bill, nothing you do here matters. It is wasted breath - a hobby at most.
>And any dialogue you engage in on this GA list only stands to validate the
>reason the GA was created in the first place. That reason is to provide a
>place where people can waste their efforts in an excercise of futility.
>
>Translated into cute phrases that spells: Duh!
>
>Now you understand. (I just love it when people pretend they don't
>understand the obvious).
>
>Perhaps you haven't been around long enough to glean that bit of wisdom.
>Perhaps you just seek a way to pass the time engaging in debate (that's
>cool too). Whichever the case, any effort spent here by you has affected
>absolutely nothing in ICANN - nor will it. Again, that is by design :)
>
>So... "The Issue" has now been addressed without cute phrases.
>
>--
>
>Bradley D. Thornton
>Chief Technology Officer
>The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
>http://www.PacificRoot.com
>http://www.JointTech.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

- --
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: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 11:53:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Improvement of streaming video archives (feedback requested)

I honestly believe the major problem is not ICANN-to-public, but
public-to-ICANN.  Current systems for public-to-ICANN do not allow
attendees unfiltered access to non-participant comments, and leave the
decision as to which comments to use and how to edit them, to ad hoc
choices according to no published guidelines.  The results are
substantially sub-optimal.

Thus, I propose that efforts and funds be expended on solving the more
important problem rather than improving a system that already works ok.

On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Ben Edelman wrote:

> For the past three years, Berkman Center staff have provided streaming video
> archives of webcast ICANN meeting sessions.  To date, web-based display of
> these archives has been reasonably crude -- we have posted the streaming
> video files as well as other archive materials (scribe's notes, PowerPoint
> slides and documents shown, etc.), but we have left archive viewers on their
> own to review and combine these materials as needed.
> 
> In another context, Berkman Center staff have developed a web-based system
> whereby streaming media is synchronized with the display of web pages in a
> web browser, allowing the display of web pages as desired throughout a
> streaming video clip.  We seek comments from those in this forum on the
> question of whether this system or another like it would be helpful --
> presumably, useful in synchronizing the display of slides, documents,
> scribe's notes, or other content along with archived streaming video of an
> ICANN meeting.
> 
> At this time, a single video session is available to demonstrate this
> technology -- namely, the New TLDs session from last year's Berkman
> Center-sponsored Pressing Issues II conference (November 12, 2000).  The
> demonstration is at
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000/sync> (available also
> from the Archive session within
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000>).  Note that this
> system is in preliminary testing form at this time, and has been tested to
> date only with the Internet Explorer web browser.
> 
> 
> We would appreciate feedback from those on this list -- either via
> discussion here (to the extent it's relevant to questions of transparency of
> ICANN meeting archives generally) or off-list (re specific technical
> questions or glitches, unrelated ideas, etc.).
> 
> (Existing ideas for improvement: Advance notification when right frame
> display is about to change.  Optional auto-pause of video at designated
> points, perhaps controlled via a checkbox or other toggle.  Easier access to
> web page URLs for subsequent reference as desired.)
> 
> 
> Ben Edelman
> Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> Harvard Law School
> 
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #790
************************