Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #791
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, October 15 2001           Volume 01 : Number 791

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

Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 12:41:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:
> Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 
> >         Amadeu (whom I also like) didn't make the statements attributed to
> > him in this thread, so the revisionism isn't his.
> >         I think Bill Lovell is referring to
> > <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00384.html>.  What Amadeu said
> > there was that "the original design of the DNSO was to provide a place for
> > functional interests in DNS to be represented," that "users" got
> > representation because they were considered to play a functional role, and
> > that the user group was separated into commercial and noncommercial
> > constituencies because the two groups were seen as too different to
> > coexist in a single constituency.  The IPC, he suggests, was added not
> > because it played a functional role, but because it was unavoidable given
> > the "IP-DN question on the table."  He goes on to suggest that an
> > individuals' constituency is unnecessary because "an individual would be
> > either a commercial or non-commecial user, or both, and such
> > constituencies already exist."  I don't happen to agree with him, but he
> > plainly isn't making the "ICANN is a technical body so users should have
> > no role" argument.
> >
> > Jon
> 
> Ah, but read on to this (and that indeed was what I was referring to
> -- thank you for digging it out): > But I don't see "individual"as a
> "function" compared to "registry" or "commercial > registrants" or
> "non-commercial registrant". I believe that is what I said he said:
> essentially, individuals had no function and thus needed no
> representation. Those "functions," I believe, are technical functions,
> since he also says that the IPC was added even though it had no
> "function" in that sense (i.e., in the same way that individuals had
> no function). So he plainly did make that argument, whatever he may
> have intended.

	He said that *being an individual* was not a function.  Rather,
individuals are commercial and noncommercial users, and perform a function
(just as do other users) when they act in those capacities.  Thus, he
argued, individuals shouldn't get representation qua individuals; they
should get representation qua users.  There's nothing in his discussion
about technical vs. nontechnical functions, and however one draws that
line, Amadeu makes it clear that he thinks the function performed by
"users" is one that should be represented.  

- --
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 11:41:32 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> >
> > >         Amadeu (whom I also like) didn't make the statements attributed to
> > > him in this thread, so the revisionism isn't his.
> > >         I think Bill Lovell is referring to
> > > <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00384.html>.  What Amadeu said
> > > there was that "the original design of the DNSO was to provide a place for
> > > functional interests in DNS to be represented," that "users" got
> > > representation because they were considered to play a functional role, and
> > > that the user group was separated into commercial and noncommercial
> > > constituencies because the two groups were seen as too different to
> > > coexist in a single constituency.  The IPC, he suggests, was added not
> > > because it played a functional role, but because it was unavoidable given
> > > the "IP-DN question on the table."  He goes on to suggest that an
> > > individuals' constituency is unnecessary because "an individual would be
> > > either a commercial or non-commecial user, or both, and such
> > > constituencies already exist."  I don't happen to agree with him, but he
> > > plainly isn't making the "ICANN is a technical body so users should have
> > > no role" argument.
> > >
> > > Jon
> >
> > Ah, but read on to this (and that indeed was what I was referring to
> > -- thank you for digging it out): > But I don't see "individual"as a
> > "function" compared to "registry" or "commercial > registrants" or
> > "non-commercial registrant". I believe that is what I said he said:
> > essentially, individuals had no function and thus needed no
> > representation. Those "functions," I believe, are technical functions,
> > since he also says that the IPC was added even though it had no
> > "function" in that sense (i.e., in the same way that individuals had
> > no function). So he plainly did make that argument, whatever he may
> > have intended.
>
>         He said that *being an individual* was not a function.  Rather,
> individuals are commercial and noncommercial users, and perform a function
> (just as do other users) when they act in those capacities.  Thus, he
> argued, individuals shouldn't get representation qua individuals; they
> should get representation qua users.  There's nothing in his discussion
> about technical vs. nontechnical functions, and however one draws that
> line, Amadeu makes it clear that he thinks the function performed by
> "users" is one that should be represented.

Um, I don't think this particular hair can handle any more splitting. What
you say in your last sentence is true, but the issue I was addressing
was what was done at the inception of ICANN -- individuals qua
individuals were not given representation because they had no function.
The only purpose in examining those old bones is to bring out the
initial mind set of the "interim" directors, and see how much of it still
remains.  Much of it does.

Bill

- --

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

- --
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 12:25:58 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Idno-discuss] Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>  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".

Don't think I said that, but if that interpretation creeped through, it
was not intended.

>
> No! We have to stop the ICANN from being a policy center.

That is also true, but not perzactly the issue I was raising, which was:

ICANN suffers from delusions of grandeur that is traceable to its
decisions early on to claim such omnipotence that the voices of the
individuals were not necessary. It is that mind set, and its origin,
that was the subject of my post.

> 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.

Exactly what I would have said if that were the issue I had addressed.
(I might not have
thought of the telephone bit, though -- good show!)

> 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.

I'm not enough of a techie to have said that, but you are so I'll echo
it!

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

Concur.

Bill

- --
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 18:38:44 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Idno-discuss] Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

on 10/14/01 3:41 AM, Jefsey Morfin at [email-masked] wrote:

<snip>
>Again, I do 
> not want my telephone to be democratic: I want it to work.

Jefsey,
I have let this mantra of yours pass by so many times, this time I will
respond....Telecommunications are regulated by an authority that has
delegated powers granted to it by a democratically elected government. This
is why your telephone works, and works cheaply, so I disagree, you want your
telephone to be democratic.

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: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 18:51:24 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

Dear Amadeu,
Excuse me for butting in here, but I think you are needed on the GA list to
clarify a possible misunderstanding related to your position on Individuals
that is causing some confusion.

Regards,
Joanna

on 10/14/01 12:41 PM, Jonathan Weinberg at [email-masked] wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:
>> Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>> 
>>> Amadeu (whom I also like) didn't make the statements attributed to
>>> him in this thread, so the revisionism isn't his.
>>> I think Bill Lovell is referring to
>>> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00384.html>.  What Amadeu said
>>> there was that "the original design of the DNSO was to provide a place for
>>> functional interests in DNS to be represented," that "users" got
>>> representation because they were considered to play a functional role, and
>>> that the user group was separated into commercial and noncommercial
>>> constituencies because the two groups were seen as too different to
>>> coexist in a single constituency.  The IPC, he suggests, was added not
>>> because it played a functional role, but because it was unavoidable given
>>> the "IP-DN question on the table."  He goes on to suggest that an
>>> individuals' constituency is unnecessary because "an individual would be
>>> either a commercial or non-commecial user, or both, and such
>>> constituencies already exist."  I don't happen to agree with him, but he
>>> plainly isn't making the "ICANN is a technical body so users should have
>>> no role" argument.
>>> 
>>> Jon
>> 
>> Ah, but read on to this (and that indeed was what I was referring to
>> -- thank you for digging it out): > But I don't see "individual"as a
>> "function" compared to "registry" or "commercial > registrants" or
>> "non-commercial registrant". I believe that is what I said he said:
>> essentially, individuals had no function and thus needed no
>> representation. Those "functions," I believe, are technical functions,
>> since he also says that the IPC was added even though it had no
>> "function" in that sense (i.e., in the same way that individuals had
>> no function). So he plainly did make that argument, whatever he may
>> have intended.
> 
> He said that *being an individual* was not a function.  Rather,
> individuals are commercial and noncommercial users, and perform a function
> (just as do other users) when they act in those capacities.  Thus, he
> argued, individuals shouldn't get representation qua individuals; they
> should get representation qua users.  There's nothing in his discussion
> about technical vs. nontechnical functions, and however one draws that
> line, Amadeu makes it clear that he thinks the function performed by
> "users" is one that should be represented.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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 19:26:14 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] best practices

I at this time ask for an informal gathering of consensus on the Best
Practices as drafted and argued.

I am in favor of them and I plan on using them to change them in the
future.  My point is I want to move forward.  There is no need to argue
against a particular portion of them because within them there is room
to modify them.

Do us all a favor and weigh in on this.  I am not addressing the
procedure for adopting them formally just a rough consensus on pro or
con.

May all of you be at just enough peace to be happy but not so much as to
be complacent, please route around apathy.

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: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 19:59:20 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] POLICY

I address this to the assembly and to no one in particular so that no
one may take particular offense.

There was a man who went to the king and said I have two soldiers and
with them I will collect a 10% tax from all the people.  The king said
but you are not a taxing authority! The man said so I will give you 50%
and the king said go ahead.  The man and the king lived very happily for
years collecting the tax because all the people would say as they paid
was "they have no right to direct the policy of the tax so we will not
discuss it" but they paid.

We have so many here in the GA that say there is no authority for ICANN
to direct public policy but they do and when some of us say "this is the
correct policy" others tell us "but we do not direct public policy".
Yet the tax is collected.

This is how the Staff and the BoD wins.  They are directing policy while
the good citizens say that they will not discuss it because it is not
within our mandate.

And so did the people continue to pay the tax or did they tell the man
and petition the king to make the tax 2%?  Sometimes standing on the
truth is less practical than standing on what is real.

May an Engineer and a Lobbyist ever see eye to eye?  Yes, when they get
married to each other.  The BoD and the Staff have a great marriage
while we suffer adolescent dating and bickering.

Please take the time today or tonight to use the Internet to do one good
thing, write a poem and send it, write an old friend, declare your
peace, even if only with yourself.

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: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:23:44 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

This is really important stuff.  It begins to break down rights.  It strikes at
the fundamental dichotomy of professional versus user.  No one is on the same page
here.  Techie vs. Polywog/user vs. ISP or Engineer.  DNH vs surfer.  Airline
ticket buyer vs. airline ticket seller.  Registry vs Registrar vs registrant vs
marketing vs user.

The categories that were envisioned just three years ago never took into account
individual rights or market factors = oops!  That is ok.  keep talking and do not
criticize someone who worked within given parameters of 1999 for failing to be
right today, and by the same token, (and I love this one) do not claim credit for
something said 2 years ago that was stupid then but right now.

I for one, and as a dotcommoner really trust you guys.  Not to be right always.
but to keep trying and listening and believing that you can make a difference and
make it better.

On behalf of all us users without a twit of a concept of what you talk about half
the time, thank you.

Sincerely,
Eric

ps. my buddies are watching even though they make not a sound ;-}

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> >
> > >         Amadeu (whom I also like) didn't make the statements attributed to
> > > him in this thread, so the revisionism isn't his.
> > >         I think Bill Lovell is referring to
> > > <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00384.html>.  What Amadeu said
> > > there was that "the original design of the DNSO was to provide a place for
> > > functional interests in DNS to be represented," that "users" got
> > > representation because they were considered to play a functional role, and
> > > that the user group was separated into commercial and noncommercial
> > > constituencies because the two groups were seen as too different to
> > > coexist in a single constituency.  The IPC, he suggests, was added not
> > > because it played a functional role, but because it was unavoidable given
> > > the "IP-DN question on the table."  He goes on to suggest that an
> > > individuals' constituency is unnecessary because "an individual would be
> > > either a commercial or non-commecial user, or both, and such
> > > constituencies already exist."  I don't happen to agree with him, but he
> > > plainly isn't making the "ICANN is a technical body so users should have
> > > no role" argument.
> > >
> > > Jon
> >
> > Ah, but read on to this (and that indeed was what I was referring to
> > -- thank you for digging it out): > But I don't see "individual"as a
> > "function" compared to "registry" or "commercial > registrants" or
> > "non-commercial registrant". I believe that is what I said he said:
> > essentially, individuals had no function and thus needed no
> > representation. Those "functions," I believe, are technical functions,
> > since he also says that the IPC was added even though it had no
> > "function" in that sense (i.e., in the same way that individuals had
> > no function). So he plainly did make that argument, whatever he may
> > have intended.
>
>         He said that *being an individual* was not a function.  Rather,
> individuals are commercial and noncommercial users, and perform a function
> (just as do other users) when they act in those capacities.  Thus, he
> argued, individuals shouldn't get representation qua individuals; they
> should get representation qua users.  There's nothing in his discussion
> about technical vs. nontechnical functions, and however one draws that
> line, Amadeu makes it clear that he thinks the function performed by
> "users" is one that should be represented.
>
> --
> 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 22:29:57 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] best practices - Request for ballot.

Eric and all assembly members,

  It has bee our members position that the noted mentioned "Best Practices"
document be voted upon by the GA membership in order to determine
consensus properly.

  Therefore I would ask that the Secretariat prepare a ballot for this
vote post haste in accordance with the current procedure for voting
by this assembly.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I at this time ask for an informal gathering of consensus on the Best
> Practices as drafted and argued.
>
> I am in favor of them and I plan on using them to change them in the
> future.  My point is I want to move forward.  There is no need to argue
> against a particular portion of them because within them there is room
> to modify them.
>
> Do us all a favor and weigh in on this.  I am not addressing the
> procedure for adopting them formally just a rough consensus on pro or
> con.
>
> May all of you be at just enough peace to be happy but not so much as to
> be complacent, please route around apathy.
>
> 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

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: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 22:02:03 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

At 8:45 PM -0700 13/10/01, William S. Lovell wrote:
>PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:
>>
>> > It seems certain that the GA's input into the election was utterly
>>ignored.
>> >
>> > Bill
>> >
>>
>> Again.....
>>
>>         DUH !!!!
>>
>> Come on people! Wakey Wakey here!
>>
>> Thy shackles doth secured by thyself :)
>>
>> --
>>
>> Bradley D. Thornton
>> Chief Technology Officer
>> The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
>> http://www.PacificRoot.com
>> http://www.JointTech.com
>
>I just love it when a response has nothing but cute phrases in
>it, with no attempt whatever to address the issue.

I just love it when someone who's relatively new to the scene doesn't
recognise the warnings from someone else who was passionate about the
matter over two years ago (and tried to address the issues), but grew to
realise that it was all a complete sham and that the end result was a prior
decision and that time spent trying to fight those REALLY in control of
ICANN would be time wasted.

- -- 
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: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 09:56:01 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Idno-discuss] Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

On 00:38 15/10/01, Joanna Lane said:
>Telecommunications are regulated by an authority that has
>delegated powers granted to it by a democratically elected government.

How yes? which one?

The NSA? the North Korean PTT? the Cuba Telephone Company, BT?, 
Telephonica?  I am glad to learn that Nazi were democrats: Allieds did not 
notice in 45 that their telephone system did not work.

The worst telephone company at a time was the Irish one (now it is one of 
the best). Irish said "you do not reach the person you want but you are 
making friends", so may be that it is when the telephone does *not* work 
that it becomes democratic, or at least friendly :-)

Telephone Democracy Test (TDT): the faster you get a foreign correspondant 
on the phone the more democratic is his country.

Sorry for teasing, thanks for the fun.
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: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:33:16 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] dot-org sponsoring organization (from: [email-masked])

For your information.
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- ----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> -----

From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:32:47 +0200
Subject: dot-org sponsoring organization

First of all, most of this report looks fine to me.

However, there are some points which cause some headache to me.

1. The task force seems to be enthusiastic about the idea that .org 
should be delegated to a non-profit sponsoring organization.

Of course, this non-profit organization already shows up in the NSI 
contracts and surrounding documents.  However, as we have been told 
all over the place, these contracts do not set policy, so the only 
effect of a for-profit sponsoring organization would be to lose the 
$5 million from NSI.

So, why does the sponsoring organization have to be a non-profit? 
What's the rationale for this, beyond the NSI contract?

2. The report specifically says: "A new organization need not be 
formally incorporated prior to submitting its application." There 
should be specific requirements which should be fulfilled by such 
non-organizations.  In particular, even for a non-profit which does 
not yet exist, a solid business plan, and access to the legal, 
technical, and business expertise needed should be a requirement, 
and should be demonstrated in an eventual proposal.

3. If the sponsoring organization wants to outsource registry 
operations to a commercial service provider, a commitment from at 
least one provider, and an outline of the outsourcing contract 
should be part of the proposal, and should be considered by ICANN 
when examining the individual proposals.

Particular attention should be paid to the contractual and practical 
abilities the sponsoring organization has if it needs to enforce the 
outsourcing contract (this includes, for instance, financial 
reserves needed for possible litigation).

The proposal should make clear under what conditions the outsourcing 
provider may be changed, and what conditions would apply to a new 
outsourcing provider.

If outsourcing is not planned, the proposal should make transparent 
the conditions under which this can happen.

4. The task force report says that the sponsoring organization 
should have "international support and participation from current 
.org registrants and non-commercial organizations inside and outside 
of the ICANN process".  It should be a requirement that proposals 
contain a plan on how this kind of participation is to be 
implemented, and how "international support" is to be gathered. 

5. The task force "specifically asks that the RFP not require a 
non-refundable application fee larger than US$ 1,000".  Frankly, I'm 
in serious doubt that an organization which can't afford US$ 1,000 
would be of any use as a .org sponsoring organization.  In 
particular, the cost for producing a sound and solid proposal will 
produce non-refundable costs far in excess of $1,000 - after all, 
$1,000 is just a few hours of a good lawyer's or consultant's time.

On the other hand, a considerably higher application fee may be a 
suitable repellent for bogus proposals, and may for this reason be a 
good thing.

6. Let me re-emphasize that creating a sound proposal will require a 
considerable investment without any guarantee of return, and it will 
almost inevitably require negotiations with and commitments from 
various sides.  I'm in serious doubt that this is something a 
special-purpose non-profit which does not even exist could achieve.

As a side note, I think that this task force's report demonstrates 
that the task force process currently preferred over working groups 
by the names council is seriously lacking.
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 03:45:05 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [fwd] dot-org sponsoring organization (from: [email-masked])

Monday, Monday, October 15, 2001, 3:33:16 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> For your information.

If you need additional support for your comments, add my name as a
full supporter of every single word.

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:50:27 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Fwd: [ncdnhc-discuss] NC Whois Task Report]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------AF6BD2A4C52ED46B6FE078B6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

All assembly members,

  FYI...

- --
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

- --------------AF6BD2A4C52ED46B6FE078B6
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

From: "YJ Park" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Paul Kane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] NC Whois Task Report
Sender: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:41:02 +0900

Progress Report for NC Whois Task Force.

                                                     version 0.1.  Oct. 15
                                                                          YJ
Park

I. Historical Background for Whois Committee
- -----------------------------------------------------------------

2000. Fourth Q: ICANN Whois Committee

It was turned out that there had been a decision made during
Yokohama meeting to convene Whois Committee of ICANN
which didn't include NCDNHC representative and then got strong
criticism that the process has not been transparent at all.(Appendix 4)

II. ICANN Whois Committee ---> DNSO Whois Committee
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----

2001. First Q: DNSO NC Whois Committee Formation

NC Whois Committee had to wait for ICANN Whois Committee's
Report and no progress.(Appendix 3)

III. Whois Survey
- -----------------------

2001. Second Q: DNSO NC Task Force to start Whois Survey

Until NC Whois Survey was conducted from June(Appendix 2),
NC Whois TF exchanged few messages. However, Whois survey
results could not be available for NC TF members. It was understood
that the survey results have been managed by ICANN staff.

IV. After Whois Survey
- -------------------------------

2001. Third Q: Montevideo f2f Meeting

During f2f meeting, members discussed how to evaluate 3000
or so responses. However, it was noted that without data on the
table, it would be not practical to decide how to do that. Therefore,
the sampling was suggested and still it is not available yet.

V. The current status
- -----------------------------

2001. 4Q: October teleconference

Before October teleconference, TF members shared the concerns
how we can get data from ICANN(Appendix 1) During the meeting,
Louis explained that the data can be available sometime this month.

VI. Actions to consider for members.
- --------------------------------------------------

Even though that proposal that this survey should be conducted by
University Research organization with financial supports were not
positively responded among the members of TF, I think such idea
is still valuable to consider since it would be very unrealistic for TF
members to read them and come up with a report.

VII. Members of Whois NC Task Force
- ------------------------------------------------------

Paul Kane, Chair, Registrar,
Danny Younger, GA
Marilyn Cade, Business
Oscar Robles, ccTLD
Axel aus der Muhlen, IP
Tony Harris, ISP
Miriam Sapiro, gTLD
YJ Park, NCDNHC

[Appendix 1]

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul M. Kane" <[email-masked]>
To: "YJ Park (MINC)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "WHOIS Committee - DNSO" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: [nc-whois] Whois Survey data please....

> Morning YJ
>
> I too am frustrated at the delay but I am told (Sat) that ICANN staff are
> designing the program to extract the data in the format(s) we specified in
MV.
> It is proving more complicated than orginally anticipated but they are
working
> on it.
>
> I am optimistic we should see the data soon so we can start work in
earnest.
>
> I will put a call through tonight to obtain a timeline so we can start
> planning.
>
> Best
>
> Paul
>
> "YJ Park (MINC)" wrote:
>
> > Whois Committee members,
> >
> > Due to no response from Louis yet with repect to Paul's request
> > made on Oct. 5th, this issue should be raised during the coming
> > NC teleconference. Since this TF was formed, this TF has been
> > awaiting the data collected by ICANN.

[Appendix 2]

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul M. Kane" <[email-masked]>
To: "names council" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 3:40 PM
Subject: [council] WHOIS Survey starts...

> Fellow NC Members
>
> Please see http://www.icann.org/dnso/whois-survey-en-10jun01.htm
>
> As you are aware the DNSO NC is conducting a fact-finding mission on
> some of the WHOIS issues.  Please ask your constituencies to participate
> and give us their  thoughts. Other languages will be available soon. The
> survey is not a "vote" so a substantive response (thought through
> comments) will be well received. Comment period is open until 31st July
> 2001
>
> Many thanks
>
> Best
>
> Paul
> WHOIS Committee Chair.

[Appendix 3]

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul M. Kane" <[email-masked]>
To: "names council" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 7:26 AM
Subject: [council] NC WHOIS Committee - update.....

> NC members
>
> Here's an informational.  The NC WHOIS Committee is in "limbo" awaiting
> the publication of the report by the members of the ICANN Staff
> Committee and Rebecca Nesson. I have contacted ICANN asking for a
> publication date and they are currently working on the final draft.

[Appendix 4]

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Touton" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Rebecca Nesson" <[email-masked]>; "Alejandro Pisanty"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 2:47 AM
Subject: [council] Web Page on .com/.net/.org Whois Committee

> To the Names Council:
>
> At a recent NC meeting, Ms. Chicoine suggested that ICANN post
> information about the group giving the staff feedback on implementation
> of the Whois provisions of the .com/.net/.org Registrar Accreditation
> Agreements.  We have set up a page at
> <http://www.icann.org/committees/whois/>.  As the group provides
> reports, etc., we expect to link them from that URL.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Louis Touton

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

- --------------AF6BD2A4C52ED46B6FE078B6--

- --
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 #791
************************