Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #794
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, October 17 2001         Volume 01 : Number 794

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

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Idno-discuss] Re: [ga] IDNO -- SCHMIDNO.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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.

As Vint said himself when cornered by distinguished Conressional
representatives, "uh... we're only responsible for our root."

That much is true - ICANN is central to nothing else.

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

Precisely :)

> 
> 
> 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 
> >
> >
> 

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: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:45:24 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [Idno-discuss] Re: [ga] IDNO -- SCHMIDNO.

|> From: PacificRoot Hostmaster [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 12:34 PM

|> As Vint said himself when cornered by distinguished Conressional
|> representatives, "uh... we're only responsible for our root."
|> 
|> That much is true - ICANN is central to nothing else.

I might point out that even that statement is over-ambitious. ICANN isn't
responsible for the root. It is only responsible for making recommendations
for the root. The USDOC is the responsible authority. It is a small factoid
that keeps getting glossed over.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:07:45 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Delete Discussion Summary

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
To: "Registrars@Dnso. Org" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 6:07 PM
Subject: FYI: Delete Discussion Summary

> As I mentioned on the telecon last week, I would prepare an overview of
the
> discussions thus far as it relates to the batch-delete-processing problems
> encountered by Verisign-GRS.
>
> This overview and summary can be found at
http://www.byte.org/rc-deletes/ -
> it's a little bit rough, but I will clean it up over the next few days
> (typos etc.)
>
> This is a very serious issue that will likely affect all registrars.
Please
> take the time to read through the various proposals and make sure that you
> make your voice heard. Comments on the proceedings can be sent to
> [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked] or as a
last
> resort, myself. If you have any questions about the specific discussions
on
> the mailing list, please feel free to drop me a line. There are no public
> archives of the discussion, but I have kept a record of the mail traffic
in
> my inbox.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -rwr
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:17:36 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Task Force appointees

on 10/15/01 5:58 PM, [email-masked] at [email-masked] wrote:

> The Names Council has also established a Task Force to attend to the issue of
> intra-registrar transfers.  Although we have not yet been asked to provide a
> representative (probably an oversight), I am reasonably confident that such
> an invitation will be forthcoming as this matter was brought to the attention
> of the Council by the GA.
> 
> As this issue must also be dealt with in an expeditious manner, I also
> consider it appropriate to appoint a representative to facilitate the rapid
> resolution of outstanding issues.  For this Task Force we will need the
> benefit of a representative with a passionate interest in the subject who has
> demonstrated a commitment to registrant rights.    Accordingly,  I am asking
> William Walsh to accept this responsibility, and to similarly chair a
> committee that will discuss GA concerns relative to the transfers issue.
> 
> I would ask both David and William to confirm their appointments.

I strongly object to the appointment of William Walsh in this position. He
advocates only American Registrar views, vehemently objecting to any
requests to consider the difficulties of non-US Registrars, and Registrants
in general. He sees no need to consider, let alone, comply with EU laws to
which EU Registrars and Registrants are subject and he advocates that ICANN
should refuse to do business with all foreign Registrars that will not
comply with American ways of doing business. We need a person who will fight
for removal of the bankrupcy clause from the Registrar transfer Agreement,
which is the most nonsensical, unworkeable clause as any I have ever seen in
any contract. We need somebody who represents the Registrants, not the
Registrars, and William is not that person.

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: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 15:29:51 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Task Force appointees

Tuesday, Tuesday, October 16, 2001, 3:17:36 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 10/15/01 5:58 PM, [email-masked] at [email-masked] wrote:

>> The Names Council has also established a Task Force to attend to the issue of
>> intra-registrar transfers.  Although we have not yet been asked to provide a
>> representative (probably an oversight), I am reasonably confident that such
>> an invitation will be forthcoming as this matter was brought to the attention
>> of the Council by the GA.
>> 
>> As this issue must also be dealt with in an expeditious manner, I also
>> consider it appropriate to appoint a representative to facilitate the rapid
>> resolution of outstanding issues.  For this Task Force we will need the
>> benefit of a representative with a passionate interest in the subject who has
>> demonstrated a commitment to registrant rights.    Accordingly,  I am asking
>> William Walsh to accept this responsibility, and to similarly chair a
>> committee that will discuss GA concerns relative to the transfers issue.
>> 
>> I would ask both David and William to confirm their appointments.

> I strongly object to the appointment of William Walsh in this position. He
> advocates only American Registrar views, vehemently objecting to any
> requests to consider the difficulties of non-US Registrars, and Registrants
> in general.

My letter on this subject to ICANN had signatures from NUMEROUS
European and even Asian ISPs.

You're full of it.

> He sees no need to consider, let alone, comply with EU laws to
> which EU Registrars and Registrants are subject and he advocates that ICANN
> should refuse to do business with all foreign Registrars that will not
> comply with American ways of doing business.

None of which has anything to do with the DOMAIN TRANSFER ISSUE.

> We need a person who will fight
> for removal of the bankrupcy clause from the Registrar transfer Agreement,

No, we need someone who will focus on the REAL issue right now, which
has nothing to do with that clause.

> which is the most nonsensical, unworkeable clause as any I have ever seen in
> any contract. We need somebody who represents the Registrants, not the
> Registrars, and William is not that person.

Get off it, I declined the nomination anyway, but your comments here
are way out of line, Joanna.

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:37:53 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Delete Discussion Summary

At 6:07 PM -0400 16/10/01, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
>To: "Registrars@Dnso. Org" <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 6:07 PM
>Subject: FYI: Delete Discussion Summary
>
>
>> As I mentioned on the telecon last week, I would prepare an overview of
>the
>> discussions thus far as it relates to the batch-delete-processing problems
>> encountered by Verisign-GRS.
>>
>> This overview and summary can be found at
>http://www.byte.org/rc-deletes/ -

Looks like someone forgot to renew their domain name.

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:45:29 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [Idno-discuss] Re: [ga] IDNO -- SCHMIDNO.

On 23:45 16/10/01, Roeland Meyer said:
>|> From: PacificRoot Hostmaster [mailto:[email-masked]]
>|> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 12:34 PM
>
>|> As Vint said himself when cornered by distinguished Conressional
>|> representatives, "uh... we're only responsible for our root."
>|>
>|> That much is true - ICANN is central to nothing else.
>
>I might point out that even that statement is over-ambitious. ICANN isn't
>responsible for the root. It is only responsible for making recommendations
>for the root. The USDOC is the responsible authority. It is a small factoid
>that keeps getting glossed over.

Yes, but the USG root will absolutely be of no interest when Govnet has 
developed the proper alternative and forced Microsoft to integrate to 
Windows as part of its security scheme. As I told Stuart and Mike; when 
militaries comes in they usually open routes for heir own use that the 
civilians may use afterward.

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:34:10 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: FW: [ga] Alt.Chair Replacement

copy to ga list previously ommitted in error.

- ----------
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:53:21 -0400
To: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alt.Chair Replacement

on 10/16/01 1:41 PM, Roeland Meyer at [email-masked] wrote:

> The real problem is that the few rules that we have, don't include rules for
> succession.

We don't need them, in the same way, we resolved difficulties when Jon
Weinberg withdrew from the last election half way through.

> 
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 8:42 AM
> |> To: Tim Langdell
> |> Cc: [email-masked]
> |> Subject: Re: [ga] Alt.Chair Replacement
> |> 
> |> 
> |>  Our last election process covered the period from March
> |> 2 through
> |> April 10, 2001.
> |> <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html>.
> |> If we stick to that schedule, we'll be electing a new chair
> |> and alt chair
> |> in 4 1/2 months.  That's more time than I'd thought, but I
> |> suspect that
> |> just continuing to bumble along without one will still be at least as
> |> successful a strategy as any alternative.
> |> 
> |> Jon

Jon, 
With the greatest respect, I am surprised that you have been so quick to
volunteer a person for extra work that you, yourself, have only recently
been unwilling to take on. "Bumbling along" without an Alt Chair imposes
extra burdens on the Chair unfairly, which after all is a volunteer
position. Added to that, no ICANN official should be indispensible. For
reasons of stability, there should be two GA Chairs at all times, and
obviously, the simplest way forward would be to invite volunteers and for
the Chair to chose a "running mate" with talents and skills in areas where
he, himself, feels he could be stronger.

I certainly hope William Walsh applies.

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: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 15:44:53 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] FYI: Delete Discussion Summary

Tuesday, Tuesday, October 16, 2001, 3:37:53 PM, Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 6:07 PM -0400 16/10/01, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
>>To: "Registrars@Dnso. Org" <[email-masked]>
>>Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 6:07 PM
>>Subject: FYI: Delete Discussion Summary
>>
>>
>>> As I mentioned on the telecon last week, I would prepare an overview of
>>the
>>> discussions thus far as it relates to the batch-delete-processing problems
>>> encountered by Verisign-GRS.
>>>
>>> This overview and summary can be found at
>>http://www.byte.org/rc-deletes/ -

> Looks like someone forgot to renew their domain name.

Works from here.

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 15:48:12 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: FW: [ga] Alt.Chair Replacement

Tuesday, Tuesday, October 16, 2001, 3:34:10 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> position. Added to that, no ICANN official should be indispensible. For
> reasons of stability, there should be two GA Chairs at all times, and
> obviously, the simplest way forward would be to invite volunteers and for
> the Chair to chose a "running mate" with talents and skills in areas where
> he, himself, feels he could be stronger.

I disagree with the running mate concept entirely.

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:04:26 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Task Force appointees

on 10/16/01 6:29 PM, William X Walsh at [email-masked] wrote:

>> I strongly object to the appointment of William Walsh in this position. He
>> advocates only American Registrar views, vehemently objecting to any
>> requests to consider the difficulties of non-US Registrars, and Registrants
>> in general.
> 
> My letter on this subject to ICANN had signatures from NUMEROUS
> European and even Asian ISPs.

The justification for your appointment was on the basis of a "passionate
interest in Registrant rights". Your passionate interest is in US ISP
rights. This is not a criticism, it's an observation.
> 
<personal insult deleted>.
> 
>> He sees no need to consider, let alone, comply with EU laws to
>> which EU Registrars and Registrants are subject and he advocates that ICANN
>> should refuse to do business with all foreign Registrars that will not
>> comply with American ways of doing business.
> 
> None of which has anything to do with the DOMAIN TRANSFER ISSUE.

Demonstrates attitude. The role requires advocay of more than just US
interests. 
> 
>> We need a person who will fight
>> for removal of the bankrupcy clause from the Registrar transfer Agreement,
> 
> No, we need someone who will focus on the REAL issue right now, which
> has nothing to do with that clause.

Incorrect. Part of the REAL problem is that this brand new autonack policy
can be stalled in a heartbeat by invoking an unworkeable bankrupcy clause
that serves NO purpose. How can the Gaining Registrar enforce the transfer
of my domain after the Losing Registrar informs them that they haven't got
the results of a bankrupcy search back? It is only possible to do a
bankrupcy search within the US system and there is NO WAY that clause can be
applied internationally. I want to see the autonack policy work,  but I do
not support:-

1. racial discrimination
2. breaching an individual's legal rights
3. creating loopholes to perpetuate the very problem you seek to overcome in
the first place. 

Whoever represents the GA on this TF should be willing to work with us on
this one. There is a REAL difference between what is important to Registrars
and what is important to Registrars. They have a constituency to air their
views. We do not.
> 
<more personal insults deleted>

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: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:28:13 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Delete Discussion Summary

I'm have some problems with my domain name, so in the meantime, the content
can be found at:
http://www.opensrs.org/ross/rc-deletes/

Apologies for any confusion.

Thanks,

- -rwr

Tucows Inc.
t. 416.538.5492

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

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

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:41:05 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alt.Chair Replacement

Tail and other matters snipped

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Jonathan and all assembly members,
>
>   As we all surely know, the Alt-Chair is a position that normally
> is a stand in for the Chair in times of absence of the Chair or
> if the Chair is temporarily unable to preside.

I believe that is exactly what is happening here on a regular basis.  Because of
the over work required in the external affairs our chair is "unable to preside"
over internal affairs as he would like to.  I think setting up quick elections may
be a case in point.  I know that just getting our input into at large issues and
the like requires much effort to get into the schedule for MDR, especially during
this security situation. Keeping us informed of board actions seems almost a full
time job as it is.

OTOH maybe our Chair just ran this by us because he had extra time on his hands and
thought it would be fun;>}

Happily,
Eric

ps. of course I think all these positions should be funded, and two working chairs
may help get that done sooner than later.

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

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

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- JDNO -- SCHMIDNO.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Andy Gardner wrote:

> 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!
> >>
> >
> >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.
> 

Bill,

No offense to you, really. Everyone undertands that you attempted to play
one of the most impartial parts in the history of JDNO. Your quest to
affect change via the GA is however, unbeknownst to you, futile :(

You have a good legal mind and could really be helpful in other arenas of
this industry where your insight and expertise would not be completely
wasted as is occuring here on this list. I urge you to consider working
with those groups which foster positive, forward-moving, result oriented
tasks that can have a real effect. You would be surprised how many people
admire your potential already.

For those others who are not familiar with Andy Gardner (one of the 'good 
guys'), let's just suffice it to say that were it not for him there may
very well have never been an IDNO.ORG, for it was his money that 
registered the domain in the first place.

One indicator that members of this list can use (and there are many
methods) to determine when ICANN decides to put the brakes on the
proceedings here is when they send in a paid confidence man like Dave
Crocker (who has even referenced his own name on this list with that of
"Agent Provocateur"). ICANN doesn't like it when the members of this list
approach consensus.

Well, I'm going to take a break for a spell. Those who need to get ahold
of me know where they can reach me :) [crispy-crocketts should begin
appearing shortly after I make my way to the egress ;)].

- --
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: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alt.Chair Replacement

I nominate JW 

On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear members,
> 
> We have received the following query from the Names Council:
> 
> Danny,
> following the resignation of the alt chair, what action do you propose 
> taking? Will you be holding new elections or looking at the previous election 
> for the next person on the list?
>  
> Philip Sheppard
> NC Chair
> 
> As the General Assembly's rules do not offer sufficient guidance in this 
> area, it is appropriate that the membership discuss this matter.  In essence, 
> do we promote Eric Dierker to the position of Alt. Chair, or do we convene 
> new elections?  Is there justification for the Chair to appoint a temporary 
> Alt. Chair until the elections are held (if we decide that elections are 
> warranted?)  Let me know your thoughts so that we can move forward 
> accordingly.  Thank 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
> 

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: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:46:39 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Task Force appointees

Joanna and all assembly members,

  In part I find myself strongly in agreement with Joanna here.  However
WXW is right is saying that the Bankruptcy issue is really not all that
relevant.  But that is the limit of WXW's correctness.

  Joanna's need to "Snip" the many insults that WXW expressed towards
Joanna's very well articulated objection to WXW's suggested appointment
by Danny (Chair) in no way deserved WXW's insults.  On that basis
alone, WXW has yet again displayed he is unfit for such a position.
Why Danny has yet to learn this is beyond my comprehension.

  This whole situation as it is developing in "Appointing" or "Selecting"
individuals has yet again shown that such a practice is rarely a wise
thing to do.

Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 10/16/01 6:29 PM, William X Walsh at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >> I strongly object to the appointment of William Walsh in this position. He
> >> advocates only American Registrar views, vehemently objecting to any
> >> requests to consider the difficulties of non-US Registrars, and Registrants
> >> in general.
> >
> > My letter on this subject to ICANN had signatures from NUMEROUS
> > European and even Asian ISPs.
>
> The justification for your appointment was on the basis of a "passionate
> interest in Registrant rights". Your passionate interest is in US ISP
> rights. This is not a criticism, it's an observation.
> >
> <personal insult deleted>.
> >
> >> He sees no need to consider, let alone, comply with EU laws to
> >> which EU Registrars and Registrants are subject and he advocates that ICANN
> >> should refuse to do business with all foreign Registrars that will not
> >> comply with American ways of doing business.
> >
> > None of which has anything to do with the DOMAIN TRANSFER ISSUE.
>
> Demonstrates attitude. The role requires advocay of more than just US
> interests.
> >
> >> We need a person who will fight
> >> for removal of the bankrupcy clause from the Registrar transfer Agreement,
> >
> > No, we need someone who will focus on the REAL issue right now, which
> > has nothing to do with that clause.
>
> Incorrect. Part of the REAL problem is that this brand new autonack policy
> can be stalled in a heartbeat by invoking an unworkeable bankrupcy clause
> that serves NO purpose. How can the Gaining Registrar enforce the transfer
> of my domain after the Losing Registrar informs them that they haven't got
> the results of a bankrupcy search back? It is only possible to do a
> bankrupcy search within the US system and there is NO WAY that clause can be
> applied internationally. I want to see the autonack policy work,  but I do
> not support:-
>
> 1. racial discrimination
> 2. breaching an individual's legal rights
> 3. creating loopholes to perpetuate the very problem you seek to overcome in
> the first place.
>
> Whoever represents the GA on this TF should be willing to work with us on
> this one. There is a REAL difference between what is important to Registrars
> and what is important to Registrars. They have a constituency to air their
> views. We do not.
> >
> <more personal insults deleted>
>
> 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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #794
************************