Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #795
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, October 17 2001         Volume 01 : Number 795

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

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:58:01 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alt.Chair Replacement

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

>

Insult 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.

  Oh really now?  Hummmm? and just three days ago you were saying
what a good Job our chair, Danny was doing...  How does that jive?

>  Because of
> the over work required in the external affairs our chair is "unable to preside"
> over internal affairs as he would like to.

  He is?  Specific references (URL's and E-Mail references) please.

>  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.

  We have a fairly secure voting system for the DNSO GA now.  What is lacking
is the secretariat ability to generate a ballot in a timely manner.  That is not
a problem that the Chair has.  Ergo your use of this as an example is both
a misfit and a distraction in error.

> Keeping us informed of board actions seems almost a full
> time job as it is.

  GA members are partly responsible to keep themselves abreast
of Board Actions as they are published on the ICANN Web site.
So again, siting this as a example of additional duties that would
potentially overwhelm a potential Chair is also seemingly in error.

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

  The Chair didn't start this thread.  So I am having trouble understanding
this comment/remark....

>
>
> 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.

  One Chair and one Alt-Chair not two Chairs.

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: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:16:14 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Alt.Chair Replacement

Tuesday, Tuesday, October 16, 2001, 7:31:10 PM, PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:

> I nominate JW 

I nominate you  :)

- -- 
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 20:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [Idno-discuss] Re: [ga] IDNO -- SCHMIDNO.

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> |> 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.
> 

Gosh, I don't have it at my fingertips here, but what should really blow
everyone away (and perhaps Prof. Froomkin can dig up the link quicker than
I can - no pun intended) is the response that DoC gave in its response to
this letter http://www.PacificRoot.com/news/00121700.shtml - specific and 
pertinent parts of the letter sent to doc follow: 

- -------------------------------------------------------
...ICANN has no inherent authority to approve new TLDs (Indeed, even
ICANN's authority to operate is questionable as  matter of law. See Wrong
Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA and the
Constitution (Duke Law Journal 50:17 (Prof. M. Froomkin, October 2000)).
The Government Accounting Office ("GAO") has affirmed that ICANN can make
no authoritative decision concerning Domain Name administration without
express approval from the DoC. In its definitive July 7, 2000
letter/report to Congress ("Department of Commerce: Relationship with the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers") the GAO was emphatic
that final authority over the root server and its administration rests
with DoC.
- --------------------------------------------
What the DoC said in their response to the letter above was almost the
complete opposite - That ICANN made the
decisions and not DoC.

Imagine that ;) We're all familiar with being ping-pong'ed back and forth
from one extension to the other and each time the department we get says
it's someone elses responsibility, and not their own :)

In fact, ICANN themselves affirms that they have no such authority either
(although they find it convenient to do so anyway and give permission to
their darlings to establish illegal lotteries (illegal gambling is a
felony in California). The link where ICANN admits this is actually on
their own dang site!
http://www.icann.org/tlds/correspondence/esi-v-icann-13nov00.htm

Specifically:

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

"ICANN represents that it has no authority to implement new TLDs, and
that instead, it merely makes recommendations to the Commerce
Department..."

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

hm.... let's go ping pong again eh? 

Voila! It's the Department of Agriculture that must have this "Authority"
eh?

ROFLMAOPMP!

- --
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 21:37:25 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: FW: [ga] Alt.Chair Replacement

I don't know William; if the position is seen as we view our vice president then
it is logical.  If not then exactly what is the position - a co-chair?  I don't
think I get your model, please explain.  If he may be antagonistic to the chair
well then he cannot fill in for him, if he is simpatico then he should be chosen
in that fashion.

Personally I think we need a chair and a president filling two different roles
with the chairman next in succession to the president.

Eric

William X Walsh wrote:

> 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:57:20 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: FW: [ga] Alt.Chair Replacement

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I don't know William; if the position is seen as we view our vice president then
> it is logical.

  Most of us know enough about WXW to know better as they say...

> If not then exactly what is the position - a co-chair?

  No Alt-Chair is the correct position.

> I don't
> think I get your model, please explain.  If he may be antagonistic to the chair
> well then he cannot fill in for him, if he is simpatico then he should be chosen
> in that fashion.
>
> Personally I think we need a chair and a president filling two different roles
> with the chairman next in succession to the president.

  I have never heard of a VP or president of a Assembly...
Can you perhaps provide some examples Eric?  URL's please.

>
>
> Eric
>
> William X Walsh wrote:
>
> > 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-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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 01:05:03 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alt.Chair Replacement

PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:

> I nominate JW

  Thank you Bradley, but I am not interested in a position that is not
presently being viewed as needed by in large.  I would also not be interested
in a non-paying position of this, and a few feel is an important one.  If, as
a few have argued (Eric in particular), than it should be a paid position.
Perhaps our fellow participant/colleague Eric, will prevail upon his
employer to garner some enfusion of funding?  I am sure that
Hi-tek.com would like to take the lead and also support Eric in
helping providing for GA funding.  Such a move might engender
others to pony up some additional $$ for the DNSO GA.

>
>
> 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

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: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 23:17:49 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Alt.Chair Replacement

Wednesday, Wednesday, October 17, 2001, 1:05:03 AM, Jeff Williams wrote:

> PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:

>> I nominate JW

>   Thank you Bradley, but I am not interested in a position that is not
> presently being viewed as needed by in large.  I would also not be interested
> in a non-paying position of this, and a few feel is an important one.  If, as

Rephrase: I might have to reveal my true identity  :)

- -- 
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 23:51:15 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alt.Chair Replacement

Good for you Jeff,

I will discuss our plight with our company tomorrow.  Although we are a
small company
of only a dozen or so, and we are currently donating every extra penny
to developing
nations.  However we will see as this is a worthy cause and may lead to
exponentially
helping my poor brethren.  We live poor in your terms but very rich in
giving and sleep well and happy with good dreams.  I am sure we will
contribute; perhaps Natalya who just applied for citizenship here from
the Ukraine or Victor from Mexico will donate as our lead designers. 
Perhaps our lead code writers Bang and Tuan with there six children from
Asia will donate.  If we pool perhaps we will not be so embarrassed by
the small sum we have to give.  But give we will, for we know what
communicative poverty is all about.

I understand your company to consist of 118K engineers, perhaps their
leadership
under your guidance would get us further.  But I will personally pledge
$200 to any
established fund.  believe me I live paycheck to paycheck and we should
thank also my
college daughter and her two younger siblings for that donation.  but
they believe in
the net and my belief in our cause so I am sure they will be happy. Know
also there
are many like us and though we may not have plenty in money we will
gladly give to
help make this world a more communicative place.

I truly believe that establishing a representative force here will help
others to see
that it can be done.  Thereby we will build a consensus and an
establishment of
Internet democracy.

I fully support the work of our chair.  I fully commit to serving him as
our elected
representative.  I do not agree with all he does and will continue to
give him my
alternatives and argue what I see as right.  But when truth be told I
voted for him.
Even though I was running for chair.  He is a good and competent man and
father.

I ask all dot commoners to add a little oomph to your participation and
contribution
in which ever way you see appropriate for your circumstance.

We have a long ways to go and a short time to get there ///  The only
unacceptable
solution is the status quo ///  speak truth and you may seem lonely but
in fact you
will have the greatest friends of all, true friends.

Sincerely,
Eric

Jeff William's wrote:

> PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:
>
> > I nominate JW
>
>   Thank you Bradley, but I am not interested in a position that is not
> presently being viewed as needed by in large.  I would also not be interested
> in a non-paying position of this, and a few feel is an important one.  If, as
> a few have argued (Eric in particular), than it should be a paid position.
> Perhaps our fellow participant/colleague Eric, will prevail upon his
> employer to garner some enfusion of funding?  I am sure that
> Hi-tek.com would like to take the lead and also support Eric in
> helping providing for GA funding.  Such a move might engender
> others to pony up some additional $$ for the DNSO GA.
>
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 01:20:21 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Delete Discussion Summary

At 7:28 PM -0400 16/10/01, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>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/
>

I can see a registrar-originated marketing snow-job heading our way.

How can I tell?

Technicians don't post documents in weanie formats like Microsoft .doc

- -- 
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 07:01:21 -0700
From: "David Hernand" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision

Members of the Names Council:

New.net feels compelled to elevate to the attention of the Names Council
certain recent actions of the Business Constituency to deny the efforts of
our company to participate in ICANN processes as a member of the Business
Constituency.  We bring this matter before the Names Council as a last
resort after making repeated unsuccessful attempts to resolve it first with
leadership of the Business Constituency.

Earlier this year, New.net applied for membership in the Business
Constituency.  As many of you know, New.net does not fall into the category
of an ICANN-accredited registry or registrar, an ISP or any of the other
constituencies within the DNSO, and yet we do operate a business that relies
on the Internet for its existence and counts among the vast majority of its
customers small and medium-sized enterprises that also rely on the Internet.
Accordingly, we thought it logical for us to join the Business Constituency.
We also thought that the Business Constituency would welcome our
participation given recent statements of its leadership regarding their
desire to broaden the Business Constituency's membership to include a larger
number of small business interests to balance its current domination by
large corporate interests.

After significant delay, our application was rejected by the Business
Constituency's "Credentials Committee," which informed us that New.net does
not meet the Business Constituency's charter redquirements because New.net
is a "registry/registrar."  We then asked the BC Secretariat how such
charter requirements comply with provisions in ICANN's Bylaws that expressly
prohibit constituencies from denying membership to a person or entity on the
basis that such person or entity also is a member of another ICANN
constituency.  We received the following explanation:

- -----Original Message-----
From: BC secretariat [<mailto:[email-masked]>]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 1:58 AM

The BC charter does not exclude registries and registrars from membership
merely because of their participation in another constituency. The Charter
distinguishes providers of network connectivity/ transport, domain name and
other services that enable the development of electronic business, from
their customers. The BC is an independent voice for the customers of such
providers.  It is the potential divergence of interests, not the mere
participation in another ICANN constituency, that underlies the membership
criteria.

By any reasonable interpretation of this definition, a large portion of the
Business Constituency's current membership should be excluded: AOL, AT&T,
British Telecom, Clear Communications, Deutsche Telecom, Korea Telecom, MCI
Worldcom, Movicom, SITA (operator of the .aero registry), and Telefonica,
just to name the obvious.  Indeed, two of the three BC representatives to
the Names Council represent "providers of network connectivity/transport."

With all due respect to the ability of individual constituencies to devise
their own rules and operating procedures, we implore the Names Council to
intervene in what is obviously an egregious abuse of discretionary power. We
specifically request that the NC demand that the BC either (a) immediately
request the resignation of all BC members who meet the above criteria,
including the resignation from the NC of the representatives from AT&T and
Clear Communications; or (b) direct the BC to revise its rules within 30
days to more broadly encompass the business community and reconsider
New.net's application for membership.

Your timely attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Best regards,

David Hernand
CEO
New.net

David M. Hernand
CEO
New.net
15260 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 2000
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 USA
Phone: 818-385-2004
Fax:   818-385-2010
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:49:47 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Recent BC Membership Decision

As Marilyn Cade is a member of the BC Credentials Committee, perhaps she can 
shed some further light on this process...
- --
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 11:08:40 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] The BC Charter

The BC Charter also states:  " ...those whose specific interests are to 
defend the Intellectual Property rights of their associates cannot have full 
member status but may become observers. Observers do not have voice or voting 
rights and cannot serve in any representative capacity on behalf of the 
Business Constituency."  

Phil Sheppard is a representative for the European Brands Association whose 
specific interest is most definately to defend its members Intellectual 
Property rights.  

I guess the rules are applied only when it's convenient to do so...
- --
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 09:03:15 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Delete Discussion Summary

|> From: Andy Gardner [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 12:20 AM
|> 
|> At 7:28 PM -0400 16/10/01, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
|> >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/
|> >
|> 
|> I can see a registrar-originated marketing snow-job heading our way.
|> 
|> How can I tell?
|> 
|> Technicians don't post documents in weanie formats like 
|> Microsoft .doc

That depends on whether or not they believe in PDF.
DOC files are now legible with StarOffice.
- --
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 09:08:02 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision

Dear Mr. Hernand,

Would you be so kind as to do favors for me.

1. Your one citation is helpful but I think we need more history on
communications here.

2. Obviously there is correspondence between you and the BC please provide us
with the references.

3. You must have reviewed the rules and procedures for such an endeavor, please
provide the citations to such authority.

I hope that Sotiris and the IDNO pay special attention to this matter as they
prepare to draft similar concepts for themselves.

Is new.net a member of the GA?

It would appear that this situation touches upon just about every aspect of
ICANN policy.  Certainly security is at issue; transparency; structure; and even
the technical aspects of inclusiveness.

Best to all concerned,

Eric

David Hernand wrote:

> Members of the Names Council:
>
> New.net feels compelled to elevate to the attention of the Names Council
> certain recent actions of the Business Constituency to deny the efforts of
> our company to participate in ICANN processes as a member of the Business
> Constituency.  We bring this matter before the Names Council as a last
> resort after making repeated unsuccessful attempts to resolve it first with
> leadership of the Business Constituency.
>
> Earlier this year, New.net applied for membership in the Business
> Constituency.  As many of you know, New.net does not fall into the category
> of an ICANN-accredited registry or registrar, an ISP or any of the other
> constituencies within the DNSO, and yet we do operate a business that relies
> on the Internet for its existence and counts among the vast majority of its
> customers small and medium-sized enterprises that also rely on the Internet.
> Accordingly, we thought it logical for us to join the Business Constituency.
> We also thought that the Business Constituency would welcome our
> participation given recent statements of its leadership regarding their
> desire to broaden the Business Constituency's membership to include a larger
> number of small business interests to balance its current domination by
> large corporate interests.
>
> After significant delay, our application was rejected by the Business
> Constituency's "Credentials Committee," which informed us that New.net does
> not meet the Business Constituency's charter redquirements because New.net
> is a "registry/registrar."  We then asked the BC Secretariat how such
> charter requirements comply with provisions in ICANN's Bylaws that expressly
> prohibit constituencies from denying membership to a person or entity on the
> basis that such person or entity also is a member of another ICANN
> constituency.  We received the following explanation:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BC secretariat [<mailto:[email-masked]>]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 1:58 AM
>
> The BC charter does not exclude registries and registrars from membership
> merely because of their participation in another constituency. The Charter
> distinguishes providers of network connectivity/ transport, domain name and
> other services that enable the development of electronic business, from
> their customers. The BC is an independent voice for the customers of such
> providers.  It is the potential divergence of interests, not the mere
> participation in another ICANN constituency, that underlies the membership
> criteria.
>
> By any reasonable interpretation of this definition, a large portion of the
> Business Constituency's current membership should be excluded: AOL, AT&T,
> British Telecom, Clear Communications, Deutsche Telecom, Korea Telecom, MCI
> Worldcom, Movicom, SITA (operator of the .aero registry), and Telefonica,
> just to name the obvious.  Indeed, two of the three BC representatives to
> the Names Council represent "providers of network connectivity/transport."
>
> With all due respect to the ability of individual constituencies to devise
> their own rules and operating procedures, we implore the Names Council to
> intervene in what is obviously an egregious abuse of discretionary power. We
> specifically request that the NC demand that the BC either (a) immediately
> request the resignation of all BC members who meet the above criteria,
> including the resignation from the NC of the representatives from AT&T and
> Clear Communications; or (b) direct the BC to revise its rules within 30
> days to more broadly encompass the business community and reconsider
> New.net's application for membership.
>
> Your timely attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Best regards,
>
> David Hernand
> CEO
> New.net
>
> David M. Hernand
> CEO
> New.net
> 15260 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 2000
> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 USA
> Phone: 818-385-2004
> Fax:   818-385-2010
> [email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:27:03 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Legal Expenses Review

- --=====================_8385660==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear Stuart,
I think the GA's role is also to audit what the ICANN budget. I am 
interested in having your comments and responses on the following points in 
reference to the BoD Decision upon your proposition quoted at the end of 
this document.

- - on this $ 90.000 paid to Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue how much was a 
preparation to the reject of the proposed contract by the ccTLDs, how much 
will be usable for the next ccTLD round?

- - I suppose that internal legal budget share (Louis Touton and Theresa 
Swinehart, plus secretariat, lodging expenses, travel and living, etc...) 
is around $ 30.000 a month. On that budget how much was dedicated to the 
preparation of the afore said reject that everyone took for granted from 
previous experience?

- - has any person of the Staff and BoD been made aware by these legal 
Counsels and internal legal advisors that when discussing a proposed 
contract it is sometimes of interest to involve the other party in some 
kind of a negotiation, and to take into account the other party's 
propositions? Has the legal counsels been aware that the ccTLDs have worked 
out a contract they are ready to sign for one year?

- - knowing that ccTLDs donate the ICANN $ 1.000.000 a year, I would like to 
know how much is spent on a yearly basis on the preparation of the always 
rejected contract since the beginning of the ICANN? Knowing that ccTLD 
registrants foot that costs, would it no be reasonable to stick to the 
existing statu-quo permitting good operations for more than 15years and 
documented by RFC 1591 and ICP-1?

- - if the target is to replicate with ccTLDs the success of .biz and .info, 
what are the provisions entered in 2002/3 etc.. budgets to respond the 
legal cases made by the various national registrant communities. Do the 
contract with Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue allows a refund in case of non 
satisfactory advises having led to a conflicting situation were existed 
none. (I am sorry but I am not familiar with this practice: I use to call 
on lawyers to settle conflicts, not to build them: in such cases I call on 
fortune soldiers {Charles Mollon tells me that may be Jones Day is a 
mercenary commando under disguise. I don't think so: they would be cheaper)).

I thank you for your comments and responses to theses questions and for 
your response to the additional questions Fellow Members from his Honorable 
Assembly might want to add.

I just want to add that I am genuinely upset by such an unnecessary expense 
and the fact that ICANN yet cannot foot the NCDNHC budget ($55.000) spend 
the travel cost ($2500) of the DNSO candidates to the BoD, foot the travel 
costs of the GA Chair and Alt.Chair ($2500), cannot foot the travel of NC 
Members ($25.000), that is in total less than what they have lost with 
Jones Day in July. I am also upset at ccTLDs as they continue to foot that 
kind of waste instead of investing into a serious ccTLD management program 
and into a secondary server system.

Jefsey Morfin

<quote>

"Payment of Legal Expenses
Whereas, ICANN had significant needs for legal services in the month of July
2001 concerning ccTLD agreements, including preparation of a program under
which ICANN would be capable of negotiating and entering up to five ccTLD
agreements per month;

Whereas, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue provided extensive legal services to
meet these needs;

Whereas, ICANN received an invoice from Jones, Day for US$ 88,711.68 for
these legal services rendered in July 2001;

Whereas, the President reviewed the invoice and determined that in his
opinion it represents a proper indebtedness of ICANN, is for authorized
services, and should be paid;

Whereas, the President has advised the Executive Committee that ICANN has
adequate funds to pay this invoice;

Whereas, in resolution 99.121 the Board delegated to the Executive Committee
the authority (with exceptions not here relevant) to exercise all the
Board's powers in the oversight of the management of ICANN's affairs,
including in financial matters;

Whereas, the President advised the Executive Committee's members of his
opinion that the invoice should be paid;

Resolved [EC01.17] that payment to Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue of
US$ 88,711.68 for legal services provided to ICANN in ccTLD agreements
during the month of July 2001 is hereby approved and authorized.
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-16oct01.htm "

Regards

</quote>
- --=====================_8385660==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Dear Stuart,<br>
I think the GA's role is also to audit what the ICANN budget. I am
interested in having your comments and responses on the following points
in reference to the BoD Decision upon your proposition quoted at the end
of this document.<br>
<br>
- - on this $ 90.000 paid to Jones, Day, Reavis &amp; Pogue how much was a
preparation to the reject of the proposed contract by the ccTLDs, how
much will be usable for the next ccTLD round?<br>
<br>
- - I suppose that internal legal budget share (Louis Touton and Theresa
Swinehart, plus secretariat, lodging expenses, travel and living, etc...)
is around $ 30.000 a month. On that budget how much was dedicated to the
preparation of the afore said reject that everyone took for granted from
previous experience?<br>
<br>
- - has any person of the Staff and BoD been made aware by these legal
Counsels and internal legal advisors that when discussing a proposed
contract it is sometimes of interest to involve the other party in some
kind of a negotiation, and to take into account the other party's
propositions? Has the legal counsels been aware that the ccTLDs have
worked out a contract they are ready to sign for one year?<br>
<br>
- - knowing that ccTLDs donate the ICANN $ 1.000.000 a year, I would like
to know how much is spent on a yearly basis on the preparation of the
always rejected contract since the beginning of the ICANN? Knowing that
ccTLD registrants foot that costs, would it no be reasonable to stick to
the existing statu-quo permitting good operations for more than 15years
and documented by RFC 1591 and ICP-1?<br>
<br>
- - if the target is to replicate with ccTLDs the success of .biz and
.info, what are the provisions entered in 2002/3 etc.. budgets to respond
the legal cases made by the various national registrant communities. Do
the contract with Jones, Day, Reavis &amp; Pogue allows a refund in case
of non satisfactory advises having led to a conflicting situation were
existed none. (I am sorry but I am not familiar with this practice: I use
to call on lawyers to settle conflicts, not to build them: in such cases
I call on fortune soldiers {Charles Mollon tells me that may be Jones Day
is a mercenary commando under disguise. I don't think so: they would be
cheaper)).<br>
<br>
I thank you for your comments and responses to theses questions and for
your response to the additional questions Fellow Members from his
Honorable Assembly might want to add.<br>
<br>
I just want to add that I am genuinely upset by such an unnecessary
expense and the fact that ICANN yet cannot foot the NCDNHC budget
($55.000) spend the travel cost ($2500) of the DNSO candidates to the
BoD, foot the travel costs of the GA Chair and Alt.Chair ($2500), cannot
foot the travel of NC Members ($25.000), that is in total less than what
they have lost with Jones Day in July. I am also upset at ccTLDs as they
continue to foot that kind of waste instead of investing into a serious
ccTLD management program and into a secondary server system.<br>
<br>
Jefsey Morfin<br>
<br>
&lt;quote&gt;<br>
<br>
&quot;Payment of Legal Expenses<br>
Whereas, ICANN had significant needs for legal services in the month of
July <br>
2001 concerning ccTLD agreements, including preparation of a program
under <br>
which ICANN would be capable of negotiating and entering up to five ccTLD
<br>
agreements per month;<br>
<br>
Whereas, Jones, Day, Reavis &amp; Pogue provided extensive legal services
to <br>
meet these needs;<br>
<br>
Whereas, ICANN received an invoice from Jones, Day for US$ 88,711.68 for
<br>
these legal services rendered in July 2001;<br>
<br>
Whereas, the President reviewed the invoice and determined that in his
<br>
opinion it represents a proper indebtedness of ICANN, is for authorized
<br>
services, and should be paid;<br>
<br>
Whereas, the President has advised the Executive Committee that ICANN has
<br>
adequate funds to pay this invoice;<br>
<br>
Whereas, in resolution 99.121 the Board delegated to the Executive
Committee <br>
the authority (with exceptions not here relevant) to exercise all the
<br>
Board's powers in the oversight of the management of ICANN's affairs,
<br>
including in financial matters;<br>
<br>
Whereas, the President advised the Executive Committee's members of his
<br>
opinion that the invoice should be paid;<br>
<br>
Resolved [EC01.17] that payment to Jones, Day, Reavis &amp; Pogue of
<br>
US$ 88,711.68 for legal services provided to ICANN in ccTLD agreements
<br>
during the month of July 2001 is hereby approved and authorized.<br>
<font color="#0000FF"><u><a href="http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-16oct01.htm" eudora="autourl">http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-16oct01.htm</a></u></font>
&quot;<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
&lt;/quote&gt;</html>

- --=====================_8385660==_.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #795
************************