Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #833
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, November 6 2001          Volume 01 : Number 833

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

Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 10:17:29 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Revised security resolution

Jefsey,

It seems that you are still working off of antiquated notions.  I am not being
critical in a negative sense.  It is just that every time I speak with one of
our techies he tells me he can do something new.  i.e. they use terms like
pointers instead of servers and they talk about multiple routing rather than a
router.  And yet your position and that of the honorable Milton and Chun seem
to be working on something 3 years old.

As is obvious we are a marketing group, we "drive traffic" and to date our
numbers continue to increase with no negative or positive impact from anything
alternative.  Please help us less informed to understand what impact all of
this really has on us. (end user) Or will have.

After Roelands post regarding the confusion of dotINFO and resolution we are
surveying our users to determine advantages of switching some geographics but
what you seem to be saying here is that it is de minimus and not to change old
habits. We immediately dropped usage of ICANNs dotINFO although we are happy to
pay for reservations therein, to subsidize diversification.

It would be easy to say I am confused here but I think that would not really be
a "polite man" way of communication.  I just want your position laid out and
real clear on these issues.

What do you as a polite man recommend we do with a measly few million hits.
Down which path shall we send them making sure they can get there and do not
destroy the environment on their way.  We want our tourists to have a good
trip, we do not want the power going out on them, we do not want them to drink
bad water and perhaps most importantly we want them to shop in our shops where
we will make sure they get the best deals.

Clearly if our tourists are in danger or word gets back home that they have
been molested we will lose business and our shop owners children will go hungry
and my shoeshine boys will have no shoes to shine.

Please bring your position to a level we can appreciate.

(I apologize in advance for my use of US English nuances, anyone as is a normal
thing, can write me privately for clarification)

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: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 13:18:42 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ALSC Report

from Brett's ICANN Blog:

ALSC Report Released. ICANN's At Large Study Committee released its final 
report early today...but to reporters only. A copy for those actually 
affected will be available later today from the At Large Study site, pretty 
much ensuring that stories are filed before any dissenting voices can be 
heard. 
- -- November 5, 2001 -- 
- --
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, 05 Nov 2001 13:46:05 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Task Force Questionnaire

So, in addition to using MS Word format on the Internet, they are asking 
the questions; but they are not tracking the answers.

Why even bother?  This is a silly as signing up to be part of the BC 
without an invitation from one of the First Level ISPs.

Of course, the people haven't changed, so I suppose they don't know why 
it's rude to use MS Word or why it's stupid to take a poll and be so 
obvious about not collecting the information or wanting to provide a 
vehicle for public participation.

Get Off Line or Get on the Internet, this intermediate stage is grueling.

~k

At 11:58 AM 11/5/2001 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>The UDRP Task Force has produced a questionnaire which is posted at
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/doc00007.doc
>
>I encourage every member of this Assembly to respond to this questionnaire.
>At this time, it is still not clear to which address responses should be
>sent, but I hope to have that answer for you soon.
>
>The questionnaire will soon be made available in French and Spanish, and the
>deadline for all replies is set for December 17.
>--
>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: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 12:43:25 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] UDRP Task Force Questionnaire

I agree. Since SirCam and Nimda, most mail hubs are stripping DOC, EXE, and
COM files attachements from all messages, for both inbound and outbound
messages. Since Adobe Acrobat5 is now also capable of embedding executable
macros, the PDF format is also in danger of such filtering.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 11:46 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Task Force Questionnaire
|> 
|> 
|> So, in addition to using MS Word format on the Internet, 
|> they are asking 
|> the questions; but they are not tracking the answers.
|> 
|> Why even bother?  This is a silly as signing up to be part of the BC 
|> without an invitation from one of the First Level ISPs.
|> 
|> Of course, the people haven't changed, so I suppose they 
|> don't know why 
|> it's rude to use MS Word or why it's stupid to take a poll and be so 
|> obvious about not collecting the information or wanting to provide a 
|> vehicle for public participation.
|> 
|> Get Off Line or Get on the Internet, this intermediate stage 
|> is grueling.
|> 
|> ~k
|> 
|> 
|> At 11:58 AM 11/5/2001 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
|> >The UDRP Task Force has produced a questionnaire which is posted at
|> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/doc00007.doc
|> >
|> >I encourage every member of this Assembly to respond to 
|> this questionnaire.
|> >At this time, it is still not clear to which address 
|> responses should be
|> >sent, but I hope to have that answer for you soon.
|> >
|> >The questionnaire will soon be made available in French and 
|> Spanish, and the
|> >deadline for all replies is set for December 17.
|> >--
|> >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
|> 
- --
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, 5 Nov 2001 18:18:13 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] more on the ALSC report

Just now posted to the ALSC Forum:

The ALSC's "Final Report on ICANN At-Large Membership" has been submitted to
the Board and is being posted at www.atlargestudy.org (our webmaster is
working on the report and it will be posted today; the transmittal letter
and executive summary are included below).  The Board has scheduled a public
forum to discuss the report on Monday, November 12 from 18:00 to 20:00 (see
http://www.icann.com/mdr2001/#schedule for further details).

Denise Michel
Executive Director
At Large Study Committee
[email-masked]

[Excerpt from ALSC's "Final Report on ICANN At-Large Membership"]

Letter to the ICANN Board,

In August, the At Large Study Committee presented for discussion its draft
final report on the question of including an At-Large Membership in ICANN's
governance structure. Now, in accordance with the schedule established early
this year, and after further discussions and comments on our draft report,
we submit our final report.

Established only three years ago, the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) has been entrusted with the important tasks of
promoting the Internet's stability and dynamism as it rapidly evolves as the
world's most important infrastructure.

Its governance structure, however, has remained uncertain in important
aspects. There has been constant controversy surrounding the question of the
composition of the ICANN Board, and primarily the question of whether there
should be representatives of the Internet At-Large community. This
controversy has the potential of impairing ICANN's ability to concentrate on
the critical tasks it has been entrusted with.

We remain firmly convinced that the basic concept behind ICANN is a good
one, and we conclude that it has become firmly rooted in the wider community
of the Internet's stakeholders. We are, however, of the opinion that it is
an urgent task for the stability of the organisation to ensure that a
mechanism for the At-Large community to express its views be agreed to and
implemented.

The ALSC has spent the past eight months exploring numerous alternatives,
listening to different opinions and trying to stimulate a debate on these
important issues within the wider Internet community. We have sought to
facilitate different independent studies, and posted discussion papers and
options in order to encourage dialogue. Following the publication of the
draft report, the ALSC, collectively and as individual members, has engaged
in wide-ranging debates on these issues, and has benefited from the comments
received.

Despite extensive efforts, however, the ALSC has found it difficult to
generate a very high degree of interest in these issues. We have concluded
that the main interest of the wider Internet community is in the stability
and reliability of the Internet itself, and that a structure for At-Large
participation and representation that is seen as creating the best
possibilities for this would meet with the community's tacit approval.

Although outside our mandate, the ALSC has discussed whether the tasks now
assigned to ICANN could be handled better or equally well by an
intergovernmental organization, thus potentially securing the legitimacy of
the process, ensuring a degree of public participation through regular
governmental mechanisms, as well as assuring the stability of the policy and
decision-making system.

We have found, however, that such an approach has several serious drawbacks.
ICANN represents an effort at global self-regulation that, if successful,
has great merit in a number of different ways. Engaging developers of
Internet standards and providers of the domain name and address system, as
well as seeking to create a voice for Internet users, results in a system
that contributes both to the stability of the Internet and to its constant
evolution. We do not believe that an intergovernmental system would be able
to do this in the same way.

The developers and providers, now grouped in three Supporting Organizations,
have a critical role in the overall system. We have discussed whether ICANN
could be entrusted solely to them, thus eliminating the very profound
challenges associated with an At-Large membership. However, the concerns of
users are equally important to the success of ICANN's mission, thus
requiring that an effective mechanism for their participation and
representation in ICANN processes be found.

Based on our view of ICANN as a balance among developers, providers and
users, we recommend that the At-Large membership select a third of ICANN's
Board. In the dialogue over the months since the publication of our draft
report, we have found that this proposal has wide, although not unanimous,
support. There are voices calling for, at the least, half of the members of
the ICANN Board being elected by an At-Large membership.  We do see distinct
drawbacks with this, and we must also note that this proposal is very
unlikely to get sufficient support within the wider ICANN community.

We have noted the concerns expressed that a system whereby a third of the
seats on the ICANN Board is selected by an At-Large membership would open up
the possibility for the remaining two thirds of the ICANN Board to change
the bylaws regarding At-Large representation, including, as an extreme case,
the abolition of At Large membership. Although the likelihood of sharp
divisions of this sort is unprecedented, we do believe it is important to
ensure that changes in the governance structure of ICANN, after an At-Large
structure is established, would require a supermajority of the Board's
members.

We have spent a considerable amount of time looking at different
alternatives for selecting the proposed At-Large members of the ICANN Board.
We are dealing with a unique organization, with unique functions and a truly
unique structure. There are no models to follow.

In spite of our efforts, we have failed to find any system for the selection
of At-Large Directors that is completely failsafe from every possible point
of view.
Using e-mail addresses as the basis for voting rights, as tested last year,
has significant drawbacks, and is obviously open to national capture.

More importantly, we have not found any way of conducting a pure online
election involving e-mail address holders with even moderate confidence that
capture or fraud has been prevented, thus creating the need for a
combination of online and mail processes which not only is complicated, but
which also risks totally undermining the finances of ICANN. In spite of
being superficially attractive, closer scrutiny makes clear that this is not
a viable option.

We have thus decided to recommend a system with voting rights based on
domain names, and we have proposed the creation of a system in which those
domain name holders wishing to be part of the process also become part of
the process of setting up an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO).

In the discussions of the past few months, we have found wide support for
the proposal to set up an ALSO. It is widely felt that an ALSO would greatly
facilitate the articulation of wider issues in the ICANN process and promote
sustained involvement, thus also strengthening the role of the At-Large
members between the elections.

There have been concerns expressed that an election system based on
individual domain name holders will use too narrow of an electorate.
Although we are talking about a possible electorate numbering tens of
million of persons around the world, we do feel that one should continue to
seek ways in which the possibility of becoming part of the ALSO and the
elections are widened. Our committee has discussed several such options, and
we hope more will emerge.

As we present our recommendations, the attention has shifted to all the
issues connected with the stability and security of the Internet in the wake
of the Sept 11 attacks, and the global need to confront the evil of
international terrorism. We do believe, however, that this very clearly
reinforces the case for a speedy resolution of the issues surrounding the
governance of ICANN, and specifically the hitherto controversial issues we
have been asked to study.

No one wants an ICANN in continuous turmoil, thrown between one uncertain
experiment after the other. Now is the time for stability and coherence,
allowing ICANN to address the vital technical and related issues, often of
profound public importance, that it has been entrusted with.

Therefore, we urge that several significant steps be taken by the Board at
its annual meeting in Marina del Rey that will enable timely progress on
initial steps to implement our At-Large recommendations, while providing
time for additional Board and public consideration of the report.
Specifically, the ALSC recommends that on November 15, 2001, the ICANN Board
adopt the following recommendations concerning At-Large participation and
representation:

(1) The Board affirms that individual Internet users have a significant
stake in ICANN's activities and should have the opportunity of fully
participating in ICANN.

(2) While the ALSC's final report remains open for comment and
consideration, the Board acknowledges that the following basic principles
should guide expedited action on At-Large:

(a) Create an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO) as a regionally-based
framework for informed participation of any interested individual and for
At-Large involvement in ICANN policy and decision-making (including
mechanisms to foster discussion among individuals and with ICANN's
decision-making bodies);

(b) Focus At-Large membership on an identifiable and vested community (an
ALSO electorate) to provide a practical mechanism for voter registration and
self-funding (e.g. The ALSC recommends that membership be based on
individual domain name holders and efforts continue to be made to identify
an additional  membership option with a reasonable level of verification.
This recommendation is under consideration by the Board, but need not delay
initial At-Large organizing efforts.);

(c) Provide a proportionate role for At-Large members in selecting ICANN's
Board (along with other ICANN constituencies) (e.g. The ALSC recommends 6
At-Large Directors in a 19 member Board. This recommendation is under
consideration by the Board, but need not delay initial At-Large organizing
efforts.);

(3) The Board requests that the ICANN CEO solicit expressions of interest to
determine the degree of interest in creating local and regional ALSO
entities that would support informed participation of interested individuals
and At-Large involvement in ICANN, and report the results to the Board at
the March 2002 ICANN meeting.

(4) The Board authorizes the extension of the ALSC until March 31, 2002 to
work with the Supporting Organizations, other interested parties, and ICANN
staff on proposing detailed plans for an At-Large membership, voter
registration, and a regionally based, self-supporting ALSO.

We believe that this is necessary in order to meet the objective of having a
complete ICANN Board in place towards the end of the next year. We do
understand that there will be further issues that must be discussed, and the
ALSC has offered to remain operative until final decisions are taken at the
ICANN Board meeting planned for March of next year.  We look forward to
assisting you.

Sincerely,
The At-Large Membership Study Committee:  Carl Bildt (Chair), Chuck Costello
(Vice Chair), Pierre Dandjinou, Esther Dyson, Olivier Iteanu, Ching-Yi Liu,
Thomas Niles, Oscar Robles, and Pindar Wong (Vice Chair).

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

Executive Summary

The At-Large Membership Study Committee (ALSC) is pleased to present this
report and accompanying recommendations to the ICANN Board in fulfillment of
the provisions of its charter. We are unanimous in our belief that the
report meets the request of the Board that the Committee find "an effective
means by which the diverse global Internet communities and stakeholders may
participate in ICANN's policy development, deliberations, and actions."

As a result of the Committee's extensive outreach to the community over the
past eight months, in meetings and online, and the consideration of over
1163 forum comments, input from 16 outreach events worldwide, and a
substantial number of studies and research papers, we have identified five
basic principles which we believe have broad support:

· Individual Internet users have a significant stake in ICANN's activities
and should have the opportunity to fully participate in ICANN;
· Representation should accompany participation for informed, sustained
involvement of interested individuals, and for At-Large involvement in ICANN
policy and decision-making;
· The At-Large electorate should comprise an identifiable and vested
community of individual Internet users;
· At-Large members should have a role in selecting members of ICANN's Board
(along with other ICANN constituencies);
· It is time to move At-Large participation beyond the discussion phase and
determine the degree of real interest among individual Internet users and
relevant groups in creating an organization for their sustained involvement
in ICANN.

Building on these principles, the ALSC offers ICANN's Board the following
recommendations that we believe are practical, executable, effective, and
most likely to gain consensus support:

· Create an "ALSO Organizing Committee" to work with ICANN and others to
help establish a new, (financially) self-supporting At-Large Supporting
Organization (ALSO), and help carry out the recommendations contained in
this report, with priority attention focused on an At-Large election.
· Create an ALSO to foster At-Large participation and representation.  An
ALSO will have "participants" comprised of anyone interested in
participating in open discussion forums, and "members" comprised of a
verifiable, vested community of users to elect ALSO leadership and At-Large
Directors every three years.  An ALSO will promote informed participation of
any interested individual in ICANN (including mechanisms to foster
discussion among individuals and with ICANN's decision-making bodies), and
foster At-Large involvement in ICANN policy and decision-making with
specific responsibility for providing an "individual user" perspective on
relevant issues within ICANN's mission.
· Initially define "At-Large members"(which will comprise the ALSO
electorate) as an "individual domain name holders."
· Direct the ALSO Organizing Committee to solicit input on, and report to
the Board about, any additional mechanisms that would enable individual
Internet users with an interest in ICANN's mission to opt-in to At-Large
membership with a reasonable level of verification (without the requirement
to hold a domain name).
· Conduct a geographically-based ALSO member election, initially guided by
the ALSO Organizing Committee, to simultaneously provide members for six
directly-elected Regional At-Large Councils and one (international) At-Large
Council, and six directly-elected At-Large Directors to serve on ICANN's
Board, to be seated, if possible, by year-end 2002.  The ALSC views its
suggested division of the existing Asia-Pacific region as straightforward,
but if there are contrary expectations and the creation of a new region
threatens to significantly delay At-Large implementation, the ALSC
recommends the election of two At-Large Directors from two different
countries in the existing Asia/Pacific region.
· Build a self-sustaining, transparent ALSO that would serve as a local and
regional-based framework for collecting and defining views, engaging
members, enabling consensus decision-making, and working closely with other
Supporting Organizations on policy development. Ultimately the ALSO will be
managed by the At-Large Councils.
· After adopting plans for At-Large representation and participation, modify
ICANN' bylaws to require a supermajority to make future substantive changes
in ICANN's governance structure.

In our judgment, these recommendations, discussed in detail in this report,
are a reasonable compromise between those who support retaining nine
At-Large Board seats and e-mail-based, ICANN-funded global direct elections,
and those who advocate no direct global elections and fewer, if any,
At-Large Board seats.  Rather, we have presented an approach that we believe
has the potential for a consensus.  We would urge those who are interested
in the fate of At-Large and in actually establishing an engaged, sustainable
At-Large membership to move beyond re-stating their positions and work with
all interested parties to find a reasonable, workable compromise based on
this approach.  We are eager to work with all parties over the next few
months to refine implementation details and garner practical support in
carrying out these recommendations.

Background

The ALSC has spent the last eight months studying At-Large issues and
seeking input from all interested parties, and is committed to helping the
Board achieve a broad consensus on effective means by which individual
Internet users may participate in ICANN's policy formulation and
decision-making. We have worked without preconceptions about the outcome and
have carefully considered the full spectrum of potential At-Large
participatory and representational mechanisms - from zero to 100 percent of
the Board seats selected by an At-Large membership - and from an
inter-governmental model representing individuals to directly involving all
of the world's e-mail-address holders.

We found there to be great value in ICANN's existing bottom-up approach and
in the involvement of At-Large members to strengthen the focus on Internet
users' interests.  However, we do not accept the notion that interests of
the public, or individual users are somehow exclusively or even best
protected by selecting half of the Board's Directors.  The "White Paper,"
issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce authorizing creation of ICANN, set
forth general principles for representation of all stakeholders and
recognized that ICANN's evolution would require change (as did follow-on
documents).  We believe actions of the three existing Supporting
Organizations and the Directors they selected have demonstrated that they
also serve the public (or user) interest by contributing to the stable
operation of the Internet.  However, recognizing that the perspectives of
At-Large Directors are important to the governance of ICANN, we also believe
that their support should be required to make future substantive changes in
ICANN's At-Large governance structure after plans for At-Large
representation and participation are enacted.

Defining the Electorate

We also do not believe that the public (or user) interest can be reliably
represented through a system based on e-mail addresses to identify
individuals; such an approach is administratively and financially unworkable
on a global scale for a sizeable electorate, and fraught with potential
dangers ranging from capture to outright fraud.  Furthermore, experience has
already shown that it is costly and difficult to manage and does not
effectively handle many people in regions that use non-Latin script or have
inefficient postal systems.  This is a real-world reality that the current
ICANN must deal with.

Instead, to create an ALSO electorate, we found the requirement that members
hold or acquire a domain name and pay a fee to be a useful way of initially
identifying individuals, reaching them in a decentralized way through
registrars (further tying the ICANN community together), and ensuring their
direct interest in the Internet infrastructure that is ICANN's central
concern. To be sure, this requirement and the accompanying registration
process are not a foolproof mechanism for verifying identity and preventing
fraud.  However, we believe that domain name holders' tangible vested
interest in the domain name system, their completion of financial
transactions with registrars for domain names (in most cases), verification
of their domain name registration, and payment for At-Large membership,
provide a higher (and reasonable) threshold of verification than that
afforded by unrestricted e-mail voting.

How Many At-Large Directors

Rather than dividing the Board between Directors who "serve the public
interest" versus "functional" Directors, we believe the approach with the
best chance for broad support is addressing Internet users' interests by:
· Organizing ICANN's Board along stakeholder interest or functional lines,
such as developers, providers and users; (We do not expect that Directors
will always align in these blocs.  On occasion, regional differences may
matter; on other occasions, technical versus economic considerations may
matter, etc.);
· Providing all interested individuals with the opportunity to participate
in ICANN and for At-Large members to select one-third of the Board; and
· Initially defining At-Large members -- the ALSO electorate -- as
"individual domain name holders" -- since they have a strong and tangible
vested interest in ICANN activities, not just the Internet in general, and
an overwhelming majority of domain name holders are individuals or
enterprises with less than ten employees).  (We propose the At-Large user
"community" include institutions, but only individuals may vote.
Institutions already play a greater role in the existing Supporting
Organizations, so this seems an appropriate balance.)

Obviously, this is only one of many possible approaches; we endeavored to
find one that could win broad support.

We recommend that the ALSO framework and elections be based on six
geographic regions -- Africa, Asia/Pacific, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean,
North America and Central/West/South Asia (CWSA).  Dividing ICANN's existing
Asia/Pacific region in two reflects the distribution of population and
Internet usage for the world's fastest growing region, and we view this as a
practical, clear-cut action. We recognize, however, that the creation of
ICANN's existing five regions involved lengthy consideration and
inter-governmental discussions and that there may be issues involved in
having SOs with different geographic regions.  Therefore, if creation of a
new region threatens to significantly delay At-Large implementation, the
ALSC recommends the ALSO and its election processes initially be based on
ICANN's existing five regions, and that two At-Large Directors be selected
from two different countries in the existing Asia/Pacific region.

We recommend that Directors be elected for three-year terms and that the
At-Large be re-evaluated after two election cycles.  This would provide
At-Large with time to develop and give ICANN more stability and an
opportunity to implement any necessary changes to At-Large participation and
representation mechanisms based on six years of experience.  Clearly, timely
outreach, development and management efforts will be necessary to implement
our recommendations.

ALSO

To assist with the At-Large elections (as a top priority), and to work on
the implementation details and help launch the ALSO and its membership base,
we recommend that ICANN create an ALSO Organizing Committee with an
Elections Subcommittee.  They would develop proposed guidelines, procedures
and a budget for the At-Large election, building on the ALSC's detailed
suggestions, and help guide the At-Large elections. As noted above, the
Committee also would look for other mechanisms to register and authenticate
voters.  The Committee would propose (and assist with implementation of)
bylaws, a charter, and organizational and outreach plans and budgets, and
would develop guidelines to foster an ALSO that can develop and present
policy advice to the Board (in close consultation with other Supporting
Organizations) on issues that affect Internet users' interests and that are
within ICANN's specific technical and administrative mission.

It is important to note that careful attention to ICANN's constrained
mission should render it less attractive as a vehicle to "capture" and make
sure that the public does not expect ICANN to remedy problems or solve
disputes not within its narrow competence.

The Committee also would develop guidelines for the creation of a local,
regional and national ALSO framework, including making recommendations on
the use of existing organizations to help create the ALSO.

We think a consensus can form that an ALSO's organized participation
mechanisms and election processes will fulfill the mission of involving
individuals and representing their interests in ICANN's policy development
and decision-making structure and processes.  Individual domain name
holders, as users, have a significant stake in ICANN's activities and should
have the opportunity of fully participating in ICANN and helping to select
its Board.  The creation of elected, geographically diverse At-Large
Councils with the responsibility to help build a framework for At-Large
participation and attention to users' voices is essential.  The ALSO also
should strengthen the link to people who have demonstrated a commitment to
ICANN's mission and support informed participation in ICANN's technical
coordination of the Internet's domain name and address system.

In proposing these recommendations on the role of an At-Large community, our
intention is to help create a policy and decision-making structure and
process within ICANN that fosters understanding and accommodation among
various interests, including individual Internet users.  We believe we are
recommending such a structure, one that has potential for consensus support
and will help ensure that ICANN's policies truly reflect the needs,
interests and rights of all its stakeholders - including those who may not
agree with some resulting policies but who will ideally feel that at least
their positions were understood and fairly considered.  Finally, we do
believe that attention to the interests of all stakeholders is likely to
produce transparent policies that will indeed sustain the stability of the
domain name system and attract broader public support over time.

Balanced, Reasonable Approach

We have concluded that no system exists for incorporating an "At-Large"
membership that would fully satisfy all interests, because this is a world
of limited resources in which compromises must be made and priorities set in
all spheres of activity.  We also recognize that our recommended approach is
not foolproof (e.g. vulnerability to capture of a geographic region would
still exist.)  We recommend that ICANN remain open to new ideas from those
interested in creating a self-supporting At-Large electorate base that would
enable the inclusion of individuals who do not own domain names yet are
actively interested in ICANN's mission.

We believe that this is the most balanced, reasonable approach currently
available, and that we are outlining a system that is generally fair and
that involves those individuals who have an active interest in ICANN's
activities, or allows them easily to join by registering a domain name and
paying the membership fee.  It offers a framework for all interested
individuals' structured participation, focuses At-Large membership
(electorate) on an identifiable and vested community, provides a reasonable
mechanism for registration and self-funding, and grants At-Large members a
proportionate responsibility for selecting ICANN's Board (along with the
DNSO, ASO, and PSO).

Our recommendations are submitted to the Board for ICANN's consideration.
We look forward to working with the Board, Supporting Organizations, other
interested parties, and ICANN staff to answer questions and propose detailed
suggestions for an At-Large membership, voter registration, and a regionally
based, self-supporting ALSO.  Although events may have delayed progress, we
remain committed to helping ICANN reach final resolution and implementation
on At-Large membership.

ALSC Final Report on ICANN At-Large Membership available at
www.atlargestudy.org

- --
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, 5 Nov 2001 18:21:38 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Unofficial ALSC report posted

Unofficial ALSC report now posted to:
http://www.lextext.com/FinalreportNov5.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: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 19:03:51 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Task Force Questionnaire

Danny and all assembly members,

  As you know .doc files are well known to carry viruses.  Will there
be a HTML version available?

[email-masked] wrote:

> The UDRP Task Force has produced a questionnaire which is posted at
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/doc00007.doc
>
> I encourage every member of this Assembly to respond to this questionnaire.
> At this time, it is still not clear to which address responses should be
> sent, but I hope to have that answer for you soon.
>
> The questionnaire will soon be made available in French and Spanish, and the
> deadline for all replies is set for December 17.
> --
> 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: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 19:23:57 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Task Force Questionnaire

Roeland, Kristy and all assembly members,

  I completely agree with Roeland and Kristy's concerns here.  It
also shows clearly that the ICANN BoD and staff's supposed concerns
about security when using a well known file format (.doc) is also
well known to carry viruses.  So much for me believing that the
ICANN BoD and staff know anything at all about what they are
talking about concerning security...  :(   This is a very sad example
of "Cluelessness"...

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> I agree. Since SirCam and Nimda, most mail hubs are stripping DOC, EXE, and
> COM files attachements from all messages, for both inbound and outbound
> messages. Since Adobe Acrobat5 is now also capable of embedding executable
> macros, the PDF format is also in danger of such filtering.
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 11:46 AM
> |> To: [email-masked]
> |> Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Task Force Questionnaire
> |>
> |>
> |> So, in addition to using MS Word format on the Internet,
> |> they are asking
> |> the questions; but they are not tracking the answers.
> |>
> |> Why even bother?  This is a silly as signing up to be part of the BC
> |> without an invitation from one of the First Level ISPs.
> |>
> |> Of course, the people haven't changed, so I suppose they
> |> don't know why
> |> it's rude to use MS Word or why it's stupid to take a poll and be so
> |> obvious about not collecting the information or wanting to provide a
> |> vehicle for public participation.
> |>
> |> Get Off Line or Get on the Internet, this intermediate stage
> |> is grueling.
> |>
> |> ~k
> |>
> |>
> |> At 11:58 AM 11/5/2001 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
> |> >The UDRP Task Force has produced a questionnaire which is posted at
> |> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/doc00007.doc
> |> >
> |> >I encourage every member of this Assembly to respond to
> |> this questionnaire.
> |> >At this time, it is still not clear to which address
> |> responses should be
> |> >sent, but I hope to have that answer for you soon.
> |> >
> |> >The questionnaire will soon be made available in French and
> |> Spanish, and the
> |> >deadline for all replies is set for December 17.
> |> >--
> |> >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
> |>
> --
> 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 #833
************************