Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #852
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, November 15 2001         Volume 01 : Number 852

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

Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 21:31:19 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Fw: [ga] Just a Discussion List

From: McMeikan, Andrew <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
Cc: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>; [ga] <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:56:49 +1100
Subject: RE: [ga] Just a Discussion List

I'd like to make an amendment to that motion, such that

"If it is seriously the intention of the DNSO Secretariat, that the GA be
more than a DNS discussion list, it should immediately address the growing
concerns of the GA and enforce a method that ensures the voices from the
bottom can be heard at the top."

I perhaps am not so vigorus about each item of concern, but there are enough
that do concern me that in the interest of consensus I support the motion
with my amendment.  I tack this amendment on simply to provide a possible
positive outcome rather than only a negative.

cya, Andrew...

PS: As my email has changed could this please be forwarded onto the list.
([email-masked] is now obsolete please use either
[email-masked] or [email-masked] )

- -----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 3:43 PM
To: Patrick Corliss
Cc: Joop Teernstra; [ga]
Subject: Re: [ga] Just a Discussion List

Hey, I'll second that!

Bill Lovell

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Joop
>
> > Moderation of this list is, alas, no longer taking place, for reasons
that
> > Kristy has outlined so well.
> > This *needs* to be addressed.
>
> I propose a motion (which will be ignored like my last one) that:
>
> Whereas the GA is a farce,
> Whereas there is no Alternate Chair,
> Whereas there is no funding to attend ICANN meetings,
> Whereas motions are ignored by the Chair,
> Whereas there is no proper voting system,
> Wheras List Monitoring is nonexistent,
> Whereas the Sub Lists are neither used or useful,
> Whereas the Chair has cut short agendas,
> Whereas the NC has lost the plot,
> Whereas there is no democracy in the ICANN Board,
> Whereas ICANN itself is captured by vested interests,
> Whereas there is no possible way of achieving consensus,
> Whereas the DNSO Secretariat ignores the GA,
> Wheras there is no system for proper procedures in the GA,
>
> THAT the GA declare that it is just a DNS discussion list.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> 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

- --

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html

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

This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended
recipient(s) only.  It may contain proprietary material, confidential
information and/or be subject to legal privilege.  It should not be copied,
disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.  If you are not an
intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any
attachment and all copies and inform the sender.  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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 22:19:45 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Constituency Structure - Supply and Demand

On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 02:19:29 -0800, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
Subject: [ga] my penance

> Take the example of the ALSC buzzphrase "Internet User".
> What exactly does this mean?  In the broadest possible sense . . .

Hi Sotiris

I have no doubt that ICANN, or at least the DNSO, must concern itself with
the supply and demand for domain names.  Just for now, let's define them as
the things you can register.  Don't worry about "users" until you sort that
out FIRST.

Now, I have argued before that we must separate the two sides, "supply" and
"demand".  The first encompasses registries and registrars.  They should be
in one group called "supply".

The other group, "demand" is all those who register domain names.  That is,
the consumers.  They can be businesses, nonprofits or individuals, etc.  But
they must have a registered domain name !!

At present, there is dreadful confusion, and double counting, between
registrars and registries who are ALSO businesses.  They are all over the
place.  Major confusion occurs.  Is this deliberate?

Separate them into those who "supply" domain names and those who "demand"
domain names and the problem is almost solved.   As well, there is a
reasonable economic balance.

Then we can talk about WHOIS and similar issues with a straight bat (English
expression).  Here's my previous email on the subject.  Ignored by the big
boys who have the game sewn up, as usual.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:46:05 +1000
Subject: [ga] Constituency Structure - Supply and Demand

I refer to debate on other lists (see below) and raise it with the DNSO GA.

If you have a look at http://www.dnso.org/ you will see there are seven
"Constituency Groups" in ICANN's DNSO.   The purpose of these groups is to
provide input into ICANN's policy process.  The existing groups are:

* ccTLD registries
* Commercial and business entities
* gTLD registries
* ISPs and connectivity providers
* Non-commercial domain name holders
* Registrars
* Trademark, intellectual property, anti-counterfeiting interests

Within this framework, there is a classification problem.  A Registry is a
business, so is a Registrar.  In Australia, Connect.com is both a Registry
and a
Registrar for .net.au.  The new gTLDs have a similar combined model.

After the Registrar, the next step in the supply-demand chain is the
Registration Service Provider or RSP.  If you look at Tucows-OpenSRS, they
have
5,000 such "resellers".  These are not currently included in the
"Registrars"
constituency.  Finally, there is the "registrant" giving:

(1)    Registry                                   (Verisign Registry)
(2)    Registry-Registrar                  (new gTLDs, ccTLDs)
(3)    Registrar                                  (ICANN-accredited
registrars)
(4)    Registration Service Providers     (like OpenSRS resellers)
(5)    Registrant                                (may be further
sub-divided).

In Australia we separate the chain into "supply" and "demand" of domain
names.
There is also a third category for internet organisations such as ISOC.
Structurally this is quite sound although the third category is perhaps less
well-defined that the first two.

Of course, the "registrant" community can also be divided into (a) business
(b)
hobbyist (c) personal (d) non-user (i.e. speculator etc.) etc.

Each category has to be identifiable and coherent with respect to the other
categories.  Registrants, for example, are easily identified as a
constituency
from the whois record.  Within that you can have different legal entities.

On the "demand" side most "punters" can be divided into groups such as:

* individuals (.id or .per)
* sole traders and partnerships
* large & small businesses (dotcom)
* networks and service providers (ISPs, ASPs) (.net)
* government authorities (.gov)
* military establishments (.mil)
* associations (trade, cultural, etc) (.asn.au in Australia)
* churches and religions
* charities, NGOs (.org ?)
* educational institutions (dot edu)
* conferences (.conf.au in Australia)
* information resources (.info or .info.au in Australia)
* co-operatives (.coop)
* miscellaneous/other organisations

However, I can also see a need for other "demand" groups like the following:

* mobile phones
* vending machines
* radio & tv stations
* phone boxes
* residences (houses, units, etc.)
* vessels (ships, boats & ferries)
* unincorporated associations
* aircraft
* cars, trucks & taxis
* robots
* industrial processes
* trains
* railway stations

Some of these will possibly be pushing the case for new TLDs in the ICANN
root
and this would promote diversity.   This demand has prompted the growth of
alternative TLDs which, together with their registrants, are outside ICANN.

However, there is clearly an inherent division between "supply" and
"demand".
The idea of "virtual constituencies" also makes sense given the complexities
involved.  I consider the DNSO GA should review its structure in this area.

This analysis identifies one area of difficulty, the ccTLDs.  These are
clearly
on the "supply" side of the equation but at a different level.  This is
perhaps
demonstrated by the absence of the ccTLD Registrars from the "registrars"
constituency.  Of course, they may or may not have a voice within the ccTLD.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Langdell, PhD <[email-masked]>
To: Milton Mueller <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: [council] gTLD CONSTITUENCY

> I do not know the white paper which is being referred to in this thread
(can
> someone give me a link to it please?). But in principal I presume it is
> possible for an organization to argue that it will limit membership of a
> gTLD constituency to only those who either have an ICANN approved TLD or
who
> applied for one formally. That said, I think it is clear that such a body
> would represent only a section of the gTLD community, and as time goes by
a
> smaller and smaller part of it. Since New.net launched, and respecting
that
> there have been alternate TLDs in the market for years (alt root servers
> etc), to fail to include those people in such a constituency would make
the
> body far from representative of gTLD rights holders or interested parties
> worldwide.
>
> Tim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 7:55 PM
> Subject: RE: [council] gTLD CONSTITUENCY
>
>
> > Roger raised some valid points in his message below. A new registry
> constituency must have clear membership criteria. However, it is unfair to
> restrict membership in the gTLD constituency to those who are already
> licensed, as they would have strong incentives to limit competitive entry.
> >
> > Fortunately, there is a simple way around this problem.
> >
> > The new registry constituency can consist of any organization that has
> officially applied to ICANN to become a registry.
> >
> > At this point in time, that means all those organizations that paid
> ICANN's $50,000 non-refundable application fee.
> >
> > This is a simple, clear criterion. No one can contend that those who
> applied are not seriously committed to ICANN and to the registry business.
> >
> > --MM
> >
> > >>> "Cochetti, Roger" <[email-masked]> 03/26/01 07:53 AM >>>
> >
> > 1) While there are quite a few proposals floating around for "registry
> industry trade associations" that would include any business that
considers
> itself a registry, this Constituency is an ICANN DNSO constituency, whose
> principal purpose is to provide input into the ICANN DNSO process.  So,
> while the registry industry may well need and get a broad trade
association,
> we did not feel that the " DNSO Constituency " was the venue for it; and
> > 2) In order to provide some meaningful boundary for the DNSO
Constituency,
> accreditation is a fairly clear demarcation;  beyond that, things get
murky
> and fairly debatable; and
> > 3) Whereas the commitment that an organization makes to express interest
> in becoming a gTLD registry is limited,  the commitment rises considerably
> > after accreditation, ensuring the full commitment of the Constituency to
> the DNSO's work.

<snip footers>

- --
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: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:39:17 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [TLDA Public] What Theater....fortunately, there are many Root Server Clusters...

On 18:06 14/11/01, Jim Fleming said:
> > http://www.washtech.com/news/netarch/13672-1.html
> > "A pair of high-ranking Bush administration officials today visited the
> > Herndon, Va., offices of VeriSign to assess the security precautions being
> > taken by the company that controls the technology at the heart of the
> > Internet's global addressing system."

There is not such a thing hapilly as "control", "heart of the Internet", 
and "global addressing system" except in the Verisign commercial verbose. 
There is only a very unstable over sized TLD registry management system. 
Only a good reason to get many, many more TLDs (first military lesson is 
"don't group together") to start with an increased usage of the ccTLDs. And 
to get every Internet participant with a local name server: a huge business 
for DNS gurus.

Also to ask for an official registration title and a physical management 
tool (such as a smart card) for domain names. So I may prove my DNs are 
mine and I may resume operations on an alternative site should NSI sites be 
blown-up (both are on East Coast - Herndon and Charlotte) or powered down.

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: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:14:46 -0800
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: REMINDER: ICANN-Marina del Rey Public Forum Webcast About to Begin

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 8:02 AM
To: ICANN MdR Remote Participants and Preregistrants
Subject: REMINDER: ICANN-Marina del Rey Public Forum Webcast About to
Begin

Just a quick reminder that today's ICANN Public Forum is about to begin.

The session starts at 8:00AM local time -- which is 11:00AM US Eastern time,
4:00PM UTC.

The Public Forum will be followed by a meeting of the ICANN Board, open to
public observation, at 3:00PM local time -- 6:00 US Eastern time, 11:00PM
UTC.

Join the webcast via <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/mdr2001>.  Full
archives will be posted at the conclusion of the meeting.

For more information about the meetings, see <http://www.icann.org/mdr2001>.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu>

- --
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: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:40:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A minor observation ...

On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Usually, during ICANN meetings, the volume of this list drops off
> substantially. Today, I count over 80 postings. Did most of us fail to
> attend? Or is it that there's not enough to do in MdR?

Personally, I started work with a client this week, and ICANN meetings,
while fun to see familiar faces at, doesn't pay the bills, and in general
don't seem very useful.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
       Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:39:41 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

The issue is not censorship, but simple compliance with the law by US
companies.  A domain registration contract is entirely separate from whether
anyone is being "censored".  The issue is the continued performance of
service contracts by US companies on behalf of parties with whom US law
prohibits the performance of commercial service contracts.

> Libya, of course, is a harmless country who has minded its own business
> since it had the shit bombed out of it by the United States a few years
ago.
> In fact, I didn't even realise it was the subject of sanctions.

Well, it is.  In fact, IANA (and thus ICANN) maintains delegation of the .ly
top-level domain to an organization under government control in Libya.
Apparently, that Libyan organization has contracted out marketing of .ly
domains to a party nominally located in Cyprus, for obvious reasons.
However, that marketing contract cannot and does not alter or supercede the
primary contract between ICANN (inherited from IANA) and a Libyan
organization, in violation of US trade sanction regulations pertaining to
Libya.

The issue goes well beyond the registrars and to ICANN itself.  Under
recently-described contracting principles for ccTLDs, it would appear that
ICANN has every intention of entering into direct negotiations with the
Libyan government over continued delegation of the .ly ccTLD.

The Iraqi ccTLD, incidentally, is not an issue, as it was not delegated to
any institution in Iraq and is not maintained by or on behalf of any Iraqi
organization.

- --
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: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:18:58 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Joseph wrote:

> Hi,
>         Although I am in support of Zero-Censorship over the internet, there are,
> at times, situations that are of "greater importance" (hence the setup of
> Domestic Defence Office which takes precedence over normal
> laws/rights/priorites). I believe that in issues like these, the decision is
> no longer in the hands of ICANN. In other words, when dealing with issues
> governed by law, the law take precedence.  For example, drug dealing is
> illegal and thus ICANN cannot possibly be allowed to be involved in any form
> of drug dealer's domain name if ICANN is aware of the use.
>
>         On the same logic, if there is an existing sanction ruling by an
> international body (UN and not USA because ICANN is an international body),
> ICANN must observe the same rules. It is important to distinguish a USA law
> vs a UN law because if one is to observe the law of USA, one must also
> observe the law of Libya/Iraq thus cancelling each other out. UN on the
> other hand is a recognized international body.

If you are within the United States, you obey U. S. law. I'll obey the law of Libya
or Iraq when I'm there. (Not to mention: since when did the U.N. become an
international law making body?)

Bill Lovell

- --
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: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:25:05 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Actually, I uncovered yesterday that many sanctions against Libya
itself were lifted in 1999 when they turned over those suspects for
trial.

I was not able to determine which sanctions were lifted, and which
remain in place, however.

Thursday, Thursday, November 15, 2001, 8:39:41 AM, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> The issue is not censorship, but simple compliance with the law by US
> companies.  A domain registration contract is entirely separate from whether
> anyone is being "censored".  The issue is the continued performance of
> service contracts by US companies on behalf of parties with whom US law
> prohibits the performance of commercial service contracts.

>> Libya, of course, is a harmless country who has minded its own business
>> since it had the shit bombed out of it by the United States a few years
> ago.
>> In fact, I didn't even realise it was the subject of sanctions.

> Well, it is.  In fact, IANA (and thus ICANN) maintains delegation of the .ly
> top-level domain to an organization under government control in Libya.
> Apparently, that Libyan organization has contracted out marketing of .ly
> domains to a party nominally located in Cyprus, for obvious reasons.
> However, that marketing contract cannot and does not alter or supercede the
> primary contract between ICANN (inherited from IANA) and a Libyan
> organization, in violation of US trade sanction regulations pertaining to
> Libya.

> The issue goes well beyond the registrars and to ICANN itself.  Under
> recently-described contracting principles for ccTLDs, it would appear that
> ICANN has every intention of entering into direct negotiations with the
> Libyan government over continued delegation of the .ly ccTLD.

> The Iraqi ccTLD, incidentally, is not an issue, as it was not delegated to
> any institution in Iraq and is not maintained by or on behalf of any Iraqi
> organization.

> --
> 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

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Webcertificates.info
SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea

- --
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: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:04:33 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

|> From: Joseph [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 12:29 AM

|> 	On the same logic, if there is an existing sanction 
|> ruling by an international body (UN and not USA because 
|> ICANN is an international body), ICANN must observe the 
|> same rules. It is important to distinguish a USA law vs 
|> a UN law because if one is to observe the law of USA, one 
|> must also observe the law of Libya/Iraq thus cancelling 
|> each other out. UN on the other hand is a recognized 
|> international body.

I think that you are in dire need of some facts:
1) ICANN is a registered California, USA corp.
2) ICANN gets it's "authority" from the US Department of Commerce.
3) ICANN corporate offices are located in Marina Del Rey, California, USA.
4) ICANN is only immune, from various US anti-trust statutes, because of the
MoU it has signed with the US DOC. This is the same document that enables
item 2. The ICANN is protected under a "US contractor" umbrella, just like
NSI.

Where does this not make ICANN subject to US State Department authority?
Alternatively, how is ICANN immune from US law?

|> 	In summary, I am in support of the requirement of ICANN 
|> observing any international; ie voiding the Zero-Censorship 
|> in the case of a registration from countries/industries 
|> with information saction in place. Of course, I can 
|> understand that it will be difficult to be in full compliance.

It is not an issue of censorship. It is an issue of compliance with US law.
Censorship issues can be taken up with your representitive to the US
Government, whatever that may entail.

Now, can we drop the "ICANN is an international body" fable? It clearly
isn't one. Those who maintain otherwise are seriously mistaken.
- --
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: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:11:17 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

|> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 6:59 PM
|> 
|> At 21:41 14/11/01 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
|> 
|> >This kind of input on the list is very welcome. I'm 
|> compiling a list of
|> >relevant sites to forward to the BoD for attention. More please.
|> 
|> For the BoD's attention?
|> (mission creep anyone?)
|> 
|> Isn't this a strictly US law enforcement issue?

This is the kind of thing that can disenfranchise the ICANN itself. Don't
forget where the ICANN lives.
- --
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: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:22:38 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> The issue goes well beyond the registrars and to ICANN itself.  Under
> recently-described contracting principles for ccTLDs, it would appear that
> ICANN has every intention of entering into direct negotiations with the
> Libyan government over continued delegation of the .ly ccTLD.
>
> The Iraqi ccTLD, incidentally, is not an issue, as it was not delegated to
> any institution in Iraq and is not maintained by or on behalf of any Iraqi
> organization.

The solution is of course not to see the ccTLDs as being 'in the hands' of
the US gov or its contractor ICANN. Why would they be?

- --
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: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:40:20 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Marc,

That sort of makes the problem worse. It means that the root-zone can't even
carry references to LY and others. There are serious implications for TLD
policy there. Carrying LY, with non-functional NS entries is more aggresive
than simply not having them there, even as place-holders. If the latter,
then those countries could easily use inclusive-root techniques to create
their own root server network (which they probably already do anyway.

Those concerning themselves with security aspects of this might want to know
that not having a publically visible DNS entry does not technically prohibit
one from being on the Internet. However, blocking all packets in/out of
those countries does. Even so, snaking a fiber bundle across a border, to a
friendly/oblivious neighbor, adequately gets around that problem as well.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:23 AM
|> To: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
|> Cc: [GA]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign
|> 
|> 
|> On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
|> 
|> > The issue goes well beyond the registrars and to ICANN 
|> itself.  Under
|> > recently-described contracting principles for ccTLDs, it 
|> would appear that
|> > ICANN has every intention of entering into direct 
|> negotiations with the
|> > Libyan government over continued delegation of the .ly ccTLD.
|> >
|> > The Iraqi ccTLD, incidentally, is not an issue, as it was 
|> not delegated to
|> > any institution in Iraq and is not maintained by or on 
|> behalf of any Iraqi
|> > organization.
|> 
|> The solution is of course not to see the ccTLDs as being 'in 
|> the hands' of
|> the US gov or its contractor ICANN. Why would they be?
|> 
|> --
|> 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: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:47:59 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

>
> I was not able to determine which sanctions were lifted, and which
> remain in place, however.

You are correct that some restrictions were lifted.  Current information is
at www.ustreas.gov/ofac

- --
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: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 22:04:06 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

On 2001-11-15 11:40:20 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:

>That sort of makes the problem worse. It means that the root-zone 
>can't even carry references to LY and others. There are serious 
>implications for TLD policy there. Carrying LY, with 
>non-functional NS entries is more aggresive than simply not having 
>them there, even as place-holders. If the latter, then those 
>countries could easily use inclusive-root techniques to create 
>their own root server network (which they probably already do 
>anyway.

This problem has analogues in the traditional post & telecom sector. 
How is it solved there?

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.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: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:06:27 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
>
> This problem has analogues in the traditional post & telecom sector.
> How is it solved there?

Although not analogous for other reasons, there are international treaties
specifically relating to various postal and telecom issues, which do not
apply to the internet.

One of the reasons it is not analogous is that domain name registration
services provided by a US company cannot even be remotely argued to be
necessary to use the internet.

You will further note that Verizon does not have residential or business
subscribers in Bagdad.

- --
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: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 07:38:53 +0900 (KST)
From: Chun Eung Hwi <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Comments of MdR meeting participants from Asia, Africa and East European countries on ALSC Final Report!

Comments on the ALSC Final Report in the name of some participants in the
Marian del Rey 2001 ICANN meeting, mainly from countries in the early
stages of Internet development (Nov. 15, 2001)

We hold the opinion that the allocation of nine Board seats, to be filled
by elections by the At-Large Membership is fundamentally important to
maintain the participatory bottom-up structure of ICANN, as originally
envisioned. 

To limit the At-Large Membership to domain name holders would - in terms
of the economic and regulatory environments in many of our countries -
immediately exclude citizens of our countries from participation.

If a balance of seats between board members elected by internet users and
board members nominated by the internet suppliers groups is not achieved,
the present unbalanced composition of the ICANN Board is threatening the
legitimacy of ICANN as a whole.

The proposed principle of checks and balances between users, developers,
and providers looks arbitrary and is not clear, as there are overlaps
between developers and providers; moreover, it is not clear in the ALSC
report which group is to be considered under which criteria. On the other
hand, the structures of users versus suppliers, or of customers versus
producers, is clear and a generally well known method of balancing
interests. We cannot find in the ALSC report any convincing reason why the
present 9 to 9 system is to be changed. A change of this 9 to 9 split is
not representing a consensus in the internet community.

To avoid the financial burden of centralized at-large elections, we
propose a regionally diversified at-large election procedure.
Specifically, we recommend that the presently elected at-large directors
initiate organizing regional at-large councils in consultation with
existing and concerned groups and individuals that can assist in providing
logistic and financial support for organizing regional internet user's
participation in the ICANN process. Also the different possible models -
e-mail address holders, without Web access or Web presence, or domain name
holders - could be selected as membership criteria. 

We therefore strongly plead for maintaining an At-Large structure where
the internet community in many developing countries is not excluded from
participation, to initiate the possibility for new At-Large members to
register, to elect the remaining 4 directors also from four regions in
rotated order, and to retain 9 seats for board members to be elected by
the At-Large Membership. In each term, every region which has two
directors will be chosen to fill the position of the region with only one
director in the previous term
 
As new elections for the presently serving 5 at-large director positions
are due to be held in 2002, time is running and urgent actions are needed.

23 Participants from Africa, Asia and East European Countries

Asomiddin Atoev / Tajikistan
Charles Musisi / Uganda 
Christina Haralanova / Bulgaria
Chun Eung Hwi / Korea
Daniel Yakmut Inusa / Nigeria
Gilbert Lumantao / Phillipines
Hakikur Rahman / Bangladesh
Jeonghye Choi / Korea
Maman Sani Zakari / Niger
Mariusz Kondrat / Poland
Nino Kunstseva-Gabashvili / Georgia
Nobert Klein / Cambodia
Paulos Nyirenda / Malawi 
Perpetus Jacques Houngbo / Benin
Rajesh Sharma / Thailand
Slobodan Markovic / Yugoslavia
Thierry Amoussougbo / Benin
Toshimaru Ogura / Japan
Valerie Gordon / Jamaica
William Tevie / Ghana
Xoliswa Kakana / South Africa
Yashar Hajiyev / Azerbaijan
Zenaida Ugart / Phillipines

- --
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: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:44:46 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Fwd: Virus Alert]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------826D190B86FC7A37293763CD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Another virus attack starting up, identified as:
Subject:
        Atmosphere Venuss veil of mystery is really
   Date:
        Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:56:17 PST
   From:
        Tony Zodrow <[email-masked]>

NOTICE: An attachment named 'layer.exe' was converted to
'layer.exe.tmp'.
To recover the file, save the attachment as 'layer.exe'

And don't waste your time telling me that this is off topic.

Bill Lovell

- --------------826D190B86FC7A37293763CD
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:37:15 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Virus Alert

The mail message (file: .txt) you sent to [email-masked] contains a virus (PE_MAGISTR.B). This message generated by scan host redwolf.ftc.gov. More info on this virus may be found at http://www.antivirus.com/vinfo

- --------------826D190B86FC7A37293763CD--

- --
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 #852
************************