Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #868
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, November 22 2001         Volume 01 : Number 868

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

Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 01:39:07 +0900
From: Adam PEAKE <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

Peter, could you describe how ccTLDs "represent the interests of users
and individual registrants".

I see some of the better managed ccTLDs representing local the Internet
industry (JPNIC is good example, very few Japanese ISPs who are not
members of JPNIC), but very few (.nz and .ca?) show an interest in
individual registrants or user's interests. 

Whatever.  I think it's pretty clear that the registrars, gTLDs and
ccTLDs are under represented in the DNSO. The 4 user constituencies are
so farcically unrepresentative of their potential constituencies (and
none show any interest in outreach) that a DNSO where the three
suppliers elect people to the board would be a very sensible step forward.

Thanks,

Adam

Adam Peake
GLOCOM Tokyo

Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Patrick Corliss'" <[email-masked]>; "Philip Sheppard"
> <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 9:18 AM
> Subject: RE: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA
> 
> > Patrick,
> >
> > Without detracting from your point about the individuals consitutuency, it
> > seems to me that only 3 of the 7 constituencies represent suppliers:
> ccTLD,
> > gTLD and registrars.  The rest are all on the demand side.
> 
> Please read the answers to the questions posed by the g-TLD registries to
> the cctlds about the ccSO* (*= in formation ) and appreciate that ccTLds are
> more than suppliers and are obliged to represent the interests of users and
> individual registrants amongst others in their Local Internet Communities.
> 
> Local (cc) internet policies are the compromise product worked out by the
> interaction of consultation among these groups.
> While not all of us are as good at this as we should, and there is room for
> improvement, re-delegation is the consequence of failure.  Accordingly,
> cctlds also represent the demand side.
> 
> >Moreover, only 2
> > of the 7 are actually required contractually to implement any consensus
> > policies developed.  That means that the supply organizations who are most
> > directly impacted by consensus policies only have six of 21 votes on the
> NC.
> 
> By which you mean contractually bound by a contract with ICANN to implement
> policies developed within ICANN.  Be aware that the rest of the world runs
> to different rules. Try and appreciate that most of us are not much affected
> by gTLD policy, but that US citizens, who have tended to ignore their cc and
> opt for the generics, tend to be more interested in g-TLD policy.
> 
> In my country, the registry is contractually bound by policies developed by
> the consensus processes adopted by InternetNZ.
> 
> That is why, incidentally, the DNSO needs to remain as it is, as the
> debating chamber for the development of consensus policies affecting the
> g-TLDs, including those interested in and affected by gTLD policies, while
> the ccSO* is the forum for developing both the binding and the voluntary
> policies across the ccTLds.
> 
> Regards
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Chair, International Affairs
> InternetNZ
> 64 4 499 8959
> 64 21 49 9888
> 
> fax 64 4 471 0672
> 
> --
> 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, 22 Nov 2001 09:14:22 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

The entire concept of separating supply and demand is bogus, IMHO. There is
no instance of a pure supplier or a pure consumer, as organized entities.
This is also true of ISPs, every ISP has an ISP. There are upstreams,
downstreams, and peers. Other than the leaves, everyone else falls into this
and even the leaves can have off-topology downstreams and peers. We may look
at this as a hierarchy and we may sing the hierarchy mantra, but it is
really a network of networks and until we start looking at it that way we
will continue to FUBAR. Networks are not hierarchies.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 6:05 AM
|> To: 'Patrick Corliss'; Gomes, Chuck
|> Cc: [ga]
|> Subject: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure
|> 
|> 
|> Patrick,
|> 
|> I don't find any problem with your analysis.  In a purely dichotomous
|> situation (which I recognize does not exist) I would put the 
|> constituencies
|> you classify as NEITHER on the demand side; in other words, 
|> if there was
|> simply a choice between supply and demand, I personally 
|> think they are more
|> on the demand side.  In the case of the ccTLDs, I recognize 
|> that in many
|> cases they have some special obligations on the demand side 
|> but it is also
|> true with regard to some ccTLDs that they are almost totally 
|> on the supply
|> side and are even for profit organizations.
|> 
|> My primary point of course was to note that the NC is not 
|> dominated by those
|> on the supply side and in fact may be underrepresented when 
|> one considers
|> the amount of impact on registries and registrars (including ccTLDs).
|> 
|> Chuck
|> 
|> > -----Original Message-----
|> > From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 2:08 AM
|> > To: Gomes, Chuck
|> > Cc: [ga]
|> > Subject: DNSO Constituency Structure
|> > 
|> > 
|> > On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 04:44:57 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:
|> > > At present the DNSO consists of seven constituency groups 
|> > as follows:
|> > >
|> > > *    ccTLD registries
|> > > *    Commercial and business entities
|> > > *    gTLD registries
|> > > *    ISPs and connectivity providers
|> > > *    Non-commercial domain name holders
|> > > *    Registrars
|> > > *    Trademark, intellectual property, 
|> anti-counterfeiting interests
|> > >
|> > > In relation to the supply and demand for domain names, only 
|> > two of these
|> > > seven could relate to the "demand-side" viz business and 
|> > non-profits.
|> > 
|> > On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:18:11 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
|> > 
|> > > Without detracting from your point about the individuals 
|> > consitutuency, it
|> > > seems to me that only 3 of the 7 constituencies 
|> represent suppliers:
|> > ccTLD,
|> > > gTLD and registrars.  The rest are all on the demand side.
|> > 
|> > Hi Chuck
|> > 
|> > I'd agree that ccTLDs are probably more likely to be on the 
|> > supply side but
|> > it is true, at least in the cause of .au, that auDA 
|> > represents both supply
|> > and demand.  It is reasonable to say they represent country 
|> > codes which do
|> > both.
|> > 
|> > ISPs and connectivity providers do not demand or supply 
|> > domain names per se.
|> > They provide a support service.  Really, they should be in a 
|> > "Technical"
|> > Supporting Organisation.   Trademarks are an odd one out.  
|> > They are both or
|> > neither as you wish.  So I see the following:
|> > 
|> > BOTH            ccTLD registries
|> > DEMAND    Commercial and business entities
|> > SUPPLY        gTLD registries
|> > NEITHER     ISPs and connectivity providers
|> > DEMAND    Non-commercial domain name holders
|> > SUPPLY        Registrars
|> > NEITHER    Trademark, intellectual property, 
|> > anti-counterfeiting interests
|> > 
|> > That's two for demand, two for supply and three for other.
|> > 
|> > 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
|> 
- --
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, 23 Nov 2001 04:41:38 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

Hi Roeland

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:14:22 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> The entire concept of separating supply and demand is bogus, IMHO.
> There is no instance of a pure supplier or a pure consumer, as organized
> entities.  This is also true of ISPs, every ISP has an ISP. There are
> upstreams, downstreams, and peers. Other than the leaves, everyone else
> falls into this and even the leaves can have off-topology downstreams and
> peers.  We may look at this as a hierarchy and we may sing the hierarchy
> mantra, but it is really a network of networks and until we start looking
> at it that way we will continue to FUBAR. Networks are not hierarchies.

That's not really the point, Roeland.  I'm simply saying that the present
constituency structure sucks.  You experience in not getting a spot for
MHSC should confirm that.  So I was trying to analyse the situation in
sensible terms.  Perhaps we should take it one step at a time from the top.

At present there are three Supporting Organisations:

1. The Address Supporting Organization (ASO)
2. The Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO)
3. The Protocol Supporting Organization (PSO)

Starting with a clean slate, do you think that is the ideal structure?

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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:43:01 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] We have a problem ...

We have a problem. It seems that someone has included
[email-masked] into the mailer-list. Can we please fix it so that
I stop getting these failure notices everytime I post to the GA?

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 9:36 AM
|> To: Roeland Meyer
|> Subject: RE: RE: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure --- FAILURE
|> 
|> 
|> Error: You are emailing to BR: , however this address doesn't exist.
|> 
|> 
|> X-POP3-Rcpt: [email-masked]
|> >Received: from dnso.dnso.org (dnso.dnso.org [192.134.4.239])
|> >	by mail1.bulkregister.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28175;
|> >	Thu, 22 Nov 2001 12:34:27 -0500
|> >Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
|> >	by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id SAA15921;
|> >	Thu, 22 Nov 2001 18:13:21 +0100 (MET)
|> >Received: from condor.mhsc.com ([216.27.184.246])
|> >	by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA15917
|> >	for <[email-masked]>; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 18:13:19 +0100 (MET)
|> >Received: by condor.mhsc.com with Internet Mail Service 
|> (5.5.2650.21)
|> >	id <WR74R1YH>; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:14:23 -0800
|> >Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
|> >From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
|> >To: "'Gomes, Chuck'" <[email-masked]>,
|> >        "'Patrick Corliss'"
|> >	 <[email-masked]>
|> >Cc: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
|> >Subject: RE: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure
|> >Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:14:22 -0800
|> >MIME-Version: 1.0
|> >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
|> >Content-Type: text/plain;
|> >	charset="iso-8859-1"
|> >Sender: [email-masked]
|> >Precedence: bulk
|> >
|> >The entire concept of separating supply and demand is 
|> bogus, IMHO. There is
|> >no instance of a pure supplier or a pure consumer, as 
|> organized entities.
|> >This is also true of ISPs, every ISP has an ISP. There are 
|> upstreams,
|> >downstreams, and peers. Other than the leaves, everyone 
|> else falls into this
|> >and even the leaves can have off-topology downstreams and 
|> peers. We may look
|> >at this as a hierarchy and we may sing the hierarchy 
|> mantra, but it is
|> >really a network of networks and until we start looking at 
|> it that way we
|> >will continue to FUBAR. Networks are not hierarchies.
|> >
|> >|> -----Original Message-----
|> >|> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> >|> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 6:05 AM
|> >|> To: 'Patrick Corliss'; Gomes, Chuck
|> >|> Cc: [ga]
|> >|> Subject: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure
|> >|> 
|> >|> 
|> >|> Patrick,
|> >|> 
|> >|> I don't find any problem with your analysis.  In a 
|> purely dichotomous
|> >|> situation (which I recognize does not exist) I would put the 
|> >|> constituencies
|> >|> you classify as NEITHER on the demand side; in other words, 
|> >|> if there was
|> >|> simply a choice between supply and demand, I personally 
|> >|> think they are more
|> >|> on the demand side.  In the case of the ccTLDs, I recognize 
|> >|> that in many
|> >|> cases they have some special obligations on the demand side 
|> >|> but it is also
|> >|> true with regard to some ccTLDs that they are almost totally 
|> >|> on the supply
|> >|> side and are even for profit organizations.
|> >|> 
|> >|> My primary point of course was to note that the NC is not 
|> >|> dominated by those
|> >|> on the supply side and in fact may be underrepresented when 
|> >|> one considers
|> >|> the amount of impact on registries and registrars 
|> (including ccTLDs).
|> >|> 
|> >|> Chuck
|> >|> 
|> >|> > -----Original Message-----
|> >|> > From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> >|> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 2:08 AM
|> >|> > To: Gomes, Chuck
|> >|> > Cc: [ga]
|> >|> > Subject: DNSO Constituency Structure
|> >|> > 
|> >|> > 
|> >|> > On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 04:44:57 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:
|> >|> > > At present the DNSO consists of seven constituency groups 
|> >|> > as follows:
|> >|> > >
|> >|> > > *    ccTLD registries
|> >|> > > *    Commercial and business entities
|> >|> > > *    gTLD registries
|> >|> > > *    ISPs and connectivity providers
|> >|> > > *    Non-commercial domain name holders
|> >|> > > *    Registrars
|> >|> > > *    Trademark, intellectual property, 
|> >|> anti-counterfeiting interests
|> >|> > >
|> >|> > > In relation to the supply and demand for domain names, only 
|> >|> > two of these
|> >|> > > seven could relate to the "demand-side" viz business and 
|> >|> > non-profits.
|> >|> > 
|> >|> > On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:18:11 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
|> >|> > 
|> >|> > > Without detracting from your point about the individuals 
|> >|> > consitutuency, it
|> >|> > > seems to me that only 3 of the 7 constituencies 
|> >|> represent suppliers:
|> >|> > ccTLD,
|> >|> > > gTLD and registrars.  The rest are all on the demand side.
|> >|> > 
|> >|> > Hi Chuck
|> >|> > 
|> >|> > I'd agree that ccTLDs are probably more likely to be on the 
|> >|> > supply side but
|> >|> > it is true, at least in the cause of .au, that auDA 
|> >|> > represents both supply
|> >|> > and demand.  It is reasonable to say they represent country 
|> >|> > codes which do
|> >|> > both.
|> >|> > 
|> >|> > ISPs and connectivity providers do not demand or supply 
|> >|> > domain names per se.
|> >|> > They provide a support service.  Really, they should be in a 
|> >|> > "Technical"
|> >|> > Supporting Organisation.   Trademarks are an odd one out.  
|> >|> > They are both or
|> >|> > neither as you wish.  So I see the following:
|> >|> > 
|> >|> > BOTH            ccTLD registries
|> >|> > DEMAND    Commercial and business entities
|> >|> > SUPPLY        gTLD registries
|> >|> > NEITHER     ISPs and connectivity providers
|> >|> > DEMAND    Non-commercial domain name holders
|> >|> > SUPPLY        Registrars
|> >|> > NEITHER    Trademark, intellectual property, 
|> >|> > anti-counterfeiting interests
|> >|> > 
|> >|> > That's two for demand, two for supply and three for other.
|> >|> > 
|> >|> > 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
|> >|> 
|> >--
|> >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: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 07:04:16 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:43:05 -0800, Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>|> From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
>|> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 11:36 PM
>|> 
>|> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:16:45 -0500, "Gomes, Chuck"
>|> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>|> 
>|> >Peter,
>|> >
>|> >From a business point of view, gTLDs and registrars can 
>|> make the same
>|> >arguments.  If we do not effectively meet the needs of 
>|> users we will not be
>|> >in business long.  So again, I don't see any major 
>|> differences in this
>|> >regard.
>|> 
>|> I'm sorry but that is drawing far too strong a bow string.  
>|> Commercial
>|> gTLD registries and registrars have a sole focus of 
>|> maximising profit.
>
>Now that says absolutely nothing. Duh! Any company has that fiduciary duty
>to its investors and shareholders.

Exactly and gTLD registries and registrars are almost all companies
which have that duty.  ccTLDs are often run by sponsoring
organisations which are not companies.  

>|> Now there is nothing wrong with that at all.   The fact one has to
>|> keep customers happy to survive does not undermine that.  Also as a
>|> gTLD registry is a natural monopoly one can well argue it does not in
>|> any way have to meet the needs of users to survive.
>|> 
>|> A ccTLD sponsor does not have a sole focus of making a profit.  In
>|> fact for .nz the over-riding priority is to serve the local internet
>|> community.  
>
>Then what should happen is, to hand those ccTLDs back to their designated
>countries? What are you saying here.

Not at all.  First of all people need to stop thinking of global
"solutions" to ccTLD issues - there are very few as each ccTLD varies
in some way.

My point is RFC1591 mandates the duty of a ccTLD manager is to serve
the local internet community.  You don't have to be the Government to
do that.  WHat you generally do need is a local organisation with
local policies that reflect that internet community.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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, 22 Nov 2001 10:07:39 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

I would start at applying KISS. Or, as I like to say, KISS Occam's razor.
Part of the problem is that we've been trying to model this whole mess after
the FUBAR'd architecture that was contrived by ISI/IANA. That was a decent
first-approximation ad hoc taxonomy at the time. But it no longer serves the
purpose. We need to separate the logical from the physical and let both
achieve their natural form independently. 

The physical form is the hardware infrastructure and it is artificially
constrained. The logical form are the various entities that use and abuse
the physical layer.

On this Thanksgiving day, I don't have the time to go deeply into this but,
it appears that a slightly orthogonal view is required.

An example;
1: Business (B2B and B2C, not 2 & 3)
2: ISPs and telcos
3: Regulatory agencies and countries.
4: DNS Publishers of any stripe (not resellers)
5: Everyone else

Failing to have an agreement, I would give them all equal weight. If they
can't state their entry requirements in 3-4 sentences of legal text then it
is too complicated and should be rejected.

BTW, and IMHO, long-term success of name reselling (registrars) is limited,
as a stand-alone core business. That market is becoming highly commoditized.
They haven't hit their chasm yet, or they are about to do so. The thing to
be is a registry. But, all of these markets have been heavily toxified by
activities of the ICANN.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 9:42 AM
|> To: Roeland Meyer
|> Cc: [ga]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure
|> 
|> 
|> Hi Roeland
|> 
|> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:14:22 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> 
|> > The entire concept of separating supply and demand is bogus, IMHO.
|> > There is no instance of a pure supplier or a pure 
|> consumer, as organized
|> > entities.  This is also true of ISPs, every ISP has an 
|> ISP. There are
|> > upstreams, downstreams, and peers. Other than the leaves, 
|> everyone else
|> > falls into this and even the leaves can have off-topology 
|> downstreams and
|> > peers.  We may look at this as a hierarchy and we may sing 
|> the hierarchy
|> > mantra, but it is really a network of networks and until 
|> we start looking
|> > at it that way we will continue to FUBAR. Networks are not 
|> hierarchies.
|> 
|> That's not really the point, Roeland.  I'm simply saying 
|> that the present
|> constituency structure sucks.  You experience in not getting 
|> a spot for
|> MHSC should confirm that.  So I was trying to analyse the 
|> situation in
|> sensible terms.  Perhaps we should take it one step at a 
|> time from the top.
|> 
|> At present there are three Supporting Organisations:
|> 
|> 1. The Address Supporting Organization (ASO)
|> 2. The Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO)
|> 3. The Protocol Supporting Organization (PSO)
|> 
|> Starting with a clean slate, do you think that is the ideal 
|> structure?
|> 
|> 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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 19:47:17 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

On 22:56 21/11/01, Peter Dengate Thrush said:
>That is why, incidentally, the DNSO needs to remain as it is, as the
>debating chamber for the development of consensus policies affecting the
>g-TLDs, including those interested in and affected by gTLD policies, while
>the ccSO* is the forum for developing both the binding and the voluntary
>policies across the ccTLds.

Dear Peter,
that would be perfect would the NICSO (you just demonstrated that you are 
more acting as a NIC than a pure TLD Manager) would accept a GA - which 
incidentally would be very near from the @large should the position 
france@large defends as well as China/Vietnam and many others prevailed.

Actually the whole SO system is inadequate because of its rigidity. The 
true governance building block are the Constituency as a group and the 
@large.as an individual. SOs should only be specialized permanent WG for 
Constituencies and @large (forming their GA) and Constituencies should be 
able to share in as many SOs they need.

One really feels that ICANN is first the art of complexifying the simplest.
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, 22 Nov 2001 13:08:26 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

Patrick and all Assembly members,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:43:05 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:36:27 +1300, David Farrar wrote:
> > > A ccTLD sponsor does not have a sole focus of making a profit.  In
> > > fact for .nz the over-riding priority is to serve the local internet
> > > community.
>
> > Then what should happen is, to hand those ccTLDs back to their
> > designated countries? What are you saying here.
>
> Hi Roeland
>
> I can't speak for New Zealand but I do have experience in Australia.  As you
> may know I am on the Board of auDA, the Australian country code.  Of course,
> I speak in my personal capacity and not on behalf of the Board.
>
> As I see it, each ccTLD is like a mini-ICANN.  As it may not have any
> responsibility for IP addresses perhaps it is more appropriate to equate a
> ccTLD with the DNSO.  At least that's the way I see it.

  Good point here Patrick.  Would it not than be reasonable that if
a group of the ccTLD's wish to band together in some fashion that
they would then be a defacto ccSO?

>
>
> Now the DNSO is made up of seven constituencies representing registrars,
> registries, businesses, trade marks etc.  Each ccTLD may be organised
> similarly (i.e. with some form of constituency structure).
>
> In Australia, for example, auDA's membership is open to interested parties
> in three categories of membership - Supply, Demand and Representative
> Associations.  Representatives from each of these classes sit on the board
> of auDA for two year terms.
>
> As provided in the Constitution, the auDA Board comprises:
> *    Three (3) persons elected by Supply Class Members;
> *    Three (3) persons elected by Demand Class Members;
> *    Three (3) persons elected by Representative Association Class Members;
> *    Two (2) persons elected by the Members voting together as a whole;
>
> For details, see http://www.auda.org.au/about/board.html
> This composition makes it very hard for any one group to "capture" the
> Board.
>
> You can see, perhaps, that David Farrar seems to be saying that a ccTLD
> is really neither "supply" or "demand" like a gTLD registry.  It should not,
> therefore, be lumped in with supply as Chuck Gomes seemed to suggest.

  Perhaps Patrick.  But do not ccTLD managers/companies provide
a service to registrants as their primary function?  If yes, than isn't it
reasonable to assume that Chuck is quite right?  I think it is.

>
>
> This is why ccTLDs argue for consideration as a separate Supporting
> Organisation rather than a separate constituency within the DNSO.
>
> I have tried to provide a better focus on the problem by asking members
> of the GA to consider the underlying supply-demand reality.
>
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 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: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 17:00:05 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: 6:224     AU   (AUSTRALIA)...."...like a mini-ICANN...it  may not have any responsibility for IP addresses..."

Jim Fleming wrote:

> > The Next Generation Internet (NGI) is taking shape. Microsoft has
> > recently made the technology needed to use "IPv8 Addressing" with IPv6
> > available in Windows XP. That is the standard Windows now shipped on PCs.

This is, as usual from Fleming, nonsense.

Yes, Microsoft are beginning to support IPv6. A search on microsoft.com
for "ipv6" turns up over 100 hits.

However, that has nothing to do with Fleming's stuff. A search on 
microsoft.com for "ipv8" turns up precisely zero hits. They are not
doing "IPv8 Addressing", or anything remotely like it.

That is entirely natural, since IPv6 is a real set of protocols, under
development by the IETF with several dozen RFCs describing it, many of
then labelled as "standards track" so they will eventually become IETF
standards. For all I know, some already have.

Working Group home page:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipngwg-charter.html

Major companies involved:
http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-main.html
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/732/ipv6/index.shtml
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/howitworks/communications/networkbasics/IPv6.asp

A user group and a public test network:
http://www.ipv6.org/
http://www.6bone.net/

Whereas "ipv8" appears to exist only in Fleming's head. Checking the
IETF, we find not even an Internet Draft, let alone any RFCs.

Jim does sometimes post worthwhile stuff here, as in his recent post
pointing out ICANN management's fascinating claim in court that they
don't actually have authority to make TLD decisions, only to make
recommendations to the US gov't. I therefore disagree with those who
suggest ignoring everything he posts.

As for those who complain of his elitism and overly technical posts,
just remember that nearly all the technical content of his posts is
pure nonsense. Ignore that, by all means.
- --
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, 22 Nov 2001 14:15:18 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

Good points here Jeff,

If there was one thing worth taking away from the ICANN meetings on
security, it is that
we must diversify not consolidate.

Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all assembly members,
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Nah,
> >
> > Peter and all ccTLD managers.  get out while you can.  Including dotUS and neulevel.
>
>   Perhaps a dotUSA .USA will offer some competition for the now newly
> emergency delegated .US to Nuelevel in the near future?  Perhaps
> even New.net will or would be interested in offering .USA as
> a new gTLD?
>
> >
> >
> > You guys are in the best position to represent the countries and the local users.
> > ICANN has no business telling countries how to manage their domain names.
>
>   Indeed ICANN does not have any such right.  However the GAC
> which is made up of representatives from these respective countries
> believes it has the political  clout to effectively do so.
>
> >
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > William X Walsh wrote:
> >
> > > Wednesday, Wednesday, November 21, 2001, 1:56:36 PM, Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
> > >
> > > > That is why, incidentally, the DNSO needs to remain as it is, as the
> > > > debating chamber for the development of consensus policies affecting the
> > > > g-TLDs,
> > >
> > > That is not what it is, nor is it what it should be or become.
> > >
> > > There is no special status for the ccTLDs that warrant them having
> > > their own SO.  None.
> > >
> > > The ccTLD CONSTITUENCY bears the brunt of the responsibility for
> > > non-addressing of ccTLD issues in the DNSO.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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-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 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 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
- --
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, 22 Nov 2001 14:15:58 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

Patrick, Jeff and Roeland,

This is dynamite stuff.  If we look at our pending and evolving best
practices how
can we move this into a productive and solid position concept?

Joanna and Bill what is the next step?

Sincerely,
Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Patrick and all Assembly members,
>
> Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:43:05 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:36:27 +1300, David Farrar wrote:
> > > > A ccTLD sponsor does not have a sole focus of making a profit.  In
> > > > fact for .nz the over-riding priority is to serve the local internet
> > > > community.
> >
> > > Then what should happen is, to hand those ccTLDs back to their
> > > designated countries? What are you saying here.
> >
> > Hi Roeland
> >
> > I can't speak for New Zealand but I do have experience in Australia.  As you
> > may know I am on the Board of auDA, the Australian country code.  Of course,
> > I speak in my personal capacity and not on behalf of the Board.
> >
> > As I see it, each ccTLD is like a mini-ICANN.  As it may not have any
> > responsibility for IP addresses perhaps it is more appropriate to equate a
> > ccTLD with the DNSO.  At least that's the way I see it.
>
>   Good point here Patrick.  Would it not than be reasonable that if
> a group of the ccTLD's wish to band together in some fashion that
> they would then be a defacto ccSO?
>
> >
> >
> > Now the DNSO is made up of seven constituencies representing registrars,
> > registries, businesses, trade marks etc.  Each ccTLD may be organised
> > similarly (i.e. with some form of constituency structure).
> >
> > In Australia, for example, auDA's membership is open to interested parties
> > in three categories of membership - Supply, Demand and Representative
> > Associations.  Representatives from each of these classes sit on the board
> > of auDA for two year terms.
> >
> > As provided in the Constitution, the auDA Board comprises:
> > *    Three (3) persons elected by Supply Class Members;
> > *    Three (3) persons elected by Demand Class Members;
> > *    Three (3) persons elected by Representative Association Class Members;
> > *    Two (2) persons elected by the Members voting together as a whole;
> >
> > For details, see http://www.auda.org.au/about/board.html
> > This composition makes it very hard for any one group to "capture" the
> > Board.
> >
> > You can see, perhaps, that David Farrar seems to be saying that a ccTLD
> > is really neither "supply" or "demand" like a gTLD registry.  It should not,
> > therefore, be lumped in with supply as Chuck Gomes seemed to suggest.
>
>   Perhaps Patrick.  But do not ccTLD managers/companies provide
> a service to registrants as their primary function?  If yes, than isn't it
> reasonable to assume that Chuck is quite right?  I think it is.
>
> >
> >
> > This is why ccTLDs argue for consideration as a separate Supporting
> > Organisation rather than a separate constituency within the DNSO.
> >
> > I have tried to provide a better focus on the problem by asking members
> > of the GA to consider the underlying supply-demand reality.
> >
> > 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
>
> Regards,
>
- --
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 #868
************************