Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #869
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, November 23 2001          Volume 01 : Number 869

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

Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 23:58:20 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Reminder about GA voting roster for GA Chair

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.DNSO-GAchair.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

   DNSO election of a Chair and an Alternate Chair to the General Assembly
                             for the year 2002
                        November 2001 to January 2002

23 November 2001

  I. The ICANN Bylaws http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm, Article VI-B,
     Section 2 (i) states that the Names Council shall elect the Chairman of
     the GA annually.

 II. On 17th of November
     http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00403.html, the Names
     Council was asked by the GA Chair to manage an election process to
     select a nominee for appointment by the NC to the position of GA Chair.

III. The Secretariat determined with the DNSO GA Chair, and with Philip
     Sheppard, NC Chair, that the 2002 election will take place between 23
     November 2001 and 14 January 2002 with the following agenda:
        o Friday,   23 Nov - Reminder about voting roster, two weeks to
          register
        o Friday,   07 Dec - Call for nominations issued, two weeks to
          nominate
        o Friday,   21 Dec - Call for endorsements issued, two weeks to
          endorse
        o Friday,   04 Jan - List of candidates closes
        o Saturday, 05 Jan - Vote of the GA voting registry initiated, one
          week to vote
        o Saturday, 12 Jan - Vote of the GA voting registry closes
        o Monday,   14 Jan - Results calculated
        o Thursday, 17 Jan - NC elects the Chair and Alternate from the
          candidates ranked by the GA vote

     All nominations, acceptances and endorsements will be provided in the
     sections below.

 IV. On 16th of March 2001
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html,
     Harald Alvestrand, the GA Alternate Chair in 2000, proposed the
     Election Rules for the DNSO GA. These rules were voted on and accepted.

     The Electorate will be those GA members who are subscribed to the GA
voting
     registry, cf. http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html.

  V. A nomination watchdog committee has been formed to police the
     nomination process to help detect and cure any instances of fraudulent
     activity in connection with the nomination process.

     Any instances of fraudulent nominations or endorsements should be
     reported to this committee at the following email address:
     [email-masked], with a copy to the Names Council at
     [email-masked], This committee and the Names Council shall have the
     sole discretion as to how to deal with any such reported activity.

     Watchdog Committee list archive in
     http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/

     The members to the Watchdog Committee in 2002 election are:
        o Roberto Gaetano
        o Harald Alvestrand
        o Kent Crispin
        o Dany Vandromme
        o Alexander Svensson
        o Izumi Aizu

 VI. Nomination of candidates for election to the Chair of the General
     Assembly,

          Opens  on Friday 07 December 2001, 17:00 UTC (18:00 Paris),
          Closes on Friday 21 December 2001, 17:00 UTC (18:00 Paris)

          The acceptance period closes on 21 December 2001, 20:00 UTC
          (21:00 Paris)

          (For local time in other places see
          http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

             * Nominations must be sent by e-mail to
               [email-masked].

               Please use a Template for nomination:

                  1a. Full name of the nominee:
                  1b. E-mail address of the nominee:
                  2a. Full name of the nominator:
                  2b. E-mail address of the nominator:
                  2c. Type of GA membership:
                      (GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber,
                       GA-voting registry, Working Group subscriber,
                       or DNSO Constituency member)

               Each nominee will be requested for acceptance statement
               by the Secretariat.

             * Acceptances must be sent by e-mail to
               [email-masked].

               Please use a Template for acceptance:

                  1a. Full name of the nominee:
                  1b. E-mail address of the nominee:
                  1c. Background information about the nominee:
                  1d. Statement of the nominee's objectives
                      in the role as Chair of the GA:
                      (including his or her views of the role
                      of the GA and its relationship with the
                      Names Council and Constituencies of the DNSO)

             * Archives of nominations and acceptances received:

               http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc05

               On Friday 21 December 2001, 17:00 UTC (18:00 Paris), the
               ga-nominations list will close.

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

          Nominees who accepted their nomination for the Chair of the
          General Assembly (GA) (date of reception at the dnso.org,
          Paris)

               (list updated daily)

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

VII. Endorsement of candidates for election to the Chair of the General
     Assembly,

          Opens on Friday 21 December 2001, 21:00 UTC (22:00 Paris),
          Closes on Friday 04 January 2001, 21:00 UTC (22:00 Paris)

          (For local time in other places see
          http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

             * Endorsements must be sent by e-mail to
               [email-masked].

               Please use a Template for endorsement:

                  3a. Full name of the endorser:
                  3b. E-mail address of the endorser:
                  3c. Full name of the accepted nominee
                      you wish to endorse:
                      (specific statements of endorsements
                      may also be submitted and are encouraged)

             * Archives of endorsements received:

               http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-endorsements/Arc02

               On Friday 04 January 2001, 21:00 UTC (22:00 Paris), the
               ga-endorsements list will close.

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

          Candidates for the Chair of the General Assembly (GA)

               (list updated daily)

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

VIII.Election of the Chair and Alternate Chair to the General Assembly by
     the General Assembly - this procedure is an advisory vote by the GA to
     advise the Names Council of its preferences.

          Opens  on Saturday 05 January 2001, 17:00 UTC (18:00 Paris),
          Closes on Saturday 12 January 2002, 17:00 UTC (18:00 Paris)

          (For local time in other places see
          http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

          The results will be announced no later than
          Monday 14 January 2002, at 23:00 UTC (24:00 Paris),
          and will be published on the web site in
          http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-chair-election-ranking.html

 IX. Election of the Chair to the General Assembly by the Names Council

          During the NC teleconference, 17 January 2002, 14:00 UTC
          (15:00 Paris)

          (For local time in other places see
          http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

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

- --
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 12:35:28 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: DNSO Constituency Structure

At 01:58 23/11/01 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:

>I'm sure you will agree with me that many ISPs are sellers of domain names.
>Perhaps William X. Walsh would advise the situation with the OpenSRS
>resellers?  Are they mostly ISPs or do they perform other services?
>Of course, ISPs may be seen as buying domain names which they then onsell to
>their customers.  However, my concept is that a reseller of domain names (a
>la OpenSRS) is really a baby registrar waiting to grow up.  In some cases
>they might even apply to auDA for full accreditation as a registrar.
>Except, perhaps, when they want a lower price for domain names !!

This is probably why they are so keen to "speak for" Domain Name registrants.

>I believe OpenSRS calls them Registration Service Providers (RSPs).
>Cetainly they are very supportive of their relationship with the parent
>Registrar.  In fact, I cannot imagine them in any sort of opposition.

Whatever they are called, these people need to become part of the registrar 
constituency.

At the moment, the fact that they are unrepresented makes them a royal pain 
in the neck for the Individuals' Constituency.  It has been an endless battle.

The interests of typical Individual holders of Domain Names and the 
resellers of Registration services (alt-root or otherwise) are not the same.

- --Joop

- --
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 18:55:30 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> 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.

  Yes diversification is by design better security overall.  It is harder
to implement however.  But usually thing that are more difficult to do
are better overall.  I hearken back to JFK's speech about going
to the moon in this regard.  "We will go to the moon and do other
things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard".

  The ICANN BoD and staff will have to decide if they are up
to the challenge.  If not, the stakeholder and internet community
will do it for them.  In fact they already are.  More willing
and able organizations are coming online with this all the time
as I have tried to indicate quoting various organizations
such as Sans ect.

  The ICANN BoD and staff of course are trying to make the
case that security and privacy are at odds.  Quite the contrary
is the reality however.  Without a certain amount of privacy
you cannot have good security.

>
>
> 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

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: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 12:43:34 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: DNSO Constituency Structure

Hi Joop

> The interests of typical Individual holders of Domain Names and the
> resellers of Registration services (alt-root or otherwise) are not the
same.

Of course not.  One is supply and the other demand.

Which is exactly my point.

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 18:34:39 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: DNSO Constituency Structure

Thursday, Thursday, November 22, 2001, 3:35:28 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Whatever they are called, these people need to become part of the registrar 
> constituency.

> At the moment, the fact that they are unrepresented makes them a royal pain 
> in the neck for the Individuals' Constituency.  It has been an endless battle.

Oh fuck off.

You mean that I am a pain in the neck for you getting away with your
games in the IDNO, the games that have almost cost you your ability to
keep yourself in a leadership role there.

And I was doing that LONG BEFORE I WAS A REGISTRATION SERVICES
PROVIDER, and to top it off, Little Napoleon, as you already know, it
is NOT my primary income, it is barely a recognizable fraction of it.

You are using this to try and discredit those who have kept you from
getting away with your crap in the IDNO, and trust me, no one believes
you anymore with this crap.

Pardon my language, but Joop has been beating this drum heavily, and
I've had it with his little games.  My last motion in the IDNO was an
attempt to bridge the gap between the two factions, and it lost by ONE
SINGLE VOTE.  Joop makes it sound like those who oppose his elitist
view of the IDNO and how it should be run and what it should be doing
are only one or two vocal people, whom he slanders and tries to
discredit.  THE FACTS ARE VERY DIFFERENT.

He is an out and out liar.  The evidence is there for ANYONE To
review.  I will not be diplomatic in my responses to his bullshit any
longer.

- -- 
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: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 16:19:43 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: DNSO Constituency Structure

On 18:34 22/11/01 -0800, William X Walsh said:

>My last motion in the IDNO was an
>attempt to bridge the gap between the two factions, and it lost by ONE
>SINGLE VOTE.  Joop makes it sound like those who oppose his elitist
>view of the IDNO and how it should be run and what it should be doing
>are only one or two vocal people, whom he slanders and tries to
>discredit.  THE FACTS ARE VERY DIFFERENT.

The facts about that vote are here: www.idno.org/democinaction.htm
Let the reader judge for himself what the truth is.
That WXW is even less restrained on the idno-discuss list than he is here 
only confirms that he's a royal pain  to any constituency that would 
harbour him. :-(

- --Joop

- --
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 20:37:36 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Re: DNSO Constituency Structure

Thursday, Thursday, November 22, 2001, 7:19:43 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> On 18:34 22/11/01 -0800, William X Walsh said:

>>My last motion in the IDNO was an
>>attempt to bridge the gap between the two factions, and it lost by ONE
>>SINGLE VOTE.  Joop makes it sound like those who oppose his elitist
>>view of the IDNO and how it should be run and what it should be doing
>>are only one or two vocal people, whom he slanders and tries to
>>discredit.  THE FACTS ARE VERY DIFFERENT.

> The facts about that vote are here: www.idno.org/democinaction.htm
> Let the reader judge for himself what the truth is.
> That WXW is even less restrained on the idno-discuss list than he is here 
> only confirms that he's a royal pain  to any constituency that would 
> harbour him. :-(

The IDNO is not a constituency, Joop.   You have made sure of that, a
constituency wouldn't have someone pulling the strings from behind the
curtain, like you try and do with the IDNO when you were permitted to
get away with it.

The facts support everything I have said.  And they will now be
documented at a new website detailing them in an easy to read format,
with all the proper links to back them all up.  Links to the messages
in the archives that show the facts, EVERYTHING.

A new age has dawned, Joop.  Your lies and slanders will no longer be
humored and tolerated.

- -- 
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, 22 Nov 2001 22:44:29 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: DNSO Constituency Structure

At 4:19 PM +1300 23/11/01, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>On 18:34 22/11/01 -0800, William X Walsh said:
>
>
>>My last motion in the IDNO was an
>>attempt to bridge the gap between the two factions, and it lost by ONE
>>SINGLE VOTE.  Joop makes it sound like those who oppose his elitist
>>view of the IDNO and how it should be run and what it should be doing
>>are only one or two vocal people, whom he slanders and tries to
>>discredit.  THE FACTS ARE VERY DIFFERENT.
>
>The facts about that vote are here: www.idno.org/democinaction.htm
>Let the reader judge for himself what the truth is.
>That WXW is even less restrained on the idno-discuss list than he is here
>only confirms that he's a royal pain  to any constituency that would
>harbour him. :-(

Don't worry kiddies, this is Joop in panic mode.

The IDNO is about to start voting for a chair, and Joop's favourite has
dropped out of the race.

So now it's down to Sitoris or Karl Peters. Needless to say, Joop can see
his iron grip on the functions of the IDNO rapidly slipping away if he
doesn't maintain control of the chair (as he's done in the past).

He's now switched into high gear, smearing filth onto every mailing list he
can. Karl's now called "the Peter's threat", and WXW is some sort of
registrar plant, hell bent on spoiling things for registrants. Joop
obviously doesn't watch the OpenSRS lists and see the excellent job WXW's
done in the past regarding protecting the rights of registrants where
registrar transfers are concerned.

He's done more for registrants in the last two years than "democracy man".

Look up d-e-s-p-e-r-a-t-i-o-n in the dictionary.

It's so pitiful, it's getting amusing.

What's amazing is that Joop goes around proclaiming he's just attacted
someone to the IDNO, and then when that person turns out to not want to
follow the Joop line, he's turns them into "threats". McCarthy would be
proud.

Oh well.

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

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

Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 00:58:50 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: DNSO Constituency Structure

The thing that you guys have both missed is that a DNS zone file publisher
is also a registrant. MHSC publishes zone files all the way out to the
fourth level. Many COM registrants also publish SLD and 3LD zone files.
They're called delegated sub-domains. Guess what, each one that does that is
a registry for that zone file.

I think that we're about to confuse operational and business models here.
There are private and public registries and many are both. Some do it for
revenue and others do it for internal cross charges. Yet others, are
charitable organizations (which may soon be broke).

IMHO, the supply/demand polarized view may not be as accurate a model as
y'all would like it to be.

|> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 5:44 PM
|> 
|> Hi Joop
|> 
|> > The interests of typical Individual holders of Domain Names and the
|> > resellers of Registration services (alt-root or otherwise) 
|> are not the
|> same.
|> 
|> Of course not.  One is supply and the other demand.
|> 
|> Which is exactly my point.
|> 
|> 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: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 01:52:07 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [email-masked]

I will accord bulkregister.com the same order of patience I get from every
other stiff-necked root out there, if MHSC systems were as badly FUBAR'd as
bulkregister.com. Since I also get spam from bulkregister.com, I have just
entered their *.bulkregister.com into my mail hub's filter system.
bulkregister.com is now black-holed at MHSC.COM. 

Every message that I have sent to the GA list today has resulted in a
response from [email-masked]. Since they are a public registrar, I
expect them to be running a 24x7 NOC. This is inconsistent with 24 hours of
mail system trouble. At the very least, they could have taken their system
off-line rather than be a public nuisance. Howling dogs either get silenced
by their owners or shot by their neighbors.

BTW, this message is also a test. I should be blissfully unaware, this time,
of complaints from [email-masked]. There's enough noise on this
list without dealing with slacker/incompetent mail admins. 24 hours of that
is more than enough and I certainly won't wait 7 days.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: DNSO Listadmin [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 10:39 AM
|> 
|> Roeland,
|> 
|> There is no [email-masked] in ga list.
|> There are two e-mail addresses from bulkregister.com on ga list, 
|> and plenty of complaints that their mail site is in trouble.
|> 
|> To remove any e-mail address from a list for technical reasons,
|> we need either an emergency, or a persistent delivery reports 
|> for at least 7 days.
|> 
|> Maybe Thanksgiving and staff on the weekend ? Be patient.
|> 
|> DNSO Listadmin
|> 
- --
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 22:58:28 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: DNSO Constituency Structure

At 00:58 23/11/01 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>The thing that you guys have both missed is that a DNS zone file publisher
>is also a registrant. MHSC publishes zone files all the way out to the
>fourth level. Many COM registrants also publish SLD and 3LD zone files.
>They're called delegated sub-domains. Guess what, each one that does that is
>a registry for that zone file.

This is true. And this is an area where supply and demand "constituencies" 
naturally overlap.
It is the closed constituency structure that has been forced upon the DNSO 
since ICANN Singapore that is responsible for the polarization and the turf 
wars.

How many small DN owners are also TM owners? Why can't they become part of 
the IP "constituency"?
Now the business constituency redefines itself to e-businesses.

The DNSO becomes more lopsided for big biz by the day.

>I think that we're about to confuse operational and business models here.
>There are private and public registries and many are both. Some do it for
>revenue and others do it for internal cross charges. Yet others, are
>charitable organizations (which may soon be broke).
>
>IMHO, the supply/demand polarized view may not be as accurate a model as
>y'all would like it to be.

Agree. But Patrick is right in starting to look for different parts of an 
equation that can be used to introduce balances.
Do you know a better formula than DN supply/demand?

- --Joop

- --
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 08:33:23 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

Patrick,

I looks to me like we are in fairly close agreement.  I also believe that
separating the suppliers from the users is a useful idea.  I understand, as
Roland points out in a separate post, that there is no perfect way to
separate producers from users.  But I believe that one of the complications
in the current DNSO model that makes it very difficult for the consensus
process to work is the fact that users and producers are in the same SO.  At
the same time, I fully recognize that in any structure, both the users and
the producers as well as other stakeholders must all work together to
determine if consensus exists.  Therefore, if users and producers are
separated into separate SO's, it would be essential to build a structure to
facilitate cross-SO collaboration.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 9:59 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: [ga]
> Subject: Re: DNSO Constituency Structure
> 
> 
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:04:49 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I'm sure you will agree with me that many ISPs are sellers of 
> domain names.
> Perhaps William X. Walsh would advise the situation with the OpenSRS
> resellers?  Are they mostly ISPs or do they perform other services?
> 
> Of course, ISPs may be seen as buying domain names which they 
> then onsell to
> their customers.  However, my concept is that a reseller of 
> domain names (a
> la OpenSRS) is really a baby registrar waiting to grow up.  
> In some cases
> they might even apply to auDA for full accreditation as a registrar.
> 
> Except, perhaps, when they want a lower price for domain names !!
> 
> I believe OpenSRS calls them Registration Service Providers (RSPs).
> Cetainly they are very supportive of their relationship with 
> the parent
> Registrar.  In fact, I cannot imagine them in any sort of opposition.
> 
> However, there is a distinction.  ISPs are more properly considered as
> "infrastructure".  In other words their "core business" is not selling
> domain names.  So their presence in the DNSO is really an 
> anomaly.  Perhaps
> all the infrastructure people should be considered quite separately.
> 
> Which is why I classified them as "NEITHER".
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I've written separately about ccTLDs.
> 
> > 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).
> 
> I understand.  Perhaps you are right.  My argument was more 
> that a clearer
> division between supply and demand would provide better focus for the
> Names Council.  It also clarifies the position of newnet.
> 
> The NC could more easily try to balance the opposing 
> viewpoints.  If they
> agreed with each other, you could claim some form of consensus.
> 
> 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: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 07:03:24 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: DNSO Constituency Structure

|> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 1:58 AM
|> 
|> At 00:58 23/11/01 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> >The thing that you guys have both missed is that a 
|> >DNS zone file publisher is also a registrant. MHSC 
|> >publishes zone files all the way out to the fourth 
|> >level. Many COM registrants also publish SLD and 
|> >3LD zone files. They're called delegated sub-domains. 
|> >Guess what, each one that does that is a registry 
|> >for that zone file.
|> 
|> This is true. And this is an area where supply and 
|> demand "constituencies" naturally overlap.
|> It is the closed constituency structure that has 
|> been forced upon the DNSO since ICANN Singapore that 
|> is responsible for the polarization and the turf wars.

Well, constituencies, as they were introduced in the IFWP, were a lot more
flexible. But, like the ICANN BoD, I didn't have any clue how we were going
to implement such a variable structure. The current scheme is a half-measure
that I think we were better off without. But, I've already made the "delete
the constituencies" speech.

|> How many small DN owners are also TM owners? Why can't they 
|> become part of the IP "constituency"?
|> Now the business constituency redefines itself to e-businesses.

All reports state otherwise. Maybe I should read those reports again. One of
us is operating under a misunderstanding.

|> The DNSO becomes more lopsided for big biz by the day.
|> 
|> >I think that we're about to confuse operational and 
|> >business models here. There are private and public 
|> >registries and many are both. Some do it for revenue 
|> >and others do it for internal cross charges. Yet 
|> >others, are charitable organizations (which may soon 
|> >be broke).
|> >
|> >IMHO, the supply/demand polarized view may not be 
|> >as accurate a model as y'all would like it to be.
|> 
|> Agree. But Patrick is right in starting to look for 
|> different parts of an equation that can be used to 
|> introduce balances. Do you know a better formula than 
|> DN supply/demand?

Hmm, how about publisher/distributor/buyer? 

Networks aren't so easy to analogize.
- --
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: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 02:24:57 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Starting From The Top -- The Supporting Organisations

Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 07:03:24 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> |> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 1:58 AM
> |>
> |> At 00:58 23/11/01 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> |> >IMHO, the supply/demand polarized view may not be
> |> >as accurate a model as y'all would like it to be.
> |>
> |> Agree. But Patrick is right in starting to look for
> |> different parts of an equation that can be used to
> |> introduce balances. Do you know a better formula than
> |> DN supply/demand?
>
> Hmm, how about publisher/distributor/buyer?
>
> Networks aren't so easy to analogize.

Hi Roeland

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, you have suggested a division between
"physical" and "logical" as follows:

Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:07:39 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> 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.

That suggests to me that there should be TWO supporting organisations.

One for addresses, protocols, ISPs, telcos and all the other infrastructure.
And one for businesses, users, country codes and regulatory agencies.
What might be seen as the "logical" layer.  That includes trade marks.

Would you agree with that as a proposition?

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #869
************************