Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #892
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, December 1 2001          Volume 01 : Number 892

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

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 01:47:56 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Stalled

True this is why the ALSC is absurd or "purchased" by VeriSign (ie lead by 
Joe Sims). True @large are the people who would attend the GA should 9 BoD 
seats be elected by the GA. With the DN obligation we will probably see 
Registry and Regustrars running a sales show out of it and introducing 
again tens of throusand of ignaramuses they will inform their own way.

IAt 23:38 29/11/01, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>Hello Marc and Jefsey,
>
>That has been my point for the past few weeks. IMHO, the value-proposition
>isn't there. What does the participant get for their efforts? Once is fun,
>but active participation isn't "fun" stuff, except for the very sick.
>Without a way to implement the results of the discussion it becomes a moot
>effort. If we cannot point at a process that shows a means to implement real
>results, most people would rather not make the (very large) effort. The
>whole thing becomes not much more than endless prattle. Most healthy folks
>don't believe in wasting [much of] their time in such idle chatter.
>
>Such a simple thing as guaranteeing a vote on the NC, or a presentation slot
>with the BoD, would make all the difference. Give the GA a couple of seats
>on the NC and you will be amazed at how many members you will gain.
>Similarly, if the GA had a guaranteed BoD presentation slot. The @large
>elections had such a huge turn-out because the value-offering was ICANN BoD
>seats. There was a direct, non-imaginary, connection.
>
>
>
>|> -----Original Message-----
>|> From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
>|> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 12:34 PM
>|> To: [email-masked]
>|> Subject: Re: [ga] Stalled
>|>
>|>
>|> Dear Marc,
>|> I wish I know a way to get some Members for the GA. We made
>|> a big effort
>|> about that a few months ago I reported in here in France. AFNIC,
>|> france@large and private people. The result was good making
>|> France the
>|> second represented country, but only a few shared in here.
>|> Only a part voted.
>|>
>|> IMHO the reason why is that betting involved in the @large
>|> election is fun.
>|> Once. Getting involved with the ICANN, what for?
>|>
>|> Jefsey
>|>
>|>
>|> On 19:17 29/11/01, Marc Schneiders said:
>|> >Alexander Svensson wrote:
>|> >
>|> > > Frankly, I wish the GA cared more about finding
>|> > > adequate people for the Chair and Vice-Chair position
>|> > > -- nominations start in just over a week!
>|> >
>|> >Since it seems things are very much stalled, I have thought
>|> about getting
>|> >more people (and I do not mean a million) to subscribe to
>|> the ga voting
>|> >registry (and list??). You have a chanal to make an attempt.
>|> >
>|> >Individuals will not get a real voice in ICANN soon through
>|> the At Large,
>|> >if ever.  One does not need a domain to get into the ga.
>|> Why not try to
>|> >enlist people though your website? The ga is free. At Large
>|> won't be.
>|> >
>|> >I know the ga has no power. Still, if there were thousands
>|> who backed up
>|> >an idea or proposal, or voted for it, ICANN could hardly ignore it
>|> >completely. I am not worried about capture or fraud. Isn't
>|> ICANN beyond
>|> >that already?
>|> >
>|> >If more people are part of the ga, we will have more
>|> candidates for chair
>|> >etc. Even if not, maybe, quickly enough, right now.
>|> >
>|> >--
>|> >[email-masked]
>|> >
>|> >--
>|> >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>|> >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>|> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>|> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>|>
>|> --
>|> 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, 30 Nov 2001 09:28:07 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stalled

Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> 
> ... True @large are the people who would attend the GA should 9 BoD
> seats be elected by the GA.

No. The membership (participant list) of this assembly is a very different
thing from the potential electorate for At Large board seats.

> With the DN obligation we will probably see
> Registry and Regustrars running a sales show out of it and introducing
> again tens of throusand of ignaramuses they will inform their own way.

Perhaps. Also, does a domain hoarder get many votes?
- --
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, 30 Nov 2001 09:06:31 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Stalled

|> From: Sandy Harris [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 6:28 AM

|> > ... True @large are the people who would attend the GA should 9 BoD
|> > seats be elected by the GA.
|> 
|> No. The membership (participant list) of this assembly is a 
|> very different
|> thing from the potential electorate for At Large board seats.

I'm not sure, but I think you mis-interpreted Jefsey's statement. Or, I
might have.

|> > With the DN obligation we will probably see
|> > Registry and Regustrars running a sales show out of it and 
|> introducing
|> > again tens of throusand of ignaramuses they will inform 
|> their own way.
|> 
|> Perhaps. Also, does a domain hoarder get many votes?

That was settled years ago. The consensus answer seems to be, one legal
entity:vote, regardless of thenumber of domain names held.
- --
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, 1 Dec 2001 04:35:35 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A Worldwide Internet ... One Country At A Time

_________________________________________________________

I'm on the Board of auDA (the .au country code) as well as TLDA (the Top
Level Domain Association).   Please note that anything I write is my own
personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of any body
with which I am associated.  Please also note IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer).
_________________________________________________________

On Friday, November 30, 2001 3:48 AM, Joseph <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: [ga] A Worldwide Internet ... One Country At A Time

> This is an interesting read ...
> http://www.isp-planet.com/hosting/2001/cctlds.html

Hi Joseph

Thanks for that.  A few quick points.

> New arrivals
> In the meantime, ICANN has been working to facilitate individual contracts
> with ccTLD managers. It has begun with two interesting candidates, one
> of the most widely used TLDs-.au, and one of the most widely ignored-.us.

Obviously Julie meant "one of the most widely used ccTLDs".  However, I have
no idea of the comparative statistics of other ccTLDs but understand the total
.au to be about 260,000 domain names (see below).

> Robert Elz, a gentleman who ran .au in his spare time as a volunteer,
> previously administered the country code for Australia. Last month, it was
> awarded by the Australian government to the .au Domain Administration (auDA)

Well that's not correct, in October auDA signed an agreement with ICANN:
http://www.auda.org.au/about/news/2001103002.html

and the Australian government formally endorsed auDA in December 2000
http://www.auda.org.au/about/news/2000120401.html

> a non-profit company established in 1999 by the Australian Internet
> community with oversight from the Australian government. Right now, auDA
> is accepting tenders for registries to manage the .au country code, which is
> now managed by MelbourneIT, one of the largest registrars, and also a
> partner in the new .biz registry that just went live in earlier this month.

The .au country code is managed by auDA.  The .au domain space is divided
into "second level" domains such as com.au and net.au.  By far the largest is
com.au held by Melbourne IT.  Of course, Melbourne IT is not the registry.

The main registry is AUNIC.  Details are at http://www.aunic.net/

In August 2001, Melbourne IT had 86% of the domain name market (approx 222,929
names out of a total of approx 258,587).
http://www.auda.org.au/docs/Budget_20-8.pdf

> Although .au has been re-delegated to auDA, it will continue to operate with
> the same structure-customers cannot simply buy a .au address with their
> chosen name on the second level. Instead, they must buy their domain name
> on the third level, with the second level reserved by the registry. As a
> result, customers can buy .com.au for trademarked businesses, .net.au for
> network administrators, .org.au for non-profit organizations and .id.au for
> individuals.

Basically true.  There are other "second levels" apart from those mentioned.
The .id.au are registered at the "fourth" level (not the third level as
stated).

<snip>

> Foregone conclusion
> So, what about the other 238 country code managers who have not signed
> agreements with ICANN?

> The country codes that have not yet been sold out to the highest bidders are
> to be sold on the open market. As a result, the fight for ccTLD control
> continues-one country at a time.

I wouldn't venture an opinion on this point.  However, I would suggest that
those wishing to find out about the Australia Domain Administration
(auDA) contact the Chief Executive Officer, Mr Chris Disspain as follows:

[email-masked]
+61-3-9349-4711

It's also easy enough to check the website at www.auda.org.au
They can, of course, check Melbourne IT details with them directly.

Regards
Patrick Corliss
_________________________________________________________

I'm on the Board of auDA (the .au country code) as well as TLDA (the Top
Level Domain Association).   Please note that anything I write is my own
personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of any body
with which I am associated.  Please also note IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer).
_________________________________________________________

- --
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, 30 Nov 2001 17:46:03 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Good News

On 09:46 30/11/01, Pascal Bernhard - cube said:
>Jefsey brought once the concept of coopetitive structures. I
>understand this as competitive root networks which share the same
>root file.

this is reality: the different root are actually in competition on a 
commercial basis. But their common interest is to also cooperate to the 
satisfaction of the users, to reduce TLD squatting and collisions, to 
provide user education, to support R&D etc.

But actually the root concept is quite outdated. The root of a system is 
its interconnection with a more general system. The roots on the internet 
(com, net, org) were the interconections with other networks (TymCom of 
Tymnet, Telenet, other organizations). Now the Internet (.arpa) has 
replaced Tymnet as the interconnecting network there no more raison d'être 
in here. There is a need of a root only in the interconnected local 
stations and extranets. What is qualified as a "root" by ICP-3 is the 
distributed network open directory. The software works OK because its 
concepts are more open than the minds of its worshipers but the wording and 
the conceptual usage are wrong (that is if your motivation is not only to 
make money on wrong premises). You do not need to use the USG root system 
to operate properly on the Internet.

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: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:02:21 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stalled

On 15:28 30/11/01, Sandy Harris said:
>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >
> > ... True @large are the people who would attend the GA should 9 BoD
> > seats be elected by the GA.
>
>No. The membership (participant list) of this assembly is a very different
>thing from the potential electorate for At Large board seats.

It seems you say exactly what I say. And that we are in full agreement? so, 
why the "No".

> > With the DN obligation we will probably see
> > Registry and Regustrars running a sales show out of it and introducing
> > again tens of throusand of ignaramuses they will inform their own way.
>
>Perhaps. Also, does a domain hoarder get many votes?

No. One hoarder one vote. The fight will be between .name and others.
The only regulation is through the AL Member fee: someone will have to pay 
for it. Probably Registrars if you consider the possible (probable?) scheme.

We have perfect examples of the @large SO: the icann-europe and icann-fra 
ML. They were the most active lists during the campaign and its immediate 
aftermath. Definitly silent now. People are certainly here, but there is 
nothing for them to do. On the GA we at least know that some people are 
reading and from time to time care to respond.

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: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:44:42 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Watch Dog Committee

At 06:07 AM 11/29/2001 +0100, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>Hello Patrick and fellow GA readers,
>
>Patrick Corliss wrote on 29.11.01, 13:46:35:
> > 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
> >
> > Roberto, Harald, Kent, Dany, Alexander, and Izumi have been on this 
> committee
> > for a long time.  I am not sure whether any of them play another role 
> of some
> > sort in ICANN/DNSO operations.
>
>And I am not sure what "ICANN/DNSO operations" means --
>it sounds like undercover agent's work. :) Speaking for
>myself, I don't operate ICANN, and I don't think any
>of the other people on the list does.
>
> > As usual these decisions are made for us.  I am concerned that these 
> decisions
> > are made for and on our behalf by Philip Sheppard and Elizabeth Porteneuve
> > (who is acting under his instructions).  Of course, these processes must be
> > more partipative by the GA membership.
>
>This seems to be a misunderstanding. The watchdogs have
>not been selected by the NC nor by the Secretariat.
>It is up to the outgoing Chair to ensure that at least
>two election watchdogs are ready to check the ballots.
>
> > It is up to us, the voters, to determine who we want to review our votes.
> >
> > At the moment I am not sure WHO the DNSO Secreatariat is.  But I've 
> asked this
> > before without getting any answer.  I'm sending whoever a copy.  Can we 
> have a
> > reply, please?
> >
> > BTW I don't know why there should be so many scrutineers.  Do the watch 
> dogs
> > watch each other too?  Or do they "watch out" for each other?
> > And I'd be a lot more comfortable voting if I understood why a Watch Dog
> > committee is necessary.  Why can't it just be done by the Secretariat?
> > Especially now we have a paid employee.  Or do we?
>
>The Secretariat sends and counts the ballots. The
>watchdog committee members check that the votes are
>counted correctly and the voting rules adopted by the
>GA are followed. It's simply a check against human
>error and manipulation. (This is also the case when
>there are uncertainties about membership in the voter
>registry.)
>
> > Or are we doing this because we don't trust the Names Council?  If so, 
> that is
> > a shocking indictment of their moral integrity.
> >
> > As I remember, they publish all the votes (anonymously) and they can never
> > know who will check their own vote.  That should keep the vote honest.
>
>True, but e.g. someone could add votes with ballots
>which were never sent and received in reality.
>
> > So why should we need such a large group at all?
>
>In order to perform their role, the watchdog group
>must contain people which are trusted by others
>with different backgrounds. Even if you personally
>don't trust watchdog A, you might find that
>watchdog B is trustworthy and if he found any
>irregularities in the voting process, would uncover
>them. So you need a sufficient number of watchdogs to
>gain such trust, but the number should be small to
>keep the individual votes secret.
>
>Frankly, I wish the GA cared more about finding
>adequate people for the Chair and Vice-Chair position
>-- nominations start in just over a week!
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander
>--
>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

Alexander, or other WatchDog,

Please clarify the process for us:  two people from the watchdog committee 
re-record votes for each election to ensure votes are counted 
correctly.  By correctly you mean according to the voting rules?  And a 
check is performed against the message headers to ensure accuracy for a 
check against the voting roster?

Thank you,

:)

~k

- --
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, 30 Nov 2001 15:08:10 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] forum.icann.org for the ALSC Report?

Stuart,

Now that the Board has requested public comments on the ALSC report, when 
will ICANN create a Public Discussion Forum at http://forum.icann.org/  to 
accomodate such comments?

If such a Forum is not created that is readily apparent to the public and 
properly publicized, how do you expect to receive the At-Large input that you 
ostensibly seek?

Further resolved [01.126] that the Board invites comments on the ALSC Final 
Report from the Internet community as a whole, including the DNSO Names 
Council, the ASO Address Council and the PSO Protocol Council, and requests 
that any such comments be submitted within 45 days from the date of this 
Resolution;

Best regards,
Danny Younger

- --
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, 30 Nov 2001 21:22:05 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Watch Dog Committee

Hello Kristy,

Kristy McKee wrote on 30.11.01, 12:44:42:
> Alexander, or other WatchDog,
>
> Please clarify the process for us:  two people from the watchdog committee
> re-record votes for each election to ensure votes are counted
> correctly.  
The checking is done by all members of the watchdog
committee; two is only the minimum number according
to the voting rules the GA adopted.

> By correctly you mean according to the voting rules? And a
> check is performed against the message headers to ensure accuracy for a
> check against the voting roster?
Yes: The committee members get copies of the vote messages
and can do their own independent tabulation to check it
against the Secretariat tabulation of votes and can
compare it with the public voting registry list. The
message headers are not the main check since every voter
gets a personal code so that he or she can check
whether the vote was recorded correctly, since all 
personal codes and their vote are published in the
full record voting reports on the DNSO website. Your
vote is only recorded if you send it with a valid
personal code (which you automatically do if you
follow the voting instructions).
Additionally, there are sometimes ballots where voters 
have not paid enough attention to the voting instructions 
and which, even though the intention of the voter is 
abundantly clear and the personal code is included,
may slip through the eyes of an automated counting
mechanism. Independent counting helps with this, too.
(You find such cases also documented in the full record 
voting reports.) 
I hope that answers your question!

Best regards,
/// Alexander
- --
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, 30 Nov 2001 17:17:12 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Good News

Pascao and all assembly members,

  You make some interesting observations in your comments below
as well as some misconstruence's in response to mine.  (See more
below your comments/observations).

Pascal Bernhard - cube wrote:

> Jeff and all assembly members,
>
> On 29 Nov 2001, at 22:26, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >   Thank you for your comments.  The are quite interesting and
> > I hope thought provoking to everyone.  I have a few
> > comments/clarifications
> > to your comments/observations.  (See below yours)
>
> Sure. I hope the provocation has been heard. As you may be aware,
> my official (and true) position may be read in the White Paper of
> BORooN.

  BORooN?  I am not familiar with that?  Any URL references?

>
>
> Still there are precisions to be made about the words used, thank
> you for that, Jeff. See my statements below.
>
> > > >   ORSC, New.Net, INEGroup(Many web sites for instance) and a few
> > > > others kinda beat you to the punch by about 1 1/2 years.  But we
> > > > hope we will be glad you are going to be on board!  >;)
> > >
> > > Jeff, I'm not sure what board you mean.
> >
> >   No "Board" of any particular type of kind.  Rather it is a manner of
> > expression or speech.
>
> Still a "board" determines a side or a community.

  Not necessarily.  But it may.  In my comment above it does not.

> That is, there
> should be a principle, which tight members together on the board.

  Not all "Boards" have a guiding set of principals or a single principal
by which they as "Board Members" in this use of the term, would
determine their decisions.  My use of the term is that which I responded
to Eric and Jefsey as to a method, rather than a set of principals or
a single principal.  Ergo again my original response.

>
> The question was in fact what principle defines the board you mean,
> even if it is just an idiomatic expression.

  None in specific as I already stated.  Rather a method.

>
>
> > > As far as my experience with
> > > alternative roots reaches, all are trying to push their own system on
> > > the market.
> >
> >   This may be true of "Alternative Roots" in some instances.  However I
> > was not referring to "Alternative Roots".  I was referring to Inclusive
> > and/or Competitive Root structures and/or registries.  Big difference in
> > most instances.  ORSC is NOT and "Alternative" root, by the way..
>
> For ICANN and most of the people out of here, all roots which are not
> managed by ICANN are alternative roots.

  Not so any longer.

> Please don't expect people
> out of the classical industry (or old economy) to understand what is a
> root. Among the alternative roots, there are inclusive and exclusive
> roots. No.  There are inclusive and competitive Root structures.

> The definition of inclusive and exclusive seems to differ from
> community to community. I use inclusive roots as an expression for
> a root which includes the *official* roots.

  There are no "Official" Roots any longer.  There are simply Inclusive
and competitive root structures.

>
>
> The result of having many inclusive roots, is that they show on a
> common namespace (ICANN) and on own namespaces which may
> be different.

  Yes this would be a working definition of a Inclusive root structure
except ICANN doesn't own the Legacy/USG Root's.  The USG
DOC/NTIA does.  Hence perhaps, your confusion...

>
>
> BTW: under this definition, ORSC is not an inclusive root, because
> .biz and .info are not shown in the namespace of ICANN.

  ICANN has no namespace.  So yes, this is true.  However the
TLD's .biz and .info to which you refer are part ot the Legacy/USG
root structure.  It is just that they have different and distinct registries.

>
>
> I'm not sure to understand the expression competitive root structures.

  I noticed that.  Competitive Roots structures, not just "Roots" would
be those that are inclusive perhaps, and competitively distinct from
the Legacy/USG root structure but carry the same zone file with
additions.  Or competitive Root structures  not just "Roots" would be
a set of Root servers that do not carry the legacy/USG TLD's but
do carry competitive TLD's as well as registries.

>
>
> Jefsey brought once the concept of coopetitive structures. I
> understand this as competitive root networks which share the same
> root file. That is the model BORooN supports.

  This is one type of competitive Root structure, yes.  But not the only type.

>
>
> > > As divided systems, they are too weak to have a real weight in the
> > > balance with ICANN, even if ORSC has 40 Mio. hits. What's a hit,
> > > anyway?
> >
> >   What is a hit you ask?  Hummmm?  Well it is in essence an event when a
> > stakeholder/user visits a particular Web site.
>
> Jeff, I know what a hit is.

  Than why did you ask?  >;)

> But what is the _real_ comunication
> significance of a hit? If one Web site hat 20 gifs, one pageview
> makes 21 hits. By 2 millions hits, it just states about fewer than
> 100000 pageviews, which is another relation.

  Good point's here.

>
>
> > > > > You see some interests want a non-profit legitimacy and I lied and
> > > > > said this reference to the GA and AL would give it to them.  Nope
> > > > > nothing official but a guaranteed million hits a day by May 2002.
> > > > > It is so sweet - it will just say "do you want to be a part of
> > > > > running the worlds' Internet click here" Of course it will include
> > > > > things like You could be the next General Assembly Chair or you
> > > > > could sit on the BoD of ICANN"
>
> >   Is Mindspring (The 4th largest ISP) a real "Carrier"?  If it is in
> > your opinion than in case you didn't know, they resolve New.nets TLD's
> > and Domain Names registered in those name spaces.
>
> That states, that new.net is running an adequate market strategy. Do
> you look at new.net as an inclusive/competitive root structure?

  Yes.

> Do
> you think the reaction of ICANN against new.net is adequate?

  No.  It in fact is anti competitive in it's nature.  However thankfully
Done Evans made the DOC/NTIA's position somewhat clear.
That being essentially that the USG/DOC/NTIA will not do
anything to harm or thwart competitive or inclusive Root structures
or registries.  But also will not assist them either.  And that is fine.

>
>
> Regards,
> Pascal
> ================================
> Pascal Bernhard
> cube
> Geschäfte werden von Menschen gemacht...
> [email-masked]
> http://cube.de/
> http://boroon.de/
> FON: +49-6352-753725
> FAX: +49-6352-753726
> Mail: Im See 3 - 67295 Bolanden

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, 30 Nov 2001 16:27:09 -0800
From: "M. Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: forum.icann.org for the ALSC Report?

Danny:

Thank you for your note. I am sure it is no surprise to you to learn 
that work is already underway to create a new mechanism for the 
Internet community to submit comments. In the meantime, those 
interested can continue to submit their comments to the ALSC Forum at 
http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum.shtml.

With regards
Stuart

At 3:08 PM -0500 11/30/01, [email-masked] wrote:
>Stuart,
>
>Now that the Board has requested public comments on the ALSC report, when
>will ICANN create a Public Discussion Forum at http://forum.icann.org/  to
>accomodate such comments?
>
>If such a Forum is not created that is readily apparent to the public and
>properly publicized, how do you expect to receive the At-Large input that you
>ostensibly seek?
>
>
>Further resolved [01.126] that the Board invites comments on the ALSC Final
>Report from the Internet community as a whole, including the DNSO Names
>Council, the ASO Address Council and the PSO Protocol Council, and requests
>that any such comments be submitted within 45 days from the date of this
>Resolution;
>
>Best regards,
>Danny Younger

- -- 

__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: [email-masked]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 21:56:58 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [council] TF Transfers

Madam Chair,

Let me state for the record that I, for one, will condemn this Task Force if
it proceeds without granting a single vote to the individual registrant
community, and I mean on each and every issue put before this Task Force in
line with other stakeholder groups that are deemed worthy of participation.
 
This argument is entirely of your own making. While you and Philip have both
been throwing your weight around for all the world to see on both the
Transfer TF and NC mailing lists, you have been actively discouraging any
means of open debate on what is generally regarded by the majority of those
involved as a hugely inconvenient but largely valid issue related to its
core task. 

Over the last week or so, I have provided a proper basis to the Names
Council that clearly establishes why a serious problem relating to
participation has arisen, a problem that undermines the very validity of the
results the TF can produce. The GA representative and myself are not now the
only ones to question the make-up of this Task Force and it is in *nobody's*
best interests to suggest trivial solutions such as one off teleconferences
involving a short list of registrants will solve the problem of *ongoing*
participation in deliberations and doing so only insults our intelligence.

My willingness to participate in the most helpful way possible has so far
been been met by firm resistance, including the removal of posting
privileges to the various lists in which these issues are being discussed.
You will not even grant me the common courtesy of a right to reply to the
various proposals, each of which has merits, neither the opportunity to
rebutt your own and Philip's judgemental remarks in any venue where other
stakeholders will likely hear my voice. This in itself constitutes denial of
the rights of this individual registrant to participate in the process. Am I
right? 

And now you have the audacity to cook up your own little scheme that denies
every single individual registrant that exists in the world any vote in the
process, and attempts to thrust this upon this group a pre-conceived
solution decided behind closed doors that does not involve them save for one
measly teleconference. Well, I'm sorry, but I will not reduce my
participation in this organization to the level of bartering with a barrow
boy in a flea market for rotten apples.

Your duty is to conduct yourself "on the record" with respect to all matters
pertaining to the "top job" in this Task Force and *if* you have received
various conflicting views that have caused you to arrive at a conclusion,
then I really must insist that you disclose these for the record, so that a
proper public record of procedures you undertake is created, one that can be
used to hold you and the results of this task Force accountable, including
in a court of law should matters progress that far.

I extend my sincere apologies to GA members for the extra burden this post
and any follow up posts may impose upon them, and beg their indulgence while
I am denied other means to deal with this issue in an open and transparent
manner in a more appropriate forum.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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, 30 Nov 2001 21:12:26 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: forum.icann.org for the ALSC Report?

Mr. Lynn:

The mail list is not the same, nor is it as visible as the forum boards 
where people are used to submitting public comments.  In the past, 
mail lists were used for working groups and many are still unaware of it.  

It is my opinion and the opinion of many others on the GA list and 
others to which I belong, that there should be at the very least a public 
forum board added at http://forum.icann.org with a wide outreach effort.  
Anything less is a disservice to the entire community.

Sincerely,

Leah Gallegos

On 30 Nov 2001, at 16:27, M. Stuart Lynn wrote:

> Danny:
> 
> Thank you for your note. I am sure it is no surprise to you to learn 
> that work is already underway to create a new mechanism for the 
> Internet community to submit comments. In the meantime, those 
> interested can continue to submit their comments to the ALSC Forum at
> http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum.shtml.
> 
> With regards
> Stuart
> 
> At 3:08 PM -0500 11/30/01, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Stuart,
> >
> >Now that the Board has requested public comments on the ALSC report, when
> >will ICANN create a Public Discussion Forum at http://forum.icann.org/  to
> >accomodate such comments?
> >
> >If such a Forum is not created that is readily apparent to the public and
> >properly publicized, how do you expect to receive the At-Large input that
> >you ostensibly seek?
> >
> >
> >Further resolved [01.126] that the Board invites comments on the ALSC
> >Final Report from the Internet community as a whole, including the DNSO
> >Names Council, the ASO Address Council and the PSO Protocol Council, and
> >requests that any such comments be submitted within 45 days from the date
> >of this Resolution;
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Danny Younger
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> __________________
> Stuart Lynn
> President and CEO
> ICANN
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Tel: 310-823-9358
> Fax: 310-823-8649
> Email: [email-masked]
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #892
************************