Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #893
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, December 1 2001          Volume 01 : Number 893

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

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:36:33 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Internet stability

As of midnight, tonight, 4 million users, just in the SF Bay Area, may lose
their internet connection due to the business failure of Excite @ home.

Lately, we've been talking about what matters. Well, this is what matters to
the Internet public. This has been seen coming for almost four months. Has
the ICANN even tried to do anything? Yet, ICANN claims to help stabilize the
Internet. The territory that ICANN claims, doesn't touch any part of this.

This may be the largest outage in the history of the Internet. Heretofore,
the NorthPoint failure may have had claim to that honor. However, unlike
NorthPoint, Excite has mostly residential customers. Ergo, the impact on
business isn't as great. DSL providers can expect many new customers as a
result, even if Excite doesn't pull the plug tonight.

- --
R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
tel: +1 925 373 3954
cel: +1 925 352 3615
fax: +1 925 373 9781 
http://www.mhsc.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, 30 Nov 2001 18:39:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] forums

Leah,

ok we all know we can improve the ICANN forums; infact I've put quite a
bit of thought into how I would do it.

Lets have the GA put up some requirements for the ICANN forums.

If we would just start to enumerate what the requirements are, I'll keep
track of them and we can work through the issue. when ICANN decides to
have someone implement a new forum/portal system we will have some
requirements for them to review.

I'll post my ideas last, so anyone with forum requirements shoot away;
i'll collect comments for a few days and post a summary in a week or so.

oh, it would be real helpful if someone could evaluate opensource forum
packages available on the net, I know of at least one in php and another
in python, so please send refrences, reviews  and requiremnts of other
portal/forum systems.

thanks,

- -rick

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, L Gallegos wrote:

> 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
>

- --
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 20:45:15 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: forum.icann.org for the ALSC Report?

Stuart, Danny and all assembly members, stakeholders or interested parties,

  Thank you for finally responding to at least one of the stakeholders
in your note to Danny below.  Very magnanimous of you, if I may
say so.

  Your reference below in your note to Danny and the DNSO GA
assembly members is at least some sort of answer, al be it seemingly
weak and after the fact by quite some time margin.  But of course
many of the stakeholders, myself and our members included, have
become accustom to the less than timely manner in which the ICANN
staff, including yourself have treated and addressed the stakeholder
community.  I am sure that many of us stakeholders are hopeful that
a much more responsive and interactive communication with us
by the ICANN staff and BoD will forthcoming.

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" 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, 30 Nov 2001 21:08:36 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [council] TF Transfers

Joanna and all assembly members,

  I wish to join Joanna here in her condemnation of this Task Forces
antics.  I do so however without conditions or any reservation.  Our
[INEGroup] members have always been for open and transparent
discussion and debate on important issues regarding the interests
of the Registrants and stakeholders, regardless of their dispensation
or relationship.

  I as the spokesman for our [INEGroup] members also wish to
express without reservation that and in keeping with other
assembly members that shared a rejection that any individual
Assembly member currently represents the GA members
in this matter with respect to a "Registrant Representative".

Joanna Lane wrote:

> 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

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 21:22:01 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] forums

Rick and all assembly members,

  Good suggestion(s) Rick.  One thing though, given the Excite @home
failure and the ICANN staff's dubious "Implementation" record let's please
NOT have the ICANN staff implement anything for the time being
or suggest such, until they become much more competent in doing so
and have proper professional implementation oversight.  Ok?  >;)

Rick H Wesson wrote:

> Leah,
>
> ok we all know we can improve the ICANN forums; infact I've put quite a
> bit of thought into how I would do it.
>
> Lets have the GA put up some requirements for the ICANN forums.
>
> If we would just start to enumerate what the requirements are, I'll keep
> track of them and we can work through the issue. when ICANN decides to
> have someone implement a new forum/portal system we will have some
> requirements for them to review.
>
> I'll post my ideas last, so anyone with forum requirements shoot away;
> i'll collect comments for a few days and post a summary in a week or so.
>
> oh, it would be real helpful if someone could evaluate opensource forum
> packages available on the net, I know of at least one in php and another
> in python, so please send refrences, reviews  and requiremnts of other
> portal/forum systems.
>
> thanks,
>
> -rick
>
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, L Gallegos wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
> --
> 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, 30 Nov 2001 22:15:06 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] forums

On 30 Nov 2001, at 18:39, Rick H Wesson wrote:

> 
> Leah,
> 
> ok we all know we can improve the ICANN forums; infact I've put quite a bit
> of thought into how I would do it.
> 
> Lets have the GA put up some requirements for the ICANN forums.

First, I think that whenever a TF is formed, there should be a 
simultaneous forum board established, thereby creating a specific forum 
for public comment that can be utilized by the TF.  It's not as good as a 
WG, which most feel is the only fair method, but it would at least allow 
for those who would have participated in a WG to have constructive 
input.  This is especially true for the @large issue.

In addition (and this may raise a contentious issue), I think there should 
be a requirement for use of real names rather than screen handles or 
nick names.  In work this important, participants should not be afraid to 
have their names known and keep it professional and honest.

Flames and trolling should be disallowed on these specific forums, IMO. 
 At the very least, certain words should be eliminated.  Many forum 
programs have the capability to replace them with characters such as 
###.

There is a great deal of contentiousness regarding anything in ICANN.  
The public forums, other than the "off topic" forum, should be civil and 
rules of civil discourse enforced, as they are supposed to be on this list. 
 One can certainly express an emotional opinion without name calling 
and foul language.  

IMO, the forums should be maintained by ICANN.  However, if the 
DNSO or the GA takes on the responsibility, ICANN should make 
prominent announcements on both the website and via email as they 
are established.  There should also be a wider outreach effort, perhaps 
utlizing other websites for announcements and lists that afford public 
service ads or announcements within them.  I'm certain there are many 
websites that would post this type of announcement if asked and 
ICANN were to provide the text or banner to do so.

That's my 2 cents for now. :)

Leah

> 
> If we would just start to enumerate what the requirements are, I'll keep
> track of them and we can work through the issue. when ICANN decides to have
> someone implement a new forum/portal system we will have some requirements
> for them to review.
> 
> I'll post my ideas last, so anyone with forum requirements shoot away; i'll
> collect comments for a few days and post a summary in a week or so.
> 
> oh, it would be real helpful if someone could evaluate opensource forum
> packages available on the net, I know of at least one in php and another in
> python, so please send refrences, reviews  and requiremnts of other
> portal/forum systems.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> -rick
> 
> 
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >
> 
> --
> 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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 22:26:14 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internet stability

In the Cox areas there are several million more who will lose their 
Internet access.  Cox posted a notice for their customers today that 
sounds very much like it will go dark.  They have suggested 
downloading the free NetZero software for dialups in the meantime, 
which is not a satisfactory resolution.

Since they knew about this for months, you would think that something 
could have been done about it.  But then, as you mentioned Roeland, it 
effects residential users who are not considered much of a priority, right?

In addition, while DSL may be the answer for a few, it is not readily 
availalbe in many areas covered by cable.

Quite frankly, however, I don't see that ICANN has this issue within their 
scope.  Since the cable industry is regulated, I think that is the avenue 
to take with the fiasco here.  The cable companies have stated they are 
building out their own high speed infrastructure that should be ready by 
summer.  Both Cox and AT&T have made such announcements.  IMO, 
in the meantime, the courts and/or Congress should handle the interim, 
even if it means the bankruptcy trustee has to maintain connectivity 
until the transfer to new infrastructure is accomplished.

My opinion only.

Leah

On 30 Nov 2001, at 18:36, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> As of midnight, tonight, 4 million users, just in the SF Bay Area, may lose
> their internet connection due to the business failure of Excite @ home.
> 
> Lately, we've been talking about what matters. Well, this is what matters
> to the Internet public. This has been seen coming for almost four months.
> Has the ICANN even tried to do anything? Yet, ICANN claims to help
> stabilize the Internet. The territory that ICANN claims, doesn't touch any
> part of this.
> 
> This may be the largest outage in the history of the Internet. Heretofore,
> the NorthPoint failure may have had claim to that honor. However, unlike
> NorthPoint, Excite has mostly residential customers. Ergo, the impact on
> business isn't as great. DSL providers can expect many new customers as a
> result, even if Excite doesn't pull the plug tonight.
> 
> --
> R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
> Managing Director
> Morgan Hill Software Company
> tel: +1 925 373 3954
> cel: +1 925 352 3615
> fax: +1 925 373 9781 
> http://www.mhsc.com
> --
> 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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 19:49:30 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internet stability

Friday, Friday, November 30, 2001, 6:36:33 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> As of midnight, tonight, 4 million users, just in the SF Bay Area, may lose
> their internet connection due to the business failure of Excite @ home.

That's 4 million nationwide, and even the court said it is VERY
unlikely to happen.

The court didn't order the shutdown, as some news outlets are
claiming, but merely is letting Excite@Home have the option of
shutting down service for cable companies who do not enter into new
contracts with them.

It is VERY VERY unlikely anyone will lose their internet connection
tonight because of this, and still very very unlikely it happen even
next week.

This just gave the corporation more power in the negotiations with the
cable companies.

And none of this has diddly squat to do with ICANN or 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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 20:03:11 -0800
From: Mike Roberts <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: forum.icann.org for the ALSC Report?

Leah -

If the goal is informed participation and reasoned debate, then the 
public forums that have been used by ICANN in the last two years are 
a colossal failure.  Every variety of ignorance, off thread, personal 
attack, blatant corporate self-interest, excessive posting, and other 
ways to corrupt an electronic forum are amply in evidence.  If anyone 
doubts it, there are many megabytes of sorry archives to demonstrate 
it on the website.

Rick is right, if we want to go down that road, there needs to be a 
fresh look at requirements.

More to the point, the record is bulging with input on At Large 
issues.  The study committee has already conducted extensive 
outreach.  Its report says, "As a result of the Committee's extensive 
outreach to the community over the past eight months, in meetings and 
online, and the consideration of over 1163 forum comments, input from 
16 outreach events worldwide, and a substantial number of studies and 
research papers..."  And that is in addition to thousands of 
comments, papers and studies accumulated by the Board since 1999.

We don't need more input, we need output. The GA's role is to advise 
the NC on policy development, and the NC's job is to advise the 
Board.  The Board has asked for best and final comments from the DNSO 
on the At Large report and recommendations within 45 days from Nov 
15.  It has also simplified the process somewhat by separating issues 
associated with restructuring of the SO's from the At Large process 
and has established a new restructuring committee to receive thoughts 
on that subject.

The NC has already delivered its preliminary comments on At Large to 
the Board in Marina del Rey.  It will shortly be considering how to 
amend and extend that advice.  The GA has the opportunity to 
contribute to that process and it ought to use it.

- - Mike

At 21:12 -0500 11/30/01, L Gallegos wrote:
>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

- -- 
- --
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 20:03:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internet stability

Roeland,

how do you suppose that ICANN could have any over-site with Excite @ home?

ICANN has no contract with Excite @ home and ICANN has nothing in their
charter about stability of organizations it has no contracts with.

Postings such as these don't help folks participate in the GA, you are
detracting focus from real issues and I encourage you to stay on topic, at
least to those we have that are within the purview of the GA.

thanks,

- -rick

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> As of midnight, tonight, 4 million users, just in the SF Bay Area, may lose
> their internet connection due to the business failure of Excite @ home.
>
> Lately, we've been talking about what matters. Well, this is what matters to
> the Internet public. This has been seen coming for almost four months. Has
> the ICANN even tried to do anything? Yet, ICANN claims to help stabilize the
> Internet. The territory that ICANN claims, doesn't touch any part of this.
>
> This may be the largest outage in the history of the Internet. Heretofore,
> the NorthPoint failure may have had claim to that honor. However, unlike
> NorthPoint, Excite has mostly residential customers. Ergo, the impact on
> business isn't as great. DSL providers can expect many new customers as a
> result, even if Excite doesn't pull the plug tonight.
>
> --
> R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
> Managing Director
> Morgan Hill Software Company
> tel: +1 925 373 3954
> cel: +1 925 352 3615
> fax: +1 925 373 9781
> http://www.mhsc.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
>

- --
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, 01 Dec 2001 05:41:14 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [council] TF Transfers

On 02:56 01/12/01, Joanna Lane said:
>Madam Chair,

Dear Marilyn,
Joanna has obviously the support of everyone knowledgeable involved in 
defending the rights of your customers, since you are active in e-commerce 
marketing.

May I also recall that there are basically two types of registrants; those 
handling a few DNs (through online forms) and those handling large number 
of DN through lists and scripts. They share many problems but their have 
own needs and demands. Transfers are quite complex to manage with a few 
DNs, they are quite impossible for large number as personnal ties are built 
helping to overcome the different problems of a Registrant. Transfering 
progressively (one cannot transfer all the domain one shout as they are 
usually renewed all the year long) makes feared a degradation of the 
obtained services.

Should nobody from the BC representing bulk registrant interests be 
selected or elected, I would be ready to cooperate with Joanna to the work 
of the TF. My proposition is NOT to represent any group of the 
GA/constituencies. Just to bring my experience and expertise about large 
Registrants specific poblems.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #893
************************