Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #896
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, December 3 2001           Volume 01 : Number 896

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

Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 20:11:45 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: icannworld.org

Eric and all stakeholders or interested parties,

  As some of you may know the icannworld.org site was presented
by Danny Younger in MdR in the name of the DNSO GA members,
without their prior knowledge.  Many DNSO GA members
felt that this was a bit of a disingenuous act by Mr. Younger in the
Agenda that the DNSO GA members had set for MdR and took up
a large amount of the time allotted for the DNSO GA presentation.
However I also am in favor of Danny and any others wishing to
be supportive of ICANN in any way it so chooses, but not in the
name of the DNSO GA members without their consent.  I mostly
see www.icannworld.org as a promotional consenting of the stakeholders
site.  I would rather invite all of you here to view the http://www.icannwatch.org/

site for a more balanced and actively inclusive view.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Danny, Mr. Vu and Mr. Thuy,
>
> While these three men are sterling examples of leaders in the world emerging
> Internet.  I also consider them good friends.  Vietnam and VNNIC should be
> looked upon for their examples of leading a local Internet community.  With the
> recent passage of the US-Vietnam BTA and Vietnams' deep commitment to IT
> education and developing infrastructure they will be role models for many
> emerging economy countries.
>
> Hi-Tek.com.vn and especially the developing business.com.vn will lend any
> assistance required by the parties in this endeavor.  Myself and our company
> want to congratulate Danny for his hard work dedication and ingenuity in
> developing his site.  It has our full endorsement.
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > As some of you aware, I recently launched icannworld.org in an effort to
> > promote ICANN outreach activities.  I am now beginning to receive some
> > positive feedback from the ccTLD community:
> >
> > Dear Sirs,
> >
> > My name is Vu Xuan Bach at the Vietnam Internet Network Information Center
> > (VNNIC). My Director - Mr. Nguyen Le Thuy has recently received your
> > inquiries of .vn webpage in icannworld.org and I was assigned by him to be
> > in cooperation with you on his behalf.
> >
> > In principles, we highly appreciate your efforts to create ccTLD webpages
> > and Vietnam's in particular. I strongly believe that this move would surely
> > enhance Vietnam's profile in the world forum, granting foreigners and even
> > Vietnamese overseas a better understanding of Vietnamese overview and
> > policies, especially .vn registration, thus helps create business
> > opportunities and investment.
> >
> > Regarding your request, we are pleased to offer the assistances as follows:
> >
> > - We can help you translate documents and texts from English into Vietnamese
> > and then send back to you as well as send you articles of interests.
> >
> > - We are prepared to send you ad banner and statement to promote .vn
> > registration.
> >
> > We highly speak of your initiative in creating links to our most popular
> > websites, considering it as one of many gateways  to connect Vietnam with
> > the rest of the world. We would arrange to send you a list of those.
> >
> > We also have some recommendations with the languages to be interpreted in
> > our web page. It is our opinion that the languages should only be Vietnamese
> >  English, French. The former is our orthodox language and the two latters
> > are international. Furthermore, Vietnam is a country of the French speaking
> > commonwealth so the employment of these three languages are fully reasonable
> >
> > To speak of Chinese, those most popular but only domestically used. We,
> > though occupied by them in history, have separate, independent culture and
> > customs and usually care it as a foreign language in hundreds. I have
> > visited some other regional ccTLD webpage and found Chinese is not applied
> > for all.
> >
> > Malayo-Polynesian is also not in use by Vietnamese.
> >
> > About Khmer and Mon-Khmer, they are the languages of 3 or 4 ethnic
> > minorities in Vietnam and most all of them can speak orthodox Vietnamese.
> > What's more, I think it would be hard to find an organisation to give
> > translation service to you.
> >
> > Concerning the forum, would you inform me the customs and procedures to
> > participate in this forum and how to prevent participant from using it as a
> > tool to speak ill of and blacken a certain country.
> >
> > We thank you very much for your cooperation so far and hope to hear from you
> > soon to make our project taken shape. We also wish our recommendation shall
> > be deliberately considered
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> >
> > Vu Xuan Bach

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: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 21:27:32 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Comments on the ALSC report requested

Danny and all assembly members,

  Thank you Danny for inviting all of us to submit such comments
through yourself on this resolution by the BoD.  I am sure that
some DNSO GA members would wish to submit their own
comments to insure that they are known to the ICANN BoD
unfettered by what had transpired in the recent MdR 2001
ICANN Meeting as was done with your ICANNWORLD.ORG
in the DNSO meeting there.  I believe that a number of DNSO GA
members felt and still feel somewhat betrayed by that action
by yourself.

  In the light of the events of MdR 2001, I would personally strongly
encourage any interested DNSO GA members to submit their
own comments, suggestions and ideas regarding the resolution
 [01.126] see: http://www.atlargestudy.org/resolution.shtml
and http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/mdr2001/archive/scribe-ga-111201.html

  In this vain, we [IEGRoup] will be submitting our own comments
by myself upon our members voted upon approval on the below
mentioned resolution to which you refer.

[email-masked] wrote:

> On Nov. 15, the following resolution was adopted:
>
> 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;
>
> I am preparing a report for submission to the Board, based primarily on GA
> members input via the ALSC Forum.  I would appreciate it if the GA membership
> would forward comments to me to be included in this report.
>
> Best wishes,
> Danny
> --
> 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: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 02:48:02 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [ALSC-Forum] Reply to Danny - ICANNWORLD.ORG

Danny and all stakeholders or interested parties,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> during the full month within which this project was started, there was not
> one member of the GA other than Eric (including yourself and your fantasy
> INEG members) that either volunteered to assist or that wrote stating an
> objection to this project.

  We have not "Fantasy" members.  However we [INEGroup] do have
registered members.  The information on our members is as you know,
as you have been told on a number of occasions available via FOIA
request to the FEC.  As you have failed to make such a request, it is
noted that you interest and concern is not very important to your
and Eric's effort.  This is of little consequence to our members
however.  As I stated clearly in my response to your request/response
to the DNSO GA members earlier,
See:http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03282.html and
http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg01387.shtml  our members
as well as other sister organizations are willing to help given that the
process is open to any and all interested parties as well as GA
members.  This would of course include ALSC forum members.

>  As no one had objected to this effort, and as a
> fair amount of work had been done on the site after a month's time, it was
> introduced at the MdR session, which you couldn't  bother to attend.

  I did attend remotely Danny.  Perhaps you missed that.  I am sorry if you did.
None the less given the sketchy connectivity that MdR 2001 provided,
and the lack of open input to those DNSO and ALSC sessions many
willing and interested parties attending remotely were thwarted in their
efforts to express themselves as has been the unfortunate norm for
the ICANN remote participant method(s) used in the past.  However
we do have this forum and can use it to garner as well as share
ideas to fill in some of those MdR gaps.

>
>
> While some of us are attempting to deal with outreach in a forthright manner,
> doing what ICANN itself should be doing, you stand on the sidelines and
> complain about the efforts of others.

  Not at all as I stated in my responses to your efforts as well as many others
(See referenced archived E-Mails above) we [INEGRoup] welcome open,
transparent and equal participation of any and all interested parties i.e.
stakeholders/users to the ALSC as well as any outreach efforts.  However
as has been noted many times on the DNSO GA forum, as you know,
a number of our members are still unable to join in these efforts or even
join this or the DNSO GA forum even though they are all stakeholders
and domain name holders.  We find this particularly peculiar as well
insufficient with respect to meeting the requirements of the MoU
and the White Paper, which are as you also know, ICANN's guiding
documents for the ICANN experiment and their contractual obligation.
Hence there is no shortage of willing stakeholders/users/participants, only
a lack of willingness of the ICANN BOD and staff to allow for their
participation and potential assistance.

> If you had any problems with the
> concept of an outreach site or its implementation, you should have stated
> your objections at the outset.

  I did as did a number of other DNSO GA members, as you also know
and the DNSO GA Archives reflect that without reservation.

>  After others actually do the work, then of
> course the non-participants have to find something to criticize.   Thanks for
> nothing.  Your contribution has been noted.

  I bit condescending here Danny.  That does not make for good outreach,
which you state is your desire.

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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 02:06:33 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Names Council Task Force Structure

Council List Members (whoever they are)

I would question the validity of the entire Names Council "Task Force"
structure.  It seems there are seven Task Forces and that Danny is the
GA representative on three of them.  In fact, I am becoming persuaded
that very few reflect the will of the GA membership.

This lack of accountability is likely to negate whatever solutions are
proposed.

Please also note that I have been only been able to identify a Terms
of Reference in three out of seven instances as follows:

NC New Structure Task Force = David Farrar
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/
TOR http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00012.html

 NC IDN International Domain Names = Danny Younger
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-idn/Arc00/

NC Dot Org Task Force = Marc Schneiders
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-org/Arc00/

NC UDRP Review and Evaluation = Dan Steinberg
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/

NC Review Task Force = Roberto Gaetano
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc01/
TOR http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc01/msg00000.html

NC Whois Task Force = Danny Younger
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/

 NC Transfer Task Force = Danny Younger
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/
TOR http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/doc00000.doc

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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 03:08:00 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC Structure Task Force

Hi David

On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 06:57:44 +1300, David Farrar wrote:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg02893.html

> GA members will be interested in the expanded terms of reference for
> the structure taskforce.

Thank you, David.  I believe you referenced what Philip Sheppard called
the "Extended Terms of Reference" at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00012.html

Subsequently there were a few suggested changes leading Philip Sheppard
to propose a "Final Terms of Reference" at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00031.html

However, it looks to me as if further comments by yourself, Raul Echeberria
and others, may have led to late changes to this "final" terms of reference.

Would it be possible for you to confirm whether this has resulted in a "Final,
Final" or not?  I'd also ask for any further input from the GA membership.

> The GA has already made a proposal for a bicameral DNSO which I will
> present at the appropriate time.  I'll keep people informed of other
> proposals as they come forward.

I believe you have now posted something to this effect at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00044.html

> If any members here have proposals they wish to develop you can see
> the time-frame.   I am happy to assist in reviewing drafts etc.  I
> will also work with the new Chair (or Danny if he is still outgoing
> Chair) to identify how best to identify if we have consensus support
> for particular proposals.

It seems to me that some of the constituencies have provided input into this
process.  I wonder whether any of the GA members would like to comment on
these proposals.

IP & BC Positions    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00032.html
gTLD Position    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00038.html
ccTLD Position    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00039.html

I also note your earlier comments, addressed to Joop, as follows:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:06:31 +1300, David Farrar wrote:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg02194.html

> My position is that regardless of whether one is an elected or
> appointed rep, your duty is to promote the consensus position of those
> you represent rather than one's personal point of view.

Finally, given the number of different task forces, could I ask GA members
to use a relevant subject heading, such as the above, when posting to the
GA list on Task Force subjects.

Thank you for your efforts.

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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 03:27:19 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC Transfers Task Force

Hi Marilyn

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:00:03 -0500 , Marilyn Cade wrote:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00082.html

> Development of this additional effort for the TF will mean additional
> work for the TF, but I trust that all of you will be willing to participate,
> and to reach out to your constituencies and to the GA.

As both Danny and yourself are members of the GA, it may be advisable
for you both to provide us with a copy of at least some of your postings.

The relevant URL is http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/

At present the Task Forces are chugging away with little or no input from
the most informed source currently available namely the GA membership.

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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 03:38:40 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC Review Task Force

On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:16:21 +0200, the DNSO Secretariat wrote:

> The mailing list for public comments on the report from
> the NC Review TF is open, starting today, 11 October 2001.

In two months there have been two public comments.  These are at:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc01/

The second comment was from Adam Peake.  It said:

>The task force system should be abolished and all DNSO policy making
>conducted through the open processes: working groups.
>
>Best I remember there was no support for the creation of these small
>closed Names Council driven "task forces" in the public DNSO review.
>The DNSO working group D (Bret Fausett) did not recommend the
>adoption of these closed and controlled groups.

I'd agree with that.

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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 03:51:43 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] A Reminder

On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 20:32:58 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> >From what I saw on the GA list, the participation of the members on the
> issues under debate by the Task Force is very low indeed, and this has very
> little to do with the attitude of the NC in running this Task Force, but
> maybe with the sense of boredom in discussing the same things over again
> without reaching any decision.
>
> What I would expect from the GA is rather an outcry on "let's get some
> points nailed down and decided upon" rather than "let's rediscuss the
> openness". But this is a matter of personal taste. You are the Chairman, and
> please orient the discussion on the GA list on whatever item you do see fit
> for contribution to the Task Force. I, as representative of the GA to the
> Task Force will assure that the decisions, consensus, concerns, proposals,
> and whatever will come form the GA will be reported to the Task Force
> whether or not it fits my personal opinion.

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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 04:48:33 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "Terms of Reference" or "Task Force Agenda" ??

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 02:09:42 EST, Danny Younger wrote:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00078.html

> Perhaps someone can explain to me why we are dancing around the issue.
> The clear objective of this Task Force is to establish a "consensus policy",
> and that is exactly what the terms of reference should be stipulating.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 07:11:36 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00081.html

> if we could incorporate into the document language  insuring that the new
> mgt. company will not impose any onerous accreditation fees or "new
> financial barriers"  and will honor the ICANN accredited status of the
> existing registrars this would be a very good start.

My apologies to Philip Sheppard for asking him to provide URL links
to the Terms of Reference (ToR) for each of the Task Forces.  I had
assumed that, as in normal political discourse, the "terms" had been
specified by the referring body (in this case the Names Council).

How silly of me  !!  That's not the idea at all.

The truth is that the Names Council stacks the Task Forces who
then write the Terms of Reference to suit themselves.

Duh !!

However, to avoid confusion could I ask that the wording "Terms of
Reference" be changed to "Task Force Agenda" or something similar.

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: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 20:40:16 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ORG task force

The ORG task force, of which I had the honour to be a member for the
GA, just concluded its report, which will go to the NC.

The text (preliminary) is right now already available in the archive
of the mailing list of the task force:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-org/Arc00/msg00239.html

Professor Milton Mueller did all the real work of keeping things
going, maintaining targets and perspectives, and arriving at a 'text',
which is way more difficult, and more work, than sending a comment, as
we all know...  Task force members' input was there from all
perspectives. I have no bad feelings about this task force. Thanks for
letting me participate!

Now, the final outcome of this effort will heavily depend on those
applying as the new organization to 'run' ORG. This is certainly
beyond the task force and this list even more. But work has to start
on this now, even though ICANN staff/board has to put out a request
for applications, which will not be very soon. But I guess some
willing to take over .ORG have already started...

You know where to find me.

- -- 
[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: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 15:26:40 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] members.icann.org

Dear Stuart,

When typing in http://icann.org I came across this new page which states:  
There is no web site at the Internet address that you entered. Please click 
below on the web site you want to visit.  It then lists a number of sites 
including:

members.icann.org: The web site for the ICANN at-large membership program. 
This program was active in 2000 and led to the selection of five ICANN Board 
members through an online vote. It is currently dormant while the At-Large 
Study Committee formulates recommendations for future participation by and 
representation of Internet users within ICANN.

May I ask why members.icann.org needs to remain dormant?  Why not open it now 
to begin receiving input?  We don't need a committee recommendation to know 
that an interactive website would be of value to the At-large.  Perhaps this 
would enable the At-Large to better build their own domicile and lessen the 
workload on both the Committee and the Staff.

Best regards,
Danny
- --
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 09:41:14 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: NC Structure Task Force

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 03:08:00 +1100, "Patrick Corliss"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Hi David
>
>On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 06:57:44 +1300, David Farrar wrote:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg02893.html
>
>> GA members will be interested in the expanded terms of reference for
>> the structure taskforce.
>
>Thank you, David.  I believe you referenced what Philip Sheppard called
>the "Extended Terms of Reference" at:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00012.html
>
>Subsequently there were a few suggested changes leading Philip Sheppard
>to propose a "Final Terms of Reference" at:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00031.html
>
>However, it looks to me as if further comments by yourself, Raul Echeberria
>and others, may have led to late changes to this "final" terms of reference.
>
>Would it be possible for you to confirm whether this has resulted in a "Final,
>Final" or not?  I'd also ask for any further input from the GA membership.

Indeed it is not yet final.  In fact there is still a lack of clarity
even over who is entitled to be a member of the TF.  

>> The GA has already made a proposal for a bicameral DNSO which I will
>> present at the appropriate time.  I'll keep people informed of other
>> proposals as they come forward.
>
>I believe you have now posted something to this effect at:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00044.html

Yep - once the positions of the other constituencies were posted I
felt it was appropriate to post the GA resolution.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 16:18:29 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Top Three Issues

Rick Wesson has written to me asking, "would you mind posting the top 3 
issues the GA should be working on?"

As a sense of focus is important to any organization, I thank Rick for his 
suggestion.  My thoughts are focused on representational issues...

1.  The ICANN Board put forth the following resolution:  Resolved [01.132] 
that a Committee of the Board is hereby established, to be known as the 
Committee on Restructuring, to monitor and provide reports to the Board on 
these issues, and to evaluate and make recommendations to the Board 
concerning any specific proposals or applications to the Board that would or 
could affect the structure of ICANN or the composition of the Board.

As the Board has also resolved [01.127] "that representation should accompany 
participation for informed, sustained involvement of interested individuals 
in ICANN policy and decision-making", and as the General Assembly is 
currently a disenfranchised institution without the right to vote in the 
DNSO, our membership should either be working on the details required to 
bring Roeland's motion (adopted by the GA) into fruition, or should 
acknowledge the GA as an unneeded structural redundancy in light of the 
coming establishment of the ALSO.  This is a time for self-organization and 
self-determination.  The GA will either act upon its own future, or it will 
have no future.

2.  Patrick Corliss reminded us of the comment made by Adam Peake:  "The task 
force system should be abolished and all DNSO policy making conducted through 
the open processes: working groups".  These vile task forces have denied the 
membership of this Assembly their rights under the Bylaws for full 
participation in the substantive work of the DNSO.  In my view, it is time to 
take a stand on this issue, and I would recommend withdrawing all GA 
participation from every task force until such time as open working groups 
are fully restored.  As your thoughts may not accord with mine, other 
recommendations on the best way forward are welcomed.

3.  Our promised nine seat At-Large representation on the ICANN Board is at 
risk.  Constituencies, like vultures, are lining up to feed on the carcass of 
the At-Large.  Every one of these interest groups is offering up a plan to 
enhance their own representation at the expense of the At-Large (which has 
been denied by ICANN even its own website within which it may organize its 
opposition).  

The ICANN Board has called for comments on the ALSC Final report.  Within 
ICANN we are the only group that does not seek to profit at the expense of 
the At-Large.  We have an obligation to defend the interests of the broader 
Internet community and must do so with an orchestrated campaign that 
demonstrates to this Board that we will not sanction abrogating the 
commitment made in our founding compact with the US government.

Assembly members may have other opinions as to what constitutes the top three 
issues... this would be a good time to air such thoughts.

- --
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: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 14:57:42 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

These are pages on which Hamas and the Qassam Brigades
take credit for such things as the latest atrocity against a bunch
of young civilians in Israel, and which Network Solutions hosts
in order that such obscenities can be disseminated to the world.

Bill Lovell

Registrant:
  palestinian information center (PALESTINE-INFO2-DOM)
     Beruit
     Beruit, LB
     LB

     Domain Name: PALESTINE-INFO.COM

     Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
        Sadaqa, Ziyad  (ZK30)  [email-masked]
        Salam
        512 Cedar Bend Cir #104
        Orlando, FL 32825
        407-719-0460
     Technical Contact:
        Administration  (AD3086-ORG)  [email-masked]
        FastDns Network
        3080 Ogden rd
        lisle, IL 60532
        US
        630-357-8545 Fax- - 630-357-8545
        Fax- - - 630-357-8545

     Record last updated on 30-Nov-2001.
     Record expires on 01-Oct-2011.
     Record created on 01-Oct-1998.
     Database last updated on 2-Dec-2001 06:20:00 EST.

     Domain servers in listed order:

     NS.HOST4U.NET                209.150.128.30
     NS2.HOST4U.NET               209.150.129.3

- --
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: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 15:22:10 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

Sunday, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 2:57:42 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> These are pages on which Hamas and the Qassam Brigades
> take credit for such things as the latest atrocity against a bunch
> of young civilians in Israel, and which Network Solutions hosts
> in order that such obscenities can be disseminated to the world.

>      Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
>         Sadaqa, Ziyad  (ZK30)  [email-masked]
>         Salam
>         512 Cedar Bend Cir #104
>         Orlando, FL 32825
>         407-719-0460

This is the actual registrant.

And NSI is not hosting it, they are simply the registrar of record.

The host of the site is usually the tech contact and/or dns provider
(but not always).

     NS.HOST4U.NET                209.150.128.30
     NS2.HOST4U.NET               209.150.129.3

host4u.net is the hostname used for providing nameservice to the many
resellers of the OLM.Net wholesale webhosting service.  So OLM.Net is
the actual host, though the company that actually takes money from the
registrant for the hosting is most likely one of their many, many
resellers.

- -- 
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: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 15:55:39 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

(See below)

William X Walsh wrote:

> Sunday, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 2:57:42 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > These are pages on which Hamas and the Qassam Brigades
> > take credit for such things as the latest atrocity against a bunch
> > of young civilians in Israel, and which Network Solutions hosts
> > in order that such obscenities can be disseminated to the world.
>
> >      Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
> >         Sadaqa, Ziyad  (ZK30)  [email-masked]
> >         Salam
> >         512 Cedar Bend Cir #104
> >         Orlando, FL 32825
> >         407-719-0460
>
> This is the actual registrant.
>
> And NSI is not hosting it, they are simply the registrar of record.
>
> The host of the site is usually the tech contact and/or dns provider
> (but not always).
>
>      NS.HOST4U.NET                209.150.128.30
>      NS2.HOST4U.NET               209.150.129.3
>
> host4u.net is the hostname used for providing nameservice to the many
> resellers of the OLM.Net wholesale webhosting service.  So OLM.Net is
> the actual host, though the company that actually takes money from the
> registrant for the hosting is most likely one of their many, many
> resellers.

Well, that may well be, William; you know more about these things than
I do. But on my site cerebalaw.com, for domain name servers one finds
the following in a Network Solutions WHOIS:

     Domain servers in listed order:

     COMPASS.OREGONVOS.NET        159.121.170.2
     HP-OPEN.OPEN.ORG             199.2.104.1

There is some source of confusion when domain name
servers are shown as NS whatever rather than DNS
whatever -- I'm quite sure I've seen where NS does not
mean Name Server but Network Solutions,   In mine as
shown above, for which Network Solutions is indeed the
registrar of record (who else?), there is no NS.

But in any case, as internet inept as I may be, the question
remains, has Network Solutions accepted money for which
it provides a service to Hamas, whereby Hamas gets to
glorify its atrocities?  In other words, when that reseller
collects the money for the registration, what, if anything,
ends up in the coffers of Network Solutions?

The next question, of course, since the provision of internet
services is one of the means of "supporting terrorism" that
the FBI has specified, is not your assumed reseller and/or
OLM.NET supporting terrorism? (This one happens to
affect Israel instead of the U.S., but I'm sure U. S.
examples could be found, and I make no distinction when
it comes to the slaughter of innocent civilians of another
country -- it falls within the rubric of international terrorism.)

Bill Lovell

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

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

Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 23:40:33 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: forum.icann.org for the ALSC Report?

On 05:03 01/12/01, Mike Roberts said:
>The GA has the opportunity to contribute to that process and it ought to 
>use it.

Dear Mike,
The DNSO is to address DNS issues. The Jennings proposition made it - if I 
am correct from historic hearsays and Joe Sims testimony - a temporary, 
inadequate and confusing host of the @large concerns. From what I gathered 
the idea was that the ALSC could correct the Jenning confusion while trying 
to address the worries Joe Sims testified and the DNSO solution according 
to him - and I fully agree - was not addressing.

You sent a letter last year aksing for a review of your ALSC proposition. 
Then the WG-Review was the opportunity for a parallel work from inside the 
DNSO and from a general ICANN perspective to commonly understand the issues 
at stake, to agree upon solutions and to get them implemented in good 
cooperation. This is what the initial kernel wanted and was denied by 
Philip and Theresa. I do not recall that YJ and Karl got any support.

As france@large - i.e. a small kernel of concerned people (still "ICANN 
active" former French @large candidates wishing to be a focal point and a 
servant catalist for the French @large community) - we responded you in 
presenting the most constructed and important contribution. Still online at 
http://icann-fra. I have ever since supported these propositions and we 
adapted them to the changes in the ICANN reality including during my BoD 
campaign.

You akcnowledged all the other contributions, but not ours. We have been 
pleased in seeing that these propositions are extremely similar to the 
recent response of China and VietNam and are most common among ccTLDs. We 
are interested in seeing that progressively many are using the same 
concepts (several being shared with other @large groups borned from Thomas 
Roassler's icann-europe ML and response). But we recently learned that 
strangely enough the ALSC Members  had not received from you the copy of 
our response.

The thinking since last year has developped, at france@large as at the GA 
and within the @large community, in spite of the lack of an @large site and 
information by the ICANN.

Based upon that experience, do you really think worth this GA to say and 
add the same things again and again to what we said one year ago, to what 
several ccTLDs have expressed, to what the international Internet community 
is saying... that legitimacy in the governance comes from the users, that 
ICANN is to be a common interest center, that the BoD must be the boss of 
the Staff, that the direct and indirect Director selections must be equal 
if we want stability (9+9+1), that the the true Members of the ICANN are 
the local internet communities, that security and stability for the 
Internet users cannot not come from a single government agency, that the 
ICANN money and budget policy are inadequate, that true @large members are 
those interested in the Internet governance all the year long, that no one 
is fooled by the attempts to capture the @large seats - and certainly not 
by the US gTLD interests..., that the ICANN must be equal to all, that the 
ICANN must behave transparently, that ICANN must call on acknowledged 
competences and not on poor policy choices, that consensus authentification 
mechanisms as defined by the bylaws should be respected, that ICANN should 
contain itself to its strict mission...

I would personally add to develop an internal "mani pulite" effort and to 
become conscious how its decisions and denial are impacting the world's 
lingual, fnancial and digital divides and slowdowning the technological 
development and the world stability and peace.

You do not want to listen. You acted against it. You name these positions 
"wild".
This is your right. But your influence and the one of your friends is still 
important enough to be sure that your position will be of weight.

If you truely want this GA position to be studied instead of being denied 
by the ALSC, you certainly know how doing it: we cannot.

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 #896
************************