Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #903
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, December 4 2001          Volume 01 : Number 903

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

Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 00:30:12 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to  international	terror

I do agree that if we are getting into content policing, it has nothing 
whatever to do with the DNSO or ICANN.  Where the registrars are 
involved is registration of domain names and that would be affected by 
laws in the US only when the registrant or admin contact is based in an 
embargoed country.  That is simply doing business where it is not 
allowed, period.  It is not a free speech area.

Joop is correct, IMHO, where domain name holders are concerned.  If a 
website contains illegal content it is up to the FBI or other law 
enforcement or judicial agency to deal with it (in the US).  We've gone 
too far astray on this list.

Leah

On 4 Dec 2001, at 14:39, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 08:40 3/12/01 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >  They [the terrorists]
> >are no more worthy of "freedom of speech" rights, than child pornographers
> >or Nazis, yet less than a handful of people here have taken a responsible
> >attitude or even shown an interest.
> 
> Responsible attitute is also a great reluctance to encourage Registrars to
> exercise power to judge who is worthy of free speech and who is not.
> Responsible attitude is also not to allow ICANN any mission creep in the
> form of  content policing until (Individual) Domain Name Holders are fully
> represented at all levels. And even then...
> 
> If I understand you right, your main objection is the Hamas press release
> on the Palestine-info site. The site registration itself, being registered
> to an admin contact in Beirut, may or may not be currently in violation of
> US statute. This violation might disappear when particular content would be
> removed. This is between the US Registrars and the FBI, and really up to
> the FBI.  They may consider it more useful to keep such well known sites
> above ground. (this is *really* off-topic) The problem is that content such
> as is offending you and me, can be moved tomorrow to
> ostriches-on-the-beach.com registered to another entity with no "terrorist"
> links.
> 
> It is one thing to hold DN holders responsible for content on their sites,
> quite another to hold Registrars responsible for registering Domains that
> may post "terrorist" content.
> 
> Urging ICANN to have the Domain yanked is using an "elephant gun on a fly"
> approach. A lot of collateral damage and the fly will appear somewhere
> else. There are better ways to apply the law to deal with illegal content.
> 
> >There is a thunderous silence from all
> >the leading Registry and Registrar Compliance Executives, and many are
> >reading this list. Why? Are they cowards, or in denial?
> 
> I do not want to speak for Registrars, but I may speak against them if the
> security of Registered Domains becomes dependent on their subjective
> judgement on who is a terrorist or what is illegal content. Registrars must
> respect their registrants, until the proper authorities force them to act
> otherwise.
> 
> O.K., I grant you that some of this is on topic.  NSI may want to address
> it or it may choose not to.
> 
> But war on terrorism/free speech/censorship can be a highly divisive topic
> at a time when the GA needs to pull together to guard its rights in the
> ICANN structure.
> 
> --Joop
> 
> --
> 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: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 01:01:37 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Interests ??

Ross,

If I may ask a question... you speak of rough consensus and running code.  
The GA has already arrived at consensus regarding the need to immediately 
establish an individuals constituency and the need to restructure the DNSO.  
Now that such determinations have been made by this Assembly, how would your 
running code analogy bring these propositions to fruition?

There is no value in arriving at consensus just for the sake of stating that 
we have arrived at consensus.  The Non-Com's routinely arrive at consensus 
within their constituency and present resolutions at every plenary session.  
It gets them nowhere, as they are ignored by both the Council and the Board, 
as is the GA.

You argue that "I haven't heard anyone state that individuals don't need 
meaningful representation within ICANN".  That may be true, but no 
constituency other than the non-coms has gone on record as actually 
supporting an individuals constituency (and that includes your constituency). 
 Has any constituency articulated that they believe in the principle 
articulated by both the ALSC and the Board that representation must accompany 
participation?  If so, they would be arguing for representational rights for 
the GA that enjoys no voting power within the DNSO.

Instead a concerted effort has been made to both deny representative rights 
to individuals and to prevent GA members from fully participating in the 
substantive work of the DNSO.  Open working groups do not exist under the 
current Council regime.   Tell me how your running code attends to these 
issues.

- --
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: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 17:08:21 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Interests ??

Hi Peter

> > It's funny how both you and Peter Dengate Thrush focused on a single word
> > in my email and rather ignored the more substantive comments about capture
> > by business interests.
> >
> Sorry, but I also challenged your attempt to characterise the cctlds as pro
> or anti

You vigorously challenged my use of the word "herald" so you must have noticed
my careful choice of the word "rather" in front of "ignored".  Together they
mean "for the most part ignored".

> My point was the same as previously   - the cc's are a diverse bunch, and
> won't be forced into this sort of pigeonholing.

These word games are very tiresome.  The fact is that I will concede you half
a point on ccTLDs to reflect a divided constituency.  Remember I'm in one
(the Australian ccTLD) myself.

> > As far as Peter Dengate Thrush's comments.  He said:
> >
> > > And, btw, the ccTLDs do not routinely support business interests, do not
> > > routinely oppose non profits (InternetNZ is one), and many support
> > > individual registrants.
> >
> > You say "many support individual registrants".  I'd ask "How many?"
> >
> > Or to put it another way, out of 240 country codes, how many would you say
> > are *opposed* to business interests?  Answer, none.
> >
> Your problem is that you pose these as antithetical. Of course, ccTLds can
> be both - in cases such as .nz, they run the registry as a business, and
> also support individual registrants.

My problem ?  You guys are the ones who have captured the constituencies
and you can pretend all you like that you haven't.  Ok, I'll revise my table
by
half a point as follows:

> Of the constituency members mentioned, we have:
>
> $$    Marilyn Cade, Business Constituency
> $$    Caroline Chicoine, IP Constituency
> $$    Paul Kane, Registrars Constituency
> ~$    Milton Mueller, NCDNH Constituency
> 0.5$    Elizabeth Porteneuve, ccTLD Registries (Herald for Philip Sheppard)
> $$    Philip Sheppard, Business Constituency (also associated with IP)
>
> By my count, that's:
>
>     4.5     out of 6 supporting business interests.
>     1.0     out of 6 supporting nonprofits.
>     0.5     out of 6 supporting individual registrants.

Assuming nonprofits went with individuals (which they need not), the final
score is:

BUSINESS INTERESTS            4.5
OTHER INTERESTS                  1.5

That's a ratio of three to one.

> Capture, anyone ??

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: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 13:37:58 +0800
From: Joseph <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Terrorism, Joanna, Is Seriously Off Topic

Hi,
	Although I do not agree with some of Joanna's point of view, I do not find
the complain against Joanna justified.

regards,
- - Joseph
===============

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of L
Gallegos
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 6:23 AM
To: Danny Younger, new; Patrick Corliss
Cc: [ga-abuse]; [ga]
Subject: Re: [ga] Terrorism, Joanna, Is Seriously Off Topic

Please tell me how this is off topic as it relates to domain names being
sold to US embargoed countries by US registrars?  ICANN is still a US
corporation and many of the registrars are also US based.  It is not
outside the scope of this list to discuss those issues.

Also, how is Joanna's "unpleasant" attitutude different from those set
forth by many others?  Where is the emotional underlay different from
many, many others' posts to this list?

Where does it seem to indicate that Joanna's "agenda" is different from
the majority of the GA when it comes to individuals rights?

Please show me where there is an attempt by Joanna at a political
power grab?  What I have seen is a somewhat passionate attempt to
participate in a forum by an individual who does happen to represent the
views of individuals, whether that attempt is a personal one or one
endorsed by the GA.  I truly fail to see what one individual out of the
total number of TF members can to to grab power.

I just don't see it.

It seems to me that every time an individual is willing to give the
passion, time and effort to areas where individuals need a voice, that
willingness is shunned or totally discouraged to the point where he or
she gives up.

Leah

On 4 Dec 2001, at 9:01, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Dear Danny
>
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 16:59:37 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03352.html
>
> I understand that you continue in your position as Chair of the General
> Assembly.  In that role you have spent significant time and energy
> promoting Joanna Lane for every possible position you could think of.  In
> fact, you invented a few to promote her political ascent.
>
> During this time, a number of people, including myself, have questioned
her
> unpleasant attitude.  In fact, Joanna has, to my knowledge, gratuitously
> offended several people.  Nor has she ever shown any accountability in
> promoting her own agenda.  She does not, for example, respond to any
> questions or even heed any attempts at moderation.
>
> It is my view that Joanna Lane is quite unsuited to represent the GA in
any
> forum whatsoever.  I would suggest that you discontinue your support of
> Joanna's power grab unless and until you have been given a specific
mandate
> by the Assembly membership.
>
> May I also suggest that you do something to resolve the running sore of
> list moderation.  You started with five people, as I remember, and you
have
> none left.  That is a sorry reflection of your leadership style.
Otherwise
> the list will continue to degenerate.
>
> And it will become impossible for you to claim credibility with the power
> cliques.
>
> I ask that, in particular, because I wish you consider this email as a
> complaint against Joanna Lane's continuing insistence at off topic
posting.
> You must be aware that a number of list participants have disagreed with
> Joanna's approach here.  In fact, it has divided the GA.
>
> So you must mediate Joanna's intransigence or see the proposed vote of no
> confidence in ICANN turn into a vote of no confidence in Danny Younger.
>
> You have deeply saddened me.  Please stop this.  Do it now.
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
> cc [ga abuse]
>

- --
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 23:17:09 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Interests ??

Monday, Monday, December 03, 2001, 10:58:18 PM, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> William,

> You are accusing me, when I was assuming the function of the
> DNSO Secretariat (28 months, June 1999 to September 2001), about 
> "refusing to enforce the moderators decisions in a uniform fashion, 
> flat out refusing to permit sanctions, regardless of how valid 
> they were, against Kent Crispen."

> Would you mind, please, provide me a record of evidence on
> my "refusal" ?

Actually, Elisabeth, I didn't accuse you.  The moderators themselves
did, on this very list, when they posted they would not invoke
sanctions against other list members as a result.

I will let them answer your challenge.

- -- 
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: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 00:04:01 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to  international	terror

L Gallegos wrote:

> I do agree that if we are getting into content policing, it has nothing
> whatever to do with the DNSO or ICANN.  Where the registrars are
> involved is registration of domain names and that would be affected by
> laws in the US only when the registrant or admin contact is based in an
> embargoed country.  That is simply doing business where it is not
> allowed, period.  It is not a free speech area.
>
> Joop is correct, IMHO, where domain name holders are concerned.  If a
> website contains illegal content it is up to the FBI or other law
> enforcement or judicial agency to deal with it (in the US).  We've gone
> too far astray on this list.
>

This whole "free speech" issue is a red herring -- a knee jerk reaction --
and indeed has nothing whatever to do with prohibiting U.S. entities
from doing business, of any kind, with entities domiciled in embargoed
countries.  Joop's equation of "terrorism/free speech/censorship" is a
creation of his own.  It is not the content of the communication, but
rather whether U.S. providers can lawfully help provide to an
embargoed entity the means for making any communication at all.
(These embargoes do not just refer to countries; they also apply to
a select list of terrorist organizations, which the U. S. Government
can lawfully do under its Commerce Clause authority.)
The objection that "undesired content" can easily be switched to
some other site that is not embargoed begins with the false premise
that the purpose here is to control content, which it is not -- it is to
ensure that lawful U. S. embargoes are obeyed -- by ICANN,
Verisign, ISPs, registrars, and registrants. (It would seem that a
registry is merely a record keeper, as I now look at it, but I
could be corrected.)

Bill Lovell

>
> Leah
>
> On 4 Dec 2001, at 14:39, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > At 08:40 3/12/01 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> > >  They [the terrorists]
> > >are no more worthy of "freedom of speech" rights, than child pornographers
> > >or Nazis, yet less than a handful of people here have taken a responsible
> > >attitude or even shown an interest.
> >
> > Responsible attitute is also a great reluctance to encourage Registrars to
> > exercise power to judge who is worthy of free speech and who is not.
> > Responsible attitude is also not to allow ICANN any mission creep in the
> > form of  content policing until (Individual) Domain Name Holders are fully
> > represented at all levels. And even then...
> >
> > If I understand you right, your main objection is the Hamas press release
> > on the Palestine-info site. The site registration itself, being registered
> > to an admin contact in Beirut, may or may not be currently in violation of
> > US statute. This violation might disappear when particular content would be
> > removed. This is between the US Registrars and the FBI, and really up to
> > the FBI.  They may consider it more useful to keep such well known sites
> > above ground. (this is *really* off-topic) The problem is that content such
> > as is offending you and me, can be moved tomorrow to
> > ostriches-on-the-beach.com registered to another entity with no "terrorist"
> > links.
> >
> > It is one thing to hold DN holders responsible for content on their sites,
> > quite another to hold Registrars responsible for registering Domains that
> > may post "terrorist" content.
> >
> > Urging ICANN to have the Domain yanked is using an "elephant gun on a fly"
> > approach. A lot of collateral damage and the fly will appear somewhere
> > else. There are better ways to apply the law to deal with illegal content.
> >
> > >There is a thunderous silence from all
> > >the leading Registry and Registrar Compliance Executives, and many are
> > >reading this list. Why? Are they cowards, or in denial?
> >
> > I do not want to speak for Registrars, but I may speak against them if the
> > security of Registered Domains becomes dependent on their subjective
> > judgement on who is a terrorist or what is illegal content. Registrars must
> > respect their registrants, until the proper authorities force them to act
> > otherwise.
> >
> > O.K., I grant you that some of this is on topic.  NSI may want to address
> > it or it may choose not to.
> >
> > But war on  can be a highly divisive topic
> > at a time when the GA needs to pull together to guard its rights in the
> > ICANN structure.
> >
> > --Joop
> >
> > --
> > 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

- --

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 00:10:43 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to  international terror

Tuesday, Tuesday, December 04, 2001, 12:04:01 AM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> Verisign, ISPs, registrars, and registrants. (It would seem that a
> registry is merely a record keeper, as I now look at it, but I
> could be corrected.)

I think that depends on the type of registry, really.

The Verisign "thin registry" model is setup so that the registry has
no data on registrants, as far as the registry is concerned, the
registrants really don't exist, the registry isn't even a party to the
registration agreement.

The registry model being used for both .biz and .info is different,
the registry actually does know the registrant information, and is in
fact a party to the contract with the end user.

In the latter case, it seems to me a claim could be made that the
Registry was doing business with an embargoed country if a registrar
registered a domain to an entity in said country.  I could be wrong
that, I'll leave that to you trained legal monkeys to sort out :)

- -- 
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: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 02:28:21 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Interests ??

Ross and all assembly members,

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> All,
>
> Might I suggest that neither of these messages is productive? While the
> tactics that Patrick has employed aren't exactly subtle and certainly err on
> the side of caustic as you point out Ken, the basic issue that Patrick
> raises has some merit. And Patrick, certainly your case could be argued
> without assassinating the character of those you don't agree with.

  I agree with you here Ross.  However the directed atrocities to which
you seem to attribute to Patrick and Roeland predominantly here
are also employed by Ken Stubbs on this thread and in other
occasions.

  I of course can understand, as you seem to, and I am sure other
Assembly members that Ken felt the need to defend himself,
and Patrick and Roeland in this instance on this thread felt that
the ignoring by the NC has gone past the point of being
reasonable.

>
>
> If we could all back off from the trigger on the rhetoric gun that we have
> been walking around with and pointing at each other almost randomly, then
> perhaps we might get some real work done.

  Perhaps so.  However as you already know this approach to which
you suggest has been tried many times before.

>
>
> Other, seemingly more productive and less political circles around the
> internet (damned engineers get everything right, or rewrite it to get it
> right ;), value rough consensus, & working code over mailing list rhetoric.
> I haven't heard anyone state that individuals don't need meaningful
> representation within ICANN. I've also seen some pretty good arguments both
> for and against the ALSC and NAIS reports. What we are not seeing are valid
> proposals that stand against the current propositions on the table - on the
> contrary, as the thread quoted below indicates, whining, sniping and
> counter-sniping seem to be the order of the day.

  Yes Ross several proposals have been posted to the ALSC and this
forum before.  They were ignored.

>
>
> Guerilla tactics and bush fights can only take an issue so far - what we
> need now is rough consensus and working code (or perhaps the reverse -
> anything is preferable to the status quo.)

  There is not status quo.  That is the problem.  There was, but
the ICANN BoD created the ALSC and than that members.icann.org
was put on hold again.  As such the following two ALSC reports
rejected sense november 2000 any new At-Large members or individual
voting power within ICANN.  Hence where we are today.  This is
unexceptable, it violates the MoU and the White Paper, and it shows
clearly that the ICANN BoD and staff do not want individual stakeholders
regardless of their dispensation to have voting power or representation
on the BoD in accordance with the percentage that they rightfully
and actually represent.

> Perhaps if we would take the time
> to listen to one another just a bit more, talk just a little bit less and
> propose a little bit more concretely, we might discover that consensus is
> not such a difficult obligation to fulfill.

  Perhaps so.  Experience thus far has not shown that however.

>
>
> -rwr
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>; "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 6:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Interests ??
>
> > patrick....
> >
> > i wont be a "civil" as peter dengate thrush was with your
> > comments................
> >
> > Elisabeth is a 'highly ethical" person and i am "disgusted" at your
> > characterization .
> >
> > you are only "talking to hear yourself" and it baseless "garbage" like
> this
> > which only serve to cause any posting you make to this or any other list
> > that much less "meaningful"..
> >
> > you only disrespect yourself with comments like this.
> >
> > ken stubbs
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 4:18 PM
> > Subject: [ga] NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Interests ??
> >
> >
> > > ==== > NC Teleconf Agenda 13 December 2001 <=====
> > >
> > > On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:50:36 +0100, DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> > >
> > > >        DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 13 December 2001 - agenda
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > 2. Adoption of amended final report on review (Philip Sheppard) 15 mins
> > >      - agreement to dissolve the Review task force
> > >      http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html
> > >
> > > $$ Philip Sheppard, Business Constituency
> > >
> > >   3. Adoption of final report on dot Org (provisional) (Milton
> > Mueller) -15
> > >      mins.
> > >      http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-org/Arc00/msg00239.html
> > >
> > > ~$ Milton Mueller, NCDNH Constituency
> > >
> > >   4. Discussion on IDNs with IETF representative (provisional) Elisabeth
> > >      Porteneuve - 30 mins.
> > >      - next steps, IDN task force
> > >
> > > $$ Elizabeth Porteneuve, ccTLD Registries
> > >
> > >   5. Task force transfers TF (Marilyn Cade) - 5 mins.
> > >      - comments from the GA (Danny Younger) 10 mins.
> > >
> > > $$ Marilyn Cade, Business Constituency
> > >
> > >   6. Task Force update since November 14 - 30 mins.
> > >      - UDRP Caroline Chicoine
> > >
> > > $$ Caroline Chicoine, IP Constituency
> > >
> > >      - Structure Philip Sheppard
> > >
> > > $$ Philip Sheppard, Business Constituency
> > >
> > >      - WhoIs Paul Kane/Marilyn Cade
> > >
> > > $$ Paul Kane, Registrars Constituency
> > > $$ Marilyn Cade, Business Constituency
> > >
> > > Of the constituency members mentioned, we have:
> > >
> > > $$    Marilyn Cade, Business Constituency
> > > $$    Caroline Chicoine, IP Constituency
> > > $$    Paul Kane, Registrars Constituency
> > > ~$    Milton Mueller, NCDNH Constituency
> > > $$    Elizabeth Porteneuve, ccTLD Registries (Herald for Philip
> Sheppard)
> > > $$    Philip Sheppard, Business Constituency (also associated with IP)
> > >
> > > By my count, that's:
> > >
> > >     5 of 6 supporting business interests.
> > >     1 of 6 supporting nonprofits.
> > >     0 of 6 supporting individual registrants.
> > >
> > > Capture, anyone ??
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Patrick Corliss
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 00:35:49 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Doing business with U.S. embargoed entities

William X Walsh wrote:

> Tuesday, Tuesday, December 04, 2001, 12:04:01 AM, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > Verisign, ISPs, registrars, and registrants. (It would seem that a
> > registry is merely a record keeper, as I now look at it, but I
> > could be corrected.)
>
> I think that depends on the type of registry, really.
>
> The Verisign "thin registry" model is setup so that the registry has
> no data on registrants, as far as the registry is concerned, the
> registrants really don't exist, the registry isn't even a party to the
> registration agreement.
>
> The registry model being used for both .biz and .info is different,
> the registry actually does know the registrant information, and is in
> fact a party to the contract with the end user.
>
> In the latter case, it seems to me a claim could be made that the
> Registry was doing business with an embargoed country if a registrar
> registered a domain to an entity in said country.  I could be wrong
> that, I'll leave that to you trained legal monkeys to sort out :)

Well, this legal monkey would hazard the guess that you've made
precisely the right distinction, of which I was not previously aware.
I haven't followed the whole .biz, .info bit, and it would seem that
if the U. S. entities registering under those extensions registered
osamabinladen.biz, they'd be in a peck of trouble, while Verisign
would fit my assumption above and be off the hook.  (I've changed
the subject of this thread.)  So the next question is, what are the
responsibilities of ICANN, besides its own following of the law,
to ensure that those whom it has accredited to use the TLDs that
it has established likewise obey the law?

Bill Lovell

>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
> Webcertificates.info
> SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea

- --

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 02:37:54 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Interim Report of the New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force

Danny and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Icann has created another new public forum (note the announcement at
> http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/interim-report-03dec01.htm ) but
> still no forum for the At-Large.  This Interim Report on new TLDs seems to
> focus on the "risks associated with moving ahead too fast".  Have a look.

  Yes I did.  Perhaps the GA members should also take note
that the TLD TF committee contains no one from the DNSO GA.
Here are the present Committee members:
Jaap Akkerhuis (ccTLD Constituency)
        Sebastien Bachollet (Business Constituency)
        Marilyn Cade (Business Constituency)
        David Conrad (Root Server Systems Advisory Committee
        Michael Heltzer (Intellectual Property Constituency)
        Geoff Huston (Protocol Support Organization)
        Roberto Laorden (Protocol Support Organization)
        Stuart Lynn (Chair)
        Nilda Vany Grajales (Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency)
        Y J Park (Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency)
        Adrian Pinder (Government Advisory Committee Liaison)

>
> --
> 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: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 19:52:40 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Terrorism, Joanna, Is Seriously Off Topic

Hi Bill

On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 00:04:01 -0800, William S. Lovell wrote:

> This whole "free speech" issue is a red herring -- a knee jerk reaction --
> and indeed has nothing whatever to do with prohibiting U.S. entities
> from doing business, of any kind, with entities domiciled in embargoed
> countries.  Joop's equation of "terrorism/free speech/censorship" is a
> creation of his own.

I am astounded that you make those sort of remarks, truly.  Joanna
raised the whole issue and flogged it to death.  Weeks ago now.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 02:20:30 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:

> I fully appreciate that this is a difficult topic because it has freedom of
> speech implications, but we don't have much of a choice.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg02731.html

On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:39:41 -0500, John Berryhill got it right:

> The issue is not censorship, but simple compliance with the law by US
> companies.  A domain registration contract is entirely separate from whether
> anyone is being "censored".  The issue is the continued performance of
> service contracts by US companies on behalf of parties with whom US law
> prohibits the performance of commercial service contracts.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg02750.html

So we don't need to discuss the content of the offending websites. Ok?

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: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 22:43:31 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Final Review Task Force Report

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 21:02:17 -0800 (PST), Rick H Wesson
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>On the issue of monies, the GA can do what every other DNSO constituency
>does:

Actually it is not that simple.

>   o find someone you trust
>   o have that person open a trust account
>   o elect officers (chair, co-chair, and treasurer)

The NC appoints our chair under ICANN bylaws.  We have no power of
general competence to elect officers.

>   o levy dues

Unlike constituencies we have no ability to levy dues and/or remove
people for non payment.  Our role is defined in the ICANN bylaws.

>   o spend the money in the interest of the GA.
>   o report how monies are spent, leave an accountable paper
>     trail for the public to evaluate the good faith effort.
>
>There is nothing preventing the GA from doing the above.

The ICANN bylaws do.  

A group of individuals could do the above but that would not be the
same as the GA doing it.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #903
************************