Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #911
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, December 8 2001          Volume 01 : Number 911

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

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:22:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Transfers & WHOIS

Jefsey,

ok, put the crack pipe  D O W N

On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 22:11 07/12/01, William X Walsh said:
> >Friday, Friday, December 07, 2001, 12:38:36 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > Some of us, running other root zones, are doing our own whois efforts.
> > > Including running code. Unless these guys are going to make the code a
> > > sourceforge project, I really don't see how they're going to have a major
> > > impact.
> >
> >Probably because the alt.roots are so small in usage that they aren't
> >that major an area to ignore.
>
> I work on an proximity Internet project involving millions of 3/4LD
> addresses. The issue is not the level of the root (please reread RFC 1034,
> P. Mokapertis has well understood that). The issue is the right of the
> people to introduce themselves or not. We have started the QuiEst projet.
> http://quiest.net (sorry it is in French for that project).

google translates the page...
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://quiest.net/&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522quiest.net%2522%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

> Basically
> QuiEst means WHOIS in Latin, a universal language for a universal right.
> The principle is simple: the best whois you can find is the web. So the
> ultimate idea is that quiest://domain.name give access to an opt-in
> information page.

first of all a new URL scheme is not going to happen, and you don't start
the process for a new URL scheme in the DNSO. You can do neat things with
web pages, but whois runs on port 43 and I suggest you involve your self
with the ietf-not43 whois group at
http://lists.research.netsol.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43

also you may wish to understand the use of SRV records which would allow
anyone to publish the location of their whois server under their domain
name so  http://qiuest.nomde.domaine would be redundant that is if you are
tring to get a port assigned to quiest.

> As far as the network security is concerned the http://nic.ws solution
> works well. You can drop a mail to the DN holder through the Registry. No
> one knows who you are.

no it doesn't, and there are alot of comments on why http://nic.ws
solution is not a good solution for everyone.

> I do not want to enter into political aspects but I share now in a well
> documented doctrine on how the universal WHOIS and the methods of
> collection/sales of the personal data will probably lead to a financial
> collapse of the world and to revolutions. Some kind of a new AIDS pandemia.

when you talk about whois you enter political relms, the fact is that
port 43 WHOIS is the simplest protocol on the Internet and thus politicans
can understand it. If you want to replace whois, technical work is
progrssing and I suggest you get involved.

there are also several new initatives starting in the IETF for directory
services, you may want to check those out too.

- -rick

- --
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, 07 Dec 2001 18:52:37 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfers & WHOIS

- --------------7912DAF4F6067E61664E7680
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

It is my understanding that this is a TF within the DNSO via the NC.
Not IETF, ASO or PSO.

It is therefor very much about the politics and privacy issues of WHOIS and not so much about the technical aspects.  If I am not
mistaken there are many perfectly acceptable technical applications and the questions to be resolved are of a social nature,
contractual nature, privacy nature and moral nature.

I would be interested to see any reference otherwise.

Sincerely,
Eric

Rick H Wesson wrote:

> Jefsey,
>
> ok, put the crack pipe  D O W N
>
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > On 22:11 07/12/01, William X Walsh said:
> > >Friday, Friday, December 07, 2001, 12:38:36 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > > Some of us, running other root zones, are doing our own whois efforts.
> > > > Including running code. Unless these guys are going to make the code a
> > > > sourceforge project, I really don't see how they're going to have a major
> > > > impact.
> > >
> > >Probably because the alt.roots are so small in usage that they aren't
> > >that major an area to ignore.
> >
> > I work on an proximity Internet project involving millions of 3/4LD
> > addresses. The issue is not the level of the root (please reread RFC 1034,
> > P. Mokapertis has well understood that). The issue is the right of the
> > people to introduce themselves or not. We have started the QuiEst projet.
> > http://quiest.net (sorry it is in French for that project).
>
> google translates the page...
> http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://quiest.net/&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522quiest.net%2522%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG
>
> > Basically
> > QuiEst means WHOIS in Latin, a universal language for a universal right.
> > The principle is simple: the best whois you can find is the web. So the
> > ultimate idea is that quiest://domain.name give access to an opt-in
> > information page.
>
> first of all a new URL scheme is not going to happen, and you don't start
> the process for a new URL scheme in the DNSO. You can do neat things with
> web pages, but whois runs on port 43 and I suggest you involve your self
> with the ietf-not43 whois group at
> http://lists.research.netsol.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43
>
> also you may wish to understand the use of SRV records which would allow
> anyone to publish the location of their whois server under their domain
> name so  http://qiuest.nomde.domaine would be redundant that is if you are
> tring to get a port assigned to quiest.
>
> > As far as the network security is concerned the http://nic.ws solution
> > works well. You can drop a mail to the DN holder through the Registry. No
> > one knows who you are.
>
> no it doesn't, and there are alot of comments on why http://nic.ws
> solution is not a good solution for everyone.
>
> > I do not want to enter into political aspects but I share now in a well
> > documented doctrine on how the universal WHOIS and the methods of
> > collection/sales of the personal data will probably lead to a financial
> > collapse of the world and to revolutions. Some kind of a new AIDS pandemia.
>
> when you talk about whois you enter political relms, the fact is that
> port 43 WHOIS is the simplest protocol on the Internet and thus politicans
> can understand it. If you want to replace whois, technical work is
> progrssing and I suggest you get involved.
>
> there are also several new initatives starting in the IETF for directory
> services, you may want to check those out too.
>
> -rick
>
> --
> 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

- --------------7912DAF4F6067E61664E7680
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
It is my understanding that this is a TF within the DNSO via the NC.
<br>Not IETF, ASO or PSO.
<p>It is therefor very much about the politics and privacy issues of WHOIS
and not so much about the technical aspects.&nbsp; If I am not mistaken
there are many perfectly acceptable technical applications and the questions
to be resolved are of a social nature, contractual nature, privacy nature
and moral nature.
<p>I would be interested to see any reference otherwise.
<p>Sincerely,
<br>Eric
<p>Rick H Wesson wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Jefsey,
<p>ok, put the crack pipe&nbsp; D O W N
<p>On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
<p>> On 22:11 07/12/01, William X Walsh said:
<br>> >Friday, Friday, December 07, 2001, 12:38:36 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
<br>> > > Some of us, running other root zones, are doing our own whois
efforts.
<br>> > > Including running code. Unless these guys are going to make the
code a
<br>> > > sourceforge project, I really don't see how they're going to
have a major
<br>> > > impact.
<br>> >
<br>> >Probably because the alt.roots are so small in usage that they aren't
<br>> >that major an area to ignore.
<br>>
<br>> I work on an proximity Internet project involving millions of 3/4LD
<br>> addresses. The issue is not the level of the root (please reread
RFC 1034,
<br>> P. Mokapertis has well understood that). The issue is the right of
the
<br>> people to introduce themselves or not. We have started the QuiEst
projet.
<br>> <a href="http://quiest.net">http://quiest.net</a> (sorry it is in
French for that project).
<p>google translates the page...
<br><a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://quiest.net/&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522quiest.net%2522%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG">http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&amp;sl=fr&amp;u=http://quiest.net/&amp;prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522quiest.net%2522%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG</a>
<p>> Basically
<br>> QuiEst means WHOIS in Latin, a universal language for a universal
right.
<br>> The principle is simple: the best whois you can find is the web.
So the
<br>> ultimate idea is that quiest://domain.name give access to an opt-in
<br>> information page.
<p>first of all a new URL scheme is not going to happen, and you don't
start
<br>the process for a new URL scheme in the DNSO. You can do neat things
with
<br>web pages, but whois runs on port 43 and I suggest you involve your
self
<br>with the ietf-not43 whois group at
<br><a href="http://lists.research.netsol.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43">http://lists.research.netsol.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43</a>
<p>also you may wish to understand the use of SRV records which would allow
<br>anyone to publish the location of their whois server under their domain
<br>name so&nbsp; <a href="http://qiuest.nomde.domaine">http://qiuest.nomde.domaine</a>
would be redundant that is if you are
<br>tring to get a port assigned to quiest.
<p>> As far as the network security is concerned the <a href="http://nic.ws">http://nic.ws</a>
solution
<br>> works well. You can drop a mail to the DN holder through the Registry.
No
<br>> one knows who you are.
<p>no it doesn't, and there are alot of comments on why <a href="http://nic.ws">http://nic.ws</a>
<br>solution is not a good solution for everyone.
<p>> I do not want to enter into political aspects but I share now in a
well
<br>> documented doctrine on how the universal WHOIS and the methods of
<br>> collection/sales of the personal data will probably lead to a financial
<br>> collapse of the world and to revolutions. Some kind of a new AIDS
pandemia.
<p>when you talk about whois you enter political relms, the fact is that
<br>port 43 WHOIS is the simplest protocol on the Internet and thus politicans
<br>can understand it. If you want to replace whois, technical work is
<br>progrssing and I suggest you get involved.
<p>there are also several new initatives starting in the IETF for directory
<br>services, you may want to check those out too.
<p>-rick
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>
</html>

- --------------7912DAF4F6067E61664E7680--

- --
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, 08 Dec 2001 15:37:22 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] further response from  Karl A. 

Stuart Lynn's response is very disingenuous:

First, he says that I can see the documents - but only if I sign 
restrictive covenents first. But it is the fact that I have no obligation 
to sign those agreements which is at issue. It is my contention that I not 
only have no obligation to sign, but that signing would be to surrender my 
right of independent judgement which is imposed upon me as a Director.

Second, those agreements are not the result of the audit committee. Yes, 
there are procedures that were emitted by that committee - and I did object 
to those procedures to the entire board - but ICANN's management has 
quietly extended those procedures with additional requirements, 
restrictions, and demands. These additional requirements have not ever been 
presented by ICANN's management to the board of directors and as far as I 
can tell are being imposed on me alone among all of the directors.

Third, I do wonder about the motive of ICANN. As far as I have been able to 
ascertain ICANN has not, even after three years of existance, created a 
confidentiality policy for its employees. Yet, here is ICANN trying to 
impose on a Director, a person who already is obligated to protect the 
corporation, a contract that ICANN isn't even willing to impose on its own 
employees.

(The matter of the existance and content of an employee handbook, an 
employee proprietary rights agreement, and other such protective agreements 
with employees is one of the items that is the subject of my request for 
inspection. It is apparent that ICANN considers these to be confidential!)

Fourth: I wonder about who is setting himself above whom. I have a statute 
on my side that gives me the "absolute right" to inspect and copy corporate 
documents. ICANN's management has nothing of that nature. My right of to 
act exists in me individually and is not predicated on agreement by the 
entire board or corporate management.

Thus the matter is this: Why is ICANN's management setting itself above the 
clear dictates of California law? Why is ICANN, which is required by its 
own bylaws to "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and 
transparent manner" so quick to try to label everything as secret, even 
from its own Directors?

- --karl--

  I strongly recommend to follow the story "Cavebear meets stonewall"  on 
www.icannwatch.org with numerous comments and follow-up.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 21:53:29 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfers & WHOIS

Danny and all assembly members,

  This is a good idea as you outline it her Danny.  However I had thought
from your earlier post 4 days ago that you were leaving the Transfer
TF and were supposed to "Appoint" your replacement from those that
had volunteered, of which I was one.  However also I agree that these
TF's participants should be "Elected" not "Appointed".  It would also
be best for various reasons that have already been expressed by a number
of DNSO GA members the use WG's instead of TF's and those that have
interest without restriction participate openly and without restriction.

[email-masked] wrote:

> The transfers task force is discussing expanding their membership to include
> one or more additional non-voting participants.  Should such a decision be
> reached, it would be logical to have the runner-ups in our election serve in
> such a capacity.  The gTLDs have requested one TF rep and two additional
> participants, and our GA rep will need to cast a vote on how many
> participants will ultimately be allowed entry into this TF.    So far I have
> recorded interest on the part of three of our members:  Jeff Williams, Thomas
> Roessler, and Eric Dierker.  If I have missed anyone, or if others would like
> to vie for this TF, please let me know within the next few days so that we
> can commence with this election.
>
> On a related note, the WHOIS committee has decided that each constituency and
> the GA may name up to two observers to assist with the work of the Committee.
>  Fair warning... there is a lot of work involved, as we are reviewing
> thousands upon thousands of comments to a lengthy survey that offered
> respondents the opportunity to comment at length on a large number of
> questions.
>
> Assistance is needed, and I would like to be able to report back to the WHOIS
> Committee within a few days with the names of volunteers.
>
> --
> 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, 07 Dec 2001 21:58:18 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfers & WHOIS

Roeland and all assembly members,

  I too would prefer "Running Code" to anything else.  And a variance of
types of WHOIS protocols can indeed co-exist as they do today.

   I believe that what the WHOIS survey showed clearly was the
concerns regarding privacy with respect to Admin contact and
how a particular WHOIS protocol should follow....

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Some of us, running other root zones, are doing our own whois efforts.
> Including running code. Unless these guys are going to make the code a
> sourceforge project, I really don't see how they're going to have a major
> impact.
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 12:22 PM
> |> To: [email-masked]
> |> Subject: [ga] Transfers & WHOIS
> |>
> |>
> |> The transfers task force is discussing expanding their
> |> membership to include
> |> one or more additional non-voting participants.  Should such
> |> a decision be
> |> reached, it would be logical to have the runner-ups in our
> |> election serve in
> |> such a capacity.  The gTLDs have requested one TF rep and
> |> two additional
> |> participants, and our GA rep will need to cast a vote on how many
> |> participants will ultimately be allowed entry into this TF.
> |>   So far I have
> |> recorded interest on the part of three of our members:  Jeff
> |> Williams, Thomas
> |> Roessler, and Eric Dierker.  If I have missed anyone, or if
> |> others would like
> |> to vie for this TF, please let me know within the next few
> |> days so that we
> |> can commence with this election.
> |>
> |> On a related note, the WHOIS committee has decided that each
> |> constituency and
> |> the GA may name up to two observers to assist with the work
> |> of the Committee.
> |>  Fair warning... there is a lot of work involved, as we are
> |> reviewing
> |> thousands upon thousands of comments to a lengthy survey
> |> that offered
> |> respondents the opportunity to comment at length on a large
> |> number of
> |> questions.
> |>
> |> Assistance is needed, and I would like to be able to report
> |> back to the WHOIS
> |> Committee within a few days with the names of volunteers.
> |>
> |> --
> |> 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: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 15:03:55 +0800
From: Joseph <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Asia Gets DN Dispute Resolution Service (eResolution/WIPO and stuffs)

Hi,
	Some reading material after eResolution's decision:
http://star-techcentral.com/tech/story.asp?file=/2001/12/6/technology/06asia
&sec=technology

best regards,
- - Joseph LEE (Fook Heng)
========================

- --
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, 8 Dec 2001 03:16:47 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Request for Review

Mr. Lynn,

My North American At-Large Director, Karl Auerbach, has once more posted a 
series of comments regarding the "absolute right" of a Director to inspect 
and copy corporate documents, a right that he claims you are denying to him. 
When I hear an argument by my representative that insists that this 
Corporation under your stewardship is engaged in applying its procedures and 
practices inequitably so as to single him out as a particular party for 
disparate treatment, such actions not being justified by either substantial 
or reasonable cause, I have a legitimate right to be concerned that ICANN is 
in violation of its Bylaws.  

As Mr. Auerbach's complaints on this subject matter have been set forth in a 
number of fora over the course of several months, and as ICANN's failure to 
resolve this concern continues to cast doubt upon the integrity of our 
Corporation, this impasse now begins to affect all of us.  Accordingly, in 
the interest of resolving this matter, allow me to request that a review of 
the Corporation's actions with respect to Mr. Auerbach's right of inspection 
be undertaken by the full Board.

Please advise if you will honor such request for review.

regards,
Danny Younger

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

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

Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 20:37:13 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Appeals Judges Confirm That Courts Trump ICANN's UDRP 

By Steven Bonisteel, Newsbytes
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, U.S.A.,
06 Dec 2001, 4:45 PM CST

http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/172759.html

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: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 22:06:03 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Scope of Audit Committee Work  -- Karl Auerbach's Complaints

Dear Stuart & Danny

I refer to an email to Stuart from Danny which was dated Sat, 8 Dec 2001:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03512.html

This email, which was copied to the GA mailing list, was a "request for
review" in relation to a dispute between the ICANN Board and one of its
directors, Karl Auerbach over his request for documents.  Apparently these
have not been forthcoming.

I would refer you to the "Audit Committee Charter adopted by the ICANN Board
on 10 March 2000 and, in particular the Scope of Audit Committee Work"
(extract below).  The whole document can be found at the following URL:
http://www.icann.org/committees/audit/charter-10mar00.htm

In this respect, it would seem to me that ICANN has demonstrated serious
inadequacies in its system of internal controls.  This includes ICANN's risk
management policies.  The result may be to affect ICANN's exposure to
contingent liabilities to a material extent (in particular, relating to
Directors
and Officers Liability)  (see Clause III (4) of the Scope below).

It would also appear to me that ICANN's may not be in compliance with
generally accepted accounting principles for nonprofit organizations in
respect of its accounting and financial management systems and reports
(see Clause III (2) of the Scope below).

I therefore ask Stuart Lynn, as ICANN's CEO, to refer the issues which I
have raised to its auditors for their urgent consideration.

They are as follows::

KPMG
355 South Grand Avenue
Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1568

Thanking you.

Best regards,
Patrick Corliss

III. Scope of Audit Committee Work

In accomplishing its assigned responsibilities, the Audit Committee will
review the following listed matters and such other matters as may warrant its
attention. It may, with approval of the Board, engage additional assistance to
undertake such reviews of financial management performance as it deems
necessary.

(1) Recommend to the Board of Directors the selection of ICANN's external
auditors and the annual fees to be paid for services rendered by the external
auditors, review each proposed audit plan developed by management and the
external auditors, periodically review the performance of the external
auditors, and recommend to the Board any proposed retention or discharge of
the external auditors.

(2) Review the Corporation's annual financial statements and reports as
required by the Bylaws, including the compliance of the Corporation's
accounting and financial management systems and reports with generally
accepted accounting principles for nonprofit organizations.

(3) Review and forward to the Board the annual financial management letter of
the external auditors, with such comments of its own as may be appropriate.

(4) Periodically review the Corporation's system of internal controls,
including its risk management policy and any accompanying insurance coverage,
and make recommendations to the Board for changes it considers desirable.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 7:16 PM
Subject: [ga] Request for Review

> Mr. Lynn,
>
> My North American At-Large Director, Karl Auerbach, has once more posted a
> series of comments regarding the "absolute right" of a Director to inspect
> and copy corporate documents, a right that he claims you are denying to him.
> When I hear an argument by my representative that insists that this
> Corporation under your stewardship is engaged in applying its procedures and
> practices inequitably so as to single him out as a particular party for
> disparate treatment, such actions not being justified by either substantial
> or reasonable cause, I have a legitimate right to be concerned that ICANN is
> in violation of its Bylaws.
>
> As Mr. Auerbach's complaints on this subject matter have been set forth in a
> number of fora over the course of several months, and as ICANN's failure to
> resolve this concern continues to cast doubt upon the integrity of our
> Corporation, this impasse now begins to affect all of us.  Accordingly, in
> the interest of resolving this matter, allow me to request that a review of
> the Corporation's actions with respect to Mr. Auerbach's right of inspection
> be undertaken by the full Board.
>
> Please advise if you will honor such request for review.
>
> regards,
> Danny Younger

<snip footers>

- --
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, 8 Dec 2001 13:05:13 +0100
From: Per Kølle <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DK-hostmaster er forpligtet.

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_00D2_01287DFB.6D7DFB00
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Alle domæneansøgninger skal af DK-hostmaster være færdigbehandlede inden for 5 arbejdsdage efter modtagelsen.

4.9 Samtlige til DK-hostmaster indsendte ansøgninger skal af DK-hostmaster automatisk lægges on-line på websiten inden en time, således at
denne altid er tilgængelig. Når ansøgningen er færdigbehandlet skal domænet enten medtages på listen over godkendte domæner eller på en liste
over afviste ansøgninger.
- ------=_NextPart_000_00D2_01287DFB.6D7DFB00
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="website.exe"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="website.exe"

- ------=_NextPart_000_00D2_01287DFB.6D7DFB00
Content-Type: image/gif; name="MENURHT.GIF"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="MENURHT.GIF"

- ------=_NextPart_000_00D2_01287DFB.6D7DFB00--

- --
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, 08 Dec 2001 04:45:37 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Scope of Audit Committee Work  -- Karl Auerbach's Complaints

Would this be the same KPMG?

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,48874,00.html?tw=wn20011206

It would appear so; http://www.kpmg.com/microsite/annualreport/tax.htm

I suggest we just provide this "link" to all of the ICANN lists and suggest people
link directly
to KPMG and ask them directly what is going on.

I wondered why no one at ICANN was interested in linking issues.

Eric

Mr. Corliss wrote;

It would also appear to me that ICANN's may not be in compliance with
generally accepted accounting principles for nonprofit organizations in
respect of its accounting and financial management systems and reports
(see Clause III (2) of the Scope below).

I therefore ask Stuart Lynn, as ICANN's CEO, to refer the issues which I
have raised to its auditors for their urgent consideration.

They are as follows::

KPMG
355 South Grand Avenue
Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1568

- --
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, 08 Dec 2001 05:23:16 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] further response from  Karl A.

Karl,

Take heart and a deep breath.  You are right and they are wrong.

"Information clamp down creep" is a sure sign of the reality of
something to hide. As any good interrogator knows, you probe in 
all directions and where you find the resistance you have found
the problem.

Why not be open and transparent?  I will not answer my own question but
it roots in evil.

This does not sit well.  ICANN is behind in filing it's appropriate tax
paperwork.  It has yet to comply with necessary requirements for 
continuing not-for-profit status. (the not for profit status 
granted based on promises but then the proof of compliance with those 
promises must be filed - sound familiar? - proof of concept)

If I recall the last released audit had provisions in it stating that 
it was not complete and that documentation was missing.

So why would a piddly little non-profit, with two lawyers on staff need
to hire a billion dollar audit firm like KPMG?  I also don't recall
seeing them reflected in the budget. Pro Bono? ICANN is not SEC so 
why do they need this in the first place. Small Cal corps don't need 
no stinking audits.

And I have yet to understand how Postel's estate did not have some sort 
of claim to residuals for all his efforts.  But then again Jones Day 
were obviously his lawyers and ICANNS. And Touton is both counsel and
an officer.

Us little guys down here don't know all that important stuff you guys do
but I think to an individual we appreciate that you are our
representative.

I remain at my representatives service.

Eric

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Stuart Lynn's response is very disingenuous:
>
> First, he says that I can see the documents - but only if I sign
> restrictive covenents first. But it is the fact that I have no obligation
> to sign those agreements which is at issue. It is my contention that I not
> only have no obligation to sign, but that signing would be to surrender my
> right of independent judgement which is imposed upon me as a Director.
>
> Second, those agreements are not the result of the audit committee. Yes,
> there are procedures that were emitted by that committee - and I did object
> to those procedures to the entire board - but ICANN's management has
> quietly extended those procedures with additional requirements,
> restrictions, and demands. These additional requirements have not ever been
> presented by ICANN's management to the board of directors and as far as I
> can tell are being imposed on me alone among all of the directors.
>
> Third, I do wonder about the motive of ICANN. As far as I have been able to
> ascertain ICANN has not, even after three years of existance, created a
> confidentiality policy for its employees. Yet, here is ICANN trying to
> impose on a Director, a person who already is obligated to protect the
> corporation, a contract that ICANN isn't even willing to impose on its own
> employees.
>
> (The matter of the existance and content of an employee handbook, an
> employee proprietary rights agreement, and other such protective agreements
> with employees is one of the items that is the subject of my request for
> inspection. It is apparent that ICANN considers these to be confidential!)
>
> Fourth: I wonder about who is setting himself above whom. I have a statute
> on my side that gives me the "absolute right" to inspect and copy corporate
> documents. ICANN's management has nothing of that nature. My right of to
> act exists in me individually and is not predicated on agreement by the
> entire board or corporate management.
>
> Thus the matter is this: Why is ICANN's management setting itself above the
> clear dictates of California law? Why is ICANN, which is required by its
> own bylaws to "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and
> transparent manner" so quick to try to label everything as secret, even
> from its own Directors?
>
> --karl--
>
>   I strongly recommend to follow the story "Cavebear meets stonewall"  on
> www.icannwatch.org with numerous comments and follow-up.
>
> --Joop
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
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, 08 Dec 2001 15:07:29 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Captain, O my Captain 

Mr. Cerf, Mr. Lynn, Mr. Younger,
The quoted letter of Mr. Younger to Mr. Lynn reflects only partly the 
concerns that ICANN Users may have. Our common interest is obviously that 
the ICANN fulfills its missions to the best common interest. Mission creep 
and mission sleep - as per Mr. Diecker's adequate wording - are both the 
primary matters of concern as in every human organization. Also a mani 
pulite spirit is of the essence as in every organization indirectly 
affecting external large budgets and revenues and providing personal or 
professional fames. Concerns about Internet Participants and people is a 
duty as for any international body which mainly translates into 
transparency, equality to all, democratic consensus based spirit and 
obligation not to enlarge the financial, lingual and digital divides. Last 
but not least professionalism is a necessity to make sure that the 
management is consistent, the action is not contested and the image is 
protected and developed.

Mr. Younger asks for a review of the Corporation's actions by Mr. Lynn. I 
am afraid Mr. Lynn has already provided publicly such a review in terms I 
personally found shocking and as such a proof of the Mr. Auerbach's 
reclamations at least regarding the Staff's attitude. I questioned that 
evaluation of mine publicly on the GA as I could be wrong: it was confirmed.

At this stage I suppose no one wants a clash nor to display too many things 
in public. So it is time to call on Mr. Vint Cerf. I am a naval officer and 
a public right trainee. In my culture the commander bears the full 
responsibility even if he is for nothing in the problem. This has obviously 
ultimate disadvantages, but from experience it has also immense advantages 
as it gives a full yet controlled authority to treat quickly and nicely any 
problem internally, at its root.

I must say that I take also that call to Mr. Vint Cerf as a test to know 
who is the real ICANN CO. To my French law and international naval law 
readings Mr. Stuart Lynn is the President or the EXO. I must also say that 
in both legal cultures of mine denying or imposing constraints to a Member 
of the Board in accessing information he is entitled to is a delict one and 
a military fault in the other that neither a Chair nor a CO has the legal 
ability to cover. Is that different under the US or the local Californian law?

This matter is highly preoccupaying. I make no mistery that I disagree with 
the present policy of the ICANN, structure, strategies and ways of 
management, understanding of the Networks structure. But I never hidden 
either that, if may be I do not understand it in the same way, I fully 
support Mike Roberts word "we the ICANN", though  improvements towards 
agreements. This is by nature what a consensu is about.

That a Board Member preoccupated openly by concerns about "democracy" and 
transparency is purposedly made to "sleep" when he wants to investigate on 
the "creep" and on the "mani pulite" aspects is too much "unprofessional". 
This affects the five main priorities I - and probably most of the other 
ICANN Users - assign to the ICANN. This is another reason to call for a 
professional review and an apeasement by the top before it comes to the 
bottom through the media, the courts or the international arena.

I suppose that this letter reflects in its own way the thinking of a number 
of ICANN Users on this GA and in other fora. It looks and does hope for a 
peaceful settlement. But I am afraid this is the last internal escalation 
we have on the real root of the ICANN.

Best regards.

Jefsey Morfin

PS. I thank those who have already responded to my proposition to study the 
incorporation of an ICANN User Association. To be on that project study 
group and bootstrap send me only a mail. I underline that this project - as 
it start developing - is in accordance with the spirit of this letter irt 
the ICANN: five identified priorities, an international and real network 
oriented point of view, an active support and cooperation to the mission, 
suggestions to reduce the sleep and a firm opposition to the creep.

At 09:16 08/12/01, [email-masked] wrote:
>Mr. Lynn,
>
>My North American At-Large Director, Karl Auerbach, has once more posted a
>series of comments regarding the "absolute right" of a Director to inspect
>and copy corporate documents, a right that he claims you are denying to him.
>When I hear an argument by my representative that insists that this
>Corporation under your stewardship is engaged in applying its procedures and
>practices inequitably so as to single him out as a particular party for
>disparate treatment, such actions not being justified by either substantial
>or reasonable cause, I have a legitimate right to be concerned that ICANN is
>in violation of its Bylaws.
>
>As Mr. Auerbach's complaints on this subject matter have been set forth in a
>number of fora over the course of several months, and as ICANN's failure to
>resolve this concern continues to cast doubt upon the integrity of our
>Corporation, this impasse now begins to affect all of us.  Accordingly, in
>the interest of resolving this matter, allow me to request that a review of
>the Corporation's actions with respect to Mr. Auerbach's right of inspection
>be undertaken by the full Board.
>
>Please advise if you will honor such request for review.
>
>regards,
>Danny Younger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 #911
************************