Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #927
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, December 14 2001          Volume 01 : Number 927

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

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 02:28:37 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] consensus

Friday, Friday, December 14, 2001, 2:13:30 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> What I can't get is why you don't understand that changing something that's
> working, risks breaking it.

Because the not changing leaves the domains with the registrar who has
the biggest risk of actually screwing up your domains in practice,
much more so than any other registrar.  To this day, NSI has domains
being hijacked via forged faxes.

You think your domains are safe if you leave them there?

They aren't.

When balanced against the risk of hijacking, the risk you are taking
by staying there is much greater than any of the fictional and
theoretical risks that you and others have dreamed up in this thread.

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 06:06:02 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfer

Eric and all assembly members,

  A little self promoting politicking I see.  Very well!  >;)

  I agree that the Transfer TF representative from the GA should be
technically adept.  Perhaps that is not your strong suit, Eric?
However I still agree with Danny's original concept in regards
to this Transfer TF with respect to runner-up's as observers.
Hence I cannot endorse Jonathan Wienbergs consideration.
It should have also been put forth as a official motion as well.
I will comment on that in a separate post this evening.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Thank you all for endorsing the letter to help the Chair move forward.
> This is consensus of those who vote.
>
> Let me put it this way.  There are many factors and simplistic one level
> opinions will not help this problem.
>
> I appreciate your points of view but I cannot recommend any so far
> presented because they deal in a single platform. (agreed there are some
> that realize the many levels)
>
> This task may be beyond us unless we form a WG within the GA to assist
> the TF member.
>
> I endorsed the letter and i want us to move appropriately forward.  This
> task is suited to a diplomat and not a purist or engineer.  in my humble
> opinion it is only suited to consensus among us.
>
> So let it be known that if I am the rep on the TF for transfers i will
> do all in my power to get this groups latitude on every move and project
> it onto the TF.
>
> WXW thank you for your measured responses they shall put forward.
>
> What are your measured responses Mr. TR?
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> --
> 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, 14 Dec 2001 06:08:17 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Transfers

Eric and all assembly members,

  I believe that the comments/observations between Leah and WXW
on this important issue speak for themselves very nicely.  Perspective
is where this issue will come down on in the end anyway.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I am just not concerned with the nicety of language.  Heck I got a degree in
> linguistic philosophy. NAU 1980.
> I learned above all that words taken out of common usage or context mean little to
> helpful conversation.
>
> I understand WXWs' comments for what he means and I see the protagonism with Leahs'
> comments.
>
> We must be aware that the difference lies in perspective.
>
> I agree with both but yet see the faults in both.  ( and what if we do not reach a
> consensus here on their respective positions -- then a compromise would be in
> order?
>
> Comments?
>
> Eric
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > WXW and all assembly members,
> >
> > William X Walsh wrote:
> >
> > > Thursday, Thursday, December 13, 2001, 3:46:32 PM, L Gallegos wrote:
> > >
> > > > that my domains are protected.  In addition, if a domain is lost in transit
> > > > and the original registrant can show a paid invoice for it, it should be
> > > > automatically recovered whether it was deleted or not.  This, IMO, is a
> > > > fatal flaw in the process that allows hi-jacking and wrongly protects both
> > > > the gaining registrar and the hijacker.  It's an error in the system and
> > > > should be handled as such.
> > >
> > > Domains are never lost "in transit"
> >
> >   True.  They just can't or "Won't" be found...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Some people here appear to have a real lack of understanding of the
> > > transfer process and how it works.
> >
> >   Present company not included I suppose?  Of course many people do not
> > understand the transfer process.  That is one of many reasons why a
> > TF is needed and being called for...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> > 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
>
> --
> 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, 14 Dec 2001 06:12:29 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2001-12-13 15:29:37 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> >I endorse this letter
>
> So do I.
>
> Jeff: How about joining the club?

  Club?  Hummmm.  I thought the DNSO GA was an assembly?  Am
I wrong?  I don't think I am.

>  That would be immensely helpful
> for the GA.

  Perhaps.  However I am in agreement with Danny's original thoughts
on this.  Ergo in that Jonathan did not post or even suggest this
as a motion or even a poll, I find it inconsistent to "Join the Club",
as you put it...  So I will have to decline on procedural as
well as ethical grounds...

>
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/

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, 14 Dec 2001 10:59:42 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] consensus ? WXW redhering and JFC's smart DN

On 09:37 14/12/01, William X Walsh said:
>Friday, Friday, December 14, 2001, 12:17:43 AM, L Gallegos wrote:
> > Eric,
>
> > The point I was trying to make is that one cannot state categorically that
> > there are and will not not be errors in tranfsers that cause a domain to be
> > lost to the registrant.  Therefore, there is a necessity to protect the
> > registrant if it should occur.
>
>It does occur. In the event of the hijacking related incidents I've
>already related, the domains were returned to their original owners,
>after the two registrars investigated what happened an made sure that
>it was in fact a real case of a hijacking.  The registrars actually
>seem to work well together on fixing these kinds of issues.
>
>Nothing I can see indicates that it is even POSSIBLE to lose a domain in a
>registrar transfer (and the person you had contact me off list was not
>an example of a domain being lost during transfer, but was a result of
>a registrar not processing domain transfer requests in a timely
>fashion, causing the transfer to be denied by the losing registrar
>when it was done past the expiration date, and the gaining registrar
>refusing to refund the money (unlawfully in my opinion) and requiring
>her to pay again to transfer the same domain).
>
>But in the event something like this did in fact happen to occur (like
>Hell froze over or something  :) I'm confident the registrars would
>work to deal with it appropriately.  It is in their best interests to
>do so, and they have shown a history of doing so in similar
>situations.
>
>I really think this is a red herring issue.
>
>The Registrars are addressing important issues already that related to
>this, such as data escrow, and procedures for dealing with the closure
>of a registrar, etc.  The parts of the issue I've seen show that the
>registrars are setting a higher standard for themselves than ICANN has
>required, and I think that shows a real commitment by the registrars
>to provide for registrant protection in areas like this.

Dear WXW,
from personnal experience everything is possible. Also I do not rely at all 
on any Registrar or Registry to do anything. The reason why is that they 
have not the budget for it. So old people with a dedication to their 
company still have some reflex from the time they had money. But they go.

You see the decrease in quality every day and in staffing creating huge 
delays, lost of time with daily shifts and people to get explained again 
and again - you probably call your Registrar your own business hours, quite 
different at night your time. There obvious historical problems and no list 
cleaning.

I will give you an example. For one of my DN the zipcode has been swicthed 
to the city four or five years ago. Probably some manual rebuild or some 
discrpancy between a French enty and an US entry from a document (most of 
the codes are before the city name, not the zipcodes).

I tried for a long time to transfer that name. But the NSI program wanted 
to have a zip+city name and when it had them ... it did not martch. I 
thereofre sent mails over mails to get the DN transfered. Eventually I got 
it ... lost and got a lot of probles to get it back ... with the same 
problem so I cannot have it transfered. I understand there is a problem of 
authority: they do not have the right to change the data manually so they 
cannot correct the list. I suppose to have sweard people to clean the list 
and relating with the potential problem would be awfull cost.

The only solution is to add a password into the domain name entry. The 
person who has the password and only that person can get it changed how it 
wants. And the only solution to have a password which is not lost is to get 
it on a smart card. And the only solution to have the smart card not lost 
is to issue three cards : one to the customer, one to his bank, one to the 
NSI bank.
But to be sure that works with a reasonable cost and procedure is to have 
the domain names made non transferable without the domain and life long. 
You will note that if you have the domain name embodied in the smart card, 
the smard card is part of the physical property of the domain owner, and 
may certainly be the whole domain. But standard laws apply.

By the way the smart card solution is the only realistic solution to 
support the QuiEst approach which is the only reasonable parade to Passport 
and Porject Liberty while still working with them.

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 12:42:12 +0000
From: Daniel Pare <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!

Please add my name to the list of endorsements

Daniel Pare

Alexander Svensson wrote:
> 
> [I ask other GA members to endorse this appeal to the Chair
> by co-signing this message.]
> 
> ============================================================
> 
> Dear GA Chair,
> 
> the NC Transfer Task Force, from which you have resigned,
> will start their work with a conference call next week.
> 
> During the nomination phase of the election, the GA expected
> to send one representative. Three candidates have come forward
> to become this (single) representative. Now, there is the
> possibility that two or three representatives (one voting,
> one or two non-voting) can be sent. The election cannot be
> changed midway without distorting the GA voters' choice:
> It would lead to an automatic election of candidates.
> The GA voters should therefore have the right to choose
> whether to send any of the candidates to the Task Force.
> 
> Since elections during the upcoming holidays would be
> very inconvenient and the Task Force work is about to begin,
> we ask you to quickly start elections for a GA representative
> on the Task Force, following the approach suggested by
> Jonathan Weinberg
> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03615.html):
> 
>   On the ballot, allow GA members to vote YES/NO on each of the
>   three candidates.  The rule would be that the candidate with the
>   most YES votes is the representative, and the next highest
>   vote-getter is the observer, except that a candidate will not be
>   deemed elected to *any* position unless he receives YES votes
>   on more than half the ballots submitted.  That gives the GA
>   the option to elect two people if it chooses, but it also gives a
>   majority of the GA the ability to say that it doesn't want
>   particular people representing it on the TF (as either
>   "representative" or "observer").
> 
> Please make sure that the GA is represented on the Task
> Force, and please act quickly, so that the Secretariat
> can set up the election in time before the holidays!
> 
> Regards,
> /// Alexander
> 
> ============================================================
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
***************************************************************
Dr. Daniel J. Paré, 
Research Fellow
Media@LSE/Department of Sociology
The London School of Economics & 
Political Science
Houghton Street
London, WC2A 2AE
Tel:  44-0207-955-7695
Fax:  44-0207-955-7405
***************************************************************
- --
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, 14 Dec 2001 08:16:10 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Transfers

[For those of you reading this on the NC Transfers TF mailing list, this
message is a response to a lively discussion on transfers on the GA mailing
list. -rwr]

Folks,

A domain name is really composed of three portions - the record that lives
in the registry database, the record that lives in the registrar database
and the record that lives in the DNS. For the purposes of transfers, the one
that only really matters is the one that lives in the registry database.

As the domain, in this case, is nothing more than a record in a database
(mostly unaffected by what lives in the DNS or the Registrar database) there
are really only three things that can happen to a domain name - it can be
Added/Created, Modified or Deleted. They can't be "transferred" per se.

A transfer of a domain name is nothing more than a modification to the
domain name record in the database that changes the registrar of record and
the last updated fields. Nothing more.

For instance, a transfer of "example.com" from its current registrar to a
new one means that the record is changed from:

(note: the line numbers below have been added by me for clarity)

1.   Domain Name: EXAMPLE.COM
2.   Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
3.   Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
4.   Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
5.   Name Server: NS.ISI.EDU
6.   Name Server: VENERA.ISI.EDU
7.   Updated Date: 05-nov-2001

to

1.   Domain Name: EXAMPLE.COM
2.   Registrar: TUCOWS, INC.
3.   Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
4.   Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
5.   Name Server: NS.ISI.EDU
6.   Name Server: VENERA.ISI.EDU
7.   Updated Date: 14-dec-2001

Only lines #2 and #7 actually change - there is no transfer of the record in
any sort of technical or physical sense (ie - it doesn't move to a new
database or get transported to another registrar.

This is why the proper name of a transfer is actually "transfer of
sponsorship" - a new registrar is sponsoring the domain name in the registry
database.

As such, it is extremely unlikely (to the point of being impossible) that a
domain name would get "lost" during a transfer, nor would resolution be
effected purely by the transfer.

This doesn't change the fact that domain names can;

- - be hijacked by a third party posing as the registrant and requesting a
transfer to a new registrar.
- - get deleted and subsequently reregistered by a third party, effectively
hijacking a name.
- - get lost during transfers of ownership depending on the practices of the
sponsoring registrar.
- - stop resolving properly because of a botched transfer of nameservers.
- - etc.

Hopefully this clarifies the discussion somewhat. There are a few more steps
to the process of a transfer of sponsorhip, but they have no effect on these
statements (for instance, the new registrar must add the domain name to the
whois etc.)

- -rwr

- --
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, 14 Dec 2001 09:16:05 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election: Letter to the GA Chair, please endorse/sign!

Alexander Svensson wrote:
> 
> [I ask other GA members to endorse this appeal to the Chair
> by co-signing this message.]
> 
I endorse it.
- --
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, 14 Dec 2001 08:11:59 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Domain Transfers

|> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 5:16 AM

|> A transfer of a domain name is nothing more than a 
|> modification to the domain name record in the 
|> database that changes the registrar of record and
|> the last updated fields. Nothing more.
|> 
|> For instance, a transfer of "example.com" from its 
|> current registrar to a new one means that the 
|> record is changed from:

|> 1.   Domain Name: EXAMPLE.COM
|> 2.   Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
|> 3.   Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
|> 4.   Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
|> 5.   Name Server: NS.ISI.EDU
|> 6.   Name Server: VENERA.ISI.EDU
|> 7.   Updated Date: 05-nov-2001
|> 
|> to
|> 
|> 1.   Domain Name: EXAMPLE.COM
|> 2.   Registrar: TUCOWS, INC.
|> 3.   Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
|> 4.   Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
|> 5.   Name Server: NS.ISI.EDU
|> 6.   Name Server: VENERA.ISI.EDU
|> 7.   Updated Date: 14-dec-2001
|> 
|> Only lines #2 and #7 actually change - there is no transfer 
|> of the record in any sort of technical or physical sense 
|> (ie - it doesn't move to a new database or get transported 
|> to another registrar.
|> 
|> This is why the proper name of a transfer is actually "transfer of
|> sponsorship" - a new registrar is sponsoring the domain name 
|> in the registry database.
|> 
|> As such, it is extremely unlikely (to the point of being 
|> impossible) that a domain name would get "lost" during a 
|> transfer, nor would resolution be effected purely by the 
|> transfer.

This is all well and good. Now, what happens to the Host Records? I want to
register a new host, where do I do it? 
- --
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, 14 Dec 2001 11:20:04 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Transfers

>
> This is all well and good. Now, what happens to the Host Records? I want
to
> register a new host, where do I do it?

Old ones automagically migrate with the domain. Your new registrar should
have the facility in place to allow you to simply create new ones, or do it
for you. If not, find a new registrar - or pick a good one in the first
place.

There is a "bug"/"feature" within Verisign's registry that may prevent you
from creating a host in very specific instances but I understand that this
will go away in early January.

- -rwr

- --
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, 14 Dec 2001 11:26:48 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Particular People

Alexander Svensson, in citing the approach advocated by Jonathan Weinberg, 
argues that this option gives a  majority of the GA the ability to say that 
it doesn't want "particular people" representing it.  

For more than the last six months the Names Council has made it clear that 
they do not want "particular people" (the GA) to participate in open working 
groups.  They believe that they have the right to decide as a majority that 
they can discriminate against the membership of this Assembly and to take 
procedural steps to limit the participation of those undesirables that would 
otherwise be free to openly participate in the work of the DNSO.   I have 
steadfastly argued that such an approach disenfranchises our membership and 
contravenes the spirit of our Bylaws.

Our Bylaws require that we shall operate consistent with procedures designed 
to ensure fairness.  Denying "particular people" their right to fully 
participate in the ICANN process is contrary to our founding principles.

Accordingly, I will not support the approach advocated by Alex Svensson.

In the history of our planet we have noted many attempts to deny a voice to 
"particular people":  women, blacks, homosexuals (most of whom, as activists, 
were viewed by the majority as kooks, trouble-makers or ranting lunatics).   
Within democratic institutions, the majority has long believed that it has a 
right to discriminate against the minority -- but ICANN, as we know, is not a 
democratic institution, it is a consensus-based organization in which every 
voice, no matter how shrill or annoying, is guaranteed the opportunity to 
fair participate.

Three members of our Assembly have come forward expressing an interest in 
doing a job that nobody else was willing to do.  I do not wish to deny them 
that opportunity just because a majority that was unwilling to do that job 
thinks that it has a right to discriminate against them.

I extend to the Assembly the opportunity to discuss and debate this matter 
further.  I will notify the Secretariat of a final decision on Monday.

- --
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, 14 Dec 2001 17:37:05 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Call for nomination of candidates to represent GA on NC TRANSFER Task Force

GA Members,

The procedures and timeline for the DNSO GA election to designate
its representative to the Names Council Transfer Task Force
are published in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GA-TransferTF.html

The Call for nomination of candidates to represent the GA
to the Names Council Transfer Task Force is open now.

DNSO Secretariat
- ---

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GA-TransferTF.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

    DNSO GA election to designate its representative to the Names Council
                      Transfer Task Force,  December 2001 / January 2002

14 December 2001
  I. The Names Council  asked the General Assembly to designate
     its representative to the Transfer Task Force.
II. The GA Chair asked the Secretariat to initiate an election process to
     designate the GA representative to the Names Council Transfer Task
Force.

III. The Secretariat determined that this election will take place between
     14 December 2001 and 11 January 2002, with the following agenda:
        o Friday , 14 December 2001 - Call for nominations issued
        o Thursday, 03 January 2002 - List of candidates closed
        o Thursday, 03 January 2002 - Vote of the GA voting registry
initiated
        o Thursday, 10 January 2002 - Vote of the GA voting registry closed
        o Friday, 11 January2002 - Results calculated and announced

IV. Nomination of candidates to represent the GA on the Names Council
     Transfer Task Force:

          Opens Friday, 14 December  2001, 17:00 UTC, 18:00 CET (Paris),
          Closes Thursday, 3 January 2002,   11:00 UTC, 12:00 CET (Paris)

          The acceptance period closes on Thursday, 3 January 2001 at 14:00
          UTC, 15:00 CET (Paris), 3 hours after the nominations.

          (For local time in other places see
          http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

             * Nominations must be sent by e-mail to
               [email-masked].

               Please use a Template for nomination:

                  1a. Full name of the nominee:
                  1b. E-mail address of the nominee:
                  2a. Full name of the nominator:
                  2b. E-mail address of the nominator:
                  2c. Type of GA membership:
                      (GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber,
                       GA-voting registry, Working Group subscriber,
                       or DNSO Constituency member)

               Each nominee will be requested for an acceptance statement
               by the Secretariat.

             * Acceptances must be sent by e-mail to
               [email-masked].

               Please use a Template for acceptance:

                  1a. Full name of the nominee:
                  1b. E-mail address of the nominee:
                  1c. Background information about the nominee:
                  1d. Statement of the nominee's objectives
                      in the role as GA delegate to the NC Transfer TF:

             * Archives of nominations and acceptances received:

               http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/gatf-nominations/Arc01
              On 3 January 2002 at 11:00 UTC, 12:00 CET (Paris), the
               ga-nominations list will be closed.

             * Nominees listed in order of acceptances (updated daily):

  V. A Watchdog Committee has been formed to police the nomination process
     to help detect and cure any instances of fraudulent activity in
     connection with the nomination process.

     Any instances of fraudulent nominations should be reported to this
     committee at the following email address: [email-masked], with a
     copy to the Names Council at [email-masked], This committee and the
     Names Council shall have the sole discretion as to how to deal with any
     such reported activity.

     Watchdog Committee list archive in
     http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/

     The members of the Watchdog Committee in the 2001/2002 election are:
        o Roberto Gaetano
        o Harald Alvestrand
        o Kent Crispin
        o Dany Vandromme
        o Alexander Svensson
        o Izumi Aizu

VI. Election by the General Assembly to designate its representative to the
     NC Transfer Task Force.

     The Electorate will be those GA members who subscribed to the GA Voting
     Registry http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html.

          Voting opens Thursday 3 January 2002, 16:00 UTC, 17:00 CET
(Paris),
          Voting closes Thursday 10 January 2002, 15:00 UTC, 16:00 CET
(Paris)

          (For local time in other places see
          http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

          The results are due no later than Friday 11 January 2002, at
          16:00 UTC, 17:00 CET (Paris), and will be published in
          http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-TransferTF-vote.html

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

                   Information from:  © DNSO Secretariat

- --
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, 14 Dec 2001 08:45:23 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Domain Transfers

|> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 8:20 AM

|> > This is all well and good. Now, what happens to the Host 
|> Records? I want
|> to
|> > register a new host, where do I do it?
|> 
|> Old ones automagically migrate with the domain. Your new 
|> registrar should have the facility in place to allow you 
|> to simply create new ones, or do it for you. If not, find 
|> a new registrar - or pick a good one in the first
|> place.
|> 
|> There is a "bug"/"feature" within Verisign's registry that 
|> may prevent you from creating a host in very specific 
|> instances but I understand that this will go away in early 
|> January.

Actually, I've been bitten by this particular roach. That's why I knew what
to ask. The point is that this was over 10 months ago and the roach still
lives. I know for fact, that NSI knew about this over six months ago, and
the roach lives yet. Now, you say Jan02 before someone steps on it, a bit
late, don't you think?

Software roaches are like real-world roaches, where there is one, there are
many. The fact that NSI is willing to live in a roach infested house does
not inspire confidence. They never did get the Guardian system to work
right, have they? It's been what, over 3 years? They can't claim budget
shortage either.

I treat it like a highly polluted lake. As long as you don't stir up the
mud, the water remains clear. However, touch anything on the bottom and you
also stir up the pollutants. They need to detox and I don't see a detox
team, anywhere on the horizon, that's any better than the clowns that
polluted the lake in the first place.

If you think that I'm satisfied, you'd be wrong. My view is that anything
less than a complete detox would be as noticable as a fart in a hurricane.
In fact, it might be worse. It will disturb the lake bottom and you will
find toxins that many have forgotten about. Real winners.

What the registry needs is a complete data-scrub and migration to a
completely new system, with no legacy code transfer, done by real
professionals, familiar with carrier-scale information systems, practices,
and procedures. Anything short of that makes me more than a mite nervous.

- --
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, 14 Dec 2001 11:55:16 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Transfers

>
> If you think that I'm satisfied, you'd be wrong. My view is that anything
> less than a complete detox would be as noticable as a fart in a hurricane.
> In fact, it might be worse. It will disturb the lake bottom and you will
> find toxins that many have forgotten about. Real winners.
>
> What the registry needs is a complete data-scrub and migration to a
> completely new system, with no legacy code transfer, done by real
> professionals, familiar with carrier-scale information systems, practices,
> and procedures. Anything short of that makes me more than a mite nervous.
>

This is why policy (not just transfers) that favors competition is so
important. Verisign might actually take this suggestion seriously now that
there are some notCom contenders out there (Neulevel, Afilias etc.) Based on
some of the indications that I perceived at their recent partners
conference, I would have to say that they are definitely thinking in a more
competitive manner.

- -rwr

- --
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, 14 Dec 2001 11:54:55 -0500
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Particular People

         As Alexander has pointed out, the issue here is not whether 
Thomas, or Eric, or Jeff can participate in ICANN processes; it is whether 
they can participate in this task force **as representatives of the 
GA**.  Alexander argues that the GA membership should get to decide who our 
representatives will be.  You are arguing that we should not get to make 
that decision.  While you have opposed NC actions that "disenfranchise[] 
our membership," you are disenfranchising the membership here.  Further, 
you are doing so in the face of clear and widespread opposition to your 
position among the GA membership, and *no* expressions of support for that 
position other than that of Jeff Williams.  That ill behooves a chair whose 
function is to articulate and implement GA consensus.

Jon

At 11:26 AM 12/14/2001 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>Alexander Svensson, in citing the approach advocated by Jonathan Weinberg,
>argues that this option gives a  majority of the GA the ability to say that
>it doesn't want "particular people" representing it.
>
>For more than the last six months the Names Council has made it clear that
>they do not want "particular people" (the GA) to participate in open working
>groups.  They believe that they have the right to decide as a majority that
>they can discriminate against the membership of this Assembly and to take
>procedural steps to limit the participation of those undesirables that would
>otherwise be free to openly participate in the work of the DNSO.   I have
>steadfastly argued that such an approach disenfranchises our membership and
>contravenes the spirit of our Bylaws.
>
>Our Bylaws require that we shall operate consistent with procedures designed
>to ensure fairness.  Denying "particular people" their right to fully
>participate in the ICANN process is contrary to our founding principles.
>
>Accordingly, I will not support the approach advocated by Alex Svensson.
>
>In the history of our planet we have noted many attempts to deny a voice to
>"particular people":  women, blacks, homosexuals (most of whom, as activists,
>were viewed by the majority as kooks, trouble-makers or ranting lunatics).
>Within democratic institutions, the majority has long believed that it has a
>right to discriminate against the minority -- but ICANN, as we know, is not a
>democratic institution, it is a consensus-based organization in which every
>voice, no matter how shrill or annoying, is guaranteed the opportunity to
>fair participate.
>
>Three members of our Assembly have come forward expressing an interest in
>doing a job that nobody else was willing to do.  I do not wish to deny them
>that opportunity just because a majority that was unwilling to do that job
>thinks that it has a right to discriminate against them.
>
>I extend to the Assembly the opportunity to discuss and debate this matter
>further.  I will notify the Secretariat of a final decision on Monday.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>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 #927
************************