Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #981
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, January 13 2002           Volume 01 : Number 981

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 11:55:33 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] search engines

- --part1_38.216c1ad0.2971c485_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

interesting !

This is from http://unclaimeddomains.com

This is referring to the names that are dropped by  InterNIC.

But for the average chump... none of that will ever matter. 
Because UnclaimedDomains.com has exclusive, insider access to these newly 
expired names, and our members are the only people on the internet who get to 
see them! 

<A HREF="http://www.unclaimeddomains.com/freesample.html">Click here for a FREE sample.</A> 

- --part1_38.216c1ad0.2971c485_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">interesting !
<BR>
<BR>This is from http://unclaimeddomains.com
<BR>
<BR>This is referring to the names that are dropped by &nbsp;InterNIC.
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="times new roman" LANG="0">But for the average chump... none of that will ever matter. 
<BR>Because <B>UnclaimedDomains.com</B> has exclusive, insider access to these newly expired names, and our members are the<B> only </B>people on the internet who get to see them! 
<BR>
<BR><P ALIGN=RIGHT><B><A HREF="http://www.unclaimeddomains.com/freesample.html">Click here for a FREE sample.</A></B></B> 
<BR><P ALIGN=LEFT>    
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></P></P></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_38.216c1ad0.2971c485_boundary--
- --
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, 12 Jan 2002 09:48:24 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NOTICE/GA-WG-Delete/RFC

Please take notice that certain members of the GA of the DNSO of ICANN
are forming a working group
to attempt to reach some consensus on the matters of policy regarding
Domain Name deletions.

The Working Group will be open to all GA members that chose to
participate.  It will follow established precedence and formally adopted
rules regarding Working Groups.

The address of the working group will be ++++++ for the immediate
future.

Concurrent with this notice we request that a Formal Working Group be
established for this purpose and
all work done within our Working Group will cede to that of the more
formally authorized Working Group,
should there be one established.

The group will work in basically two phases which will operate
concurrently but dependent upon each other.
Due to the suggestion and well reasoned position of my esteemed
colleague Mr. William Walsh we will first of
all form questions to the VRSN Registry.  It would appear that there
will be cooperation between the group and said registry.
Secondly we will endeavor to adopt a set of principals that transcend
technical applications and protocols with public policy applications and
protocols.

There may well be departure from our still formative best practices
within this working group as this is a first time experience for the GA
which we will acknowledge as being somewhat experimental.
___________________

Questions:

1.    Who do we send it to?
2.    What links and/or other references should be attached?
3.    Should we attempt for signatories or should I just send it off
with
the understanding that I shall step aside from any further management
role?
4.    I would prefer to remain this vague on exact parameters as I
believe that
will be the first job of the group and I do not believe it should be
dictated.

This is a working paper, I have no vested interest in its' evolution so
feel free to totally
trash it or support it. My feelings will not be hurt.

A particular Secretary General in a particular SouthEast Asian country
looked at me and asked:
"do you really think there is any chance of running a governance body by
using bottoms-up, open and
transparent, consensus policies?"
My response was: "I guess we will only find out if we try"
His response: "We will be quite interested and watching"
My response: "I was afraid of that"

Well here we go - to my knowledge this is the first formed bottoms-up
open and transparent, GA WG attempt at consensus on an outside issue.

Best to all of you.
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

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:36:33 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WG Delete Progress

- --------------019FC82DC8E012483834C73A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

No,

It is getting all so serious with ourselves that we cannot move
forward.  That
destroys lists.  Did you know that mean and viscious attacks increase
participation
on lists quantitatively?  But pleasantness and humor exponentially
increases our
odds at consensus.

I also think that the main cause of destroying lists is "professional"
list destroyers.
Kooks like me do not destroy anything except a closed mind.
On our beta sites I log on as the destroyer, because by my ineptness I
invariably
find a user friendly flaw in the programs.  I punched in Bangladesh for
the country
and a zip code and it fouled the system just last wednesday.

But if you talk about a Billion users and how they are effected and how
and what influences them, then you need to open the horizons.

Morality is coming into the Internet, would you have us stick our heads
in the
sand and pretend it does not exist?  Our code writers may no longer
pretend
that all they have to think about is code.  They must think of effects
on users.
- --------

Written to me by a good friend of this list;

> In a message dated 1/12/2002 11:01:07 AM Central Standard Time,
> [email-masked] writes:
>
>
>
>> SEC, NC, BoD, the Pope, DoC all SOs, IETF, All DNSO groups and
>> obviously
>> VRSN.
>
> You gotta be kidding !   It's kooky stuff like this that has destroyed
> this list.

Eric

- --------------019FC82DC8E012483834C73A
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
No,
<p>It is getting all so serious with ourselves that we cannot move forward.&nbsp;
That
<br>destroys lists.&nbsp; Did you know that mean and viscious attacks increase
participation
<br>on lists quantitatively?&nbsp; But pleasantness and humor exponentially
increases our
<br>odds at consensus.
<p>I also think that the main cause of destroying lists is "professional"
list destroyers.
<br>Kooks like me do not destroy anything except a closed mind.
<br>On our beta sites I log on as the destroyer, because by my ineptness
I invariably
<br>find a user friendly flaw in the programs.&nbsp; I punched in Bangladesh
for the country
<br>and a zip code and it fouled the system just last wednesday.
<p>But if you talk about a Billion users and how they are effected and
how
<br>and what influences them, then you need to open the horizons.
<p>Morality is coming into the Internet, would you have us stick our heads
in the
<br>sand and pretend it does not exist?&nbsp; Our code writers may no longer
pretend
<br>that all they have to think about is code.&nbsp; They must think of
effects on users.
<br>--------
<p>Written to me by a good friend of this list;
<br>&nbsp;
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=-1>In a message
dated 1/12/2002 11:01:07 AM Central Standard Time, [email-masked] writes:</font></font>
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<blockquote TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=-1>SEC,
NC, BoD, the Pope, DoC all SOs, IETF, All DNSO groups and obviously</font></font>
<br><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=-1>VRSN.</font></font></blockquote>
<font face="Arial"><font color="#000000"><font size=-1>You gotta be kidding
!&nbsp;&nbsp; It's kooky stuff like this that has destroyed this list.</font></font></font></blockquote>

<p><br>Eric
<br>&nbsp;
</body>
</html>

- --------------019FC82DC8E012483834C73A--

- --
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, 12 Jan 2002 10:51:09 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] search engines

Hello,

- --- [email-masked] wrote:
> interesting !
> 
> This is from http://unclaimeddomains.com
> 
> This is referring to the names that are dropped by  InterNIC.
> 
> But for the average chump... none of that will ever matter. 
> Because UnclaimedDomains.com has exclusive, insider access to these
> newly 
> expired names, and our members are the only people on the internet
> who get to 
> see them! 

That's just pure marketing-speak, Jess, and has no basis in reality.
There's lots of competition in the drop list providers market too.
Without naming them all, one free source is NameWinner's "Starting
Line", at http://www.namewinner.com/search.php . There are at least a
dozen others that are providing the lists, and many generate their own
lists based on the raw "Zone Files" provided by Verisign. Of course,
Verisign will count those as part of the 100 million "checks" to the
system daily, and could reduce the load if they provided a daily
complete list.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:07:02 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems

On  Sat, 12 Jan 2002 18:44:39 +0100 (MET), Eric Dierker wrote:

> Please take notice that certain members of the GA of the DNSO of ICANN
> are forming a working group to attempt to reach some consensus on the
> matters of policy regarding Domain Name deletions.

Hi Eric

A la Jeff Williams, I propose a poll:

In relation to setting up a GA working group on domain name registration
systems to address important issues such as domain name expirations and
deletions:

In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]
Against setting up a GA working group [ ]
No opinion on setting up a GA working group [ ]

I'd appreciate if those with "no opinion" would vote accordingly.  Thanks.

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: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:16:06 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems

 In relation to setting up a GA working group on domain name registration
 systems to address important issues such as domain name expirations and
 deletions:

 In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]
 Against setting up a GA working group [ ]
 No opinion on setting up a GA working group [ ]

- -- 
Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:49:35 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: .SHEESH

Hi Adam

I see that as tantamount to blackmail.  You should stoop so low.
If you wish to sue me, do so.  You are a little shit.

I am ashamed to be a fellow Australian.

In disgust.

Patrick Corliss

On  Saturday, January 12, 2002 10:43 AM, Adam Todd replied:

> As of 1 January 2002 due to funding expiration, we no longer provide any
> services without a fee.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:33:51 -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:

Adam--

The TLDA (Top Level Domain Association) is working to eliminate colliders.
Collaboration is essential to make the alternative root clusters succeed.

I am writing yet again because your root zone for .SHEESH remains out of synch
with my instructions. See
http://root-dns.org/scripts/VueDig.php?tld=sheesh&B1=Submit

You continue to point .SHEESH as follows:
Australian Root Server Confederation : 203.21.205.2
sheesh. 1d23h46m40s IN NS ns2.ah.net.
sheesh. 1d23h46m40s IN NS ns4.ah.net

Please change .SHEESH in your root zone to point to
the following servers:

ns1.merchantware.com 209.170.142.34 - PRIMARY
ns2.merchantware.com 209.170.142.35
ns1.vrx.net 199.166.24.1

This is the set of machines that I wish to be authoritative for .SHEESH.
I have been requesting this simple programming change since August of 2000 --
before your problems with Integral began and before your interests moved to
other areas.

If you lack a) resources, b) time, c) interest, and d) control to point to new
servers for .SHEESH, please explain to the TLDA that AURSC is no longer able
to fulfill administrative requests in a timely manner so that other root
server operators can route around this damage. It is simply unreasonable to
hold .SHEESH hostage any longer.

Regards,

Ellen Rony

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ellen Rony )/_ http://www.domainhandbook.com
Co-author, Domain <" \ http://www.domainsleuth.biz
Domain Name Handbook /) ) [email-masked]
- ---/'-""---
The more people I meet, the more I like my cockatiel.

- --
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, 12 Jan 2002 18:55:52 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems

In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]

Saturday, January 12, 2002, 6:07:02 PM, Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]> wrote:

PC> On  Sat, 12 Jan 2002 18:44:39 +0100 (MET), Eric Dierker wrote:

>> Please take notice that certain members of the GA of the DNSO of ICANN
>> are forming a working group to attempt to reach some consensus on the
>> matters of policy regarding Domain Name deletions.

PC> Hi Eric

PC> A la Jeff Williams, I propose a poll:

PC> In relation to setting up a GA working group on domain name registration
PC> systems to address important issues such as domain name expirations and
PC> deletions:

PC> In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]
PC> Against setting up a GA working group [ ]
PC> No opinion on setting up a GA working group [ ]

PC> I'd appreciate if those with "no opinion" would vote accordingly.  Thanks.

PC> Best regards
PC> Patrick Corliss

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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, 12 Jan 2002 17:58:01 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] both polls

In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]

Not in favor of WLS proposal [X]

Unless somebody is posting Xs out there against these two things and is
keeping it secret I guess we had better keep moving along.

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

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 13:04:39 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: .SHEESH

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:02:20 -0800 (PST), Rick H Wesson wrote:

> Since the GA has nothing to do with alternative roots, please take this
> discussion to a more apporpiate frum

Hi Rick & GA Members

I made that posting in a moment of weakness.  I have since been informed
privately that extorting money from people is normal business practice.  I did
not understand this clearly.  Please accept my apologies for my mistake.

However, I don't agree that alternate roots is off topic for the [ga] list.

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: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:08:07 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] Hal Lubsen - the unanswered questions remain, and he refuses to answer

Richard and all assembly members or other interested parties,

  Of course your question is a very good one.  Your concerns are broadly
shared
as has been made pretty clear in the recent press coverage of this ICANN

generated fiasco.  The ICANN BoD and staff were warned that this would
or could be one of the fall outs of this disgusting sunrise provisions
without
close oversight.  the ICANN BoD and staff were either ill equipped or
not interested in doing that oversight as they are contractually
required to do
under the MoU and White Paper.

Richard Henderson wrote:

>   If the Afilias Sunrise process permitted "NONE" to be submitted in
> every single Trademark data field, then what was the point of allowing
> that, since it simply enabled anyone to register a domain at Sunrise,
> whether they had a Trademark or not.
>
> If the Afilias Sunrise process did NOT permit "NONE" to be submitted
> in every single Trademark data field - and the ICANN/Afilias contract
> makes clear that it was NOT permissable - then WHY did Hal Lubsen's
> company DomainBank submit over 90 names like this, and charge $15000
> for the scam?
>
> And is it not STAGGERING, that the Afilias CEO should be embroiled in
> the abuse of his own Sunrise procedures like this?
>
> And why will he not defend his actions, or apologise to the people who
> were defrauded as a result?
>
>

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, 12 Jan 2002 20:12:57 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Addressing the Problems

Abel and all assembly members,

  I agree that what you suggest Abel is one way in which to proceed.
The biggest problem with doing so however is that the GA members
and most especially the NC would likely not recognize any conclusions
that could possible be derived if what you suggest is to be initiated
from within the DNSO GA.

Abel Wisman wrote:

> Undoubtedly there are a lot of rules to be observed.
>
> Whether you should always do so is a totally diffreent matter.
>  In life one sometimes has to act instead of delaying by applying for all the
> right way.
>
> The idea is to have a seperate list to work this out and come to a consensus
> opinion which will then be proposed to the GA, as happens with all workgroups.
>
> I can not see why we can not simply start and file the needed requests at the
> same time, explaining we made use of avaialble resources in the meanwhile.
>
> Division starts wth laying out rules that delay, then you can succesfully
> push anything you want to ignore the GA on in the meantime stating they did
> not reach consensus (in time).
>
> Considering the number of postings makes it clear not everyone enters this
> discussion, perhaps more perhaps less will do so on a seperate list.
>
> If need be we can run a quick questionaire on the GA to see if the GA has
> faith in such an approach.
>
> I for one am for acting instead of waiting for the inevitable.
>
> abel
>
> On Saturday 12 January 2002 9:45 am, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:01:46 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> > > I can read the best practices and GA rules but I find no rules for the
> > > GA setting up an internal working group.
> >
> > Formal rules have been established by ICANN in their Bylaws.  However, I
> > think we all agree that formal procedures are up to the GA within the
> > framework established by the Names Council.
> >
> > What that means is that the GA should get its act together.
> >
> > > What is the logical problem with using an already existing list.
> >
> > The existing lists were established at the GA Chair's request to the DNSO
> > Secretariat following my suggestion as Alt Chair.  They do not, therefore,
> > have the approval of the GA as a body.  As a result, members can argue that
> > the Chair did not have the proper authority of the GA.
> >
> > Should the GA decide that it is appropriate to set up a Working Group for
> > any reason, the special purpose mailing lists are available for use.
> >
> > I do wish, however, that people would not ascribe bad motivations to what I
> > have been trying to achieve viz an effective body to formulate domain name
> > policy.
> >
> > > I find no suggestions even that indicate asking the Secretariat is
> > > appropriate.
> >
> > The DNSO Secretariat effectively follows instructions from the NC.  Unless
> > there is general consent, it is difficult to persuade the DNSO Secretariat
> > to do anything.
> >
> > > WXW absolutely does not want anything on any other forum within the GA.
> >
> > I can't speak for William but my understanding is that he will not
> > countenance procedures that have not been properly approved.  Whilst I
> > understand his approach, I find that a little inflexible when gaining that
> > approval is so burdensome.
> >
> > What it means, in my view, is that we spend more time than necessary
> > debating procedural issues at the expense of substantive issues which we
> > need to address.  I have expressed that point to the list on many
> > occasions.
> >
> > In other words, if the list is there I would rather just use it.
> >
> > > Patrick insists we use the lists that are pre-established and call them a
> >
> > sub-list.
> >
> > My own concept was to have the GA develop "terms of reference" which they
> > could refer to working groups on relevant subjects like transfers and
> > expiries.  The working group would then report back to the main body of the
> > GA for final approval.
> >
> > Whilst this is administratively convenient, there is a danger of creating a
> > group that is not representative of the main body.  I see that as not an
> > issue as the final approval will rest with the GA as a whole.  It is also
> > in line with similar methods used throughout the world.
> >
> > > You insist on the nearly impossible - getting the secretariat and NC to
> > > act,
> >
> > and
> >
> > > formal voting, and a gratuitous list for a WG.  (you might as well ask
> > > code
> >
> > writers
> >
> > > to show up to work in tuxedos)
> >
> > I don't always understand your comments but agree there are difficulties.
> >
> > > I do not see one of you having as a primary agenda, putting together a
> > > group that can correlate existing comments, provide relevant questions
> > > and come up with consensual and dissenting positions.
> >
> > That, Eric, is the problem which we are trying to address.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Best regards
> > Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> Abel Wisman
> office  +44-20 84 24 24 2 2
> mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16
>
> www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
> www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
> www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
> www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
> --
> 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, 12 Jan 2002 20:15:35 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WG Delete Progress

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> We are making great progress here and I personally thank you for all
> your input.
>
> Please correct this statement if it is wrong.
>
> The GA has never on its own established a working group.

  Yes you are wrong.  The WG A, B, C, D, and E were created
by request of the predominance of the DNSO GA members.
Although these WG were improperly restricted as to GA member
participation...

>
>
> Establishment of working groups has never been a bottom up approach.
>
> WGs have always been established from the top down.
>
> With these truths it is consistent that we beg for the top to allow us a
> WG.
>
> However and with that said;
>
> I believe it is wrong.
>
> It would appear that working groups should be established at this level
> and the
> results passed up.
>
> Jeff would you please reconcile this with your position regarding notice
> and
> appropriate approval.  Although I address it below.  I think we are
> seeing it
> the same way but expressing it differently.  At any rate we will be
> moving forward
> with your notice demand.
>
> At this point I think we can move forward by;
>
> Giving notice and request input from all the substantial players a
> partial list would be:
> SEC, NC, BoD, the Pope, DoC all SOs, IETF, All DNSO groups and obviously
> VRSN.
>
> Using for the time being ga-sys and remaining open to improvement.
>
> Acknowledging this is not an issue regarding sublists, simply a
> convenience for expedience.
>
> I think I can move with Jeffs point if I apply it thusly, "notification
> is not about asking, it
> is about respect and openness and transparency and if we begin by
> showing such respect
> then we have a far better chance of receiving it"
> (the immediate above is what we all know we need for funding)
>
> Oh and about the Pope, go ahead and laugh, within a few months he
> will announce a Saint of the Internet, How many billion Latin American
> users do you
> think that will effect.  No, I am not, I am an Episcopal lay minister.
>
> This has taken some real effort by real people who want to do what is
> right but
> disagree on method.  Thank you all again.
>
> Please sign up for the ga-sys list so we can take off on Monday.  If we
> lose any participants because
> it is going to a sublist, I humbly apologize but I can find no
> reasonable compromise that will
> please everyone.
>
> 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: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:19:31 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NOTICE/GA-WG-Delete/RFC - Attn. DNSO Secretariat and NC

Eric and all assembly members,

  Has the NC been notified of what you are trying to start up here
Eric?  Philip, please advise.  Have you made a request to the NC
and the DNSO Secretariat Eric?  Secretariat, Please advise...
If not Eric, I cannot support this effort as being one that is
in the best interest or supported by the DNSO GA members...

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Please take notice that certain members of the GA of the DNSO of ICANN
> are forming a working group
> to attempt to reach some consensus on the matters of policy regarding
> Domain Name deletions.
>
> The Working Group will be open to all GA members that chose to
> participate.  It will follow established precedence and formally adopted
> rules regarding Working Groups.
>
> The address of the working group will be ++++++ for the immediate
> future.
>
> Concurrent with this notice we request that a Formal Working Group be
> established for this purpose and
> all work done within our Working Group will cede to that of the more
> formally authorized Working Group,
> should there be one established.
>
> The group will work in basically two phases which will operate
> concurrently but dependent upon each other.
> Due to the suggestion and well reasoned position of my esteemed
> colleague Mr. William Walsh we will first of
> all form questions to the VRSN Registry.  It would appear that there
> will be cooperation between the group and said registry.
> Secondly we will endeavor to adopt a set of principals that transcend
> technical applications and protocols with public policy applications and
> protocols.
>
> There may well be departure from our still formative best practices
> within this working group as this is a first time experience for the GA
> which we will acknowledge as being somewhat experimental.
> ___________________
>
> Questions:
>
> 1.    Who do we send it to?
> 2.    What links and/or other references should be attached?
> 3.    Should we attempt for signatories or should I just send it off
> with
> the understanding that I shall step aside from any further management
> role?
> 4.    I would prefer to remain this vague on exact parameters as I
> believe that
> will be the first job of the group and I do not believe it should be
> dictated.
>
> This is a working paper, I have no vested interest in its' evolution so
> feel free to totally
> trash it or support it. My feelings will not be hurt.
>
> A particular Secretary General in a particular SouthEast Asian country
> looked at me and asked:
> "do you really think there is any chance of running a governance body by
> using bottoms-up, open and
> transparent, consensus policies?"
> My response was: "I guess we will only find out if we try"
> His response: "We will be quite interested and watching"
> My response: "I was afraid of that"
>
> Well here we go - to my knowledge this is the first formed bottoms-up
> open and transparent, GA WG attempt at consensus on an outside issue.
>
> Best to all of you.
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #981
************************