From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #30 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Thursday, March 9 2000 Volume 01 : Number 030 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 16:58:06 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: [wg-c] RE: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKI - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07-Mar-2000 bob broxton wrote: > OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF THIS REPORT AS "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKING > > GROUP C OF THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, INTERNET > CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS" > > As a member of Working Group C, I object to the release of this report > "Report (Part One) of Working Group C of the Domain Name Supporting > Organization, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" > (hereafter referred to as "Report of Working Group C") for the > following reasons: > > 1. The members of Working Group C have never given approval of this > Report. As such, this is not a "Report of Working Group C". We know you seek to do anything to delay and block introduction of new gTLDs, Bob. After all it would cause a depreciation in the value of your ccTLD registration service. But your comments here are simply false. This report IS a report of the Workgroup. It summarizes the findings of the workgroup and does an excellent job presenting the points of rough consensus as well as the points of contention. It is interesting to note that only yourself and another latecomer to the workgroup C progress objected. I think that alone shows that indeed this report IS a valid report of the workgroup. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4xaWe8zLmV94Pz+IRAtAQAKC3P18PsBc00DcMQGer/u+GP/XxmgCg0KwG FHAm43Pjwl6JPcTezHocc4w= =TUsx - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:02:13 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: [wg-c] Re: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKI On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 04:58:06PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: [...] > >We know you seek to do anything to delay and block introduction of new gTLDs, >Bob. After all it would cause a depreciation in the value of your ccTLD >registration service. > >But your comments here are simply false. > >This report IS a report of the Workgroup. It summarizes the findings of the >workgroup and does an excellent job presenting the points of rough consensus as >well as the points of contention. "Report *of* the Workgroup" is vastly different than a "report about the workgroup". >It is interesting to note that only yourself and another latecomer to the >workgroup C progress objected. I think that alone shows that indeed this >report IS a valid report of the workgroup. Please note that I also objected, and I can neither be labeled a "latecomer" nor can I be accused of being willing to do "anything to delay and block introduction of new gTLDs." What I am concerned about is the absolute procedural incoherence in WG-C. Previously we have gone through formal "consensus calls" and posting for public comment. Now, suddenly, those procedures are unnecessary, and tossed by the wayside. Since I argued against application of some of those procedures, perhaps I should be grateful about Jon's sudden change of heart. But I'm not. The contrast in procedures between earlier work and this last effort are rather stark, and, in my opinion, seriously undermine whatever credibility this process may have. Was the report approved by a vote? No. Was any other process for affirmation agreed to? No. Was the report posted for public comment? No. Was the report posted for comment on the list? Yes, but with an extraordinarily short time limit. Was the report a group effort, with input from multiple members of the WG? No -- it was the work of one person, working privately. It would be fair to call Jon's paper a "Chair's Summary". - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 19:05:04 -0800 From: Justin McCarthy Subject: Re: [wg-c] vote? William, The sentiment that Jon's report is simply a summary of what the group's findings were has crossed my mind. I'm sure the vote breakdowns and so forth are accurate--however, the issue is, and I'm not alone, with the way these findings have been presented--ie: do we call it a group report--have we given equal representation to dissenting viewpoints, etc. Another issue concerns group dynamics--the initial group was around 60 and now it's 140--are we still in touch with the views of the group? Obviously, I'm at a huge disadvantage because I'm a relative newcomer. I did not intend to be a bomb thrower or impugn the integrity of Jon's report--he's an outstanding co-chairman--rather, my intent was to achieve the right dialectic to ensure the most supported outcome. I realize time is short and, if I have, I apologize for contributing to any stalemate. Sincerely, Justin McCarthy "William X. Walsh" wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 06-Mar-2000 Justin McCarthy wrote: > > Gentlemen, > > Agreed. It would be absolutely ridiculous to revisit every > > issue every time a neophyte chimed in. Progress should > > definitely not be stopped short. But, if a Co-Chairman can > > issue a report for a group without the approval of the > > report by the group, why have members of the group? Doesn't > > the very name "Group Report" imply (perhaps falsely) broad > > group support? > > The report is nothing more than summary of the issues that the group has > already developed at least a rough consensus behind, either by list polls > conducted in the past or by there being a general sense that opposition to a > point was nearly non-existant. > > It was posted to see if the list members could find any areas where he grossly > mischaracterized or misstated our existing findings. > > - -- > William X. Walsh > http://userfriendly.com/ > Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 > GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) > Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ > > iD8DBQE4w7G48zLmV94Pz+IRAoE3AKDAVYEgcDtZa6WZORJ9qWVUulsjgACgvaxX > CyF1TBIlh6z3D8qfIVIUYjs= > =cpMs > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 21:47:29 -0500 From: Paul Garrin Subject: Re: [wg-c] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKING GROUP C...." As a member of Working Group C, I hereby support the report submitted by the chair of the group. I believe that the report is a fair and accurate and balanced representation of the work done in this group, and fairly reflects the issues of consensus and contention that have played out in WG-C during the period of my participation. Paul Garrin Founder/CEO Name.Space, Inc. http://name-space.com > > > > OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF THIS REPORT AS "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKING >
GROUP C OF THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, INTERNET >
CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS" >

As a member of Working Group C, I object to the release of this report > "Report (Part One) of Working Group C of the Domain Name Supporting Organization, > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" (hereafter referred > to as "Report of Working Group C")  for the following reasons: >

1.   The  members of Working Group C have never given > approval of this Report.  As such, this is not a "Report of Working > Group C". >

2.   The members of Working Group C have not given approval > to allow the co-chairman of Working Group C to use his absolute discretion > in determining what goes in this particular report and then releasing this > report as a "Report of Working Group C".  As such, this is not a "Report > of Working Group C". >

3.  The co-chairman of Working Group C has decided to release this > report as the "Report of Working Group C" over the known  objections > of some members of Working Group C to releasing the report as the "Report > of Working Group C'. >

4.   Some members of  Working Group C probably do not > know this "Report of Working Group C" exists.  An extremely short > period of time (approximately 7 days) was allowed to review and provide > any suggestions regarding this document. >

5.   The co-chairman has refused to change the name of the > report to "The Co-Chairman's Report on the Progress of Working Group C".  > This would permit the material in the report to be released but allow the > members of Working Group C  to approve and release a report from Working > Group C entitled "Report of Working Group C". >

6.   The issuance of this report, without the members of Working > Group C approving, either the language in the report or granting this authority > to the co-chairman, sets a bad precedent for future reports.  Why > have members? >

7.   Public Comments have never been requested on this "Report > of Working Group C".  Prior public comments were received on an Interim > Report.  The "Report of Working Group C"  being released now > has new materials for which public comments have never been received. >

8.   The release of any "Report of Working Group C" without > first obtaining public comments on a draft of the report is contrary to > ICANN's stated policy of " the development of consensus based policies > (such as policies concerning new names) in an open, transparent and bottom-up > manner in which interested individuals have an opportunity to participate > and comment" (see ICANN FAQ on new generic top level domains - posted September > 13,1999). >

9.  This report was hurriedly prepared and little time allowed > for review because "Members of the Names Council" requested "WG-C file > a report before the NC's meeting in Cairo next week."   Either > Working Group C should be allowed sufficient time to study the issues, > explore all the options and timely complete a report or the Names Council > should disband the Working Group.  To require a Working Group to hastily > prepare a report for the sake of an upcoming meeting, with insufficient > time for members to study, provide comments and approve the report, does > not establish a lot of faith in the ICANN process. >
  >

Bob Broxton >
Member of Working Group C >
Richmond, VA >
  >
  >
  > - --------------------------------------------------------- Get Free Private Encrypted Email https://mail.lokmail.net Switch to Name.Space: http://namespace.org/switch ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 20:07:01 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: [wg-c] Re: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKI - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08-Mar-2000 Kent Crispin wrote: > It would be fair to call Jon's paper a "Chair's Summary". Is there anything contained in the report that is substantively against the rough consensus reached on the list, Kent? If not, then it is more than a "Chair's Summary" even if the document itself was not formally voted on. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4xdHl8zLmV94Pz+IRAjRdAKCMHZRA5/Z52ADFotM60kFPt/WZgQCgm1Fy q0CgEvIAqJztAKQLHBgUeQY= =90dJ - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 21:50:26 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: [wg-c] Re: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKI On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 08:07:01PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: > > On 08-Mar-2000 Kent Crispin wrote: > > It would be fair to call Jon's paper a "Chair's Summary". > > Is there anything contained in the report that is substantively against the > rough consensus reached on the list, Kent? Like many people, I haven't had time to read it and think about it, much less write up any comments. That is one of the problems. > If not, then it is more than a "Chair's Summary" even if the document itself > was not formally voted on. That doesn't follow. Jon could have written nothing but "The WG discussed things", and it still wouldn't be any more than a "Chair's Summary", without the some kind of involvement or approval of the WG. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 21:54:11 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: [wg-c] Re: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKING GROUP C...." On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 10:17:50PM -0700, Michael wrote: > Bob: > Since the report unequivocally reflects the views of a majority of the > Group, "Unequivocally???" That's rich. :-) - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 08:55:24 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: [wg-c] Re: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKI In a different context, sentencing a guilty man to death following a fundamentally unfair trial is not an injustice. In a pig's eye. The whole idea of democracy is that the validity of a policy is not judged by its substance, but by its having been forged through legitimate, democratic means. Monarchical government ignores the means by which a policy is forged and pretends that the policy, if issued by one of the elect few who "know" what is right, is perforce correct. The Internet is an arena of perception as much as anything else, and the way in which the report is being issued cannot be perceived as reflective of the consensus of the WG, much less the Internet Community. That much said, it should not be overlooked that much about ICANN lacks even a shred of legitimacy. After seven attempts to join the GA and subscribe to the GA list, I have given up the quest. The NCDNHC join-up process is seriously broke, and there's no evident (much less transparent) mechanism for bringing the brokenness of the process to the attention of anyone. Most of all, the decision of ICANN not to add new GTLDs to the root except as supported by the consensus of the Internet Community is indistinguishable from waiting for the arrival of the chimera before ringing the dinner bell. It's not going to happen. The smart money has been on NSI all along. This whole process no longer even tries to resemble anything other than a very poorly constructed shaggy dog story. Kevin J. Connolly The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP This note is not legal advice. If it were, it would come with an invoice. As usual, please disregard the trailer which follows. >>> "William X. Walsh" 03/07/00 11:07PM >>> - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08-Mar-2000 Kent Crispin wrote: > It would be fair to call Jon's paper a "Chair's Summary". Is there anything contained in the report that is substantively against the rough consensus reached on the list, Kent? If not, then it is more than a "Chair's Summary" even if the document itself was not formally voted on. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4xdHl8zLmV94Pz+IRAjRdAKCMHZRA5/Z52ADFotM60kFPt/WZgQCgm1Fy q0CgEvIAqJztAKQLHBgUeQY= =90dJ - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:23:08 -0500 (EST) From: Alex Kamantauskas Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKI >> It would be fair to call Jon's paper a "Chair's Summary". > > Is there anything contained in the report that is substantively against the > rough consensus reached on the list, Kent? > > If not, then it is more than a "Chair's Summary" even if the document itself > was not formally voted on. > If the document was not voted upon, then it is not a report of the working group. Just replace the word "report" with the word "summary" and everything will be okay. Just because the title gets changed, the content doesn't get changed. My .02 cents - I think the whole argument is kind of silly. - -- Alex Kamantauskas alexk@tugger.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 06:23:55 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ON - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08-Mar-2000 Alex Kamantauskas wrote: > My .02 cents - I think the whole argument is kind of silly. It's also moot. The report has already been presented. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4xmJ78zLmV94Pz+IRAihmAKDeTpu73dbhkattAE/M60XOwjezwACgjUDR R3ViD5Qe/JLHPWvQVU7e1ew= =cj0J - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 12:08:42 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKI A good resolution from Cairo: The NC wants to circulate the report for public comment, as the report of the WG, *but* they're giving us another ten days to get the report to them. This will allow us to go through the procedural steps that have been missing so far -- vote and additional time for comment. The NC also wants more discussion in the report of our *ongoing* agenda, so I will try to circulate a revised version tomorrow, along with some sort of plan for a vote. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 06:51:36 -0800 (PST) From: T Vienneau Subject: RE: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout I support the consensus call that: Registries would apply describing their proposed TLD, and an ICANN body or process would make selections taking into account the characteristics of both the registry and its proposed TLD. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #30 *************************