Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-08

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

I oppose by what is said and what is left unsaid.

This is not nor will it ever be under TR more than his propaganda
machine.

e

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's (and related)
> discussions and news during the 8th (and the beginning of the 9th)
> week of 2002.  GA list archives are available online at
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/maillist.html>.  Please
> feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be appropriate.
>
>                                 Votes
>
> The nomination period for the Names Council chair was ongoing.  The
> gTLD registry constituency has nominated Cary Karp.  Philip Sheppard
> of the Business Constituency, the current chair, is available for a
> second term.
>
>                                 Topics
>
> (i) Deleted domain handling; supplemental information on domain name
> redemption.  ICANN published a supplemental paper which detailed the
> proposal in various points: Registrar processes remain mostly
> unchanged, registries should be allowed to take a "cost-recovery
> service charge", and registrants should be able to choose the
> renewing registrar.
> <http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-supplement-20feb02.htm>
>
> Genie Livingstone was not the only one to mention domain harding as
> a problem which should be addressed first.  However, Genie produced
> a sample of 100 4-letter domains being in "on hold" status,
> beginning with the letter "A", in order to understand what currently
> happens.  The result was that a particularly large number of the
> domains investigated is held by Verisign Registrar, with
> Register.com following on the second place.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01089.html>,
> <http://www.eyeondomain.com/__aadomains-tabulated.htm>.
>
> Harold Whiting followed up to notice that "as of a few days ago, NSI
> registrar was backlogged with over 1.3 million names that are
> overdue for deletion." He suggests a Uniform Registrars' Deletion
> Policy which should be mandatory for registrars.  He suggests that,
> upon expiration, a domain should immediately be put "on hold", and
> become unusable for a (uniform, I suppose) period not less than 40
> days.  After that period, domains should be returned to the registry
> and become available for re-registration.  However, "registry shall
> queue all names marked for deletion using the standard '5 day hold'
> process used now."
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01094.html>
>
> William Walsh replied that this proposal would tie up some of
> registrars' capital for a 45 day period, which would hurt smaller
> registrars. While the same is the case with the current grace
> period, that one is optional, while Harold's proposal would make it
> mandatory.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01095.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01097.html>.
>
> Abel Wisman pointed out that a possible solution to this problem may
> be to charge renewal fees to the registrar on the 45th day of
> expiry, unless a domain is returned to the registry.  Fees would
> then be non-returnable.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01098.html>
>
> (ii) Structure.  After the board's retreat over the week-end, a
> restructuring proposal done by ICANN's Lynn was posted.  According
> to this proposal, the current board of directors would be replaced
> by a (smaller) board of trustees.  Some trustees would be appointed
> by governments (one trustee per geographical region), some would
> represent so-called policy councils (replacing the current
> supporting organizations, and being lead by "steering groups" which
> would replace the current councils), and some would be co-opted by
> the board. In particular, there would be no more "at large"
> elections.
>
> Constituencies would be replaced by "forums", and would not
> automatically send representatives to the steering groups.
>
> The board of trustees would be expected to make policy decisions by
> itself, as opposed to the current board's mission (as far as theory
> is concerned).
>
> See <http://www.icann.org/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm>
> for details, and <http://www.icannchannel.de/lynn-proposal.pdf> for
> a nice chart of the suggested structure done by Alexander Svensson.
>
> Alexander also provided some preliminary comments, noting, in
> particular, that "the Board seems to elect itself according to this
> proposal." He also asks how non-commercial and individual users make
> sure their voice is heard: Assuming that they have indeed
> representatives in the steering groups (the proposal reserves seats
> for non-commercials and individuals in the steering group of the
> generic TLD names policy council), they would have to convince the
> remainder of the steering group, which could then write a
> recommendation for the board. The board, in turn, could ignore such
> recommendations.  Alexander concludes that, "to have an influence on
> the ICANN process, having a seat on the board and/or the new
> nominating committee seem to be good places."
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01127.html>
>
> (iii) Registrar data accuracy.  Danny younger forwarded an excerpt
> from a New York Times article on registrar data accuracy.  In the
> article, the counsel of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts,
> the Internet and Intellectual Property claims that many registrars
> did not reply to a message from the committee which requested
> information "about whether and how the companies verify customer
> data."
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01138.html>
>
> Rick Wesson replied that "we" (we being Alice's Registry) "responded
> and sent a lengthy letter discussing how difficult it is to identify
> invalid addresses.  There is no known method of verifying a snail
> mail address in over 100 countries."
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01139.html>
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html