Real-Time Comments Received
ICANN DNSO General Assembly and GAC Public Forum
August 24, 1999
Santiago, Chile

Messages marked with have been read to the assembled group.

carlos munoz (uach)
happy (Working Groups, 8/24/99 11:06:18 PM, #424)

D. R. Arthur (Freese-Notis Weather.Net)
IP Number policy by ARIN needs appellate to ICANN (Open Discussion, 8/24/99 9:35:41 PM, #423)

IP Number policy by ARIN needs appellate to ICANN when dealing with legacy I. P. assignments and difficulties. ICANN (now that IAHC and IANA are
in limbo?) needs to assist those that are using IP space in the past get assignment/contacts in database to reflect actual users at current time. Appellate proceedings need handled when ARIN fails to reach resolution in matters to past allocations completed by Internic carried over from IANA. Will ICANN act as appellate or where does authority go when ARIN fails to recognize users in place?

Clifford Paravicini (BolNet - NIC BOLIVIA)
(Working Groups, 8/24/99 7:42:26 PM, #422)

William Walsh ( / DSo Internet)
Government control over ccTLDs? (Open Discussion, 8/24/99 7:21:18 PM, #421)

Can language be inserted in this motion that will specify that this proposal is limited to the com/net/org TLDs, and that the issue will be revisted once WorkgroupC completes it work.

This should be specified rather than assumed so that there is no chance for misunderstanding.

William X. Walsh

William Walsh ( / DSo Internet)
Government control over ccTLDs? (Open Discussion, 8/24/99 7:18:38 PM, #420)

Can language be inserted in this motion that will specify that this proposal is limited to the com/net/org TLDs, and that the issue will be revisted once WorkgroupC completes it work.

This should be specified rather than assumed so that there is no chance for misunderstanding.

William X. Walsh

Srikanth Narra (IDNO)
Status of China (Working Groups, 8/24/99 6:32:12 PM, #418)

Is China there as a observer or participant ?

William Walsh ( / DSo Internet)
Government control over ccTLDs? (Working Groups, 8/24/99 6:06:02 PM, #417)

Hello, I am William X. Walsh, DSo Internet and
The comments made appear to assume that the Governments have rights over the ccTLD that represent the country they govern. In fact this is not the case. Nearly all ccTLDs were delegated without government input, and to say that the governments have any say in ccTLD delegation or management decisions is to usurp the principle of RFC1591.

I want to know by what authority the GAC would have ICANN assert over ccTLDs this type of control by governments? This would violate the precepts under which these domains were delegated.

Please clarify these issues so that those of us who currently hold domains registered under ccTLDs that do not currently have government control can know exactly how their rights will be affected by these assumptions the GAC is making with regard to ccTLDs.

Mark Langston (The revised WG-A motion)
(Working Groups, 8/24/99 5:37:41 PM, #416)

What's the difference between a drafting committee and a working group, and who will be able to participate in the drafting committee?

Srikanth Narra (IDNO)
modifed motion (Working Groups, 8/24/99 5:35:17 PM, #415)

Asking for WX

what about the protection of due process right ?

Clifford Paravicini (BolNet)
Identificacion (Working Groups, 8/24/99 5:34:00 PM, #414)

Las personas que estan hablando no se identifican y tampoco las identifica la traductora.

Mark Langston
Reminder: IDNO (Board Members, 8/24/99 5:21:32 PM, #413)

Andrew, the GA has approved a motion to ask you to consider IDNO's petition tomorrow. Please don't ignore that in your presentation.

Srikanth Narra (IDNO)
IDNO (Working Groups, 8/24/99 5:21:13 PM, #412)

when is the consideration of IDNO ?

Mark Langston
WG-A idea (Working Groups, 8/24/99 4:55:04 PM, #411)

Would people agree to accepting the WG-A proposal with an unconditional "sunset" clause, as just brought up by Prof. Froomkin?

Also, this isn't the place or time to resolve all of WG-A's problems.

Michael Froomkin (UM Law School)
WIPO/WG-A (Working Groups, 8/24/99 4:54:22 PM, #410)

I would like to point out that large parts of the WIPO report first appeared in the Final Report. The procedural appendecies were not even shown to the advisory experts' group before issuance; indeed the part that did not change (famous marks) is the most controversial. The WIPO procedure was in many ways exemplary, but one cannot claim consensus for its conclusions unless that happened after publication.

If we could get in place a good way to address the outstanding issues (I don't think that's WIPO), then the issue is whether as a temporary matter the WGA proposal is better than NSI's policy. Perhaps the way to find a compromise is to take WGA's suggestion with some sort of sunset provision? Or something to create real incentives for a real fix - FAST.

PS. The issue of a uniform policy is itself controversial. For one thing, it may violate anti-trust/competition law of many jurisdictions.' Is there a legal opinion on this issue?

Srikanth Narra (IDNO)
(Working Groups, 8/24/99 4:45:38 PM, #408)

Thank you for taking the question.

On which points in the final report were his concerns reflected in the final report ? and where were they accomidated ?

Michael is online thru chat - can we hear his comments on the issue please

Srikanth Narra (IDNO)
(Working Groups, 8/24/99 4:27:02 PM, #406)

What about the comments of Michael Frooklin regards the WIPO recommendation ?

Were they consider in WG-A ? If so what was the reaction or feedback on those concerns ?

Jon Englund (Excite@Home)
Nii (Names Council, 8/24/99 3:46:25 PM, #405)


Thank you for chairing the meeting today; you are doing it well.


Will you be reading any of the remote comments during the session today?

Dennis Schaefer (Self)
(DNSO management, 8/24/99 3:45:11 PM, #404)

Before calling for a vote, could the moderators repeat the question being voted on in English and Spanish?

After voting, could the moderators repeat the results in English and Spanish?

Dennis Schaefer

Jon Englund (Excite@Home)
Show of Hands? (Names Council, 8/24/99 3:42:14 PM, #403)

I object to the General Assembly voting process -- I would like to vote, and I'm sure that other remote users would as well. In addition, GA "voting" is not addressed in the ICANN or DNSO bylaws. We should be very cautious about this GA "voting" procedure. The NC is given the authority in the bylaws to determine consensus in the DNSO.

Jon Englund

Richard Lindsay (interQ Inc.)
IDNO proposal (Constituency, 8/24/99 3:30:07 PM, #402)

I believe the Names Council should vote on this, and send it up to the ICANN board. If the NC does not approve it, the recommendation should be forwarded as not approved.

Jeffrey Neuman
(Constituency, 8/24/99 3:28:33 PM, #401)

I do not support.

Richard Lindsay (interQ Inc.)
Shows of support (Constituency, 8/24/99 3:28:32 PM, #400)

There are many participants on IRC now as well, please try to get our votes as well.

Bret Fausett (Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP)
(Constituency, 8/24/99 3:27:36 PM, #399)

I support the motion. -- Bret

Mark Langston
IDNO recognition (Constituency, 8/24/99 3:18:15 PM, #398)

I motion that the GA officially request that the ICANN Board of Directors consider the IDNO petition for constituency.

Dennis Schaefer (Self)
(Constituency, 8/24/99 3:07:32 PM, #396)

As a member of IDNO, I would like to ask when the ICANN Board plans to consider IDNO's petition for recognition.

Esther Dyson's response to Joop Teernstra on August 11 did not clearly explain the nature of the obstacles that prevented consideration of this question.

Dennis Schaefer

Bret Fausett (Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP)
IDNO (Constituency, 8/24/99 3:03:08 PM, #394)

For discussion:

What is the justification (other than current exclusion) for creating a *separate* constituency, rather than integrating individuals into the current constituency? (In other words, don't non-commercial individuals have more in common with non-commercial organizations than they do with other individuals operating commercial sites?)

Is it possible/preferable to bring individual domain name owners into the existing constituencies to participate as full members in the commercial, non-commercial and trademark constituencies?

Dinesh Nair (IDNO)
IDNO Recognition (Constituency, 8/24/99 3:02:30 PM, #393)

ICANN's summarily not allowing IDNO and individual domain name owners a voice in these meetings is extremely short-sighted as it's this constituency which will be the largest in the domain game.

At least, Joop Ternstra was given his 5 minutes, but let's get real here, shall we ?

Jeffrey Neuman
Registrar Constituency (Constituency, 8/24/99 2:59:47 PM, #392)

I would like a further explanation on why the registrars need to vote in secrecy. Especially in light of the US Congressional mandate for ICANN as a whole to operate in public.

Mark Langston
GA Chair (DNSO management, 8/24/99 2:22:33 PM, #389)

The entire GA should have input on the chair issue. Those thre in Santiago are not representative of the entire GA.

(29 messages total)

Translate with Altavista Babelfish: Deutsch, Francais, Espanol, Italiano, Portugues


For additional technical information, please contact:

Ben Edelman and John Wilbanks
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School

All times are Santiago (GMT -5)

This file is automatically generated.