From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #13 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Thursday, February 17 2000 Volume 01 : Number 013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:18:22 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] nine principles for domain names On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:58:31AM -0800, Bret A. Fausett wrote: > > Trust: a gTLD that purports to stand for something should give the net user > confidence that the intended distinction between it and other gTLDs is > meaningful. > This should be expanded. Replace "net user" with "net user and domain name registrant". I wish it were not necessary to be that specific, but many of us tend to overlook the fact that "net user" is not restricted to "web surfer". This debate has started walking down that path. Please try to bear in mind that domain names are not solely for web pages or e-commerce. There are a myriad of uses of domain names that have nothing whatsoever to do with either, but would also be affected by any decisions made here. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:29:45 -0800 From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] nine principles for domain names The problem with this is that Kent has a point and it is correct. The word "trust" has precise technical meaning and semantics, in the context of security issues. This context is much too closely coupled with domain issues for us to make fine distinction possible, without totally confusing the meanings for either. We'd spend much too much time bickering over the distinctions, and when they apply, as both contexts could be used in the same sentence. Besides, the word "trust" is being used here to connote consistency. This may be a mis-application in any case. > I also like the idea of seeing if consensus can be built around first > principles, such as those that Philip and Kathy have floated. But that's > going to be difficult if the "Trust" plank is meant to exclude > true generic > TLDs. I don't know that this was their intent, but we could clarify it by > making a change in the wording. > > Something like: > > Trust: a chartered or zoned gTLD should give the net user > confidence that it > stands for what it purports to stand for. > > or > > Trust: a gTLD that purports to stand for something should give > the net user > confidence that the intended distinction between it and other gTLDs is > meaningful. > > -- Bret ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:21:35 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Friedman Subject: [wg-c] test delete ignore ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:17:57 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] Cairo meeting? I've been assuming that there won't be a physical meeting of the WG in Cairo, because it's been my impression that relatively few members of the WG are going to Cairo. If I'm mistaken about this -- if, in fact, a significant number of WG-C members are going to Cairo and would like to hold a physical meeting -- please let me know ASAP. Thanks. Jon Jonathan Weinberg weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:42:09 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] nine principles for domain names > Karl, you comment on two of the principles: > 2. Semantics – a gTLD should be meaningful in a language with a significant > number of net users. > Read this one again - we say nothing about English or a European language. By selecting *any* language in which a TLD has meaning, one necessarily excludes several billions of people who do not use that language. I suggest that the opposite to what you suggest would be preferable, i.e. that TLDs be composed of character/digit sequences that are gibberish in all languages - such as .x9z or .q3q. > 1. Trust – a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for > what it purports to stand for. > You say why trust? Are you happy then to say to net users "I know it says X > but it means Y. Didn't you know that dear? We all did." You are, of course, free to register a second level domain in some TLD - say "PhilipSheppardsTrustedNames.com" and impose your own notions of quality assurance on names you register in your SLD. And, I don't see why any TLD operator could not decide to take it upon itself, as its own business decision and at its own expense, to try to monitor its registrants against some criterial of its own making. But I fail to see why the DNS system should be mandated as a consumer protection mechanism. I might add that if the DNSO, as part of ICANN, adopts charters, it is not unforeeable that ICANN could be found liable should it fail to be forever vigilant over those charters or less than objective and even handed. That would be a substantial burden and cost. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 21:17:41 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] nine principles for domain names On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 07:42:09PM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> You say why trust? Are you happy then to say to net users "I know it says X >> but it means Y. Didn't you know that dear? We all did." > > You are, of course, free to register a second level domain in some TLD - > say "PhilipSheppardsTrustedNames.com" and impose your own notions of > quality assurance on names you register in your SLD. Fundamentally, however you define it, "trust" must flow from the root on down. No SLD or 3LD can be more "trustworthy" (reliable) than its higher level domain. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:40:22 -0800 From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] STRAW POLL > WG-C STRAW POLL > > Please respond before midnight UTC following February 21, 2000. > > > QUESTION ONE > Please select from the following possibilities, *as applied to the > deployment of new gTLDs in the name space over the medium to long term*: Although I have some complaint with the way this answer is worded, here it is; > 1. All new gTLDs must have charters that meaningfully limit the > universe of > people who can register in those gTLDs. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > QUESTION TWO > The working group has reached and reaffirmed a > recommendation that the > initial expansion of the name space should consist of six to ten > new gTLDs, > followed by an evaluation period. Please select from the following > possibilities, *as applied to that initial rollout*. Did I state that I had problems with the way these were worded? > 4. ICANN should simply select new registries and leave issues of names and > charters (including whether to limit the universe of people who can > register in the domain, and if so how) to the new registries. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > QUESTION THREE > The issue of chartered gTLDs is tied up with the larger > issue of how ICANN > should select new gTLDs -- in particular, whether (a) ICANN itself should > be the final arbiter of new gTLDs' names and charters, or (b) ICANN should > simply select new registries and leave the choice of names and charters to > them. I think that at this point we can't avoid confronting the larger > question of how ICANN should pick new TLDs in the initial rollout. > (Actually, we're returning to the question; part of last summer's straw > poll spoke to the same issue. The results then were > inconclusive.) Please > select from among these possibilities: > 6. Other (please explain). http://www.dnso.net/library/dnso-tld.mhsc-position.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:45:50 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names Eric, Karl, Bret, William, Jonathan, Mark et al Thank you for your comments. 1. Your classification of the principles by the nature of the relationships they describe is useful. 2. Your analysis of the principles based on current technical feasibility is a good reminder. 3. Your suggestion to clarify what is meant by net user is useful. 4. Your suggestion to avoid confusion with "trust" issues in security is helpful. 5. I take on board also your suggestion to be clear that the trust principle is not intended to exclude a true generic. If a new gTLD is a "true generic" and it purports to stand for that and only that, then to my mind it passes the trust criteria easily. As background: These principles should be read together not as either /or criteria. They are intentionally drawn up from the net user perspective and are intended to be a starting point. For example, they assume that a gTLD "will" be perceived by net users to have meaning. They are drawn up based on a sense of responsibility that we believe is expected by net users of the DNSO. Based on all the input received I therefore propose an amendment to the principles. - ------------------------------------------------------------- Criteria for assessing a gTLD registry operator application, subject to current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all the following principles : Principles affecting the relationship between a gTLD Registry operator and those who may register 1. Certainty: a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for what it purports to stand for. 2. Honesty – a gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. 3. Simplicity - a gTLD should not "impose" an overly bureaucratic procedure on a registry. Principles effecting the relationship between Registries 4. Differentiation – a gTLD should differentiate from all other gTLDs so as not to confuse net users. 5. Competition – new gTLDs should foster competition in the domain name space. 6. Diversity - new gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both commercial and non-commercial. Principles with query resolution and character encoding implications 7. Semantics – a gTLD should be meaningful in a language with a significant number of net users. 8. Findability – a gTLD should assist a net user to find a particular domain name. Other principles 9. Multiplicity - new gTLDs should become available as needed to meet the needs of an expanding Internet community. Note: net user is used in the widest possible sense and refers both to the web surfer and domain name registrant. Philip ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:52:18 -0500 From: Jeff Shrewsbury Info Avenue Subject: Re: [wg-c] Cairo meeting? Jonathan: Why does there have to be a "significant number" of WG-C members in Cairo to hold a meeting? We have business to discuss regardless of how many people are there. If the working groups don't meet or decide they don't need to meet, what's the point of having the conference in the first place? We all spend a lot of our time reading and responding to the list prior to the bi-annual ICANN conference specifically so we can work towards some kind of consensus to finalize and send up the chain of command at the conference. We, like many others, have already committed a chunk of change for travel to this meeting because we assumed it was our duty to be there so we can further the business at hand. In fact, we felt it was the duty of ALL of us to be at ALL of the conferences regardless of where they are. Are you saying now that there is no pressing business that needs attention because there are a lot of members who will only physically attend meetings that take place in North America? If that's the case, let's do two things immediately: 1) take a roll call of who is expecting to attend so we know exactly what we're talking about 2) hash out a tentative agenda of what business the WG-C has. If this reveals that there is indeed no pressing business, then we can all cancel our reservations and travel arrangements, save our money and simply wait for the Jeri Clausing and the NY Times to tell us what happened. In my humble opinion, if members decide not to come to the ICANN conferences (where the business gets done), then they have no justification for criticizing the outcome. Do you not agree? Thanks. Jeff Shrewsbury Info Avenue Internet Services At 04:17 PM 2/15/00 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > I've been assuming that there won't be a physical meeting of the WG in >Cairo, because it's been my impression that relatively few members of the >WG are going to Cairo. If I'm mistaken about this -- if, in fact, a >significant number of WG-C members are going to Cairo and would like to >hold a physical meeting -- please let me know ASAP. > > Thanks. > >Jon > > >Jonathan Weinberg >weinberg@msen.com > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 07:24:39 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Cairo meeting? - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >In my humble opinion, if members decide not to come to the ICANN >conferences (where the business gets done), then they have no >justification for criticizing the outcome. > >Do you not agree? Correct, I do not agree. When there is no agenda at this late date, how can anyone be expected to make last-minute travel plans? Should one spend the effort and money on the presumption that there will be a reasonable agenda at attendance? I don't think so. When a meeting is held in a location such as Cairo, where the logistics for attendance are non-trivial, one would expect a greater amount of pre-planning and pre-publication of information. As is typical with ICANN, however, we not only do not have that, but they're late (again). Christopher - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord. iQA/AwUBOKrBN8kU7GoO9fgUEQLUDwCcCXYvwyOLFtXhBaEUTbfTFBGNAmkAnA87 EnibFhG9IvO969WGztpHi7h4 =KhKD - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:30:27 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] Cairo meeting? Jeff -- The business of the working group is conducted primarily through the mailing list; that's the only way an internationally diverse group of people, all of whom have day jobs, can conduct business. To that extent we can have physical meetings from time to time, that's desirable -- face-to-face contact can promote understanding in a way that e-mail doesn't - -- but not absolutely necessary. So far, in response to the message I sent Tuesday, five people have indicated their availability for a wg-c meeting in Cairo. I'd love to meet all five of you for a drink Tuesday night in Cairo, but I think it would be silly for the six of us to get together and announce that we constituted a "meeting" of the working group -- there would just be too many folks unrepresented. No agreement reached among the six of us would be meaningful. That means that we're going to have to continue doing our work on the mailing list. (For an agenda of the business before the WG, see .) Among the top items right now: 1. straw poll on chartered TLDs -- keep those cards and letters coming! 2. Kent suggested that it would have been desirable to develop a reference model detailing different possible structures for the ICANN-registry-registrar relationship, describing the possible models for a "registry"; I solicited volunteers for a small committee to develop such a document. So far, the response has been underwhelming. Volunteers? Jon At 09:52 AM 2/16/00 -0500, Jeff Shrewsbury Info Avenue wrote: >Jonathan: > >Why does there have to be a "significant number" of WG-C members in Cairo >to hold a meeting? We have business to discuss regardless of how many >people are there. If the working groups don't meet or decide they don't >need to meet, what's the point of having the conference in the first place? >We all spend a lot of our time reading and responding to the list prior to >the bi-annual ICANN conference specifically so we can work towards some >kind of consensus to finalize and send up the chain of command at the >conference. > >We, like many others, have already committed a chunk of change for travel >to this meeting because we assumed it was our duty to be there so we can >further the business at hand. In fact, we felt it was the duty of ALL of us >to be at ALL of the conferences regardless of where they are. > >Are you saying now that there is no pressing business that needs attention >because there are a lot of members who will only physically attend meetings >that take place in North America? > >If that's the case, let's do two things immediately: > >1) take a roll call of who is expecting to attend so we know exactly what >we're talking about >2) hash out a tentative agenda of what business the WG-C has. > >If this reveals that there is indeed no pressing business, then we can all >cancel our reservations and travel arrangements, save our money and simply >wait for the Jeri Clausing and the NY Times to tell us what happened. > >In my humble opinion, if members decide not to come to the ICANN >conferences (where the business gets done), then they have no justification >for criticizing the outcome. > >Do you not agree? > >Thanks. >Jeff Shrewsbury >Info Avenue Internet Services > > > >At 04:17 PM 2/15/00 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: >> I've been assuming that there won't be a physical meeting of the WG in >>Cairo, because it's been my impression that relatively few members of the >>WG are going to Cairo. If I'm mistaken about this -- if, in fact, a >>significant number of WG-C members are going to Cairo and would like to >>hold a physical meeting -- please let me know ASAP. >> >> Thanks. >> >>Jon >> >> >>Jonathan Weinberg >>weinberg@msen.com >> > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:53:00 -0500 (EST) From: "Ross Wm. Rader" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names Phillip, all; I'm not very comfortable with the set of principles that you set forth - comments below, but overall, this needs a lot of work before it can act as any sort of platform (of value anyways). Comments interspersed... > Principles affecting the relationship between a gTLD Registry operator and > those who may register > 1. Certainty: a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for > what it purports to stand for. You assume that all gTLD additions will/should stand for something. > 2. Honesty – a gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for > malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. > 3. Simplicity - a gTLD should not "impose" an overly bureaucratic procedure > on a registry. > I'm not clear on how a name can increase/decrease complexity for registry operators. If you are saying that ICANN should not impose burdensome guidelines for registry operators, I might agree, but you aren't being clear. > Principles effecting the relationship between Registries > 4. Differentiation – a gTLD should differentiate from all other gTLDs so as > not to confuse net users. > 5. Competition – new gTLDs should foster competition in the domain name > space. > 6. Diversity - new gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both > commercial and non-commercial. > > Principles with query resolution and character encoding implications > 7. Semantics – a gTLD should be meaningful in a language with a significant > number of net users. Why? Is a TLD addition somehow less useful if it is only valuable to a small subset of users? > 8. Findability – a gTLD should assist a net user to find a particular domain > name. ?? TLD's were never meant to act as an index or taxonomical structure of any sort - I fail to see where, why and how this is useful or even valuable. > > Other principles > 9. Multiplicity - new gTLDs should become available as needed to meet the > needs of an expanding Internet community. > This is pretty trite - do you have any sense of the metrics that should be used to determine what the needs of the community are and when new TLDs should be introduced? > Note: net user is used in the widest possible sense and refers both to the > web surfer and domain name registrant. > IMHO, this is a dangerous definition. I can think of several instances where the practical needs of both of those constituencies are directly at odds with each other. - -RWR - -------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Wm. Rader http://www.domaindirect.com Director, Assigned Names Division http://www.opensrs.org TUCOWS.com Inc. http://www.domainwatch.com ross@tucows.com http://www.domainsurfer.com - -------------------------------------------------------------- t. (416) 531-2697 x 335 f. (416) 531-5584 - -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 08:02:13 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Cairo meeting? On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 09:52:18AM -0500, Jeff Shrewsbury Info Avenue wrote: > Jonathan: > > Why does there have to be a "significant number" of WG-C members in Cairo > to hold a meeting? We have business to discuss regardless of how many > people are there. If the working groups don't meet or decide they don't > need to meet, what's the point of having the conference in the first place? > We all spend a lot of our time reading and responding to the list prior to > the bi-annual ICANN conference specifically so we can work towards some > kind of consensus to finalize and send up the chain of command at the > conference. > > We, like many others, have already committed a chunk of change for travel > to this meeting because we assumed it was our duty to be there so we can > further the business at hand. In fact, we felt it was the duty of ALL of us > to be at ALL of the conferences regardless of where they are. > > Are you saying now that there is no pressing business that needs attention > because there are a lot of members who will only physically attend meetings > that take place in North America? > > If that's the case, let's do two things immediately: > > 1) take a roll call of who is expecting to attend so we know exactly what > we're talking about > 2) hash out a tentative agenda of what business the WG-C has. > > If this reveals that there is indeed no pressing business, then we can all > cancel our reservations and travel arrangements, save our money and simply > wait for the Jeri Clausing and the NY Times to tell us what happened. > > In my humble opinion, if members decide not to come to the ICANN > conferences (where the business gets done), then they have no justification > for criticizing the outcome. The business gets done _here_, where everyone has an equal opportunity to participate. Period. If you feel so strongly that everyone should attend conferences in remote locations, kindly subsidize the expenses for those who cannot afford these junkets, and are not propped up as PR people for corporations. In my humble opinion, if members decide not to come to the ICANN conferences (where few can afford to attend), then they have not surrendered their right to participate in the process, and should not be excluded on the basis of money alone. if you'd like to pay for my travel, please get in touch with me privately. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:02:01 -0500 From: Mikki Barry Subject: RE: [wg-c] Cairo meeting? At 7:24 AM -0800 2/16/00, Christopher Ambler wrote: >Correct, I do not agree. > >When there is no agenda at this late date, how can anyone be >expected to make last-minute travel plans? Should one spend >the effort and money on the presumption that there will be >a reasonable agenda at attendance? I don't think so. > >When a meeting is held in a location such as Cairo, where the >logistics for attendance are non-trivial, one would expect >a greater amount of pre-planning and pre-publication of >information. As is typical with ICANN, however, we not only >do not have that, but they're late (again). Add to this the promise that online participation (to "govern" this online forum) is supposedly given the name weight as attendance, and further adding that much of the debate will concern what consumers want and what confuses them when consumers as a group are NOT allowed a voice, and you have a rather interesting construct of those who believe in the "old" ways of decision making (face to face meetings) and those who believe in the "Internet" way. I find the whole thing rather amusing, personally. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:10:34 -0500 (EST) From: "Ross Wm. Rader" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Cairo meeting? > > Correct, I do not agree. > > When there is no agenda at this late date, how can anyone be > expected to make last-minute travel plans? Should one spend > the effort and money on the presumption that there will be > a reasonable agenda at attendance? I don't think so. > > When a meeting is held in a location such as Cairo, where the > logistics for attendance are non-trivial, one would expect > a greater amount of pre-planning and pre-publication of > information. As is typical with ICANN, however, we not only > do not have that, but they're late (again). > I think that this may be a first for WG-C, but I have to agree with Chris on this one. While I fundamentally agree with the geographical diversity requirements, to presume that the meatspace meetings should somehow function as a qualifier for participation in these proceedings is just wrong. - -RWR - -------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Wm. Rader http://www.domaindirect.com Director, Assigned Names Division http://www.opensrs.org TUCOWS.com Inc. http://www.domainwatch.com ross@tucows.com http://www.domainsurfer.com - -------------------------------------------------------------- t. (416) 531-2697 x 335 f. (416) 531-5584 - -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 08:14:36 -0800 From: "Josh Elliott" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Cairo meeting? In defense of ICANN, they are a staff of 6, with a lawyer doing the meeting planning, and supporting organizations that do not help with their tardiness on various logistics and schedules. However, while a WG-C meeting in Cairo would definately be constructive (and I hope we are able to arrange one), I don't believe everyone on this list has the time or resources to get there. Outcomes of such meetings should not be set in stone, but discussed and ratified on the list, but I do agree that business gets done in face-to-face meetings. I hope a meeting in Cairo will progress the business we need to be taking care of. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > Christopher Ambler > Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 7:25 AM > To: 'Jeff Shrewsbury Info Avenue'; 'Jonathan Weinberg'; wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: RE: [wg-c] Cairo meeting? > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >In my humble opinion, if members decide not to come to the ICANN > >conferences (where the business gets done), then they have no > >justification for criticizing the outcome. > > > >Do you not agree? > > Correct, I do not agree. > > When there is no agenda at this late date, how can anyone be > expected to make last-minute travel plans? Should one spend > the effort and money on the presumption that there will be > a reasonable agenda at attendance? I don't think so. > > When a meeting is held in a location such as Cairo, where the > logistics for attendance are non-trivial, one would expect > a greater amount of pre-planning and pre-publication of > information. As is typical with ICANN, however, we not only > do not have that, but they're late (again). > > Christopher > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use > Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord. > > iQA/AwUBOKrBN8kU7GoO9fgUEQLUDwCcCXYvwyOLFtXhBaEUTbfTFBGNAmkAnA87 > EnibFhG9IvO969WGztpHi7h4 > =KhKD > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:09:20 -0500 From: Jeff Shrewsbury Info Avenue Subject: RE: [wg-c] Cairo meeting? Hello, All: I'm all for the "internet way" whenever possible and was no happier than anyone that the next ICANN meeting was set for Cairo. But based on the past ICANN meetings when the working group and constituency meetings we're not available for online participation, these are the only opportunities we have to present a united voice (or something close to united) to the board. If working group members that choose not to come to the physical meetings are able to participate remotely, that's great. And if that is the case, then there is no reason not to have a meeting anyway (even if there is only six people in the room) because then everyone has a chance theoretically to participate whether there physically or not. But to ignore a meeting, I think, dampens the spirit of what we're chartered to try to accomplish. So does anyone know if working groups and constituency meetings will be widely available for online participation or will the only remote participation be the general and public meetings as usual? As a side note, if these meetings are going to cause so much hardship for travel and ancillary expenses, why do we have to have them twice a year? Why not do it by remote participation in all cases? js At 11:02 AM 2/16/00 -0500, Mikki Barry wrote: >At 7:24 AM -0800 2/16/00, Christopher Ambler wrote: >>Correct, I do not agree. >> >>When there is no agenda at this late date, how can anyone be >>expected to make last-minute travel plans? Should one spend >>the effort and money on the presumption that there will be >>a reasonable agenda at attendance? I don't think so. >> >>When a meeting is held in a location such as Cairo, where the >>logistics for attendance are non-trivial, one would expect >>a greater amount of pre-planning and pre-publication of >>information. As is typical with ICANN, however, we not only >>do not have that, but they're late (again). > >Add to this the promise that online participation (to "govern" this >online forum) is supposedly given the name weight as attendance, and >further adding that much of the debate will concern what consumers >want and what confuses them when consumers as a group are NOT allowed >a voice, and you have a rather interesting construct of those who >believe in the "old" ways of decision making (face to face meetings) >and those who believe in the "Internet" way. I find the whole thing >rather amusing, personally. > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:46:32 -0500 From: Mikki Barry Subject: RE: [wg-c] Cairo meeting? At 12:09 PM -0500 2/16/00, Jeff Shrewsbury Info Avenue wrote: >Hello, All: > >I'm all for the "internet way" whenever possible and was no happier than >anyone that the next ICANN meeting was set for Cairo. But based on the past >ICANN meetings when the working group and constituency meetings we're not >available for online participation, these are the only opportunities we >have to present a united voice (or something close to united) to the board. This mailing list is the unified voice to the board. I do not agree that "the meeting" should be at Cairo or even at a specific time and place online. I believe that all proposals, etc. should be hashed out via this mailing list. > >If working group members that choose not to come to the physical meetings >are able to participate remotely, that's great. And if that is the case, >then there is no reason not to have a meeting anyway (even if there is only >six people in the room) because then everyone has a chance theoretically to >participate whether there physically or not. I have no problem with people meeting, however I DO have a problem with decisions being made via that meeting. > >But to ignore a meeting, I think, dampens the spirit of what we're >chartered to try to accomplish. In what way? > >So does anyone know if working groups and constituency meetings will be >widely available for online participation or will the only remote >participation be the general and public meetings as usual? > >As a side note, if these meetings are going to cause so much hardship for >travel and ancillary expenses, why do we have to have them twice a year? >Why not do it by remote participation in all cases? This is a question ICANN has been asked on multiple occasions. The cost associated with these junkets is astronomical. Of course, the SOs and NSI pay for the ICANN crew to go, but the rest of us are not quite that lucky. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:12:51 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: [wg-c] Questions This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_00B4_01BF7890.4AC82E40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The questions at hand were posted and comments requested. To date, I was the only one who commented, and my comments were completely ignored. The questions stand as originally written. I would, at this point, since = there was no dissention, request that my suggestions be adopted by the chair. Christopher - ------=_NextPart_000_00B4_01BF7890.4AC82E40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The questions at hand were posted and = comments=20 requested. To date, I was
the only one who commented, and my = comments were=20 completely ignored. The
questions stand as originally written. = I would, at=20 this point, since there was
no dissention, request that my = suggestions be adopted by the chair.
 
Christopher
- ------=_NextPart_000_00B4_01BF7890.4AC82E40-- ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #13 *************************