[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

mail failed, returning to sender

>Return-Path: <MAILER-DAEMON>
>Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 12:23:45 -0400 (EDT)
>From: <MAILER-DAEMON@vrx.net>
>To: richard@dns.list
>Cc: postmaster
>Subject: mail failed, returning to sender
>Reference: <m10k97L-000XxwC@ns1.vrx.net>
>|------------------------- Failed addresses follow: ---------------------|
> <comments@icann.org> ... transport inet_zone_bind_smtp: 501 <richard@dns.list>... Sender domain must exist
> <mark.harrington@mail.house.gov> ... transport inet_zone_bind_smtp: 501 <richard@dns.list>... Sender domain must exist
> <paul.scolese@mail.house.gov> ... transport inet_zone_bind_smtp: 501 <richard@dns.list>... Sender domain must exist
>|------------------------- Message text follows: ------------------------|
>Received: from richard.vrx.net(mbv1-pl-ri39.kos.net[]) (15567 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
>	via sendmail with P:smtp/T:error
>	(sender: <richard@dns.list>) 
>	id <m10k97L-000XxwC@ns1.vrx.net>
>	for <unknown>; Wed, 19 May 1999 12:22:51 -0400 (EDT)
>	(Smail- 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
>Message-Id: <m10k97L-000XxwC@ns1.vrx.net>
>Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 12:22:51 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Sender: rsexton@vrx.net
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>To: list@ifwp.org,campagnolo.roberto@ic.gc.ca
>From: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard@dns.list>
>Subject: Re: BOUNCE list@ifwp.org:    Non-member submission from
>  ["Twomey, Paul" <Paul.Twomey@noie.gov.au>]   
>Cc: edyson@edventure.com,Members@IATLD.ORG,list@ifwp.org,
> Becky Burr 	 <bburr@ntia.doc.gov>,paul.scolese@mail.house.gov,
> mark.harrington@mail.house.gov,james.tierney@usdoj.gov,
> Mike Roberts 	 <mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us>,comments@icann.org,
> "Cheah, Chris" 	 <Chris.CHEAH@noie.gov.au>,
> "Vajrabukka, Nikki" 	 <Nikki.vajrabukka@noie.gov.au>,
> "Roberts, Erica" 	 <Erica.roberts@noie.gov.au>
>I've added Paul to the "posters" file so his postings won't
>bounce any more.
>I've CC'd campagnolo.roberto@ic.gc.ca who is if I recall, in the 
>telecommunications policy area of Industry Canada. I'd appreciate 
>input on what role Canada has in the GAC and how Industry Canada decides
>what to put forth to the GAC as policy suggestions from the Canadian Government.
>At 03:14 AM 5/19/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>>From noie.gov.au!Paul.Twomey Wed May 19 03:14:48 1999
>>Return-Path: <Paul.Twomey@noie.gov.au>
>>Thanks for your message.  It would appear that you have two outstanding
>>concerns: the criteria for governmental participation in the GAC, and how
>>the GAC will make recommendations to the ICANN Board on the WIPO
>>I will address each issue separately.
>>1.  Participation
>>The ICANN Bylaws specifically state that "Members of the Governmental
>>Advisory Committee shall be representatives of national governments,
>>multinational governmental organizations
>        and
>        treaty organizations"
>Of course. When the idea of a GAC came up (could sombody please
>tell me how this came into being ? 
>I don't mean some vaugue response like "a number of Government representatives
>requested it", I mean specifically what people representing governments
>and treaty organizations spearheaded the effort to create the GAC
>and with what authority or mandate form the bodies they represent.
>>which may appoint one representative to the Committee".   Therefore, the
>>only criteria for a government to participate in the GAC is that it be a
>>"national government".
>>With regard to the question of "who within a government is qualified to
>>participate," it is up to each respective government to decide whom it
>>wishes to accredit.  Formal notification is then forwarded to me, or to the
>>GAC Secretariat.  This is a standard procedure for intergovernmental
>>meetings/processes - limits are set on numbers of delegates, but who is sent
>>is up to each government.
>>With reference to your comment about "New Zealand's experience at the
>>Singapore meeting", I am unsure as to what you are referring to. There has
>>never been any question raised with regard to New Zealand's right to
>>participate in the GAC.  That the New Zealand government was not represented
>>at the Singapore GAC meeting was only due to an administrative glitch (ie.
>>extreme time constraints, and that notification of the meeting had been sent
>>to an official who was, at the time, at a conference on radio spectrum in
>>Geneva).  I understand that New Zealand will be represented at the Berlin
>>meeting next week.
>>2.  Recommendations concerning WIPO report
>>As I indicated in my response to your earlier email, you would appreciate
>>that the for and against positions on most issues facing ICANN are discussed
>>with government by their citizens and firms.  The responsibility to
>>represent their citizens positions are keenly felt by government officials
>>in most international fora, and this is clearly the case in the GAC. 
>>As for your concern that apparently only a number of countries will have an
>>opportunity to comment on behalf of their citizens, discussions within the
>>GAC do not happen exclusively and only via face-to-face meetings.  In the
>>interests of efficiency, discussions are also conducted online and
>>'virtually'.  Therefore any member, not only the members who are present at
>>physical meetings, may at any time raise issues or comment on behalf of
>>their citizens. 
>>While it is up to government to decide to participate or not in the GAC, it
>>is worth nothing that there has been a fairly good geographic representation
>>of the international internet community to date.
>>Hope this helps.
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jay Fenello [mailto:Jay@Iperdome.com]
>>Sent: Saturday, 15 May 1999 1:36
>>To: Twomey, Paul
>>Cc: edyson@edventure.com; Members@IATLD.ORG; list@ifwp.org; Becky Burr;
>>paul.scolese@mail.house.gov; mark.harrington@mail.house.gov;
>>james.tierney@usdoj.gov; Mike Roberts; comments@icann.org; Cheah, Chris;
>>Vajrabukka, Nikki; Roberts, Erica
>>Subject: RE: GAC Draft Agenda
>>Hello Paul,
>>Thank you for your response, and thank you
>>for your re-assurances.
>>As you probably know, my involvement with ICANN 
>>has been focused on questions about process, 
>>fairness, and minority representation.
>>Consistent with that focus, I have some questions 
>>that have yet to be addressed, primarily regarding 
>>the GAC composition.
>>First, what is your criteria for a government 
>>to participate in the GAC.  Given New Zealand's 
>>experience at the Singapore meeting, many would 
>>like to know.  
>>In particular, who within a government is qualified 
>>to participate?  How are they invited, and how are
>>they credentialed?
>>Second, how will the GAC make recommendations to
>>ICANN on the WIPO draft?  Originally, I had asked
>>why the only presentation on the WIPO report was
>>from WIPO itself.  Based on your reply, however, 
>>it appears that the members of GAC will bring 
>>forward questions from their local stakeholders.
>>If so, then it would appear that only about 20 or 
>>so countries will have an opportunity to comment 
>>on behalf of their citizens, corporations, etc. 
>>on this issue.  If true, then my first question 
>>becomes that much more important.  
>>[There were a few more unanswered questions 
>>(i.e.  The Trust Fund and litigation issues),
>>but the previous two are the big ones.]
>>I'm sorry for all of the questions, but we are
>>in unchartered territory, and there are few if
>>any precedents to use as a basis.
>>Thanks in advance.
>>Jay Fenello
>>President, Iperdome, Inc.    404-943-0524
>>What's your .per(sm)?   http://www.iperdome.com 
>>At 04:27 AM 5/14/99 , Twomey, Paul wrote:
>>>Thanks for your email - things have been a bit frantic here, hence the
>>>in response.  
>>>There are a few things I need to make clear.  Firstly, I would like to draw
>>>to your attention the scope of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).
>>>The GAC is an advisory committee, and its role is to consider and provide
>>>advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of
>>>including matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's
>>>and various laws and international agreements and public policy objectives.
>>>The GAC operates as a forum for the discussion of government and other
>>>public policy interests and concerns.  Its role is to provide advice and
>>>communicate issues and views to the ICANN Board and not, as you suggest, to
>>>determine how the Board will conduct its business.   I can assure you that
>>>like other Supporting Organisations we give advice to the Board - but the
>>>GAC does not have any special, overbearing influence on the Board's
>>>considerations and exercise of its duties.
>>>With regard to your concerns on the Draft Agenda for Berlin, the majority
>>>the reports to be presented at this meeting are the findings of studies
>>>which were agreed to be progressed from the inaugural meeting in Singapore.
>>>They each address key policy issues which are of interest to governments,
>>>and no doubt also of interest to the Internet community.  
>>>The reports have arisen and have been progressed in response to the GAC's
>>>wish for further knowledge on the issues, as well as in response to
>>>occurrences which have taken place (for example, the incorporation of the
>>>InterNIC site into the NSI site, and in the .edu space the apparent
>>>of domain names to entities which are not four-year degree granting
>>>institutions,).  The reports are designed to stimulate discussion within
>>>GAC, not to mark out any definitive course of action or solution to the
>>>issues. You will appreciate that in order for the GAC to provide advice to
>>>ICANN, the importance of being, and staying, well informed cannot be
>>>You would also realise that the for and against positions on most issues
>>>facing ICANN are discussed with government by their citizens and firms.
>>>responsibility to represent their citizens positions are keenly felt by
>>>government officials in most international fora, and this is clearly the
>>>case in the GAC.  So the discussion to date has often been focused on
>>>citizen/consumer interests - not just the concerns of governments
>>>With reference to your comment regarding the GAC's approach to be a
>>>designed to see an agenda 'through'" rather than an impartial process
>>>designed to gather facts, I assure you that this is not the case. The draft
>>>Agenda is not, as you implied, designed to promote any particular outcomes,
>>>but rather to encompass the issues which are of interest to governments as
>>>well as to the Internet community.  It should be noted that in harmony with
>>>the policies of ICANN, the GAC operates to the maximum extent feasible and
>>>practicable in an open and transparent manner and consistent with
>>>designed to ensure fairness.
>>>Hope to see you in Berlin
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Jay Fenello [mailto:Jay@Iperdome.com]
>>>Sent: Friday, 7 May 1999 5:22
>>>To: edyson@edventure.com; ptwomey@tpg.com.au
>>>Cc: Members@IATLD.ORG; list@ifwp.org; Becky Burr;
>>>paul.scolese@mail.house.gov; mark.harrington@mail.house.gov;
>>>james.tierney@usdoj.gov; Mike Roberts; comments@icann.org
>>>Subject: Re: GAC Draft Agenda
>>>Thanks Esther . . . and Hello Paul,
>>>Could you help clarify these questions?
>>>Thanks in advance,
>>>At 02:58 PM 5/6/99 , Esther Dyson wrote:
>>>>Jay -
>>>>The GAC calls its own shots. It advises *us*; we do not advise *it.*  (And
>>>>it *advises* us; it does not control us. We make decisions pursuant to our
>>>>own bylaws, with input ("recommendations") from the GAC, from you, from
>>>>members, from anyone else...   Please check with the GAC itself on your
>>>>questions below.
>>>>At 12:40 PM 06/05/99 -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
>>>>>Hi Esther,
>>>>>Could you please explain this agenda
>>>>>from the Governmental Advisory Committee:
>>>>>>2.Internal Communications - Practices and procedures
>>>>>>3.Draft Operating Principles - Revision 2
>>>>>>4.Report from Mike Roberts, President of ICANN, on:
>>>>>>The legal delegation and practical relationship between ICANN,
>>>>>>and ccTLD administrators Changes in policy for registrations under a
>>>>>>(for example, as occurred in .edu and as undertaken by NSI)
>>>>>>Trust Fund - Update on progress and the litigation process
>>>>>What legal delegation?
>>>>>What changes in policy for registrations?
>>>>>What Infrastructure Trust Fund?
>>>>>(Is that the $50 million U.S. collected fund?)
>>>>>What litigation?
>>>>>And a broader question -- who is calling
>>>>>the shots, the GAC or the ICANN Board?
>>>>>>5.Report from ICANN / EU / ITU on current administrative arrangements
>>>>>>concerning ccTLDs, including:
>>>>>>Access to information for users Basis of delegation decisions
>>>>>Since the GAC is not representative of the
>>>>>diversity of ccTLD delegations models, and 
>>>>>neither is ICANN/EU/ITU, isn't this a biased
>>>>>process from the get-go?
>>>>>>6.Report from Francis Gurry (WIPO) on Intellectual property issues - in
>>>>>>particular, issues with regard to "cybersquatting, " the speculation of
>>>>>>domain names as property, and establishment of ownership rights.
>>>>>Again, how will the GAC receive input 
>>>>>from critics of the WIPO report?
>>>>>>7.Report from USA and ITU on applicability of specific business rules /
>>>>>>regimes to ccTLD's which are classified as "open" or "restricted"
>>>>>Does this imply that some countries will
>>>>>have full jurisdiction over their ccTLDs,
>>>>>while others will have to defer to ICANN?
>>>>>>8.Report from France, UK and Australia on Jurisdiction and Territories
>>>>>Does this have anything to do with France's
>>>>>desire to take back control of the ccTLDs
>>>>>that have been delegated to their possessions.
>>>>>Since France, UK and Australia all see this
>>>>>question from the same side of the street,
>>>>>where will the GAC get input from those
>>>>>standing on the other side?
>>>>>>9.Communique / Media Release
>>>>>>10.Any Other Business
>>>>>>11.Next meeting
>>>>>>12.Open Meeting - Dialogue with interested members of the Internet
>>>>>What is truly disconcerting is that this
>>>>>agenda appears to be just that -- an agenda.
>>>>>It does not seem to be an impartial process
>>>>>designed to gather facts, it appears to be
>>>>>a process designed to see an agenda *through*.
>>>>>It also appears that the big questions are
>>>>>answered in the GAC first, with ICANN then
>>>>>following their decisions through their 
>>>>>closed board meetings.
>>>>>Please re-assure us.
>>>>>Jay Fenello
>>>>>President, Iperdome, Inc.    404-943-0524
>>>>>What's your .per(sm)?   http://www.iperdome.com 
>>>>Esther Dyson			Always make new mistakes!
>>>>chairman, EDventure Holdings
>>>>interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
>>>>1 (212) 924-8800
>>>>1 (212) 924-0240 fax
>>>>104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
>>>>New York, NY 10011 USA
>>>>http://www.edventure.com                    http://www.icann.org
>>>>High-Tech Forum in Europe:  24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
>>>>PC Forum: March 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona 
>>>>Book:  "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age" 
>>>Jay Fenello
>>>President, Iperdome, Inc.    404-943-0524
>>>What's your .per(sm)?   http://www.iperdome.com 
>richard@dns.list    sexton@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>"Those who give up a little freedom for a little security
>will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"
>               --Thomas Jefferson
richard@dns.list    sexton@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
"Those who give up a little freedom for a little security
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"
               --Thomas Jefferson