Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #15
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, March 1 2000           Volume 01 : Number 015

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:28:24 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] World views of ICANN?

All assembly members,

  See: http://www.earth-net.net/mahir-icann/

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:46:24 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

[cc's trimmed]

The United States has a long and honorable tradition of anonymous and
pseudonymous participation in public life.  It is a right that our courts
have said is guaranteed by the constitution against governmental attempts
to require identification. (Of course that is only applicable by analogy
to our list.) Many of the major essays leading up to the American
Revolution, and in the period after independence and before the adoption
of the Constitution were published pseudonymously - including the
Federalist Papers, which are part of our legal bedrock today.  

I would be curious to know what the legal rule is in France - can the
government compel that political essays be signed with the name of the
author?

I personally reject the suggestion that anonymity and/or pseudonymity are
either bad or a sign of something evil to hide.  Indeed, they seem to me
to offer the only answer, however poor, to legitimate fears some people
have expressed (mostly off list) that controversial postings might lead to
direct retaliation against them personally.

For more on anonymity and pseudonymity see
http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/ocean.htm

I would support allowing anonymous posting to the list.  Even some sort of
"identity escrow" to prevent multiple identities (which don't bother me,
but I know would bother others) would be preferable to a blanket
prohibition.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:

> Mr Baptista,
> 
> As I'm a honest citizen I don't care to provide or to share any of my
> private information with any body. Why are you so reluctant? I always
> thought that only people having something to hide would hide their identity.
> But I do not think it's your case, so what's the problem?
> 
> Jean-Michel Becar
> ETSI Project Manager
> www.etsi.org
> Tel: +33 4 92 94 43 15
> Fax: +33 4 92 38 52 15
> GSM: +33 6 82 80 19 31
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: !Dr. Joe Baptista [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 11:22 AM
> To: Jean-Michel Becar
> Cc: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot
> 
> 
> not in the icann cards - nor do I expect icann for reasons of privacy to
> share any information with the ga nitwits.
> 
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> 
> > Harald,
> > 
> > Yes of course, I wrote this Email earlier in the morning and I only though
> > afterwards I was writing something not enough open for our process. BTW I
> > like your idea to use the At Large membership system to subscribe to the
> ga.
> > Dear ga members could we go for a discussion on that.
> > 
> > Jean-Michel Becar
> > E.T.S.I.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 8:26 AM
> > To: Jean-Michel Becar; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law;
> > [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot
> > 
> > 
> > At 05:44 28.02.00 +0000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> > >Harald, Michael,
> > >
> > >But the way the At Large members is registered via this Web Interface
> could
> > >be an example for the GA membership.
> > >But the way the proof of identity is done (by sending a postal mail to
> the
> > >pysical address with a PIN code to be used for accessing to the web site)
> > >would cost too much for the GA.
> > >So why not to set up a web site where people can registrer themselves and
> > >for the proof of identity and interest in the GA DNSO, they should
> provide
> > a
> > >domain name that can be verified with a whois request if the domain name
> > >holder is the same as the member.
> > 
> > and if they don't hold any domain names?
> > For those that do, it's possible - but we'll have to do something for the 
> > rest. (And, of course, domain names can cost down to USD 10 these days)
> > 
> > another idea I had - what if we considered an activated At Large
> membership 
> > necessary and sufficient for voting rights in the GA?
> > This would have a couple of advantages:
> > 
> > - ICANN has to do the verification work anyway, so it's only done once
> > - More active use of the ICANN membership code gives more chance that 
> > weaknesses in the system will be found and corrected
> > - It's a drive (a small one) for At Large membership
> > 
> > Of course, this leaves us without the power to impose or enforce our own 
> > membership rules, requires people to be willing to sign up for At Large 
> > membership, and requires that the people running the At Large are willing 
> > to share at least some information.
> > 
> > But it's an idea.
> > 
> >                        Harald
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> > [email-masked]
> > 
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 

A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:59:58 +0100
From: "Alf Hansen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Is ICANN replacing the ga with its new site?

Roberto,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 28. februar 2000 21:23
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Is ICANN replacing the ga with its new site?
>
>
> Alf,
>
>
> You wrote:
> >We got to get our membership database in shape. Even if the membership
> is
> >open to anyone. A distribution list is not a membership database. The
> ga
> >distribution list should be produced from the membership database.
> >
>
> In fact, I believe the two are not necessarily related.
>
> I think that a member may elect to participate to the GA-list, and vice-
> versa we may accept contributions to the GA-List by non-members.
>

Sure, but that is a "distribution list administration" problem. When it
comes to f.ex. voting, we have to know "who has the right to vote". And this
information should be taken fram the membeship database, not from the
distribution list. There may or may not be a requirement that all people
representing members should be on the dist.list.

> Roberto
>

Best regards,
Alf H

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:36:42 -0000
From: Jean-Michel Becar <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

Michael,

In France, the law is clear: "the private information of an individual
cannot be used without his acknowledgement"

So, this does not prevent the anonymous.

But my personal view is that in a such forum like the DNSO GA, and if we
want to give to it a little bit more of power and credibility, this
anonymous is a pity. How to make the NC taken into account a recommendation,
a request from a body where people can hide behind an anonymous identity....
Just my though.

Jean-Michel Becar
ETSI Project Manager
www.etsi.org
Tel: +33 4 92 94 43 15
Fax: +33 4 92 38 52 15
GSM: +33 6 82 80 19 31

- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 4:46 PM
To: Jean-Michel Becar
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

[cc's trimmed]

The United States has a long and honorable tradition of anonymous and
pseudonymous participation in public life.  It is a right that our courts
have said is guaranteed by the constitution against governmental attempts
to require identification. (Of course that is only applicable by analogy
to our list.) Many of the major essays leading up to the American
Revolution, and in the period after independence and before the adoption
of the Constitution were published pseudonymously - including the
Federalist Papers, which are part of our legal bedrock today.  

I would be curious to know what the legal rule is in France - can the
government compel that political essays be signed with the name of the
author?

I personally reject the suggestion that anonymity and/or pseudonymity are
either bad or a sign of something evil to hide.  Indeed, they seem to me
to offer the only answer, however poor, to legitimate fears some people
have expressed (mostly off list) that controversial postings might lead to
direct retaliation against them personally.

For more on anonymity and pseudonymity see
http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/ocean.htm

I would support allowing anonymous posting to the list.  Even some sort of
"identity escrow" to prevent multiple identities (which don't bother me,
but I know would bother others) would be preferable to a blanket
prohibition.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:

> Mr Baptista,
> 
> As I'm a honest citizen I don't care to provide or to share any of my
> private information with any body. Why are you so reluctant? I always
> thought that only people having something to hide would hide their
identity.
> But I do not think it's your case, so what's the problem?
> 
> Jean-Michel Becar
> ETSI Project Manager
> www.etsi.org
> Tel: +33 4 92 94 43 15
> Fax: +33 4 92 38 52 15
> GSM: +33 6 82 80 19 31
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: !Dr. Joe Baptista [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 11:22 AM
> To: Jean-Michel Becar
> Cc: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot
> 
> 
> not in the icann cards - nor do I expect icann for reasons of privacy to
> share any information with the ga nitwits.
> 
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> 
> > Harald,
> > 
> > Yes of course, I wrote this Email earlier in the morning and I only
though
> > afterwards I was writing something not enough open for our process. BTW
I
> > like your idea to use the At Large membership system to subscribe to the
> ga.
> > Dear ga members could we go for a discussion on that.
> > 
> > Jean-Michel Becar
> > E.T.S.I.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 8:26 AM
> > To: Jean-Michel Becar; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law;
> > [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot
> > 
> > 
> > At 05:44 28.02.00 +0000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> > >Harald, Michael,
> > >
> > >But the way the At Large members is registered via this Web Interface
> could
> > >be an example for the GA membership.
> > >But the way the proof of identity is done (by sending a postal mail to
> the
> > >pysical address with a PIN code to be used for accessing to the web
site)
> > >would cost too much for the GA.
> > >So why not to set up a web site where people can registrer themselves
and
> > >for the proof of identity and interest in the GA DNSO, they should
> provide
> > a
> > >domain name that can be verified with a whois request if the domain
name
> > >holder is the same as the member.
> > 
> > and if they don't hold any domain names?
> > For those that do, it's possible - but we'll have to do something for
the 
> > rest. (And, of course, domain names can cost down to USD 10 these days)
> > 
> > another idea I had - what if we considered an activated At Large
> membership 
> > necessary and sufficient for voting rights in the GA?
> > This would have a couple of advantages:
> > 
> > - ICANN has to do the verification work anyway, so it's only done once
> > - More active use of the ICANN membership code gives more chance that 
> > weaknesses in the system will be found and corrected
> > - It's a drive (a small one) for At Large membership
> > 
> > Of course, this leaves us without the power to impose or enforce our own

> > membership rules, requires people to be willing to sign up for At Large 
> > membership, and requires that the people running the At Large are
willing 
> > to share at least some information.
> > 
> > But it's an idea.
> > 
> >                        Harald
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> > [email-masked]
> > 
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 

A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:56:50 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Is ICANN replacing the ga with its new site?

Alf,

>Sure, but that is a "distribution list administration" problem. When it

>comes to f.ex. voting, we have to know "who has the right to vote". And
 this
>information should be taken fram the membeship database, not from the
>distribution list.

Agree.

> There may or may not be a requirement that all people
>representing members should be on the dist.list.

IMHO, there should not be such obligation.

Regards
Roberto
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:51:10 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

Jean-Michel,

You wrote:

> <snip>
>
>..... How to make the NC taken into account a recommendation,
>a request from a body where people can hide behind an anonymous 
identity....

Wait, wait, wait.
We are talking apples and oranges, IMHO.

One thing is the mailing list, one thing is the GA-Membership.

Anonimity on the GA-list is one thing that, even if I personally find 
not serious, is nevertheless acceptable in principle.

Anonimity in membership is definitively not acceptable.
To be a "member" of an organization means to have a relationship (a 
"contract", I was about to say) that implies advantages and duties, and 
this is incompatible with the impossibility to at least identify the 
"member".

Now, if we talk about "recommendation to NC", this will be obviously 
originated by the GA-Membership (possibly via a vote), not by the GA-
list-participants.

Of course, the possibility of a "secret ballot" still exists, but this 
should mean that the vote cast is not publicly known, not that the 
identity of the voter is in doubt.

Regards
Roberto
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:30:12 -0000
From: "Dr. Nii Quaynor" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

> On 28-Feb-2000 Per Koelle wrote:
> > This is silly. There ARE 2 kinds of membership:
> > One for the At Large, and one for the DNSO GA !!!
> > If we dont have this separation the at-large will be able to vote
> > NINE members in the Board and CONTROLE the DNSO NC and therefore also
> > be able have their voice heard this way.
>
> You are wrong. The DNSO GA does not control or elect the DNSO NC.
> Unfortunately IMHO.
>
> Your criticism is without merit.
>

given that the GA is the union of the dnso constituency members plus other
direct GA members one can say that the GA indirectly "elected" the dnso NC?

nii

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:47:40 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

Roberto and all assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Jean-Michel,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> >
> >..... How to make the NC taken into account a recommendation,
> >a request from a body where people can hide behind an anonymous
> identity....
>
> Wait, wait, wait.
> We are talking apples and oranges, IMHO.
>
> One thing is the mailing list, one thing is the GA-Membership.

  No Roberto the GA mailing list = GA Membership that was
declared when this (Newer - GA) list was created as an announcement
from the DNSO Announcement List (See archives).

>
>
> Anonimity on the GA-list is one thing that, even if I personally find
> not serious, is nevertheless acceptable in principle.

  I have yet to see anyone on the DNSO GA list that has been or
is anonymous.

>
>
> Anonimity in membership is definitively not acceptable.
> To be a "member" of an organization means to have a relationship (a
> "contract", I was about to say) that implies advantages and duties, and
> this is incompatible with the impossibility to at least identify the
> "member".

  I agree that Anonymity as a Member of any organization is unexceptable.
The question and problem is what is sufficient as to identification in
in electronic format for purposes of participating via this mailing list
or other electronic formats.  A Physical address is NOT legally necessary,
but a legal one IS in any other commercially similar situation.

>
>
> Now, if we talk about "recommendation to NC", this will be obviously
> originated by the GA-Membership (possibly via a vote), not by the GA-
> list-participants.

  Yes by the GAL list participants unless or until a satisfactorily method
has
been decided by the DNSO GA list participants as to what WILL BE
the membership in the future and how, and what is required to define
identity of individuals in electronic form.

>
>
> Of course, the possibility of a "secret ballot" still exists, but this
> should mean that the vote cast is not publicly known, not that the
> identity of the voter is in doubt.

  In doubt?  How do YOU determine if there is reasonable doubt
Roberto?   My guess is you really don't know from a legal standpoint.

>
>
> Regards
> Roberto
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:40:37 -0000
From: "Dr. Nii Quaynor" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

>  In all case participants in these forum still have the money to buy a
> computer, to get an internet connection so don't come with arguments like:
> "what about people without any ressources!!"
>

people without resources is real. those handful of people in some of our
countries who can buy computers are clearly different from the real rural
communities which are a separate challenge. those people also have equitable
rights.

nii

>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:42:58 -0000
From: "Dr. Nii Quaynor" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Is ICANN replacing the ga with its new site?

> we have to know "who has the right to vote". And this
> information should be taken fram the membeship database, not from the
> distribution list. 

ack.

nii

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 11:42:25 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

At 10:46 29/02/00 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

>I personally reject the suggestion that anonymity and/or pseudonymity are
>either bad or a sign of something evil to hide.  Indeed, they seem to me
>to offer the only answer, however poor, to legitimate fears some people
>have expressed (mostly off list) that controversial postings might lead to
>direct retaliation against them personally.
>
>For more on anonymity and pseudonymity see
>http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/ocean.htm
>
>I would support allowing anonymous posting to the list.  Even some sort of
>"identity escrow" to prevent multiple identities (which don't bother me,
>but I know would bother others) would be preferable to a blanket
>prohibition.
>

Michael,

Your article, although old in Internet years (digicash has now been well
and truly strangled), makes interesting reading and does take the negative
side of anonymous postings well into account.

While I agree with you on many other points that you have made in this
forum, on this one I would like to give some weight to the other side of
the anonymity coin: while I recognize legitimate fears for retaliation for
"controversial" postings (people *do* get sudden IRS audits) , I also feel
that the victims of libel and gross defamation need to be able to identify
their attackers in order to exercise their fair legal remedies.

Anonymous postings can end up giving disproportionate power to those few
who choose to abuse such freedom. 
In a forum like the GA, there is much to be said for all participants being
equal in this respect.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , founder  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  (or direct:) 
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 11:47:52 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

At 20:40 29/02/00 +0000, Dr. Nii Quaynor wrote:
>>  In all case participants in these forum still have the money to buy a
>> computer, to get an internet connection so don't come with arguments like:
>> "what about people without any ressources!!"
>>
>
>people without resources is real. those handful of people in some of our
>countries who can buy computers are clearly different from the real rural
>communities which are a separate challenge. those people also have equitable
>rights.
>
Nii is absolutely right.
There are many people without computers who participate on the Net.  They
have the right to be at large members in ICANN.

But these are largely not the people who register Domains or  have
otherwise a stake in the DNS to justify their membership of the DNSO GA.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , founder  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  (or direct:) 
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:41:02 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Who has standing

On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 11:47:52AM +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> Nii is absolutely right.

Indeed he is.

> There are many people without computers who participate on the Net.  They
> have the right to be at large members in ICANN.
> 
> But these are largely not the people who register Domains or  have
> otherwise a stake in the DNS to justify their membership of the DNSO GA.

People who don't have domain names clearly have a stake in the DNS,
because they will get domain names in the future.  For example, policies
that led to domain names costing hundreds of dollars each have vastly
different consequences than policies that lead to domain names costing a
dollar.  By your reasoning developing countries that currently have very
few domain names don't have any stake in the DNS, and can therefore be
ignored.  That is patently false. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:26:08 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

Nii and all assembly members,

  Actually no Nii one cannot say this as the election was fradulent.

Dr. Nii Quaynor wrote:

> > On 28-Feb-2000 Per Koelle wrote:
> > > This is silly. There ARE 2 kinds of membership:
> > > One for the At Large, and one for the DNSO GA !!!
> > > If we dont have this separation the at-large will be able to vote
> > > NINE members in the Board and CONTROLE the DNSO NC and therefore also
> > > be able have their voice heard this way.
> >
> > You are wrong. The DNSO GA does not control or elect the DNSO NC.
> > Unfortunately IMHO.
> >
> > Your criticism is without merit.
> >
>
> given that the GA is the union of the dnso constituency members plus other
> direct GA members one can say that the GA indirectly "elected" the dnso NC?
>
> nii
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:08:09 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] there are more cost factors..

I haven't seen any acknowledgement that there is more to using a domain name
than registering it; someone has to host it, etc.  Where is that little cost
item discussed?  Clearly, ISPs in the U.S. do that often without a separate
charge, but that isn't always the case.

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 6:41 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Who has standing

On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 11:47:52AM +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> Nii is absolutely right.

Indeed he is.

> There are many people without computers who participate on the Net.  They
> have the right to be at large members in ICANN.
> 
> But these are largely not the people who register Domains or  have
> otherwise a stake in the DNS to justify their membership of the DNSO GA.

People who don't have domain names clearly have a stake in the DNS,
because they will get domain names in the future.  For example, policies
that led to domain names costing hundreds of dollars each have vastly
different consequences than policies that lead to domain names costing a
dollar.  By your reasoning developing countries that currently have very
few domain names don't have any stake in the DNS, and can therefore be
ignored.  That is patently false. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:32:03 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] there are more cost factors..

Greetings:

Aside from being the .VI domain admin, i also own an ISP in the Virgin
Islands. I looked into this once- it appears that AT&T charges $ 25.00 a
month for name service (count on AT&T to be the highest!), but if you have a
web site with AT&T (minimum $ 150 US a month) they give you the name service
free.

We (COBEX INternet ISP) provide the name service free if the client is doing
web hosting or web advertising with us. Otherwise, we charge $ 5.00 US a
month.

Our commercial web hosting rates start at $ 19.95 US a month (with name
service).

Many server farm services will "park" your domain free for 1 year (that
means provide name service, along with an 'under construction' web page-
just to try to get you (the client) to sign up for value added services.
Just for kicks, i registered a domain name and 'parked' it with a compny
called VERIO. after 1 year, they sent me an e-mail asking for $ 49.00 a year
for the parking and 'under construction' sign web page. I said i wouldn't
pay it, so what they (VERIO) does is put advertising for themselves on the
parked domain.

http://www.VirtualVirginIslands.com

I hope this gives all of you some insight into the pricing policies to be
found around the net.

regards

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 9:08 PM
To: 'Kent Crispin'; [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] there are more cost factors..

I haven't seen any acknowledgement that there is more to using a domain name
than registering it; someone has to host it, etc.  Where is that little cost
item discussed?  Clearly, ISPs in the U.S. do that often without a separate
charge, but that isn't always the case.

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 6:41 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Who has standing

On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 11:47:52AM +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> Nii is absolutely right.

Indeed he is.

> There are many people without computers who participate on the Net.  They
> have the right to be at large members in ICANN.
>
> But these are largely not the people who register Domains or  have
> otherwise a stake in the DNS to justify their membership of the DNSO GA.

People who don't have domain names clearly have a stake in the DNS,
because they will get domain names in the future.  For example, policies
that led to domain names costing hundreds of dollars each have vastly
different consequences than policies that lead to domain names costing a
dollar.  By your reasoning developing countries that currently have very
few domain names don't have any stake in the DNS, and can therefore be
ignored.  That is patently false.

- --
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #15
***********************