Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #20
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, March 8 2000           Volume 01 : Number 020

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

Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 11:38:22 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [IFWP] this is very odd - Where's ICANN Cairo??

Joe and all,

  Yep!  But of course Berkman is handeling the links, right?  >;)
Seems like a familier pattern here, doesn't it?  :(

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> ICANN Cairo is missing.  The meetings started 45 minutes ago, but so far
> the page has yet to be updated for the remote link.  Very sad.
>
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/cairo/

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, 07 Mar 2000 18:52:25 -0500
From: bob broxton <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKING GROUP C...."

- --------------412568FE39A6CF3383EFDD84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF THIS REPORT AS "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKING

GROUP C OF THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, INTERNET
CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS"

As a member of Working Group C, I object to the release of this report
"Report (Part One) of Working Group C of the Domain Name Supporting
Organization, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers"
(hereafter referred to as "Report of Working Group C")  for the
following reasons:

1.   The  members of Working Group C have never given approval of this
Report.  As such, this is not a "Report of Working Group C".

2.   The members of Working Group C have not given approval to allow the
co-chairman of Working Group C to use his absolute discretion in
determining what goes in this particular report and then releasing this
report as a "Report of Working Group C".  As such, this is not a "Report
of Working Group C".

3.  The co-chairman of Working Group C has decided to release this
report as the "Report of Working Group C" over the known  objections of
some members of Working Group C to releasing the report as the "Report
of Working Group C'.

4.   Some members of  Working Group C probably do not know this "Report
of Working Group C" exists.  An extremely short period of time
(approximately 7 days) was allowed to review and provide any suggestions
regarding this document.

5.   The co-chairman has refused to change the name of the report to
"The Co-Chairman's Report on the Progress of Working Group C".  This
would permit the material in the report to be released but allow the
members of Working Group C  to approve and release a report from Working
Group C entitled "Report of Working Group C".

6.   The issuance of this report, without the members of Working Group C
approving, either the language in the report or granting this authority
to the co-chairman, sets a bad precedent for future reports.  Why have
members?

7.   Public Comments have never been requested on this "Report of
Working Group C".  Prior public comments were received on an Interim
Report.  The "Report of Working Group C"  being released now has new
materials for which public comments have never been received.

8.   The release of any "Report of Working Group C" without first
obtaining public comments on a draft of the report is contrary to
ICANN's stated policy of " the development of consensus based policies
(such as policies concerning new names) in an open, transparent and
bottom-up manner in which interested individuals have an opportunity to
participate and comment" (see ICANN FAQ on new generic top level domains
- - posted September 13,1999).

9.  This report was hurriedly prepared and little time allowed for
review because "Members of the Names Council" requested "WG-C file a
report before the NC's meeting in Cairo next week."   Either Working
Group C should be allowed sufficient time to study the issues, explore
all the options and timely complete a report or the Names Council should
disband the Working Group.  To require a Working Group to hastily
prepare a report for the sake of an upcoming meeting, with insufficient
time for members to study, provide comments and approve the report, does
not establish a lot of faith in the ICANN process.

Bob Broxton
Member of Working Group C
Richmond, VA

- --------------412568FE39A6CF3383EFDD84
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<u>OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF THIS REPORT AS "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKING</u>
<br><u>GROUP C OF THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, INTERNET</u>
<br><u>CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS</u>"
<p>As a member of Working Group C, I object to the release of this report
"Report (Part One) of Working Group C of the Domain Name Supporting Organization,
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" (hereafter referred
to as "Report of Working Group C")&nbsp; for the following reasons:
<p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp; members of Working Group C have never given
approval of this Report.&nbsp; As such, this is not a "Report of Working
Group C".
<p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp; The members of Working Group C have not given approval
to allow the co-chairman of Working Group C to use his absolute discretion
in determining what goes in this particular report and then releasing this
report as a "Report of Working Group C".&nbsp; As such, this is not a "Report
of Working Group C".
<p>3.&nbsp; The co-chairman of Working Group C has decided to release this
report as the "Report of Working Group C" over the known&nbsp; objections
of some members of Working Group C to releasing the report as the "Report
of Working Group C'.
<p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp; Some members of&nbsp; Working Group C probably do not
know this "Report of Working Group C" exists.&nbsp; An extremely short
period of time (approximately 7 days) was allowed to review and provide
any suggestions regarding this document.
<p>5.&nbsp;&nbsp; The co-chairman has refused to change the name of the
report to "The Co-Chairman's Report on the Progress of Working Group C".&nbsp;
This would permit the material in the report to be released but allow the
members of Working Group C&nbsp; to approve and release a report from Working
Group C entitled "Report of Working Group C".
<p>6.&nbsp;&nbsp; The issuance of this report, without the members of Working
Group C approving, either the language in the report or granting this authority
to the co-chairman, sets a bad precedent for future reports.&nbsp; Why
have members?
<p>7.&nbsp;&nbsp; Public Comments have never been requested on this "Report
of Working Group C".&nbsp; Prior public comments were received on an Interim
Report.&nbsp; The "Report of Working Group C"&nbsp; being released now
has new materials for which public comments have never been received.
<p>8.&nbsp;&nbsp; The release of any "Report of Working Group C" without
first obtaining public comments on a draft of the report is contrary to
ICANN's stated policy of " the development of consensus based policies
(such as policies concerning new names) in an open, transparent and bottom-up
manner in which interested individuals have an opportunity to participate
and comment" (see ICANN FAQ on new generic top level domains - posted September
13,1999).
<p>9.&nbsp; This report was hurriedly prepared and little time allowed
for review because "Members of the Names Council" requested "WG-C file
a report before the NC's meeting in Cairo next week."&nbsp;&nbsp; Either
Working Group C should be allowed sufficient time to study the issues,
explore all the options and timely complete a report or the Names Council
should disband the Working Group.&nbsp; To require a Working Group to hastily
prepare a report for the sake of an upcoming meeting, with insufficient
time for members to study, provide comments and approve the report, does
not establish a lot of faith in the ICANN process.
<br>&nbsp;
<p>Bob Broxton
<br>Member of Working Group C
<br>Richmond, VA
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------412568FE39A6CF3383EFDD84--

- --
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, 07 Mar 2000 18:49:06 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKING GROUP C...."

Bob and all assembly members,

  I am in complete agreement with you here Bob.  Given the recent rancor

of the DNSO list admin, the NC, Roberto, and Harald, I am not surprised
that this sort of "Maneuvering" in taking place.  Glad you caught it
though!

bob broxton wrote:

>    Part 1.1       Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
>               Encoding: 7bit

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, 07 Mar 2000 16:58:06 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKI

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07-Mar-2000 bob broxton wrote:
> OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF THIS REPORT AS "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKING
> 
> GROUP C OF THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, INTERNET
> CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS"
> 
> As a member of Working Group C, I object to the release of this report
> "Report (Part One) of Working Group C of the Domain Name Supporting
> Organization, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers"
> (hereafter referred to as "Report of Working Group C")  for the
> following reasons:
> 
> 1.   The  members of Working Group C have never given approval of this
> Report.  As such, this is not a "Report of Working Group C".

We know you seek to do anything to delay and block introduction of new gTLDs,
Bob.  After all it would cause a depreciation in the value of your ccTLD
registration service.

But your comments here are simply false.

This report IS a report of the Workgroup.  It summarizes the findings of the
workgroup and does an excellent job presenting the points of rough consensus as
well as the points of contention.

It is interesting to note that only yourself and another latecomer to the
workgroup C progress objected.  I think that alone shows that indeed this
report IS a valid report of the workgroup.

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE4xaWe8zLmV94Pz+IRAtAQAKC3P18PsBc00DcMQGer/u+GP/XxmgCg0KwG
FHAm43Pjwl6JPcTezHocc4w=
=TUsx
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
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, 7 Mar 2000 18:02:13 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKI

On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 04:58:06PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
[...]
> 
>We know you seek to do anything to delay and block introduction of new gTLDs,
>Bob.  After all it would cause a depreciation in the value of your ccTLD
>registration service.
> 
>But your comments here are simply false.
> 
>This report IS a report of the Workgroup.  It summarizes the findings of the
>workgroup and does an excellent job presenting the points of rough consensus as
>well as the points of contention.

"Report *of* the Workgroup" is vastly different than a "report about 
the workgroup".

>It is interesting to note that only yourself and another latecomer to the
>workgroup C progress objected.  I think that alone shows that indeed this
>report IS a valid report of the workgroup.

Please note that I also objected, and I can neither be labeled a
"latecomer" nor can I be accused of being willing to do "anything to
delay and block introduction of new gTLDs."

What I am concerned about is the absolute procedural incoherence in
WG-C.  Previously we have gone through formal "consensus calls" and
posting for public comment.  Now, suddenly, those procedures are
unnecessary, and tossed by the wayside.  

Since I argued against application of some of those procedures, perhaps
I should be grateful about Jon's sudden change of heart.  But I'm not. 
The contrast in procedures between earlier work and this last effort are
rather stark, and, in my opinion, seriously undermine whatever
credibility this process may have.

Was the report approved by a vote? No.  Was any other process for
affirmation agreed to? No.  Was the report posted for public comment?
No.  Was the report posted for comment on the list? Yes, but with an
extraordinarily short time limit.  Was the report a group effort, with
input from multiple members of the WG? No -- it was the work of one
person, working privately. 

It would be fair to call Jon's paper a "Chair's Summary".  

- -- 
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, 07 Mar 2000 20:07:01 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKI

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08-Mar-2000 Kent Crispin wrote:
> It would be fair to call Jon's paper a "Chair's Summary".  

Is there anything contained in the report that is substantively against the
rough consensus reached on the list, Kent?

If not, then it is more than a "Chair's Summary" even if the document itself
was not formally voted on.

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE4xdHl8zLmV94Pz+IRAjRdAKCMHZRA5/Z52ADFotM60kFPt/WZgQCgm1Fy
q0CgEvIAqJztAKQLHBgUeQY=
=90dJ
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
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, 07 Mar 2000 22:17:50 -0700
From: Michael <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKING GROUP  C...."

- --------------1D28C23D1F845FB3349B51F4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bob:
Since the report unequivocally reflects the views of a majority of the
Group,
I don't see how you have any room to object.  It's long overdue.
Michael McNulty

> OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF THIS REPORT AS "REPORT (PART ONE) OF
> WORKING
> GROUP C OF THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, INTERNET
> CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS"
>
> As a member of Working Group C, I object to the release of this report
> "Report (Part One) of Working Group C of the Domain Name Supporting
> Organization, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers"
> (hereafter referred to as "Report of Working Group C")  for the
> following reasons:
>
> 1.   The  members of Working Group C have never given approval of this
> Report.  As such, this is not a "Report of Working Group C".
>
> 2.   The members of Working Group C have not given approval to allow
> the co-chairman of Working Group C to use his absolute discretion in
> determining what goes in this particular report and then releasing
> this report as a "Report of Working Group C".  As such, this is not a
> "Report of Working Group C".
>
> 3.  The co-chairman of Working Group C has decided to release this
> report as the "Report of Working Group C" over the known  objections
> of some members of Working Group C to releasing the report as the
> "Report of Working Group C'.
>
> 4.   Some members of  Working Group C probably do not know this
> "Report of Working Group C" exists.  An extremely short period of time
> (approximately 7 days) was allowed to review and provide any
> suggestions regarding this document.
>
> 5.   The co-chairman has refused to change the name of the report to
> "The Co-Chairman's Report on the Progress of Working Group C".  This
> would permit the material in the report to be released but allow the
> members of Working Group C  to approve and release a report from
> Working Group C entitled "Report of Working Group C".
>
> 6.   The issuance of this report, without the members of Working Group
> C approving, either the language in the report or granting this
> authority to the co-chairman, sets a bad precedent for future
> reports.  Why have members?
>
> 7.   Public Comments have never been requested on this "Report of
> Working Group C".  Prior public comments were received on an Interim
> Report.  The "Report of Working Group C"  being released now has new
> materials for which public comments have never been received.
>
> 8.   The release of any "Report of Working Group C" without first
> obtaining public comments on a draft of the report is contrary to
> ICANN's stated policy of " the development of consensus based policies
> (such as policies concerning new names) in an open, transparent and
> bottom-up manner in which interested individuals have an opportunity
> to participate and comment" (see ICANN FAQ on new generic top level
> domains - posted September 13,1999).
>
> 9.  This report was hurriedly prepared and little time allowed for
> review because "Members of the Names Council" requested "WG-C file a
> report before the NC's meeting in Cairo next week."   Either Working
> Group C should be allowed sufficient time to study the issues, explore
> all the options and timely complete a report or the Names Council
> should disband the Working Group.  To require a Working Group to
> hastily prepare a report for the sake of an upcoming meeting, with
> insufficient time for members to study, provide comments and approve
> the report, does not establish a lot of faith in the ICANN process.
>
>
> Bob Broxton
> Member of Working Group C
> Richmond, VA
>
>
>

- --------------1D28C23D1F845FB3349B51F4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Bob:
<br>Since the report unequivocally reflects the views of a majority of
the Group,
<br>I don't see how you have any room to object.&nbsp; It's long overdue.
<br>Michael McNulty
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><u>OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF THIS REPORT AS "REPORT
(PART ONE) OF WORKING</u>
<br><u>GROUP C OF THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, INTERNET</u>
<br><u>CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS</u>"
<p>As a member of Working Group C, I object to the release of this report
"Report (Part One) of Working Group C of the Domain Name Supporting Organization,
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" (hereafter referred
to as "Report of Working Group C")&nbsp; for the following reasons:
<p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp; members of Working Group C have never given
approval of this Report.&nbsp; As such, this is not a "Report of Working
Group C".
<p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp; The members of Working Group C have not given approval
to allow the co-chairman of Working Group C to use his absolute discretion
in determining what goes in this particular report and then releasing this
report as a "Report of Working Group C".&nbsp; As such, this is not a "Report
of Working Group C".
<p>3.&nbsp; The co-chairman of Working Group C has decided to release this
report as the "Report of Working Group C" over the known&nbsp; objections
of some members of Working Group C to releasing the report as the "Report
of Working Group C'.
<p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp; Some members of&nbsp; Working Group C probably do not
know this "Report of Working Group C" exists.&nbsp; An extremely short
period of time (approximately 7 days) was allowed to review and provide
any suggestions regarding this document.
<p>5.&nbsp;&nbsp; The co-chairman has refused to change the name of the
report to "The Co-Chairman's Report on the Progress of Working Group C".&nbsp;
This would permit the material in the report to be released but allow the
members of Working Group C&nbsp; to approve and release a report from Working
Group C entitled "Report of Working Group C".
<p>6.&nbsp;&nbsp; The issuance of this report, without the members of Working
Group C approving, either the language in the report or granting this authority
to the co-chairman, sets a bad precedent for future reports.&nbsp; Why
have members?
<p>7.&nbsp;&nbsp; Public Comments have never been requested on this "Report
of Working Group C".&nbsp; Prior public comments were received on an Interim
Report.&nbsp; The "Report of Working Group C"&nbsp; being released now
has new materials for which public comments have never been received.
<p>8.&nbsp;&nbsp; The release of any "Report of Working Group C" without
first obtaining public comments on a draft of the report is contrary to
ICANN's stated policy of " the development of consensus based policies
(such as policies concerning new names) in an open, transparent and bottom-up
manner in which interested individuals have an opportunity to participate
and comment" (see ICANN FAQ on new generic top level domains - posted September
13,1999).
<p>9.&nbsp; This report was hurriedly prepared and little time allowed
for review because "Members of the Names Council" requested "WG-C file
a report before the NC's meeting in Cairo next week."&nbsp;&nbsp; Either
Working Group C should be allowed sufficient time to study the issues,
explore all the options and timely complete a report or the Names Council
should disband the Working Group.&nbsp; To require a Working Group to hastily
prepare a report for the sake of an upcoming meeting, with insufficient
time for members to study, provide comments and approve the report, does
not establish a lot of faith in the ICANN process.
<br>&nbsp;
<p>Bob Broxton
<br>Member of Working Group C
<br>Richmond, VA
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
</html>

- --------------1D28C23D1F845FB3349B51F4--

- --
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, 7 Mar 2000 21:50:26 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKI

On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 08:07:01PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
> On 08-Mar-2000 Kent Crispin wrote:
> > It would be fair to call Jon's paper a "Chair's Summary".  
> 
> Is there anything contained in the report that is substantively against the
> rough consensus reached on the list, Kent?

Like many people, I haven't had time to read it and think about it, much
less write up any comments.  That is one of the problems.  

> If not, then it is more than a "Chair's Summary" even if the document itself
> was not formally voted on.

That doesn't follow.  Jon could have written nothing but "The WG
discussed things", and it still wouldn't be any more than a "Chair's
Summary", without the some kind of involvement or approval of the WG.  

- -- 
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, 7 Mar 2000 21:54:11 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ONE) OF WORKING GROUP C...."

On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 10:17:50PM -0700, Michael wrote:
> Bob:
> Since the report unequivocally reflects the views of a majority of the
> Group,

"Unequivocally???" That's rich.  :-)

- -- 
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: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 08:01:20 +0200
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: REMINDER: ICANN-Cairo Meeting Webcasts Start Today

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 7:56 AM
To: ICANN-Cairo Remote Participation Preregistrants
Subject: REMINDER: ICANN-Cairo Meeting Webcasts Start Today

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because you preregistered to attend, via
webcast, ICANN's public meetings in Cairo, Egypt, on March 7 to 10, 2000.

The main plenary public sessions will begin this morning, March 8, at 9AM
Cairo time (7AM GMT, 2AM US Eastern time, 11AM [the day before, March 7] US
Pacific time) with the General Assembly of the Domain Name Supporting
Organization, followed by a Public Forum of the Government Advisory
Committee and then a meeting of the DNSO Names Council.  Meetings continue
tomorrow with the ICANN Public Forum and on Friday with an Open Meeting of
the ICANN Board of Directors.  More details about meeting schedules are
posted at <http://www.icann.org/cairo2000/cairo-details.htm#schedule>.

To join the webcast today or later in the week, go to
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/cairo>.  Complete archives will also be
posted as soon as available at this page.

Access to the remote participation system requires a 28.8kbps or faster
modem, with best access via 56kbps or faster connections.  Access to the
live audio and video feeds requires the RealPlayer, version 5.0 or later (G2
or later preferred), available for free download at
<http://www.real.com/products/player>.  Finally, access to the live chat
area requires a JAVA-capable browser (IE or Netscape version 3 or later) or
a dedicated IRC client.

We look forward to your attendance at the ICANN-Cairo meetings, and we hope
to hear from you via the remote participation system.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet and Society
Harvard Law School

- --
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, 08 Mar 2000 06:23:55 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: [ga] OBJECTION TO THE RELEASE OF "REPORT (PART ON

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08-Mar-2000 Alex Kamantauskas wrote:
>  My .02 cents - I think the whole argument is kind of silly.

It's also moot.  The report has already been presented.

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE4xmJ78zLmV94Pz+IRAihmAKDeTpu73dbhkattAE/M60XOwjezwACgjUDR
R3ViD5Qe/JLHPWvQVU7e1ew=
=cj0J
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
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, 8 Mar 2000 20:56:14 +0200
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: REMINDER: ICANN-Cairo Meeting Webcasts Continues Tomorrow

I just sent the message below to ICANN-Cairo Remote Participation
Preregistrants and Remote Participants.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 8:40 PM
To: ICANN-Cairo Remote Participation Preregistrants and Remote Participants
Subject: REMINDER: ICANN-Cairo Meeting Webcasts Continues Tomorrow

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because you preregistered to attend, via
webcast, ICANN's public meetings in Cairo, Egypt, on March 7 to 10, 2000 or
because you participated in today's public meetings via webcast.

The archive of today's meetings of the General Assembly of the Domain Name
Supporting Organization, the DNSO Names Council, and the Government Advisory
Committee is now available at <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/cairo>.

Meetings continue tomorrow with the ICANN Public Forum and on Friday with an
Open Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors.  More details about meeting
schedules are posted at
<http://www.icann.org/cairo2000/cairo-details.htm#schedule>.  Meetings begin
at 9AM Cairo time, 7AM GMT, 2AM US Eastern time, and 11PM (the day before)
US Pacific time.

To join each day's webcast, go to
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/cairo>.

Access to the remote participation system requires a 28.8kbps or faster
modem, with best access via 56kbps or faster connections.  Access to the
live audio and video feeds requires the RealPlayer, version 5.0 or later (G2
or later preferred), available for free download at
<http://www.real.com/products/player>.  Finally, access to the live chat
area requires a JAVA-capable browser (IE or Netscape version 3 or later) or
a dedicated IRC client.

We look forward to your attendance at the ICANN-Cairo meetings, and we hope
to hear from you via the remote participation system.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet and Society
Harvard Law School

- --
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 #20
***********************