Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #27
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, March 22 2000          Volume 01 : Number 027

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

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:28:43 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older registrations

> Anyone for ".atlantis"?

No no, it's a ccTLD, right? It should be .mu!

- --
Christopher Ambler
[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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:41:41 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older registrations

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

On 21-Mar-2000 John Palmer wrote:

I was with you until this point:

> This is not to be confused with the rights of someone to own a domain,
> including top-level domains. ADNS owns the top level domains USA, EARTH
> and Z because were first to use them and first to apply for them (Postel's
> list is evidence of this which is admissible in court).

A list which carried no authority whatsoever.  Jon lacked the authority to
recognize those domains. 

Other than the last three paragraphs, I was reading your message and nodding my
head in agreement.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE41+yV8zLmV94Pz+IRAtpQAJ9FhxmsLz+CA5kuZQEPyvlIn20htQCeKgMC
eAuHOcE62GClQnvJJYZO35s=
=D74q
- -----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, 21 Mar 2000 16:45:52 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older registrations

On Tue, Mar 21, 2000 at 09:10:04AM -0800, Simon Higgs wrote:
> At 12:16 PM 3/20/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > > You can say whatever you want. I'll stand by the
> > > historical facts:
> > >
> > > In 1995/1996, IANA solicited new iTLD requests under the guidelines laid
> >                      *********
> >Not fact.
> 
> Semantics. When two out of four IANA employees tell others to go ahead and 
> submit an application, and even go so far as to tell them how to go about 
> that process, even informally, I'd call that something "semantically 
> similar" to a solicitation.

You would be wrong.

> > > out in RFC1591. IANA received many new iTLD applications and published the
> > > results on the IAHC-discuss mailing list (archived at www.gtld-mou.org for
> > > some inexplicable reason).
> >
> >IANA published the collection of applications that people had sent in
> >over a substantial period of time, whether on whim
> 
> Submissions started in response to this message from Jon Postel:
> 
> http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/1995q3/0233.html

That message says:

    Hi. 

    The IANA is seriously considering the creation of a few new top
    level domains and the allocation of these to new registration
    service centers.  It is important to do this thoughtfully.  It will
    be helpful to carefully consider the criteria for selecting these
    new registration service centers and the requirements they should
    meet in providing the service. 

    --jon. 

This is a call for discussion of criteria, not a request for
applications.  This case is an excellent example of how people 
willfully misread even the clearest text to support their position. 
 
> Hardly a whim. And the period of time of submissions was exactly the length 
> of time between the above message and the creation of the IAHC (when IANA 
> published their list). This can be verified from the time stamps noted on 
> the IANA list (9/14/95 through 11/28/96):
> 
> http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html

Irrelevant.  The above quote from Postel was not a call for
applications.  Period.  It is not a "solicitation".  Period.  It
requires a complete and willfull disregard for the english language and
reality to construe it as a "solicitation".

- -- 
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, 21 Mar 2000 17:07:46 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older registrations

> You would be wrong.

Of course Kent would never be wrong, ever. Couldn't happen. His
opinions carry the weight of divine doctrine.

- --
Christopher Ambler
[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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 17:38:24 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

At 01:11 PM 3/20/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>That's right. And IANA made claims as well, none of which countered
>our claims. Interesting, as that was the heart of our complaint.

Pretty weak heart, given the clear, direct and dismissive content in the 
judge's ruling.  What a surprise that you then withdrew the case:

>           What's most interesting about the breach of contract/estoppel 
> claim is that the claim made is that there was a contract entered into, 
> or that the Defendant should be estopped from denying that a contract was 
> entered into with an entity that the Plaintiff claims has no authority to 
> act.  And in drawing that conclusion, I don't mean to oversimplify and 
> sound cute about the inconsistency, but there's a real internal 
> inconsistency in the breach of contract position and again, the failure 
> to establish the elements of a contract.
>
>           The second category of claims really has to do with the unfair 
> competition.  There we have the claim of Image Online that they have a 
> proprietary and protectable interest in dot web.
>
>           I find the evidence insufficient to support either factually, 
> or as a matter of law, that the Plaintiff has estab- lished that it has 
> protectable proprietary interest in the term -- or the word -- term "dot 
> web," considering the nature of the interweb and the usage of the term, 
> vis a vis, the interweb -- the Internet.

>  Since we're doing just fine
>now, I have no need to really get into it with you.

Then don't.

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

- --
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, 22 Mar 2000 01:23:29 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

At 11:23 PM 3/20/00 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>Simon Higgs wrote:
> >In 1995/1996, IANA solicited new iTLD requests under the guidelines
> >laid out in RFC1591. IANA received many new iTLD applications and published
> >the results on the IAHC-discuss mailing list (archived at www.gtld-mou.org
> >for some inexplicable reason). At the same time, IANA started the process
> >to establish unquestionable authority to formally introduce new TLDs
> >(beginning with the "Postel drafts" and now under ICANN). The iTLD
> >applications received by IANA were printed out and placed in a file at
> >IANA (I've seen the file - it exists) pending the results of that process.
> >
> >And here we are.
>
>I was not there, but I would like to comment anyhow on your passages
>above.
>
>What strikes me is that, at the origin, we had a "simple" problem of
>enhancing the Domain Name space with the introduction of new gTLDs (or
>iTLDs, if you prefere).
>We went through different efforts, committees of any sort, papers of
>different colours, even the attempt to define a new model for Internet
>Governance, but, as you well put it "and here we are", years later, with
>  a lot of discussions, and maybe even results, but with the starting
>question about new gTLDs still unanswered.
>
>Why?

Roberto,

OK, here goes. It will almost certainly garner the ire of those who should 
know better (watch the dismissive responses to my messages to see who they 
are). I have included references where I could.

When the original discussions took place, there were a couple of dozen 
people, mostly communicating via mailing list (newdom). The original 
intention of IANA was to do three things:

1. Open up domain name registration competition to NSI by the creation of 
new registries and TLDs
Before the feasibility of shared-tlds, the Postel plan was to create a 
number of new registries that would each provide up to three new TLDs. This 
is what generated the majority of the TLD applications. Each registry would 
theoretically be equal to NSI's .COM/.NET/.ORG franchise and provide 
economic incentives for pricing competition.

2. Open up competition to NSI by sharing registration services
This was the creation of the registrar function and was originally 
discussed on newdom. I created the original shared-tld mailing list to see 
if a shared registry system was feasible. It was very straight forward on a 
technical level but fraught with policy & economic incentive problems which 
were not properly discussed - in fact the problems that ICANN is now having 
were foreseen but have been continually dismissed. Later versions of the 
Postel draft included shared-tlds (Jon copied the outline from my draft 
with my permission). My draft at the time[1] also proposed guidelines for 
defining the type of registry services a TLD would require - 
Shared/Specialized/Private - which I gather is now being explored by the 
various ICANN sub-sub-sub-committees. I also proposed the creation of a 
descriptive charter for each TLD which described both it's purpose and how 
it would be delegated. Kent Crispin has since championed the TLD charter.

3. Create a small series of ad hoc committees
These small ad hoc committees from the internet community that would 
evaluate applications for new registries. There would be a published set of 
criteria which would determine if an application was to be approved. This 
included the selection and maintenance of the new TLD(s) that the registry 
was created to support [remember who serves whom here - it's a fundamental 
law that everyone seems to ignore]. The committee would be informal and 
have a revolving membership to allow continuity, but would not allow 
unnecessary outside interests to interfere with the approval process.

Now we come back to reality - what actually happened is as follows:

IANA indulged in some experimentation with various people who had expressed 
an interest in new registries/TLDs. Participation in the AlterNIC root 
system was actually encouraged for a while for functional testing of the 
proposed new registries. AlterNIC failed for a number of reasons we don't 
need to go into here, but the testing which IANA had proposed continues to 
this day. By the time the IAHC had come into existence, several personality 
conflicts had emerged which resulted in outright lies being broadcast about 
various people's intentions. These include IANA-acknowledged registry 
applicants fulfilling IANA-proposed operational requirements being accused 
of TLD squatting.

Unfortunately, the IAHC committee that was eventually formed was the 
complete opposite of what was originally envisioned. It was a blue-ribbon 
interest-serving panel (ISOC, IANA, IAB, FNC, ITU, INTA, WIPO), all of whom 
had a claim to control the internet via the control of the domain name 
space. None of the committee members were prepared to work within the 
framework of what had gone on before (even the IANA representatives opposed 
Jon Postel's public views[2]). The IAHC accepted shared-tlds as the 
exclusive standard for introducing TLDs without attempting any due 
diligence or study of the real-world consequences. This had the effect of 
instantly disenfranchising the majority of the new-TLD supporters and all 
of the IANA-acknowledged applicants[3]. The committee then created it's own 
exclusionary community, with a [flawed] signatory document (the 
gtld-mou[4]) as the mandatory method of entry. The gtld-mou community 
(under the auspices of CORE[5]) then attempted to create 7 new shared-TLDs, 
two of which conflicted with IANA-acknowledged applications. This resulted 
in a lawsuit from Image Online Design (who was part of the pre-IAHC 
face-to-face discussions with IANA). The point isn't in the lawsuit (it was 
withdrawn leaving the findingst inconclusive), but the fact that TLDs were 
chosen deliberately to conflict and eradicate the validity of the previous 
IANA work.

Briefly, CORE started to implement a shared registrar system, and had their 
test registry system stolen in mysterious circumstances. Fortunately, CORE 
has now become .COM/.NET/.ORG registrars. However, along the way CORE used 
Jon Postel to attempt to split the root zone in order to get their proposed 
TLDs into the non-US Government controlled root servers. The US Department 
of Commerce/NTIA rightfully intervened[6] and has attempted to put the 
process back on track by establishing IANA's successor, ICANN[7].

History aside, the reason I believe we are no further along is because the 
fundamental laws of domain name delegation are not being recognized. Top 
level domains can be divided into three groups which determine how they are 
to be delegated:

1. Shared (non-exclusive) which are served by multiple competing registrars 
AND REGISTRIES
2. Specialized (exclusive) which are served by a single registry that has 
the necessary expertise to address specific industry issues (.INT)
3. Private (exclusive) which are required to serve single large 
organizations (.GOV, .MIL)

In the case of Shared TLDs the registry back-end should also be 
competitive. The only practical way to achieve this is to use the Postel 
draft to create the registries for new shared-TLDs and the ICANN registrars 
to provide the public interface to these TLDs. There's nothing wrong with 
combining two good ideas, since everyone will get what they want.

Another issue is in recognizing the correct ownership of the name space. 
RFC1591 states that the name space is recursive. What works at the 6LD 
works at the 5LD, and also works at the 4LD, 3LD, 2LD and ultimately the 
TLD. Obviously, exclusive use can be delegated at any level, and the rights 
associated with exclusive use are inconsistent with the idea of a public 
trust. The gtld-mou deliberately failed to recognize this, claiming the 
rights to the TLD layer under the guise of public resource[8]. I'm not 
saying that TLDs must be owned, but instead saying that famous marks may 
have enough rights for exclusive delegation.

Next you have to decide what new TLDs to introduce. Let's assume you have a 
list of proposed TLDs by various organizations. What is stopping these from 
being introduced? Think about this carefully, because the reasons you will 
end up with are the real stumbling blocks to the growth and stability of 
the internet. Is it because:

1. the organizations requesting TLDs cannot qualify as registries?
2. the trademark community can't decide what trade categories will minimize 
conflicts?
3. the lawyers can't keep up with the Intellectual Property work?
4. the [governmental body] won't be able to regulate/tax the name space?
5. the [company name] won't be able to profiteer from the name space?
6. the [insert reason/motive here]?

Roberto, there are a lot of reasons "why?". I doubt if I've mentioned them all.

[1] http://www.iahc.org/contrib/draft-iahc-higgs-tld-cat-03.txt
[2] http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00527.html
[3] http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html
[4] http://www.itu.int/net-itu/gtld-mou/gTLD-MoU.htm
[5] http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/core.html
[6] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainhome.htm
[7] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/icann/icann.html
[8] gtld-mou SECTION 2. - Principles
     The following principles are adopted:
     a.the Internet Top Level Domain (TLD) name space is a
     public resource and is subject to the public trust;

Best Regards,

Simon

- --
DNS is not a sacred cow that cannot be replaced by something better.

- --
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, 22 Mar 2000 14:52:13 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] About GA membership again......

sorry to have to interrupt the reminescences again, but I do think we need
to get some GA business items out of the way.

I suggest that in the absence of a better opinion, we declare the following
as the definition of GA membership:

- - The DNSO General Assembly is composed of those persons who want to be
   members of that assembly.

- - In order to be a member, one must send an email to the Keeper of the
   Membership List (a secretariat function) asking to become a member,
   and giving:
   - Name
   - Country of residence
   - Optionally, company affiliation and/or city of residence
   - Email to be used for balloting
   All the information except the email will be made public.

- - A Member can be removed from the Membership list by:
   - A request from the Member to be removed
   - A procedure (to be defined) for dealing with fraudulent registrations

- - A Member has the right to vote in a GA vote.
   A Member has the duty to receive GA vote ballots, and to keep his
   registration info updated.

This point set is incomplete (particularly the definition of fraudulent
registration), but I thought it time to get comments on a proposal.

I know this sounds like "lex Alvestrand" again, but we've got to come to
some kind of conclusion on this matter....and I think this roughly reflects
the opinion of most of the participants.

Comments?

                   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

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

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:11:58 -0500
From: Craig Simon <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older registrations

Simon, 

I want to congratulate you for providing a very interesting and useful
recounting of these events. Folks here may be interested to know that also I
have some stuff written about this at
http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/dnsdraft.html  and
http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/overview.html . 

Of course, you were there through the whole thing, and I was not until spring of
1997 (and it took me another few months after that to figure out why the
participants seemed to hate each others' guts so thoroughly). I am primarily
interested in assessing this in terms of the wider context of modern society and
social thought: namely, the big picture story about how computer engineers
engage in social architecture. But it's also important to have a clear view of
how the smaller pieces of the story fit together.

That said, I want to ask some questions and add one or two comments.

1) You said you opened up the original shared-tld mailing list. I'm afraid I
don't seem to have anything on that one. Can you point me to archives?

2) You mentioned a plan to create a small series of ad hoc committees. This is a
very important point, mentioned in the January 96 draft at
ftp://rg.net/pub/dnsind/relevant/draft-ymbk-itld-admin-00.txt . But the authors
were floating ideas. The same draft contemplates the alternative, creating a
more formal permanent body. What's your sense of who favored a permanent body at
the time, and who preferred the ad hoc approach?

3) One key point of controversy that I think needs emphasis was Postel's
motivation in finding alternative funding sources for the IANA and the
consequence of this. Some of the Spring 96 drafts contemplated a hefty fee for
blessing a new TLD registry, and this provoked heated opposition.  Isn't this
what prompted Denninger, Kashpureff and Fenello to try to go out on their own?

4) Ambler, on the other hand, recognized the potential windfall of obtainin an
official blessing that he could own .web, and he was more than willing to pay to
get it. Thus, as I see it, he tried to force a contract on Postel by way of
Manning. This is where personality makes a difference. Postel was by this time
apparently rather fed up and didn't want to be bothered; Ambler is one of the
most aggressive people you'll ever meet; and Manning is the archetypal nice guy
who is uncomfortable saying no to people. He said no to Ambler's entreaties at
least once that fateful day, but Ambler kept up the pressure, and (with
everybody buzzing on the MSG from too much Chinese food?) Manning finally
succumbed, accepting a sealed envelope that Ambler calls an application fee. At
least Manning kept enough good sense to sign nothing. Postel intervened the next
day, sent back the envelope to Ambler, and announced that no commercial
applications were being accepted. (Unfortunately, I just discovered that the
link at umich.edu that I used to cite Postel's email to this point is no longer
good).

5) I don't know how much CORE pressured Postel to reorient part of the root. I
do know that Vixie and others had been pressuring him for some time (years) to
take control of the dot, because they didn't trust NSI. If CORE (or CORE
supporters) were pressuring Postel in early 98, which certainly seems plausible,
it is clear that who ever was doing that was simultaneously escalating that
popular old anti-NSI rationale, offering scenarios that NSI was on the verge of
adding its own selection of private TLD operators to the root. It would be great
to know more about the evolution of those rumours, and Postel's private
reflections about what happened. 

6) At the time it seemed like he had to eat crow, but the consequence has at
least one healthy aspect. If there can't be some adhoc process controlled by the
IETF/IAB/ISOC crowd, it won't be controlled by NSI, or by the USG acting
cavalierly either (as it did when NSF first allowed NSI to start charging).
Postel's move forced the USG to pay even closer attention, and to tread
carefully, and it forces everybody else involved to seriously consider what it
means to have a legitimate formal process for governing key elements of the
Internet's most hierarchical feature. Even if this means endorsing some kind of
proprietary pioneer preference for gTLDs (which I don't prefer, sorry), at least
and at last the rule would be openly and widely stated.

Craig Simon
- --
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, 22 Mar 2000 08:22:11 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

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

It certainly sounds like a good working definition for now.

On 22-Mar-2000 Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> sorry to have to interrupt the reminescences again, but I do think we need
> to get some GA business items out of the way.
> 
> I suggest that in the absence of a better opinion, we declare the following
> as the definition of GA membership:
> 
> - The DNSO General Assembly is composed of those persons who want to be
>    members of that assembly.
> 
> - In order to be a member, one must send an email to the Keeper of the
>    Membership List (a secretariat function) asking to become a member,
>    and giving:
>    - Name
>    - Country of residence
>    - Optionally, company affiliation and/or city of residence
>    - Email to be used for balloting
>    All the information except the email will be made public.
> 
> - A Member can be removed from the Membership list by:
>    - A request from the Member to be removed
>    - A procedure (to be defined) for dealing with fraudulent registrations
> 
> - A Member has the right to vote in a GA vote.
>    A Member has the duty to receive GA vote ballots, and to keep his
>    registration info updated.
> 
> This point set is incomplete (particularly the definition of fraudulent
> registration), but I thought it time to get comments on a proposal.
> 
> I know this sounds like "lex Alvestrand" again, but we've got to come to
> some kind of conclusion on this matter....and I think this roughly reflects
> the opinion of most of the participants.
> 
> Comments?
> 
>                    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

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE42PMz8zLmV94Pz+IRAp/IAKDZmn564hXGNha7onZveQHGBs2VNACeOSPr
w4E67U08dFAUqq29ajTlB9I=
=w6Dx
- -----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, 22 Mar 2000 09:23:50 -0800
From: "Kroon, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

It sounds fair to me. --Richard

- -----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 5:52 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] About GA membership again......

sorry to have to interrupt the reminescences again, but I do think we need
to get some GA business items out of the way.

I suggest that in the absence of a better opinion, we declare the following
as the definition of GA membership:

- - The DNSO General Assembly is composed of those persons who want to be
   members of that assembly.

- - In order to be a member, one must send an email to the Keeper of the
   Membership List (a secretariat function) asking to become a member,
   and giving:
   - Name
   - Country of residence
   - Optionally, company affiliation and/or city of residence
   - Email to be used for balloting
   All the information except the email will be made public.

- - A Member can be removed from the Membership list by:
   - A request from the Member to be removed
   - A procedure (to be defined) for dealing with fraudulent registrations

- - A Member has the right to vote in a GA vote.
   A Member has the duty to receive GA vote ballots, and to keep his
   registration info updated.

This point set is incomplete (particularly the definition of fraudulent
registration), but I thought it time to get comments on a proposal.

I know this sounds like "lex Alvestrand" again, but we've got to come to
some kind of conclusion on this matter....and I think this roughly reflects
the opinion of most of the participants.

Comments?

                   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

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

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:26:54 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-full] About GA membership again......

On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> I know this sounds like "lex Alvestrand" again, but we've got to come to

Meme!  Meme!
- -- 

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: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:42:58 -0800
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> - In order to be a member, one must send an email to the Keeper of the
> Membership List (a secretariat function) asking to become a member,

Hasn't it been the case that members of constituencies are also members of
the General Assembly, by default? Will those membership lists be passed to
the secretariat or will constituency members have to separately enroll? I'd
favor the former.

      -- Bret

- --
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, 22 Mar 2000 22:27:23 +0100 (MET)
From: DNSO Listadmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fwd: IANA Report on Request for .ps Delegation

| From [email-masked] Wed Mar 22 18:31 MET 2000
| Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
| Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:10:51 -0800
| From: Louis Touton <[email-masked]>
| To: [email-masked]
| Subject: [council] IANA Report on Request for .ps Delegation
| 
| To the Names Council:
| 
| Today the IANA has issued a report on a request it has received
| for delegation of the .ps ccTLD (Palestine).  The report concludes
| that the domain should be delegated.  The entire report is posted
| on the ICANN web site at
| <http://www.icann.org/general/ps-report-22mar00.htm>.
| 
| Louis Touton
- --
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, 22 Mar 2000 23:59:17 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

Bret Fausett wrote:

>
>Hasn't it been the case that members of constituencies are also members
 of
>the General Assembly, by default? Will those membership lists be passed
 to
>the secretariat or will constituency members have to separately enroll?
 I'd
>favor the former.
>

Me too.

In former times we had to build in a hurry the concept of "membership by
 default", because of the need for voting procedures (nominations for 
BoD, for instance).
In this context, the NC needed to expand the voting body to include not 
only the GA-list, but also the Constituencies (as a matter of fact, the 
WGs as well).

I personally do not like the concept of "membership by default", and 
much prefere the proactive action of applying for a Membership, as a 
voluntary act, that you have the freedom of doing or not doing, 
accepting the consequences (positive and negative) af your action.
In other words, you take responsibility for joining, and in the future 
you could not claim that it was done automatically, maybe even without 
you knowing it.

Furthermore, we may have requirements for membership, that are not 
necerssarily the same for the constituencies mailing lists or WGs (or 
the GA-list, for that matter).

Last but not least, I have a question: do we check for duplicates, or 
for "real person", or not? In other words, are we going to have 
requirements for membership that are even less restrictive than the 
requirements for subscribing to the Ga mailing list (where we require 
the subscribers to be "real persons", and we challenge duplicates?

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #27
***********************