Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #32
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, March 28 2000           Volume 01 : Number 032

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

Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 17:39:49 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI to:NAF Arbitrator Transfers Domain Name to Domain Collector]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------C82F9F31AE6CE1568AE759CE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- --------------C82F9F31AE6CE1568AE759CE
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

To: [email-masked]
From: "Richard J. Sexton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [IFWP] NAF Arbitrator Transfers Domain Name to Domain Collector
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 18:35:52 -0500 (EST)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 15:58:37 -0500
>
>
>The domain name fibershield.net, which was ordered "cancelled" in a Uniform
>Dispute Resolution Policy proceeding, has been re-registered by Mr. Russell
>Smith, the operator of consumer.net, domainia.org, and many other domain
>names relating to privacy issues, consumer issues, and not surprisingly, the
>questionable wisdom of allowing trademark lawyers to determine how the
>Internet domain name system is run.
>
>The National Arbitration Forum should be congratulated for its role in
>promoting free speech on the internet by ordering the domain name to be
>taken away from the two disputing businesses that had been using the term
>"fibershield" and allowing the domain name to be registered by someone who,
>until today, had no interest in the term whatsoever.  Mr. Smith intends to
>use the domain name for the legitimate non-commercial purposes of his
>organization, thus making the domain name safe from further tampering by
>trademark lawyers.
>
>The WIPO drafters of the Uniform Dispute Policy should also be congratulated
>for providing for this "random transfer" method of settling disputes.  This
>is an entirely new concept for alternative dispute resolution - if two
>parties are fighting over something, then give it to an entirely unrelated
>third party.  Clever.
>
>
>
>
- --
[email-masked]        [email-masked]       http://www.dnso.com
It's about travel on expense accounts to places with good beer. - BKR

- --------------C82F9F31AE6CE1568AE759CE--

- --
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 01:34:21 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

At 10:02 AM 3/25/00 +0100, you wrote:

>I believe we have three constituencies with ex definitio restrictly
>defined membership (and certainly restricted mailing lists):
>    - ccTLDs are managers of current ccTLD registries (whereas the ccTLDs
>      Registry Managers list is restricted to 243 members as provided
>      by the publicly open IANA whois database, which are the only ones
>      allowed to vote, the ccTLDs mailing list is much larger -- roughly
>      double size -- and includes more than one contact per
>      country/territory, as well as regional secretariat's staff)
>    - gTLDs are managers of current gTLD registries (NSI)

I'm confused by the non-NSI registries not being represented in Elizabeth's 
list:

http://www.dnso.org/constituency/gtld/gtld.html

In the the above URL, there are Open generic TLDs (.COM, .NET, .ORG) and 
Restricted generic TLDs (.GOV, .MIL, .EDU, .INT) - all of which are 
described as gTLDs. There is a need for an rTLD constituency for the 
restricted TLDs since they cannot be accurately described as generic or 
gTLDs. Generic describes a TLD which can be shared by multiple registrars, 
whereas Restricted describes a requirement for close-control by a single 
registry.

>    - Registrars are, AFAIK, limited to accredited by ICANN Registrars
>      for gTLDs
>The remaining four (ISPCP, IP, NCDNH and Business) have charters
>and published rules.

I'd also like to propose that the pre-IAHC work with IANA be recognized, 
and that an iTLD constituency be created. Constituents can from known 
contributors to the Jon Postel new TLD/registry drafts, or other new 
TLD/registry Internet Drafts published during 1996, or are named on the 
iTLD applicant list that Jon Postel published on behalf of IANA to 
iahc-discuss. The purpose of the iTLD Constituency is to create new 
registries that will compete at the registry-level with NSI (currently no 
competition exists for gTLDs or rTLDs at the registry-level).

>NB. Two (.edu, .int) of four "forgotten" TLDs are missing withing
>     the DNSO GA, and it would be better to have them inside
>     (the remining two are .gov and .mil).

rTLDs ;-)

Best Regards,

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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:02:41 -0800
From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

The only problem I have with this is the requirement that gTLDs be shared. I
disagree. A gTLD des not have to be shared, by multiple registrars.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Simon
> Higgs
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 1:34 AM
> To: [email-masked]; Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......
>
>
> At 10:02 AM 3/25/00 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >I believe we have three constituencies with ex definitio restrictly
> >defined membership (and certainly restricted mailing lists):
> >    - ccTLDs are managers of current ccTLD registries
> (whereas the ccTLDs
> >      Registry Managers list is restricted to 243 members as provided
> >      by the publicly open IANA whois database, which are
> the only ones
> >      allowed to vote, the ccTLDs mailing list is much
> larger -- roughly
> >      double size -- and includes more than one contact per
> >      country/territory, as well as regional secretariat's staff)
> >    - gTLDs are managers of current gTLD registries (NSI)
>
> I'm confused by the non-NSI registries not being represented
> in Elizabeth's
> list:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/constituency/gtld/gtld.html
>
> In the the above URL, there are Open generic TLDs (.COM,
> .NET, .ORG) and
> Restricted generic TLDs (.GOV, .MIL, .EDU, .INT) - all of which are
> described as gTLDs. There is a need for an rTLD constituency for the
> restricted TLDs since they cannot be accurately described as
> generic or
> gTLDs. Generic describes a TLD which can be shared by
> multiple registrars,
> whereas Restricted describes a requirement for close-control
> by a single
> registry.
>
> >    - Registrars are, AFAIK, limited to accredited by ICANN
> Registrars
> >      for gTLDs
> >The remaining four (ISPCP, IP, NCDNH and Business) have charters
> >and published rules.
>
> I'd also like to propose that the pre-IAHC work with IANA be
> recognized,
> and that an iTLD constituency be created. Constituents can from known
> contributors to the Jon Postel new TLD/registry drafts, or other new
> TLD/registry Internet Drafts published during 1996, or are
> named on the
> iTLD applicant list that Jon Postel published on behalf of IANA to
> iahc-discuss. The purpose of the iTLD Constituency is to create new
> registries that will compete at the registry-level with NSI
> (currently no
> competition exists for gTLDs or rTLDs at the registry-level).
>
> >NB. Two (.edu, .int) of four "forgotten" TLDs are missing withing
> >     the DNSO GA, and it would be better to have them inside
> >     (the remining two are .gov and .mil).
>
> rTLDs ;-)
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> 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
>

- --
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:31:31 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

Thats the same non-sense that is at the crux of my disagreement with many of
these socialist schemes - the right of private property ownership.

Domains are property - Including TLDs

Property can be owned by private individuals/organizations and they can set
the rules for sub-leasing their property.

Period.

John
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Roeland M. J. Meyer <[email-masked]>
To: 'Simon Higgs' <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 'Elisabeth Porteneuve'
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:02 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

> The only problem I have with this is the requirement that gTLDs be shared.
I
> disagree. A gTLD des not have to be shared, by multiple registrars.
>

- --
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:44:21 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

At 08:02 AM 3/27/00 -0800, Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote:

I agree with you, but it won't work anymore. The problem is that the term 
"gTLD" was created by the IAHC to specifically define the shared-TLD 
environment. Some people have the term "gTLD" firmly associated with 
sharing and registrars. This excludes a number of TLDs (as Elisabeth points 
out).

I don't think redefining gTLDs as shared AND non-shared is a battle worth 
fighting over, especially if there are constituencies to recognize the 
registries/TLDs which aren't shared, or might be a mixture or shared and 
non-shared. Thus the request for rTLD and iTLD constituencies.

Keep it understandable...

>The only problem I have with this is the requirement that gTLDs be shared. I
>disagree. A gTLD des not have to be shared, by multiple registrars.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Simon
> > Higgs
> > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 1:34 AM
> > To: [email-masked]; Elisabeth Porteneuve
> > Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......
> >
> >
> > At 10:02 AM 3/25/00 +0100, you wrote:
> >
> > >I believe we have three constituencies with ex definitio restrictly
> > >defined membership (and certainly restricted mailing lists):
> > >    - ccTLDs are managers of current ccTLD registries
> > (whereas the ccTLDs
> > >      Registry Managers list is restricted to 243 members as provided
> > >      by the publicly open IANA whois database, which are
> > the only ones
> > >      allowed to vote, the ccTLDs mailing list is much
> > larger -- roughly
> > >      double size -- and includes more than one contact per
> > >      country/territory, as well as regional secretariat's staff)
> > >    - gTLDs are managers of current gTLD registries (NSI)
> >
> > I'm confused by the non-NSI registries not being represented
> > in Elizabeth's
> > list:
> >
> > http://www.dnso.org/constituency/gtld/gtld.html
> >
> > In the the above URL, there are Open generic TLDs (.COM,
> > .NET, .ORG) and
> > Restricted generic TLDs (.GOV, .MIL, .EDU, .INT) - all of which are
> > described as gTLDs. There is a need for an rTLD constituency for the
> > restricted TLDs since they cannot be accurately described as
> > generic or
> > gTLDs. Generic describes a TLD which can be shared by
> > multiple registrars,
> > whereas Restricted describes a requirement for close-control
> > by a single
> > registry.
> >
> > >    - Registrars are, AFAIK, limited to accredited by ICANN
> > Registrars
> > >      for gTLDs
> > >The remaining four (ISPCP, IP, NCDNH and Business) have charters
> > >and published rules.
> >
> > I'd also like to propose that the pre-IAHC work with IANA be
> > recognized,
> > and that an iTLD constituency be created. Constituents can from known
> > contributors to the Jon Postel new TLD/registry drafts, or other new
> > TLD/registry Internet Drafts published during 1996, or are
> > named on the
> > iTLD applicant list that Jon Postel published on behalf of IANA to
> > iahc-discuss. The purpose of the iTLD Constituency is to create new
> > registries that will compete at the registry-level with NSI
> > (currently no
> > competition exists for gTLDs or rTLDs at the registry-level).
> >
> > >NB. Two (.edu, .int) of four "forgotten" TLDs are missing withing
> > >     the DNSO GA, and it would be better to have them inside
> > >     (the remining two are .gov and .mil).
> >
> > rTLDs ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > 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
> >

- --
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:59:49 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

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

On 27-Mar-2000 Simon Higgs wrote:
> I'd also like to propose that the pre-IAHC work with IANA be recognized, 
> and that an iTLD constituency be created. Constituents can from known 
> contributors to the Jon Postel new TLD/registry drafts, or other new 
> TLD/registry Internet Drafts published during 1996, or are named on the 
> iTLD applicant list that Jon Postel published on behalf of IANA to 
> iahc-discuss. The purpose of the iTLD Constituency is to create new 
> registries that will compete at the registry-level with NSI (currently no 
> competition exists for gTLDs or rTLDs at the registry-level).

There is no reason to recognize those.  None at all.  It would serve no purpose
in this process to recognize claims made in an unrelated and unofficial process.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE438vF8zLmV94Pz+IRAqHCAKCtOTTyOqM/2n17IRXn0xmU9CKn2ACgpZdr
felX0qakN86MO2uB/vjV15A=
=HZRO
- -----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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:00:38 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

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

On 27-Mar-2000 John Palmer wrote:
> Thats the same non-sense that is at the crux of my disagreement with many of
> these socialist schemes - the right of private property ownership.
> 
> Domains are property - Including TLDs
> 
> Property can be owned by private individuals/organizations and they can set
> the rules for sub-leasing their property.
> 
> Period.

You don't get property by unilaterally declaring it to be yours by fiat.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE438v28zLmV94Pz+IRAv/hAKD0QGaHlLRDXCs48jIZnQg/dP3/vACgzRLO
r9OhiduX5RPIpEcRzXgCdzs=
=rxqL
- -----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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:03:08 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI - NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new TLDs

All,

  The following is a copu of a post sent to the NCDNHC list earlier
today..
=========
Subject:              NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new
TLDs
        Date:              Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:21:55 -0500
       From:              James Love <[email-masked]>
 Organization:              http://www.cptech.org
         To:              NCDNHC <[email-masked]>

I propose the following NCDNHC resolution.  Jamie

- -----------------
Proposed Resolution for NCDNHC on ICANN policy with respect to
new Top Level Domains and famous names

   version 1.0
   author: James Love, [email-masked]
   March 27, 2000

The Non Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency (NCDNHC) opposes
proposals to have ICANN restrict the registration of famous names in
connection with new top level domains (TLDs).

ICANN has already created an alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
mechanism that may be used, and in the case of some existing TLDs, is
mandatory, to address disputes over trademarks and domain names.

The proposals for special filtering or restrictions on the registration
of famous names presents many issues concerning the legal basis for such

restrictions and the appropriateness of ICANN global policy making in
the area of trademark policy, an area of considerable controversy that
is subject to different national traditions and legal systems.

ICANN is considering the long overdue creation of new top level domains
(TLDs) for the Internet.  These will include both commercial and
non-commercial TLDs.  There exist proposals for chartered non-commercial

TLDs that would seek to use the TLD name space in ways that would make
it easier to organize consumers or workers, or to criticism businesses,
products or organizations.  For example, TLDs such as .union or .syn,
ecology, .boycott, etc.

At its Cairo meeting, the ICANN board indicated it would ask the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to create a list of famous
names, but did not indicate how that list would be used by ICANN.  Some
trademark owners are asking ICANN to provide trademark owners certain
rights to exclude others from using the famous names in the new TLD
space.

1. The NCDNHC opposes new ICANN restrictions on the ability to register
a domain.

2. NCDNHC recognizes that registrars and registries will be subject to
court orders from a variety of national governments, and this will
include court orders on issues concerning trademark rights.  While there

may be a public interest in harmonization or coordination of national
laws on trademarks in cyberspace, it is
far beyond ICANN's competence and mission to address these controversial

and complex issues.

3.  Trademark rights are designed to protect consumer interests, but
overly broad powers to trademark owners result in anticompetitive
conduction that harms consumers.  Trademark rights also must be limited
in areas of criticism, parody and other important exceptions.  Consumer
and free speech interests are not sufficiently represented in the ICANN
process.

4.  NCHDHC also urges legal authorities with national jurisdiction over
trademark disputes to permit the use of a company or product name in
connection with a TLD that is designed to facilitate organization of
consumers or workers, or for criticism.  For example, labor unions
should be permitted to create domains such as sony.union or nike.union.
Environmentalists should be permitted to create domains such as
Exxon.ecology, to comment on a company's environmental record.    Civil
rights groups should be permitted to use domains such as
Texaco.isnotfair, to inform the public of a company' record in civil
rights.

=======================================================
James Love, Director           | http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:[email-masked]
P.O. Box 19367                 | voice: 1.202.387.8030
Washington, DC 20036           | fax:   1.202.234.5176
=======================================================

- --
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:52:16 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

But you do get service marks by being first to use them on a product. Thats
the law.
I cannot copyright or servicemark the word SATURN, but I can create a motor
car and call it SATURN and no one else can use
the word SATURN for their brand of motor cars.

The product is "Domain Registrations" and the service marks are ".USA,
.EARTH and .Z".

Thats the law
Live with it.

John
- ----- Original Message -----
From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
To: John Palmer <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On 27-Mar-2000 John Palmer wrote:
> > Thats the same non-sense that is at the crux of my disagreement with
many of
> > these socialist schemes - the right of private property ownership.
> >
> > Domains are property - Including TLDs
> >
> > Property can be owned by private individuals/organizations and they can
set
> > the rules for sub-leasing their property.
> >
> > Period.
>
> You don't get property by unilaterally declaring it to be yours by fiat.
>
>
>
> - --
> 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/
>
> iD8DBQE438v28zLmV94Pz+IRAv/hAKD0QGaHlLRDXCs48jIZnQg/dP3/vACgzRLO
> r9OhiduX5RPIpEcRzXgCdzs=
> =rxqL
> -----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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:51:44 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

There is every reason to recognize those. If for no other reason, then
Jon Postel caused a number of individuals and companies to spend
good resources in time and money based on his request to show working
code previous to process.

Those who say that nothing was guaranteed are flat our wrong. Simon
has shown, in letters and postings from Jon, that IANA did indeed give
assurances and rough timetables to those involved.

We're not talking about grandfathering here, we're talking about simply
recognizing and acknowledging the facts of history.

- --
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Simon Higgs" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 12:59 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On 27-Mar-2000 Simon Higgs wrote:
> > I'd also like to propose that the pre-IAHC work with IANA be recognized,
> > and that an iTLD constituency be created. Constituents can from known
> > contributors to the Jon Postel new TLD/registry drafts, or other new
> > TLD/registry Internet Drafts published during 1996, or are named on the
> > iTLD applicant list that Jon Postel published on behalf of IANA to
> > iahc-discuss. The purpose of the iTLD Constituency is to create new
> > registries that will compete at the registry-level with NSI (currently
no
> > competition exists for gTLDs or rTLDs at the registry-level).
>
> There is no reason to recognize those.  None at all.  It would serve no
purpose
> in this process to recognize claims made in an unrelated and unofficial
process.
>
> - --
> 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/
>
> iD8DBQE438vF8zLmV94Pz+IRAqHCAKCtOTTyOqM/2n17IRXn0xmU9CKn2ACgpZdr
> felX0qakN86MO2uB/vjV15A=
> =HZRO
> -----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

- --
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:01:40 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

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

On 27-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> There is every reason to recognize those. If for no other reason, then
> Jon Postel caused a number of individuals and companies to spend
> good resources in time and money based on his request to show working
> code previous to process.

All I have to say to this is that you should have made sure that he indeed had
the authority he was claiming to have.   You shouldn't get any higher standing
at the expense of those who have followed the authorized process because of
Dr. Postel's mistakes.  Why should they be penalized for Dr. Postel's false
actions?  (Presuming of course that these actions can be laid at his feet,
which I am not sure I concede right now).
 
> Those who say that nothing was guaranteed are flat our wrong. Simon
> has shown, in letters and postings from Jon, that IANA did indeed give
> assurances and rough timetables to those involved.

Guarantees are only as good as the person giving them.  In this case, there may
have been a guarantee, but it wasn't worth the paper it was or was not written
on.
 
> We're not talking about grandfathering here, we're talking about simply
> recognizing and acknowledging the facts of history.

The history bears out that this process was as unauthorized as the IAHC effort. 

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE439pD8zLmV94Pz+IRAoNgAKCTSPr+qndhWFjVqTGNY7a+zMGj2ACfeAZk
gHvP0CiA7m28ppC2rWnjXRM=
=UCrt
- -----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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:07:45 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

> All I have to say to this is that you should have made sure that he indeed
had
> the authority he was claiming to have.   You shouldn't get any higher
standing
> at the expense of those who have followed the authorized process because
of
> Dr. Postel's mistakes.  Why should they be penalized for Dr. Postel's
false
> actions?  (Presuming of course that these actions can be laid at his feet,
> which I am not sure I concede right now).

Name one individual or company that falls into your category of "following
the authorized process." They will have to state their intention of being a
registry, of course. If you can't, then your argument is moot.

Also, please define, as you're using it, "authorized process." If IANA had
no
authorization to do what they did, then they also could not have created
any "authorized process." We know that the USG did not create an
"authorized process" either. RFC1591, if IANA has no authorization, is
also not an "authorized process."

So, please define the term for me so I can be sure we're talking about the
same thing.

Christopher

- --
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:10:19 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

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

On 27-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> Also, please define, as you're using it, "authorized process." If IANA had
> no
> authorization to do what they did, then they also could not have created
> any "authorized process." We know that the USG did not create an
> "authorized process" either. RFC1591, if IANA has no authorization, is
> also not an "authorized process."

Yes, the USG did create a process that bears their imprimatur.  They still have
 to approve the results, as a matter of fact.  

I'll give you one point for being good at word games, Chris.   But I won't get
caught up in them with you.

The current process bears the approval and direct supervision of the USG, who
specifically gave ICANN the authority to move forward with creating a plan for
adding new gTLDs.    Prior to this,  IANA had no authority to mange any new
process with regard to new gTLDs without specific approval of the USG.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE439xK8zLmV94Pz+IRAn7yAJ0UEDSbdhfOqLXVv1SuMRiAbh6GzgCfV4ej
Jnu1LLfHH/eLF3FTtuCoT4Q=
=6hQ+
- -----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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:17:50 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

> Yes, the USG did create a process that bears their imprimatur.  They still
have
>  to approve the results, as a matter of fact.

The USG created a process for ICANN over the past couple of years. But
we're talking about 1995 and 1996 here, when IANA was presumably in
charge. You're saying that they were not in charge. If they were not in
charge, then who was? Please show me the "authorized process" that
was in place in 1995. I followed IANA. You're now telling me that IANA
was not the "authorized process." I don't agree, but I'm willing to concede
the point if you can document yours.

Christopher

- --
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 16:19:54 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

John and all assembly members,

  You are quite correct here John, and thank you for clarifying things
a bit here in a nice brief laymens terms manner.

  You have to also realize that some folks such as WXW have a propensity
to speak before they have adequately done their homework, of don't
care what the law really is, such as the ICANN board, ect....

John Palmer wrote:

> But you do get service marks by being first to use them on a product. Thats
> the law.
> I cannot copyright or servicemark the word SATURN, but I can create a motor
> car and call it SATURN and no one else can use
> the word SATURN for their brand of motor cars.
>
> The product is "Domain Registrations" and the service marks are ".USA,
> .EARTH and .Z".
>
> Thats the law
> Live with it.
>
> John
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
> To: John Palmer <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 3:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > On 27-Mar-2000 John Palmer wrote:
> > > Thats the same non-sense that is at the crux of my disagreement with
> many of
> > > these socialist schemes - the right of private property ownership.
> > >
> > > Domains are property - Including TLDs
> > >
> > > Property can be owned by private individuals/organizations and they can
> set
> > > the rules for sub-leasing their property.
> > >
> > > Period.
> >
> > You don't get property by unilaterally declaring it to be yours by fiat.
> >
> >
> >
> > - --
> > 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/
> >
> > iD8DBQE438v28zLmV94Pz+IRAv/hAKD0QGaHlLRDXCs48jIZnQg/dP3/vACgzRLO
> > r9OhiduX5RPIpEcRzXgCdzs=
> > =rxqL
> > -----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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #32
***********************