Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #43
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, April 1 2000           Volume 01 : Number 043

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

Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:50:10 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

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

On 01-Apr-2000 Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 01:46:33PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> [...]
>> They are not represented in the constituencies on the NC, because the
>> interim ICANN Board so far  has refused to consider their petition to be
>> recognized as a constituency.
> 
> You are confusing your "cyberspace association/IDNO" with "individual
> domain name owners" in general.  Individual domain name owners, as a
> potential constituency, have not presented a petition to ICANN.  Your
> organization does not credibly represent individual domain name owners.
> 

This is the same Cyberspace association/IDNO that only gets any work done at
all when they are goaded into it.  Back in november/december I stopped posting
almost altogether to see if they could make any progress without being
antagonized into making it, and all forward progress pretty much
stopped...until I antagonized them into it.  Same thing happened in January of
this year, when everything came to a stop, only when public criticisms of the
IDNO were being made on other forums did Joop try and get everyone back on
track and doing some semblance of "work."    

For the last two weeks or more the IDNO has been having the same kind of lul in
activity.  Their primary antagonists stopped goading them, and they stopped
producing.

Joop is only using the IDNO to have a platform he can claim to speak for and
give his comments more credit than they deserve.  As for forming a real
organization, he only goes through the motions for that when he is pressed to
do so by outside influences.

There is no reason to take the IDNO work seriously.  The IDNO cannot claim to
be a working constituency.  An IDNO made an rather appropriate post about this

http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/pipermail/idno-discuss/2000-March/000687.html

It contains a proposal for coming up with a real constituency proposal for
domain name owners.    One that actually has real merits, unlike the IDNO.  It
involves preparing a real proposal, and submiting it for public comment and
review on this list and on other forums, and for getting feedback from ICANN.

I know of at least one active founder of the IDNO who has picked up the ball
and started doing something for this type of a structure, so perhaps there is
hope for a real constituency out of all this mess anyway.

(Joop, I've saved you the the time of resending my message here to the IDNO
along with your usual editorial preface by bcc'ing the IDNO list on this
message.)

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
http://userfriendly.com/
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/

iD8DBQE45WPh8zLmV94Pz+IRAtOMAJ9mqyN61WPZu7MtVWXUPD/9SryCrQCg+WE6
RV7mvPc8fDI5SIYG+lEeclA=
=tzqK
- -----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: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 03:11:52 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

At 10:37 AM 4/1/00 +1000, Dave Crocker wrote:

>At 02:46 PM 3/30/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>>Jon wanted to reach consensus, publish same as RFC, and enact.
>
>An accurate summary.
>
>And quite different from using "RFC process" as a term referring to some 
>sort of established formal process.  The essential point is developing 
>community consensus.  Documenting it through publication of an RFC is 
>entirely secondary.

Please read the following:

http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI08111997.jpg

"The Foundation [NSF] and NSI agreed that new TLDs would be added only in 
accordance with Request For Comments 1591."

This is the formal process recognized by the NSF.

Please stop calling it a "rogue effort".

Best Regards,

Simon

- --
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds 
discuss people, and Fools argue.

- --
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: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 22:00:15 +1000
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

At 04:46 PM 3/31/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > As folks conveniently dismiss the authority basis for the IAHC, gTLD-MoU,
> > and POC/Core, they might want to remember that besides having IANA and SOC
> > support, the IAHC had NSF's George Strawn as a member...
>
>Being a member of the IAHC has absolutely no bearing with giving it
>authority from the NSF. The IAHC had members from many entities, but

Having a senior, full-time NSF staff member had no implication of NSF 
support?  What an interestingly creative view.

>those members went to great length to make it clear that they were
>individuals, and did not represent the entity for which they worked.

The "Internet" appointees went to the cited great lengths.

Those from WIPO, INTA, ITU, and NSF did not.  Quite the opposite.

>There was no NSF publication either for or against the IAHC, as I
>recall.

Interesting that citing Strawn's testimony is acceptable, but his direct 
participation is not...

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: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 04:34:41 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

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

On 01-Apr-2000 Dave Crocker wrote:
>>those members went to great length to make it clear that they were
>>individuals, and did not represent the entity for which they worked.
> 
> The "Internet" appointees went to the cited great lengths.
> 
> Those from WIPO, INTA, ITU, and NSF did not.  Quite the opposite.
> 

But it appears that George's agency went to great lengths to make it clear his
support of the IAHC was not representing their position on it.  To the point
that a statement to that effect is STILL on their website to this day.

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
http://userfriendly.com/
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/

iD8DBQE45ezh8zLmV94Pz+IRAlzEAKDP+WZ1u2UeeTKC83uKCS5ZrQDTQQCeMM2L
hV8T64vXrl/4sQHUI+pn+yU=
=YMZw
- -----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: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 15:33:47 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Mikael Pawlo <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

FYI,
The Swedish government will on Monday release a report suggesting new
rules for the administration of domain names under .se as well as detailed
changes of the registrations process and regulations thereof.

This will be done although new regulations are released this (same)
Monday. These new regulations are since long released by the
self-regulatory body  of .se.

We won't know in detail what changes the government is planning or how it
will enforce them in practice (by force, compulsory purchase order or just
an order). I'll keep you posted if you're interested.

Regards,

Mikael
Disclaimer: I've been working with the regulations that now will be
changed by the Swedish government and I'm strongly opposed to
governmental intervention in this case.

_________________________________________________________________________

  ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked] 
                                              http://www.pawlo.com/

- --
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: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 10:41:14 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

Dave, you draw the most interesting conclusions - too bad they're wrong.

Strawn's testimony spoke of his work at the NSF and what he did.

Strawn's participation on the IAHC was specifically disclaimed by
the NSF as being Strawn's personal participation and having no
bearing on the NSF in any way.

Sorry, this one isn't even close.

- --
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 4:00 AM
To: Christopher Ambler
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Elisabeth Porteneuve'
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

At 04:46 PM 3/31/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > As folks conveniently dismiss the authority basis for the IAHC,
gTLD-MoU,
> > and POC/Core, they might want to remember that besides having IANA and
SOC
> > support, the IAHC had NSF's George Strawn as a member...
>
>Being a member of the IAHC has absolutely no bearing with giving it
>authority from the NSF. The IAHC had members from many entities, but

Having a senior, full-time NSF staff member had no implication of NSF
support?  What an interestingly creative view.

>those members went to great length to make it clear that they were
>individuals, and did not represent the entity for which they worked.

The "Internet" appointees went to the cited great lengths.

Those from WIPO, INTA, ITU, and NSF did not.  Quite the opposite.

>There was no NSF publication either for or against the IAHC, as I
>recall.

Interesting that citing Strawn's testimony is acceptable, but his direct
participation is not...

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: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 12:25:12 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

Simon and all assembly members,

  As I am sure you recall, anything that Dave Crocker disagrees with
in these discussions or proceedings, is often cast in some sort of
negative light, such as rogue....  This Dave has demonstrated more times
than I can remember accurately.

Simon Higgs wrote:

> At 10:37 AM 4/1/00 +1000, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> >At 02:46 PM 3/30/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >>Jon wanted to reach consensus, publish same as RFC, and enact.
> >
> >An accurate summary.
> >
> >And quite different from using "RFC process" as a term referring to some
> >sort of established formal process.  The essential point is developing
> >community consensus.  Documenting it through publication of an RFC is
> >entirely secondary.
>
> Please read the following:
>
> http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI08111997.jpg
>
> "The Foundation [NSF] and NSI agreed that new TLDs would be added only in
> accordance with Request For Comments 1591."
>
> This is the formal process recognized by the NSF.
>
> Please stop calling it a "rogue effort".
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Simon
>
> --
> Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds
> discuss people, and Fools argue.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 12:40:42 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] US DOC: government control of root is material to antitrust analysis

All assembly members,

  A very interesting letter exchange between Becky Burr DOC/NTIA
and Jamie love:
==========================

Subject:
             US DOC: government control of root is material to antitrust
analysis
        Date:
             Sat, 01 Apr 2000 12:21:13 -0500
       From:
             James Love <[email-masked]>
 Organization:
             http://www.cptech.org
         To:
             NCDNHC <[email-masked]>

I sent Beck Burr from the US Department of Commerce, a copy of a letter
I sent to the ABA listserve on the potential antitrust
issues in ICANN imposing restrictions on the use of famous names.  (This

leter can be read here:
http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2000-March/000128.html).

Becky was kind enough to respond, twice, on this issue, and indicated I
may share these letters on listserves.

Jamie

<---------- 1st letter from Becky Burr---------------->

Subject: Re: ICANN's proposed restrictions on use of famous names
   Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:54:22 -0500
  From: "Becky Burr" <[email-masked]>
    To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
    CC: <[email-masked]>

Jamie,

Thanks for sending this along, and I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to

discuss some of the issues in here later this afternoon.  I would,
however, characterize some issues in a different way, and that different

characterization might have some implications for an antitrust analysis.

1.  ICANN does not control the Internet's authoritative root. Network
Solutions operates the A root, at the direction of the Department of
Commerce.  Every change to the authoritative root file must be approved
by the USG.  Any antitrust analysis would likely consider this material.

2.  It is certainly true that there is currently no effective
competition for .com in the TLD space at the time.  Most commenters on
the Green Paper argued that there would never be real competition at the

gTLD level, due to lock-in and switching costs.  The USG thought that
they might be wrong, and that at the very least we ought to provide an
opportunity to study this by adding, in a careful and controlled way,
some new gTLD space.

3.  While the ccTLDs are not real competitors at the moment, there are
some interesting changes taking place in these spaces.  The rate of
growth in .uk and .de over the last year, for example, has exceeded the
growth rate in .com.  I think that with some work .us could be very,
very interesting real estate.

4.  It certainly appears to be true that there is some significant
speculation going on in the market for generic second level domains like

cool.com or business.com.  It also is clear that we have not h

>>> James Love <[email-masked]> 03/31/00 09:32AM >>>
This is a missive I sent yesterday to the ABA antitrust list.
Jamie

>>> James Love <[email-masked]> 03/31/00 09:32AM >>>
This is a missive I sent yesterday to the ABA antitrust list.
Jamie

<------------my follow-up---------------------------->

Subject: Re: ICANN's proposed restrictions on use of famous names
   Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:28:04 -0500
   From: James Love <[email-masked]>
 Organization: http://www.cptech.org
        To: Becky Burr <[email-masked]>
        CC: [email-masked], [email-masked]
  References:
           1

Becky, thanks for the note.  My copy appears to be missing the end of
your comment.

Do you mind if I share this or a redacted version on the list?  Also,
are you saying that is is DOC's decision to expand the root, rather than

ICANN's?   As a member of ICANN's working groups B and C, this is a bit
of a surprise.  Also, it is great that there will be changes in .us, but

I would not hold out the .us as a substitute for significant changes in
the gTLD space.  I think the Internet is basically a global deal, and
there are some natural reasons why many would be seeking to build a
brand or identity in a space that was not identified with geography.
Certainly many in the union community think that a global .union TLD
will possibly change the nature of the union movement itself, not only
provide their own readily available name to use.  Of course, .us could
also be used better than it is now.    Jamie

<-----------2nd letter from Becky Burr----------------------------->

- -- Subject: Re: ICANN's proposed restrictions on use of famous names
   Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:12:20 -0500
  From:  "Becky Burr" <[email-masked]>
    To:  <[email-masked]>
    CC:  <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>

Jamie,

somehow, mysteriously, the email disappeared off my screen, and
apparently  I inadvertently hit the send key before i finished the
email.  I'll finish it later today, and you can post it then.

I understand, and agree, that .us won't be a substitute for a generic.

On the question of USG authority over expansion of the root, the answer
is in two parts.  First, our position on expansion of the root is
clearly laid out in the White Paper - we think that new gTLDs should be
added, but in a careful and controlled way and that ICANN and not the
USG should decide what new gTLDs should be added and how they should be
added (within the parameters of careful and controlled so as to preserve

the stability of the Internet).  But of course, NSI can't change the
Authoritative Root file without our approval.  Under what circumstances
would we not approve ICANN recommendations?  In extremely limited
circumstances like, for instance, where the recommended addition/change
would violate US law.
If, for example, the ICANN process identified consensus for addition of
a .union gTLD, I can't think of any reason that we would object to that
on its face (which is to say, if the rules for registering in a .union
violated US competition law or intellectual property law, we might
object to those rules).

I trust that to the extent the above is quoted, it will be used in
context and in appropriate completeness.  I'll finish the other part of
my email, or just discuss it with you this afternoon.

Becky

===============

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: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 11:21:28 -0800
From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Alf
> Hansen
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 6:30 AM

> I represent a ccTLD and I am a part of the ccTLD
> Constituency. Can somebody
> please explain why individuals (not connected to any
> organization in a DNSO
> constituency) should be represented with voting rights in DNSO GA?
>
> (I may step into a can-of-worms her, but I just want to hear
> the arguments,
> and perhaps be convinced to change my mind....)

This is April Fool's day and you are joking ... right?

read carefully -->

DNSO is about domain names
domain owners have a vested interest in domain names
Indviduals can own domain names
therefore individuals have a vested interest in domain names.

here's yet another one for you (a bit more complex, but I think you can
handle it)-->

representation includes recognition/voting power, in any organization
ICANN/DNSO constituencies are the ONLY method of representation within
ICANN/DNSO
the DNSO/GA has no voting power, therefore it is not a constituency
there are no constituencies, that include individuals
therefore individuals have no representation

<opinion>
I have simplified a few steps, please let me know where I have lost you. The
value-judgement that I apply to this is, that it is substantively and
fundimentally wrong!
It is right on up there with "taxation without representation".
</opinion>

- --
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: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 22:01:41 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Mikael Pawlo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> FYI,
> The Swedish government will on Monday release a report suggesting new
> rules for the administration of domain names under .se as well as detailed
> changes of the registrations process and regulations thereof.
> This will be done although new regulations are released this (same)
> Monday. These new regulations are since long released by the
> self-regulatory body  of .se.

Sorry - this was a little unclear. The new regulations will come into
effect on Monday. They were released to the public over a month ago.

The regulations are available in English. I'll mail them upon request.

Best Regards,

Mikael

_________________________________________________________________________

  ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked] 
                                              http://www.pawlo.com/

- --
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: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 14:15:06 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: ADNS NEWSLETTER: ASLAN SERVER VISIBILITY JUMPS BY 54%

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01BF9BE4.ADF1FFB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

FW: ADNS NEWSLETTER: ASLAN SERVER VISIBILITY JUMPS BY 54%AGN Domain Name =
Service Newsletter=20
http://www.adns.net=20
April 1, 2000=20

1. Visibility of ORSC Top-Level domains jumps 54% in March=20
2. Banner Advertising Campaign Launches April 1.=20
3. And the April 2000 FreeBee Special Is....=20
4. Support aDNS Education: Please Visit and Shop at Our Sponsor's =
Websites=20
5. The.Earth - The Improvements Keep Coming=20

<<**>>=20
VISIBILITY OF ORSC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS JUMPS 54% IN MARCH=20

The results are in and they show that the number of hits on ADNS's=20
root server / resolver ASLAN.OPEN-RSC.ORG jumped in March to 530,634 =
hits=20
compared to 353,000 in February. This is an increase of over 54%.=20

Whats more amazing is that the number of unique computers using our root =

server jumped by 288%. This means that our advertising campaign is =
working.=20

Haven't registered that EARTH/USA or Z domain yet? Better get it before=20
someone else does.=20

<<**>>=20
BANNER ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN LAUNCHES APRIL 1=20

ADNS is launching a significant banner advertising campaign on =
INTERNET.COM=20
INTERNET.COM runs a number of developer-oriented websites such as=20
WEBDEVELOPER.COM. These sites are geared to webmasters and site managers =
- -=20
just the kind of folks who would be interested in new domains.=20

Check out INTERNET.COM for a lot of interesting information on web =
development=20
technology.=20

<<**>>=20
AND THE APRIL FREEBEE SPECIAL IS...=20

This month's Freebee Special is=20
        ENGLAND.EARTH=20
And the date is:=20
        Wednesday April 5, 2000 between 6AM and 7AM Eastern Time=20

What is this Freebee Special? Each month, ADNS offers free domain =
registration=20
free DNS service and free webhosting for one year to all people =
registering=20
a domain in a particular subsection of one of our top-level domains, =
provided=20
that they agree to develop public content for that domain and to promote =

alternative DNS.=20

The free offer is only valid for a particular time period and the =
registrant=20
must develope and maintain public content on their site for the entire =
year.=20
There are other rules. See the Freebee Special link on the ADNS site.=20

<<**>>=20
SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE DNS EDUCATION: VISIT AND SHOP AT OUR SPONSOR'S =
WEBSITES=20

You may have noticed some banner ads appearing on the ADNS website as =
well=20
as THE.EARTH. Every time you click on one of these ads and visit these=20
merchants, and every time you buy something from them, a percentage of =
the=20
sale goes to Alternative DNS Education. ADNS will use all of these =
proceeds=20
to purchase advertising to enlighten both web surfers.=20

The more you visit and shop, the more people will become educated about=20
alternative DNS and the more hits your alternative DNS website will get. =

<<**>>=20
THE.EARTH - THE IMPROVEMENTS KEEP COMING=20

ADNS operates the first Alternative DNS web portal in the world. Located =

at http://The.EARTH, this site is only accessible if your machine can =
see=20
the entire web via alternative root servers.=20

Last month, we separated the content into individual pages: US News, =
World=20
News, Science and Technology, Lifestyle, Health, Sports and Environment. =

This month, we are going to continue adding dynamic content and links to =

hundreds of sites around the world. We will also work on improving the =
site=20
layout to increase usability.=20

The.EARTH will soon host a special page with nothing but links to =
alternative=20
DNS websites. If you would like a link to your site placed on THE.EARTH, =

send e-mail to [email-masked] with the details.=20

<<<<<<<>>>>>>>=20
This is the earthusaz mailing list operated by AGN Domain Name=20
Service Inc. (http://www.adns.net). To be removed from the list,=20
send e-mail to [email-masked]. To post to the list, send e-mail=20
to [email-masked]=20
<<<<<<<>>>>>>=20

- ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01BF9BE4.ADF1FFB0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>FW: ADNS NEWSLETTER: ASLAN SERVER VISIBILITY JUMPS BY =
54%</TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<P><FONT size=3D2>AGN Domain Name Service Newsletter</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://www.adns.net" =
target=3D_blank>http://www.adns.net</A></FONT>=20
<BR><FONT size=3D2>April 1, 2000</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>1. Visibility of ORSC Top-Level domains jumps 54% in=20
March</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>2. Banner Advertising Campaign Launches =
April=20
1.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>3. And the April 2000 FreeBee Special =
Is....</FONT>=20
<BR><FONT size=3D2>4. Support aDNS Education: Please Visit and Shop at =
Our=20
Sponsor's Websites</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>5. The.Earth - The =
Improvements Keep=20
Coming</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>&lt;&lt;**&gt;&gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT =
size=3D2>VISIBILITY OF ORSC=20
TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS JUMPS 54% IN MARCH</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>The results are in and they show that the number of =
hits on=20
ADNS's </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>root server / resolver =
ASLAN.OPEN-RSC.ORG jumped=20
in March to 530,634 hits</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>compared to 353,000 =
in=20
February. This is an increase of over 54%.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Whats more amazing is that the number of unique =
computers using=20
our root</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>server jumped by 288%. This means =
that our=20
advertising campaign is working.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Haven't registered that EARTH/USA or Z domain yet? =
Better get it=20
before </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>someone else does.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>&lt;&lt;**&gt;&gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>BANNER =
ADVERTISING=20
CAMPAIGN LAUNCHES APRIL 1</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>ADNS is launching a significant banner advertising =
campaign on=20
INTERNET.COM</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>INTERNET.COM runs a number of=20
developer-oriented websites such as </FONT><BR><FONT =
size=3D2>WEBDEVELOPER.COM.=20
These sites are geared to webmasters and site managers -</FONT> =
<BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>just the kind of folks who would be interested in new =
domains.</FONT>=20
</P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Check out INTERNET.COM for a lot of interesting =
information on=20
web development</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>technology.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>&lt;&lt;**&gt;&gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>AND THE =
APRIL FREEBEE=20
SPECIAL IS...</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>This month's Freebee Special is</FONT>=20
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT =
size=3D2>ENGLAND.EARTH</FONT>=20
<BR><FONT size=3D2>And the date is:</FONT>=20
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT size=3D2>Wednesday =
April 5,=20
2000 between 6AM and 7AM Eastern Time</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>What is this Freebee Special? Each month, ADNS offers =
free=20
domain registration</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>free DNS service and free =
webhosting=20
for one year to all people registering</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>a =
domain in a=20
particular subsection of one of our top-level domains, provided</FONT> =
<BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>that they agree to develop public content for that domain and =
to=20
promote</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>alternative DNS. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>The free offer is only valid for a particular time =
period and=20
the registrant</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>must develope and maintain =
public content=20
on their site for the entire year.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>There are =
other=20
rules. See the Freebee Special link on the ADNS site.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>&lt;&lt;**&gt;&gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>SUPPORT =
ALTERNATIVE=20
DNS EDUCATION: VISIT AND SHOP AT OUR SPONSOR'S WEBSITES</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>You may have noticed some banner ads appearing on the =
ADNS=20
website as well</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>as THE.EARTH. Every time you =
click on=20
one of these ads and visit these </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>merchants, =
and every=20
time you buy something from them, a percentage of the</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>sale goes to Alternative DNS Education. ADNS will use all of =
these=20
proceeds</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>to purchase advertising to enlighten =
both web=20
surfers. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>The more you visit and shop, the more people will =
become=20
educated about</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>alternative DNS and the more =
hits your=20
alternative DNS website will get.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>&lt;&lt;**&gt;&gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>THE.EARTH =
- - THE=20
IMPROVEMENTS KEEP COMING</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>ADNS operates the first Alternative DNS web portal in =
the world.=20
Located </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>at <A href=3D"http://The.EARTH"=20
target=3D_blank>http://The.EARTH</A>, this site is only accessible if =
your machine=20
can see</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>the entire web via alternative root=20
servers.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Last month, we separated the content into individual =
pages: US=20
News, World</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>News, Science and Technology, =
Lifestyle,=20
Health, Sports and Environment.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>This month, we are going to continue adding dynamic =
content and=20
links to </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>hundreds of sites around the world. =
We will=20
also work on improving the site</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>layout to =
increase=20
usability. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>The.EARTH will soon host a special page with nothing =
but links=20
to alternative</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>DNS websites. If you would like =
a link to=20
your site placed on THE.EARTH, </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>send e-mail to=20
[email-masked] with the details.</FONT> </P><BR>
<P><FONT =
size=3D2>&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;</FONT> =

<BR><FONT size=3D2>This is the earthusaz mailing list operated by AGN =
Domain Name=20
</FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>Service Inc. (<A href=3D"http://www.adns.net"=20
target=3D_blank>http://www.adns.net</A>). To be removed from the =
list,</FONT>=20
<BR><FONT size=3D2>send e-mail to [email-masked]. To post to the list, =
send=20
e-mail</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>to [email-masked]</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;</FONT>=20
</P></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01BF9BE4.ADF1FFB0--

- --
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: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 15:36:35 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [IPN] Friday's dot union briefing

All assembly members,

  TLD proposal for .union form Jamie Love.  Fridays
meeting report in brief.
======================================
Subject:  [IPN] Friday's dot union briefing
        Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 14:00:48 -0500
       From: James Love <[email-masked]>
 Organization:  http://www.cptech.org
         To:         info-policy-notes
<[email-masked]>

On Friday, March 31, I attended a briefing on the issue of the .union
internet top level domain (TLD).  The meeting was organized by Manon
Ress <[email-masked]>.  There were 17 participants, including the
union members and the speakers.  I was one of the speakers, as were
Becky Burr and Mark Bohannon from the US Department of Commerce and
Michael Palage, who is Chair of ICANN's working group B on trademark
issues. The AFC-CIO and a number of unions attended.

The meeting was organized for informational purposes, and it was
probably the first meeting of its type as it relates to the creation of
new TLDS for labor unions.  In the beginning, it was made clear by the
union representatives that they were gathering information, to see if
the union community had interests that should be represented in the
ICANN process, and if unions would become involved in efforts to create
a .union TLD.

I started off by providing backgrond on the DNS system and some of the
policy issues that ICANN was addressing in the discussions over new
TLDs.  I talked about our earlier proposal to create several new TLDs,
incuding .union, for a variety of civil society purposes.  I indicated
that we had raised these issues in the ICANN process to insure that
decisions on issues such as the use of famous names would not forclose
the use of a company or product name in connection with various domains
that were related to organizing workers, consumers and for criticisms.
(i.e., boeing.union, nike.union, texaco.isnotfair, aol.sucks, etc).   I
said that while we had raised the issue of the .union domain, in order
to address various ICANN policy discussions, we thought the unions
themselves should control .union (a view not shared by everyone in the
ICANN processs).

I said there were currently 244 country code TLDS, and 7 TLDs outside of

the country codes, including 4 that were restricted (.int, .gov, .edu
and .mil) and 3 that were unrestricted (.com, .net and .org), and that
from a technical point of view, the system could accomodate hundreds of
thousands if not millions more TLDs.  The issues regarding expansion of
the TLD space were political, not technical.

I provided some examples of different ways the .union domain might be
used.  The first would be to provide a way to indicate if a domain was
controlled by a bona fide union, just like .gov or .edu does for the
government or real higher degree granting educational institutions.   It

could also be used to provide a predictable location for information
about union information for a particular firm.  For example, at gm.union

or microsoft.union, workers could find links to unions that were
organizing workers at that company.  In the common situation where there

were more than one union, the TLD could provide for gateways to each
union's information (such as is done for http://www.scrabble.com now, to

accomodate different owners of the scrabble trademark in the US and and
Canada (Hasbro) and elsewhere (Mattel), an example that Michael Palage
had provided.  Unions could also create sites like hotels.union,
printers.union, airlines.union or supermarket.union, to provide their
members and the public with links to unionized businesses, or
information about unions issues or campaigns in these areas.  These were

only a few of the possible uses of a TLD.

I said that ICANN would be deciding, relatively soon, the rules for new
TLDs, and that there were important issues, such as the ability to
restrict the registration, or the use of company name
(worldcom.union).

Becky Burr and Mark Bohannon from DOC then make presentations.  Becky
expanded the background of the Green Paper and White Paper, the ICANN
process, how .edu and .us worked, and other items.  Mark Bohannon then
went on an extended discussion of why unions might not need .union.
Mark said they could do everything they needed by using the .org
domain.  They didn't need boeing.union, he said, if they could get
boeingunion.org (assuming Boeing or someonelse didn't buy it first).
The AFLCIO already had aflcio.org, so they could be found on the
Internet, without a .union TLD.  IMO, the suggestion that unions could
be happy sharing .org with everyone, saving themselves the trouble of
getting .union, was not particularly well recieved, although there were
differences of views among the participants.

The union members wanted to know if it would be possible for a non-union

group to get the .union TLD.  Becky told the meeting that if the AFLCIO
wanted to block someone from getting .union, they could.  Mark and Becky

also said that if the unions wanted .union, they could probably do it,
but that they would have to provide a consensus proposal (consensus
among stakeholders, in this case the labor movement), it would have to
address the international aspect of ICANN, and it would have to follow
the rules laid down by ICANN and DOC on issues such as intellectual
property and disclosure of the names of domain owners.

Some union members wanted to know about alternative root systems and to
talk about the issues of ICANN's power and control over the Internet.
Becky and Mark said that they did not want to stop people from
experimenting with these alternatives at this time, but that they were
not practical.

Michael Palage provide an explanation of the ICANN working group B
process and the trademark issues.  Michael make distinctions between the

trademark issues for a domain like .biz and domains like .union, in
terms of the appropriate use of a trademarked name in connection with a
TLD.  Michael also provided a very good explanation of the value of a
TLD to the union community, the "union label" was the phrase Michael and

several others used in the meeting.  He gave pretty straight answers to
questions about the ICANN process, and responded to a number of
interesting technical questions raised by the union members.  He said
the key to success in the ICANN process was to minimize enemies, and he
did not appear to have made any enemies at the this meeting.

Given the fact that this was an informational meeting, I don't think it
is appropriate for me to report on the details of the discussions among
the union members, and in any event, the speakers were asked to leave at

one point so the unions could talk about this in private.

However, I can report that there were a range of opinions expressed
during and before the meeting.  There were some differences among the
union members in terms of their backgrounds, but they were very well
prepared, and knew quite a bit about the topic.  The opinions seemed to
range everywhere from "this isn't very important and would be a
distraction" to "this could fundamentally change the labor movement."

Some union members are clearly thinking that the .union TLD could be
used very effectively in organizing efforts, particularly if new digital

signature initiatives permit online organizing and even voting.   Also,
some members think it has the potential to enhance cooperation among
unions, including among unions in different countries, in dealing with a

single company.   Others are  uncomfortable with the larger ambitions.

  Jamie Love <[email-masked]>

=======================================================
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
=======================================================

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 #43
***********************