Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #45
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, April 2 2000            Volume 01 : Number 045

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

Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 17:00:44 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [Admin] Posting limits

What list rules adopted? Adopted by whom? Who set those rules?
When did we vote on it?

Sorry, I don't buy it. I ask for a posting limit of 376 per
day.

- --
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 1:15 AM
To: Christopher Ambler; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] [Admin] Posting limits

At 11:31 31.03.00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>Who set a posting limit? I don't recall seeing a limit. When did we vote on
>it?

The list rules adopted earlier gave the chair the power to request a posting
limit. Some time ago, Roberto asked for a posting limit of 5.

We can't vote, since we don't have a defined membership yet.

                            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: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 17:04:49 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

You're the one who insinuated that he represented NSF. You're
the one with the claim to back up, not me.

So, either:

1. Clarify that you are not claiming that he represented
the NSF on the IAHC 

or

2. Provide the precise citation that Strawn represented
NSF on the IAHC.

In the absence of a citation, #1 must be presumed.

- -- 
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 3:03 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Elisabeth Porteneuve'
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

At 10:41 AM 4/1/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>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.

Please provide the precise citation to this disclaimer.

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: Sun,  2 Apr 2000 03:32:57 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

William Walsh wrote:
>
>I will only point out that the IAHC effort HAS to give the impression 
that IANA
>had the authority, even if it didn't, because all of their work, and 
all of the
>promises they made to the CORE registrars, were predicated on this self
- -assumed
>"authority."
>
>Whats funny is that both the self-proclaimed registries and CORE both 
need to
>argue that IANA had an authority it didn't have, and for which there 
exists no
>documentation for it having, in order try and bolster their respective 
claims. 
>It really does seem they have more in common than the CORE supporters 
want to
>admit.
>
>But both claims fall far short of being accurate.
>

Since we are into "can-of-worms-opening" mood, let's open this one as 
well.

When I first joined this process, I have been told (and I somewhat 
believed) that IANA had the authority to make changes to the A-root.

My "technical" half failed to understand why if IANA had the power, the 
A-root was hosted somewhere else, but my "political" half suggested not 
to investigate further.
So I "grew up" with the convincement that, for ordinary matters (like 
addition of unchallenged ccTLDs), IANA was doing the job, but if some 
really itchy wuestion was going to ever come up, the "pitch-hitter" 
would have eventually come at-bat.
Among the CORE Members, I was one of the least surprised by the issue of
 the "Green Paper". The record of one of my interventions at the CORE GA
 in Washington, D.C., on this subject (w/o agreement with USG, no cigar)
 should be sowhere in the minutes. This few hours before the Green 
Paper.

So much for history.
Now to present times.
The ICANN BoD is likely to decide on this matter.
Will they look back at history and take into account priority of 
applications? Maybe, but this is very unlikely to be the leading 
argument.
What value has an E-Mail message "reserving" one or onehundred gTLDs, is
 something that will be evaluated by lawyers. What I would look at, if I
 were ICANN, is the solidity of the enterprise, the seriousness of the 
business, the likelihood of providing a good service to the customers, 
and these kind of things that have little to do with the debate going 
on.

ICANN has, IMHO, one big task (among others, of course): to improve the 
management of the DNS. In spite of the criticism, NSi has set a 
standard. The next delegated gTLD (if we will ever have a *real* one) 
*cannot* fall short of this standard.
Will ICANN choose chronology rather than reliability? I seriously doubt.

Regards
Roberto
(willing to take bets)
- --
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: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 14:17:25 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

At 18:09 31/03/00 -0800, 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.
>

No *other* petition for IDNO representation has been made to ICANN. 
 
The ICANN Board could have conceded in principle that Individual DN owners
should be given a representative voice on the Names Council.
It could have said that our organization was not credible and why it
thought it was not and what should be done about it.

Instead it chose to ignore the petition altogether.

To attack the extremely difficult volunteer organizational effort or to
discredit the prime movers of this effort is easy, but not relevant as far
as the principle of IDNO representation is concerned.

The attackers seem to have all time of day to sit behind their screens.
They use this time to destroy and discourage participation, not to help
building. They do not want *any*  democratic bottom-up organization of
Individual Domain Name Owners to succeed. 

The other constituencies, such as the NCDNHC or the "business" constituency
did not have instant credibility either, but their recognition by ICANN has
helped them along and encouraged their organizing effort.

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 20:33:23 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: History & current events (RE: [ga] About GA membership again......)

At 01:05 AM 4/2/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>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).
>
>What I do not understand is it is possible to dig into pre-history of DN
>  policy and, at the same time, forget about the most recent events.
>I know I will sound like Amadeu, quoting his grand-mother, but this
>seems to me like my uncle, remembering everything (so he claims) about
>the war, but not remembering what he did yesterday.

I like the analogy, but what "happened yesterday" does not overlap with 
pre-history. ICANN has recently started the accreditation of registrars, 
and opened competition to NSI at that level. Pre-history, as you call it, 
is the prior TLD application(s) to IANA, via the sanctioned RFC1591 
process, to create new TLDs in the root, and authorize and delegate these 
new TLDs to new registries (i.e. back-end registries to registrars, further 
opening competition, etc.). This has not been done.

You'll notice a very small number of people who should know better call 
this "unsanctioned", "rogue effort", etc. But, and I feel this has to be 
repeated until people get it, the RFC1591 process is a legally binding 
application process (for the sake of preventing arguing here, I'm not 
saying "must delegate", but just an application process). After all, IANA, 
NSF, and Network Solutions have based the entire domain name creation 
process upon it.

The outline of the process is that domain name template applications were 
sent to "[email-masked]". Those for the root level (TLDs) were 
then assigned an ID number and forwarded to IANA. These applications were 
then put in a file, awaiting the outcome of the process to introduce new 
TLDs, which hasn't happened yet. This (or the authority for it) is 
documented in a number of places:

Co-op agreement solicitation:
ftp://ftp.internic.net/nsf/nren-solicitation.txt
"This project solicitation is issued pursuant to the National Science 
Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C.  1861 et seq) and the Federal 
Cooperative Agreement Act (31 U.S.C. 6305) and is not subject to the 
Federal Acquisition Regulations."
"The provider of registration services will function in accordance with the 
provisions of RFC 1174."

Co-op agreement:
http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/internic/cooperative-agreement/agreement.html
"This agreement is awarded under the authority of the National Science 
Foundation Act (R@ U.S.C. 186 et seq.) and the Federal Grant and 
Cooperative Agreement Act (31 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.)"
"The Awardee shall provide registration services in accordance with the 
provisions of RFC 1174"

RFC1174:
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1174.html
"The IANA has the discretionary authority to delegate portions of this 
responsibility and, with respect to numeric network and autonomous system 
identifiers, has lodged this responsibility with an Internet Registry (IR)."

Internet Society:
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/iana.shtml
"The IANA has managed the root of the DNS to promote stability and 
robustness. This role is primarily one of making minor technical decisions 
about [..] evaluating any additions to the established generic top level 
domains which are proposed by the community."

PGP Media vs. Network Solutions:
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. (RFC1591, of course, is the 
successor to RFC1174, which was invoked by paragraph C in the cooperative 
agreement's statement of work."
[Note my recent request for information about the current status]

So, the problem that exists today is that there are historical precedents 
set, and a number of TLD applications which were submitted in accordance 
with the above documented practices, in areas that ICANN has not yet made 
decisions about. Thus the request to have these applicants recognized, and 
represented within ICANN.

Best Regards,

Simon

- --
The future is still out there...

- --
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: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 17:01:13 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Admin] Posting limits

On Sat, 1 Apr 2000 17:00:44 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:

>What list rules adopted? Adopted by whom? Who set those rules?
>When did we vote on it?

Set by the Chair who is elected by the Names Council.

DPF
________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 20:53:24 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

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

On 01-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.
> 
> 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.
> 

Mikael,

Under what authority does the Swedish government propose to implement these
policies?  The .SE top level domain does not appear to be delegated to them,
and I see no real basis for the registry to feel mandated to implement any such
dictates of the Swedish government.

The Swedish Govt. appears to believe, wrongly, that the country code top level
domains belong to the governments of the country the code refers to.  Some
other top level domains appear to have the sale faulty belief.  ICANN appears
to be perpetrating this false assumption as well.

The .SE domain was delegated in 1986, and the only contract they are required
to abide by is the one they entered into with IANA, which really was not a
contract at all since RFC1591 didn't even exist then.    Unless the SE registry
had entered into a new contract with ICANN since then that changes the terms of
the delegation, the Swedish Govt. has no claim for authority over this top
level domain. 

I wonder what ICANN's legal liability is should they make a change in a
delegation that is in direct violation of the existing delegation agreements
with the ccTLDs.  I am sure that ICANN is looking at that very carefully, and
is one reason they are not acting on ccTLD issues very much at all right now.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE45tJE8zLmV94Pz+IRAnzTAKDeKldtyR32SCz6w1pY0k3U9oJZvwCeJQdb
FfxxbvXVEWZMU0+VnZzaS1Y=
=FVJy
- -----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 22:45:15 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

Mikael and all assembly members,

  Do you have a URL for the IDG article?  If so, would you share
it with us?  I must have somehow missed it.

Mikael Pawlo wrote:

> On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Michael Sondow wrote:
> > > > The Swedish government will on Monday release a report suggesting new
> > > > rules for the administration of domain names under .se
> > > > These new regulations are since long released by the
> > > > self-regulatory body  of .se.
> > So which is it, Mikael, self-regulation or government control?
>
> Government control policies will be released on Monday and these policies
> are not yet known to the public. However, the governmental investigators
> have done some statements today on the policies in the Swedish industry
> magazine Computer Sweden (IDGs Swedish edition of Computer World).
> Thus, there is a self regulation of .se domains today. What will be the
> case next week we can't tell for sure yet. We do know, however, that some
> changes will be imposed by the government, both regarding the
> self-regulation as such and the regulations.
>
> I hope this is sufficient answer to your question.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Mikael
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
>
>   ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked]
>                                               http://www.pawlo.com/

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 22:52:28 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: History & current events (RE: [ga] About GA membership again......)

Simon and all assembly members,

  It never ceases to amaze me that there are some folks, such as
Roberto here, and he certainly is not the only one that either have
not done their homework, or refuse to acknowledge the history of
getting new TLD's added.  It is baffling to me why these folks
choose to remain ignorant.

  We [INEGroup] support your effort as with a few others to
ensure that the historical record is made known in a complete
fashion as possible whether or not they choose to read and
pay attention to it.

Simon Higgs wrote:

> At 01:05 AM 4/2/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >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).
> >
> >What I do not understand is it is possible to dig into pre-history of DN
> >  policy and, at the same time, forget about the most recent events.
> >I know I will sound like Amadeu, quoting his grand-mother, but this
> >seems to me like my uncle, remembering everything (so he claims) about
> >the war, but not remembering what he did yesterday.
>
> I like the analogy, but what "happened yesterday" does not overlap with
> pre-history. ICANN has recently started the accreditation of registrars,
> and opened competition to NSI at that level. Pre-history, as you call it,
> is the prior TLD application(s) to IANA, via the sanctioned RFC1591
> process, to create new TLDs in the root, and authorize and delegate these
> new TLDs to new registries (i.e. back-end registries to registrars, further
> opening competition, etc.). This has not been done.
>
> You'll notice a very small number of people who should know better call
> this "unsanctioned", "rogue effort", etc. But, and I feel this has to be
> repeated until people get it, the RFC1591 process is a legally binding
> application process (for the sake of preventing arguing here, I'm not
> saying "must delegate", but just an application process). After all, IANA,
> NSF, and Network Solutions have based the entire domain name creation
> process upon it.
>
> The outline of the process is that domain name template applications were
> sent to "[email-masked]". Those for the root level (TLDs) were
> then assigned an ID number and forwarded to IANA. These applications were
> then put in a file, awaiting the outcome of the process to introduce new
> TLDs, which hasn't happened yet. This (or the authority for it) is
> documented in a number of places:
>
> Co-op agreement solicitation:
> ftp://ftp.internic.net/nsf/nren-solicitation.txt
> "This project solicitation is issued pursuant to the National Science
> Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C.  1861 et seq) and the Federal
> Cooperative Agreement Act (31 U.S.C. 6305) and is not subject to the
> Federal Acquisition Regulations."
> "The provider of registration services will function in accordance with the
> provisions of RFC 1174."
>
> Co-op agreement:
> http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/internic/cooperative-agreement/agreement.html
> "This agreement is awarded under the authority of the National Science
> Foundation Act (R@ U.S.C. 186 et seq.) and the Federal Grant and
> Cooperative Agreement Act (31 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.)"
> "The Awardee shall provide registration services in accordance with the
> provisions of RFC 1174"
>
> RFC1174:
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1174.html
> "The IANA has the discretionary authority to delegate portions of this
> responsibility and, with respect to numeric network and autonomous system
> identifiers, has lodged this responsibility with an Internet Registry (IR)."
>
> Internet Society:
> http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/iana.shtml
> "The IANA has managed the root of the DNS to promote stability and
> robustness. This role is primarily one of making minor technical decisions
> about [..] evaluating any additions to the established generic top level
> domains which are proposed by the community."
>
> PGP Media vs. Network Solutions:
> 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. (RFC1591, of course, is the
> successor to RFC1174, which was invoked by paragraph C in the cooperative
> agreement's statement of work."
> [Note my recent request for information about the current status]
>
> So, the problem that exists today is that there are historical precedents
> set, and a number of TLD applications which were submitted in accordance
> with the above documented practices, in areas that ICANN has not yet made
> decisions about. Thus the request to have these applicants recognized, and
> represented within ICANN.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Simon
>
> --
> The future is still out there...
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 17:40:04 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

On Sat, 01 Apr 2000 20:53:24 -0800 (PST), William X. Walsh wrote:

>Under what authority does the Swedish government propose to implement these
>policies?  The .SE top level domain does not appear to be delegated to them,
>and I see no real basis for the registry to feel mandated to implement any such
>dictates of the Swedish government.

This ignores the reality of sovereign governments.

The Government can through Parliament pass legislation which is
binding on the *.se registry as its is (presumably) based in Sweden.

Any number of Government agencies can possibly pass and enforce
regulations under delegated authority.

The fact a registry has a contract with ICANN/IANA does not make it
exempt to local territorial laws.  

Using my own local example if the NZ Parliament passed a law saying
*.nz domain fees shall be $15 (instead of $50+ at moment) then that is
what ISOCNZ would have to ensure they are charged at.

If the Department of Internal Affairs said that you can not allow the
word "pedophilia" to be used as a domain name then ISOCNZ would have
to obey that or risk fines or jail.

Time will be spent far more constructively looking at how to work in
partnership with governments rather than trying to pretend that if
shove comes to push they are not going to win.

DPF

________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 21:49:43 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

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

On 02-Apr-2000 Jeff Williams wrote:
> Mikael and all assembly members,
> 
>   Do you have a URL for the IDG article?  If so, would you share
> it with us?  I must have somehow missed it.

What's wrong, Jeff?  Can't do your own homework?

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE45t938zLmV94Pz+IRAhstAJ9G8ZzbEv49QcGE4AtxpQ7UufASlgCgxa/I
Azfnp3JjLVokXY9jrGMltoc=
=iyUC
- -----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 22:01:11 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

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

On 02-Apr-2000 DPF wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Apr 2000 20:53:24 -0800 (PST), William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
>>Under what authority does the Swedish government propose to implement these
>>policies?  The .SE top level domain does not appear to be delegated to them,
>>and I see no real basis for the registry to feel mandated to implement any
>>such
>>dictates of the Swedish government.
> 
> This ignores the reality of sovereign governments.
> 
> The Government can through Parliament pass legislation which is
> binding on the *.se registry as its is (presumably) based in Sweden.

But this does not appear to be the course they have taken.   Apparently this is
an edict of policy from an executive branch of the Swedish Government.

I've always argued that the proper rolel for the governemnt to take in regard
to "their rights" was through legislative measures, that typically include some
safeguards, rather than in executive edicts.

> Time will be spent far more constructively looking at how to work in
> partnership with governments rather than trying to pretend that if
> shove comes to push they are not going to win.

But it looks like push is coming to shove in Sweden.  I think the .SE registry
as a strong leg to stand on here.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE45uIn8zLmV94Pz+IRAlf9AKClDwvRO5a6G9jkKx0f2AtH20bW1ACgn++n
xE4Trn4kIofciFKZXcNsUaI=
=yQlj
- -----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 23:56:59 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

David and all assembly members,

  It is plainly evident that WXW is again brown nosing ICANN here.

  As you and many of us know the ICANN GAC has on several occasions
been for some time now trying to brow beat other governments in
hopes of getting them to submit to their will or desire's.

  My guess is that with Sweden in particular, ICANN is particularly
concerned as one of the Root servers is within their control presently.

DPF wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Apr 2000 20:53:24 -0800 (PST), William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> >Under what authority does the Swedish government propose to implement these
> >policies?  The .SE top level domain does not appear to be delegated to them,
> >and I see no real basis for the registry to feel mandated to implement any such
> >dictates of the Swedish government.
>
> This ignores the reality of sovereign governments.
>
> The Government can through Parliament pass legislation which is
> binding on the *.se registry as its is (presumably) based in Sweden.
>
> Any number of Government agencies can possibly pass and enforce
> regulations under delegated authority.
>
> The fact a registry has a contract with ICANN/IANA does not make it
> exempt to local territorial laws.
>
> Using my own local example if the NZ Parliament passed a law saying
> *.nz domain fees shall be $15 (instead of $50+ at moment) then that is
> what ISOCNZ would have to ensure they are charged at.
>
> If the Department of Internal Affairs said that you can not allow the
> word "pedophilia" to be used as a domain name then ISOCNZ would have
> to obey that or risk fines or jail.
>
> Time will be spent far more constructively looking at how to work in
> partnership with governments rather than trying to pretend that if
> shove comes to push they are not going to win.
>
> DPF
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> <david at farrar dot com>
> NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> 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: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 00:20:37 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: ADNS NEWSLETTER: ASLAN SERVER VISIBILITY JUMPS BY 5

Its ironic - I just opened a fortune cookie from a Chineese restauraunt and
it says
    "REMEMBER - STRONG AND BITTER WORDS INDICATE A WEAK CAUSE"
I classify WXW's words as strong and bitter.

I love it. God talking to me - telling me to go on.
John
- ----- Original Message -----
From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
To: John Palmer <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: ADNS NEWSLETTER: ASLAN SERVER VISIBILITY JUMPS BY 5

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On 01-Apr-2000 John Palmer wrote:
> > Thats not what the Patents and Trademarks Court, the 1st Ckt and the 9th
Ckt
> > say.
> > Seems to me that their words are law and your words are, ... well....
> > John
>
> We shall see, we shall see.  I hope the legal coffers aren't empty, what
will
> your customers do when "your" TLDs are assigned elsewhere.....
>
> You are a squatter, plain and simple.  And I doubt any of those decisions
will
> hold up to review.  Lower courts make rulings all the time that are later
> discovered to be based on misinterpretations.
>
> I hope you don't have all your eggs in this domain basket.
>
> - --
> 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/
>
> iD8DBQE45os18zLmV94Pz+IRAkodAKCBfmLAjHQCUKAHGygo3sVJC5GpvgCfY0bh
> gvydQYKyZwkN4HCUluV8quI=
> =cTt/
> -----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: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 00:25:48 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

William and all assembly members,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02-Apr-2000 DPF wrote:
> > On Sat, 01 Apr 2000 20:53:24 -0800 (PST), William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> >>Under what authority does the Swedish government propose to implement these
> >>policies?  The .SE top level domain does not appear to be delegated to them,
> >>and I see no real basis for the registry to feel mandated to implement any
> >>such
> >>dictates of the Swedish government.
> >
> > This ignores the reality of sovereign governments.
> >
> > The Government can through Parliament pass legislation which is
> > binding on the *.se registry as its is (presumably) based in Sweden.
>
> But this does not appear to be the course they have taken.   Apparently this is
> an edict of policy from an executive branch of the Swedish Government.

  It may be in order to protect the swedish people and a goodly number of
the EU citizens from the edicts of ICANN and the GAC.

>
>
> I've always argued that the proper rolel for the governemnt to take in regard
> to "their rights" was through legislative measures, that typically include some
> safeguards, rather than in executive edicts.

 I think you mean "role" here WXW.  None the less it is a better method
to use the legislative rather then the executive branch in effecting policies.
However as we all know ICANN was created through executive order.
Hence I see this action potentially appropriate....

>
>
> > Time will be spent far more constructively looking at how to work in
> > partnership with governments rather than trying to pretend that if
> > shove comes to push they are not going to win.
>
> But it looks like push is coming to shove in Sweden.  I think the .SE registry
> as a strong leg to stand on here.
>
> - --
> 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/
>
> iD8DBQE45uIn8zLmV94Pz+IRAlf9AKClDwvRO5a6G9jkKx0f2AtH20bW1ACgn++n
> xE4Trn4kIofciFKZXcNsUaI=
> =yQlj
> -----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 #45
***********************