Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #50
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, April 5 2000           Volume 01 : Number 050

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

Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:16:56 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: History & current events (RE: [ga] About GA membership again......)

> To make a practical example, IODesign will be much better off in being 
> able to prove to be serious about running the .web Registry (which I 
> believe they do) than in relying (only) on "prior" claim (BTW, I am 
> under the impression that IOD was not the first anyhow - so I assume 
> that Chris will agree on this point).
> Please check that list, and you will find it full of absurde claims made
>  without substance, sometimes in bulk because in any case to make such a
>  claim did not cost much more than the use of some bandwidth.
> To be in that list *may* be considered an element by ICANN when making a
>  decision, but I am pretty sure that this will not be the main one, and 
> probably not even a required one.

I'm not quite sure I follow. Of course, the prior use claim is only a
small part - the fact that we've been operational for 4 years speaks
to that. But I don't know what you mean by IOD not being the
first. Not the first what? 

You're right though - it's one thing to say "I want to run .foo" and
another to actually set up a registry and follow through process.

- --
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 18:31:13 +0200
From: Eva Frölich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

At 16:44 2000-04-03 -0400, Patricio Poblete wrote:

>Eva Frölich, from NIC-SE, wrote a couple of days ago:
>
>   Of course the government can´t change anything momentarily with this 
> study,
>   but it can be used as the tool to put in place formal legislation.
>
> >From this I assume that formal legislation would be needed.

Having read the study today I am not sure it would be needed. The 
government can make an agreement with a non-governmental company to run the 
tld, but that ensures them to have insight. This is the way the study 
proposes.

/ Eva

_______________________________________________________________________
Eva Frölich
e-mail:	[email-masked]
NIC-SE, Box 5774, 114 87 Stockholm

http://www.nic-se.se

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

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

Date: Tue,  4 Apr 2000 20:55:44 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: History & current events (RE: [ga] About GA membership again......)

Chris,

obviously I was not clear enough, sorry for that.

>
>I'm not quite sure I follow. Of course, the prior use claim is only a
>small part - the fact that we've been operational for 4 years speaks
>to that. But I don't know what you mean by IOD not being the
>first. Not the first what? 
>

I'll try again - I'm still below the 5 msg limit today ;>).

I believe that you were not the first one to make the claim for .web - 
at least off my memory - I did not check the list referred few days ago 
on this list, so I may be wrong.

My example pointed out that the fact that you are serious about running 
the .web business is more important than the mere priority on that list.
 I assume that you agree that .web should not be given to somebody that 
is less serious than you on the ground that he claimed it before.

BTW, I am using this just as an example to make a general point, I make 
no statement about who individually has the right to what.
I believe that, at this point in time, we should try to reach consensus 
on rules and criteria, not to fight upon individual cases.

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

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

Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 17:20:29 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

Dave and all assembly members,

  Producing the information you are requesting is NOT Chris's
responsibility, but if you require it than through a discovery process
of your own you may obtain it.  In simple layman's terms, DO YOUR
OWN HOMEWORK.

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 08:16 AM 4/3/00 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >The link was posted by someone else.
>
> How strange that it slipped by unnoticed.
>
> Please cite the message that posted it.  This list has a public archive, so
> it should be easy to locate.
>
> On the other hand, Chris, the assertion of "specifically disclaimed" came
> from you, so the reference to source material must be known to you.
>
> Is it really that difficult to provide?
>
> d/
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 7:02 AM
> >To: [email-masked]
> >Cc: [email-masked]
> >Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations
> >
> >
> >Chris,
> >
> >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.
> >
> >So, no documentation is forthcoming which indicates specifically where and
> >when NSF "specifically disclaimed" Strawn's participation?
> >
> >In other words, NSF did NOT make the disclaimer.
> >
> >It was just wishful thinking, creative interpretation, overstatement of the
> >facts, or...?
> >
> >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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 17:21:40 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

Roberto and all assembly members,

  These issues have already been addressed lately on several occasions
Roberto.  Have you been paying attention?  If not, a review of the
archives might refresh you memory.  >;)

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Kent, Joop,
>
> Kent wrote:
> >>
> >> Instead it chose to ignore the petition altogether.
> >
> >There are lots of open questions about this issue...the GA, the At-
> Large
> >membership of ICANN, the proposal for an "at-large" constituency, etc.
>
> >
>
> Right.
>
> Can we start addressing these?
>
> How do we see the role of individuals, that can join the AtLarge
> Membership (and therefore vote on BoD) but not have any representativity
>  in DNS matters?
> Can we restart the debate about a constituency for Individual Domain
> Name Holders?
>
> This thread was statrted by Harald, trying to relaunch the debate about
> the definition of GA Membership, essential before we can define voting
> procedures. May I also remind that a vote is due at the end of this
> month on the list rules. How can we effectively perform this vote in
> absence of a clear definition of (and agreement upon) the voting body
> (i.e. the Membership)?
>
> Regards
> Roberto
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 17:20:59 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

Chris and all assembly members,

  No wager here Chris!  >;)   Dave prefers a one way street when it
comes to providing information, as well as in some other specific
areas.  This is of course well documented, and even recently as you
rightly indicate here has been re-documented yet again.

Christopher Ambler wrote:

> All the while Dave ignores the request for him to do the same. Because
> he cannot.
>
> Dave, the link was to the FNC, which had all of the information you're
> looking for. I also invite you to take a look at Mr. Strawn's postings,
> which held that he was speaking for himself and not NSF. Furthermore,
> NSF has never endorsed his participation. You implied otherwise.
>
> Please provide that evidence.
>
> I will wager $100 that Dave never does. Any takers?
>
> --
> Christopher Ambler
> [email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 17:21:24 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: History & current events (RE: [ga] About GA membership again......)

Roberto and all assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Simon Higgs wrote:
> >
> >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.
>
> Right.
> And, IMHO, it will never be done this way.
>
> Some applications were gathered (BTW, for which Jon pointed out that no
> guarantee for further processing could be granted), and set aside
> waiting for the definition of the process.

  Indeed Jon did directly state this.  None the less, he took the
applications
and documented than as well.  On a legal basis, this implies intent.

>
> By the time IANA lost (supposing it ever had) authority to delegate
> gTLDs, that process was not defined. Now a process may be defined (we
> all hope so), but IANA will not be the delegating authority.

  The IANA at this time was under a indication of doubt as to whether
they
could delegate anything.  They were to be consulted for advisory
purposes.
Had you done you research properly as has been time and time again,
Roberto,

you would already know this, and possibly even taken notes.  It is
obvious
even to a casual observer that you have not, however.  This has been
pointed out several times by multiple assembly members and participants
on the DNSO GA mailing list.

>
>
> Before getting again into debate about continuity, may I ask whether the
>  GA finds *really* reasonable that delegation of gTLDs will be done
> simply with a FIFS process picking from that chronological list, or
> whether other considerations should apply?

  Of course other consideration should apply.  As to what considerations
and whom determines those considerations is the stakeholder community
as a whole, as the White Paper clearly indicates.

>
> An example.
> ICANN has defined accreditation mechanisms for Registrars.

  And did so improperly in violation of the White Paper, without the
benefit of a AT-Large membership, and also in violation of the MoU.
Hence, this decision is ambiguous at best.

>
> It is, IMHO, very likely that we have to define criteria for
> accreditation of Registries, that will include guarantees about
> financial solidity, for instance, notwithstanding possible
> considerations about geographical distribution.
> These, IMHO, are going to be considerations that will have much more
> weight than an ordered list at IANA's.

  They are indeed considerations, but may or may not have priority
legally
under US law to previous claim that can be documented which IOD's
can be, and has been.

>
>
> To make a practical example, IODesign will be much better off in being
> able to prove to be serious about running the .web Registry (which I
> believe they do) than in relying (only) on "prior" claim (BTW, I am
> under the impression that IOD was not the first anyhow - so I assume
> that Chris will agree on this point).

  Yes IOD was the first claim of filer in the original process.  That
much
is well documented and has been hashed and rehashed on many occasions
on various mailing lists prior to you, Roberto even being on the scene.

>
> Please check that list, and you will find it full of absurde claims made
>  without substance, sometimes in bulk because in any case to make such a
>  claim did not cost much more than the use of some bandwidth.

  Your definition or absurd is one that many of us are not familiar
with,
as well as many legal minds are not familiar with as well in you
indirect
reference here, Roberto.  This however is not unusual, as we all have
seen
this sort of FUD from you and Harald on many occasions before.

>
> To be in that list *may* be considered an element by ICANN when making a
>  decision, but I am pretty sure that this will not be the main one, and
> probably not even a required one.

  If it is not a main one, then ICANN will have made IOD's and others
legal case for them.  I am sure that Jones & Day is well aware of this
as well.

>
>
> In the meantime, things are progressing.
> Somebody may have noticed the GAC recommendations on gTLDs contained in
> their Cairo communique, for instance.

  The Cairo communiqué as well as the GAC was and remains a farce,
as also has been well reported already, Roberto.  Nice attempt at
justification, but this comment fall in the realm of FUD.

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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 13:33:13 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: History & current events (RE: [ga] About GA membership again......)

At 07:36 PM 4/4/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

Be careful what you wish for. With knowledge of history on your side, you 
are now a supporter of the "rogue effort". :-)

>Simon Higgs wrote:
> >
> >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.
>
>Right.
>And, IMHO, it will never be done this way.

Never say never. Semantics get in the way. As you'll see below.

>Some applications were gathered (BTW, for which Jon pointed out that no
>guarantee for further processing could be granted), and set aside
>waiting for the definition of the process.
>By the time IANA lost (supposing it ever had) authority to delegate
>gTLDs, that process was not defined. Now a process may be defined (we
>all hope so), but IANA will not be the delegating authority.
>
>Before getting again into debate about continuity, may I ask whether the
>  GA finds *really* reasonable that delegation of gTLDs will be done
>simply with a FIFS process picking from that chronological list, or
>whether other considerations should apply?

Firstly, the law of the land must prevail (previously cited). This means 
you can't ignore the old applications. They can't just go away. They must 
be process against some kind of criteria. RFC1591 states first-come first 
served. Do we need to stick to that? That's all a matter of consensus. If 
we're all happy with the new proposed criteria  (i.e. revising RFC1591), 
then why not use it? Defining the criteria is also part of the "rogue 
effort" Dave Crocker is talking about. So, I'd say we have consensus so far.

>An example.
>ICANN has defined accreditation mechanisms for Registrars.
>It is, IMHO, very likely that we have to define criteria for
>accreditation of Registries, that will include guarantees about
>financial solidity, for instance, notwithstanding possible
>considerations about geographical distribution.
>These, IMHO, are going to be considerations that will have much more
>weight than an ordered list at IANA's.

I think that you've missed a major reference point. The IANA/rogue effort 
spent 99% of it's time trying to define the criteria by which all the 
applications were to be measured (i.e. revising RFC1591) - and that 
"application process" was to be the original function of the IAHC. The 
accreditation criteria was known as "draft-Postel" or "The Postel draft". 
Again, I repeat, that everyone here and WG-C should read it:

http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/1996q1/0482.html

Can we come up with a revised version covering new TLDs, new registries, 
and additional topics ICANN is discussing? Of course.

>To make a practical example, IODesign will be much better off in being
>able to prove to be serious about running the .web Registry (which I
>believe they do) than in relying (only) on "prior" claim (BTW, I am
>under the impression that IOD was not the first anyhow - so I assume
>that Chris will agree on this point).

We have consensus.

>Please check that list, and you will find it full of absurde claims made
>  without substance, sometimes in bulk because in any case to make such a
>  claim did not cost much more than the use of some bandwidth.

I understand, but whether I agree with you or not (I do), the law firmly 
overrides any emotional response. It's a list of domain name applications. 
They're just at the root level. Do you think this is any different from 
registrations other registries get at 2LD or 3LD? Not as far as the raw 
application goes, and therefore they must be treated properly (cite: 
RFC1591 - "the name space is recursive"). How they are processed is based 
upon community consensus, and the criteria that is shaped by both consensus 
and the prevailing law. We've seen the law intervene already, which is how 
ICANN came into existence.

>To be in that list *may* be considered an element by ICANN when making a
>  decision, but I am pretty sure that this will not be the main one, and
>probably not even a required one.

I can feel the attorneys frothing at the mouth already. The past has shown 
us that lawsuits are a clear indication of lack of consensus. I think the 
correct way to say this is "must be considered by ICANN and evaluated 
against criteria defined by community consensus." This provides equality to 
all applicants throughout the various stages of the process from the early 
days through to ICANN.

>In the meantime, things are progressing.
>Somebody may have noticed the GAC recommendations on gTLDs contained in
>their Cairo communique, for instance.

Do you have a URL for this please?

Best Regards,

Simon

- --
The bandwidth is 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: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 07:03:53 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Listadmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Invitation for Public Comments on New gTLDs/Famous Trade-Marks

[ To: all WG's ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

Invitation for Public Comments on New gTLDs/Famous Trade-Marks

In July 1999 the DNSO Names Council set up:
    Working Group B -- Famous Trade-Marks
    Working Group C -- New gTLDs
For the last nine months these two working groups have been
discussing various aspects of their assigned topics.
On 21 March 2000, two reports were submitted to the Names Council,
and published on the http://www.dnso.org website:

 - http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000321.NCwgb-report.html,
   Working Group B status report to the Names Council, by Michael Palage
 - http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000321.NCwgc-report.html,
   Working Group C consensus report to the Names Council, by Jonathan Weinberg

The DNSO Names Council invites the Internet community to comment
on these reports and the issues raised by them.

Please send comments to:
   [email-masked] for WG-B
   [email-masked] for WG-C
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

The ICANN Board has requested the Names Council to provide its
recommendations on these topics by 20 April 2000.  The Names
Council will consider the reports and comments submitted on them
at its 18 April 2000 meeting.  Members of the Internet community
are encouraged to submit their comments as far as possible in
advance of the 18 April meeting.

Both reports have now been posted on the ICANN web site as well where a
web-based public comment forum has been established for each report.
To read the reports and comment on them, go to
<http://www.icann.org/dnso/new-gtlds-01apr00.htm>.

DNSO Secretariat

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

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

Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 17:18:21 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

At 20:15 4/04/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Kent, Joop,
>
>Kent wrote:
>>> 
>>> Instead it chose to ignore the petition altogether.
>>
>>There are lots of open questions about this issue...the GA, the At-
>Large
>>membership of ICANN, the proposal for an "at-large" constituency, etc. 
> 
>>
>
>
>Right.
>
>Can we start addressing these?

Roberto, should we address these questions here in order to ,once again,
come up with a GA "advise" to the Board? 
It is the Board has to make the decision.

>
>How do we see the role of individuals, that can join the AtLarge 
>Membership (and therefore vote on BoD) but not have any representativity
> in DNS matters?
>Can we restart the debate about a constituency for Individual Domain 
>Name Holders?
>
All the arguments have been stated several times over, I think, both pro
and contra.
The debate has been effectively sidetracked by making an issue of the
representativity of the organization that has done all the pleading for
the Individual Domain Name Holders.
The GA in Santiago came up with a resolution to request the Board to put
the issue on its agenda there.
That is where it currently stands.
 The Board did not want to address the issue, not in Santiago, not in LA
and not in Cairo.
We can ask the members of the GA once again to vote on the issue and
request the Board to speak out on it.

>This thread was statrted by Harald, trying to relaunch the debate about 
>the definition of GA Membership, essential before we can define voting 
>procedures. May I also remind that a vote is due at the end of this 
>month on the list rules. How can we effectively perform this vote in 
>absence of a clear definition of (and agreement upon) the voting body 
>(i.e. the Membership)?

This is a classic bootstrapping problem. You can only solve it (as Chair)
by giving all current GA participants voting rights. 
Everybody is a stakeholder here, to some extent.
Forever trying to find "agreement" on whom to exclude will  give voting
rights to nobody.  

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  

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

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

Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 10:49:56 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

At 17:18 05.04.2000 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>This is a classic bootstrapping problem. You can only solve it (as Chair)
>by giving all current GA participants voting rights.
>Everybody is a stakeholder here, to some extent.
>Forever trying to find "agreement" on whom to exclude will  give voting
>rights to nobody.

I haven't seen any proposal that would remove voting rights from any person 
who wants to vote (that Jeff Williams should only be allowed to vote once 
does not remove his right to vote).

Should we just declare consensus for the "lex Alvestrand" suggested and 
proceed from there?

                   Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 21:35:32 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

At 10:49 5/04/00 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>Should we just declare consensus for the "lex Alvestrand" suggested and 
>proceed from there?
>

Yes, I think it is the only way to stop us from going round in circles.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  

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

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

Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 13:49:58 +0200
From: Eva Frölich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

For all those who had difficulties in finding the english summary of the 
study made by the Swedish government. They have now made it as a separate 
document and here is the link

<http://www.naring.regeringen.se/propositioner_mm/sou/pdf/sou99_85e.pdf>

The whole study will be translated as well and I will give you the link as 
soon as it is available.

Regards
/ Eva

_______________________________________________________________________
Eva Frölich
e-mail:	[email-masked]
NIC-SE, Box 5774, 114 87 Stockholm

http://www.nic-se.se

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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 17:37:28 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Mikael Pawlo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

On Wed, 5 Apr 2000, Eva Frölich wrote:
> For all those who had difficulties in finding the english summary of the 
> study made by the Swedish government. They have now made it as a separate 
> document and here is the link
> <http://www.naring.regeringen.se/propositioner_mm/sou/pdf/sou99_85e.pdf>
> The whole study will be translated as well and I will give you the link as 
> soon as it is available.

This is actually not the study on Swedish government interferance on
domain name and Internet regulation that I referred to. This is a totally
different report regarding national broadband investments.

This is SOU 1999:85 and the report I referred to is SOU 2000:30.

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: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:14:50 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: History & current events (RE: [ga] About GA membership again......)

>I believe that you were not the first one to make the claim for .web - 
>at least off my memory - I did not check the list referred few days ago 
>on this list, so I may be wrong.

Yes, you are wrong. There were two suggestions to IANA to create
a .web TLD, but neither were requests to run the registry. IOD's
request was the first.

>My example pointed out that the fact that you are serious about running 
>the .web business is more important than the mere priority on that list.
> I assume that you agree that .web should not be given to somebody that 
>is less serious than you on the ground that he claimed it before.

While I would agree with you, I couldn't not support the converse (that
someone "more serious" than IOD deserves it more) simply because
it's impossible to quantify "seriousness."

- --
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:35:28 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: History & current events (RE: [ga] About GA membership again......)

On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 09:14:50AM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >My example pointed out that the fact that you are serious about running 
> >the .web business is more important than the mere priority on that list.
> > I assume that you agree that .web should not be given to somebody that 
> >is less serious than you on the ground that he claimed it before.
> 
> While I would agree with you, I couldn't not support the converse (that
> someone "more serious" than IOD deserves it more) simply because
> it's impossible to quantify "seriousness."

In which case, of course, the earlier suggestions for .web are just as
"serious" as yours. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 10:20:13 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: History & current events (RE: [ga] About GA membership again......)

> > While I would agree with you, I couldn't not support the converse (that
> > someone "more serious" than IOD deserves it more) simply because
> > it's impossible to quantify "seriousness."
>
> In which case, of course, the earlier suggestions for .web are just as
> "serious" as yours.

Because something is impossible to quantify does not make all examples
of such a thing equal. If it did, then such an attribute would be
meaningless.

In the absence of reliability of such a metric, other criteria must be
considered. I will refrain from launching into a discussion of such
criteria in order to prevent the 933rd iteration of this argument.

- --
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 18:44:22 +0200
From: Eva Frölich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

At 17:37 2000-04-05 +0200, Mikael Pawlo wrote:

>This is SOU 1999:85 and the report I referred to is SOU 2000:30.

Thank you Mikael for beeing observant. The question though is where the 
correct summary is. I got the information earlier today about the link, but 
can´t then find a proper one on the web. I´ll be back when I find out.

/ Eva

_______________________________________________________________________
Eva Frölich
e-mail:	[email-masked]
NIC-SE, Box 5774, 114 87 Stockholm

http://www.nic-se.se

- --
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 #50
***********************