Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1011
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, January 22 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1011

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:08:58 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] international domain news

Reposted from the Australian [dns] mailing list.
Thanks, David.

Net name registrars contest ICANN fees (CNet)
A fight has broken out between a key Net standards body and Web
address administrators in Europe.
European domain name registries including Nominet, which runs the
popular .uk address system, are refusing to pay fees to the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, saying the group has not
done enough to guarantee the stability of the servers that link
domains.
 http://news.com.com/2100-1023-817911.html

http://www.business2.com/r?a=NEWS&l=Headline&x=Homepage&u=http://www.business2
.com/articles/web/0,,37205,FF.html
 http://www.electricnews.net/news.html?code=5703826

Will U.S. Release Grip on ICANN? (Wired)
Some ICANN board members believe progress towards autonomy from the
U.S. Commerce Department has been slowed, or even halted, since Sept.
11.
"We've already had signs that things have changed since Sept. 11,"
said Andy Mueller-Maguhn, Europe's representative of the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. "It might be that after
the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. government is not behaving as if it
would give any kind of control away. It doesn't look like it at least
to me, to be honest, not all.
 http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,49836,00.html

An Assessment of ICANN's Mandatory Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy
in Resolving Disputes Over Domain Names
The UDRP constitutes a major step forward in Internet governance.
Although not without its shortcomings, analyzed within the ambit of
its objectives, the Policy has succeeded in most respects. It has
allowed trademark holders to recover domain names held by
cybersquatters in a cost and time effective manner. At the same time,
the UDRP has provided a relatively level playing field for
combatants, as many disputes involve contests between 'Davids' and
'Goliaths', but without the certainty that Goliath will prevail.
Suspect UDRP decisions are primarily anomalies, although forum
shopping remains a legitimate concern. With time and a little
fine-tuning, the UDRP will undoubtedly serve as a model for future
initiatives to regulate conduct on the Internet.
 http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/01-3/hancock.html

New ORG Policy: DNSO Defines Path to Verisign Divestiture (ICANN
Watch)
Verisign's dominance of the domain name market will erode further at
the end of this year, when it is required to divest itself of the
.org registry.
 http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=521&mode=thread&order=0

- --
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, 22 Jan 2002 07:02:10 +0000
From: Matthew Pemble <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Straw Poll on Working Group

In favor of an open working group set up by the GA on its own behalf [X]
In favor of an open working group set up by the NC at the Chair's
request [ ]
Opposed to any sort of working group however constituted  [  ]

- -- 
Matthew Pemble
Eur Ing CEng MIEE MBCS MICAF AIMgt

Technical Director
Idrach Ltd

Tel:	+ 44 (0) 7050 128620
Fax:	+ 44 (0) 1324 826034

Email:	[email-masked]
Web:	www.idrach.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: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:47:20 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Volunteers needed: whois task force.

The whois task force is currently reviewing questionnaires.

This job is done by the various representatives to the Task Force 
(for the GA, that's currently Danny Younger, but he doesn't seem to 
be responsive right now), plus one or two "assistants" who help with 
the review.

If you have the time to wade through approximately 200 
questionnaires, extracting results into some format the task force 
has agreed upon, please contact me off-list.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT A CALL FOR A NEW GA REP TO THE TF.

Thanks,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.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: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:34:17 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-03

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:19:17 +0100, Thomas Roessler
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's discussions during 
>the third week of 2002.  List archives are available online at 
><http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/maillist.html>.

These really are useful summaries of not just GA discussion but to
some degree current ICANN issues.

I wonder if the DNSO Secretariat would be willing to place the
summaries in an appropriate place on the DNSO website.  They could be
a very useful resource to new GA members etc wanting to come up to
speed plus for those of us wanting to look back at stuff without going
into the full archive.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
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: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:53:58 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-03

I have a script which produces HTML versions of these.  I make them 
available in my web log at <http://log.does-not-exist.org/>.

On 2002-01-22 23:34:17 +1300, DPF wrote:
>From: DPF <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-03
>Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:34:17 +1300
>Organization: Doing Well
>X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
>
>On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:19:17 +0100, Thomas Roessler
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's discussions during 
>>the third week of 2002.  List archives are available online at 
>><http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/maillist.html>.
>
>These really are useful summaries of not just GA discussion but to
>some degree current ICANN issues.
>
>I wonder if the DNSO Secretariat would be willing to place the
>summaries in an appropriate place on the DNSO website.  They could be
>a very useful resource to new GA members etc wanting to come up to
>speed plus for those of us wanting to look back at stuff without going
>into the full archive.
>
>DPF
>--
>[email-masked]
>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

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.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: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:37:12 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Addendum: GA summary 2002-03

(This was missing from yesterday's summary.)

The registrar constituency's official response on the WLS proposal 
was submitted, and announced to the GA list by Ross Rader.

<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00645.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01907.html>.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.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: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:19:46 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS, GA, ALSO and ICANN

I gave up reading the GA for a while. Reading Thomas' report and some 
different mails the feeling I have (please correct me if I am wrong) is a 
total change of nature of the ICANN into something new.

1. the GA seems to be mostly discussing registrars industry.
2. the discussion over the WLS is purely registrar/reseller oriented, no 
one questioning first the legality of the WLS proposition, and its legal 
consequences and consistency.
3. the positions over the ALSO are oriented towards stakeholders concerns 
not towards ICANN long term stability interests. Also it is purely naming 
problems oriented. It totally forgets the IANA mission.

I only hope the BoD either disregards all this or acknowledges the ICANN is 
now the official Verisign reseller association and transfers the IANA 
functions to the TLDA, the ITU/T, EDIFACT, the Pope, the RedCross or the 
Olympic Committee: i.e. consistent, international, equal to all, cheap 
management, corruption proof structures able to host a two persons secretariat.

Jefsey

- --
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, 22 Jan 2002 13:02:11 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS, GA, ALSO and ICANN

i seen to remember that in more then one posting i attacked the legality of 
the WLS proposal

for instance : http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00231.html

since everything or most to do with domains / ip's has to do with registrars, 
resellers, isps, that is likely to be the largest participant group on the 
list.
ICANN as a whole has specific intrest, had you not stopped reading you might 
have found several postings on the topic.

Thomas's summary is a good thing but alas not really complete. I suggest you 
check the archives

regards

abel

On Tuesday 22 January 2002 12:19 pm, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> I gave up reading the GA for a while. Reading Thomas' report and some
> different mails the feeling I have (please correct me if I am wrong) is a
> total change of nature of the ICANN into something new.
>
> 1. the GA seems to be mostly discussing registrars industry.
> 2. the discussion over the WLS is purely registrar/reseller oriented, no
> one questioning first the legality of the WLS proposition, and its legal
> consequences and consistency.
> 3. the positions over the ALSO are oriented towards stakeholders concerns
> not towards ICANN long term stability interests. Also it is purely naming
> problems oriented. It totally forgets the IANA mission.
>
> I only hope the BoD either disregards all this or acknowledges the ICANN is
> now the official Verisign reseller association and transfers the IANA
> functions to the TLDA, the ITU/T, EDIFACT, the Pope, the RedCross or the
> Olympic Committee: i.e. consistent, international, equal to all, cheap
> management, corruption proof structures able to host a two persons
> secretariat.
>
> Jefsey

- -- 
Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
- --
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, 22 Jan 2002 07:22:42 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS, GA, ALSO and ICANN

Yes, Jefsey.  I think you've got it wrong.

The WLS proposal, and the various press releases by VeriSign and Snap
which indicated that it was essentially a "done deal," flew in the
face of ICANN's very existence, IMO.

It was a controversial and topical matter of discussion and debate on
this list, and others, and it cut across most all boundaries --
including those of the Registrants, Registrars and other Stakeholders.

For a variety of reasons, there was a general concern which was
vocalized on this, and other, lists by many. Although you may not have
a particular interest in the subject matter, it was, never-the-less,
important to many other participants. Isn't it the purpose of this
list to discuss and debate issues which the participants find
important and topical? If so, then I think you are reading more into
it (i.e. the items enumerated in your post with respect to the GA
list) than actually and realistically exist.

Tuesday, January 22, 2002, 6:19:46 AM, Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]> wrote:
JM> I gave up reading the GA for a while. Reading Thomas' report and some 
JM> different mails the feeling I have (please correct me if I am wrong) is a 
JM> total change of nature of the ICANN into something new.

JM> 1. the GA seems to be mostly discussing registrars industry.
JM> 2. the discussion over the WLS is purely registrar/reseller oriented, no 
JM> one questioning first the legality of the WLS proposition, and its legal 
JM> consequences and consistency.
JM> 3. the positions over the ALSO are oriented towards stakeholders concerns 
JM> not towards ICANN long term stability interests. Also it is purely naming 
JM> problems oriented. It totally forgets the IANA mission.

JM> I only hope the BoD either disregards all this or acknowledges the ICANN is 
JM> now the official Verisign reseller association and transfers the IANA 
JM> functions to the TLDA, the ITU/T, EDIFACT, the Pope, the RedCross or the 
JM> Olympic Committee: i.e. consistent, international, equal to all, cheap 
JM> management, corruption proof structures able to host a two persons secretariat.

JM> Jefsey

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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, 22 Jan 2002 08:57:50 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [PRIVATE]  Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registrat ion Systems

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C1A323.57106680
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Patrick,

I personally favor the concept of working groups over the concept of
task forces that now seems to be prevalent in the DNSO. But this does
not mean that I believe that working groups have been particularly
successful to date.

In my opinion, the biggest flaw in the consensus development process is
that detailed processes and procedures have never been implemented to
provide the guidance needed to make the overall process work.  On this
list and in working group D some good starts were made in trying to
develop workable processes and procedures but unfortunately they have
never been finalized and implemented.  I believe that this should have
been the Names Council's primary objective.  Unfortunately, the Names
Council does not support my view.

I empathize with those who became very frustrated with the way working
groups functioned.   But instead of recognizing what I think is a root
cause, working groups were replaced with task forces.  I contend that
this was little more than an effort to avoid the challenges of true
consensus development and instead create a process that may on the
surface look like consensus but in fact involved a very small sample of
the overall community.  Task forces in some senses have appeared to be
more expedient but I don't think a strong case can be made that they
have been representative of the community at-large.

Part of the problem in my opinion is that many people view the NC as a
representative body and as such think that NC members have therefore
been elected to act as a legislative body, doing what they think best
for the community.  The ICANN Bylaws are clear that the NC is charged
with managing the consensus development process.  The most fundamental
step in fulfilling its mission is to develop and implement workable
processes and procedures for reaching out to all impacted parties in the
Internet community, identifying important issues, facilitating efforts
to try to reach consensus, ensuring documentation of the overall process
and results, and finally determining whether consensus was reached.
This has never happened in the DNSO nor is there any evidence that it
will.

I am fully aware that what I am suggesting is a huge task that would
take a lot of time.  I also recognize that members of the NC are all
volunteers who all have full time jobs outside of the NC so they do not
have the time to adequately do what I am suggesting.  That is why VGRS
offered matching funds to allow the NC to hire full-time staff to lead
an effort to develop and implement consensus policies and procedures.
As you know, that effort went nowhere.

Three positions I strongly support with regard to consensus development
are: (1) voting can be used to get a sense of where people stand but it
should not be a primary means of developing consensus; (2) positions
should not be determined to be consensus positions unless there is
objective evidence that there has been legitimate efforts to reach out
to  as many impacted parties as possible and that there is a clear
explanation of the degree to which those who did participate in the
process are representative of major stakeholders: (3) it is okay if
consensus is not reached.  Regarding (1), it is okay to use a vote to
confirm whether or not final consensus is reached provided those voting
are truly representative of the broader population, but prior to that
the real consensus development process should involve identifying
conflicting views and then working together to find positions that all
parties are willing to support.  Regarding (2) positions advocated by a
small subset of the impacted population should not be viewed as
consensus even if there is unanimous consent by that small group.
Regarding (3) if consensus cannot be reached, that is not the end of the
world; there will be many (maybe most) cases where it will not be
possible to reach consensus but that is not a failure, it is an
indication that we should let market forces freely work without imposing
policy.

Now to Patrick's question.  I would support a GA working group under one
of two scenarios: (1) it operated under the basic guidelines I listed
above; (2) it operated as a small subset of the larger community and put
forth it's work as input into the broader community where a legitimate
consensus process was occurring.  Regarding the latter, I recognize that
the GA has little control over whether the NC would implement what I
think is a legitimate consensus process so I would have no problem with
the GA putting forth a recommendation as long as it is done so with a
clear explanation of who was represented.

My apologies for such a long post.  I fully understand that most of
these issues have been debated before and I am not sure it make sense to
debate them again.  I am probably too idealistic.

Chuck       

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 9:29 PM
> To: VeriSign, Chuck Gomes
> Cc: DPF; OpenSRS, Ross Wm. Rader
> Subject: Re: [PRIVATE] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name
> Registration Systems
> 
> 
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 08:28:32 -0500, Chuck Gomes wrote:
> 
> 
> > Patrick,
> >
> > Are you asking whether VGRS would support a working group on
> > registration systems? I don't understand what the taks of such a WG
> > would be, maybe because I have not been following this 
> discussion very
> > closely.
> 
> Thanks for your reply.  Yes, basically, that's what I was asking.
> 
> You may not have been following this particular discussion 
> very closely but
> you would be aware of my firm belief that the GA will never 
> achieve anything
> more than chat unless we have dedicated working groups on 
> topics of special
> interest.
> 
> I have suggested that one such topic is that of registration 
> systems with a
> focus on expirations, deletions and transfers.  Ross Wm. 
> Rader considers this
> too broad in scope.
> 
> My expectation is that VeriSign would not support such a 
> proposal because this
> could lead to criticism of their present approach which often 
> seems (to me, at
> least) to be non-consensual and even, perhaps, a little 
> arbitrary.  However,
> you may personally wish to see the development of some 
> genuine consensus.
> 
> As members of the GA list continue to put up obstacles to 
> stop the formation
> of Working Groups on any subject, I find myself severely constrained.
> 
> We are then left with an ineffective GA.  This suits many in ICANN.
> 
> So let me ask you, Chuck and Ross, would you ever support a 
> Working Group of
> any sort?  If not, could you respond to the straw poll accordingly.
> 
> If you would support a Working Group, would be be kind enough 
> to provide your
> views onlist as to how, and on what basis, you think a 
> Working Group shoud be
> constituted?
> 
> I'd really appreciate some onlist feedback.  Thank you.
> 
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
> 
> 
> 

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C1A323.57106680
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature;
	name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="smime.p7s"

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C1A323.57106680--

- --
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, 22 Jan 2002 13:57:32 -0000
From: "Andy Duff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Business Constituency Charter revisions 

I recommend that the GA make itself aware of the changes to the Business
Constituency Charter recently posted at the www.bizconst.org site, since in
many ways they are indicative of wider issues of concern within ICANN.

For the past few months, the Business Constituency has been engaged in the
process of revising its Charter document. This revised Charter document
erases all of the clauses that caused concern to the former GA chairman
Danny Younger [see Background links below] because they questioned the
legitimacy of the appointment of all three of the Business Constituency
officers. It also deletes requirements for the Business Constituency to
outreach to small businesses.

The most bizarre change is the addition of a clause which states that

"a member, who over a sustained period of time acts in conflict to this
Charter, or who engages in acts which appear to be inappropriate for the
stability, functionality or bona fide reputation of the Constituency, or who
is or threatens to be a vexatious litigant, may have its membership
terminated at the discretion of the Officers and the Credentials Committee."

Exactly what the definition of a "vexatious litigant" is, or indeed who
would determine whether someone "threatens to be a vexatious litigant" is
left unclear. Thus in effect, the officers of the Business Constituency now
have the power to terminate membership of any member on the basis of this
arbitrary criteria.

Fuller comment on these changes can be found on the ICANNwatch site at
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=518&mode=&order=0.

The following points remain unclear -

a. why it was felt necessary to alter the BC charter at all
b. why any of these specific changes have been made

I would recommend that the General Assembly help to establish the rationale
behind these changes. I would also welcome comments from either members of
the GA or members of the Business Constituency as to a definition of
"vexatious litigant".

Andy Duff
New.net

BACKGROUND

In July and August last year, the former chair of the General Assembly Danny
Younger raised a number of concerns about the Business Constituency's
charter and the legitimacy of the incumbent officers appointments
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg00919.html). Marilyn Cade
partially defended her position in this post
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg01075.html)

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

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

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:27:25 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency Charter revisions 

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:57:32 -0000, Andy Duff wrote:

> I recommend that the GA make itself aware of the changes to the Business
> Constituency Charter recently posted at the www.bizconst.org site, since in
> many ways they are indicative of wider issues of concern within ICANN.

Squealer was sent to make the necessary explanations to the others.

"Comrades!" he cried. "You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this
in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and
apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to
preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science,
comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig.
We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm
depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your
sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would
happen if we pigs failed in our duty?

Extract from George Orwell's "Animal Farm"
http://www.ddc.net/ygg/etext/animal.htm

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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, 23 Jan 2002 03:43:58 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 08:57:50 -0500, Chuck Gomes wrote:

> > I'd really appreciate some onlist feedback.  Thank you.

> My apologies for such a long post.  I fully understand that most of
> these issues have been debated before and I am not sure it make sense to
> debate them again.  I am probably too idealistic.

Thank you, Chuck, you did good :)

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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, 22 Jan 2002 21:25:13 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Posting limit

Dear GA members,

as announced before and after the Chair election, the
posting limit will again be enforced. To those of you
who are new to this list, please take the time to
read what this is about:

The GA is a mailing list with rules. These rules have
been established by a vote of the GA itself. You can
find them at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html

The following rules apply to the content of messages on the GA list:
- ----------------------------------
- - The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
- - The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
   - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
   - Not using offensive language
- - If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the number of posts
   per person per day, this must be respected
- - The size of messages should be kept reasonable (there should be a VERY good
   reason to send a message of more than 10 Kbytes).
- ----------------------------------

The GA Chair continues the posting limit which has
previously been in place: *FIVE* postings per person and
calendar day, calculated according to the sender's
local time.

Please make sure that you comply with this limit -- also
in cases where you are responding to multiple recipients
or lists. The list rules are enforced by the list
monitor (email: [email-masked]), and according to
the established GA list rules, posting rights can
temporarily be suspended.

Thanks!
Thomas and Alexander 

- --
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, 22 Jan 2002 12:53:00 -0800
From: Ron Wiener <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Survey Results - thank you for participating in study of secondar y name costs

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A386.C6F0F5B0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1A386.C6F0F5B0"

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1A386.C6F0F5B0
Content-Type: text/plain

Dear Colleagues,
 
Quite a few registrars and professional speculators participated in a survey
over the past few days, to help us all better understand the economics of
their businesses and how they might be affected by WLS.  The results of this
survey are attached.  We thank those of you who participated for your time
and cooperation.
 
The document will also be available for download at
http://www.snapnames.com/wlsproposal.html
<http://www.snapnames.com/wlsproposal.html>  shortly.
 
Cheers,
Ron

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1A386.C6F0F5B0
Content-Type: text/html

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2712.300" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=456323120-22012002>Dear 
Colleagues,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN 
class=456323120-22012002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=456323120-22012002>Quite a few 
registrars and professional speculators participated in a survey over the past 
few days, to help us all better understand the economics of their businesses and 
how they might be affected by WLS.&nbsp; The results of this survey are 
attached.&nbsp; We thank those of you who participated for your time and 
cooperation.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN 
class=456323120-22012002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=456323120-22012002>The document will 
also be available for download at <A 
href="http://www.snapnames.com/wlsproposal.html">http://www.snapnames.com/wlsproposal.html</A> 
shortly.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN 
class=456323120-22012002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN 
class=456323120-22012002>Cheers,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN 
class=456323120-22012002>Ron</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN 
class=456323120-22012002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1A386.C6F0F5B0--

- ------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A386.C6F0F5B0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="Secondary Name Pricing Survey Results.pdf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Secondary Name Pricing Survey Results.pdf"

- ------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A386.C6F0F5B0--
- --
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 #1011
*************************