Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #102
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, July 10 2000            Volume 01 : Number 102

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

Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 21:27:11 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposed ICANN Constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners

Hello Patrick,

Saturday, July 08, 2000, 8:51:35 PM, you wrote:

> William X Walsh wrote:

>> Being a member doesn't mean that one should automatically and blindly
>> support the one person dictator of the organization in every one of
>> his ventures.  Or that a member will think the organization is
>> automatically a candidate for recognition or anything else for that
>> matter.

> How can a reasonably sane person be a member of an organisation ruled by a
> one person dictator?  Does this membership have any voting rights?

In the IDNO at least the members only get to vote when the Grand
Poobah approves of the voting, and believes it will go his way, or
when he is really backed into a corner and delaying tactics are not
working and his abuse would be apparent if he tried to delay any
longer.

In some cases of the latter, when the vote was clearly going against
his position or the people he supported, the vote would change just
enough in the last hour or two that he would get mostly his way.  It
is all very suspicious, but since he is the only one with the access
to the server hosting his polling booth, and the logs and membership
lists which would be required to audit the results, there is no way to
get enough evidence to say for certain. But it has happened enough
times that it has raised more than a few eyebrows.

Or he will just put the vote off, thus creating a situation where
those who oppose him and want something passed or something defeated
get frustrated and leave, and THEN hold the vote, so that he can make
sure he gets his way.

> If not, what is the worth of such an undemocratic membership?

I agree.  There is not much worth in the IDNO.  But it was created
with my name, and I'll be damned if I let him get away with claiming
to speak for domain name owners when he abused our trust and our
support in such a gross manner.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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, 8 Jul 2000 23:40:02 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposed ICANN Constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners

>  > If not, what is the worth of such an undemocratic membership?
>
>I agree.  There is not much worth in the IDNO.  But it was created
>with my name, and I'll be damned if I let him get away with claiming
>to speak for domain name owners when he abused our trust and our
>support in such a gross manner.

Seconded.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
- --
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, 9 Jul 2000 13:53:20 +0200 (MEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Yokohama - Draft Agenda

On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 
> > What any grouping of Individual DN owners will need to know as part of its
> > bootstrapping process is the *acceptance in principle* of this eighth
> > constituency of the DNSO.
> 
> Please add my support for a recognition in principle of a constituency for
> individual DN ownership (as proposed by Joop).
> 

Please add mine as well.

- --
Marc Schneiders --- Venster --- http://www.venster.nl
[email-masked] - [email-masked] - [email-masked]
New gTLDs?  Is there any benefit?   http://abunde.net

- --
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, 09 Jul 2000 14:14:13 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation Details

At 11:50 AM 7/9/00 +1000, Dassa wrote:

This information is for new applications. What about the existing TLD 
applications? The last time IANA/ICANN received a check to process a TLD 
application, they returned the check the next day. What is the ICANN policy 
on these prior applications?

Roberto,

Prior applications submitted under should really be an agenda item. 
Responsibility for these prior applications has been assumed by ICANN under 
the "USC/ICANN Transition Agreement". The receiving of delegation requests 
is specifically mandated in the "Contract Between ICANN and the United 
States Government for Performance of the IANA Function":

Contract Between ICANN and the United States Government for Performance of 
the IANA Function
http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-09feb00.htm

       12.3 CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS

       NTIA has a requirement for a contractor to maintain the smooth
       operation of the Internet by performing the technical functions
       collectively known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
       (IANA). The IANA technical functions are currently operated by
       the Information Sciences Institute at the University of Southern
       California pursuant to a contract with the Department of
       Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency. In performance of
       this purchase order, the contractor shall perform the following
       IANA functions:

       - Administrative functions associated with root management.
         This function involves facilitation and coordination of the
         root zone of the domain name system. It includes receiving
         requests for and making routine updates of ccTLD contact and
         nameserver information. It also includes receiving delegation
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
         and redelegation requests, investigating the circumstances
         pertinent to those requests, and reporting on the requests.

USC/ICANN Transition Agreement
http://www.icann.org/general/usc-icann-transition-agreement.htm

     1. ALLOCATION OF FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. Effective on
        the Effective Date, under the authority of NTIA, IANA
        relinquishes and ICANN assumes the performance of the
        following functions and responsibilities previously
        performed by USC as the IANA project under the TNT Contract:

        (b) Establishment, oversight, and implementation of policy
            for the Internet Domain Name System ("DNS"), including
            delegation of responsibilities to DNS registries and
            registrars;

        (d) Oversight of the operation of the Internet root server
            system.

>I was reading up on some to the items for action on the agenda and must say
>that the pricing they are proposing for the applications fees for new TLD's
>was certainly an interesting read. $7,500 to $50,000 USD.  Non-refundable.
>The deadline for making comments on any of the items up for action is fast
>approaching also.  If you wish to comment you will need to do so quickly.
>*       New Top-Level Domains
><http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm>
><http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic-actions-considered.htm>
>
>*       At Large Membership and Elections
><http://www.icann.org/elcom>
><http://www.icann.org/at-large/self-nomination.htm>
><http://www.icann.org/yokohama/atlargebylaws-topic.htm>
>
>*       ccTLD Delegation and Administration Policies
><http://www.icann.org/yokohama/cctld-topic.htm>
>
>*       Definition of ICANN's Geographic Regions
><http://www.icann.org/yokohama/geo-topic.htm>
>
>*       Board Meeting Minutes and Updates
><http://www.icann.org/yokohama/minutesbylaws-topic.htm>
>
>
>--
>Darryl Lynch (Dassa)
>DHS International Pty Ltd
>ACN: 091 935 492
>--
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 3:21 PM
>To: ICANN-Yokohoma Remote Participation Preregistrants
>Subject: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation Details
>
>
>Greetings!
>
>You are receiving this message because you preregistered to attend ICANN's
>upcoming public meetings in Yokohama, Japan (July 12-17) via webcast.
>
>
>--
>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

Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

- --
It's a feature not a bug...

- --
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, 9 Jul 2000 15:10:21 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation  Details

Hello Simon,

Sunday, July 09, 2000, 2:14:13 PM, you wrote:

> At 11:50 AM 7/9/00 +1000, Dassa wrote:

> Roberto,

> Prior applications submitted under should really be an agenda item. 
> Responsibility for these prior applications has been assumed by ICANN under 
> the "USC/ICANN Transition Agreement". The receiving of delegation requests 
> is specifically mandated in the "Contract Between ICANN and the United 
> States Government for Performance of the IANA Function":

There are no prior applications.  Face it Simon, you won't get your
gold mine handed to you by ICANN.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:38:05 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation  Details

At 03:10 PM 7/9/00 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>Sunday, July 09, 2000, 2:14:13 PM, you wrote:
>
> > Roberto,
>
> > Prior applications submitted under should really be an agenda item.
> > Responsibility for these prior applications has been assumed by ICANN 
> under
> > the "USC/ICANN Transition Agreement". The receiving of delegation requests
> > is specifically mandated in the "Contract Between ICANN and the United
> > States Government for Performance of the IANA Function":
>
>There are no prior applications.

The facts seem to disagree with you:

From: [email-masked]
Subject: The IANA's File of iTLD Requests
http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html

Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

- --
It's a feature not a bug...

- --
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, 9 Jul 2000 15:44:15 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation   Details

Hello Simon,

Sunday, July 09, 2000, 3:38:05 PM, you wrote:

> At 03:10 PM 7/9/00 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>>Sunday, July 09, 2000, 2:14:13 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> > Roberto,
>>
>> > Prior applications submitted under should really be an agenda item.
>> > Responsibility for these prior applications has been assumed by ICANN 
>> under
>> > the "USC/ICANN Transition Agreement". The receiving of delegation requests
>> > is specifically mandated in the "Contract Between ICANN and the United
>> > States Government for Performance of the IANA Function":
>>
>>There are no prior applications.

> The facts seem to disagree with you:

No, the facts agree with me.  Let me be more direct about it.

There are no prior applications that have any legal standing now.

You can apply for ownership of a tollbridge in New York, that doesn't
make your application have any basis in reality.  Much like your self
claimed TLDs (of which nearly all do not have, and have never had,
live registries, so they are nothing more than undeveloped self
claimed TLDs without any real authority or sanction).

Go back to your dreamland, Simon.  This is reality.  Stop playing
games now.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 16:58:12 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation   Details

> You can apply for ownership of a tollbridge in New York, that doesn't
> make your application have any basis in reality.  

When the New York Tollbridge Authority asks for such applications
and then publishes the list of same, it does make the applications have
a basis in reality. 

> Much like your self
> claimed TLDs (of which nearly all do not have, and have never had,
> live registries, so they are nothing more than undeveloped self
> claimed TLDs without any real authority or sanction).

Image Online Design has had a live registry since its application. Do
you then consider us a special case?

Christopher

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

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 17:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation   Details

from http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html

        While there is much discussion of a process for establishing
        new registries and new top level domains taking place, no
        conclusions have been reached as yet.

        Request sent to the IANA for a new top level domain will be
        filed with the many other requests.  There is some considerable
        possibility that this particular request will not be granted
        (in simple words -- don't plan on it).

did you guys not read the replies Jon sent you, its quoted on the very
page you refer to.

just what part of the above did you not understand?

- -rick

On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, Christopher Ambler wrote:

> > You can apply for ownership of a tollbridge in New York, that doesn't
> > make your application have any basis in reality.  
> 
> When the New York Tollbridge Authority asks for such applications
> and then publishes the list of same, it does make the applications have
> a basis in reality. 
> 
> > Much like your self
> > claimed TLDs (of which nearly all do not have, and have never had,
> > live registries, so they are nothing more than undeveloped self
> > claimed TLDs without any real authority or sanction).
> 
> Image Online Design has had a live registry since its application. Do
> you then consider us a special case?
> 
> Christopher
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
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, 9 Jul 2000 17:18:23 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation  Details

> from http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html
>
>         While there is much discussion of a process for establishing
>         new registries and new top level domains taking place, no
>         conclusions have been reached as yet.
>
>         Request sent to the IANA for a new top level domain will be
>         filed with the many other requests.  There is some considerable
>         possibility that this particular request will not be granted
>         (in simple words -- don't plan on it).

Spot on. There is some considerably possibility that this particular request
will not be granted. As such, Jon acknowledged that there were, in
fact, requests (and that they were solicited).

To date, none of them have been approved nor rejected. They are, in
a word, STILL PENDING.

Thank you for pointing this out, you've actually been helpful.

Christopher

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

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 17:32:33 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation  Details

Actually, there was. That the request was denied is another
story. But history insists that proposals were requested and an
application was submitted, along with a payment. That they
(IANA/Postel) changed their mind and handed back the application
and payment, the very next day, is yet another issue. All other
claims cannot deny this real event, value-judgements aside.

Interpretations are yet another issue. But, please remember that
interpretations are not the events themselves. The facts don't
change.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
William
> X. Walsh
> Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 3:10 PM
> To: Simon Higgs
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote
Participation
> Details
>
>
> Hello Simon,
>
> Sunday, July 09, 2000, 2:14:13 PM, you wrote:
>
> > At 11:50 AM 7/9/00 +1000, Dassa wrote:
>
> > Roberto,
>
> > Prior applications submitted under should really be an agenda
item.
> > Responsibility for these prior applications has been
> assumed by ICANN under
> > the "USC/ICANN Transition Agreement". The receiving of
> delegation requests
> > is specifically mandated in the "Contract Between ICANN and
> the United
> > States Government for Performance of the IANA Function":
>
> There are no prior applications.  Face it Simon, you won't get
your
> gold mine handed to you by ICANN.
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  William
mailto:[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

- --
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, 9 Jul 2000 23:30:04 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[5]: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation   Details

Hello Christopher,

Sunday, July 09, 2000, 4:58:12 PM, you wrote:

>> You can apply for ownership of a tollbridge in New York, that doesn't
>> make your application have any basis in reality.  

> When the New York Tollbridge Authority asks for such applications
> and then publishes the list of same, it does make the applications have
> a basis in reality. 

EVen if the New York Tollbridge Authority asks, the applications would
have no validity UNLESS THE STATE LEGISLATURE and Governor passed laws
authorization their actions.

Jon could ask for whatever he wanted, he had no authority.  Bottom
line, its been proven by history, end of story.

>> Much like your self
>> claimed TLDs (of which nearly all do not have, and have never had,
>> live registries, so they are nothing more than undeveloped self
>> claimed TLDs without any real authority or sanction).

> Image Online Design has had a live registry since its application. Do
> you then consider us a special case?

No, not really, I used that as further evidence of why the vast bulk
of these "applications" or self claimed TLDs should be ignored.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #102
************************