Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1076
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, March 12 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1076

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

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:56:55 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Some issues raised by today's FTC action

On 03:21 12/03/02, William X Walsh said:
>It's high time the FTC looked at alt.root registries and the claims they 
>make in trying to solicit registrations, and establish some rules.

Yankee Doodle ....

I am afraid the FTC has nothing to do with the international data network 
naming plan. If you want to address that question internationally please 
write your GAC representative and/or call on your USNIC sales rep. Stuart 
has called on Govs. The USG has delegated ".us" TLD Management to Neustar. 
The US internal affairs are not the matter of this list.

This being said, I believe that it is time that someone more serious than 
the ICANN starts helping a concensus about naming best practices, such as:

- - names are free
- - names are life long and result into a title
- - registrations may be charged a small one shot fee
- - access support (DNS services or others) may be charged.
- - naming confusions are to be addressed by user panels
- - so called TLDs are real/virtual network names. They should usually be 
managed by the community of their paricipants (as per RFC 920).
- - the ICANN network names server services (registration and operations) 
should be equal to all the network names.

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, 12 Mar 2002 14:54:58 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: protocoll from gac to board meeting (from: [email-masked])

Do I read correctly that Blokzijl told Lynn he did not understand much to 
the ICANN?
And that what Lynn wants is to govern by surpise?
And that after all that mess Lynn/Vint do not know what they want from 
Govs, just being advised and them to form a selection committee for some 
University people?
Seems interesting... but are we in a real world.

M$ 5,5 and 21 people to manage an Excell folder....
Jefsey

>my protocoll from todays gac to board meeting can by found at
>http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/200203-accra/20020312gactoboard.html
>regards,
>A.

- --
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, 12 Mar 2002 07:16:35 -0800
From: "David Hernand" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce Committee

As many of you know, New.net recently issued a policy paper regarding the
need to reform DNS governance that posits that the U.S. will maintain
control over the legacy DNS root.  One of the themes in our paper is that we
all must be brutally honest in assessing the current political and economic
landscape when devising solutions to the current broken structure.  Based on
conversations that I and others from New.net have had with members of
Congress and DOC officials, we think that it is extremely unlikely that the
U.S. Government will give up control over the root in the foreseeable
future.  Senator Burns' letter provides further evidence of that point.  If
true, then ICANN will never be able to achieve its mission, either in its
current form or in the form envisioned by Stuart Lynn.  In light of the
reality of continued U.S. control, we have proposed solutions that
contemplate ongoing control, but afford greater recognition of the interests
of ccTLD operators and greater reliance on market forces instead of ICANN's
notion of privatized worldwide government.  (For those that are interested,
our paper is available at http://www.new.net/WhitePaper_v2.pdf  (PDF
version)  http://www.new.net/WhitePaper_v2.html (HTML version)).

David Hernand

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Sotiris
Sotiropoulos
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 9:15 PM
To: George Kirikos
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce Committee

George Kirikos wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> --- Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > The US never really had any intention of handing control
> > over the root to anyone, least of all an
> > pseudo-international body a.k.a. ICANN.
>
> Personally, I have no problems with US control over the root. Having it
> in the hands of a stable democracy with a mature legal system seems
> preferable to that of a quasi-UN board, with unknown intentions and
> difficult enforcement mechanisms. I prefer the devil I know, I suppose.
> :) [I'm Canadian, by the way, so supporting the Americans isn't a
> nationalistic thing for me]

I'm Canadian as well!  Perhaps Canada should run the root?

>
> What's important, though, is to not let the beast get out of control.
> It's mandate should be limited to the technical issues, without policy
> creep into areas beyond its scope.

Fat chance of that!

- --
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
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: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:59:54 +0000
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] IRC from NC meeting

Dear all,

I'm currently at the NC meeting -- maybe
some people want to join me via IRC

IRC server bcis.law.harvard.edu (6667)
Channel #ICANN-chat

(However, if you write to much, nobody
can see my scribing :))

Best regards,
/// 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, 12 Mar 2002 11:20:51 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NC meeting update

The Names Council has just asked the GA to work in tandem with the Council to 
prepare an ICANN restructuring proposal (within the next six weeks) so that 
the voice of the public is properly represented in these discussions.  

Thomas, Alexander, how do you recommend that we proceed?
- --
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, 12 Mar 2002 18:21:44 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IRC from NC meeting

I don't seem to be able to connect... Is this working for anyone at 
all?

On 2002-03-12 15:59:54 +0000, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
>Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:59:54 +0000
>To: [email-masked]
>From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [ga] IRC from NC meeting
>
>
>
>Dear all,
>
>I'm currently at the NC meeting -- maybe
>some people want to join me via IRC
>
>IRC server bcis.law.harvard.edu (6667)
>Channel #ICANN-chat
>
>(However, if you write to much, nobody
>can see my scribing :))
>
>Best regards,
>/// 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

- -- 
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, 12 Mar 2002 18:25:14 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] IRC...

It seems that the bcis IRC server doesn't work any more.  I'm on 
channel #icann on dalnet, if anyone is interested.  (irc.dal.net)
- -- 
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, 12 Mar 2002 18:31:59 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Scribing from the Names Council session

Alexander is about to continue scribing from the Names Council 
session, on channel #icann at irc.dal.net.

- -- 
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: 12 Mar 2002 17:42:12 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Scribing from the Names Council session

since dalnet is somewhat "unfriendly" to connect and to end the enver
connect stuff:

ircjunkie.net #ICANN

do as you please

abel

On Tue, 2002-03-12 at 17:31, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> Alexander is about to continue scribing from the Names Council 
> session, on channel #icann at irc.dal.net.
> 
> -- 
> 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- -- 
Abel S.H. Wisman

Scottish Provident House 
76-80 College Road
Harrow Middlesex
HA1 1BQ 
UK
+44 20 8424 2422
+44 78 1214 1916

www.able-towers.com
www.url.org
www.grid9.net
www.telesave.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: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:44:14 -0800
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: New.net - Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce Committee

Hey Dave, ...you guys still in business?

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman 

David Hernand wrote:
> 
> As many of you know, New.net recently issued a policy paper regarding the
> need to reform DNS governance that posits that the U.S. will maintain
> control over the legacy DNS root.  One of the themes in our paper is that we
> all must be brutally honest in assessing the current political and economic
> landscape when devising solutions to the current broken structure.  Based on
> conversations that I and others from New.net have had with members of
> Congress and DOC officials, we think that it is extremely unlikely that the
> U.S. Government will give up control over the root in the foreseeable
> future.  Senator Burns' letter provides further evidence of that point.  If
> true, then ICANN will never be able to achieve its mission, either in its
> current form or in the form envisioned by Stuart Lynn.  In light of the
> reality of continued U.S. control, we have proposed solutions that
> contemplate ongoing control, but afford greater recognition of the interests
> of ccTLD operators and greater reliance on market forces instead of ICANN's
> notion of privatized worldwide government.  (For those that are interested,
> our paper is available at http://www.new.net/WhitePaper_v2.pdf  (PDF
> version)  http://www.new.net/WhitePaper_v2.html (HTML version)).
> 
> David Hernand
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Sotiris
> Sotiropoulos
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 9:15 PM
> To: George Kirikos
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce Committee
> 
> George Kirikos wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > --- Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > The US never really had any intention of handing control
> > > over the root to anyone, least of all an
> > > pseudo-international body a.k.a. ICANN.
> >
> > Personally, I have no problems with US control over the root. Having it
> > in the hands of a stable democracy with a mature legal system seems
> > preferable to that of a quasi-UN board, with unknown intentions and
> > difficult enforcement mechanisms. I prefer the devil I know, I suppose.
> > :) [I'm Canadian, by the way, so supporting the Americans isn't a
> > nationalistic thing for me]
> 
> I'm Canadian as well!  Perhaps Canada should run the root?
> 
> >
> > What's important, though, is to not let the beast get out of control.
> > It's mandate should be limited to the technical issues, without policy
> > creep into areas beyond its scope.
> 
> Fat chance of that!
> 
> --
> Sincerely,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Hermes Network Inc.
>         Toronto, Canada
> 
> ----
> direct: 416.422.1034
> 
> icq: 34564103
> --
> 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
- --
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, 12 Mar 2002 11:54:40 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] [fwd] [icann-europe] FYI: protocoll from gac to board meeting (from: [email-masked])

Well, that was certainly a LAME conversation... perhaps if ICANN had been 
created as they claim, they wouldn't be in this mess and people might take 
them seriously... They still have the problem of needing to provide a 
service worth of being paid for prior to invoicing...

Perhaps they should publish their budget and receive helpful hints from 
those who ARE in the business.  Personally, I would like to see them 
audited and read the report.  The Internet is a utility, a public work:  we 
have the right to know where money is being allocated at the very least.

If ICANN wants help fundraising from good people, they are going to have to 
open their doors and release their financial information.

:)

~k

At 01:34 PM 3/12/2002 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>fyi
>--
>Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>----- Forwarded message from Andy Mueller-Maguhn <[email-masked]> -----
>
>From: Andy Mueller-Maguhn <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:30:37 +0000
>Subject: [icann-europe] FYI: protocoll from gac to board meeting
>List-Id: <icann-europe.lists.fitug.de>
>Mailing-List: contact [email-masked]; run by ezmlm
>
>my protocoll from todays gac to board meeting can by found at
>
>http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/200203-accra/20020312gactoboard.html
>
>regards,
>A.
>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]
>
>
>----- End forwarded message -----
>--
>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: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:06:45 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Organizing structure work.

I'm tending towards setting up kind of a WG for this topic, and 
moving the substantial discussions to the ga-icann sublist.  For the 
time of the structure work (which is limited to about six weeks, if 
I gathered this correctly), list monitoring for this sublist would 
be extremely strict, with, in particular, off-topic offenders being 
removed quickly, and radically.  Concerning participants, we should 
invite:

 - the GA membership, of course
 - the membership of the names council (which plans to do a lot of 
   work by itself)
 - any interested parties from constituencies
 - the general public, in particular including those from NAIS and 
   ALSC who care to participate.
 - general public.

We'll also need a close time line, and well defined milestones.  As 
a very first suggestion, what do you folks think about the following?

 - March 15: Have terms of reference, and rules of procedure for the 
   WG done. This discussion should happen on the main GA list (i.e., 
   in this thread).  Send out invitations to NC, constituencies, 
   NAIS, ALSC, ALSC Forum, icann.Blog, icannwatch, Slashdot.  Alex or 
   Danny: Could one of you try to extract terms of reference from 
   your recollection of the NC meeting?  I was listening in on a 
   horrible phone connection.  Possibly re-send invitations on March 
   18 and 21.
 - March 15-22: Brain storming phase.  What could ICANN structure and 
   mission look like?  It may be helpful to try going through the 
   various proposals from the Aspen Institute meeting, plus the Lynn 
   proposal, and to try to cough up something ourselves.  Documents 
   published so far should be collected during this phase, and linked 
   from a task force web site.
 - March 22-29: Identify most interesting approaches, and produce 
   short descriptions of these ones, including arguments given during 
   discussion. This would be the first kind of document production 
   phase.  For document production, I'm _strongly_ suggesting that we 
   use a blog-like document repository with comments, like the thing 
   I've started doing for the whois task force.  Document formats 
   should be kept simple (plain text, HTML, MS-Office or StarOffice 
   without anything fancy - we don't need to repeat the document 
   format conversion hell the whois task force is experiencing, due 
   to my choice of StarOffice and heavy use of OLE tables).
 - March 29: Milestone 1, have a structure and skeleton of a report 
   done.

At that point of time, it should be _possible_ to have a rough idea 
of what proposals we may come up with, and it should also be 
possible to use the subsequent weeks to refine such proposals, and 
add more substance to them.

Any comments?

Also, if you have any online reference material on ICANN structure 
and mission which could be relevant, please send me links.  I'll try 
to set up a reference web page ASAP, where the relevant material is 
linked from.

- -- 
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, 12 Mar 2002 10:16:13 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [fwd] [icann-europe] FYI: protocoll from gac to board  meeting (from: [email-masked])

Hello,

- --- Kristy McKee <[email-masked]> wrote:
> those who ARE in the business.  Personally, I would like to see them 
> audited and read the report.  The Internet is a utility, a public

I'd like to suggest that they not use Arthur Andersen as their
auditors...

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.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, 12 Mar 2002 10:23:35 -0800
From: "David Hernand" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: New.net - Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce Committee

Yes, Mr. Conant, the rumors of our demise are greatly exaggerated!  Having
failed to stop us in other ways, it seems that our detractors now hope to
derail us by anonymously spreading malicious, false rumors about our
company.  Such behavior is unfortunate, but not all that surprising given
other steps that our critics have taken in the past.  In any event, we are
still here, growing our company, adding millions of new Internet users with
access to New.net names each month, and providing greater choice of web
addresses for consumers.  We welcome anyone who cares to visit our website,
participate in our discussions forums or contact me directly if you want
more information.

Sorry about having to address these silly issues here in a forum that should
be reserved for policy discussion.  We issued our latest policy paper in
hopes of helping to further debate on the future of DNS governance.  We
offer a view that is quite different than that proposed by Stuart Lynn, but
one which we believe is much more realistic.

Best regards,

DMH

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Derek
Conant
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 9:44 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: New.net - Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce
Committee

Hey Dave, ...you guys still in business?

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

- --
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, 12 Mar 2002 10:33:57 -0800
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: FTC - Re: New.net - Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce  Committee

The DNSGA website is being worked on.

In a DNSGA position paper filed with DoC on 11 May 2001, the DNSGA
pointed out as follows:

"The DNSGA recommends that the DoC consider the significant consumer
protection issues, and U.S. Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") advertising
practice jurisdiction, concerning alternative top-level domain
("altTLD") organizations that appear to be confusing consumers by
offering domain names that appear similar to, however, are not the same
nor compatible with the legacy root system."

With the FTC charging representatives of the alternative root system, my
understanding is that New.net is not an accredited registrar and opinion
is that New.net domain names are bogus.  My understanding is that
opinion is that New.net domain names are not usable on the Internet, and
that they probably never will be useable.  My understanding through
New.net representations is that many consumers have purchased New.net
domain names.

It seems that a defense to FTC charges regarding bogus domain names, or
a defense to FTC charges against the alternative root system, is that
the FTC appears selective in its attacks against the alternative root
system representatives, by not charging New.net with similar charges.  

Maybe the FTC just hasn't charged you guys yet?  If defendants have
adequate counsel, with my experience with the FTC, its advertising
practices group and amended section five, New.net will probably also be
charged by the FTC.  

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

David Hernand wrote:
> 
> Yes, why do you ask?  Also, on a related note, why is your website no longer
> accessible?
> 
> DMH
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derek Conant [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 9:44 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: New.net - Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce
> Committee
> 
> Hey Dave, ...you guys still in business?
> 
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
> 
> David Hernand wrote:
> >
> > As many of you know, New.net recently issued a policy paper regarding the
> > need to reform DNS governance that posits that the U.S. will maintain
> > control over the legacy DNS root.  One of the themes in our paper is that
> we
> > all must be brutally honest in assessing the current political and
> economic
> > landscape when devising solutions to the current broken structure.  Based
> on
> > conversations that I and others from New.net have had with members of
> > Congress and DOC officials, we think that it is extremely unlikely that
> the
> > U.S. Government will give up control over the root in the foreseeable
> > future.  Senator Burns' letter provides further evidence of that point.
> If
> > true, then ICANN will never be able to achieve its mission, either in its
> > current form or in the form envisioned by Stuart Lynn.  In light of the
> > reality of continued U.S. control, we have proposed solutions that
> > contemplate ongoing control, but afford greater recognition of the
> interests
> > of ccTLD operators and greater reliance on market forces instead of
> ICANN's
> > notion of privatized worldwide government.  (For those that are
> interested,
> > our paper is available at http://www.new.net/WhitePaper_v2.pdf  (PDF
> > version)  http://www.new.net/WhitePaper_v2.html (HTML version)).
> >
> > David Hernand
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Sotiris
> > Sotiropoulos
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 9:15 PM
> > To: George Kirikos
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce Committee
> >
> > George Kirikos wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > --- Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > > The US never really had any intention of handing control
> > > > over the root to anyone, least of all an
> > > > pseudo-international body a.k.a. ICANN.
> > >
> > > Personally, I have no problems with US control over the root. Having it
> > > in the hands of a stable democracy with a mature legal system seems
> > > preferable to that of a quasi-UN board, with unknown intentions and
> > > difficult enforcement mechanisms. I prefer the devil I know, I suppose.
> > > :) [I'm Canadian, by the way, so supporting the Americans isn't a
> > > nationalistic thing for me]
> >
> > I'm Canadian as well!  Perhaps Canada should run the root?
> >
> > >
> > > What's important, though, is to not let the beast get out of control.
> > > It's mandate should be limited to the technical issues, without policy
> > > creep into areas beyond its scope.
> >
> > Fat chance of that!
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >         Hermes Network Inc.
> >         Toronto, Canada
> >
> > ----
> > direct: 416.422.1034
> >
> > icq: 34564103
> > --
> > 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
- --
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, 12 Mar 2002 18:36:53 +0000
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Scribing of ICANN Public Forum and Board meeting

Dear all,

it seems that it will not be necessary for me to take notes
on a IRC channel tomorrow and Thursday: I just talked to
one of the professional scribes which have been hired,
and they are going to scribe word for word (and get
99 percent correct, I am told) using a scribing machine
(that's probably not the right term) like court reporters.

So it looks like we're going to get a very professional
scribing of the Public Forum and Board meeting. Nevertheless,
I will from time to time join the IRC channel:
irc.dal.net, #icann. 

Best regards,
/// 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, 12 Mar 2002 13:06:52 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: FTC - Re: New.net - Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce  Committee

Derek,

Your comments read as if you have confused the World Wide Web with the 
Internet.  The WWW is only one function the Internet has to offer...

;)

~k

- --
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, 12 Mar 2002 11:21:32 -0800
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: FTC - Re: New.net - Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair ofthe Commerce   Committee

It appears that the FTC is now defining the WWW and the Internet.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Kristy McKee wrote:
> 
> Derek,
> 
> Your comments read as if you have confused the World Wide Web with the
> Internet.  The WWW is only one function the Internet has to offer...
> 
> ;)
> 
> ~k
- --
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, 12 Mar 2002 13:36:39 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: FTC - Re: New.net - Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce Committee

What a load of garbage!

First of all, the FTC action was based on the fact that they didn't feel
that
TLDNetworks gave proper disclaimers as to visibility of their domains. It
has nothing to do with domain name similar to any other domains.

As long as New.Net gives legally sufficient information about the visibility
of their domains, they are protected. Its all about properly informing
consumers
about the situation so that they can make a valid choice as to wether or not
to spend their money.

FTC could not shut down an inclusive namespace provider as long as they
gave adequate disclaimers. A domain registry is nothing more than a
publisher of a directory of names that they (the registry) wishes to
publish.

Publishers are  protected by The First Amendment of the United States
Constitution
The government is prohibited from violating the 1st Amendment.

I am in support of proper disclosure to consumers and support FTC
action against those that do not follow the rules. It has yet to be
determined if TLD networks did indeed break the rules or did not.

What I am suspicious of is whether or not there is some alterior motive
behind this.  The motive would be an attempt by ICANN and its minions
to close down any and all competition. I would be very interested in
knowing (but will probably never know) what machinations went on
behind the scenes. ICANN is a corrupt monopoly that can't stand
competition and will (based on past behavior) go to extreme lengths
to squash out the competition.

In our press release yesterday, I indicated that I was "pleased" with
the FTC action. After all, TLD Networks "swiped" the TLD that
we have been operating since 1995. Now, I can honestly say
that I am having second thoughts about being "pleased". It all
hinges on whether or not the FTC is fairly applying the law in this
case. They may be. Only the court proceedings will tell.

I am heartened by the fact that an FTC spokesperson was quoted
in one of the online news pieces yesterday as saying that they dont
intend on going after inclusive namespace providers that give proper
disclaimers about the limited visibility of their domains. I hope that
was a sincere statement and not a cover.

Your obvious bias and inflammatory statements about "New.Net going
to jail" are inappropriate in my opinion.

ADNS is not going anywhere and I hope that New.Net will stay the
course as well.

John Palmer

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Conant" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:33 PM
Subject: FTC - Re: New.net - Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the
Commerce Committee

> The DNSGA website is being worked on.
>
> In a DNSGA position paper filed with DoC on 11 May 2001, the DNSGA
> pointed out as follows:
>
> "The DNSGA recommends that the DoC consider the significant consumer
> protection issues, and U.S. Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") advertising
> practice jurisdiction, concerning alternative top-level domain
> ("altTLD") organizations that appear to be confusing consumers by
> offering domain names that appear similar to, however, are not the same
> nor compatible with the legacy root system."
>
> With the FTC charging representatives of the alternative root system, my
> understanding is that New.net is not an accredited registrar and opinion
> is that New.net domain names are bogus.  My understanding is that
> opinion is that New.net domain names are not usable on the Internet, and
> that they probably never will be useable.  My understanding through
> New.net representations is that many consumers have purchased New.net
> domain names.
>
> It seems that a defense to FTC charges regarding bogus domain names, or
> a defense to FTC charges against the alternative root system, is that
> the FTC appears selective in its attacks against the alternative root
> system representatives, by not charging New.net with similar charges.
>
> Maybe the FTC just hasn't charged you guys yet?  If defendants have
> adequate counsel, with my experience with the FTC, its advertising
> practices group and amended section five, New.net will probably also be
> charged by the FTC.
>
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
>
>
> David Hernand wrote:
> >
> > Yes, why do you ask?  Also, on a related note, why is your website no
longer
> > accessible?
> >
> > DMH
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Derek Conant [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 9:44 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: New.net - Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce
> > Committee
> >
> > Hey Dave, ...you guys still in business?
> >
> > Derek Conant
> > DNSGA President and Chairman
> >
> > David Hernand wrote:
> > >
> > > As many of you know, New.net recently issued a policy paper regarding
the
> > > need to reform DNS governance that posits that the U.S. will maintain
> > > control over the legacy DNS root.  One of the themes in our paper is
that
> > we
> > > all must be brutally honest in assessing the current political and
> > economic
> > > landscape when devising solutions to the current broken structure.
Based
> > on
> > > conversations that I and others from New.net have had with members of
> > > Congress and DOC officials, we think that it is extremely unlikely
that
> > the
> > > U.S. Government will give up control over the root in the foreseeable
> > > future.  Senator Burns' letter provides further evidence of that
point.
> > If
> > > true, then ICANN will never be able to achieve its mission, either in
its
> > > current form or in the form envisioned by Stuart Lynn.  In light of
the
> > > reality of continued U.S. control, we have proposed solutions that
> > > contemplate ongoing control, but afford greater recognition of the
> > interests
> > > of ccTLD operators and greater reliance on market forces instead of
> > ICANN's
> > > notion of privatized worldwide government.  (For those that are
> > interested,
> > > our paper is available at http://www.new.net/WhitePaper_v2.pdf  (PDF
> > > version)  http://www.new.net/WhitePaper_v2.html (HTML version)).
> > >
> > > David Hernand
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Sotiris
> > > Sotiropoulos
> > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 9:15 PM
> > > To: George Kirikos
> > > Cc: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Sen. Burns to the Chair of the Commerce Committee
> > >
> > > George Kirikos wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > --- Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > > > The US never really had any intention of handing control
> > > > > over the root to anyone, least of all an
> > > > > pseudo-international body a.k.a. ICANN.
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I have no problems with US control over the root. Having
it
> > > > in the hands of a stable democracy with a mature legal system seems
> > > > preferable to that of a quasi-UN board, with unknown intentions and
> > > > difficult enforcement mechanisms. I prefer the devil I know, I
suppose.
> > > > :) [I'm Canadian, by the way, so supporting the Americans isn't a
> > > > nationalistic thing for me]
> > >
> > > I'm Canadian as well!  Perhaps Canada should run the root?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What's important, though, is to not let the beast get out of
control.
> > > > It's mandate should be limited to the technical issues, without
policy
> > > > creep into areas beyond its scope.
> > >
> > > Fat chance of that!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > >         Hermes Network Inc.
> > >         Toronto, Canada
> > >
> > > ----
> > > direct: 416.422.1034
> > >
> > > icq: 34564103
> > > --
> > > 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
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1076
*************************