Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1083
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, March 16 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1083

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:17:35 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Full preliminary report available.

A full preliminary report of the Accra meeting is now available at 
<http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm>.
- -- 
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: 15 Mar 2002 14:26:50 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal

Chuck, you are not seriously implying that the GA consensus answer was a
single-handed action by me, are you ?
the lack of negative comment and the outright support for it may almost
be called unique in GA history, so please..spare me

abel

On Fri, 2002-03-15 at 08:28, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Harold,
>  
> All the comments that were sent to the [email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>  address after VGRS' responses to the questions
> were posted.
>  
> I can only assume you did not read the entire document.  There was no
> filtering of comments. Please note that the GA comments (Abel's comments)
> were included; in my opinion they were very negative; they were included in
> spite of the fact that no evidence of representativeness was provided.
>  
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harold Whiting [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 2:46 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]'
> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal
> 
> 
> The Registrar's Constituency's Formal response to the WLS is missing.
> How convenient, for it does NOT support the WLS.
> 
> Also very convenient is the absence of the the expanded discussion over
> whether the registry was contractually allowed to roll out and charge for
> this type of service.
> I do not see this type of service listed in the Registry contract's appendix
> of "allowed" services that the registry could charge for.  Neither did
> anyone else.
> 
> Chuck, if you are going to publish only the feedback that is favorable to
> WLS, make it clear that that is what you are doing.  As usual, this is a
> blatantly biased posting by VeriSign.
> 
> --HJW--
> 
> At 02:09 AM 3/15/2002 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote: 
> 
> 
> FYI
>  
> Chuck
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johnson, Terry 
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:29 PM
> To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
> [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
> Cc: [email-masked]'; Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]';
> [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
> Subject: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal
> 
>  To all respondents: 
> 
> On behalf of Chuck Gomes, thanks once again for taking time to share your
> comments and feedback concerning the proposed Wait Listing Service (WLS).
> As stated, it has been our goal to aggregate the feedback that is collected
> and post this for public record to the VeriSign website.  To that end, we
> have posted to our website the collective feedback that was submitted to
> VGRS, and received at [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>  as of
> 4:30P, March 14, 2002.  The URL where these comments regarding the revised
> Wait Listing Proposal may be viewed is at:
> http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html <http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html>
> . (under the title: "Comments on Wait List Service Proposal")
> 
>  
> 
> Terry Johnson
>  
> VeriSign Global Registry Services
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Harold Whiting 
> 
- -- 
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: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:34:37 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comments Received Regarding Revised WLS Proposal

Hello,

- --- Abel Wisman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Chuck, you are not seriously implying that the GA consensus answer
> was a
> single-handed action by me, are you ?
> the lack of negative comment and the outright support for it may
> almost
> be called unique in GA history, so please..spare me

Not to mention that they included the minority position of the
dissenting registrars, and listed that *first* amongst all submissions,
when the true position of their constituency (against WLS) is well
known. One has to scroll through pages of propaganda to reach the true
substantive pieces submitted by the GA and soon by the Majority
Registrars.

Irregardless of the opposition, VGRS is going to submit this to ICANN,
so that's why it doesn't make much sense to expend all one's energy
now, or get upset at the arrogance of a monopolist, but instead wait
for ICANN to begin its consultation process. 

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.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: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:44:36 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Here is the problem/IETF

http://www.alvestrand.no/icann/icann_reform.html

The USG does not try to do bad things.  They actually try to do good
things.

A search of DoC material brings you to the conclusion that the IETF is
in charge of oversight of the Internet.  We all would like them to do as
little as possible and let us use an open and transparent, bottom up
process as per our MOU.

Well we have not done that.  But we don't get paid to do that.

The IETF does get paid to make sure this happens and guess what? They
have not done a single thing to promote or advise or oversee the
contract with ICANN.

Searches of their sites show no activity since October of last year,
they still have employees listed that are long gone.

For instance they have never made a public comment suggesting
restriction of activity to the matters laid out in Haralds Personal
View.

The recent INS problem makes a perfect example of the ineptitude
practiced here.

If Mr. Evans does not quickly fix this problem then I doubt it can be
fixed and alternatives will have to be found.  While Congress should
review ICANN they would spend their time much better review the failure
of the IETF.

Sincerely,
Eric

- --
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: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:25:32 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] which battlefield?

On 02:51 15/03/02, William X Walsh said:
>Jefsey,
>Your belief that if ICANN is just ignored it will go away or somehow
>fall is just plain unrealistic.

No I say that Lynn proposition has 50% of just being ignored.
And that in that case decisions on the future ICANN future are
already half taken, yet still missing elements and details.

Thursday, Thursday, March 14, 2002, 5:31:51 PM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > don't you believe the ICANN has mislead us into a lot of false problems,
> > delaying the development of the Internet?
>
> > If you agree with this, I would suggest you do not to try to focus on
> > reforms (others will do that very well too). Better you to focus on the
> > after ICANN, with a vision which may benefit to all.
>
> > Most of the people having to decide about the fate of the ICANN are not
> > interested in details, but in simple questions and responses. Will we keep
> > it or not. If yes, what reforms. If not what replacement. So the reforms
> > are only 25% of the debate and not the most important part.
>
> > Lynn's management by surprise consists in choosing his battle fields. At
> > Senate hearings - as at the GAC - he was/will be imposed the battlefield.
> > We are better to be trained for the proper ones than to be muddled in the
> > wrong ones.
>
> > jfc

- --
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: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:34:18 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NTIA/IETF

Perhaps some will misconstrue my earlier post and suggest it is unfair
to the IETF.

Well then I would suggest that you may have a point.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dnsdrft.htm

My criticism may well be better placed against the NTIA.

Or maybe against the DoC - The President?

Somewhere the buck has to stop!

sincerely,
Eric

- --
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: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:01:25 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Here is the problem/IETF

Eric and all assembly members,

  Eric, IETF members do not get paid as IETF members.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> http://www.alvestrand.no/icann/icann_reform.html
>
> The USG does not try to do bad things.  They actually try to do good
> things.
>
> A search of DoC material brings you to the conclusion that the IETF is
> in charge of oversight of the Internet.  We all would like them to do as
> little as possible and let us use an open and transparent, bottom up
> process as per our MOU.
>
> Well we have not done that.  But we don't get paid to do that.
>
> The IETF does get paid to make sure this happens and guess what? They
> have not done a single thing to promote or advise or oversee the
> contract with ICANN.
>
> Searches of their sites show no activity since October of last year,
> they still have employees listed that are long gone.
>
> For instance they have never made a public comment suggesting
> restriction of activity to the matters laid out in Haralds Personal
> View.
>
> The recent INS problem makes a perfect example of the ineptitude
> practiced here.
>
> If Mr. Evans does not quickly fix this problem then I doubt it can be
> fixed and alternatives will have to be found.  While Congress should
> review ICANN they would spend their time much better review the failure
> of the IETF.
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 20:36:23 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [fwd] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge (from: [email-masked])

[Apologies for cross-posting - you started it...:-)]

- ----- Forwarded message from Esther Dyson <[email-masked]> -----

From: Esther Dyson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 05:30:04 -0500
Subject: [icann-alsg] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

Substance over Rhetoric:

<snip>
ICANN hires Alexander Svensson to manage At-Large outreach for the next
year.  This position will be funded (here’s the challenge!) by my $10,000
pledge, matched by institutions such as Harvard’s Berkman Center (which
spent at least that much to send its own team to Ghana to observe the
recent meeting), Markle, Bertelsmann, and the like, and a variety of
interested companies who at least in principle have supported the notion of
an At-large membership.  And perhaps even ICANN can allocate a small sum
with “energy and enthusiasm.”

Dear Esther,

Your pledge of $10,000.00
http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg01908.shtml was made in
response to Pindar passing round the hat
http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg01845.shtml.

I'm sure I'm not the only one here thinking that cash pledges were thrown
into the basket without strings, and that in due course these would be
allocated by the At Large Membership as they saw fit, as opposed to
allocation of pledges in kind, where donating Members specified the
resources and services they were willing to provide. It doesn't seem quite
right that you impose conditions on your pledge that were not there at the
time it was made.

There is a wider issue to consider also. In view of the results coming out
of Accra, the ramifications of which still need time to fully appreciate, it
may well be that the At Large Membership does indeed agree with you that it
is necessary to have a fulltime employee, but nevertheless decides to engage
one person who could pursue a number of representative/ liaison positions,
of which ICANN would only be one. After all, we are hardly likely to be able
to afford more than one person, if any at all. Also, there are those who may
feel that as ICANN has funded Denise Michelle's role, they still have a duty
to continue to support the At Large at least in that capacity.

Moreover, ICANN's very existence is now questionable and consequently, some
form of direct contact by the ALM with the DoC may be desirable in order to
preserve the At Largo's independence from both failures of the existing
administration, in which it has had no role so far, and any future proposed
ICANN structure for which there is no consensus support from its membership
to date. Indeed, it is not impossible that ICANN could be replaced by a
successor agency in September, so there will be those who do not think it
prudent to throw all At Large eggs into the ICANN basket. In addition, we
now have Senator Burns Committee Hearings on the horizon, and it does seem
sensible to bear in mind that whatever representative spokesperson/ liaison
officer we seek, ought to have skills to represent the ALM in these highly
political fora, including before Congressional Committees in the USA.

With the greatest respect to Alexander, this role requires discussion and
debate, and to be advertised to the widest possible audience to draw the
best candidates, and it is simply premature to decide who may be the best
person to fill it. So if I might suggest a more constructive way forward -
you should lead a forum debate on this matter on Icannatlarge.com, where
consensus amongst the 550+ members for your suggestion to hire Alexander can
be documented as well as further expressions of interest/ pledges and
nominations that may be received in support of your idea. This is what we
call in Best Practices "A Suggestion" (see forum for detailed definitions),
nothing more, nothing less, so what we need to do now is establish what the
Issue is and for me, the issue is about ICANN's refusal to fund any part of
the At large, and possible conditions attached to your own pledge.

In the meantime, if you would please clarify whether or not your pledge has
strings attached to it, that would be helpful.

Finally, on a point of Order, Alexander is not Chair of the GA, that is
Thomas Roessler's role - Alexander is Alternate Chair.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 20:12:50 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Repost From:  [ALSC-Forum] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

All assembly members,

  The following is a post I am copying to the GA members for their
review and consideration.  I think you will fine it interesting
and hopefully thought provoking given the recent events in Accra...

================  Copy from the ALSC Forum starts here ============

Esther and all stakeholders or interested parties,

Esther Dyson wrote:

> [sorry for any double-postings]

  Same here...

>
>
> Substance over Rhetoric:

  Good idea Esther, unfortunately you comments and/or remarks
didn't quite make the grade.  (See more below)

>
>
> A constructive challenge to the ICANN board, staff and other involved parties.
>
> Yesterday the board of ICANN approved continued work on an At-Large
> membership “mechanism” and stated that it “wishes to move forward with
> energy and enthusiasm to build a meaningful structure for informed
> participation by the full range of Internet users, and seeks avenues to
> achieve these objectives that are bottom-up, self-organized, and
> self-sustaining.”

  Yes this was in the ICANN press release on the ICANN web site.
Thank you for repeating it here.  What it doesn't say is far more
important
that what it does say however.  That interesting omission is that
Participation
is not the same as a voice AND a VOTE.

>
>
> I would like to take these words at their face value and, before leaving
> Accra, make some concrete suggestions for moving forward.

  Unfortunately the "Face Value" is of little value given the history
of the ICANN BoD, staff, and now the ALSC...  These words
say precious little and have even less meaning to already participating
stakeholders/users.  I hope you, Esther don't believe that the
press is that stupid.  ???  Certainly you already KNOW that the
participating stakeholders, some congress persons, and now
as I understand it, even the President are not this stupid...

> It’s obvious that
> ICANN itself has few resources (whatever its intentions) to move the ALM
> forward, and indeed the major activity needs to come bottom-up, from the
> community itself.

  The community has already done so long ago.
see: 
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/ineginc/ineginc.htm
Yes new efforts have been underway.  They have been documented
on the Atlargestudy.org archives on a number of occasions,
see:http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/index.shtml

>  There is no staff person with spare time to dedicate to
> this effort, and from the community side, there are feelings ranging from
> betrayal and hostility to indifference.  How can we mend this situation?

  First thin to do is to pay attention to ongoing and existing efforts,
instead if ignoring them as the ICANN staff and BoD has done
for over two years now.  Second is to be honest with the
stakeholders/users.  Third is to comprehend adequately.

>
>
> For starters, this message is an attempt at transparency and
> concreteness.  Other than noncommittal discussions with Alexander Svensson
> (more below) and a couple of the ALSC members, I have not lined up support
> for these proposals. So these ideas are fresh and unvetted: I hope that
> those of you I am addressing directly will respond in kind, with ccs to all…

  Esther, you are way late and not exactly honest in your efforts as has
been pointed out time and time again on the Atlargestudy.org forum.

>
>
> The basic idea is to move forward in tangible ways with the formation of a
> coherent, tangible At-Large membership, supported by a fulltime, committed,
> paid individual staffer as well as volunteer efforts.

 It is clear that more than one staffer will be needed and as we have
seen
with the volunteer work from the ICANN staff, great care must be taken
where and how volunteers are deployed.

>
>
> It will require funding from a variety of parties (we cannot depend on
> ICANN alone) and some concrete actions.

We [INEGroup] are already funded.  Other efforts that again have been
well documented on the atlargestudy.org forum, the DNSO GA forum
and a variety of other forums as well.

>  This does not require broad
> consensus, but rather the actions of a few parties who I hope can
> ultimately gather broad support for their efforts. The Board on its
> side  is lukewarm/negative on elections, but willing for the most part to
> respond to evidence of a committed, transparent, issue-focused At-Large
> that could provide constructive input representing the public interest in
> ICANN policies (aside from its own role).

  The main role of any at-large effort or organization is to elect 9
members
of the ICANN BoD.  That in Accra the BoD rejected.  Hence having
a meaningful voice and VOTE in the policy decision making process
of ICANN has been set back significantly.

>
>
> I’d like to suggest the following:
>
> ICANN hires Alexander Svensson to manage At-Large outreach for the next
> year.

  There are many that have done much more the Alexander Svensson.
But he would be a fairly good choice.
Here is our short list:
Eric Dierker, Bob Davis, Joanna Lane, Danny Younger, Jeffrey Williams
(Myself), Roeland Mayer, Jay Fenello, Dave Farber and Patrick Corliss...

>  This position will be funded (here’s the challenge!) by my $10,000
> pledge, matched by institutions such as Harvard’s Berkman Center (which
> spent at least that much to send its own team to Ghana to observe the
> recent meeting), Markle, Bertelsmann, and the like, and a variety of
> interested companies who at least in principle have supported the notion of
> an At-large membership.  And perhaps even ICANN can allocate a small sum
> with “energy and enthusiasm.”

  Oh so the challenge has strings, your $10k eh?  How magnanimous of
you!
How about all the others that have put forth pledges for
http://www.icannatlarge.com/
or http://www.icannatlarge.org/ or http://www.icann-int-atlarge.org/ or
Our (INEGroup] currently with funding of $16.8m, 121k+ members a global
voting system, and a paid staff or http://www.apatlarge.org/

>
>
> I have talked with Alexander. He is a PhD student from Hamburg, Germany,
> who is studying ICANN and is currently chairman of the DNSO  General
> Assembly. With some encouragement from a few more people, I think he would
> be willing to serve.  So far, he has demonstrated himself to be impartial
> and sensible and  has the calm, unassuming personality that should enable
> him to do this job effectively.

  Well I cannot attest to Alexanders impartiality.  And I think that
Thomas
Rossler is the Chair of the DNSO GA? See: http://www.dnso.org/
for further information...

>  His first task would be to take over from
> Denise Michel (the executive director of the ALSC) all the communications,
> databases, lists of interested parties and other connections that will
> enable the transformation of the ALSC  At-Large Study Committee  into an
> At-Large Organizing effort.  Denise has agreed to help with the transition.

  Very nice of Denise to offer.  >;)

>
>
> Once settled in, he should get in touch with all the individuals and
> organizations interested in furthering the At-Large and help them to
> self-organize. In addition, he will manage the online discussion (my
> suggestion is for one reference list, completely uncensored except for
> spam) and one or two moderated lists that ideally will focus on ICANN
> substance  things such as name-registration policies and international
> domain names  as well as on the role of the At-Large.

  Good suggestion and one that we [INEGRoup] made back in 1999,
as well as was made in 2001 by Eric Dierker as well...

>
>
> Ideally, the At-Large discussion should be focused on ICANN policies rather
> than just winning a seat at the table.

  Wrong approach Esther.  Without a seat at the table, the stakeholders
can too easily be ignored or viewed as a nuisance...  You have this
just backwards I am afraid!

> Alexander may choose to present a
> variety of topics, offering substance and questions for discussion (for
> example, how should new TLDs be chosen, if at all?), making the At-Large a
> forum for learning as well as expression of opinions.
>
> Alexander should also act as a liaison/staff to those ICANN Board members
> who wish to work with him, so that the At-Large can have an additional,
> active channel/advocate with the Board.
>
> What happens after that?  A lot is still up in the air, with the board
> meeting in a private retreat in the next month or two, followed by the
> Bucharest board meeting at the end of June.  At the same time, there will
> be actions and statements by a variety of other parties, including various
> governments, and responses to the Lynn “reform” proposal.
>
> An incipient At-Large membership should be part of that mix.  The
> discussions moderated by Alexander should help determine where it all goes.
>
> So, I challenge all of you to support such an effort…or to come up with
> better or additional activities.  Thank you for your attention.
>
> Please reply with any questions or constructive comments.
>
> Esther Dyson
>
> BACK TO THE FRONTIER - this year's PC FORUM with
> Craig Barrett, Rick Belluzzo, Eric Schmidt... and you!
> www.pcforum2002.com/pcforum/speakers.cfm
> March 24 to 26
>
> Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> [email-masked]
> 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

=====================  Copy ends here =======================
- --
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, 16 Mar 2002 01:03:43 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN Pretends to Solve ccTLD Problem

"U.S.-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) announced Thursday afternoon it's the new
operator of the .jp top-level domain (TLD), providing
technical and coordination functions for the domain
extension."

more: 
http://www.isp-planet.com/news/2002/icann_020304.html
- -- 
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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:46:17 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Pretends to Solve ccTLD Problem

Sotiris and all assembly members,

  Yes it looks like another Flim-Flam perpetrated by Lynn/Simms/Touton
to give the impression that ICANN has public support of sorts.
Jun Muri.  His Bio can be found on ICANN's web page at
http://www.icann.org/biog/murai.htm which you can link from
at http://www.icann.org/general/abouticann.htm

  Perhaps Jun can provide us all with some comments of his own.
Jun?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> "U.S.-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers (ICANN) announced Thursday afternoon it's the new
> operator of the .jp top-level domain (TLD), providing
> technical and coordination functions for the domain
> extension."
>
> more:
> http://www.isp-planet.com/news/2002/icann_020304.html
> --
> 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:36:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Registrar Constituency WLS Response to Verisign

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
  Send mail to [email-masked] for more info.

- --2067943611-942075052-1016267033=:9887
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-ID: <[email-masked]>

Chuck,

First let me apologize for the tardiness of this response. We needed to
publish and verify the vote on the attached document in the Registrars
Constituency (RC) before we could post it to you.

The attached PDF file is the Registrars Constituency response to
VeriSign's proposed Wait Listing Service (WLS)

The Registrars voting in favor of the response have had their names
appended as signatories. Also a copy of an associated resolution recently
passed by the RC is appended to this, our formal response.

The vote results concerning this response are public and may be reviewed
at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02193.html

- -rick

Rick Wesson
CTO, Registrars Constituency

- --2067943611-942075052-1016267033=:9887
Content-Type: APPLICATION/PDF; NAME="final-rc-wls-response.pdf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64
Content-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Description: 
Content-Disposition: ATTACHMENT; FILENAME="final-rc-wls-response.pdf"

- --2067943611-942075052-1016267033=:9887--
- --
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 #1083
*************************