Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1100
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, March 23 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1100

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

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 20:31:11 -0500
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Fwd: A WARNING TO OUR CUSTOMERS]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------A23073BB1572E830F63AE5FA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I wonder if Chuck Gomes or someone else from Verisign
could comment on the following...
- --------------A23073BB1572E830F63AE5FA
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Date: 23 Mar 2002 01:20:15 -0000
To: [email-masked]
From: [email-masked]
Subject: A WARNING TO OUR CUSTOMERS

Please be aware that Verisign, Inc. (formerly Network Solutions) is sending via the US Mail, what we believe to be deceptive and predatory domain expiration notices.  

The purpose behind these notices is to get the unsuspecting customer to transfer to and renew their domain name(s) with Verisign Inc. at significantly higher prices.

The domain expiration notices are designed so that it is not obvious that the notices are from Verisign, Inc. as opposed to Go Daddy Software. To see a copy of one of these deceptive expiration notices, please go to the following URL: http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/private_vsrn.asp?display=letter.

Those customers who fall prey to the Verisign, Inc. scheme will have their domain name(s) renewed at a price more than 3 times higher than would be the case if they renewed with Go Daddy Software. 

For a .com, .net or .org domain name renewal, the victimized customer would pay $29.00 to Verisign, Inc. instead of the $8.95 charged by Go Daddy Software.  

Those customers who fall prey to this scheme, will not receive any better service or value.  They will however be tricked out of $20.05 per domain name.

Renewal notices from Go Daddy Software are sent via email, and always mention the Go Daddy name.  You can be sure that any communications you receive concerning your domain name that do not explicitly and obviously display the Go Daddy name are not from Go Daddy Software.

If you believe, as we do, that this practice of Verisign Inc. is misleading, predatory and improper, we invite you to make your feelings known by writing to ICANN (who is the governing body for all Registrar’s and Registries) and to Verisign Registry.  Email links for both are provided below.

Sincerely,

Bob Parsons, President
Go Daddy Software, Inc.

ICANN Registrar Complaint Form (hosted at InterNIC)
http://www.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi

VeriSign Registry Customer Service
[email-masked]
Phone: 703-948-3200

- --------------A23073BB1572E830F63AE5FA--

- --
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, 22 Mar 2002 21:07:20 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
Joanna,

Thank you for your long speech, but my question did not imply in any way
that the election mechanism could not be improved. It was just meant to be
an opportunity to clarify to the community if you would accept membership
rules by which a "lobbyst of ATT", for instance, could become member and run
for office (provided, of course, that he/she solves potential
incompatibilities in the Bylaws, if this were the case).

Regards
Roberto

Dear Roberto,

You think this is a simple question? Then let me ask you this one:- "when
did you stop beating your wife?".

I have faith that the majority of people involved in the Internet Industry
are essentially good, but they must ensure the interests of the general
public and the interests of large multi-national corporations are not
commingled in the process that is used to regulate them. It is not
appropriate for paid political lobbyists to hold elected positions in the
body selected to represent the general public interest, but of course they
have a place in the overall scheme of things.

One key problem with the current structure lies in Bylaws that positively
encourage individuals to seek out multiple platforms for their voice to be
heard, namely in the DNSO Constituencies. This has resulted in a "one man,
more than one vote" scenario, the same voice being voted repeatedly. It is
simply unconscionable that the general public have no direct representation
in the DNSO policy making process. The DNSO nonsense is ICANN's major
failure, not the At Large.

The At Large must shape itself to clearly distinguish between groups of
those who are paid to be there, and those who are not. Stick with the
principal of "one man one vote", which the Eligibility section of ICANN's
current Bylaws seeks to uphold, and it doesn't really matter which of the
various platforms any particular individual chooses to take up, so long as
they only have one.

Sorry for the length of the speech!

Regards,
Joanna

>From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
>To: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge
>Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:37:21 -0500
>
>Roberto wrote:-
>From my part, before providing an opinion, I would like to have her answer
>to a simple question: "At Large membership and eligibility to office will
>be
>open to any individual, with no additional restriction versus the set of
>rules given for the 2002 At Large elections. Agree/Disagree?"
>
>________________________________________________________
>
>I disagree to the extent that, as a practical matter, there is no point in
>electing an individual that ICANN cannot accept for reason of its own
>Bylaws, or those of a successor agency whichever is applicable. However,
>all
>things considered, I thought the 2000 elections were a success. I had never
>heard of ICANN prior to those elections, yet I not only heard about them, I
>was able to familiarize myself with candidates, learn about various issues,
>candidate positions, given the ability to interact with them directly and
>make an informed choice. I personally had no problems registering on the
>site, obtaining my pin and voting. Would I vote for repeating the procedure
>even if nothing was changed? Sure, I would. Would I change some things
>given
>the choice? Yes, that also, including but not limited to:-
>
>1) Citizenship/ Residency Anomaly - the internet community is full of
>people
>like myself and Joop, whose citizenship and residency fall into different
>regions. Currently, I have started to co-ordinate the New York Working
>Group
>for the At Large, a practical effort that one would think might result in a
>person sitting on a local Committee of some sort in due course, that in
>turn, could lead to State, then Federal Committees and ultimately the top
>job, an At Large Director for the North American region. (This is an
>example, not a pitch for anything!)  However, as a British citizen and
>permanent resident of the United States, under current election rules, I
>can
>only stand for election as representative of the European Union (which in
>fact I did last year), where I cannot even have a photo opportunity at the
>ballot box casting my own vote. Not only can I not stand for election in
>the
>same region in which I cast my vote, I cannot vote in the region in which I
>have citizenship. This does not fit with normal voting rights in the real
>world, is a barrier to entry, and all the more unacceptable when one
>considers that the rule only came about for ICANN's convenience, (it was
>deemed too difficult to verify residency of a candidate),
>http://www.icann.org/committees/elcom/recs-07jul00.htm, My sense is that a
>person who works tirelessly for a particular At large Region over a number
>of years and understands the issues thoroughly is more than sufficiently
>qualified and verified to climb the ladder as high as they would want to
>go.
>
>2. At Large Directors must be able to communicate with their electorate:
>This is vital, and would extend to candidates, who need access to the email
>addresses of those who contact them with questions during the election
>cycle. The structure of the message Boards last time denied that ability,
>it
>was a frustration on both sides and it showed.
>
>Finally, I am not avoiding Esther's question, but I'm still not sure
>whether
>I want anything more to do with ICANN. David Farrar makes some compelling
>arguments for working towards a successor agency, and he is by no means a
>radical. Can anybody convince me one way or the other?
>
>Regards,
>Joanna
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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, 22 Mar 2002 21:39:59 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [Fwd: A WARNING TO OUR CUSTOMERS]

FYI, long after I had transferred a domain to another Registrar, I received
an invoice from VeriSign through the mail stating that if I did not remit my
payment for $58 immediately I would lose the domain.

Regards,
Joanna

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Sotiris
Sotiropoulos
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 8:31 PM
To: ga
Subject: [ga] [Fwd: A WARNING TO OUR CUSTOMERS]

I wonder if Chuck Gomes or someone else from Verisign
could comment on the following...

- --
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, 22 Mar 2002 21:20:47 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [Fwd: A WARNING TO OUR CUSTOMERS]

At 9:39 PM -0500 3/22/02, Joanna Lane wrote:
>FYI, long after I had transferred a domain to another Registrar, I received
>an invoice from VeriSign through the mail stating that if I did not remit my
>payment for $58 immediately I would lose the domain.

Lok at the scan of the letter at the given URL.

It is a clear attempt to fool people into transfering their name to
Verisign's Registrar.

It even has a box labeled "Renewal and Transfer Authorisation".

Now, <sarcasm>I wonder if ICANN will slap Verisign with a wet bus
ticket</sarcasm>

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:34:56 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] MP3 technical failure - Another "Load"

Once again, TFs as a workaround to the procedures spelled out in the
rules.

One reason why ICANN is dead is that it couldn't make and keep promises.
The iniablity to make credible promises destroys trust.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Sotiris, I am not sure what your objection is to. The NC is working as a TF
> to address the restructuring question. The GA chair and alt. Chair have been
> added to the work initiative. {That idea was broadly supported! ]  Thomas
> was on the call/had to leave early, but this was a preliminary discussion
> about TOR and work approaches.... The minutes will convey most of the
> discussion... 
> 
> Sometimes technology fails. It's regrettable, but Glen was taking minutes.
> Reminds all of us how helpful it is to have human back up.  :-)
> 
> And, like J.Scott, if anyone wants to call me, I'll pull out my personal
> notes and walk through them with you.
> 
> If you check the archives, you will see that I  urged that the chair/alt
> chair be included in this NC working as a TF.    You can be suspicious, or
> you can, like the rest of us, realize that technology fails from time to
> time.  Or, you can be both... :-)
> 
> I know that none of us were aware of the failure.  
> 
> I agree that this is hard work... we need to  focus on getting to
> supportable restructuring options...the GA views and input will be critical.
> Thomas and Alex will be organizing that...   
> 
> 
> 
> Marilyn
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 5:23 PM
> To: J. Scott Evans
> Cc: Jeff Williams; [email-masked]; DNSO Secretariat; Stuart Lynn; icann board
> address
> Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 tehnical failure - Another "Load"
> 
> 
> Mr. Evans,
> 
> The call should have been re-scheduled then.  Without a
> record of the deliberations the process is anything but
> open and transparent.  As for insinuating a conspiracy...
> it's pretty obvious to most of us (Individuals) that there
> is a cabal within ICANN.  Of course, as the IPC rep your
> interests are being served, so I wouldn't expect you to
> say anything different.  Frankly, you are paid to present
> "your" viewpoints in these fora (viewpoints which are
> actually those of your clients), so I wouldn't take your
> word on these matters.  It's not personal, just pragmatic,
> so don't bother to feign offense for our sake.
> 
> "J. Scott Evans" wrote:
> > 
> > Gentlemen:
> > 
> > I believe notes were indeed taken.  Please be assured that nothing
> nefarious
> > took place.  If either of you would like to know what took place, I would
> > suggest you contact the NC Chair or the NC Secretariat and request a copy
> of
> > the minutes rather than posting public comments insinuating a conspiracy
> for
> > which you simply have no proof.  In the alternative, you are welcome to
> > phone me and I will do my best to relay my recollection of today's call.
> > 
> > J. Scott Evans
> > IPC NC Representative
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>; "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>; "Stuart
> > Lynn" <[email-masked]>; "icann board address" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 4:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 tehnical failure - Another "Load"
> > 
> > > Sotiris and all assembly members,
> > >
> > >   Yes Sotiris, you summed it up rather nicely and honestly.
> > > "What a load".  Precisely!  I just wonder how high that load
> > > is going to get!  I will see whet Guinness Book of World records
> > > is on "Stacks/piles of LOAD" is!  ROFLAMO!
> > >
> > > Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think 'heinous' is a better characterization.  I suppose
> > > > there is no record of the conference whatsoever?  Not even
> > > > scribe notes?  So, we'll just have to accept that none of
> > > > us can be privy to the matters taken under conference
> > > > during said session?
> > > >
> > > > What a load!
> > > >
> > > > eric wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is hilarious!
> > > > > e
> > > > >
> > > > > DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > [To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
> > > > > > [To: [email-masked]]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The DNSO Secretariat technical staff apologizes for the failure in
> > MP3
> > > > > > recording of the 22nd March Names Council conference.
> > > > > > This failure was due to an electricity breakdown in the call room
> > just
> > > > > > followed by a phone breakdown.
> > > > > > We will take care that this does not happen again in the future.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DNSO Secretariat technical staff.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 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-full" in the body of the message).
> > > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm 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, 23 Mar 2002 01:23:33 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 tehnical failure - Another "Load"

Friday, Friday, March 22, 2002, 3:07:42 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
 
>> The call should have been re-scheduled then.  Without a
>> record of the deliberations the process is anything but
>> open and transparent.

> Could we please give the DNSO have a break?  Technical problems *do* occur 
> every now and then.

> In the larger scheme of things we ought to recognize that the DNSO has
> actually done something positive and good by making the effort, an effort
> that is usually sucessful, to make an audio recording and publish it.

> These efforts of the DNSO are a day-over-night improvement over that of
> the Board of Directors which holds most of its gatherings on unrecorded
> and untranscribed phone calls overheard only by a few invited outsiders.

I concur fully.

However, all it takes is for the DNSO to make a listen only port
available to one of us with a voice modem, who can create an mp3
recording remotely, and provide a live stream for those who want to
listen to it live.

It really is VERY simple to do, and I've volunteered to host the live
stream.  Anyone with a windows or linux pc and a voice modem can
stream the call to my server, or to anyone else who sets up an icecast
or shoutcast server on their network.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.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: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:51:13 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Address Space & IPv6 in Asia

http://www.bangkokpost.com/130302_Database/13Mar2002_data03.html

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: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:57:28 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 technical failure - Another "Load"

On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 06:25:33PM -0500, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

>I know that technology does fail from time to time.  But, I think 
>that when it comes to ICANN and its policies (and policy makers) I 
>think the culture of suspicion is quite warranted.  So, I will 
>choose both of the above.

While suspicions may certainly be warranted in _some_ circumstances, 
I don't believe they are in this case.

The DNSO secretariat has been doing a pretty good job at providing 
the public with minutes and MP3 recordings from names council 
sessions, so far.  Given that record, there is absolutely no reason 
to suspect malice when the secretariat says that technology failed. 
I'm also sure that the secretariat will produce quite useful minutes 
of this meeting.

(I'm actually looking forward for the minutes myself since, as was 
mentioned before, I had to leave the call after one hour due to 
real-life constraints.)

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                      <[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, 23 Mar 2002 13:27:25 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Is there a third consensus ?

Dear Vint,
Thank you for your response.

On 01:56 23/03/02, vint cerf said:
>At 04:05 PM 3/22/2002 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >I asked yesterday if everyone agreed (consensus) that the resolution of 
> the situation created by:
> >- our consensus that Lynn's evaluation of the inability of the ICANN to 
> currentrly fullfil its mission is correct
> >- our consensus that Lynn's propositions are inadequate
>well I would say either incomplete or worth adapting.

True. This is why I used "inadequate" to permit every evaluation. Lynn has 
been the first to call for a review. This is why I assume we have a 
consensus. Consensus is when *everyone* can agree should their prerequistes 
be met. Implementing it is to meet these prerequistes. Usually no more easy 
than uncovering the consensus...

> >can only result from a consensus of the Internet Community and needs it 
> to succeed.
>consensus would surely help I think.

Good. IMHO it is necessary (for the retained solution not to be immediately 
circumvented).

> >None has objected yet. Please speak-up now if you object. You will kill 
> the ICANN but you will save our time. will repeat that request until 
> tomorrow. If none seriously object I will consider there is a consensus 
> on that need. I will then ask if there is a consensus on a working method 
> to reach such a consensus. I will also dedicate a site and some time to 
> the organization of that method which has to be very very light and 
> simple and respect but present the work carried by committees.
> >Otherwise I will dedicate that time to the building of a community 
> alternative solution to the ICANN. IMHO we still are in a position to 
> save the ICANN, but there are enough forces on the move for the window to 
> close this WE.
>
>my bias is obvious but I honestly think that so much has gone into making 
>ICANN work that it would be more effective to try to adapt it than to 
>start all over (re-opening many debates whose resolution might take much 
>longer or possibly never gel).

I frankly do not think it is a bias. It sounds good. My effort to proceed 
step by step is to make sure there is no fundamental objection to the 
principle of an ICANN (whatever it may be). So at least we can object to 
further opponents that they had every possibility to speak up. And to treat 
them as disrupters without fearing to be wrong.

The only suggestion I will do is to name our common effort ... "WECANN" :-) 
to emphasize WE all want to find a proper solution (Mike's "We the ICANN"). 
I reserved "wecann.com". It will go to the ICANN review or to an  ICANN 
replacement depending on what the ICANN/Internet Communities say.

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: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 09:50:47 -0500
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] worldatlarge.org

Ladies & Gentlemen,

The web site http://www.worldatlarge.org is now resolving.

- -- 
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, 23 Mar 2002 10:39:00 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 technical failure - Another "Load"

Jeff:

I am unwilling to post my phone number on this list.  However, Danny Younger
has my number and it can be found on my firm's web site (which I will
apologize in advance for b/c it is slightly pathetic).  The URL is
www.adamspat.com

J. Scott Evans
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; "Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>; "icann board address"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 technical failure - Another "Load"

> Sotiris, Marilyn and all assembly members,
>
>   I have to agree again with Sotiris to a very great degree.  However
> Sotiris made a slight mistake at the end of his reply below by
> asking one of the same "Spinmiesters" that have created the mess
> in part how to proceed from here.  That is an invite to more
> spinmistering and non-productive nonsense or further damage
> to stakeholders...  So just asking for more brown fecal
> matter to be added to the existing "Load" is not what
> I hope you had in mind Sotiris..
>
>   BTW Marilyn and Scott still awaiting your phone call or
> real contact phone number, per your offers...  ???
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> > "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
> > >
> > > I understand "both".    .....and  I know that in order to move ahead,
that
> > > Thomas and Alex and you, and others in the GA will need to be engaged.
> >
> > Ok Marilyn, let's have a hear to heart.
> >
> > It is frustrating to hear that our input is desired and to
> > _know_ that heretofore our input has been glossed over and
> > completely ignored.  To ask a question and get spin in
> > return is enough to test anyone's patience, and these fora
> > are replete with just such instances of non
> > communication.  Many of us are simply tired of knocking on
> > the deaf person's door...
> >
> > > I agree that ICANN has significant problems/challenges.  It's not easy
to be
> > > heard or to be effective... however, I attended an ITU Plenipot;
several
> > > OECD meetings, WIPO meetings....,many meetings of Parliaments and of
US
> > > Congress...... After that, I can't envision a governmental approach to
the
> > > management of these issues which moves quickly, provides broad
consensus
> > > development and is above nationalist perspectives. avoids government
> > > encroachment into technical issues of the Internet.
> >
> > You make a good point here.  I too would hate to see
> > governments in charge, but with the prevailing US
> > corporate and DoC stranglehold over all things ICANN, it's
> > pretty difficult to see a difference between the frying
> > pan or the fire, so to speak.
> >
> > >
> > > I know that many think their voice isn't heard at ICANN - some would
be
> > > amazed that the business community complains about the same issue....
> > > but...here's our common challenge:
> > >
> > > --in multi lateral organizations, only governments have a voice.  You
may
> > > not think ICANN is much better, but I hope you will give it a further
> > > chance. You can always devolve to governmental oversight.
> > >  And you can work now to make it better.
> >
> > Many of us have been trying to do so for four years.  Case
> > in point: At the request of others, I assumed the Chair of
> > the WG Review when Greg Burton did his deed and
> > mysteriously dropped out, we went on to produce a document
> > that was not even mentioned on the DNSO web site and was
> > clearly ignored by all of you in the NC. Instead, Theresa
> > Swineheart misrepresented the "public input" from the only
> > WG to ever produce 2! reports...  Since that time nothing
> > has changed in ICANN's methodologies -i.e. give token lip
> > service to public input and spin whatever angle you
> > please, citing the thousands of postings on the GA list as
> > credible input that has been taken into account.  When
> > this changes, perhaps many of us will take it upon
> > ourselves to start working to "make it better".  So, how
> > do you suggest we proceed?
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >         Hermes Network Inc.
> >         Toronto, Canada
> >
> > ----
> > direct: 416.422.1034
> >
> > icq: 34564103
>
> 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, 23 Mar 2002 10:55:27 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 tehnical failure - Another "Load"

Sortis:

I have never been "paid" by a client for any of my participation in ICANN
activities.  My participation is fully voluntary.  I assisted in the 5
member drafting committee that drafted the UDRP.  I am not a UDRP panelist
for any provider, I have only represented 1 client in 2 UDRP proceedings.
One case the respondent did not respond and the second case settled before
being decided by the panelist.

I only represent one large company that could possibly have something to
gain from ICANN decisions; however, I only do transactional work (i.e..
purchase of trademarks etc.).  I do NO domain name policy work or advising
for that particular client in either the Internet or domain name arenas.
The majority of my clients are individuals and small businesses with some
midsized corporations in the mix.  I own no stock in any Internet companies
or telecommunication companies.  I do have mutual fund investments, but I
honestly have no idea where those funds invest my money.  My work is purely
voluntary and uncompensated.  I do this work because I enjoy it, NOT because
it is making me rich or even bringing me any business.  You do not know me,
sir, and I would appreciate that you NOT insinuate that I am some kind of
"paid hack" for my clients that have something to gain from my participation
in ICANN.  To be honest, however, I confess that should a huge client come
to me and offer to fund my ICANN activities, I am not sure I wouldn't take
them up on it (as you know this work is time consuming and requires
expensive travel).  Unfortunately, however, I have had no such offers to
date and do not contemplate receiving any such offers in the near future.

J. Scott Evans
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
To: "J. Scott Evans" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "DNSO
Secretariat" <[email-masked]>; "Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>;
"icann board address" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 tehnical failure - Another "Load"

> Mr. Evans,
>
> The call should have been re-scheduled then.  Without a
> record of the deliberations the process is anything but
> open and transparent.  As for insinuating a conspiracy...
> it's pretty obvious to most of us (Individuals) that there
> is a cabal within ICANN.  Of course, as the IPC rep your
> interests are being served, so I wouldn't expect you to
> say anything different.  Frankly, you are paid to present
> "your" viewpoints in these fora (viewpoints which are
> actually those of your clients), so I wouldn't take your
> word on these matters.  It's not personal, just pragmatic,
> so don't bother to feign offense for our sake.
>
> "J. Scott Evans" wrote:
> >
> > Gentlemen:
> >
> > I believe notes were indeed taken.  Please be assured that nothing
nefarious
> > took place.  If either of you would like to know what took place, I
would
> > suggest you contact the NC Chair or the NC Secretariat and request a
copy of
> > the minutes rather than posting public comments insinuating a conspiracy
for
> > which you simply have no proof.  In the alternative, you are welcome to
> > phone me and I will do my best to relay my recollection of today's call.
> >
> > J. Scott Evans
> > IPC NC Representative
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>; "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>;
"Stuart
> > Lynn" <[email-masked]>; "icann board address" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 4:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 tehnical failure - Another "Load"
> >
> > > Sotiris and all assembly members,
> > >
> > >   Yes Sotiris, you summed it up rather nicely and honestly.
> > > "What a load".  Precisely!  I just wonder how high that load
> > > is going to get!  I will see whet Guinness Book of World records
> > > is on "Stacks/piles of LOAD" is!  ROFLAMO!
> > >
> > > Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think 'heinous' is a better characterization.  I suppose
> > > > there is no record of the conference whatsoever?  Not even
> > > > scribe notes?  So, we'll just have to accept that none of
> > > > us can be privy to the matters taken under conference
> > > > during said session?
> > > >
> > > > What a load!
> > > >
> > > > eric wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is hilarious!
> > > > > e
> > > > >
> > > > > DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > [To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
> > > > > > [To: [email-masked]]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The DNSO Secretariat technical staff apologizes for the failure
in
> > MP3
> > > > > > recording of the 22nd March Names Council conference.
> > > > > > This failure was due to an electricity breakdown in the call
room
> > just
> > > > > > followed by a phone breakdown.
> > > > > > We will take care that this does not happen again in the future.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DNSO Secretariat technical staff.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 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-full" in the body of the message).
> > > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.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
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1100
*************************