Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1120
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, April 9 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1120

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

Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 15:57:12 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for immediate action to be taken against RegisterNamesHere .com

(Jeffrey Williams style CC lines removed, come on get that is just way
too excessive)

Sunday, Sunday, April 07, 2002, 12:30:59 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:

> Dear Jeff and Vint

> I am understandably dismayed to see that 2089 .biz 2B names are STILL up for
> sale at the site RegisterNamesHere.com

> http://www.registernameshere.com/dotbiz2b.html

> The rules for .biz clearly say that you may not buy these names simply for
> re-sale.

My understanding is that action is taken if someone invokes the RDRP.

If you feel you should invoke this policy, here is the information you
need:

http://www.neulevel.biz/ardp/docs/rdrp.html

- -- 
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: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 18:19:02 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for immediate action to be taken against RegisterNamesHere .com

Sunday, Sunday, April 07, 2002, 6:12:43 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:

> Dear William, Jeff, Vint and all -

> You say "Just invoke the RDRP". Do you seriously think that 2089 people are
> going to challenge all those names? Of course they're not. You are
> presumably referring to Appendix L of the agreement.

> But it's not as simple as you suggest, because Neulevel and ICANN wrote a
> "RESERVATION" into their Agreement, which permits them to supercede the
> details you mention from Appendix L.

Permits them, does not obligate them.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the previous question posed to
you, where do you see anything that requires a registrar to have a
public interface and sell names to the public?

- -- 
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: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 22:14:34 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Request for immediate action to be taken against RegisterNamesHere .com

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of William X
Walsh

I'm still waiting for you to answer the previous question posed to
you, where do you see anything that requires a registrar to have a
public interface and sell names to the public?

- - It may not have been the answer you wanted to hear, but I already told you
that ICANN must ensure its registrar contracts uphold a service that is of
benefit to the general public, hence everything requires a registrar
services to have a public interface, or it can be deemed be discriminatory
against the public interest. What part of that didn't you understand?

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: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 19:20:46 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for immediate action to be taken against RegisterNamesHere .com

Sunday, Sunday, April 07, 2002, 7:14:34 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of William X
> Walsh

> I'm still waiting for you to answer the previous question posed to
> you, where do you see anything that requires a registrar to have a
> public interface and sell names to the public?

> - It may not have been the answer you wanted to hear, but I already told you
> that ICANN must ensure its registrar contracts uphold a service that is of
> benefit to the general public, hence everything requires a registrar
> services to have a public interface, or it can be deemed be discriminatory
> against the public interest. What part of that didn't you understand?

There is no such requirement, Joanna, except in your mind.

- -- 
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: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 22:21:44 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [GTLD Registries List] Re: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge

Richard Henderson
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 9:01 PM

But seriously, isn't it time we had a public statement and some action from
Neulevel?

Yes.
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: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 20:02:46 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for immediate action to be taken againstRegisterNamesHere .com

Sunday, Sunday, April 07, 2002, 7:45:32 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:

> I hope this finally answers your question, William, if not to your own
> satisfaction.

It answers nothing.

ICANN and the Registries operate under a set of contracts and
requirements.

I have not asked for some theoretical belief to back up your
arguments, that you believe things should be run a certain way and
make a passionate argument for it.

I'm asking you for specifics, what exactly has ICANN, the Registries,
and/or the Registrars violated in terms of their contracts and/or
charters/bylaws/etc as appropriate?

You are making DEMANDS on them to do what YOU want them to, to run
their businesses the way you believe they should be run, because you
believe that to do otherwise is wrong.

- -- 
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: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 23:51:51 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Request for immediate action to be taken againstRegisterNamesHere .com

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of William X
Walsh
<ICANN and the Registries operate under a set of contracts and
<requirements.

- - Not forgetting Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.......

<I'm asking you for specifics, what exactly has ICANN, the Registries,
<and/or the Registrars violated in terms of their contracts and/or
<charters/bylaws/etc as appropriate?

For a start, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED
NAMES AND NUMBERS, As Revised November 21, 1998, 3. This Corporation is a
nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private
gain of any person.

Added to which, Bylaws ARTICLE III: TRANSPARENCY AND PROCEDURES, Section 1.
GENERAL. The Corporation and its subordinate entities shall operate to the
maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent
with procedures designed to ensure fairness.

And ARTICLE IV: POWERS, Section 1. GENERAL POWERS, (c) The Corporation shall
not apply its standards, policies, procedures or practices inequitably or
single out any particular party for disparate treatment unless justified by
substantial and reasonable cause, such as the promotion of effective
competition.

<You are making DEMANDS on them to do what YOU want them to, to run
<their businesses the way you believe they should be run, because you
<believe that to do otherwise is wrong.

Let's not argue about interpretation of ICANN Articles of Incorporation and
Bylaws without the benefit at least of the corporation's chief policy
officer, Andrew Mclaughlin, for which purpose I have included him in this CC
list.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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

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

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

Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 22:12:03 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for immediate action to be taken againstRegisterNamesHere .com

Sunday, Sunday, April 07, 2002, 8:51:51 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> <I'm asking you for specifics, what exactly has ICANN, the Registries,
> <and/or the Registrars violated in terms of their contracts and/or
> <charters/bylaws/etc as appropriate?

> For a start, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED
> NAMES AND NUMBERS, As Revised November 21, 1998, 3. This Corporation is a
> nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private
> gain of any person.

ICANN being a public benefit corporation is really irrelevant.
Perhaps you should look into the legal meaning of public benefit
corporation.

> Added to which, Bylaws ARTICLE III: TRANSPARENCY AND PROCEDURES, Section 1.
> GENERAL. The Corporation and its subordinate entities shall operate to the
> maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent
> with procedures designed to ensure fairness.

None of which would require them to force registrars to operate a
public service.

- -- 
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: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 10:21:31 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DRAFT: Skeleton structure and split responsibilities

Skeleton structure and split responsibilities
   Draft for discussion 0.3 -- Alexander Svensson

   Note to readers: This document is a draft proposal and only 
   represents the views of the author. It consists of two parts: The 
   first part is a hopefully less controversial layered skeleton 
   structure. Additionally, there is a proposal on splitting 
   responsibilities into three recognizable parts which separate 
   budgets. Be prepared to like the first and dislike the second 
   part or vice versa.

   Please see http://www.icannchannel.de/skeleton03.pdf (135 kB)
   for a visualization of the proposal.

A. A skeleton structure
=====================================

   Currently, ICANN performs work related to 
   -  technical operations (e.g. changing TLD name servers 
      in the DNS root zone file)
   -  non-technical services (e.g. accrediting a new gTLD 
      registrar) and
   -  policy input and development (e.g. proposing, 
      collecting input on and preparing a Redemption Grace 
      Period for domain holders).
   However, there is little clear distinction between these areas 
   except for the historical "IANA" label attached to changes in 
   the DNS root zone file. This skeleton structure attempts to 
   separate the layers and make them more transparent.

1. Technical operation
   Some of ICANN's tasks do not include policy development, but only 
   policy implementation by technical operation. This has 
   historically been labelled the "IANA function". Such tasks are 
   mainly
   -  (Operational) addition of new and change of existing 
      ccTLD and gTLD entries in the DNS root zone file
   -  (Operational) delegation of top-level IP address
      blocks and AS numbers to regional Internet 
      registries
   -  Operation of DNS root server L
   -  Protocol port and parameter number and identifiers 
      registry 

2.  Non-technical duties and services
    Some of ICANN's tasks are neither policy development nor 
    technical operation. They reflect ICANN's role in the gTLD 
    namespace and include
    -  accreditation of gTLD registrars
    -  monitoring and enforcement of gTLD registrar 
       contracts 
    -  monitoring and enforcement of gTLD registry 
       contracts
    -  UDRP administration supervision
    -  Internic information

3.  Policy coordination/development
    Policy is not developed uniformly in all current ICANN areas: 
    ICANN has devoted most of its resources to gTLD domain names 
    while protocol parameter and port numbers have not been 
    especially controversial discussion topics. ccTLD registries have 
    expressed their concern about ICANN's lack of attention to ccTLD 
    issues and positions. Although both protocol and IP address 
    issues have not been controversial until now, IP addressing may 
    become a more important and controversial issue, while ICANN's 
    role regarding protocols is merely that of a clerk. It seems  
    therefore sensible to have policy coordination/development 
    mechanisms for four areas:
    -  protocol parameter and port number related issues
    -  (inter-regional) IP address allocation issues,
    -  (inter-national) country code top level domain issues and
    -  generic top level domain issues.
    This skeleton structure does not attempt to decide whether Policy 
    Councils, Supporting Organizations or any other form of mechanism 
    is best suited. However, there is a consensus among the DNSO 
    Names Council (and in the view of the author also in the DNSO 
    General Assembly and wider ICANN community), that policy is to be 
    developed in a bottom-up process, not top-down.

4.  Policy input
    For efficient and legitimate policy development, any policy
    development mechanism has to collect and use certain policy 
    input. The three most important sources of input which have to be 
    taken into account by the policy development mechanism are
    -  governments (in areas where public policy issues are 
       concerned)
    -  the Internet community at large
    -  technical expertise

5.  Oversight
    Despite the bottom-up process, there is a need for oversight of 
    staff, policy and budget. This oversight is provided by a Board 
    (be it of directors or of trustees). An independent review
    mechanism which judges whether Board actions are in accordance
    with its Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation might prevent
    wrong decisions, litigation and unnecessary interventions.

B.  Structure-related budget elements
=====================================
    All the layers mentioned above lead to certain costs:
    -  Even though the directors/trustees do not receive a 
       salary, there are travel and meetings costs. 
    -  Even though policy input comes voluntarily, 
       collecting such input leads to costs (information, 
       outreach and participation cannot entirely depend on 
       compulsory fees and can thus only be partly self-
       funding). 
    -  Efficient policy development requires professional 
       staff support for secretariat, web services, meeting 
       organization and the like. 
    -  Technical operation and the non-technical duties and 
       services are costly since they also depend on 
       professional staff.

C.  Budget divisions (proposal)
=====================================
    Not all ICANN tasks and services are relevant for everyone. 
    Consequently, not everyone is willing to pay for everything. It 
    would however be possible to divide the tasks and 
    responsibilities into three recognizable parts: ICANN, IANA and 
    InterNIC. All three of them would have separate staff and budgets 
    (or rather separated budget items within the overall ICANN 
    budget).
 
1.  InterNIC
    InterNIC would be the entity responsible for gTLD contracts and 
    enforcement. If e.g. a new company wants to become an accredited 
    registrar, it contacts InterNIC staff. InterNIC does not make 
    policy, but instead implements existing agreements.
 
2.  IANA
    IANA would be the entity responsible for technical operation. If 
    e.g. a change in the DNS root zone file is necessary, a ccTLD or 
    gTLD registry manager contacts IANA and requests such a change. 
    IANA does not make policy, but instead implements existing RFCs 
    and, if applicable, ICANN consensus policies.
    
3.  ICANN
    ICANN would be the forum where policy coordination and 
    development takes place. ICANN staff supports the collection of 
    policy input and the policy development through a bottom-up 
    process. The policy coordination and development mechanism
    differ according to subject matter and organization: E.g.
    IP registries are already organized regionally and have their
    own processes in place -- for them, ICANN is mainly relevant
    for coordinating RIR and IANA policies. The ccTLDs also have
    regional organizations and are now in the process of founding
    their own organization within and outside ICANN. The situation
    is again completely different for gTLDs. Because of this, the
    policy coordination/development mechanisms need not and should
    not be identical throughout all four areas.

D.  Funding sources (proposal)
=====================================
    Having three recognizable entities which are responsible for a 
    part of ICANN's work does not only result in clearer 
    responsibilities and budget, it also makes it possible to assign 
    parts of the budget to specific contributors.

1.  InterNIC
    An efficiently working InterNIC is in the interest of gTLD 
    registries, registrars and registrants. However, InterNIC does 
    not provide any services to ccTLD registries, RIRs or SDOs. 
    Therefore, the InterNIC budget is financed entirely through the 
    gTLD registry/registrar/registrant system.

2.  IANA
    IANA provides specific technical services. It is financed by the 
    IANA users: TLD registries (both ccTLD and gTLD), IP registries 
    and standards development organizations.

3.  ICANN
    Policy coordination and development necessarily leads to costs. 
    However, the lack of policy coordination and development can 
    equally lead to costs which may be significantly higher. A 
    bottom-up policy development process requires information, 
    outreach and professional support. These costs must be shared by 
    all groups involved.

- --
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: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 04:47:22 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Request for immediate action to be taken againstRegisterNamesHere .com

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 1:12 AM

<None of which would require them to force registrars to operate a
<public service.

But of course, since you deleted this bit, one can only think that it is
impossible for you to refute....

And ARTICLE IV: POWERS, Section 1. GENERAL POWERS, (c) The Corporation shall
not apply its standards, policies, procedures or practices inequitably or
single out any particular party for disparate treatment unless justified by
substantial and reasonable cause, such as the promotion of effective
competition.

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: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 02:03:11 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for immediate action to be taken againstRegisterNamesHere .com

Monday, Monday, April 08, 2002, 1:47:22 AM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 1:12 AM

> <None of which would require them to force registrars to operate a
> <public service.

> But of course, since you deleted this bit, one can only think that it is
> impossible for you to refute....

No, I deleted it because it was irrelevant to my response, and to your
point.

It also does not require ICANN to require registrars to sell their
services to the general public.

- -- 
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: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 10:29:46 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Registrars Bill of Rights

Having reviewed Mr. Walsh's recent remarks, perhaps it is indeed time to 
re-affirm the rights of registrars and re-sellers...

Registrars Bill of Rights

A registrar has the right:

1.  to hoard and warehouse domain names
2.  to speculate in domain names
3.  to not operate a public service
4.  to not abide by principles for allocation of registered names, such as 
first-come/first served
5.  to not verify contact information associated with a registered name at 
time of registration
6.  to not periodically re-verify such contact information
7.  to suspend or cancel any registration to correct its own mistakes
8.  to establish its own proprietary procedures for handling expiration of 
registrations
9.  to hold domain names hostage in transfer proceedings
10.  to charge up to $10,000 for bulk access to registrants' personal data
11.  to offer symbol system and internationalized domain names that don't 
resolve on the Internet
12.  to engage in "pre-registration" activities

plese feel free to add to this list.

- --
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: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 07:53:14 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars Bill of Rights

Monday, Monday, April 08, 2002, 7:29:46 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Having reviewed Mr. Walsh's recent remarks, perhaps it is indeed time to 
> re-affirm the rights of registrars and re-sellers...

> Registrars Bill of Rights

And as always, Danny has the right to be unconstructive and contribute
nothing of substance to the discussion.

- -- 
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: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 11:23:37 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars Bill of Rights

William, whose highly constructive commentary is regularly to be found in 
"substantive" one-line retorts, states:

<< And as always, Danny has the right to be unconstructive and contribute
 nothing of substance to the discussion. >>

At issue is the fact that the DNSO has done little to nothing to establish 
consensus-based policies to curb what many view as abuses on the part of 
registrars and resellers.  It is within our rights to call for the 
establishment of policies to govern hoarding, warehousing, speculation, 
domain name expirations, etc.  

As a reseller, William, of course, seeks not to have any limitations placed 
upon his community.  It is his right to lobby for an unregulated industry 
with carte blanche powers to trample on the rights of registrants even while 
being an active participant in the Individual Domain Name Holders 
Constituency (perhaps this might explain why the IDNO has made such little 
progress, as it seems to be populated by resellers these days).

Members of the GA and members of the general public have on several occasions 
asked the Names Council to look into establishing such domain name policies.  
Unfortunately for us, on each such occasion, the Council has failed to place 
such matters on their Agenda for consideration.  Once again, this points to 
the need to establish representation for registrants within the DNSO and 
ICANN process.  

An ICANN that is dominated by commercial interests and which steadfastly 
denies representation to registrants is an ICANN that has forfeited its right 
to be called a public-benefit corporation -- it has become nothing more than 
a cartel for those stakeholders that financially prop up its regime.  As we 
consider ICANN restructuring, we should reject any approach that further 
enhances the powers of these dominant groups as long as neither the At-Large 
nor registrants in general have any true voice in the system.

Perhaps Mr. Walsh considers it wholly appropriate for registrars not to be 
forced to operate a public service.  Perhaps he truly believes that totally 
self-serving practices at the expense of the general public are warranted.  I 
don't.
- --
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: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 09:17:38 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars Bill of Rights

As usual, Danny clouds the real issues with a bunch of worthless
rhetoric....

Monday, Monday, April 08, 2002, 8:23:37 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> William, whose highly constructive commentary is regularly to be found in 
> "substantive" one-line retorts, states:

> << And as always, Danny has the right to be unconstructive and contribute
>  nothing of substance to the discussion. >>

> At issue is the fact that the DNSO has done little to nothing to establish 
> consensus-based policies to curb what many view as abuses on the part of 
> registrars and resellers.  It is within our rights to call for the 
> establishment of policies to govern hoarding, warehousing, speculation, 
> domain name expirations, etc.  

But that is not what is happening here, what is happening instead is
an individual is DEMANDING action that is simply not supported by the
contractual obligations.

If you seek a policy change, then DOCUMENT the change, and seek
support for it.

> As a reseller, William, of course, seeks not to have any limitations placed 
> upon his community.

Why don't you not try and guess at what I seek, and let me speak for
myself, Danny boy.

What I was pointing out was that if the individual who has been
flooding with complaints and demands for immediate action thinks that
the situation needs to be changed, demanding that they do it his way
is not the way to do it.  If you seek a change in policy, you document
what changes you want to see, and you seek support for it.

Instead what happened was he was demanding they do it his way, and
frankly, I wouldn't blame the whole lot of his CC list if they just
ignored him.

> Perhaps Mr. Walsh considers it wholly appropriate for registrars not to be
> forced to operate a public service.  Perhaps he truly believes that totally 
> self-serving practices at the expense of the general public are warranted.  I 
> don't.

I believe that it would be wrong of ICANN to force business models
onto registrars, and I believe such a restriction would be unlawful
anyway.  The fact is that the majority of registrars will serve the
public, as that is where the money is, but there IS nothing wrong,
ethically, morally, and in this case, legally, with Registrars
existing who do not sell to the general public.

As a business owner, WHO I DO BUSINESS WITH is ENTIRELY up to me, to
obligate me to do otherwise would not only be wrong, but probably
unlawful and thus unenforceable.  I regularly choose not to do
business with some people.   That is my right, and it is my right to
decide how and to whom I will market my services.

- -- 
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: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 09:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] new.net in the tank?

from f**ked comapny...

New.net - Old : "I think there's a high chance that my current company,
New.net, will run out of funding this month and that I'll therefore likely
be looking for other opportunities," said the email that one of New.net's
execs (not telling which one) sent out looking for work. Our friends at
idealab strike again!

http://forum.fuckedcompany.com/phpcomments/index.php?newsid=85306&sid=1&page=1&parentid=0&crapfilter=1

- --
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: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 16:27:10 -0500 
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge

All,

The following note was statement was placed on the NeuLevel website this
afternoon:

Statement from Jeffrey J. Neuman
Director, Policy and Intellectual Property
April 08, 2002

Last week, NeuLevel, Inc., initiated an inquiry relating to matters
concerning recently registered .BIZ names that were a part of the
Round-Robin Process for the "Group 2B" domain names. NeuLevel is working
with the Registrars and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) to make a complete analysis of its findings and provide
recommendations on further action.

NeuLevel remains committed to preserving the integrity of the .BIZ domain
name space, the world's first and only Internet domain established to meet
the unique needs of businesses. NeuLevel appreciates your cooperation and
patience in this matter.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Richard Henderson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 9:01 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; vint cerf; Legal-NeuLevel
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; Karl Auerbach; Jefsey Morfin;
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge

Dear Jeff and Vint -

Unbelievable...

Following in the tracks of RegisterNamesHere.com, who are already selling
2089 .biz 2B names at their website, we can now introduce:

Patrice Panon from Paris (Sam Production) who, through BookMyName.com,
registered 1962 .biz 2B names last week. I haven't a clue if they intend to
develop each and every one of these sites but they've got a staggering range
of domain names.

I have an Australian friend who will freak when he hears that Patrice took
www.AustralianWines.biz

But seriously, isn't it time we had a public statement and some action from
Neulevel?

Maybe you're not too concerned that among Patrice's 1962 names there were:
www.sexgrannys.biz; www.toilets.biz; www.wwwpussy.biz; www.pornpictures.biz;
www.nympho.biz; ....

But surely, Jeff, you must be just a bit pissed off that Patrice also got:
www.neulevelafrica.biz; and www.neulevelpr.biz ....

Not that he'll be the only one who is fed up! I should think Govinda Leopold
will be a bit narky that Patrice also got: www.mauiwedding.biz .... it was
bad enough for her to lose hawaii.info and maui.info

Or then again, www.wrecking.biz and www.pestcontrol.biz - which just about
sums up what's needed.

So please Jeff, could you tell us what you're going to do about all these
issues? There's 2089 .biz names up for sale within three days of the 2B
release. Here's another 1962 names which look like they might be going the
same way. Even Neulevel's own name is being taken in vain!

It doesn't end here. Because I've had a friend popping in and out of your
back door, I know there are plenty more where these came from. We can now
estimate that between 20% and 25% of all the .biz 2B names were registered
with the intention of violating the rules.

The integrity of Neulevel is in the spotlight.

You have the contractual right reserved for you to CANCEL registrations
which violate the .biz rules.

But are you willing to take that action, and return thousands of names to
the genuine consumers who have a right to use them and develop them?

Kind regards

Richard Henderson

- --
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, 9 Apr 2002 00:37:45 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] policy-making options

In order to add a bit more structure to the discussion on 
policy-making, here are a couple of parameters by which 
policy-making can be "tuned", or by which different options may be 
characterized.  Note that "working group" and "task force" are 
mostly used interchangeably in what follows:

 - Composition of working group: Same for all topics at a given time 
   (<=> names council or board does everything itself); appointed by 
   council or board (strict task force model; committees as used by 
   board); appointed by stakeholder groups (loose task force model); 
   self-selected (working group model).
   
 - Communication with public while work is going on: Listen-only plus 
   behind-the-curtain discussions with groups perceived important 
   (board; board committees); active outreach (some of the current 
   task forces; counterexample: dot-org; it may be argued that 
   dot-org registrant representation was lacking; outreach should 
   include _exchange_ of views and arguments); outreach built into 
   self-selected membership (working group model).
   
   Additional options (orthogonal): Public archives of discussions; 
   dedicated comment periods.

 - Interaction with the board: Through intermediate body (DNSO 
   process via names council; may or may not have power to modify 
   input from WG); directly (board committees).

   Additional options (orthogonal to that):

   * Output may be considered binding/non-binding/almost-binding.
   * Board may interact with TF while work is going on.  Similar to 
     relationship between public and WG.

I'd like to hear what you think about these options.

One thing which should be kept in mind while thinking about these 
options is that different circles of stakeholders may imply the need 
for different mechanisms.  What is appropriate for 
consensus-building in the PSO concerning their policy area may be 
entirely inappropriate for the DNSO (or its successor), or for a 
ccSO.  Also, cross-SO discussions may require a process different 
 from discussions within individual SOs.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1120
*************************