Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1193
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, May 14 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1193

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

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 15:13:15 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Timetable and procedure for vote

I would think the best way to deal with any risk of failure of registrars would be to implement escrow and enforce it. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 2:05 PM
To: todd glassey; Dan Steinberg; Darrell Greenwood; Alexander Svensson
Cc: Thomas Roessler; James Love; General assembly list
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote

My reasons for supporting the rebidding process were specific to no other
major changes happening in ICANN, but if I had my druthers, an organization
like ICANN needs more than just this reform. ICANN is an ungoverned
nightmare that needs to be restructured if not taken down totally.  I favor
the latter  myself, too.

1)    The first issue with ICANN is that the PSO's need to be restructured
such that there is some culpability in the voting process or standards
management efforts. Who ever heard of a global standards organization
without any formal membership??? That makes the totality of the standards
group the IESG and the IAB which is a real problem in and of itself. The
only way to address this is to pull them into some other formal framework
which they will all object to since it means giving up their unabashed
control over what gets routed on the Internet and what doesn't.

2)    The second issues is the methods and processes that the ASO's use in
operating the Internet Service inferences, that being the DNS and other
Address Management efforts. This is really all of what ICANN was/should have
bee setup to address anyway.

3)    And the third issue is the registrars themselves and this insane set
of rules that they are operated under at this time. The place that the most
reform needs to take place by the way is in the Registrar's process.

One final conclusion - ICANN is only necessary as the bridge between these
three arms of services regarding Internet Processes, and without them under
it, there is no reason for ICANN to exist whatsoever. maybe that is what
needs to be taken back to congress!

By the way - if the only really loud voices objecting to this posting you
hear are ICANN or other ISOC/IETF/IAB/IESG members/management, then ask
yourself why that is. The only logical answer is that they would be
protecting their jobs or that which gives them cultural distinction from
others, i.e. that which makes no longer a mere mortal...

Todd Glassey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Dan Steinberg"
<[email-masked]>; "Darrell Greenwood" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>; "James Love"
<[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote

> Many apologies and this will be my last reply for the day -  I am sorry
but
> I should have been clearer in my response below that I think that this
open
> competition should be a regular thing. That the contracts should regularly
> expire and then an open competition should be held for that slot. It will
> keep the registrars on their toes and allow others into the mix. That
being
> said maybe a contract is awarded either for 4,5 or 10 years at most. But
> there also in this process has to be a method of bouncing a registrar for
> not providing a basic level of service.
>
> And as I have said I am also very concerned for the procedural models for
> what happens when one registrar goes belly-up. This is happening more and
> more these days and well, it would cripple any number of businesses if
their
> registrars and/or DNS service providers happened to die out from under
them.
> And since it is really unlikely that the registrar would send any notice
> ahead of time to the customer let alone a letter that said "Hey sucker -
so
> long - its been nice and next Thursday at noon we are no
more...Ahahahahaha"
> so the net-net is that the registrar would very likely just close up one
day
> and with no notice leave their customers high and dry.
>
> And rather than to force the Registrars customers to deal with this kind
of
> gross negligence in civil court it would be better to put in place a
> failover model that was to be implemented and some snapshot of every
> registrar's maps such that if one of them dies the others could pickup the
> pieces.
>
> Just my 2 cents
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>; "Darrell Greenwood"
> <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>; "James Love"
> <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 2:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote
>
>
> > I have some more wording changes.
> >
> > See inline below.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "Darrell Greenwood" <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>; "James Love"
> > <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 1:26 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote
> >
> >
> > > After mulling it over in my mind for a few days....I suggest the
> > > slightly modified text as follows:
> > >
> > > The GA  sends a mandate too the US Department of Commerce and to the
US
> > Federal Trade Commission
> >
> > to  setup and require for perpetude,
> >
> > > an open
> > > competition for the services now provided by ICANN
> >
> > ASO's. This new competition would address the need to develop both a US
> > specific and an international framework for DNS management.  The
rationale
> > for mandating this rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the
> intitial
> > terms of refence for its own and the overall operaitons of the name
space,
> > and is at this time proposing even further changes. These proposed
changes
> >
> > > have met extensive opposition in the Internet community and go even
> > > further from the original terms of reference. The rebid would allow
the
> >
> > DoC and the US Federal trade Commission to compell the ICANN board to
> > address the critical initiatiaves and evolutionary requirements for
> > restructuring; the alternatives offered by others for managing key
> Internet
> > resources; and provide for increased scrutiny in the form of a public
> record
> > as a part of the ongoing ICANN process audit.
> >
> >
> > TTFN
> > Todd
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Darrell Greenwood wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 5/8/02 at 10:36 AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote :
> > > >
> > > > >On 2002-05-08 04:25:49 -0400, James Love wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>"The GA asks the the US Department of Commerce to have an open
> > > > >>competition for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that
> > > > >>the new competition would address the need to develop an
> > > > >>international framework for DNS management.  The rationale for
> > > > >>asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the
> > > > >>intitial terms of refence for ICANN, and is proposing even further
> > > > >>changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet
> > > > >>community. The rebid would allow the DoC to consider both the
> > > > >>ICANN board proposal for restructuring, and alternatives offered
> > > > >>by others for managing key Internet resources."
> > > >
> > > > I support this text.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Darrell
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>

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

- --
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, 12 May 2002 15:22:59 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New registrations

I asked earlier if the DNSO would list the names of new voter registrtions.
The best I can do on my own is to compare the May 6 and May 12
registrations, which reckon added 57 new names, which are listed below.
(the roster went from 527 on May 6 to 584 today).  I personally recognize
(+) the names of  5 of the 57 added in that period.    The DNSO could make
the registration issue more transparent by offering a sort of the
registrations by date of registration, including the date field.  This would
allow anyone to see what is going on, or even go back and see what happened.
Of course, wild accusations don't need real data, just sufficient paranoia.
Jamie

      Simon  Thibodeau  Canada  Montreal
      Mark  Gomez  Canada  Vancouver
      James  Nedila  Canada
      Kyle  Silbert  Canada      Small business
      Patricio  Poblete  Chile  Santiago  NIC Chile  ccTLD
      Vincent  Fournols  France
      Jens  Krapohl  Germany  Bonn
      Beng Seng  CHAN  Hong Kong    DAGA  NCDNHC
      Srikanth  Narra  India/US
      George  Wright  UK  London
      Jon  Lawrence  UK  London
      Khairoun  Abji  UK  London
      Yoz  Grahame  UK  London
      Gervase  Markham  UK
      James  Cronin  UK
      Daniel  Paré  United Kingdom
      Richard  Krukar  USA  Albuquerque, NM
      Levien  de Braal  USA  Atlanta  Georgia Institute of Technology
      Sean  Mead  USA  Bloomington, IN  Blueriver Networking Services, Inc.
      Ivan  Plotnik  USA  Boston
      Andy  Deckowitz  USA  Buffalo Grove
      Christopher  Bowman  USA  Chevy Chase
      Charles  Seraphine  USA  Chicago
      Steven  Senator  USA  Colorado Springs, CO  Granite Canyon Group  Free
Infrastructure Services
      James  Salwen  USA  Dallas  Nortel
      Paul  Shryer  USA  Duluth, MN
      Paul  Vemmel  USA  Fairbanks
      H.B.  Telling  USA  Fairbanks    Alaska
      Norman  Joseph  USA  Johnstown, PA  Concurrent Technologies
Corporation
      Evan  Penfield  USA  Junction City, KY
      Larry  Tenna  USA  Junction, Colorado
      Walter  Schmidt  USA  Massapequa Park  Walter C. Schmidt, CPA
      Nicholas  Wesselman  USA  Milwaukee
      Matthew  Baker  USA  Mobile  ACO Information Services LLC
      Bob A.  Newton  USA  Nampa, Idaho
      Fred  Marker  USA  Palo Alto, California
      Blake  Puhak  USA  Richmond
      Isaac  Stein  USA  Rolla, MO
+    Shari  Steele  USA  San Francisco  Electronic Frontier Foundation
      Ben  Kaplan  USA  San Francisco
      Quinn  Weaver  USA  San Francisco
      Naomi  Sodderman  USA  Tampa
      Herman  Smith  USA  Tonapah, NV
      Miriam  Sapiro  USA  Washington, DC  Summit Strategies International
(already someone by this name registered to vote for Verisign)
+     Becky  Burr  USA  Washington, DC
+     Robert  Weissman  USA  Washington, DC (works in same office as me)
      Stephen  Brown  USA    Cube Host  Webhoster / Domain Owner
+   Milton  Mueller  USA    Syracuse University  NCDNHC
      Charles  Sabine, Jr.  USA
 +   Hans  Klein  USA
      Lynn  Bernstein  USA
      R   Laderman  USA
      Scott  Guelich  USA
      Scott  Neugroschl  USA
      William  Chen  USA
      Robert  Andrews  USA      Freelance Tech

- --------------------------------
James Love mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040

- --
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, 12 May 2002 12:43:34 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrar Advisory Concerning Whois Data Accuracy

At 10:44 AM 12/05/02 -0700, todd glassey wrote:

>MY concern is what they actually do to maintain that their
>email address and other contact point data is valid. I
>would be surprised if any of the registrars ever did
>anything to verify squat at this point.

With this advisory, now they have to if anyone asks.

>The problem is that if the registrar's are not required
>to immediately take down any domain that does not have
>all the adequate information to support it

The Advisory states that they 'should' cancel the
registration if unable to verify.

>By the way, Spammers have two modes of operation. The
>first one is what I call "Hit and Miss" which is where
>they are operating illegally as crackers and will be
>sending out toxic spam from compromised systems...The
>second type of SPAM is that of commercial spammers
>and this form of unsolicited email is addressable since
>it is all propagated form single server-centric nodes.

This is largely inaccurate information. Try "SPAM FAQ"
at google.com.

>The Spam Mail of this type is addressable if any level
>of diligence is done at the Registrar Level.

As is this.

>Both forms of spam are illegal

Really? Which law(s)?

>My other favorite is the claim that you intentionally
>subscribed to this by going to some website. Even if
>you did, there would be a requirement, by law,...

Again, which law?

>...that they tell you up front that by visiting this
>site they were taking your email info from the Browser
>and subscribing you.

How does one take email info from the Browser?

These don't strike me as very good arguments for
giving up my privacy, even if they were accurate.
Breaching my privacy rights because some spammer
might breach your privacy rights is no solution,
either to guard privacy, or to fight spam. -g

- --
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, 12 May 2002 16:36:13 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and procedure for vote

Marilyn and all,

  We agree here Marilyn, in theory anyway.  The problem is that the
TYPE of escrow that was determined some time ago now is
terribly inadequate and unsecured.  Therefor it does not lend itself
to stability.  As such, it cannot meet the stability doctrine of the
White Paper adequately, or for that matter at all...

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I would think the best way to deal with any risk of failure of registrars would be to implement escrow and enforce it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 2:05 PM
> To: todd glassey; Dan Steinberg; Darrell Greenwood; Alexander Svensson
> Cc: Thomas Roessler; James Love; General assembly list
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote
>
> My reasons for supporting the rebidding process were specific to no other
> major changes happening in ICANN, but if I had my druthers, an organization
> like ICANN needs more than just this reform. ICANN is an ungoverned
> nightmare that needs to be restructured if not taken down totally.  I favor
> the latter  myself, too.
>
> 1)    The first issue with ICANN is that the PSO's need to be restructured
> such that there is some culpability in the voting process or standards
> management efforts. Who ever heard of a global standards organization
> without any formal membership??? That makes the totality of the standards
> group the IESG and the IAB which is a real problem in and of itself. The
> only way to address this is to pull them into some other formal framework
> which they will all object to since it means giving up their unabashed
> control over what gets routed on the Internet and what doesn't.
>
> 2)    The second issues is the methods and processes that the ASO's use in
> operating the Internet Service inferences, that being the DNS and other
> Address Management efforts. This is really all of what ICANN was/should have
> bee setup to address anyway.
>
> 3)    And the third issue is the registrars themselves and this insane set
> of rules that they are operated under at this time. The place that the most
> reform needs to take place by the way is in the Registrar's process.
>
> One final conclusion - ICANN is only necessary as the bridge between these
> three arms of services regarding Internet Processes, and without them under
> it, there is no reason for ICANN to exist whatsoever. maybe that is what
> needs to be taken back to congress!
>
> By the way - if the only really loud voices objecting to this posting you
> hear are ICANN or other ISOC/IETF/IAB/IESG members/management, then ask
> yourself why that is. The only logical answer is that they would be
> protecting their jobs or that which gives them cultural distinction from
> others, i.e. that which makes no longer a mere mortal...
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Dan Steinberg"
> <[email-masked]>; "Darrell Greenwood" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>; "James Love"
> <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote
>
> > Many apologies and this will be my last reply for the day -  I am sorry
> but
> > I should have been clearer in my response below that I think that this
> open
> > competition should be a regular thing. That the contracts should regularly
> > expire and then an open competition should be held for that slot. It will
> > keep the registrars on their toes and allow others into the mix. That
> being
> > said maybe a contract is awarded either for 4,5 or 10 years at most. But
> > there also in this process has to be a method of bouncing a registrar for
> > not providing a basic level of service.
> >
> > And as I have said I am also very concerned for the procedural models for
> > what happens when one registrar goes belly-up. This is happening more and
> > more these days and well, it would cripple any number of businesses if
> their
> > registrars and/or DNS service providers happened to die out from under
> them.
> > And since it is really unlikely that the registrar would send any notice
> > ahead of time to the customer let alone a letter that said "Hey sucker -
> so
> > long - its been nice and next Thursday at noon we are no
> more...Ahahahahaha"
> > so the net-net is that the registrar would very likely just close up one
> day
> > and with no notice leave their customers high and dry.
> >
> > And rather than to force the Registrars customers to deal with this kind
> of
> > gross negligence in civil court it would be better to put in place a
> > failover model that was to be implemented and some snapshot of every
> > registrar's maps such that if one of them dies the others could pickup the
> > pieces.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents
> >
> > Todd Glassey
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>; "Darrell Greenwood"
> > <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>; "James Love"
> > <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 2:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote
> >
> >
> > > I have some more wording changes.
> > >
> > > See inline below.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
> > > To: "Darrell Greenwood" <[email-masked]>
> > > Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>; "James Love"
> > > <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 1:26 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote
> > >
> > >
> > > > After mulling it over in my mind for a few days....I suggest the
> > > > slightly modified text as follows:
> > > >
> > > > The GA  sends a mandate too the US Department of Commerce and to the
> US
> > > Federal Trade Commission
> > >
> > > to  setup and require for perpetude,
> > >
> > > > an open
> > > > competition for the services now provided by ICANN
> > >
> > > ASO's. This new competition would address the need to develop both a US
> > > specific and an international framework for DNS management.  The
> rationale
> > > for mandating this rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the
> > intitial
> > > terms of refence for its own and the overall operaitons of the name
> space,
> > > and is at this time proposing even further changes. These proposed
> changes
> > >
> > > > have met extensive opposition in the Internet community and go even
> > > > further from the original terms of reference. The rebid would allow
> the
> > >
> > > DoC and the US Federal trade Commission to compell the ICANN board to
> > > address the critical initiatiaves and evolutionary requirements for
> > > restructuring; the alternatives offered by others for managing key
> > Internet
> > > resources; and provide for increased scrutiny in the form of a public
> > record
> > > as a part of the ongoing ICANN process audit.
> > >
> > >
> > > TTFN
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Darrell Greenwood wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/8/02 at 10:36 AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote :
> > > > >
> > > > > >On 2002-05-08 04:25:49 -0400, James Love wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>"The GA asks the the US Department of Commerce to have an open
> > > > > >>competition for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that
> > > > > >>the new competition would address the need to develop an
> > > > > >>international framework for DNS management.  The rationale for
> > > > > >>asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the
> > > > > >>intitial terms of refence for ICANN, and is proposing even further
> > > > > >>changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet
> > > > > >>community. The rebid would allow the DoC to consider both the
> > > > > >>ICANN board proposal for restructuring, and alternatives offered
> > > > > >>by others for managing key Internet resources."
> > > > >
> > > > > I support this text.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > Darrell
> > > > > --
> > > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

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
- --
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, 12 May 2002 16:30:55 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: How do you "rebid" a cartel ?

Eric and all assembly members,

  Eric, it's simple.  We have a Rebid motion ready and past due
for a ballot so that the GA members may vote upon it.  We also
NOW have Alexanders milk toast (My interpretation) motion
as well...  Jamie's Rebid Motion has the support of
18 members in favor of a ballot to vote, and 8 against.
That is a tad better than two to one in favor of a ballot.

So far I count NONE in favor of Alexanders Motion/resolution
and 3 against it, including myself...

[email-masked] wrote:

> That is it!
>
> That is stone cold rock solid get in my face and get it done stuff.
>
> This here is truth and right.
>
> You guys get it done and tell me what is wrong and let me deal with the "thugs and
> insiders and all other means of total jackasses".
>
> Now would you give some elaboration on this thing called a rebid.  should we ask
> for it or not?
> Time is short.
>
> e
>
> best wishes to mothers
>
> Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "jefsey" <[email-masked]>
> > >
> > > 1. you never replace anything, you build in parallel and outdate the
> > > previous solutuion.
> >
> > Jefsey,
> >
> > I totally agree, we have to be practical. People that have been designing
> > telecommunication protocols for the past (too many) years, are fully aware
> > of the need and benefits of working "in parallel" with existing systems to
> > evolve and migrate. That requires careful planning for evolution. Revolutions
> > do not happen (often) unless there is a real paradigm shift or jump. Equipment
> > does not get upgraded overnight. Even when equipment is eventually
> > upgraded, the new has to often run in parallel with the old, for long periods
> > to "soak" and ensure that a cut-over has 0% chance of failure. This is not
> > rocket science, but it is also not child's play. There are people on planet
> > Earth that do this on a regular basis. Most of those people would not give
> > two cents for the opinion of some I* society thug or clown. In some cases,
> > you might be talking about a 1 bit change in a protocol. That could require
> > six months of testing in a full-scale lab. That could then require another six
> > months of testing in a full-scale lab in the field, handling test traffic. Then
> > one may be faced with a year of limited introduction in selected field sites.
> > In short, you may be looking at two years from the time a small change is
> > determined to be useful. That change could last 50 to 100 years. People
> > with five years of Internet experience, need to consider the big picture more.
> >
> > Jim Fleming
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
>
> --
> 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
- --
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, 14 May 2002 10:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC teleconf recording MP3 May 14, 2002

Hello,

- --- DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The MP3 recording of the Names Council teleconference is now
> available at:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020514.NCteleconf.mp3

It might improve usability of the recording to break it down into
logical sections (i.e. 15 minute intervals, or something), so that one
needn't download the entire file to review a section of interest. This
would also save on bandwidth.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.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
- --
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, 14 May 2002 13:54:47 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot discussion

I support also the Schneiders approach,which seems straightforward.  Will
there an opportunity now to debate the merits of the two resolutions/motions
(are they resolutions or motions?)  ?      It might be useful to see a
comparison of the two approaches, side by side.  Jamie

Jamie

: >Motion 1
: >[ ] agree
: >[ ] do not agree
: >[ ] abstain
: >
: >Motion 2
: >[ ] agree
: >[ ] do not agree
: >[ ] abstain

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
To: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot discussion

:
: Dear all,
:
: the ballot b12 will be designed like the one presented below
: by Marc Schneiders (and already used in the ballot b05 about
: a year ago). *Every* motion which receives 50% of cast votes
: will consider to be passed. We have asked Joanna Lane to join
: the election watchdogs.
:
: Voters will receive a vote outline with a sample ballot,
: as always. There will be an official announcement and the
: usual webpages on the DNSO site, once the exact date and
: time when the voting starts and ends is announced.
:
: (Sorry that we are under such time pressure, but it is due
: to external constraints.)
:
: Best regards,
: /// Alexander
:
:
: At 14.05.2002 15:24, Marc Schneiders wrote:
: >What is wrong with:
: >
: >Motion 1
: >[ ] agree
: >[ ] do not agree
: >[ ] abstain
: >
: >Motion 2
: >[ ] agree
: >[ ] do not agree
: >[ ] abstain
: >
: >Making it a one vote thing reduces the chances of either motion getting
: >50% to a large degree. In fact, the addition of the second motion could
: >then easily be interpreted as an attempt to make sure that there is
: >practically no consensus outcome of the vote possible. Or, if one is
: >suspicious, as a means to silence the GA.
: >
: >On Tue, 14 May 2002, at 09:14 [=GMT+0200], Alexander Svensson wrote:
: >
: >>
: >>
: >> Thomas Roessler presented one possible ballot:
: >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
: >> >Just in case it helps, the ballot as I imagined it when I wrote my
: >> >message in the morning would (roughly) look like this:
: >> >
: >> >        [ ] motion 1
: >> >        [ ] motion 2
: >> >
: >> >        [ ] abstain
: >> >
: >> >The options you have: Either abstain, or give yes/no votes to _both_
motions.  In this situation, there are basically three things which can
happen:
: >> >
: >> >- One motion wins (> 50% yes), and the other one loses (< 50% yes).
: >> >  In this case, there is no doubt that the motion with > 50 % yes
: >> >  should win.
: >> >
: >> >- Both motions get more than 50% yes.  In this case, there's
obviously more consensus on the one with more votes, so that   should be the
winner.
: >> >
: >> >- Both motions get less than 50% yes.  In this case, there's
obviously no consensus at all, so no motion would be accepted.
: >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
: >>
: >> Gary Osbourne noted that one cannot abstain on one and
: >> vote yes or no to another.
: >>
: >> Joanna Lane has stated that these the two motions either
: >> -- are not conflicting Motions
: >> -- or, if they were, there should be further discussion to
: >>    eliminate one or other Motion.
: >>
: >> My personal opinion is that the two are indeed conflicting
: >> motions, that further discussion will probably not lead
: >> to a single motion, that we have to take the vote at
: >> a point in time where it still is relevant and that we
: >> have to take time constraints on the Secretariat into
: >> account.
: >>
: >>
: >> Another possible format:
: >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
: >> >As far as I see it, a strict application of these rules would mandate
that the
: >> >question on the ballot is something like this:
: >> >
: >> >        Please select one of the following options:
: >> >
: >> >        [ ] The GA should adopt the "re-bid" resolution
: >> >        [ ] The GA should adopt the "basic principles" resolution
: >> >        [ ] The GA should adopt none of the above resolutions.
: >> >
: >> >You'd make precisely one "x" (or abstain).  Obviously, only one of
: >> >the options could get more than 50% of all the votes.  In that
: >> >case, that option would be adopted.  If none of the options gets
: >> >more than 50%, there would be no consensus on the GA, that would be
: >> >documented, and we could at least try to return to more important
: >> >things.
: >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
: >>
: >> Joanna Lane noted that one cannot agree with both or disagree
: >> with both, or agree with one, but abstain on another motion
: >> with this ballot.
: >>
: >> Gary Osbourne stated that this might work reasonably well with two
: >> options, but wouldn't scale if there was a third option.
: >>
: >> Please send your opinions on which form of ballot is appropriate
: >> (and *please* be as exact as possible).
: >>
: >> Best regards,
: >> /// Alexander
: >>
: >> --
: >> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
: >> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
: >> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
: >> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
: >>
:
: --
: This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
: Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
: ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
: Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
:
:
:

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

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

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 20:02:55 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New registrations

Jamie,

The Voting Registry includes since today an information 
about registration date, cf.
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html

3 lists are provided:
DNSO voting registry sorted by Country
DNSO voting registry sorted by LastName
DNSO voting registry sorted by Registration Date

BTW, the GA Voting Registry is exactly two years old -
the first registration were done on 13 May 2000.

Elisabeth Porteneuve
- --

> From [email-masked] Tue May 14 19:45 MET 2002
> From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
> To: "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: [ga] New registrations
> Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 15:22:59 -0400
> 
> I asked earlier if the DNSO would list the names of new voter registrtions.
> The best I can do on my own is to compare the May 6 and May 12
> registrations, which reckon added 57 new names, which are listed below.
> (the roster went from 527 on May 6 to 584 today).  I personally recognize
> (+) the names of  5 of the 57 added in that period.    The DNSO could make
> the registration issue more transparent by offering a sort of the
> registrations by date of registration, including the date field.  This would
> allow anyone to see what is going on, or even go back and see what happened.
> Of course, wild accusations don't need real data, just sufficient paranoia.
> Jamie
> 
- --
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 #1193
*************************