Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1207
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, May 19 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1207

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

Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 17:25:14 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO.org web site and robots.txt

George Kirikos wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I was curious as to why the DNSO website has a very restrictive
>robots.txt file:
>
>http://www.dnso.org/robots.txt
>
>With the top 3 lines of:
>
>User-agent: *
>Disallow: /constituency/work/
>Disallow: /clubpublic/
>
>it means that search engines like Google can't index the website
>(including mailing lists), and since the website itself lacks search
>capabilities, it's hard to find material (e.g. old posts) quickly.
>
>PROPOSAL: That the DNSO webmaster delete the current robot.txt file
>entirely.
>
I second this proposal/motion or whatever it is.

Nice work George.  

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

>
>
>In this day and age with cheap bandwidth, I'm sure allowing the website
>to be indexed by Google and others wouldn't be costly, and has so many
>benefits.
>
>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: Sat, 18 May 2002 17:30:33 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] robots.txt

In case anybody was wondering what the robots.txt file is for:

http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/norobots.html

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

George Kirikos wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I was curious as to why the DNSO website has a very restrictive
>robots.txt file:
>
>http://www.dnso.org/robots.txt
>
>With the top 3 lines of:
>
>User-agent: *
>Disallow: /constituency/work/
>Disallow: /clubpublic/
>
>it means that search engines like Google can't index the website
>(including mailing lists), and since the website itself lacks search
>capabilities, it's hard to find material (e.g. old posts) quickly.
>
>PROPOSAL: That the DNSO webmaster delete the current robot.txt file
>entirely.
>
>In this day and age with cheap bandwidth, I'm sure allowing the website
>to be indexed by Google and others wouldn't be costly, and has so many
>benefits.
>
>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: Sun, 19 May 2002 00:32:30 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO.org web site and robots.txt

On Sat, 18 May 2002, at 13:29 [=GMT-0700], George Kirikos wrote:

> I was curious as to why the DNSO website has a very restrictive
> robots.txt file:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/robots.txt
>
> With the top 3 lines of:
>
> User-agent: *
> Disallow: /constituency/work/
> Disallow: /clubpublic/
>
> it means that search engines like Google can't index the website
> (including mailing lists), and since the website itself lacks search
> capabilities, it's hard to find material (e.g. old posts) quickly.
>
> PROPOSAL: That the DNSO webmaster delete the current robot.txt file
> entirely.

I am not so sure I agree. I do see the advantages. On the other hand it
means opening up email addresses for spam harvesting, as well as
sacrificing all posters privacy. It might make people think twice before
posting. (I know, some should :-)

- --
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, 18 May 2002 15:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO.org web site and robots.txt

Hi Marc,

- --- Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I am not so sure I agree. I do see the advantages. On the other hand
> it
> means opening up email addresses for spam harvesting, as well as
> sacrificing all posters privacy. It might make people think twice
> before
> posting. (I know, some should :-)

Most malicious spam harvesting programs wouldn't respect a robots.txt
file, in any event. If the website could be indexed through a different
method (i.e. allow a "site search" using various site indexers that can
be installed by the webmaster), that's another alternative.

Another positive benefit is that my Google page rank would start to
rise even higher, as more links point to my personal website. ;)

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/ <-- increase my Google link popularity! :)

__________________________________________________
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

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

Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 18:19:32 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] robots.txt

Sotiris and all assembly members,

  I am kinda late on this thread.  But I noticed this some time ago
now and should have mentioned that DNSO.org deploys such a
foolish Robots.txt file.  As WXW rightly pointed out it can
be routed around easily ignoring it using another bot, as we do
or in the search engine you are using and WXW indicated...

  Just another one of those things that ICANN deploys that is so
out of date it is easy to route around, like many other things
ICANN does...  Ah well, such is life I guess...  But like
the problem's ICANN and the DNSO webmaster's have had
in keeping the mailing list up or the web sites available one has
to wonder how they can really handle even managing the
Technical aspects of their contracted requirements...
PRetty pitiful if you ask me...

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> In case anybody was wondering what the robots.txt file is for:
>
> http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/norobots.html
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> George Kirikos wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >I was curious as to why the DNSO website has a very restrictive
> >robots.txt file:
> >
> >http://www.dnso.org/robots.txt
> >
> >With the top 3 lines of:
> >
> >User-agent: *
> >Disallow: /constituency/work/
> >Disallow: /clubpublic/
> >
> >it means that search engines like Google can't index the website
> >(including mailing lists), and since the website itself lacks search
> >capabilities, it's hard to find material (e.g. old posts) quickly.
> >
> >PROPOSAL: That the DNSO webmaster delete the current robot.txt file
> >entirely.
> >
> >In this day and age with cheap bandwidth, I'm sure allowing the website
> >to be indexed by Google and others wouldn't be costly, and has so many
> >benefits.
> >
> >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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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: Sun, 19 May 2002 01:56:56 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] an ISC

At 07:15 a.m. 18/05/2002 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>>...which will guarantee a potential to hold them hostage in an IDNO style 
>>paralysis, especially when mailing lists are the sole means of 
>>self-organizing and charter-writing. (GA clone)
>
>As opposed to web forums, where the _only_ archive available is
>under central control?

Is this a diversion? A "vorsetz" to a troll?

I said *sole means* and I mean that there should be tools, more 
constructive and *additional* to mailing lists.

Also, web forum archives need only a few volunteer watchdogs to take 
regular snapshots of the site's content to watch over its integrity. The 
"central control" means nothing in the open internet environment.
Editing happens either under public oversight and democratic agreement, or 
it is exposed as unilateral tampering.

Mailing lists are the beloved tool for those who want to force their 
"opinion" into everybody's mail box,  provoke angry reactions, create 
diversions and stir up emotions.  At least one posting in this thread is a 
good example of it.

One of the reasons that the GA isn't getting anywhere is its dependence on 
a noisy mailing list without any other medium to solidify consensus in.

- --Joop

- --
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, 18 May 2002 19:01:35 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] an ISC

On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 01:56:56AM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 07:15 a.m. 18/05/2002 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 
> >>...which will guarantee a potential to hold them hostage in an IDNO style 
> >>paralysis, especially when mailing lists are the sole means of 
> >>self-organizing and charter-writing. (GA clone)
> >
> >As opposed to web forums, where the _only_ archive available is
> >under central control?
> 
> Is this a diversion? A "vorsetz" to a troll?
> 
> I said *sole means* and I mean that there should be tools, more 
> constructive and *additional* to mailing lists.
> 
> Also, web forum archives need only a few volunteer watchdogs to take 
> regular snapshots of the site's content to watch over its integrity.

It takes a great deal more effort to "snapshot" a website.  With a a
large, complex site with dynamic pages, it can be a major job. 

> The 
> "central control" means nothing in the open internet environment.

Sorry, that is so overgeneralized as to be false.

> Editing happens either under public oversight and democratic agreement, or 
> it is exposed as unilateral tampering.
> 
> Mailing lists are the beloved tool for those who want to force their 
> "opinion" into everybody's mail box,  provoke angry reactions, create 
> diversions and stir up emotions.  At least one posting in this thread is a 
> good example of it.

Web-based forums have absolutely no superiority over mailing lists on 
that score.  

> One of the reasons that the GA isn't getting anywhere is its dependence on 
> a noisy mailing list without any other medium to solidify consensus in.

The reasons the GA isn't getting anywhere are manifold; *use* of a 
mailing list is a minor factor; the way the list is *managed* is 
probably a contributing factor, but is probably more a symptom than a 
cause. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
Technical Support Manager, ICANN            lonesome."
[email-masked],[email-masked]                    -- Mark Twain

- --
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, 18 May 2002 20:46:27 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Membership

I live in a very ethnic community to which no one belongs, but we are
learning.

Out my back window, in the alley children play ball.  Upon my return
from my home in SE Asia, i noticed they had stopped.  I noticed they
spent time with ruffians selling dope.  I foolishly challenged said
three ruffians and remember waking up on a couch spitting out parts of a
tooth.

Well Ethiopians, Mexicans and Vietnamese are again playing ball out my
back window.  I do not know what happened to the ruffians.  But we seem
to be a community.
Who is a member?

Those of us who wish to be. Who is excluded?  I hope that those that
mean us harm are excluded.
I do not know who belongs here.  I do not know who does not belong here.
But when I see someone who does not appear to belong here I must ask
their business and can only hope I do not lose another tooth.

That is "MEMBERSHIP".

Sincerely,
Eric

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

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

Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 23:48:49 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Membership criteria - compromise

Elizabeth,
That would be 26% of all those registered to vote? Could we first exclude
all those bouncing ballots from "members" who have moved on, changed email
address, but not actually bothered to unsubscribe? That would make quite a
difference wouldn't it?

I think that Members should be asked to reconfirm their membership annually,
which would protect the integrity of the electoral register.

Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Elisabeth
> Porteneuve
> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 2:45 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Membership criteria - compromise
>
>
>
> Jefsey <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > It would even permit very quick responses: a stuffing could
> lead to a quick
> > verification vote. A 95% poll supported by a 75% votes would
> really mean
> > the GA really supports something. While a 90% poll supported by a 45%
> > vote  would mean hi-jacking attempt and kill the reputation of
> the stuffers
> > and the enthousiam of their supporters.
> >
>
> Jefsey,
>
> Your numbers suppose that such a high participation happens
> and is possible.
>
> I made a summary of participation in all 11 (12 soon) GA votes,
> it is in http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/gavotesummary.html
> (access from Administration Documents of the GA).
>
> On average we get 26%.
>
> Ballot and Date            Electorate Votes Participation
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> b01  26 June 2000                 117   61  52.1%
> b02  6-17 November 2000           252   56  22.2%
> b03  16-23 March 2001             295   67  22.7%
> b04  31 March - 7 April 2001      293  102  34.8%
> b05  21-28 May 2001               305   91  29.8%
> b06  24 Jun - 11 Jul 2001         326   81  24.8%
> b07  5-25 Jul 2001                333   73  21.9%
> b08  17-31 Aug 2001               440   89  20.2%
> b09  22-29 Oct 2001               447  128  28.6%
> b10  14 Dec 2001 - 11 Jan 2002    456  114  25.0%
> b11  23 Nov 2001 - 14 Jan 2002    442  102  23.1%
> b12  15-22 May 2002               586  NNN  NN.N%
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> --
> 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, 19 May 2002 00:54:08 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Membership Web site renewal of registration to:Re: [ga] Re: Membership criteria - compromise 

Joanna and all assembly members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Elizabeth,
> That would be 26% of all those registered to vote?

  Yes I believe it would or could at least...

> Could we first exclude
> all those bouncing ballots from "members" who have moved on, changed email
> address, but not actually bothered to unsubscribe?

  This was suggested several times before by yours truly.  It of course
went ignored.  Thank you Joanna for bringing it up again.  Yesterday
I suggested that a Web interface be set up that could include this
function.

> That would make quite a
> difference wouldn't it?

  Just might..

>
>
> I think that Members should be asked to reconfirm their membership annually,
> which would protect the integrity of the electoral register.

  Agreed.  And a web interface on the DNSO.ORG web site for those
that have changed E-Mail addresses that are already registered or have
registered with an old or different E-Mail address and wish to change
that E-Mail address.

>
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Elisabeth
> > Porteneuve
> > Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 2:45 PM
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Membership criteria - compromise
> >
> >
> >
> > Jefsey <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > >
> > > It would even permit very quick responses: a stuffing could
> > lead to a quick
> > > verification vote. A 95% poll supported by a 75% votes would
> > really mean
> > > the GA really supports something. While a 90% poll supported by a 45%
> > > vote  would mean hi-jacking attempt and kill the reputation of
> > the stuffers
> > > and the enthousiam of their supporters.
> > >
> >
> > Jefsey,
> >
> > Your numbers suppose that such a high participation happens
> > and is possible.
> >
> > I made a summary of participation in all 11 (12 soon) GA votes,
> > it is in http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/gavotesummary.html
> > (access from Administration Documents of the GA).
> >
> > On average we get 26%.
> >
> > Ballot and Date            Electorate Votes Participation
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > b01  26 June 2000                 117   61  52.1%
> > b02  6-17 November 2000           252   56  22.2%
> > b03  16-23 March 2001             295   67  22.7%
> > b04  31 March - 7 April 2001      293  102  34.8%
> > b05  21-28 May 2001               305   91  29.8%
> > b06  24 Jun - 11 Jul 2001         326   81  24.8%
> > b07  5-25 Jul 2001                333   73  21.9%
> > b08  17-31 Aug 2001               440   89  20.2%
> > b09  22-29 Oct 2001               447  128  28.6%
> > b10  14 Dec 2001 - 11 Jan 2002    456  114  25.0%
> > b11  23 Nov 2001 - 14 Jan 2002    442  102  23.1%
> > b12  15-22 May 2002               586  NNN  NN.N%
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Elisabeth Porteneuve
> > --
> > 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 124k members/stakeholders 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: Sun, 19 May 2002 11:16:30 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Background on .za redelegation plans

Via Declan's Politech list:

>From: Bretton Vine <[email-masked]>
[...]
>In brief, Chapter 10 of the proposed Electronic Communications and
>Transactions Bill seeks to establish a Domain Name Authority within South
>Africa and give control of the .za domain to that Authority under the
>auspices/control of the Department of Communications. This has been done
>with zero consultation with the current .za administrator or other bodies
>involved in the redelegation process which is already underway involving
>Namespace ZA [www.namespace.org.za.]
[...]
>Quite simply, the current .za domain administrator will not redelegate the
>administration of .za to anyone incapable of fulfilling the requirements in
>RFC1591 and IPC-1. ICANN won't allow this either. But the government
>refuses to see reason here. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions
>from the information supplied below. But if the legislation is passed in
>its current form it would have a severe and detrimental effect to the
>provision of Internet services in South Africa. This is not something that
>needs to be tested in order for a point to be proven and the government to
>realise the error of their ways.

Full details at http://www.politechbot.com/p-03548.html

Best regards,
/// Alexander

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

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 11:53:13 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Membership criteria - compromise

- --=======2BDB7606=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-52D72AA3; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

At 16:21 18/05/02, t byfield wrote:
>[email-masked] (Sat 05/18/02 at 11:51 AM +0200):
> > Would you not accept it?

In my family use us to say "you think too much" to the people coming a 
simple question on a wrong senario. Here the suggestion is not for today. 
It is as a global system and I think it is a good one adressing most of the 
problems faced by any distribution/voting list. I would address the @large 
voting and funding problem.

>if excessive public input is a problem that ICANN needs to deal with,
>that's because ICANN's tolerance for public participation is too low.
>the task is to lower barriers to entry, not to raise them, imo.

No. The problem is the lack of interest in a corrupted ICANN mainly formed 
out of a lot of American goodwill and IP mistakes (IP address allocation, 
and US ACPA fighting the US Lenham Act for IP protection).

>on the other hand, jefsey, i would think that you've made this sug-
>gestion with one eye on an alternative that would be both practically
>viable and politically appealing to various non-US interests.

I am afraid this is pure fantasy :-)
As recent events shown it the best land for terrorists to live is the US.
Now, I think the mechanism I proposed is the only seriously democratic one 
and can be economicaly sound. It would call for tuning and software 
development, but I am quite sure that it will last. I am pretty ready to 
build a support business on it.
jfc

PS. Elizabeth, the figures I gave were:
1) theoric to show that even in extrerme cases the system was resilient to 
influences
2) based upon the practice of a system encouraging regular votes and open 
to polling incentive

- --=======2BDB7606=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-52D72AA3
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02

- --=======2BDB7606=======--

- --
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, 19 May 2002 14:46:42 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Background on .za redelegation plans

On Sun, 19 May 2002, at 11:16 [=GMT+0200], Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Via Declan's Politech list:
>
> >From: Bretton Vine <[email-masked]>
> [...]
> >In brief, Chapter 10 of the proposed Electronic Communications and
> >Transactions Bill seeks to establish a Domain Name Authority within South
> >Africa and give control of the .za domain to that Authority under the
> >auspices/control of the Department of Communications. This has been done
> >with zero consultation with the current .za administrator or other bodies
> >involved in the redelegation process which is already underway involving
> >Namespace ZA [www.namespace.org.za.]
> [...]
> >Quite simply, the current .za domain administrator will not redelegate the
> >administration of .za to anyone incapable of fulfilling the requirements in
> >RFC1591 and IPC-1. ICANN won't allow this either. But the government
> >refuses to see reason here. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions
> >from the information supplied below. But if the legislation is passed in
> >its current form it would have a severe and detrimental effect to the
> >provision of Internet services in South Africa. This is not something that
> >needs to be tested in order for a point to be proven and the government to
> >realise the error of their ways.
>
> Full details at http://www.politechbot.com/p-03548.html

You omitted a very interesting part from the view of the DNS:

The proposed rules include:
"No person may update a repository or administer a sub-domain unless such
person is licensed to do so by the Authority. This implies that I, as a
domain holder of somedomain.co.za now need a license for
machine1.somedomain.co.za."

This does away with a fundamental principle of the DNS. Trademark lawyers
will love it, I am sure. Sysadmins will not.

- --
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, 19 May 2002 08:14:28 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO.org web site and robots.txt

At 01:29 PM 18/05/02 -0700, George Kirikos wrote:
>I was curious as to why the DNSO website has a very restrictive
>robots.txt file

http://web.archive.org/web/20011003201426/www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/mail29.html 

Dissalow? -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

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 08:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO.org web site and robots.txt

Hello,

- --- Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]> wrote:
> At 01:29 PM 18/05/02 -0700, George Kirikos wrote:
> >I was curious as to why the DNSO website has a very restrictive
> >robots.txt file

> Dissalow? -g

Definitely a typo in their robots.txt file (I noticed that yesterday
too). They got the spelling right for "Disallow" most of the time,
though.

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

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 08:34:50 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Background on .za redelegation plans

At 11:16 AM 19/05/02 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>Via Declan's Politech list:
> >From: Bretton Vine <[email-masked]>
>[...]
> >Quite simply, the current .za domain administrator will not redelegate the
> >administration of .za to anyone incapable of fulfilling the requirements in
> >RFC1591 and IPC-1. ICANN won't allow this either.

Tell that to Robert Elz. -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

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 09:01:18 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Membership

I am now off to church, we are Episcopals or if you like Angelicans.
Who is a member.  Well anyone who wants to be.  They do not even have to
show up.  I will bring the Holy Communion to them if they so desire.
That is called ministering.

Then I will attend a volleyball party my son has put together.  He and I
will keep score but his sisters and mother will keep an eye on the score
of who attends.  Anyone walking up the beach can play, but the real
question will be if us old farts can beat all these kids.

Those two examples are membership.  Membership is soley a desire to
participate.  The only dumb member is the one who does not join.

Peace,
Eric

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

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 10:19:46 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The motions

- --------------020104030205090604050201
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I have responded to the ballot on the two motions, voting on the first one
and abstaining on the second. I was forced to abstain on the second because
it is so ambiguous and poorly worded that it should never have been 
accepted.
While one can discern the intent of the motion, the problem lies in the 
following
language:

" . . . orgnizations which are accountable to the international Internet 
community
have clearly defined missions and are not only under the sole control of 
a national
department of commerce . . . "

Taken literally, that seems to say that the accountablility, having 
missions, and being
under the sole control of a national department of commerce are all 
desired goals.
One can read on, and from the rest of the context figure out what was 
meant to be
said, but that will not do. From where I've ended the quote above, one would
ordinarily expect a phrase like "but also . . . blah, blah."  It is only 
from the absence of
such a phrase that one can figure out that the preceding "not only" in 
the motion as
written does not really mean what is says -- the syntax is backwards.

What was evidently meant was something like "having missions, and the 
control of
which is not under the sole control . . . ," but the motion does not say 
that. The same
might have been accomplished simply deleting the "only" -- it is 
redundant anyway,
since the term "sole" expresses the same thing.

An issue as important as this should have been defined more carefully by 
the Chair
and Alternate Chair, and I suggest that when this voting is over, the 
same thing be
done again more correctly, and particularly by a motion that is not 
thrown in at the last
minute with little time for comment. If motions are proposed by persons 
for whom
English is not the native language, there will typically be syntax 
problems that the
Chair and Alternate Chair should correct.  The results on motion 2, 
whatever they
may turn out to be, are going to be rather meaningless.

Bill Lovell

- --------------020104030205090604050201
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
I have responded to the ballot on the two motions, voting on the first one
<br>
and abstaining on the second. I was forced to abstain on the second because<br>
it is so ambiguous and poorly worded that it should never have been accepted.<br>
While one can discern the intent of the motion, the problem lies in the following<br>
language:<br>
<br>
" . . . orgnizations which are accountable to the international Internet
community<br>
have clearly defined missions and are not only under the sole control of
a national<br>
department of commerce . . . "<br>
<br>
Taken literally, that seems to say that the accountablility, having missions,
and being<br>
under the sole control of a national department of commerce are <i>all</i>
 desired goals.<br>
One can read on, and from the rest of the context figure out what was <i>
meant</i> to be<br>
said, but that will not do. From where I've ended the quote above, one would<br>
ordinarily expect a phrase like "but also . . . blah, blah." &nbsp;It is only
from the absence of<br>
such a phrase that one can figure out that the preceding "not only" in the
motion as <br>
written does not really mean what is says -- the syntax is backwards.<br>
<br>
What was evidently <i>meant</i> was something like "having missions, and
the control of <br>
which is not under the sole control . . . ," but the motion does not say
that. The same<br>
might have been accomplished simply deleting the "only" -- it is redundant
anyway,<br>
since the term "sole" expresses the same thing.<br>
<br>
An issue as important as this should have been defined more carefully by
the Chair <br>
and Alternate Chair, and I suggest that when this voting is over, the same
thing be <br>
done again more correctly, and particularly by a motion that is not thrown
in at the last <br>
minute with little time for comment. If motions are proposed by persons for
whom<br>
English is not the native language, there will typically be syntax problems
that the <br>
Chair and Alternate Chair should correct.&nbsp; The results on motion 2, whatever
they <br>
may turn out to be, are going to be rather meaningless.<br>
<br>
Bill Lovell<br>
</body>
</html>

- --------------020104030205090604050201--

- --
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 #1207
*************************