Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1208
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, May 20 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1208

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 12:08:56 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Old polls for new motions

- --------------030109020107000408010500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

As a matter of possible historical interest, I forward a poll that had been
sought not quite a year ago.  There may be food for thought in there.
As in the generation of new [email-masked] motions. (At least one of
those on the list is substantially being voted on right now.

Bill Lovell

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: New poll from N.N.A.C.I.
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 05:39:16 "GMT"
From: Leah Gallegos <[email-masked]>

Make yourself heard.  Cast your vote in the latest new poll on "N.N.A.C.I."
site.

Food for thought survey.  Please take the time to make choices. Then we can
all discuss them and find common ground as well as what we consider major
issues.  Let's see where we stand. :)

I can edit this poll.  If so results are cancelled and it starts again. 
If anyone has thoughts for different choices, please let me know prior to
voting.  Let's start choosing on Friday.  There is a 30 item limit, but we
can have as many polls as we wish.

1. ICANN should be disbanded and a new method found to coordinate technical
aspects of the Internet.
2. ICANN just needs to be reformed to become a technical coordinating body
only
3. We don't need an ICANN type of org
4. TLDs that are active should be included in the legacy root without benefit
of contract to ICANN
5. There should be no duplication of character strings (TLDs or below) in
any level of the DNS hierarchy.
6. Duplications don't matter
7. ICANN should cooperate with other TLDs and roots to avoid duplications

8. ICANN should not determine business models for TLD registries and should
leave that to the market to decide.
9. The UDRP should be scrapped
10. The UDRP could be reformed to be fair
11. The legal system is sufficient for domain name disputes
12. The UDRP should be open to ALL domain name holders
13. UDRP providers should be assigned on a round robin basis
14. The USG should take all authority for the Internet back
15. Government should not regulate the Internet
16. Restrictions for IP allocation should have nothing to with choice of
root resolution (See RIR agreements)
17. The ACPA should be scrapped
18. The ACPA should be amended and better defined
19. Intellectual Property has no place in the DNS due to unique naming constraints

20. Intellectual Property (trademarks) should be protected in the DNS
21. Only exact trademarks should be recognized in the DNS
22. Only content (use of the mark) should be considered in TM disputes in
the DNS
23. National law should apply to UDRP decisions based on residence of DN
holder/registry
24. All UDRP proceedings should require a 3 person panel paid for by complainant

25. Both complaint and response should be published for all UDRP proceedings

26. UDRP respodents should be given 45 days to repond
27. UDRP proceedings should cease if case is filed in court
28. Court decisions should alwasy override UDRP
29. Fair use, including commercial use in a different class or common law
mark,  should be defined and considered in UDRP proceedings
30. The  TLD industry should be able to self regulate

To vote, just visit the following web page:

You must vote from the web site listed above.  Please do not reply to this
message.

Thanks!

- --------------030109020107000408010500
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
As a matter of possible historical interest, I forward a poll that had been<br>
sought not quite a year ago. &nbsp;There may be food for thought in there.<br>
As in the generation of new <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> motions. (At least one of<br>
those on the list is substantially being voted on right now.<br>
<br>
Bill Lovell<br>
<br>
- -------- Original Message --------
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0">
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <th valign="Baseline" align="Right" nowrap="">Subject: </th>
      <td>New poll from N.N.A.C.I.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <th valign="Baseline" align="Right" nowrap="">Date: </th>
      <td>Thu, 31 May 2001 05:39:16 "GMT"</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <th valign="Baseline" align="Right" nowrap="">From: </th>
      <td>Leah Gallegos <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a></td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<pre>Make yourself heard.  Cast your vote in the latest new poll on "N.N.A.C.I."
site.

Food for thought survey.  Please take the time to make choices. Then we can
all discuss them and find common ground as well as what we consider major
issues.  Let's see where we stand. :)

I can edit this poll.  If so results are cancelled and it starts again. 
If anyone has thoughts for different choices, please let me know prior to
voting.  Let's start choosing on Friday.  There is a 30 item limit, but we
can have as many polls as we wish.

1. ICANN should be disbanded and a new method found to coordinate technical
aspects of the Internet.
2. ICANN just needs to be reformed to become a technical coordinating body
only
3. We don't need an ICANN type of org
4. TLDs that are active should be included in the legacy root without benefit
of contract to ICANN
5. There should be no duplication of character strings (TLDs or below) in
any level of the DNS hierarchy.
6. Duplications don't matter
7
. ICANN should cooperate with other TLDs and roots to avoid duplications

8. ICANN should not determine business models for TLD registries and should
leave that to the market to decide.
9. The UDRP should be scrapped
10. The UDRP could be reformed to be fair
11. The legal system is sufficient for domain name disputes
12. The UDRP should be open to ALL domain name holders
13. UDRP providers should be assigned on a round robin basis
14. The USG should take all authority for the Internet back
15. Government should not regulate the Internet
16. Restrictions for IP allocation should have nothing to with choice of
root resolution (See RIR agreements)
17. The ACPA should be scrapped
18. The ACPA should be amended and better defined
19. Intellectual Property has no place in the DNS due to unique naming constraints

20. Intellectual Property (trademarks) should be protected in the DNS
21. Only exact trademarks should be recognized in the DNS
22. Only content (use of the mark) should b
e considered in TM disputes in
the DNS
23. National law should apply to UDRP decisions based on residence of DN
holder/registry
24. All UDRP proceedings should require a 3 person panel paid for by complainant

25. Both complaint and response should be published for all UDRP proceedings

26. UDRP respodents should be given 45 days to repond
27. UDRP proceedings should cease if case is filed in court
28. Court decisions should alwasy override UDRP
29. Fair use, including commercial use in a different class or common law
mark,  should be defined and considered in UDRP proceedings
30. The  TLD industry should be able to self regulate

To vote, just visit the following web page:

<http: //nnaci.intranets.com/r.asp?a="14&amp;id=1290&amp;c=vote">

You must vote from the web site listed above.  Please do not reply to this
message.

Thanks!

</http:></pre>
</body>
</html>

- --------------030109020107000408010500--

- --
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 14:01:37 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] On being democratically global

- --------------040708030906090908000502
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The Internet goes everywhere, right? All you need is phone lines (or 
cable, satellite, etc.), right? Well, here's a couple of models:

1) There are no TLDs, but only "domain names."  That's how it started 
when under the NSF, and before it became commercialized and thus fell 
prey to NSI and the big money interests.  Some little bunch of gnomes 
has a master server (with satellites all over the world for security 
purposes), and what these gnomes do is keep the list up to date, with 
those who want to get or keep domain names paying a periodic fee that 
pays that little bunch of gnomes and buys some servers.  Simplicity 
itself, and various entrepreneurs could do a land office business in 
providing WHOIS data and other supplemental services that would help 
people in finding who they wanted. IPv6 could handle it.

2) There are TLDs, but they are all country codes. You have to be in 
country X in order to register under that .cc. So the gnomes have 
created files; one for .de, one for .us, one for .fr, and so on. Same 
story, only slightly more complicated, but would surely cut down on the 
search times if, say, one knew that the company being sought was located 
in the U. S. rather than Germany or Japan or China.

Under either scenario, all the big "policy" decisions would disappear, 
as would the destructive, undemocratiic results of commercialization.

The "bunch of gnomes" (not ICANN or any similar such trolls under the 
bridge, but some internationally agreed upon little bunch sitting out, 
perhaps,on some isolated island protectorate of the U.N. that needs the 
money).

KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)

:-)

Bill Lovell

- --------------040708030906090908000502
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
The Internet goes everywhere, right? All you need is phone lines (or cable,
satellite, etc.), right? Well, here's a couple of models:<br>
<br>
1) There are no TLDs, but only "domain names." &nbsp;That's how it started when
under the NSF, and before it became commercialized and thus fell prey to
NSI and the big money interests. &nbsp;Some little bunch of gnomes has a master
server (with satellites all over the world for security purposes), and what
these gnomes do is keep the list up to date, with those who want to get or
keep domain names paying a periodic fee that pays that little bunch of gnomes
and buys some servers. &nbsp;Simplicity itself, and various entrepreneurs could
do a land office business in providing WHOIS data and other supplemental
services that would help people in finding who they wanted. IPv6 could handle
it.<br>
<br>
2) There are TLDs, but they are all country codes. <i>You have to be in country
X in order to register under that .cc</i>. So the gnomes have created files;
one for .de, one for .us, one for .fr, and so on. Same story, only slightly
more complicated, but would surely cut down on the search times if, say,
one knew that the company being sought was located in the U. S. rather than
Germany or Japan or China. <br>
<br>
Under either scenario, all the big "policy" decisions would disappear, as
would the destructive, undemocratiic results of commercialization.<br>
<br>
The "bunch of gnomes" (not ICANN or any similar such trolls under the bridge,
but some internationally agreed upon little bunch sitting out, perhaps,on
some isolated island protectorate of the U.N. that needs the money).<br>
<br>
KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)<br>
<br>
:-)<br>
<br>
Bill Lovell<br>
</body>
</html>

- --------------040708030906090908000502--

- --
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 17:56:55 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] On being democratically global

Bill,

Ummmmmmmmm there is only one thing wrong with this picture. acquired
rights.

what the #$$% do you do with all the names that already exist under the
existing TLDs??????
In the interest of being democractically global and canonical and all
that... you introduce a whole slew of different problems.  You gonna be
the one that goes through everyone's webpages and fixes the broken
links?  what about the domainname.com domainname.net that both reside in
the US?
etc etc.

ok...so there's more than one thing wrong with the picture

"William S. Lovell" wrote:
> 
> The Internet goes everywhere, right? All you need is phone lines (or
> cable, satellite, etc.), right? Well, here's a couple of models:
> 
> 1) There are no TLDs, but only "domain names."  That's how it started
> when under the NSF, and before it became commercialized and thus fell
> prey to NSI and the big money interests.  Some little bunch of gnomes
> has a master server (with satellites all over the world for security
> purposes), and what these gnomes do is keep the list up to date, with
> those who want to get or keep domain names paying a periodic fee that
> pays that little bunch of gnomes and buys some servers.  Simplicity
> itself, and various entrepreneurs could do a land office business in
> providing WHOIS data and other supplemental services that would help
> people in finding who they wanted. IPv6 could handle it.
> 
> 2) There are TLDs, but they are all country codes. You have to be in
> country X in order to register under that .cc. So the gnomes have
> created files; one for .de, one for .us, one for .fr, and so on. Same
> story, only slightly more complicated, but would surely cut down on
> the search times if, say, one knew that the company being sought was
> located in the U. S. rather than Germany or Japan or China.
> 
> Under either scenario, all the big "policy" decisions would disappear,
> as would the destructive, undemocratiic results of commercialization.
> 
> The "bunch of gnomes" (not ICANN or any similar such trolls under the
> bridge, but some internationally agreed upon little bunch sitting out,
> perhaps,on some isolated island protectorate of the U.N. that needs
> the money).
> 
> KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
> 
> :-)
> 
> Bill Lovell

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 00:07:29 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Conflict of Interest re .ORG: Dr. Robert Blokzijl

Dear Dr. Lynn,

Recently a conflict of interest (COI) of ICANN Board member Dr.  Robert
Blokzijl in the context of the reassignment of .ORG has been discussed on
both icannwatch.org (May 14) and the discussion list of the NCDNHC of the
DNSO.  So far no reaction has come to my attention from either Dr.
Blokzijl or ICANN.

As you know, ICANN has a very clear COI policy. Professor Jonathan
Weinberg convincingly showed, at least to my mind, that the facts that
have been brought to light, merit action under this policy. His analysis
is archived at:

http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-May/002249.html

(Cf. also http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-May/002235.html)

I would like to ask you to take any action necessary to inform all
stakeholders (which I would think include in this case all registrants and
users of .ORG domains) ASAP (the facts have been out for 5 days now...)
about the steps that have been taken to resolve this issue speedily.

A statement of Dr. Blokzijl himself could, naturally, also be useful. I
would have liked to cc this message to him. There is, however, no email
address available from his biography page on the ICANN website.

Thank you for your time!

Sincerely yours,

- -- 
Marc Schneiders
Member AdCom NCDNHC
Member ORG NC TF

- --
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 21:04:44 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Background on .za redelegation plans

ALexander and all,

  Yeah this is a couple of day sold now.  Old news as they say.
But none the less it points out how governments are becoming increasingly
disenchanted with ICANN and their behind the scenes meddling with
ccTLD's and trying to force down the throats of their oligarchic policies
without consultation and approval of the Stakeholders/users on ccTLD
managers or the countries to which they belong governments...

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
>
> 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

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 21:41:16 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Conflict of Interest re .ORG: Dr. Robert Blokzijl

Marc and all assembly members,

  Yes ICANN has a pretty good COI policy.  The problem is that
the ICANN BOD and staff do no follow their own policies or at
least only apply them on a piece meal basis.  That's frankly, dead
wrong.

  I am also not surprised the Mr. Blokzijl E-Mail address is not listed
on the ICANN Web Site in the Biographical section either.  He is
likely trying to hide presently.

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Dear Dr. Lynn,
>
> Recently a conflict of interest (COI) of ICANN Board member Dr.  Robert
> Blokzijl in the context of the reassignment of .ORG has been discussed on
> both icannwatch.org (May 14) and the discussion list of the NCDNHC of the
> DNSO.  So far no reaction has come to my attention from either Dr.
> Blokzijl or ICANN.
>
> As you know, ICANN has a very clear COI policy. Professor Jonathan
> Weinberg convincingly showed, at least to my mind, that the facts that
> have been brought to light, merit action under this policy. His analysis
> is archived at:
>
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-May/002249.html
>
> (Cf. also http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-May/002235.html)
>
> I would like to ask you to take any action necessary to inform all
> stakeholders (which I would think include in this case all registrants and
> users of .ORG domains) ASAP (the facts have been out for 5 days now...)
> about the steps that have been taken to resolve this issue speedily.
>
> A statement of Dr. Blokzijl himself could, naturally, also be useful. I
> would have liked to cc this message to him. There is, however, no email
> address available from his biography page on the ICANN website.
>
> Thank you for your time!
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> --
> Marc Schneiders
> Member AdCom NCDNHC
> Member ORG NC TF
>
> --
> 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 20:22:00 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Background on .za redelegation plans

At 09:04 PM 19/05/02 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:

>Yeah this is a couple of day sold now.
>Old news as they say.

A couple of days? It is 2 1/2 months old
on ICANNWatch:
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?thold=0&mode=nested&order=1&sid=590

>But none the less it points out how governments
>are becoming increasingly disenchanted with
>ICANN...

Quite the contrary. See Ant Brooks response to
my query at the link above. You might also recall
that the government of South Africa wanted WIPO 2,
partly because they coveted southafrica.com. If
the S.A. government is dischanted with ICANN, it
is for not having a more restrictive UDRP. -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 23:01:38 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Background on .za redelegation plans

Gary and all assembly members,

Gary Osbourne wrote:

> At 09:04 PM 19/05/02 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >Yeah this is a couple of day sold now.
> >Old news as they say.
>
> A couple of days? It is 2 1/2 months old
> on ICANNWatch:
> http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?thold=0&mode=nested&order=1&sid=590

  Well actually your quite right.  But I was referencing Alexander's URL
reference.  The one above you provided is more accurate as to the
actual dated aspect of this information and was provided by Ant Brooks
 ([email-masked]) Namespace ZA:  http://www.namespace.org.za.
Alexanders was from Politech, again see:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01340.html and
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03548.html , which was Alexander's
original URL reference...

>
>
> >But none the less it points out how governments
> >are becoming increasingly disenchanted with
> >ICANN...
>
> Quite the contrary. See Ant Brooks response to
> my query at the link above. You might also recall
> that the government of South Africa wanted WIPO 2,
> partly because they coveted southafrica.com. If
> the S.A. government is dischanted with ICANN, it
> is for not having a more restrictive UDRP. -g

  Exactly right.  And hence in that WIPO is whom
administers the UDRP shows that my/our comments
and review were essentially correct in that ICANN
did not adequately deal adequately with many of the
ccTLD's, although some of them like .ZA are even
wishing to be more restrictive in some areas with
IP issues for instance than other ccTLD's are.
This situation along with other ccTLD's situations
of similar scope why ICANN's central management
approach for all DNS related issues and interaction
are not a one size fits all, and are not likely to
be in the near term of even the long term...

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: Mon, 20 May 2002 00:12:45 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Conflict of Interest re .ORG: Dr. Robert Blokzijl

[email-masked] (Sun 05/19/02 at 09:41 PM -0700):

>   I am also not surprised the Mr. Blokzijl E-Mail address is not listed
> on the ICANN Web Site in the Biographical section either.  He is
> likely trying to hide presently.

oh, phooey. so much savvy until just when you need it.

his ICANN board page says it was last updated 23 sept 00, but 
'really' it was modified on 23 nov 02. verrrry suspicious. :)

blokzijl's email address is <[email-masked]>.

cheers,
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: Sun, 19 May 2002 22:34:21 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] On being democratically global

- --------------040306000302080508060104
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dan:

A whole lot more than "one thing," actually.  But this puts the "policy" 
where it belongs.
I forget which country it was, but I was reading a thing today which 
said how country X,
that just got its bright  new, shiny TLD, a .cc, was itself going to set 
up all the rules for the
internal operation of that .cc, as a number of other countries already 
have.  That leaves
every country in control over that on which it should have control, 
namely, its own
internal affairs, and all it needs from the rest of the world is 
connection under a common
prototcol. This is in lieu of having ICANN and the USG try to set rules 
for the whole
world, when they have not the slightest authority to do any such thing. 
(We gave the USG
back its computers and phone lines, didn't we?)

On the acquired rights, whoever wants to remain in the .com, .net, etc., 
zoo, they would
be free to do so.  Those who want to "go global" instead could do that. 
That's competition.

The Internet started out with USG owned software, wiring, servers, etc., 
under IPv4.
Anyone who wanted to -- including any country, any group of countries, 
any consortium
of Internet professional associations, etc., could start up an IPv6 net, 
once the technicalities
are ironed out.  Or even a second IPv4 -- a dot, which is one ASCII 
code, defines one
root; an * would define another, etc. This time, start out right. I 
 could set up a server in
my game room, call the cable company, and soon I'd be running SPAM to 
all you folks
suggesting that you all sign on to Bill's net -- 64 bit domain names, 
pick what you want,
but don't worry about any .com, .net extensions or the like, since there 
won't be any extensions.  
And there's 2^64 domain names, which is 4,611,686,018,427,387,904. Room 
for everyone.

There's even one for you!   :-)

Bill Lovell

Dan Steinberg wrote:

>Bill,
>
>Ummmmmmmmm there is only one thing wrong with this picture. acquired
>rights.
>
>what the #$$% do you do with all the names that already exist under the
>existing TLDs??????
>In the interest of being democractically global and canonical and all
>that... you introduce a whole slew of different problems.  You gonna be
>the one that goes through everyone's webpages and fixes the broken
>links?  what about the domainname.com domainname.net that both reside in
>the US?
>etc etc.
>
>ok...so there's more than one thing wrong with the picture
>
>"William S. Lovell" wrote:
>
>>The Internet goes everywhere, right? All you need is phone lines (or
>>cable, satellite, etc.), right? Well, here's a couple of models:
>>
>>1) There are no TLDs, but only "domain names."  That's how it started
>>when under the NSF, and before it became commercialized and thus fell
>>prey to NSI and the big money interests.  Some little bunch of gnomes
>>has a master server (with satellites all over the world for security
>>purposes), and what these gnomes do is keep the list up to date, with
>>those who want to get or keep domain names paying a periodic fee that
>>pays that little bunch of gnomes and buys some servers.  Simplicity
>>itself, and various entrepreneurs could do a land office business in
>>providing WHOIS data and other supplemental services that would help
>>people in finding who they wanted. IPv6 could handle it.
>>
>>2) There are TLDs, but they are all country codes. You have to be in
>>country X in order to register under that .cc. So the gnomes have
>>created files; one for .de, one for .us, one for .fr, and so on. Same
>>story, only slightly more complicated, but would surely cut down on
>>the search times if, say, one knew that the company being sought was
>>located in the U. S. rather than Germany or Japan or China.
>>
>>Under either scenario, all the big "policy" decisions would disappear,
>>as would the destructive, undemocratiic results of commercialization.
>>
>>The "bunch of gnomes" (not ICANN or any similar such trolls under the
>>bridge, but some internationally agreed upon little bunch sitting out,
>>perhaps,on some isolated island protectorate of the U.N. that needs
>>the money).
>>
>>KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>Bill Lovell
>>
>

- --------------040306000302080508060104
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
Dan:<br>
<br>
A whole lot more than "one thing," actually. &nbsp;But this puts the "policy"
where it belongs.<br>
I&nbsp;forget which country it was, but I was reading a thing today which said
how country X,<br>
that just got its bright &nbsp;new, shiny TLD, a .cc, was itself going to set
up all the rules for the<br>
internal operation of that .cc, as a number of other countries already have.
&nbsp;That leaves<br>
every country in control over that on which it <i>should</i> have control,
namely, its own<br>
internal affairs, and all it needs from the rest of the world is connection
under a common<br>
prototcol. This is in lieu of having ICANN and the USG try to set rules for
the whole<br>
world, when they have not the slightest authority to do any such thing. (We
gave the USG<br>
back its computers and phone lines, didn't we?)<br>
<br>
On the acquired rights, whoever wants to remain in the .com, .net, etc.,
zoo, they would<br>
be free to do so. &nbsp;Those who want to "go global" instead could do that. That's
competition.<br>
<br>
The Internet started out with USG owned software, wiring, servers, etc.,
under IPv4.<br>
Anyone who wanted to -- including any country, any group of countries, any
consortium<br>
of Internet professional associations, etc., could start up an IPv6 net,
once the technicalities<br>
are ironed out. &nbsp;Or even a second IPv4 -- a dot, which is one ASCII code,
defines one<br>
root; an * would define another, etc. This time, start out right. I &nbsp;could
set up a server in<br>
my game room, call the cable company, and soon I'd be running SPAM to all
you folks <br>
suggesting that you all sign on to Bill's net -- 64 bit domain names, pick
what you want, <br>
but don't worry about any .com, .net extensions or the like, since there
won't be any extensions. &nbsp;<br>
And there's 2^64 domain names, which is 4,611,686,018,427,387,904. Room for
everyone.<br>
<br>
There's even one for <b>you</b>! &nbsp; :-)<br>
<br>
Bill Lovell<br>
<br>
Dan Steinberg wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
  <pre wrap="">Bill,<br><br>Ummmmmmmmm there is only one thing wrong with this picture. acquired<br>rights.<br><br>what the #$$% do you do with all the names that already exist under the<br>existing TLDs??????<br>In the interest of being democractically global and canonical and all<br>that... you introduce a whole slew of different problems.  You gonna be<br>the one that goes through everyone's webpages and fixes the broken<br>links?  what about the domainname.com domainname.net that both reside in<br>the US?<br>etc etc.<br><br>ok...so there's more than one thing wrong with the picture<br><br>"William S. Lovell" wrote:<br></pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">The Internet goes everywhere, right? All you need is phone lines (or<br>cable, satellite, etc.), right? Well, here's a couple of models:<br><br>1) There are no TLDs, but only "domain names."  That's how it started<br>when under the NSF, and before it became commercialized and thus fell<br>prey to NSI and the big money interests.  Some little bunch of gnomes<br>has a master server (with satellites all over the world for security<br>purposes), and what these gnomes do is keep the list up to date, with<br>those who want to get or keep domain names paying a periodic fee that<br>pays that little bunch of gnomes and buys some servers.  Simplicity<br>itself, and various entrepreneurs could do a land office business in<br>providing WHOIS data and other supplemental services that would help<br>people in finding who they wanted. IPv6 could handle it.<br><br>2) There are TLDs, but they are all country codes. You have to be in<br>country X in order to register under tha
t .cc. So the gnomes have<br>created files; one for .de, one for .us, one for .fr, and so on. Same<br>story, only slightly more complicated, but would surely cut down on<br>the search times if, say, one knew that the company being sought was<br>located in the U. S. rather than Germany or Japan or China.<br><br>Under either scenario, all the big "policy" decisions would disappear,<br>as would the destructive, undemocratiic results of commercialization.<br><br>The "bunch of gnomes" (not ICANN or any similar such trolls under the<br>bridge, but some internationally agreed upon little bunch sitting out,<br>perhaps,on some isolated island protectorate of the U.N. that needs<br>the money).<br><br>KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)<br><br>:-)<br><br>Bill Lovell<br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap=""><!----><br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    </body>
    </html>

- --------------040306000302080508060104--

- --
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, 20 May 2002 14:06:31 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: WLS discussion in Bucharest

ICANN Bucharest Meeting Topic: VGRS Proposal for Wait-Listing Service 
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/wls-topic.htm

One topic that will be discussed at the ICANN Public Forum to be held in 
Bucharest, Romania on Thursday, 27 June 2002 [1], is a proposal by VeriSign 
Global Registry Services (VGRS) to establish, on a twelve-month trial 
basis, a "Wait-Listing Service" (WLS) for the .com and .net top-level 
domains. At its meeting on 22 April 2002, the ICANN Board invited 
comments from the Internet community [2], both at the Bucharest Public 
Forum and over the Internet, regarding whether VGRS's proposal should 
be approved.

...
Background and Summary of the WLS Proposal
...
History of Discussion of WLS Proposal
...
Legal Considerations
...

Special Topics for Discussion

Several concerns have been raised by the Registrar Constituency and 
others regarding VGRS's request for an amendment allowing charging 
for WLS on a twelve-month trial basis. Some of these concerns are:

1. Displacement of existing registrar-level competition. Currently, 
  different registrars offer a variety of services to customers waiting 
  for domain-name registrations to be deleted. These different services, 
  which are currently offered on a competitive basis, all work on the 
  basis of promptly registering names once they are returned to the 
  available pool after deletion. Because the registry-level WLS would 
  divert deleted names from being returned to the available pool, it 
  would "trump" all of the competitive registrar-level services.   

  In general, the introduction of registrar-level competition has been 
  extremely successful, and care should be taken before a registry 
  operator is allowed to displace that competition by exercising 
  abilities it has acquired by virtue of being designated the registry 
  operator.   

  In the specific case of WLS, however, it is quite possible that some 
  of the technically harmful effects of the registrar-level services 
  (such as the high registry loads caused by "add storms") may justify 
  instituting a registry-level WLS. It is also quite possible that 
  the consumer benefits of having a guaranteed effective reservation 
  (which can not be done at the registrar level) make it appropriate 
  to allow registry-level WLS. It does not appear to me that a 
  consensus position on these issues has yet developed in the community. 

  Comments are invited on any technical advantages or disadvantages 
  of introducing a registry-level WLS on a trial basis. 

2. Selective "grandfathering." Objections have been raised to the 
  preferential transition arrangements proposed for the current
  SnapBack service, but not for any of the current services with which 
  it competes. Since only some registrars are currently offering the 
  SnapBack service, this proposed preference raises questions as to 
  whether equivalent access would be accorded to all registrars. 
  Comments are invited on what arrangements are appropriate to 
  accommodate arrangements that consumers have made with the existing 
  registrar-level services.   

3. Basis for pricing. Many in the community believe that the price for 
  the proposed WLS service should be limited to a cost-plus-reasonable-profit 
  basis. Registrars, in particular, have indicated that the proposed 
  price is several times likely costs. Maximum-price limits are intended 
  to ensure that a registry operator does not abuse the sole-source 
  position it achieves through its registry agreement with ICANN. Making 
  judgments about appropriate maximum prices requires consideration of 
  many factors, such as whether any effective market-based mechanism 
  will be present for constraining price. On the other hand, the argument 
  that the only true market test of the appropriateness of the product and 
  its costs is its reception by potential purchasers would support VGRS's 
  suggestion for a trial period after which a more informed evaluation 
  could be made.  

Community comments on the above concerns are specially invited, as are 
comments on other concerns that are not mentioned above.

In addition, the ICANN Board would appreciate comments on the following 
additional topics:

4. Standards for consideration of proposed new charges for registry services. 
  Is the framework outlined above in "Considerations in Evaluating Proposed 
  New Registry Services" [3] appropriate? If not, what adjustments to this 
  approach should be made? Are there additional factors that should be 
  considered? How can the process for introducing new registry services best 
  be streamlined while still protecting the legitimate interests of others 
  affected? What role should the DNSO have [4]?  

5. Effects on the larger problem of name deletions. The current system for 
  handling deletions of names in the uTLDs is the source of many complaints. 
  Some domain-name registrants have suffered from inadvertent deletions, 
  while other would-be registrants are frustrated at delays in deletion of 
  expired names. Comments are invited on the relationship and likely effects 
  of the WLS proposal on these problems. 

...
Links to Documents
...

[1] http://www.icann.org/bucharest/index.html#27June
[2] http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-22apr02.htm#VeriSignWLSProposal
[3] http://www.icann.org/bucharest/wls-topic.htm#ConsiderationsinEvaluatingProposedNewRegistryServices
[4] http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00183.html

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1208
*************************