Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1209
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, May 20 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1209

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

Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 05:19:59 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New thread - had any problems moving a domain lately?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01BFC3AD.5FE25450
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

So have anyone else out there had any problems moving a domain lately =
from one registrar to another? Are you aware that there are time =
constraints for the successful movement  of a domain from one registrant =
to another. And has any one noticed the concept that domains are locked =
for a period of 60 days prior to their expiry. That's right - you cannot =
move your domain if its closer than 60 days to the expiry which means =
that YOU MUST  ABANDON 1/6 of your hosting fee as some tribute to the =
"losing registrar"... in order to move the domain from one provider to =
another.

It just makes one want to ask - Who's brilliant idea was this and why?

Hell I own my IP, that is the IP of the domain name and the purpose of =
making it web avaialable is merely the publication and public use of the =
marque. There is no conveyance of the marque to the Registrar. It is not =
a joint ownership between me and the Registrar, it is mine and the =
registrar is acting as the publications agent in this mode.

The problem is that according to the rule, the registrar can neither =
interfere or mandate a penalty to move this domain to another registrar. =
Its also key to note that no one should be forced to abandon any portion =
of the services that they have rightly paid for in order to move their =
domains.=20

Likewise there are any member of domains that seem to have blocks =
preventing their transfer but that should have been cleansed from the =
whois database some months ago. I myself have several domains I chose to =
let go inactive on the web, but the markques were still used in print.

Unfortunately this likely means that the Whois process is also broken =
since it constrains the aggregation of domains into like registrants and =
we also know that this is not always the case, especially in management =
service environments.

In any event these are clearly things that need to be changed and post =
haste.

Todd Glassey

- ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01BFC3AD.5FE25450
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3504.2500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>So have anyone else out there&nbsp;had =
any problems=20
moving a domain lately from one registrar to another? Are you aware that =
there=20
are time constraints for the successful movement&nbsp; of a domain from =
one=20
registrant to another. And has any one noticed the concept that domains =
are=20
locked for a period of 60 days prior to their expiry. That's right - you =
cannot=20
move your domain if its closer than 60 days to the expiry which means =
that YOU=20
MUST&nbsp; ABANDON 1/6 of your hosting fee as some tribute to the =
"losing=20
registrar"... in order to move the domain from one provider to=20
another.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It just makes one want to ask - Who's =
brilliant=20
idea was this and why?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hell I own my IP, that is the IP of the =
domain name=20
and the purpose of making it web avaialable is merely the publication =
and public=20
use of the marque. There is no conveyance of the marque to the =
Registrar. It is=20
not a joint ownership between me and the Registrar, it is mine and the =
registrar=20
is acting as the publications agent in this mode.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The problem is that according to the =
rule, the=20
registrar can neither interfere or mandate a penalty to move this domain =
to=20
another registrar. Its also key to note that no one&nbsp;should be =
forced to=20
abandon any portion of the services that they have rightly paid for in =
order to=20
move their domains. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Likewise there are any member of =
domains that seem=20
to have blocks preventing their transfer but that should have been =
cleansed from=20
the whois database some months ago. I myself have several domains I =
chose to let=20
go inactive on the web, but the markques were still used in =
print.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Unfortunately this likely means that =
the Whois=20
process is also broken since it constrains the aggregation of domains =
into like=20
registrants and we also know that this is not always the case, =
especially in=20
management service environments.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In any event these are clearly things =
that need to=20
be changed and post haste.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Todd Glassey</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01BFC3AD.5FE25450--

- --
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, 22 May 2000 07:02:56 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] reform proposal

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Kristy McKee" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:30 PM
Subject: [ga] reform proposal

>
> Folks, if we are really considering this proposal, why don't we start by
> listing all the processes we want to change or list what we want?  How
will
> the decision makers know who to choose if we don't communicate what we
want?
>
> For example, if you want Ben and Jerry's New York Super Fudge Chunk ice
> cream, don't tell me you are tired of chocolate yogurt and want me to get
> you something else in the genre of ice cream.  Tell me you want Ben and
> Jerry's New York Super Fudge Chunk ice cream.  In reference to ICANN,
let's
> be specific about what we WANT, in addition to letting them know why we
> don't want ICANN.

ICANN is an NPO is California and is a government supported monopoly and it
is inapprorpriate that ICANN was even setup in this form as the entity that
manages the global Internet.

TSG> YOU MEAN THAT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE FOR A GLOBAL ORG LIKE ICANN TO BE A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION? THIS IS TRUE AT THE VERY LEAST.

TSG> MY FEELING IS THAT ICANN'S CORPORATE STATUS AS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
SHOULD BE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA STATE CORPORATIONS BOARD FOR IF
NO OTHER REASONS, THE AUERBACH SUIT AGAINST THE BOARD FOR REFUSING TO
DISCLOSE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, THE CORPORATE STATE TO HIM AS A DIRECTOR.

    1)    ICANN needs to be split up.

TSG> YES YES YES!

> The coalescing the protocol standards
development, the protocol standards implementation approval body, and the
name services infrastructure (Both the registrars and ASO's) is more than
loading all the eggs into one basket, it effectively eliminates open
participation

TSG> THIS S TRUE BUT FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON.

TSG> FIRST OFF - ICANN IS A R&D TYPE ORGANIZATION. NOT ONE OF A COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTION GROUP OR IT WOULD HAVE ARMS SPECIFICALLY TO DETERMINE WHAT
PROTOCOLS ARE ROUTED AND BY WHOM, AND THE IETF/IESG/IAB WOULD NOT BE THE
SOLE ARBITER OF WHAT WAS AND WAS NOT ROUTED ON THE INTERNET. ICANN HAS LEFT
THIS MISTAKENLY TO THE ISP'S AND CARRIERS AND IT IS CLEARLY A PROBLEM IN
MOVING FORWARD.

TSG> THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT ICANN IS INCOMPLETE AT BEST AND AS A RESULT
PEOPLE ARE BEING DAMAGED BY ITS ACTIONS. MOST OF THIS ULTIMATELY IS DUE TO
THAT IT (THE ICANN/ISOC HIERARCHY) IS A SINGLE SOURCE, TECHNOLOGICALLY BUILT
MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE ARCHITECTED TO INSURE THAT "THE GEEKS MAINTAIN
THEIR CONTROL OF THE INTERNET". THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE AND IS STILL
THE CASE. BUT THE INTERNET IS NO LONGER A SUBSIDIZED R&D PROJECT. IT IS
COMMERCIAL PEERING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE LARGER CARRIERS AND THIS IS A VERY
DIFFERENT SCENARIO THAN THE NSFNET OR THE ARPANET WAS BEFORE IT.

TSG> WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS THAT IT  (THE MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERNET) NEEDS
TO BE SPLIT INTO SEVERAL TIERS OF ORGANIZATIONS EACH ADDRESSING THE THREE
AVENUES OF WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE ON THIS INTERNET. THE OPERATIONS OF THE
REGISTRARS AND THE ROOT SEGMENTS; THE ADDRESS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, AND THE
PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

TSG> THE NEXT ISSUE IS EVEN MORE FUNNY NOW THAT THERE IS A BIDDING WAR
BETWEEN NSI AND REGISTER.COM AND SEVERAL OF THE OTHER REGISTRARS; AND THAT
IS THE PROCESS OF INSURING THAT THE REGISTRAR'S LOSING THE CUSTOMERS RELEASE
THE DOMIANS PROPERLY AND WITHOUT PAIN TO THE DOMAIN HOLDER OF THE RECEIVING
REGISTRAR.

TSG> ICANN IN ITS COMMERCIALIZATION OF THE INTERNET HAS FAILED TO DEAL WITH
REALLY RUDIMENTARY ISSUES LIKE WHO ACTUALLY OWNS A DOMAIN NAME, THE CUSTOMER
REGISTERING IT OR THE PUBLICATIONS AGENT, THE REGISTRAR. THIS IS CRITICAL
NOW THAT THERE IS A NEED TO FORCE ONE REGISTRAR TO RELEASE TO ANOTHER.

TSG> ALSO THAT THE REGISTRAR'S DEMAND A 2 MONTH ROYALTY AGAINST THE ABILITY
TO MOVE A DOMAIN IS LIKEWISE INSANE. THAT'S RIGHT YOU MUST WALK AWAY FROM
1/6 OF YOUR PAYMENT IN ORDER TO MOVE YOUR DOMAIN FROM THE MORE EXPENSIVE
REGISTRAR TO THE CHEAPER ONE, AND THAT IS BECAUSE WHY?

2)    because of this limitation with having a California Corporation as the
center point for the Internet Control and Operations management
infrastructure, the ICANN should also not be in charge of the mast root
images. >

TSG> THIS IS TRUE AS WELL. And it was done by techies rather than anyone
thinking thought the uses of the business or its need to be global in
stature. FOR INSTANCE. ICANN HAS NO PLAN ON WHAT TO DO WHEN ONE REGISTRAR
GOES BELLY UP. THE WAY IT LOOKS NOW, THE DOMAINS WOULD ALL BE LOCKED FOR AT
LEAST 60 DAYS WHILE WHOIS WAS UPDATED.

TSG> AND OF COURSE THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT THERE IS NO DOMAIN PEERING OR ANY
PROCESS FOR REPLICATING THE ZONE TABLES BETWEEN REGISTRARS SUCH THAT OUR
DOMAINS ARE SAFE. NOR IS THERE ANY MECHANISM OF REVOKING ANY DOMAINS STATUS
IN REAL TIME FROM A SPAMMER OR THE LIKE, AND THAT ALSO IS A TRAIT OF THE
GEEKS RUNNING THE WORLD HERE. "HEY, WHY WOULD SOMEONE WANT TO BE EVIL INSIDE
OUR SYSTEM. HUH?"... EVER HEARD THIS BEFORE?

TSG> THESE ARE GLOBAL FAILINGS BY ICANN BUT THEY ARE NOT THE WORST. IT MAY
BE THAT ICANN'S REGISTRAR'S PROCESS CANNOT BE MADE COMMERCIALLY FUNCTIONAL
BECAUSE OF ITS DEPENDENCY ON WHOIS AS THE SOLE ARBITER OF WHO OWNS WHAT .
THERE IS A CLEAR FAILING HEREIN AND I DON'T THINK THAT WITH WHOIS IN ITS
CURRENT STATE, THAT THIS CAN BE FIXED.

TSG> WHOIS ONLY HAS STATEFUL INFO ABOUT WHO SUPPOSEDLY IS OPERATING THE
DOMAIN NOW. NOT WHO IT ACTUALLY BELONGS TO. THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT WE NOW
NEED MORE. MAYBE A "WHOWAS" DIRECTORY AS WELL SO THAT WE CAN TELL MORE DATA
ABOUT THE STATE OF THE REGISTRY ENTRY.

TSG> AND NO UPDATES TO WHOIS CAN POSSIBLY TAKE MORE THAN 48 HOURS TO MANAGE.

    1)    WHICH BECOMES A KEY ISSUE NOW THAT  I PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN TOLD BY
ONE REGISTRAR ABOUT IT TAKING AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS TO DELETE A COUPLE OF
DOMAIN NAMES THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELETED 22 (TWENTY TWO) MONTHS AGO BY THE
CURRENT RULES. THIS IS IMPORTANT SINCE I LET THEM EXPIRE SO THAT I COULD
MOVE THEM WITHOUT HASSLE AND THE REGISTRAR REFUSES TO RELEASE THEM. MY IP'S,
SO THAT I CAN MOVE THEM TO GODADDY IS IN AND THIS IN AND OF ITSELF
RIDICULOUS.

    2)    AS WELL AS THE SAME COMMENTARY FROM THAT REGISTRAR REGARDING THAT
"NO DOMAINS CAN BE MOVED IF IT IS CLOSER THAN 60 DAYS TO THE EXPIRY OF THE
DOMAIN". THIS MEANS FOR SOMEONE THE $35 THAT THE EXPENSIVE REGISTRARS
CHARGE, THAT I AM FORCED TO WALK AWAY FROM $7 IN SERVICE FEES FOR THE LAST
TWO MONTHS SERVICE IN ORDER TO MOVE THE DOMAIN TO THE CHEAPER HOSTING
SERVICES.

> Our Names Council is discussing this topic and has requested our input.

SNIP

>
>
> :)
>
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 20 May 2002 17:29:35 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] FW: WLS Posting (from: [email-masked])

fyi
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- ----- Forwarded message from "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]> -----

From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
To: "Transfer TF (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Juliano,Marie M - LGA" <[email-masked]>,
	"Thomas Roessler (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 07:36:47 -0400
Subject: FW: WLS Posting

As provided in the ICANN Board's 22 April Resolution, please note that the 
staff has posted the WLS paper and established a web-based public comment forum:

<http://www.icann.org/bucharest/wls-topic.htm>
<http://forum.icann.org/wls/>

Please share this notice widely with your constituencies and the GA.

- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
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 12:45:26 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Juliano vs. Lane

Marilyn,

When did Marie M. Juliano become a member of the Transfers Task Force?  This 
person does not appear to be the appointed representative of any 
constituency, and yet she is tasked with distributing materials to the group, 
handling scheduling and confirmations, and facilitating posts for Dan 
Halloran and Louis Touton.

How do you excuse putting your own personal executive assistant onto the TF, 
while denying Joanna Lane the right to participate on the Transfers Task 
Force as a representative of the registrant community?
- --
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 13:23:36 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Juliano vs. Lane

Danny,

with all due respect...does the expression 'get a life' mean anything to
you?

Geez...the list of crimes you describe, thats the job of an EA...to
facilitate things.  Marilyn Cade is the chair of the Task Force and it
is entirely appropriate for Marilyn to distribute materials, etc.  The
post of EA exists for a purpose right? And on every planet I have
visited, those tasks can be handled by an EA without anyone questioning
the appropriateness.  Now if Marie Juliano were posting substantive
material and giving opinions that would be cause for alarm. But I think
you are waaaaaay outta line here.

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Marilyn,
> 
> When did Marie M. Juliano become a member of the Transfers Task Force?  This
> person does not appear to be the appointed representative of any
> constituency, and yet she is tasked with distributing materials to the group,
> handling scheduling and confirmations, and facilitating posts for Dan
> Halloran and Louis Touton.
> 
> How do you excuse putting your own personal executive assistant onto the TF,
> while denying Joanna Lane the right to participate on the Transfers Task
> Force as a representative of the registrant community?
> --
> 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

- -- 
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 13:32:34 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Juliano vs. Lane

Marie is not a member of the TF, Danny. She is my executive assistant, and is providing much needed organizational assistance in trying to get calendars, busy people together, etc.

My apologies to the rest of you for clogging up your email with this unnecessary post.

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 12:45 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked]
Subject: Juliano vs. Lane

Marilyn,

When did Marie M. Juliano become a member of the Transfers Task Force?  This 
person does not appear to be the appointed representative of any 
constituency, and yet she is tasked with distributing materials to the group, 
handling scheduling and confirmations, and facilitating posts for Dan 
Halloran and Louis Touton.

How do you excuse putting your own personal executive assistant onto the TF, 
while denying Joanna Lane the right to participate on the Transfers Task 
Force as a representative of the registrant community?
- --
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 19:42:47 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .coop Brand Safe program for IP protection

Dear all,

Bret Fausett has already mentioned it at http://icann.blog.us:

>The .coop domain, which opened registration on January 30, is the 
>first sponsored TLD to offer an intellectual property protection 
>program for entities that do not meet domain eligibility criteria. 
(http://www.coop/news/latest_news.asp?id=37)

So the .coop registry wants to protect intellectual property
owners from entities that *meet* the .coop eligibility criteria?
(Cybersquatters cooperatives based on the principles of self-help, 
self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, and solidarity?!)

 From the original .coop application:
>E5.3. What registration practices will be employed to minimize abusive 
>registrations?
>
>The restrictions on approval of registration described in Section III below 
>[registrations restricted to cooperatives] and the policies discussed 
>in Section E5.1 above [service agreement including UDRP] will guard against 
>abusive registrations.
(http://www.icann.org/tlds/co-op1/NCBA%20Description%20of%20TLD%20Policies.htm)

Now, it sounds like this:
>Under Brand Safe, for US $2,000, any corporation or individual can apply to 
>the dotCoop registry to reserve their trademarks, service marks and brand 
>names, and block them from registration by other entities for five years. 
>Applicants can protect trade names, variations of those names, and recognized 
>and registered trade and service marks. But they will not be able to activate 
>them for use on the Internet. 
(http://www.coop/news/latest_news.asp?id=37 again)

This looks detrimental to intellectual property owners (since
US$ 2000 per trademark or variation is close to a rip-off) and 
all others (since this makes the distinction between sponsored--
restricted and unsponsored TLDs somewhat pointless). 

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: Mon, 20 May 2002 13:47:08 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Juliano vs. Lane

Dan,

The real crime is not having registrants represented on a task force.  You 
are dealing with the issue of transfers that affects millions of registrants 
and yet Marilyn Cade won't allow a single registrant representative onto a 
group studying the problem.  There are many that will be affected by the WLS 
proposal, but none of these affected parties will be allowed anything more 
than a short comment in a hastily announced teleconference, and none will be 
able to participate as representatives of an affected community on the 
transfers TF.

Marilyn's exclusionary policies deny posting rights to those that should be 
involved in a study of the problem while granting posting rights to her 
immediate personal staff.  If Secretariat functions are needed, these should 
be handled by the DNSO Secretariat that is already being paid to do the job.

- --
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 10:50:35 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Juliano vs. Lane

Monday, May 20, 2002, 9:45:26 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Marilyn,

> When did Marie M. Juliano become a member of the Transfers Task Force?  This 
> person does not appear to be the appointed representative of any 
> constituency, and yet she is tasked with distributing materials to the group, 
> handling scheduling and confirmations, and facilitating posts for Dan 
> Halloran and Louis Touton.

> How do you excuse putting your own personal executive assistant onto the TF, 
> while denying Joanna Lane the right to participate on the Transfers Task 
> Force as a representative of the registrant community?

Though Dan and Marilyn have already appropriately addressed your
lately little attack, I would also point out that Joanna's claim to be
a representative of the "registrant community" was without any
substance whatsoever, as she could provide nothing to back up her
claim to be representative of that community or to have backing as a
representative of that community.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 14:10:46 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Juliano vs. Lane

Dannny.

with respect. you have not replied to the issues raised in my post. 

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Dan,
> 
> The real crime is not having registrants represented on a task force.  You
> are dealing with the issue of transfers that affects millions of registrants
> and yet Marilyn Cade won't allow a single registrant representative onto a
> group studying the problem.  There are many that will be affected by the WLS
> proposal, but none of these affected parties will be allowed anything more
> than a short comment in a hastily announced teleconference, and none will be
> able to participate as representatives of an affected community on the
> transfers TF.
> 
> Marilyn's exclusionary policies deny posting rights to those that should be
> involved in a study of the problem while granting posting rights to her
> immediate personal staff.  If Secretariat functions are needed, these should
> be handled by the DNSO Secretariat that is already being paid to do the job.

- -- 
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 14:25:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Juliano vs. Lane

On Mon, 20 May 2002, Dan Steinberg wrote:

> post of EA exists for a purpose right? And on every planet I have
> visited, those tasks can be handled by an EA without anyone questioning
> the appropriateness.  Now if Marie Juliano were posting substantive

Well it's nice to see you visit other planets.  Obviously your not a
xenophobe - but to claim that every planet visited has tasks which can be
handled by an EA is incorrect.  Not every planet has EA's.

regards
joe baptista

- --
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 15:03:36 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Juliano vs. Lane

William,

As you are one of the very few remaining members of what was once the 
Individual Domain Name Owner's Constituency (IDNO), perhaps you believe that 
you have a greater claim to represent registrants than does Ms. Lane... I am 
certainly willing to debate the issue of whom might be a better advocate, but 
neither of you will ever be able to participate on the closed exclusionary 
transfers task force.

Registrants are an affected party with regard to the issue of transfers, yet 
they can't have a representative on the task force.  Is this right or wrong?

There are commercial interests that could be affected by a decision on WLS, 
yet these affected parties have no representatives on the closed task force.  
Is this right or wrong?

Meanwhile, how prolific are our own "reps" in terms of making contributions 
to the list?  Has Dan Steinberg posted more than one single comment to the 
transfers TF list in the last six months?  How does this facilitate the goal 
of providing the Board with a comprehensive review of the issue of deletes?  

- --
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 15:32:17 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Juliano vs. Lane

Look William,
Advocating for a special interest group is not the same thing as claiming to
represent them. I have never once claimed to represent anybody but myself,
and in fact, declined to sit on this Task Force as the GA Rep when invited
by Philip Shepard because I wanted to serve the user community exclusively,
which the GA Rep cannot do, since the GA also represents providers. The fact
that the DNSO does not have an Individual Domain Name Registrants
Constituency should not prevent us from arguing our case by whatever means
possible. That's all I was doing, so cut it out.
Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of William X
> Walsh
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 1:51 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Juliano vs. Lane
>
>
> Monday, May 20, 2002, 9:45:26 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Marilyn,
>
> > When did Marie M. Juliano become a member of the Transfers Task
> Force?  This
> > person does not appear to be the appointed representative of any
> > constituency, and yet she is tasked with distributing materials
> to the group,
> > handling scheduling and confirmations, and facilitating posts for Dan
> > Halloran and Louis Touton.
>
> > How do you excuse putting your own personal executive assistant
> onto the TF,
> > while denying Joanna Lane the right to participate on the
> Transfers Task
> > Force as a representative of the registrant community?
>
> Though Dan and Marilyn have already appropriately addressed your
> lately little attack, I would also point out that Joanna's claim to be
> a representative of the "registrant community" was without any
> substance whatsoever, as she could provide nothing to back up her
> claim to be representative of that community or to have backing as a
> representative of that community.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
> Save Internet Radio!
> CARP will kill Webcasting!
> http://www.saveinternetradio.org/
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 12:39:11 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Juliano vs. Lane

Monday, May 20, 2002, 12:32:17 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> Look William,
> Advocating for a special interest group is not the same thing as claiming to
> represent them. I have never once claimed to represent anybody but myself,
> and in fact, declined to sit on this Task Force as the GA Rep when invited
> by Philip Shepard because I wanted to serve the user community exclusively,
> which the GA Rep cannot do, since the GA also represents providers. The fact
> that the DNSO does not have an Individual Domain Name Registrants
> Constituency should not prevent us from arguing our case by whatever means
> possible. That's all I was doing, so cut it out.

And to do that, you need some credible basis for your positions being
representative of the community you CLAIM your views would be serving.

Did you have support from any organization that even purports to
advocate on the behalf of those you were asking to be the voice for?

The problem is that the only thing you had was your own assertion that
your views would be in support of that community.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:42:07 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] commenting on WLS

FYI:  The ICANN staff has created a comment site for WLS, and that was posted by your chair, Thomas Roessler, earlier today.

Can I ask that you rename your thread, should you continue to discuss this, so that it is relevant to the topic? 
- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 1:47 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Subject: Re: [ga] Juliano vs. Lane

Dan,

The real crime is not having registrants represented on a task force.  You 
are dealing with the issue of transfers that affects millions of registrants 
and yet Marilyn Cade won't allow a single registrant representative onto a 
group studying the problem.  There are many that will be affected by the WLS 
proposal, but none of these affected parties will be allowed anything more 
than a short comment in a hastily announced teleconference, and none will be 
able to participate as representatives of an affected community on the 
transfers TF.

Marilyn's exclusionary policies deny posting rights to those that should be 
involved in a study of the problem while granting posting rights to her 
immediate personal staff.  If Secretariat functions are needed, these should 
be handled by the DNSO Secretariat that is already being paid to do the job.

- --
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 17:02:11 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Juliano vs. Lane

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0157_01C20020.152B2DE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

this whole thread is "going south" very quickly.

what say we "change the subject"  ?
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  rom: William X Walsh=20
  To: Joanna Lane=20
  Cc: [email-masked] ; [email-masked] ; [email-masked]=20
  Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 3:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [ga] Juliano vs. Lane

  Monday, May 20, 2002, 12:32:17 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

  > Look William,
  > Advocating for a special interest group is not the same thing as =
claiming to
  > represent them. I have never once claimed to represent anybody but =
myself,
  > and in fact, declined to sit on this Task Force as the GA Rep when =
invited
  > by Philip Shepard because I wanted to serve the user community =
exclusively,
  > which the GA Rep cannot do, since the GA also represents providers. =
The fact
  > that the DNSO does not have an Individual Domain Name Registrants
  > Constituency should not prevent us from arguing our case by whatever =
means
  > possible. That's all I was doing, so cut it out.

  And to do that, you need some credible basis for your positions being
  representative of the community you CLAIM your views would be serving.

  Did you have support from any organization that even purports to
  advocate on the behalf of those you were asking to be the voice for?

  The problem is that the only thing you had was your own assertion that
  your views would be in support of that community.

  --=20
  Best regards,
  William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
  --
  Save Internet Radio! =20
  CARP will kill Webcasting!
  http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

- ------=_NextPart_000_0157_01C20020.152B2DE0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2713.1100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>this whole thread&nbsp;is "going south" very=20
quickly.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>what say we "change the subject"&nbsp; =
?</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>rom:</B>=20
  <A title=[email-masked] =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">William X=20
  Walsh</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">Joanna Lane</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> ; <A =
title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> ; <A=20
  title=[email-masked] href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> =
</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, May 20, 2002 3:39 =
PM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ga] Juliano vs. =
Lane</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>Monday, May 20, 2002, 12:32:17 PM, Joanna Lane=20
  wrote:<BR><BR>&gt; Look William,<BR>&gt; Advocating for a special =
interest=20
  group is not the same thing as claiming to<BR>&gt; represent them. I =
have=20
  never once claimed to represent anybody but myself,<BR>&gt; and in =
fact,=20
  declined to sit on this Task Force as the GA Rep when invited<BR>&gt; =
by=20
  Philip Shepard because I wanted to serve the user community=20
  exclusively,<BR>&gt; which the GA Rep cannot do, since the GA also =
represents=20
  providers. The fact<BR>&gt; that the DNSO does not have an Individual =
Domain=20
  Name Registrants<BR>&gt; Constituency should not prevent us from =
arguing our=20
  case by whatever means<BR>&gt; possible. That's all I was doing, so =
cut it=20
  out.<BR><BR>And to do that, you need some credible basis for your =
positions=20
  being<BR>representative of the community you CLAIM your views would be =

  serving.<BR><BR>Did you have support from any organization that even =
purports=20
  to<BR>advocate on the behalf of those you were asking to be the voice=20
  for?<BR><BR>The problem is that the only thing you had was your own =
assertion=20
  that<BR>your views would be in support of that community.<BR><BR>-- =
<BR>Best=20
  regards,<BR>William X Walsh &lt;<A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>&gt;<BR>--<BR>=
Save=20
  Internet Radio!&nbsp; <BR>CARP will kill Webcasting!<BR><A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.saveinternetradio.org/">http://www.saveinternetradio.o=
rg/</A><BR><BR>--<BR>This=20
  message was passed to you via the <A =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>=20
  list.<BR>Send mail to <A=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> to=20
  unsubscribe<BR>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the =
message).<BR>Archives at=20
  <A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.h=
tml</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0157_01C20020.152B2DE0--

- --
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 #1209
*************************