Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1222
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, May 23 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1222

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 10:45:22 -0700
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Small Business Constituency needed

[email-masked] wrote:
> If the BC can't or won't adequately represent "small business", then I
> believe that it's time to create a separate Small Business Constituency".

Danny,

Small businesses currently enjoy what I would describe as preferential
treatment within the B&C constituency. They have equal access to resources,
equal votes, and their dues are a fraction of what other members pay. Small
businesses pay 250 Euros a year (~US$230) and other businesses pay 1500
Euros a year (~US$1380). Personally, I think the B&C dues are
mind-bogglingly high for a constituency -- at least twice what they should
be -- but they are relatively affordable for any small business that wants
to have a role. The best use of efforts in this areas is to do outreach to
the small business community and get small businesses to join the existing
constituency. 

         -- Bret

- --
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: Thu, 23 May 2002 13:49:55 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Request for Comments

Dear Vint,

I have appreciated reading the comments posted by director Linda S. Wilson to 
the Board Committee on Evolution and Reform.  Might I encourage you to 
recommend to your fellow directors that they follow the example of Ms. 
Wilson?  We would all benefit from better understanding the thinking of our 
directors.
- --
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: Thu, 23 May 2002 13:51:18 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- --Boundary_(ID_dY5HRV8ug2HZOn+VtuIzSA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Todd,
The "writer" in this case was Jamie Love, although I prefer to the label
Proponent. (see Best Practices) Others contributed amendments. Bill is
correct - my contribution was simply to reformat the amended text into
"whereas" clauses, which the Proponent agreed was an improvement. There is
no disagreement here, but Jefsey was asking the wrong person.

Regards,
Joanna
  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of todd
glassey
  Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 11:49 AM
  To: William S. Lovell; jefsey
  Cc: [email-masked]
  Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum

  Bill - someone - the person introducing a motion or the person running the
vote needs to own the text of the motion. This means that the submitter or
manager of the group needs to take responsibility for what is being voted on
and that means taking into account the edit therein.

  Todd Glassey

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: William S. Lovell
    To: jefsey
    Cc: [email-masked]
    Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 12:15 PM
    Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum

    jefsey wrote:

      Dear Joanna,
      I do not support that text as such as not enough worked and IMHO not
properly addressed not detailed yet. I have introduced many propositions to
add to that motion you did not take into account.

      I know that this is difficult, but since you took the role of writer,
I suggest you now proceed on a step by step basis.
    Jefsey:

    I don't think Joanna "took the role of writer."  What she did was put
    James Love's "motion" into the form of a "#1" and post it as such. This
    poor lady can't do everything for us!  I suggest that those who want
    to work on #1, either by amendment or by posting a new "#2" or
    whatever, simply do so and label what you are doing so that Joanna
    would have half a chance of tracking all that for us as well. (I am
    myself much in favor of there being a preamble, even before the usual
    whereas clauses, that defines the purpose of the motion as you note
    below.)

    Bill

      1. what is the purpose of the motion?
          - disruptive
          - advisory
          - force to a dialog
          - obtain missing responses
          - "suicide"

      2. to who should it be addressed to?
          - formally
            - to the BoD
            - to the NC
            - to the DoC
            - to the world
            - to the outerspace
          - actually
            - to the DoC to obtain a decision
            - to the BoD to make them moving
            - to the reform committee as a warning
            - to the GAC members to create a problem they will have to solve
            - to the Congress
            - to the Press
            - to our own ego

      3. what is our real reason?
          - that we are unhappy with the ICANN principle
          - that we see that the current ICANN structure will never work
          - that we have real concerns about the DNS stability
          - that we have concern for the world's economy structure under the
present DNS managment

      4. what is our real target?
          - to support external propositions
          - to develop a GA proposition
          - to permit a real debate on real element and not only on Stuart's
emotions
          - to protect national interests and security
          - to protect business interests

      5. what are the elements missing in the current ICANN mission?
          I listed a few of them which should be listed in whereas, but many
others may be indentified and then filtered to obtain a realistic and easy
to understand list for press and Congress

      The question is not we will commit suicide or not, the question is the
time we will spend on it to be of use. Eben if it is only for the records:
it will help in the future to disqualify those who did not tried to save the
Internet from ICANN's bureaucracy.

      Until that work is done, I reseve my support to this motion.
      jfc

      On 05:38 10/05/02, Joanna Lane said:

        > > WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers
        > > (ICANN) has dramatically changed the initial terms of reference
        > > for ICANN, and is proposing even further changes.
        > >
        > > WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in
        > > the Internet community and go even further from the original
        > > terms of reference.
        > >
        > > WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department
of
        > > Commerce (the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal for
        > > restructuring, and alternatives offered by others for managing
        > > key Internet resources, while providing for a public record of
        > > the process for enhanced visibility.
        > >
        > > WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting
        > > Organization (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green
        > > and the White Paper, the Government of the United States made it
        > > clear that it intends to withdraw from management of the Domain
        > > name System (the DNS).
        > >
        > >
        > > It is hereby RESOLVED that:-
        > >
        > > The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization
        > > of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
        > > asks the US Department of Commerce to have an open competition
        > > for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that the new
        > > competition would address the need to develop an international
        > > framework for DNS management. An open competition should aim to
        > > achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of
        > > DNS services, consistent with the need for stability, but also
        > > innovation, competition and freedom.
        > >
        > > Agree [  ]
        > > Disagree [  ]
        > > Abstain [  ]
        > >
        --
        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

        ---
        Incoming 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

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

- --Boundary_(ID_dY5HRV8ug2HZOn+VtuIzSA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=092423417-23052002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Todd,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=092423417-23052002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>The&nbsp;"writer" in this case&nbsp;was Jamie Love, although&nbsp;I 
prefer to the label Proponent. (see Best Practices) Others contributed 
amendments. Bill is correct - my contribution was simply to reformat&nbsp;the 
amended text&nbsp;into "whereas" clauses, which&nbsp;the Proponent&nbsp;agreed 
was an improvement. There is no disagreement here, but Jefsey&nbsp;was asking 
the wrong person.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=092423417-23052002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=092423417-23052002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=092423417-23052002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Joanna</FONT>&nbsp;</SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr 
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> [email-masked] 
  [mailto:[email-masked]]<B>On Behalf Of </B>todd glassey<BR><B>Sent:</B> 
  Thursday, May 23, 2002 11:49 AM<BR><B>To:</B> William S. Lovell; 
  jefsey<BR><B>Cc:</B> [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - 
  addendum<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bill - someone - the person introducing a motion 
  or the person running the vote needs to own the text of the motion. This means 
  that the submitter or manager of the group needs to take responsibility for 
  what is being voted on and that means taking into account the edit 
  therein.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Todd Glassey</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <BLOCKQUOTE 
  style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
    <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
    <DIV 
    style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> 
    <A title=[email-masked] href="mailto:[email-masked]">William S. 
    Lovell</A> </DIV>
    <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=[email-masked] 
    href="mailto:[email-masked]">jefsey</A> </DIV>
    <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=[email-masked] 
    href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> </DIV>
    <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 10, 2002 12:15 
    PM</DIV>
    <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - 
    addendum</DIV>
    <DIV><BR></DIV><BR><BR>jefsey wrote:<BR>
    <BLOCKQUOTE 
    cite=mid:[email-masked] 
    type="cite">Dear Joanna, <BR>I do not support that text as such as not 
      enough worked and IMHO not properly addressed not detailed yet. I have 
      introduced many propositions to add to that motion you did not take into 
      account. <BR><BR>I know that this is difficult, but since you took the 
      role of writer, I suggest you now proceed on a step by step basis. 
    </BLOCKQUOTE>Jefsey:<BR><BR>I don't think Joanna "took the role of writer." 
    &nbsp;What she did was put <BR>James Love's "motion" into the form of a "#1" 
    and post it as such. This <BR>poor lady can't do <I>everything</I> for us! 
    &nbsp;I suggest that those who want<BR>to work on #1, either by amendment or 
    by posting a new "#2" or <BR>whatever, simply do so and label what you are 
    doing so that Joanna <BR>would have half a chance of tracking all that for 
    us as well. (I am<BR>myself much in favor of there being a preamble, even 
    before the usual<BR>whereas clauses, that defines the purpose of the motion 
    as you note<BR>below.)<BR><BR>Bill<BR>
    <BLOCKQUOTE 
    cite=mid:[email-masked] 
    type="cite"><BR><BR>1. what is the purpose of the motion? 
      <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - disruptive <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - advisory 
      <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - force to a dialog <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - obtain 
      missing responses <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - "suicide" <BR><BR>2. to who 
      should it be addressed to? <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - formally 
      <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the BoD 
      <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the NC 
      <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the DoC 
      <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the world 
      <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the outerspace 
      <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - actually <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to 
      the DoC to obtain a decision <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the 
      BoD to make them moving <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the reform 
      committee as a warning <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the GAC 
      members to create a problem they will have to solve 
      <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the Congress 
      <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the Press 
      <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to our own ego <BR><BR>3. what is our 
      real reason? <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - that we are unhappy with the ICANN 
      principle <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - that we see that the current ICANN 
      structure will never work <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - that we have real 
      concerns about the DNS stability <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - that we have 
      concern for the world's economy structure under the present DNS managment 
      <BR><BR>4. what is our real target? <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to support 
      external propositions <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to develop a GA proposition 
      <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to permit a real debate on real element and not 
      only on Stuart's emotions <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to protect national 
      interests and security <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to protect business 
      interests <BR><BR>5. what are the elements missing in the current ICANN 
      mission? <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I listed a few of them which should be 
      listed in whereas, but many others may be indentified and then filtered to 
      obtain a realistic and easy to understand list for press and Congress 
      <BR><BR>The question is not we will commit suicide or not, the question is 
      the time we will spend on it to be of use. Eben if it is only for the 
      records: it will help in the future to disqualify those who did not tried 
      to save the Internet from ICANN's bureaucracy. <BR><BR>Until that work is 
      done, I reseve my support to this motion. <BR>jfc <BR><BR><BR>On 05:38 
      10/05/02, Joanna Lane said: <BR>
      <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">&gt; &gt; WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for 
        Assigned names and Numbers <BR>&gt; &gt; (ICANN) has dramatically 
        changed the initial terms of reference <BR>&gt; &gt; for ICANN, and is 
        proposing even further changes. <BR>&gt; &gt; <BR>&gt; &gt; WHEREAS 
        these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in <BR>&gt; &gt; 
        the Internet community and go even further from the original <BR>&gt; 
        &gt; terms of reference. <BR>&gt; &gt; <BR>&gt; &gt; WHEREAS a new open 
        competition would allow the U.S. Department of <BR>&gt; &gt; Commerce 
        (the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal for <BR>&gt; &gt; 
        restructuring, and alternatives offered by others for managing <BR>&gt; 
        &gt; key Internet resources, while providing for a public record of 
        <BR>&gt; &gt; the process for enhanced visibility. <BR>&gt; &gt; 
        <BR>&gt; &gt; WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name 
        Supporting <BR>&gt; &gt; Organization (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, 
        that in the Green <BR>&gt; &gt; and the White Paper, the Government of 
        the United States made it <BR>&gt; &gt; clear that it intends to 
        withdraw from management of the Domain <BR>&gt; &gt; name System (the 
        DNS). <BR>&gt; &gt; <BR>&gt; &gt; <BR>&gt; &gt; It is hereby RESOLVED 
        that:- <BR>&gt; &gt; <BR>&gt; &gt; The General Assembly of the Domain 
        name Supporting Organization <BR>&gt; &gt; of Internet Corporation for 
        Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) <BR>&gt; &gt; asks the US Department 
        of Commerce to have an open competition <BR>&gt; &gt; for the services 
        now provided by ICANN, provided that the new <BR>&gt; &gt; competition 
        would address the need to develop an international <BR>&gt; &gt; 
        framework for DNS management. An open competition should aim to <BR>&gt; 
        &gt; achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of 
        <BR>&gt; &gt; DNS services, consistent with the need for stability, but 
        also <BR>&gt; &gt; innovation, competition and freedom. <BR>&gt; &gt; 
        <BR>&gt; &gt; Agree [&nbsp; ] <BR>&gt; &gt; Disagree [&nbsp; ] <BR>&gt; 
        &gt; Abstain [&nbsp; ] <BR>&gt; &gt; <BR>-- <BR>This message was passed 
        to you via the <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated 
        href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> list. <BR>Send mail to <A 
        class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated 
        href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> to unsubscribe 
        <BR>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message). <BR>Archives at <A 
        class=moz-txt-link-freetext 
        href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</A> 
        <BR><BR><BR><BR>--- <BR>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. 
        <BR>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext 
        href="http://www.grisoft.com">http://www.grisoft.com</A>). <BR>Version: 
        6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02 <BR></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=""><BR><HR width="90%" SIZE=4><BR><BR>---<BR>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.<BR>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://www.grisoft.com">http://www.grisoft.com</A>).<BR>Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02<BR></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- --Boundary_(ID_dY5HRV8ug2HZOn+VtuIzSA)--
- --
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: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:15:55 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Small Business Constituency needed

Bret,

As you might know, I twice submitted my application in person for membership 
to the BC and had my firm babybows.com listed as a member on the website for 
quite a period of time.  The Secretariat never forwarded an invoice (after 
numerous requests) and ultimately removed my company name from the membership 
list without notification.  In response to my complaint, I was advised by the 
Secretariat that I would need to reapply and to have my membership reexamined 
by the credentials committee.  This is not what I would describe as 
"preferential" treatment.  

Another small business, run by Bruce James, questioned the fact that the BC 
was in violation of its own Charter and challenged their election practices.  
In response to his actions, the BC modified their Charter not to correct the 
problem (two representatives of the TELCOs were standing for election to the 
Council in violation of charter sectoral diversity requirements), but rather 
to crush the voice of the small business community dissidents -- the charter 
now contains new language:  

"At the request of at-least two paid-up members and following a thorough 
review by the Officers and the Credentials Committee, a member, who over a 
sustained period of time acts in conflict to this Charter, or who engages in 
acts which appear to be inappropriate for the stability, functionality or 
bona fide reputation of the Constituency, or who is or threatens to be a 
vexatious litigant, may have its membership terminated at the discretion of 
the Officers and the Credentials Committee.

How often have we heard the mantra that the BC will engage in "outreach"?  Do 
you honestly believe that the BC will do anything to bring in the small 
business folks?  On what basis are you making that claim?  It certainly can't 
be based on past practice.  Ask Jefsey Morphin what he thinks about BC 
attitudes toward small business...

A new constituency wherein small business is not routinely outvoted by large 
corporate interests is a much better concept that pretending that the BC will 
ever do anything to aggregate the small business 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: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:18:57 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

As I have said in the past, I strongly object to raising the spectre of
Verisign (shudder!!!!) or any registry or regisrtrar 'policing'
intellectual property.  Please...its bad enough if a court has to
stumble through the minefield of domain name/trademark issues. But
Verisign? (insert your favourite NetSol horror story here...)

Simply put...if it were a simple decision whether or not someones's IP
rights were being trampled....we would not need courts. And we would not
have the barrage of apparently-contradictory court cases and UDRP
decisions that members of this list like to bring up from time to time. 
This is not rocket science. But it is complicated. And contentious. And
people charged with making these decisions in courts are trained.

I think the mere existence of decisions that appear to contradict, and
the existence of lengthly law reveiw articles that attempt to either
explain the difference or explain why the learned judge(s) have been
hallucinating....well if its that complicated...how on earth (or any
other planet) can we expect to insert 'policing' into the process or
registering domain names?
The answer is....we can't.

Besides, this is nothing new. People have been replacing 'o' with '0'
and inverting letters for years...
Go to www.micros0ft.com for a trivial example. I could dream up a dozen.
And the thing is...there is no way to know in advance...if someone using
cyrillic or other characters...isnt creating a perfectly applicable
domain name for them in their own geographic location.
Remember...Trademarks are not international. THey apply to
goods/services/somewhere. ChelseaPlumbing in Chelsea, Quebec is not the
same as ChelseaPlumbing in the UK.

The other thing to remember is, we are in the middle of trying to
automate and streamline and make the system more reliable, as in more
deterministic. what is a delete? can you insert WLS in the process? etc
etc. If you begin to consider the concept of policing IP rights...you
must recognize that it is the exact opposite of building a deterministic
system. You introduce judgement in there...and time. If someone has to
think and decide and judge...that can never be on a time clock.

is this the internet we want?

Alexander Svensson wrote:
> 
> At 22.05.2002 17:15, William S. Lovell wrote:
> >"Need to Know: ICANN CAN'T," Scientific American,
> >June 2002, p. 21.
> 
> Thanks for forwarding this!
> The "ICANN CAN'T" box accompanies a longer article
> about IDNS security risks.
> (http://www.sciam.com/2002/0602issue/0602scicit5.html)
> 
> Lauren Weinstein from PFIR says that a regulatory
> approach will be necessary to prohibit confusing names
> (e.g. homograph names, like microsoft.com incorporating
> Cyrillic "c" and "o") based on the UDRP. "But it will
> require proactive policing on the part of the registrars,
> such as VeriSign, something they have typically resisted."
> 
> 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

- -- 
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: Thu, 23 May 2002 20:44:59 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

On Thu, 23 May 2002, at 09:58 [=GMT-0700], Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:25:32PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 May 2002, at 23:15 [=GMT-0400], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> > > You must be joking if you equate the registrars and registries with
> > > the business users. Don't mistake us. WE are users.
> >
> > A small but important part of the users, sure.
>
> Sorry, that is utter nonsense.

Sorry, you try to play a word game. The small businesses have no vote
either. Many of these are one-person-companies. Now don't come up with the
BC of the DNSO. Small business people cannot afford the time to talk and
talk and talk in the DNSO. They need a vote.

> *Any* representation scheme that gave equal weight to the various users
> of the domain name system would end up with business getting an
> overwhelming majority of the votes.

So let's do it then.

- --
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: Thu, 23 May 2002 20:48:01 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The  Real World

On Thu, 23 May 2002, at 13:37 [=GMT-0400], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> THANKS.

For what? Picking on a detail and forgetting the message? Great discussion
tactics.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 12:58 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World
>
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:25:32PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 May 2002, at 23:15 [=GMT-0400], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> > > You must be joking if you equate the registrars and registries with
> > > the business users. Don't mistake us. WE are users.
> >
> > A small but important part of the users, sure.
>
> Sorry, that is utter nonsense.
>
> *Most* domain names are registered for business purposes.  (Old
> estimates from NSI were on the order of 70% of registrations in
> .com/net/org combined.  These estimates are necessarily rough, but even
> a casual examination supports it.) If you count domains registered by
> speculators as a business use, the proportion would be even higher.  If
> you throw in all other organizational use, the porportion gets even
> greater.  Domains registered by individuals for purposes other than
> business are a *very* tiny minority of the domains registered, and in
> this regard the GA is completely non-representative.
>
> *Any* representation scheme that gave equal weight to the various users
> of the domain name system would end up with business getting an
> overwhelming majority of the votes.
>
> [...]
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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
>

- -- 
[email-masked]

http://www.bijt.net/

- --
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: Thu, 23 May 2002 12:16:15 -0700
From: Darrell Greenwood <[email-masked]>
Subject: Jeff Williams FAQ (Rev. 05/02) (was Re: [ga] NC BS - Selective Censorship Raises it's ugly head again!

On 5/16/02 at 12:08 PM -0700, Jeff Williams wrote the following :

>Gary and all assembly members,
>
>  The problem is that Bob Davis does exist and is an entity.  He is one
>of our directors.  Hence he is being Selectively Censored.  As such
>the DNSO GA at present, and for some time now, have systematically
>denied participation of some stakeholders or has ought to do away
>with some stakeholders illegitimately...

Bob Davis does not exist.

Jeff has created a fantasy world, where he is a fictitious
billionaire, in the form of an INEG 'Role Playing Game'. He uses
various mail lists, [email-masked] among them, as suppliers of other
unsuspecting players :-). Jeff also posts from other accounts with
various personas, Bob Davis being one. There is a list of these
personas which is at the bottom of the FAQ below.

Correspondents with Jeff are simply unwittingly (or wittingly in the
odd case) playing Jeff's game.

To aid newcomers to come up to speed quickly and knowledgeably about
Jeff I have prepared a FAQ, the latest revision of which is below.

Cheers,

Darrell

p.s., I was pleased by the arrival of archive.org recently. An
entertaining page, of a net.kook analyzing a net.loon became again
available. If you read any of the URLs below, I do recommend Bob
Allisat's comments on Jeff at
http://web.archive.org/web/20000707224140/http://robin.fcn.net/mr99jeff.html

- --

 Jeff Williams' FAQ. (02/05)

- --

1. Who is Jeff Williams?

Jeffrey A. Williams, <[email-masked]>, has claimed in postings
to various lists:

- -- to be the Chief Executive Officer and the Co-Founder of the 4.8
billion dollar privately held employee owned INEG. INC

- -- to be the Director of Internet Network Engineering and Senior
Java/CORBA Engineer for the Information Network Engineering Group, INEG
INC.

- -- to be an ex-IBM Fellow,

- -- to have to have graduated from UTD and to have a law degree from SMU
Law School

- -- to have three degrees, MBA, Masters in Computer Science and
Engineering, and Law

- -- to have served as a judge for 7 years

- -- to be a member of the IETF

- -- to serve on several medium sized business boards and on the boards
of several banks

- -- to be the author of two books and is working on a third

- -- to own 3 ISPs, including Frisco net, Deltanet and Wiltel, with 1.6
million users

- -- to own 8% of eBay

- -- to have been a fighter pilot with USMC, flying missions in Chile and
for the DEA, as a reserve pilot in the USMC, stationed out of Grand
Prairie air station just south of Dallas

- -- to have been acting squadron commander of the Marine combat F4
squadron VMF214 (Black Sheep) at Tan Son Nhut during the Viet Nam war

- -- to have spent several years in NIS (Naval Investigative Service)

- -- Graduate of Naval Staff & War College

- -- Retired Colonel, United States Marine Corps

However,

- -- Jeff's 'INEG. INC' does not exist except as a fantasy in Jeff
Williams' mind.

- -- Jeff changed the name of the company in his .sig, in Jan 1998, from
'Information Eng. Group' to Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.,
when the real Information Engineering Group
<http://www.ieg-america.com/>, became aware of Jeff's use of their name.

- -- SMU Law School Registrar's office, (214) 768-2618, disclaims all
knowledge of Jeff.

Jeffrey A. Williams is a fake and an imposter.

- --

2. Is there other material available on Jeff Williams?

http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05347.html -- a
posting regarding Jeff's non-relationship with IEG. He changed the name
of his 'company' on his .sig from IEG to INEG shortly afterwards.

http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05398.html -- a
posting by Frederic Wilf regarding Jeff's claim to have attended SMU.

http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05525.html -- a
posting by Kent Crispin commenting on Jeff's claims.

http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08000.html -- a list
of Jeff's claims to 1998 by Alex Kamantauskas.

http://web.archive.org/web/20000707224140/http://robin.fcn.net/mr99jeff.html
an account of Bob Allisat's hour long phone call with Jeff and
subsequent events.

http://web.archive.org/web/20000616115116/http://robin.fcn.net/mr99ronydebunk.html
an account of Ellen Rony's attempt to attend  Jeff's INEG Dallas
conference.

http://www.fichtner.net/outlook/1999-01.html -- a German reporter's
article on Jeff... written in German, use
http://babelfish.altavista.com/ if you don't read German.

Note, Jeff has also posted under the following personas and email
addresses;  David "Dude" Jenson <[email-masked]>, Bob Davis
<[email-masked]>, James Touton <[email-masked]>,
 Brian C. Hollingsworth <[email-masked]>, and
Dillon Marshall Esq <[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: Thu, 23 May 2002 12:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

On Thu, 23 May 2002, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:25:32PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 May 2002, at 23:15 [=GMT-0400], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> > > You must be joking if you equate the registrars and registries with
> > > the business users. Don't mistake us. WE are users.
> >
> > A small but important part of the users, sure.
>
> Sorry, that is utter nonsense.
>
> *Most* domain names are registered for business purposes.

Businesses are a legal fiction and were not intended to supercede the
rights of individuals.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
         Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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: Thu, 23 May 2002 22:45:15 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] October 1st, 2002

- --=======3BA47E43=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7FA437E8; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Folks,
now that 65% voted for a new bid, we have to be consistent and discuss the 
Internet after the ICANN. If we show the DoC that there is a simple and 
efficient alternative to the ICANN, they will probably be interested in our 
vote (you may have noted that Joe left as soon as the vote was closed. He 
came to say that he said the vote could occur, that he participated to it, 
that he demonstrated that the ICANN did its job of keeping the sun rising 
every day on the DNS authoritative root serve system).

Let please correct me on this. We assume we are Oct. 1st 2002 and the ICANN 
is no more.

1. the sun rose in the DNS root server system using the DoC master file.

2. a ccTLD sent a fax with an IP address change for one of its server to 
Karen Rose who asked her EA to :
  a) enter the change in the master file before copying it to VSRN
  b) to remind her to propose that ccTLD manage the IP addresses changes by 
themselves using the secure way that bloody Jefsey uses for years for his 
own part of the root.

3. someone called the IAB to ask for a protocol number to the Chair. She 
sent it by mail after updating her Excel PSO page, copy to the ITU/T 
secretary for archiving and further reference.

4. a few mails were exchanged between ATT and other IP blocks owners to 
discuss one or two new RIRs to better organize and sell me.

5. Verisign, Neulevel Chairs sip a coffee, relaxing. They made it, still 
alive. No more expenses to relate with Joe Sims: they are free to make 
their own mistakes or develop new crazy schemes: the use will decide. 
ccTLDs are quite happy too; there is no more ICANN tax "give".

6. The other root administrators relax: they can now start cleaning the 
inclusive roots from TLD squatters. And welcome the new TLD managers.

7. a few ccTLD chose to resolve on the European root server system for 
better connectivity and back-up. Even one resolves on the European and on 
the USG root to test they are well synchronized.

8. for the first time in years, Louis Touton has slept 10 hours in a row 
and his on his way to the JDRP offices to be told his new impossible mission.

Now, do I miss. Where is the problem?

jfc

- --=======3BA47E43=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7FA437E8
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02

- --=======3BA47E43=======--

- --
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: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:25:33 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 08:44:59PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2002, at 09:58 [=GMT-0700], Kent Crispin wrote:
> > On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:25:32PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 May 2002, at 23:15 [=GMT-0400], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> > > > You must be joking if you equate the registrars and registries with
> > > > the business users. Don't mistake us. WE are users.
> > >
> > > A small but important part of the users, sure.
> >
> > Sorry, that is utter nonsense.
> 
> Sorry, you try to play a word game.

Don't you wish.

>  The small businesses have no vote
> either.

Once again, you need to deal with facts, rather than dogma.

Small businesses are in *fact* well represented in the BC.  In addition 
to the points that Bret made, there is also the *fact* that the BC 
includes associations that represent businesses as well as businesses 
directly.  Most notable among these is the International Chamber of 
Commerce, which represents hundreds of thousands of small businesses.  
And, if you are a small business that cares, you can join directly.  
(Though I agree with Bret that the dues should be lower.)

> Many of these are one-person-companies. Now don't come up with the
> BC of the DNSO. Small business people cannot afford the time to talk and
> talk and talk in the DNSO. They need a vote.

In addition to providing a vote, the BC very conveniently provides a
moderated mail list that limits the amount of traffic that the busy
small businessperson needs to endure.  If one does want to "discuss" ad 
nauseum, one can of course join the GA list for the unexpurgated stew.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1222
*************************