Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1251
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, May 31 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1251

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:51:35 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA 

Michael, as one of the people who helped to organize the BC, I 
don't share your memories of the "early days" at all and wonder 
why you have such a different view than I do...--  or memory, might
be a better term, to use in this instance.

During the IFWP, and by working together, the community identified different constitueny 
groups/categories.  Many of us who worked during the IFWP have
a different recollection than your message conveyed... or so, I suspect...

As I recall,after helping to develop
a framework for the DNSO, different individuals then went on to
self organize into the constituencies... or some of them... 

I would think that the ccTLDs certainly think that they 'organized' into 
their constituency. I know the BC did; I think that Antonio Harris might
comment on the ISPCP... ditto for the IPC.... 

I am surprised that is forgotten.. ... I still remember THAT
endless round of calls, emails, drafting, etc.

Regards,

Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 11:38 AM
To: Philip Sheppard
Cc: GA List
Subject: Re: [ga] GA 

You said:
"The argument should be - who are the stakeholders? Agree on them, and
once they self-organise get them round the table and in the new DNSO and
new GA."

I took this to mean that there is some debate about who the stakeholders
are.  If you meant "we all agree who the stakeholders are, so we should
set up appropriate structures for them", that would be different.  But
that's not at all what you said, or am I missing something?

Note that none of the existing NC constitutencies *really* self-organized
in that they were identified by ICANN ex ante.

On Fri, 31 May 2002, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Michael Froomkin wrote:
> "It's obvious that at the  very least all domain name registrants are 'stakeholders' under even the most restrictive definition, since they are directly and personally effected by ICANN's decisions (e.g. the UDRP). That you still question this calls a great deal into doubt".  
> 
> Just exactly when did I question this ?  The essence of my posting was to ask if accommodating such stakeholders via an e-mail list called the GA could not be improved upon.
> 
> 
> Philip
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

- --
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: Fri, 31 May 2002 13:04:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA 

I am not saying that once the constituencies were fixed - or even before
they were official - some people didn't self organize them to determine
their membership. As you note in many cases they did indeed.  But what I'm
saying this that fix was in for *what the constituencies would be* and
that is what *motivated* those efforts (and is why to this day we don't
have an individual domain name holders' group, an academic group, a small
business group, etc.). 

As I recall it, the IFWP vision was vastly differnent from what we in fact
got from the WITSA-INTA-ITAA-gTLD-Mou POC alliance (I'm doing this without
notes, so apologies if I missed out a group or added one that didn't
belong) which substantially produced the DNSO we have.

I don't know why you felt a need to add all the cc's.  Ordinarily I'd trim
them, but I've left them this time. 

On Fri, 31 May 2002, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> 
> Michael, as one of the people who helped to organize the BC, I 
> don't share your memories of the "early days" at all and wonder 
> why you have such a different view than I do...--  or memory, might
> be a better term, to use in this instance.
> 
> During the IFWP, and by working together, the community identified different constitueny 
> groups/categories.  Many of us who worked during the IFWP have
> a different recollection than your message conveyed... or so, I suspect...
> 
> As I recall,after helping to develop
> a framework for the DNSO, different individuals then went on to
> self organize into the constituencies... or some of them... 
> 
> I would think that the ccTLDs certainly think that they 'organized' into 
> their constituency. I know the BC did; I think that Antonio Harris might
> comment on the ISPCP... ditto for the IPC.... 
> 
> I am surprised that is forgotten.. ... I still remember THAT
> endless round of calls, emails, drafting, etc.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Marilyn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 11:38 AM
> To: Philip Sheppard
> Cc: GA List
> Subject: Re: [ga] GA 
> 
> 
> 
> You said:
> "The argument should be - who are the stakeholders? Agree on them, and
> once they self-organise get them round the table and in the new DNSO and
> new GA."
> 
> I took this to mean that there is some debate about who the stakeholders
> are.  If you meant "we all agree who the stakeholders are, so we should
> set up appropriate structures for them", that would be different.  But
> that's not at all what you said, or am I missing something?
> 
> Note that none of the existing NC constitutencies *really* self-organized
> in that they were identified by ICANN ex ante.
> 
> 
> On Fri, 31 May 2002, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> 
> > Michael Froomkin wrote:
> > "It's obvious that at the  very least all domain name registrants are 'stakeholders' under even the most restrictive definition, since they are directly and personally effected by ICANN's decisions (e.g. the UDRP). That you still question this calls a great deal into doubt".  
> > 
> > Just exactly when did I question this ?  The essence of my posting was to ask if accommodating such stakeholders via an e-mail list called the GA could not be improved upon.
> > 
> > 
> > Philip
> > 
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

- --
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, 2 Jun 2002 10:57:49 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] how to deal with liars?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] how to deal with liars?

> Thursday, May 16, 2002, 3:34:38 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > How should we deal with someone who purposefully misrepresents his
> > identity, and participates in this list on a very active basis?
>
> Expose the information to the rest of the members, let them make
> their own judgements.

This may have safe harbor implications since there is nothing in the current
rules/charter about having to be truthful in anything you post as contact
data.

Todd

>
> > Should such an individual be permanently blocked from posting?
>
> No, Provided they are not violating the multiple identity solution.
>
> > Should such an individual also be blocked from receiving the GA list
> > through e-mail?
>
> No, Provided they are not violating the multiple identity solution.
>
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 31 May 2002 18:17:46 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ccTLDs in early ICANN - Was: [ga] your comments

t byfield wrote:
>
>how would developing criteria differ from applying them to a 'reformed'
>ICANN? well, let me ask you what a 'reformed' ICANN would mean. my own
>feeling is that for 'reformed' to have any practical meaning, at least
>the following criteria would need to be applied:
>
>      - it could not employ anyone currently employed by ICANN
>      - its board could not include any member of ICANN's 'initial'
>        or 'interim' board
>      - it could not be legally represented by JDRP
>

Funny that you focus only on *who* and not *what*.
Well, than if somebody (Bin Laden?) will make a bid for NewCo against Vint 
Cerf, according to your criteria it should be preferred.

>
>therefore, i would suggest that discussions of how to reform the unre-
>formable is a waste of time. it would make much more sense to discuss
>criteria for a new organization -- and not least because we've already
>had these conversations, in the form of the IFWP. looking back on those
>records with the benefit of subsequent experience seems like a good way
>to proceed. in particular, it opens up the possibility of articulating
>positive goals rather than dwelling on past negations.

Ever heard about "Internet Times"? IFWP is several generations ago.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

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

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 13:24:39 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] GA 

Philip,

Same subject (misrepresentation), different point.

I notice when reading the NC meeting notes that comments made by Thomas or 
Alexander are included in the notes; however their presence at the meeting 
is not recognized by whomever takes role call.

I am identifying this as a PROBLEM with your book-keeping and wonder who 
else is invited to these meetings, attends and is not included in the role 
call portion of the minutes.

It is disrespectful to the DNSO as a whole to not provide correct 
information about who attended what.

Is there a specific reason why the GA Chair and Alt Chair are not included 
in the attendance roster?

Thanks,

~k

At 04:28 PM 5/31/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>Thomas,
>I do believe there is a degree of suicidal misinterpretation of the 
>current NC recommendations.
>
>
>The chair and alt-chair of the GA have been invited by the Names Council 
>to participate in discussions in ICANN evolution. That invitation stands. 
>Your perspectives are learned, reasoned and valued. Today you represent 
>the dual role of today's GA.
>
>
>The NC has not said it wants to disenfranchise anyone. It has redefined 
>the role of the general assembly as being the meeting point for 
>stakeholders. The GA envisaged is not intended to fulfil the existing dual 
>role of today's GA.
>
>
>The argument should be - who are the stakeholders? Agree on them, and once 
>they self-organise get them round the table and in the new DNSO and new GA.
>
>
>So, the question remains,  how can individual opinion not so 
>self-organised be factored into decision making ?
>Is there something desirable about today's GA  and the respect it receives 
>in trying to do this?
>Is there possibly a better means of factoring in individual opinion?
>The NC recommendation tries to address this.
>
>Philip
>
>

- --
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: Fri, 31 May 2002 14:30:19 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ccTLDs in early ICANN - Was: [ga] your comments

[email-masked] (Fri 05/31/02 at 06:17 PM +0000):

> >feeling is that for 'reformed' to have any practical meaning, at least
> >the following criteria would need to be applied:
> >
> >     - it could not employ anyone currently employed by ICANN
> >     - its board could not include any member of ICANN's 'initial'
> >       or 'interim' board
> >     - it could not be legally represented by JDRP
> 
> Funny that you focus only on *who* and not *what*.
> Well, than if somebody (Bin Laden?) will make a bid for NewCo against Vint 
> Cerf, according to your criteria it should be preferred.

wrong. i said: 'AT LEAST the following criteria.' and i went on to 
talk about why this 'personal' approach was inadequate -- but you 
snipped that part out so you could say something 'clever.'

> >therefore, i would suggest that discussions of how to reform the unre-
> >formable is a waste of time. it would make much more sense to discuss
> >criteria for a new organization -- and not least because we've already
> >had these conversations, in the form of the IFWP. looking back on those
> >records with the benefit of subsequent experience seems like a good way
> >to proceed. in particular, it opens up the possibility of articulating
> >positive goals rather than dwelling on past negations.
> 
> Ever heard about "Internet Times"? IFWP is several generations ago.

ever heard of sophistry? it's 2500 years old and still going strong.
do you have an actual argument, or are we supposed to dispose of all
that work merely because you like quoting old WiReD covers?

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: Fri, 31 May 2002 18:58:36 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA

Michael Froomkin wrote:

>
>As I recall it, the IFWP vision was vastly differnent from what we in fact
>got from the WITSA-INTA-ITAA-gTLD-Mou POC alliance (I'm doing this without
>notes, so apologies if I missed out a group or added one that didn't
>belong) which substantially produced the DNSO we have.
>

I could not fail to notice an increasing insistence (and not only in this 
list) in trying to resuscitate the dead body of the IFWP.
The funny coincidence is that this effort goes in parallel with the effort 
in re-writing history (i.e., ccTLDs were irrelevant in the ICANN building 
process).

Of course, it is very cleverly done.
Drop a line here, add a cc-list there, insist on general statements without 
urls or precise references, but then, slowly slowly, it becomes the talk of 
the town. And all of a sudden everybody is convinced that Sacco and Vanzetti 
are responsible for the facts, and must be hung.

Can we possibly separate the gossip from the facts, provide evidence for 
what we claim, distinguish the nice and cosy feeling of "the way we were" 
from the acceptance of the (hard?) reality of today?

My opinion:
ICANN has been chosen by USG (DoC), there's no evidence that it has been 
given results that were not in line with the desiderata of its owner.
Please stop claiming that USG has been victim of the international communist 
plot by the Gnomes of Zurich, USG has been in charge and in command, and not 
fooled by anybody or anything.
If there has been a mistake in choosing the right candidate the first time 
(which is still open to debate), there is nothing that indicated that the 
chooser has developed a better judgement. Therefore either we have to change 
the chooser, or we have to provide criteria to make the choice (on 
substance, of course, not just "anybody besides the previous one").
IFWP can hardly be put as an example of "inclusion", and it was only after 
much hard work (and a couple of strokes of luck) that its initial 
US-centricness has been (slightly) modified to accept other views.

Also, I don't really see the similarities of the current ICANN with the 
gTLD-MoU model or alliance: surely the US-centrism, the failure to separate 
registrar and registry, the slowlyness in adding new TLDs, and so on and so 
forth with were not part of the gTLD-MoU agenda.

Anyway, no point in rehashing the past, except that we have to remember it 
in order not to repeat it.

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

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

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 15:19:05 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Still more fraud being reported...

From the registrars list:

Afilias released 17022 names in the .INFO Landrush 2, however the same
People who registered these 17022 FRAUDULENT SUNRISE Names, continue to own
another 14000+ names which have NOT been challenged by Afilias (The numbers
may not be exact - check inaccuracies section on online report)

For instance lets take the LARGEST Fraudulent Domain Registrant -
Plankenstein, who had fraudulently registered 4938 .INFO Domains in the
Sunrise period. Plankenstein still continues to own approximately 140
Sunrise domains after the Afilias Landrush is over. Check the whois on
alava.info, aragon.info, avila.info etc.

Visit http://dotinfo.directi.com for the complete research (an interesting
study born out of one night of insomnia and boredom)

A far more smarter FRAUD which has gone undetected is that of
[email-masked]. In the .INFO Sunrise this email address had
registered 663 .INFO NAMES. After the Afilias Challenge the same email
address continues to hold 646 UNCHALLENGED names. Check the whois on
accelerator.info, airwear.info, findus.info. Notice that very smartly this
person has put in DIFFERENT Registrants for each domain name, however the
FUNNY part is that EVERY DOMAIN NAME has a trademark date of 2000-10-01 and
all the Registrants share the same email address (oh yea and all of them
have a funny phone number too).

Check out the Complete list at http://dotinfo.directi.com

Best Regards
Bhavin Turakhia
CEO
Directi

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02477.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: Fri, 31 May 2002 16:02:16 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA

[email-masked] (Fri 05/31/02 at 06:58 PM +0000):

> I could not fail to notice an increasing insistence (and not only in this 
> list) in trying to resuscitate the dead body of the IFWP.

i can't speak for others, but i can say that in response to your question 
about criteria one could apply either to a re- form of ICANN or to a pos-
sible successor, i mentioned *looking back at those materials with the 
benefit of hindsight*. this you dismissed with vaporous rhetoric about 
'internet years´ and, now, with a rather silly necromancy metaphor.

> ICANN has been chosen by USG (DoC), there's no evidence that it has been 
> given results that were not in line with the desiderata of its owner.
> Please stop claiming that USG has been victim of the international 
> communist plot by the Gnomes of Zurich, USG has been in charge and in 
> command, and not fooled by anybody or anything.

for reasons of economy i snipped our your bit about rewriting history,
but it seems odd that you'd make that claim then indulge in this kind
of rubbish.

> Anyway, no point in rehashing the past, except that we have to remember it 
> in order not to repeat it.

for reasons of economy i snipped out your bit about the MoUvement, but
if this is how you mangle santayana, i'd be curious to hera how you do
the same to marx's observation that thef irst time it's a tragedy, the
second time a farce.

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: Fri, 31 May 2002 16:16:02 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Still more fraud being reported...

Who is supposed to enforce these things?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 3:19 PM
Subject: [ga] Still more fraud being reported...

: From the registrars list:
:
: Afilias released 17022 names in the .INFO Landrush 2, however the same
: People who registered these 17022 FRAUDULENT SUNRISE Names, continue to
own
: another 14000+ names which have NOT been challenged by Afilias (The
numbers
: may not be exact - check inaccuracies section on online report)
:
: For instance lets take the LARGEST Fraudulent Domain Registrant -
: Plankenstein, who had fraudulently registered 4938 .INFO Domains in the
: Sunrise period. Plankenstein still continues to own approximately 140
: Sunrise domains after the Afilias Landrush is over. Check the whois on
: alava.info, aragon.info, avila.info etc.
:
: Visit http://dotinfo.directi.com for the complete research (an interesting
: study born out of one night of insomnia and boredom)
:
: A far more smarter FRAUD which has gone undetected is that of
: [email-masked]. In the .INFO Sunrise this email address had
: registered 663 .INFO NAMES. After the Afilias Challenge the same email
: address continues to hold 646 UNCHALLENGED names. Check the whois on
: accelerator.info, airwear.info, findus.info. Notice that very smartly this
: person has put in DIFFERENT Registrants for each domain name, however the
: FUNNY part is that EVERY DOMAIN NAME has a trademark date of 2000-10-01
and
: all the Registrants share the same email address (oh yea and all of them
: have a funny phone number too).
:
: Check out the Complete list at http://dotinfo.directi.com
:
: Best Regards
: Bhavin Turakhia
: CEO
: Directi
:
: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02477.html
: --
: This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
: Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
: ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
: Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
:
:
:

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

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 22:19:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Still more fraud being reported...

what do you expect from a company whose own directors and board members broke their own policies.
if you want some names:
1. Philipp Grabensee
2. Govinda Leopold
3. Eric Schätzlein
...
and more

> From the registrars list:
> Afilias released 17022 names in the .INFO Landrush 2, however the same
> People who registered these 17022 FRAUDULENT SUNRISE Names, continue to own
> another 14000+ names which have NOT been challenged by Afilias (The numbers
> may not be exact - check inaccuracies section on online report)
> For instance lets take the LARGEST Fraudulent Domain Registrant -
> Plankenstein, who had fraudulently registered 4938 .INFO Domains in the
> Sunrise period. Plankenstein still continues to own approximately 140
> Sunrise domains after the Afilias Landrush is over. Check the whois on
> alava.info, aragon.info, avila.info etc.
> Visit http://dotinfo.directi.com for the complete research (an interesting
> study born out of one night of insomnia and boredom)
> A far more smarter FRAUD which has gone undetected is that of
> [email-masked]. In the .INFO Sunrise this email address had
> registered 663 .INFO NAMES. After the Afilias Challenge the same email
> address continues to hold 646 UNCHALLENGED names. Check the whois on
> accelerator.info, airwear.info, findus.info. Notice that very smartly this
> person has put in DIFFERENT Registrants for each domain name, however the
> FUNNY part is that EVERY DOMAIN NAME has a trademark date of 2000-10-01 and
> all the Registrants share the same email address (oh yea and all of them
> have a funny phone number too).
> Check out the Complete list at http://dotinfo.directi.com
> Best Regards
> Bhavin Turakhia
> CEO
> Directi
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02477.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ('unsubscribe ga' in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 22:23:06 +0200 (CEST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Still more fraud being reported...

what do you expect from a company whose own directors and board members broke their own policies.
if you want some names:
1. Philipp Grabensee
2. Govinda Leopold
3. Eric Schätzlein
...
and more

as we all know Mr. Palage from Afilias is a subscriber of this list.
maybe he could explain something....but I think I know the answer: it was a software glitch, right?

> From the registrars list:
> Afilias released 17022 names in the .INFO Landrush 2, however the same
> People who registered these 17022 FRAUDULENT SUNRISE Names, continue to own
> another 14000+ names which have NOT been challenged by Afilias (The numbers
> may not be exact - check inaccuracies section on online report)
> For instance lets take the LARGEST Fraudulent Domain Registrant -
> Plankenstein, who had fraudulently registered 4938 .INFO Domains in the
> Sunrise period. Plankenstein still continues to own approximately 140
> Sunrise domains after the Afilias Landrush is over. Check the whois on
> alava.info, aragon.info, avila.info etc.
> Visit http://dotinfo.directi.com for the complete research (an interesting
> study born out of one night of insomnia and boredom)
> A far more smarter FRAUD which has gone undetected is that of
> [email-masked]. In the .INFO Sunrise this email address had
> registered 663 .INFO NAMES. After the Afilias Challenge the same email
> address continues to hold 646 UNCHALLENGED names. Check the whois on
> accelerator.info, airwear.info, findus.info. Notice that very smartly this
> person has put in DIFFERENT Registrants for each domain name, however the
> FUNNY part is that EVERY DOMAIN NAME has a trademark date of 2000-10-01 and
> all the Registrants share the same email address (oh yea and all of them
> have a funny phone number too).
> Check out the Complete list at http://dotinfo.directi.com
> Best Regards
> Bhavin Turakhia
> CEO
> Directi
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02477.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ('unsubscribe ga' in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 16:53:47 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] your comments - The Joe Sims saga/exchange continues...

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> Sorry Joe, the real issue as I documented it in a private detailed mails -
> so you cannot say we do not try to respond willingly, positively, with well
> made points, out of any dispute and virtual tomatoing  - is a real
> misunderstanding of what is the expectation of the world community about
> the ICANN.

  You are not the only one that has done this Jefsey.  Many others have
as well, and with little understanding or interest displayed or known
on the part of the ICANN BoD and staff...

>
>
> The ICANN is not the Internet owner. We are the owners. All of us, you
> included.

  Good point.  And made to the ICANN BoD and staff on many occasions
as well.  But Jefsey and all, I am sure that Joe recognizes this although
his along with other ICANN staff and a few ICANN BOD members
sometimes act or behave as though THEY ALONE own the internet,
the DNS, the IP Registries, and control the Protocol standards and development.
Although this may simply be a perception problem, it is none the less
now a HUGE problem for ICANN as the REBID consideration is
now gaining allot of support...

>
>
> You own 1/550.000.000 of the Internet and your share alone, as mine, as
> anyone here is no real worth if we are alone.
>
> Now we are organized at two community levels. Local and Global. Our Trustee
> for the local community should be/is the ccTLD manager (RFC 920/1591). Our
> Trustee for the Global community should be/is the IANA.

  Yes if these organizations are TRUSTED.  The IANA as you know in the
past has had severe trust problems before ICANN was in existence.

>
>
> 2 questions:
>
> 1. First Question : ccTLDs have well defined that their legitimacy comes
> from their local community (Best Practices in MdR 2000). ICANN has not done
> the same yet. ICANN legitimacy can come in three ways.
>
> - from the USG as the owner of the former private Arpanet system - they
> dont want it anymore
> - from the owners at large - but you say that the delegation of trust
> though votes is a problem
> - form the owners' trustees - the ccTLDs and partly the gTLDs.

  Well Jefsey I think you are leaving out a couple of other Key elements.
The IETF/IESG and the IP registries...

>
>
> As long as you do not accept that, none of your proposition will stand as
> the owners and their trustees and their trustees supports (Govs, laws,
> consumers, techs, etc..) are eventually bigger than any "Internet Yalta"
> you might form. As soon as you accept this for the IANA, you will have full
> support from every one.

  Good point here as well Jefsey.  Well done!  I would add that when the IANA
and the IP registries also through the ASO or some future equivalent
become trusted and recognize the LOCAL control aspect from a
country stand point at least, such trust in ICANN will not be forthcoming.
This has not been accomplished, and it doesn't look now as though with the
present ICANN BoD and Staff that is will be accomplished.  Hence
again the growing interest and consideration of the now REBID
option voted upon by the DNSO GA members.

>
>
> 2. Second Question : apart from its duties to the IANA function, the ICANN
> may certainly claim the right to organize the "legacy" space (JonPostel's
> Private Net) from the USG legitimacy. The way you organize it is up to you:
> it has its own problems with the size of VRSN, the ACPA and the UDRP... I
> however feel you will succeed if you try to join the standard way rather
> then building a different one.

  Yes building a different one is what is referred to by the ICANN BoD and
staff as the "ICANN Experiment".

>
>
> Anyway, this gives you no right over non-US namespaces. I understand that
> you would like to have some and rule the world as an American world. But I
> am afraid France, China, UK, Japan or Burkina-Fasso are grown enough to
> have heir own management of their namespace. And their Govs have the right
> and the duty to their own citizens, to have an independent digital
> international relations policy.

  Yes these countries as well as the EU have their own independent digital
policies and more countries are in various stages of developing theirs
as well that greatly differ from the "ICANN Experiment" .  These
need to be addressed individually, and most importantly with the full
active participation of the Stakeholder/user community, which as
you earlier pointed out Jefsey, are the owners...

>
>
> What you risk to obtain is the contrary of what you want. Today the ccTLDs
> feel dependent from the ICANN/US root. But China has already made the move,
> and I suspect that from the Stuart attempt to take over the root system,
> several others consider it. If they keep concerted (with the ICANN) it will
> be OK and will improve the global DNS stability and resilience. But if they
> dont ...

  Part, and many would and have argued that to a great degree, diversity
in the DNS is it's single biggest stability factor as well as greatly improving
resilience.  However the ICANN BoD and staff steadfastly refuse or
continue to resist this precept or fact.  As such, the continuing moving
away from the "ICANN Experiment" will indeed impact ecommerce
security and resilience accordingly.

>
>
> jfc
>
> On 21:15 30/05/02, Joe Sims said:
> >I appreciate the clarification.  And you have certainly highlighted some
> >issues that are important to some people.  The issue of cc's that act like
> >gTLDs is a particularly relevant issue; if a cc registry is going to
> >aggressively solicit name registrations from people all over the world,
> >shouldn't it have to meet the same minimum standards as do gTLDs?  Such
> >things as escrow requirements to protect against failure, dispute
> >resolution procedures or something equivalent to guard against
> >cybersquatting, whois systems that actually work so people can find our who
> >to contact when an issue arises  -- stuff like this?  It is one thing to
> >argue that a ccTLD that restricts registrations to its nationals or
> >residents of the country of its charter should have the "right" to do what
> >it wants on these points, since those adversely affected always have
> >recourse to the national government, local courts, etc.  But when the
> >registry decides to take advantage of the stable global DNS to attract
> >registrants that, as a practical matter, do not have those protections, and
> >can do so only because the rest of the world is working together through
> >ICANN to maintain the global infrastructure that permits that behavior,
> >that seems to me to be a different situation altogether.  As I understand
> >the ICANN position, there is no desire to interfere in any way with local
> >policy development; that should be up to the local community.  But when the
> >registry takes actions that have global implications or effects, it should
> >be subject, as are all other similarly situated registries, to the global
> >policy development process.  What I take from your post is that you want
> >someone else to shoulder the burdens of preserving and protecting the
> >global DNS that makes it possible for the ccTLDs to function, but to
> >basically leave you alone to do with it what you please (although maybe you
> >would be willing to contribute to the purely mechanical work of keeping
> >your database records straight).  In antitrust economics, this is called
> >"free-riding" and is generally not considered something to be admired or
> >protected.
> >
> >
> >Joe Sims
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >                     DPF
> >
> >                     <[email-masked]     To:     "Joe Sims"
> > <[email-masked]>
> >                     m>                   cc:
> > [email-masked], [email-masked]
> >                                          Subject:     Re: [ga] your
> > comments
> >
> >
> >                     05/30/02
> > 02:48
> >
> >                     PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 30 May 2002 08:35:52 -0400, "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
> >wrote:
> > >Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > the cctlds have been one of the supporters of the
> >
> > > ICANN project since its inception
> >
> > >
> > >It is certainly true that some ccTLDs have been very supportive, and it is
> > >also true that many ccTLDs will say privately that they do not support the
> > >more radical statements of their "leaders," but as far as I can tell, your
> > >position has been that the cc's that you speak for will come into ICANN
> > >only if ICANN agrees that they get to have a veto over any ICANN policies
> > >that they don't care to follow.
> >
> >This is not my understanding.  the position AFAIK is that on a narrow
> >range of technical policy issues, ccTLDs are happy to adhere to a
> >global policy in the interests of making the Internet work.  In fact
> >they all pretty much adhere to them now.  Such policies may be number
> >of name servers, geographical diversity of name servers etc.
> >
> >What ccTLDs are not keen to do is give ICANN power to impose the UDRP
> >(for example) on them.  Or to be able to unilaterally declare that
> >certain ccTLDS which do not restrict registrations will in future be
> >treated like gTLDs.
> >
> > >We might be able to agree that all parties
> > >could have perfomed better over the last years, and by that I mean all
> > >parties -- the GAC, cc administrators, ICANN staff and Board, and
> > >individual national governments.  But there is still a core issue:  do the
> > >operators of these particular TLD registries have any obligation to the
> > >global Internet community, in addition to their obvious responsibilities
> >to
> > >their local Internet community?
> >
> >Yes - the obligation is on narrow technical issues of
> >inter-operability.  But no there is not an obligation to be forced to
> >spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for example on changing all
> >their registry databases to conform to a standard whois specification
> >which is not a technical necessity but a preference of certain people.
> >
> > >If they do, ICANN is the vehicle for
> > >establishing policies that reflect that obligation to the global
> >community.
> > >This has been the position of the staff, and the Board, and the GAC, from
> > >the beginning, and until this principle is accepted, it seems unlikely
> >that
> > >we will make much progress.
> >
> >The ccTLDs have stated they will accept ICANN policies but only in
> >certain pre defined areas.  I do not  believe they will not give carte
> >blanche decision making authority to ICANN, especially when ICANN has
> >shown itself numerous times to ignore the advice of SOs on matters
> >which affect them.
> >
> > >From your posting and its continuing criticism
> > >of the GAC principles, I don't see much sign of progress.  Nevertheless, I
> > >look forward to your upcoming meeting, and hope that it will help bring
> > >closure to what has to date been an unproductive debate.
> >
> >I would also ask why ICANN has to be the body to establish global
> >ccTLD policies?  WHy not a world federation of ccTLDs?  Now that ICANN
> >has abandoned any pretence to being a representative body, why is it
> >more suited to decide what is good for the global internet community
> >compared to say such a federation of ccTLDS.  At least the majority of
> >them allow individual registrants the ability to join and vote on
> >policy issues.
> >
> >DPF
> >
> >(PS - note once again I speak for myself not for InternetNZ in this
> >forum)
> >--
> >[email-masked]
> >ICQ 29964527
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >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: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Part 1.2   Type: Plain Text (text/plain)

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1251
*************************