Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1269
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, June 11 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1269

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 19:40:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] i just sent the following to south africa

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 10:09 a.m. 9/06/2002 -0400, Joe Baptista wrote:
>
>
> >So if you trust the US government to control your computer then keep
> >using them - if not create your own.
> >
> >We use a commercial root provider for resolution - www.pacificroot.com
> >and as a result have access to a much larger internet system.
>
> Allow me a small chuckle, Joe.
>
> Who guarantees these sods that pacificroot, operated from Marina del Rey by
> an ex-DoD network guy with a rather colourful past,  (someone who once
> proudly mentioned a "done deal, and that's all I'm going to say about it"
> with ICANN staff about the non-recognition of the IDNO and who then
> proceeded to infiltrate the ORSC) is NOT involved in traffic surveillance?

Well I'm not really sure what this is all about - done deal - etc.  I
would prefer that national governments run thier own root.  My reference
to pacroot is simply to show by example that there are other options.

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: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 16:43:13 -0700
From: Loren Stocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [Verisign and WLS: The Mike Tysons of domain proposals]

Hi All,

Give Chuck Gomes enough rope and.... 

What I liked the best was his comment, "Why needlessly worry Registrants.." I
love this! In it's own words, Verisign admits WLS would "worry" Registrants.
Then goes on to suggest we best not tell them!

Also, the part that, "Even SnapNames admits that about half of their SnapBacks
are probably from speculators." Does Chuck not get it? It's the OTHER half --
and that's a hugh number of mostly individuals-- who are the very consumers
Versign believes are helpless or, in Chucks words, "they hardly have any
chance at all." Well, is this not absurd? They have SnapNames -- a very
effective tool! 

Finally, the WLS price should be high so, "it would be less profitable for
them [the speculators] and more beneficial for a regular consumer." Is this a
joke? Does anyone believe that $30 is going to deter speculation and benefit
consumers? Price may raise the threshold for using a WLS optioin, but the only
"benefit" is the windfall cash to VSRG. How does that benefit consumers?

In VSRG's defense, it has proven overall to that deletions are, "fairly and
uniformly" enforced-- so part of what Chuck says is true. But, Chuck is also
correct to say -- again in his own words -- "I don't have a clue what is ill
defined with regard to deletions." Verisign's expert spokeperson has now
confessed that he is indeed clueless that his sister company is withholding
hundreds of thousands of names from the public. Or, is that over a million?

Best, Loren

George Kirikos <[email-masked]> wrote:
Hello,

Last night, a post by Chuck Gomes was put up on the Transfers Task
Force mailing list, re: WLS, at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00252.html

I was going to respond this morning to its misinformation, but Ross
Radar did a masterful job at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00255.html

The most hilarious paragraph Chuck wrote was:

"[Gomes, Chuck] If the above two recommendations are based on the
reasoning in this document that has absolutely no documented, objective
data as its foundation, then the transfers task force has provided the
community with live evidence that the DNSO processes are horribly
flawed.  I would like to think that ICANN staff can recognize a
politically motivated action from one that is objectively based."

in response to the recommendations that WLS be rejected. I trust that
the ICANN staff can differentiate the words of those who are truly
looking out for consumers and competition, and those coming from a
self-serving abusive monopolist like Verisign. The only time Verisign
notices consumers is when they're running over them.

I also found it hilarious that Chuck tried to justify higher prices for
WLS as being in the interests of consumers. Verisign would have a lot
more credibility talking about benefits to consumers were it not doing
so while its hands are constantly in our pockets. In the immortal words
of Charlton Heston:

"Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!" 

While Verisign was once the 800 pound gorilla, a Mike Tyson of domains
that everyone feared, that could push around consumers, other
registrars, and even ICANN with impunity to serve its own needs, I'm
happy to see that the DNSO is looking to preserve competition through
its sound rejection of WLS. The DNSO is reminding Verisign that they
serve us, the consumers, and not the other way around. Their monopoly
becomes abusive the moment they forget that, and seek to enrich
themselves at the expense of all other market participants, as they
have attempted with WLS.

Just like Mike Tyson, Verisign's time has passed, as new agile
competitors have climbed the ranks, and sophisticated consumers no
longer believe the paternalistic "father knows best" routine emanating
from Virginia. Instead of offering us real values and innovation
through its offerings, a win-win scenario, Verisign has been revealed
"in the ring" to have limited skills, and has taken a pounding before
ultimately being knocked out.

With apologies to the ladies, Chuck's latest post shows to me that
Verisign hits like a girl, with no force or credibility behind its
arguments. 

The only question that remains is whether Verisign will say "no mas",
while we dance around the ring showing them the bolo punches, or
instead whether they will wait for "Lennox Lewis" at the ICANN meeting
to show them their final destiny.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

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

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 18:58:27 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] i just sent the following to south africa

Sunday, June 09, 2002, 12:30:45 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 10:09 a.m. 9/06/2002 -0400, Joe Baptista wrote:

>>So if you trust the US government to control your computer then keep
>>using them - if not create your own.
>>
>>We use a commercial root provider for resolution - www.pacificroot.com
>>and as a result have access to a much larger internet system.

> Allow me a small chuckle, Joe.

> Who guarantees these sods that pacificroot, operated from Marina del Rey by 
> an ex-DoD network guy with a rather colourful past,  (someone who once 
> proudly mentioned a "done deal, and that's all I'm going to say about it" 
> with ICANN staff about the non-recognition of the IDNO and who then 
> proceeded to infiltrate the ORSC) is NOT involved in traffic surveillance?

And there are black helicopters circling your residence right now,
Joop.

Can we keep paranoia and baseless allegations off the list, please?
Especially from someone who complains so loudly about others he
alleges make allegations and insinuations without proof.

Pot Kettle Black, Joop.

- -- 
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: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 19:14:17 -0700
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [Verisign and WLS: The Mike Tysons of domain proposals]

2. At the core of this frustration and concern is an ill defined and
poorly
enforced deletions policy and practice between the ICANN accredited
registrars, their agents and their registry.

[Gomes, Chuck] I don't have a clue what is ill defined with regard to
deletions.  It is very clearly defined from the registry point of view.
Moreover, the current practice with regard to deletions is fairly and
uniformly enforced for all registrars by VGRS.  It would be accurate to
say
that registrars have built various business models for the purposes of
grabbing deleted names.  Those business models are essentially the cause
of
the whole deleted names issue coming up in the first place.

Chuck Gomes points out that does not have a clue what ill defined
enforcement of deletions policy and practice is.  I have hence prepared
a single example of this, although we can provide many many more if
needed to illustrate the glaring issue:

POINT ONE: Verisign Registrar domain hoarding:

Registrant:
Graphics Co-op (WEBSITEGROUP-DOM)
3498 N. San Marcos Pl., Suite 6
Chandler, AZ 85224
USA

Domain Name: WEBSITEGROUP.COM
Record expires on 02-Aug-1998. <<<<====================
Record created on 02-Aug-1996.
Database last updated on 9-Jun-2002 21:06:11 EDT.

This is a domain held by VERISIGN Registrar, like tens of  thousands of
other domains held by Verisign Registrar past expiration dates of 1998,
1999, 2000 and 2001.  In this paricular domain's case - the consumer
would have paid FIVE TIMES THE WLS SUBSCRIPTION FEE FOR 1998, 1999,
2000, 2001 and 2002 while Registrar cybersquats on this domain.  Unless
there is a clearly defined UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DELETION POLICY  on
Registar Level, Registry's best of policies for domain deletion are
worthless since the domain will never get to the Registry delete pool in
the first place.  The only beneficiary  of WLS would be the cash grab by
Verisign Registry registry itself, drawing funds from a consumer who may
never have a chance to secure this domain due to Registrar's domain
hoarding.

POINT TWO: Conflict of Interest

WLS or any similar Registry sponsored effort is simply confilct of
interest as long as Registry also owns a Registrar.   Without a clearly
defined UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DELETION POLICY Verisign Registrar may
intentionally withold expiring of a certain domain name if the Verisign
Registrar knows that it's sister Company Verisign Registy stands to
benefit more by collecting WLS type of a fee indefinitely.  As there is
no specific rule that would force Verisign Registrar to delete any
domain within a specific time frame past the domain's paid/expiration
date, the problems of domain hoarding to the detriment of consumer by
one specific Registrar - e.g. the one owned by Verisign - will only
grow.

Sincerely,

Genie Livingstone
Magi Inc

- --
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, 09 Jun 2002 22:20:40 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [Verisign and WLS: The Mike Tysons of domain proposals]

Genie and all assembly members or other interested parties,

Genie Livingstone wrote:

> 2. At the core of this frustration and concern is an ill defined and
> poorly
> enforced deletions policy and practice between the ICANN accredited
> registrars, their agents and their registry.

  This is true.  And it is true mainly because ICANN refuses or cannot
do it's oversight responsibility as required under the White Paper and
the MoU...

>
>
> [Gomes, Chuck] I don't have a clue what is ill defined with regard to
> deletions.  It is very clearly defined from the registry point of view.
> Moreover, the current practice with regard to deletions is fairly and
> uniformly enforced for all registrars by VGRS.  It would be accurate to
> say
> that registrars have built various business models for the purposes of
> grabbing deleted names.  Those business models are essentially the cause
> of
> the whole deleted names issue coming up in the first place.
>
> Chuck Gomes points out that does not have a clue what ill defined
> enforcement of deletions policy and practice is.  I have hence prepared
> a single example of this, although we can provide many many more if
> needed to illustrate the glaring issue:
>
> POINT ONE: Verisign Registrar domain hoarding:
>
> Registrant:
> Graphics Co-op (WEBSITEGROUP-DOM)
> 3498 N. San Marcos Pl., Suite 6
> Chandler, AZ 85224
> USA
>
> Domain Name: WEBSITEGROUP.COM
> Record expires on 02-Aug-1998. <<<<====================
> Record created on 02-Aug-1996.
> Database last updated on 9-Jun-2002 21:06:11 EDT.
>
> This is a domain held by VERISIGN Registrar, like tens of  thousands of
> other domains held by Verisign Registrar past expiration dates of 1998,
> 1999, 2000 and 2001.  In this paricular domain's case - the consumer
> would have paid FIVE TIMES THE WLS SUBSCRIPTION FEE FOR 1998, 1999,
> 2000, 2001 and 2002 while Registrar cybersquats on this domain.  Unless
> there is a clearly defined UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DELETION POLICY  on
> Registar Level, Registry's best of policies for domain deletion are
> worthless since the domain will never get to the Registry delete pool in
> the first place.  The only beneficiary  of WLS would be the cash grab by
> Verisign Registry registry itself, drawing funds from a consumer who may
> never have a chance to secure this domain due to Registrar's domain
> hoarding.

  Yes it is an insidious and deceptive business practice in and of itself.

>
>
> POINT TWO: Conflict of Interest
>
> WLS or any similar Registry sponsored effort is simply confilct of
> interest as long as Registry also owns a Registrar.   Without a clearly
> defined UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DELETION POLICY Verisign Registrar may
> intentionally withold expiring of a certain domain name if the Verisign
> Registrar knows that it's sister Company Verisign Registy stands to
> benefit more by collecting WLS type of a fee indefinitely.

  Also agreed and this had been discussed in the two Phone Conferences
a couple of weeks ago.  But such a comprehensive policy is difficult
for ICANN or even WIPO to enforce should WIPO be the choice
of enforcement agent as we have seen already with the UDRP.  Than
you also have the jurisdictional issues...

> As there is
> no specific rule that would force Verisign Registrar to delete any
> domain within a specific time frame past the domain's paid/expiration
> date, the problems of domain hoarding to the detriment of consumer by
> one specific Registrar - e.g. the one owned by Verisign - will only
> grow.

  Also true, and is true now...

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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 20:39:01 -0700
From: Loren Stocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] Re: [Verisign and WLS: The Mike Tysons of domain proposals]]

Dear All,

Herein a clue for the clueless. There are a million more, I suspect.

Best, Loren

"Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]> wrote:
2. At the core of this frustration and concern is an ill defined and
poorly
enforced deletions policy and practice between the ICANN accredited
registrars, their agents and their registry.

[Gomes, Chuck] I don't have a clue what is ill defined with regard to
deletions.  It is very clearly defined from the registry point of view.
Moreover, the current practice with regard to deletions is fairly and
uniformly enforced for all registrars by VGRS.  It would be accurate to
say
that registrars have built various business models for the purposes of
grabbing deleted names.  Those business models are essentially the cause
of
the whole deleted names issue coming up in the first place.

Chuck Gomes points out that does not have a clue what ill defined
enforcement of deletions policy and practice is.  I have hence prepared
a single example of this, although we can provide many many more if
needed to illustrate the glaring issue:

POINT ONE: Verisign Registrar domain hoarding:

Registrant:
Graphics Co-op (WEBSITEGROUP-DOM)
3498 N. San Marcos Pl., Suite 6
Chandler, AZ 85224
USA

Domain Name: WEBSITEGROUP.COM
Record expires on 02-Aug-1998. <<<<====================
Record created on 02-Aug-1996.
Database last updated on 9-Jun-2002 21:06:11 EDT.

This is a domain held by VERISIGN Registrar, like tens of  thousands of
other domains held by Verisign Registrar past expiration dates of 1998,
1999, 2000 and 2001.  In this paricular domain's case - the consumer
would have paid FIVE TIMES THE WLS SUBSCRIPTION FEE FOR 1998, 1999,
2000, 2001 and 2002 while Registrar cybersquats on this domain.  Unless
there is a clearly defined UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DELETION POLICY  on
Registar Level, Registry's best of policies for domain deletion are
worthless since the domain will never get to the Registry delete pool in
the first place.  The only beneficiary  of WLS would be the cash grab by
Verisign Registry registry itself, drawing funds from a consumer who may
never have a chance to secure this domain due to Registrar's domain
hoarding.

POINT TWO: Conflict of Interest

WLS or any similar Registry sponsored effort is simply confilct of
interest as long as Registry also owns a Registrar.   Without a clearly
defined UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DELETION POLICY Verisign Registrar may
intentionally withold expiring of a certain domain name if the Verisign
Registrar knows that it's sister Company Verisign Registy stands to
benefit more by collecting WLS type of a fee indefinitely.  As there is
no specific rule that would force Verisign Registrar to delete any
domain within a specific time frame past the domain's paid/expiration
date, the problems of domain hoarding to the detriment of consumer by
one specific Registrar - e.g. the one owned by Verisign - will only
grow.

Sincerely,

Genie Livingstone
Magi Inc

- --
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, 9 Jun 2002 23:43:07 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] More examples of Predatory behavior by Verisign regarding transfers

See below email.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
wxWeb Enterprises
- --

The following is a forwarded message:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From:    Dave Navarro <[email-masked]>
Date:    Sunday, June 9, 2002, 7:27:24 PM
Subject: Domain transfer...
- --====----====----====----====----====----====----====----====----====----===--
We did a domain transfer this last week from Network Solutions to the 
company we use to manage our domains with interesting results...

First, the letter emailed to the customer by Network Solutions warned that 
in the possession of any other registrar, it was likely their domain would 
"suffer" and warned against the transfer.  Buried in the very bottom of the 
"very long" letter were the instructions on approving the transfer.

Second, after the transfer was finally approved, a solicitor from Network 
Solutions actually called the customer to again "warn them of pending doom" 
and offer to transfer the domain back and add two more years for $9.95.

I had to spend 10 minutes on the phone calming the client down and explain 
that everything will be fine without Network Solutions.  Geez...

- --Dave

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
End of original 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, 10 Jun 2002 11:54:53 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] i just sent the following to south africa

Hmmmm, perhaps that is why choice is good, Joop, although I can't think of 
a reason why pacroot would want to monitor traffic in the manner to which 
Joe refers.  For that matter, ORSC could do the same, but again, why would 
they?  The USG would be more likely to do this, as would other governments.

Choice is always good.  The more roots in operation, the more choice. 
Personally, I enjoy having the entire "net" at my disposal, but the more 
important point is that if there were a problem with the USG root, I'm 
covered.  I can, at will, change which root I use.  Joe's point is that 
there is a need for more root systems and especially for those areas that 
are being hurt by the ICANN/IANA's lack of cooperation with ccTLDs such as 
.NZ.  Nothing is infallible and all roots can fail at one time or another. 
 The more, the better.

Leah

On 10 Jun 2002, at 7:30, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 10:09 a.m. 9/06/2002 -0400, Joe Baptista wrote:
> 
> 
> >So if you trust the US government to control your computer then keep
> >using them - if not create your own.
> >
> >We use a commercial root provider for resolution - www.pacificroot.com and
> >as a result have access to a much larger internet system.
> 
> Allow me a small chuckle, Joe.
> 
> Who guarantees these sods that pacificroot, operated from Marina del Rey by
> an ex-DoD network guy with a rather colourful past,  (someone who once
> proudly mentioned a "done deal, and that's all I'm going to say about it"
> with ICANN staff about the non-recognition of the IDNO and who then
> proceeded to infiltrate the ORSC) is NOT involved in traffic surveillance?
> 
> 
> --Joop
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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, 10 Jun 2002 09:07:14 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Unity Registry Announces Bid for .org

Unity Registry Announces Bid for .org  (Business Wire)
Unity Registry, a new joint venture between UK-based Poptel, registry
operator for the .coop global Top Level Domain, and AusRegistry,
operator of the .au country code domains, will be launched on Monday
10th June 2002.

http://rd.yahoo.com/alerts/email/news/*http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020610/90019_1.html

- -- 
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, 10 Jun 2002 18:02:45 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Jerry Falwell won't get Jerryfalwell.com WIPO says...

All assembly members,

  More WIPO logic.  See:
http://www.citizen.org/hot_issues/issue.cfm?ID=261

Excerpts: "The Rev. Jerry Falwell's attempts to shut down a Web site
                 that uses his name in its address and parodies some of
                 Falwell's statements have the goal of bullying Internet
                 posters and suppressing dissent, a response filed today
                 by Public Citizen with the World Intellectual Property
                Organization (WIPO) says.

                Illinois resident Gary Cohn maintains a non-commercial
                site under the domain names jerryfalwell.com and
                jerryfallwell.com. The site makes fun of Falwell for 
                blaming the September 11 attacks on the supposed moral
                decline of America and parodies the way Falwell cites
                Bible verses to make moral judgments."

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:07:20 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] i just sent the following to south africa

At 11:54 a.m. 10/06/2002 -0400, L. Gallegos wrote:
>Hmmmm, perhaps that is why choice is good, Joop, although I can't think of
>a reason why pacroot would want to monitor traffic in the manner to which
>Joe refers.

Leah,

I agree that in general choice is good and that single points of failure 
should be avoided, but my whole point was that the choice should always be 
an *informed* choice.

Awareness of the fact that William X. Walsh contracted to write the 
software (POSSR2) for pacificroot , but maintains in public that he opposes 
"alternate" roots and wants their very discussion off limits here should 
help make people their informed choices.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:49:55 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Jerry Falwell won't get Jerryfalwell.com WIPO says...

Well Jeffy my man you put it out there;

I think it is damnable deplorable and outright scandalous (although Jerry
and I do not see eye to eye).

But I would gladly give my very life to allow him the right to have such
freedom of speech.
We all owe a duty to our lessor enabled brothers and sisters to defend the
freedoms which are inalienable.
Each culture and ccTLD must decide for themselves what works within their
LIC but the more freedom the better for all of us concerned.

I do not necessarily agree with Jerry's virtue, but I will walk my children
through both sites to make sure that they understand the hazards and
correctness for standing for something.

The Internet will fall for anything if it does not stand for freedom of
thought and communication.

Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> All assembly members,
>
>   More WIPO logic.  See:
> http://www.citizen.org/hot_issues/issue.cfm?ID=261
>
> Excerpts: "The Rev. Jerry Falwell's attempts to shut down a Web site
>                  that uses his name in its address and parodies some of
>                  Falwell's statements have the goal of bullying Internet
>                  posters and suppressing dissent, a response filed today
>                  by Public Citizen with the World Intellectual Property
>                 Organization (WIPO) says.
>
>                 Illinois resident Gary Cohn maintains a non-commercial
>                 site under the domain names jerryfalwell.com and
>                 jerryfallwell.com. The site makes fun of Falwell for
>                 blaming the September 11 attacks on the supposed moral
>                 decline of America and parodies the way Falwell cites
>                 Bible verses to make moral judgments."
>
> 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

- --
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 #1269
*************************