Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1291
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, June 21 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1291

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Hello,

- --- "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]> wrote:
> How do I look up a word in the dictionary if I don't know how to
> spell it?
> Lord help me, I'm a confused consumer.

An entirely excellent post, John (I just trimmed it to include one of
the more amusing lines, but it was a great article and should be read
in its entirely). It's too bad the weekly GA summaries have
disappeared, as that's the top post of the week, or maybe all of June.

The sad part is, the old saying "do not throw your pearls before swine"
might apply....

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: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 18:45:04 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: WLS

Joe Sims wrote:

>Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
>                                                                                          
> Mr. Sims,                                                                                
>                                                                                          
> I believe you don't *want* to understand the problems the WLS raises.                    
>  In fact, I think you'd rather ignore them.   Which is basically what                    
> your email amounts to.  Why bother to send such messages.                                
>                                                                                          
>
>
>
>
>A better question would be why you (and a few others) bother to waste
>everyone's time and space with such trivial, non-substantive responses? 
>

Substance?  OK.  How about this:

SnapNames and Verisign were originally two independent companies with 
two differing business models.  Just as other domain registries exist 
(NeuLevel, Afilias etc.), so do alternative "name winning" systems; see 
http://www.namewinner.com as one example.  I hope this is clear enough 
for you and that you can follow this train of thought [do let me know if 
you need further clarification on any point, please].  Now, with the 
proposed unification of services between SnapNames and Verisign, what 
chance will the alternative "namewinning" schemas have in the face of 
the Verisign Registry's WLS?  The answer, quite simply, is none. 
 Clearly, the stifling of competition within a distinct, outgrowth, 
domain-related service market in this instance is a fait accompli with 
the implementation of the Verisign WLS.  The market will not be left to 
decide who can compete best in this instance of a marketable service, 
I'm sure you'll agree.  All of which begs the question of monopoly, the 
very thing ICANN was mandated to break-up with respect to the 
NetSol/Verisign original stranglehold on DNS TLD domain registration.    

> I
>take it you don't have anything useful to say.  In such circumstances, it
>might have been better to remain mute rather than demonstrate the point.
>
And give people like you the opportunity to claim public support from 
the lack of antagonism?  I think not, Mr. Sims.

>
>Thanks to Ross Rader, Bret Fausett, Jamie Love, Elisabeth Porteneuve, John
>Berryhill, Gary Osbourne, Thomas Roessler and Chuck Gomes for trying to
>help me understand the rationale underlying the various positions that
>people have taken on this issue.
>
It's a wonder to me that these bright and articulae people could not 
help you to see the obvious.  But then again, stifling free market 
competition has become the new American way, hasn't it?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Proud Canadian.

- --
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, 20 Jun 2002 18:13:30 -0500
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

Joe,

With all due respect, perhaps an even better question to ask (yourself) is
why you should receive such a response to a seemingly benign query for
information.

BTW, do you now feel you have enough understanding of the issues involved
with WAS to make your pros and cons arguments to the Board?  And, if so,
would you be so kind as to share a quick summary?

Best regards,

Jeff

- --
jeff field
952-848-7626
952-848-7627 fax
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
- -----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joe Sims
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 4:58 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] WLS
>
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
>
>
>  Mr. Sims,
>
>
>
>  I believe you don't *want* to understand the problems the WLS
> raises.
>   In fact, I think you'd rather ignore them.   Which is basically
> what
>  your email amounts to.  Why bother to send such messages.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A better question would be why you (and a few others) bother to waste
> everyone's time and space with such trivial, non-substantive responses?  I
> take it you don't have anything useful to say.  In such circumstances, it
> might have been better to remain mute rather than demonstrate the point.
>
> Thanks to Ross Rader, Bret Fausett, Jamie Love, Elisabeth Porteneuve, John
> Berryhill, Gary Osbourne, Thomas Roessler and Chuck Gomes for trying to
> help me understand the rationale underlying the various positions that
> people have taken on this issue.
>
>
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
>
> ==========
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
> or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.  It
> is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).
> If you are
> not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
> replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
> dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
> recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==========
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 18:18:03 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

Joe and all assembly members,

Joe Sims wrote:

> Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
>
>  Mr. Sims,
>
>  I believe you don't *want* to understand the problems the WLS raises.
>   In fact, I think you'd rather ignore them.   Which is basically what
>  your email amounts to.  Why bother to send such messages.
>
>
> A better question would be why you (and a few others) bother to waste
> everyone's time and space with such trivial, non-substantive responses?

  I would have to say to get your attention is why Joe.  You seem to
frequently remind many and increasing numbers of stakeholders/users
that you are much like the missouri Mule.  Ergo the E-Mail equivalent
of a 2x4 smacked in-between your eyes is needed far to often to
get your attention.

>  I
> take it you don't have anything useful to say.  In such circumstances, it
> might have been better to remain mute rather than demonstrate the point.

  Well Joe, it seems that "Demonstrating the point" at least got your
attention,
all be it not a positive or productive sort of attention...

>
>
> Thanks to Ross Rader, Bret Fausett, Jamie Love, Elisabeth Porteneuve, John
> Berryhill, Gary Osbourne, Thomas Roessler and Chuck Gomes for trying to
> help me understand the rationale underlying the various positions that
> people have taken on this issue.

  And thank you Joe, for finally paying at least some attention.  Better
late than never I suppose..  Had you participated on the two Phone
conferences that were held a few weeks back now, you would be
up to speed.  But of course, I am sure you were busy with other
matters of more importance...

>
>
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
>
> ==========
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
> or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.  It
> is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you are
> not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
> replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
> dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
> recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==========
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 19:23:46 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN Meeting in US in 2002?

Is there to be no public meeting in the US for ICANN this year?  Perhaps 
because of  "security concerns"?  Or was the secretive Board retreat in 
NY a sub rosa alternative?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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, 20 Jun 2002 17:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Meeting in US in 2002?

Hello,

- --- Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Is there to be no public meeting in the US for ICANN this year? 
> Perhaps 
> because of  "security concerns"?  Or was the secretive Board retreat
> in 
> NY a sub rosa alternative?

Unless the USA takes over China by October (or vice-versa), the answer
is no.

http://www.icann.org/calendar.htm

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: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 20:40:23 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

>
>
> Dramatically increase the cost for whom?  Registrars, speculators? or
> consumers?
>
> Chuck

Please provide a meaningful distinction between a "speculator" and a
"consumer".  People who register domain names are the consumers of domain
name registration services.  Period.

I believe that the WLS will decrease the unit cost for those people who
register large numbers of expiring names today, based on the measurable data
you requested previously.  These bulk customers, who have taken out more
than half of all snapbacks, only take those snapbacks out as a "backup"
measure to hedge more expensive bets made through auction-based and other
systems.  Hence, the "unit cost" per successful registration is on average
more expensive than the present cost of a snapback.

Do the math.  Perhaps SnapNames will publish their success rate, and then we
can take the average bounty price at Namewinner to determine the present
unit cost of a successfully-registered expiring name.  I will bet you dinner
that it is more than the average cost of a SnapBack, and less than the
maximum price that anyone will tolerate for a sufficiently
speculator-deterrent price point for WLS.

A single certain source of expiring domain names will be favorable to
establishment of what will effectively be a cartel among those who become
very good at exploiting WLS.  Verisign will get the money for running the
WLS service, but I want to see you two years from now explaining how WLS
spelled the end of domain speculation.

But, with WLS, why do you think the unit cost will change in different
directions for (a) speculators and (b) consumers?  The cost of a
successfully registered expiring name is going to be whatever it is for a
"domain registrant".  The mental state or motivation of the "domain
registrant" is not going to affect whether that registrant had to pay more
or less for the domain name.  The class of "speculators" is
indistinguishable from the class of "consumers" in that regard.

- --
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, 20 Jun 2002 20:47:23 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Meeting in US in 2002?

I've heard rumors that there will be a North American meeting in early 2003.
Considering that there has been a US based meeting every year for the past
three, I'm not convinced that we need to have any there for the next while.
I would love to see ICANN come to Canada in the near future and would love
to show as many of you as possible around Toronto if the meeting comes our
way ;)

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 7:23 PM
Subject: [ga] ICANN Meeting in US in 2002?

> Is there to be no public meeting in the US for ICANN this year?  Perhaps
> because of  "security concerns"?  Or was the secretive Board retreat in
> NY a sub rosa alternative?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 18:47:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Meeting in US in 2002?

IMHO, ICANN spends too much time running around the globe, also the only
folks that show up to all the meetings are extremely well funded.

To a small registrar attending all the ICANN meetings can cost 5 figures.
not to mention that decisions get made at these meetings, unlike the IETF
where the meetings are optional and the decisions are made on the e-mail
lists.

all in all, ICANN hasn't been designed for maximum participation and thats
one thing I'd like to see changed.

- -rick

On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> I've heard rumors that there will be a North American meeting in early 2003.
> Considering that there has been a US based meeting every year for the past
> three, I'm not convinced that we need to have any there for the next while.
> I would love to see ICANN come to Canada in the near future and would love
> to show as many of you as possible around Toronto if the meeting comes our
> way ;)
>
> -rwr
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 7:23 PM
> Subject: [ga] ICANN Meeting in US in 2002?
>
>
> > Is there to be no public meeting in the US for ICANN this year?  Perhaps
> > because of  "security concerns"?  Or was the secretive Board retreat in
> > NY a sub rosa alternative?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >
> > --
> > 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
>

- --
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, 20 Jun 2002 21:58:31 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Meeting in US in 2002?

>
> all in all, ICANN hasn't been designed for maximum participation and thats
> one thing I'd like to see changed.
>

Amen. There are several cues that we have ignored. Perhaps now is the time
to dust off the playbooks and looked for functional design specs
elsewhere...

- -rwr

- --
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, 20 Jun 2002 21:50:05 -0500
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Do all posts take a long time?

BTW all, am I the only one for which it seems to take about 30-40 minutes
for posts to show up on this list?  I'm on a dozen or so mailing lists and
none, not even the few that have thousands of subscribers and hundreds of
posts each day, take anywhere near as long as this list.  Anyway, just
curious.

Best regards,

Jeff

- --
jeff field
952-848-7626
952-848-7627 fax
[email-masked] <mailto:[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, 20 Jun 2002 23:38:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Do all posts take a long time?

On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Jeff Field wrote:

> BTW all, am I the only one for which it seems to take about 30-40 minutes
> for posts to show up on this list?  I'm on a dozen or so mailing lists and
> none, not even the few that have thousands of subscribers and hundreds of
> posts each day, take anywhere near as long as this list.  Anyway, just
> curious.

Well Jeff - That GA is a very special mailing list with a very special
configuration file last time i looked.  I think we call it censorship and
it does tend to slow delivery.

Cheers
Joe Baptista

- --
Planet Communications & Computing Facility
a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited

- --
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, 20 Jun 2002 22:27:12 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 08:40:23PM -0400, John Berryhill wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Dramatically increase the cost for whom?  Registrars, speculators? or
> > consumers?
> >
> > Chuck
> 
> 
> Please provide a meaningful distinction between a "speculator" and a
> "consumer".

Speculators register domain names for the primary intent of reselling
them later for a profit.  Consumers don't have resale as a primary
intent.  As you know, the law is quite capable of using intent as a
meaningful distinguishing characteristic.  In general, you are making a 
"slippery slope" argument, and, again, as you know, slippery slope 
arguments are not valid.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                          lonesome."  -- 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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:03:17 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "The blueprint": New Reform Committee paper posted

Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform
ICANN: A Blueprint for Reform
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/blueprint-20jun02.htm

[*Please* read and comment this -- little time before Bucharest!
/// Alexander]

Excerpt:
>The GNSO General Assembly shall be a cross-constituency meeting place 
>of both voting and provisional (see above) constituencies. A member 
>of the GNSO Council appointed by that Council should chair it.
>
>The GNSO GA exists for the exchange of information and ideas, the 
>discussion of particular issues, and as a resource for the creation – 
>under the direction of the GNSO Council – of working groups, drafting 
>committees, and task forces. The GNSO GA is not a forum for making 
>decisions or recommendations, or taking formal positions.
>
>As such, the GNSO GA should take no votes, although working groups 
>under the direction of the GNSO Council can provide advice as a 
>group. To encourage informed discussion free from personal attacks 
>and undue disruption, the GNSO GA shall only support moderated 
>electronic discussion lists and forums (in which all interested 
>individuals and groups can participate). Those interested in 
>participating in unmoderated lists can do so in other fora, not 
>under the auspices of the GNSO GA.
>
>The GNSO Council is responsible for the GNSO GA and for ensuring 
>that these purposes and requirements and purposes are fulfilled.

- --
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, 21 Jun 2002 10:48:29 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

- --=======297A1DC5=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-AEA68B4; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 23:57 20/06/02, Joe Sims said:
>Thanks to Ross Rader, Bret Fausett, Jamie Love, Elisabeth Porteneuve, John
>Berryhill, Gary Osbourne, Thomas Roessler and Chuck Gomes

did you not get my mail?

You only rose the question about a competitive advantage among registrars. 
You got your responses.
Now, was this narrow field question because you are only interested in 
competition among registrars, because you think you covered all the other 
issues, because you think it only affects that field (or because I 
misunderstood you)?

I must say that I am first personally concerned as an IPC Member and as a 
TM holder.
jfc

- --=======297A1DC5=======--

- --
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, 21 Jun 2002 11:16:37 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Posting of Final NTEPPTF Report

- --=======43036E2F=======
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-AEA68B4; boundary="=====================_10428571==_.ALT"

- --=====================_10428571==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-AEA68B4; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

>Our draft Final Report has just been posted for public comment at
><http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/draft-final-report-15jun02.htm>http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/draft-final-report-15jun02.htm
>There will be a 30-day comment period.
>Stuart

NTEPPTF's logic

<quote>
the distributed architecture of the DNS presumes a hierarchical namespace 
for effective performance. (Relatively large numbers of domain names at the 
second level – as, for example, occurs with .com – may jeopardize 
performance regardless of how few or how many top level domains have been 
authorized.) The PSO and the IETF should be asked for their views on 
whether this conventional wisdom is substantially correct.
</quote>

In plain words it means :
- - large TLDs like ".com" endanger the DNS.
- - so let not create other ".com" and ... let keep enlarging ".com" to 
better jeopardize the DNS.

Happily they ask the IETF and PSO. Interesting to see their responses. I 
hope they come before ".com" becomes too large?

ICANN's misvision of the DNS :" the tree who wanted to be a forest".
jfc

- --=====================_10428571==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-AEA68B4; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="Times New Roman, Times">Our
draft Final Report has just been posted for public comment at<br>
<a href="http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/draft-final-report-15jun02.htm">http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/draft-final-report-15jun02.htm</a></font><font face="arial" size=2><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">There will be a 30-day comment
period.<br>
Stuart</font></blockquote><br>
NTEPPTF's logic <br><br>
&lt;quote&gt;<br>
the distributed architecture of the DNS presumes a hierarchical namespace
for effective performance. (Relatively large numbers of domain names at
the second level – as, for example, occurs with .com – may jeopardize
performance regardless of how few or how many top level domains have been
authorized.) The PSO and the IETF should be asked for their views on
whether this conventional wisdom is substantially correct.<br>
&lt;/quote&gt;<br><br>
In plain words it means :<br>
- - large TLDs like &quot;.com&quot; endanger the DNS.<br>
- - so let not create other &quot;.com&quot; and ... let keep enlarging
&quot;.com&quot; to better jeopardize the DNS.<br><br>
Happily they ask the IETF and PSO. Interesting to see their responses. I
hope they come before &quot;.com&quot; becomes too large?<br><br>
ICANN's misvision of the DNS :&quot; the tree who wanted to be a
forest&quot;.<br>
jfc<br><br>
</html>

- --=====================_10428571==_.ALT--

- --=======43036E2F=======--

- --
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, 21 Jun 2002 13:18:26 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO GA meeting in Bucharest, 26 June 2002, agenda

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.GAbucharest-agenda.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

             DNSO General Assembly meeting in Bucharest, Romania

                           Wednesday, 26 June 2002

ICANN's meeting schedule and agenda

GA meeting (8:00-11:00 Bucharest time = UTC+3)

        * 8:00 Opening and introduction

        * 8:15 Update from the Whois Task Force
             o NC Whois Task Force
        * 8:30 Update from the Transfers Task Force
             o Status report by TF Chair
             o NC Domain transfers Task Force
        * 8:45 Session 1: User participation models
             o Bernard Turcotte (CIRA President and CEO)
             o Maureen Cubberley (Chair of the CIRA Board)
             o Vittorio Bertola (former ExCom member of the Nic.IT
               Naming Authority)
             o Questions by remote participants: [email-masked]

               Links:
               CIRA Board Election FAQ
               Naming Authority Italiana

        * 9:45 Session 2: Update on ICANN At Large
             o Panellists: At Large Organizing Committee and
               icannatlarge.com members
             o Questions by remote participants: [email-masked]

               Links:
               At Large Organizing Clearinghouse
               At Large Organizing Committee (members)
               Icannatlarge.com
               Icannatlarge.com Steering Group
               atlarge-discuss Mailing List
               Board resolution on ALSC Report and At Large
               (Accra)
               Board discussion about At Large (Accra)

               NAIS Statement on At Large implementation (February
               2002)
               ALSC Working Draft Implementation Report (February
               2002)
               ALSC Decision tree for implementation (February
               2002)
               ALSC Draft election guidelines (February 2002)
               ALSC Summary of Solicitation Responses (February
               2002)

        * 10:45 GA Public Forum / other topics (15 minutes)
        * 11:00 End of the GA session

     Please contact GA Alternate Chair Alexander Svensson if you have
     any questions or comments.

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

              Information from:   © DNSO General Assembly
- --
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, 21 Jun 2002 13:14:43 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ERC Blueprint inofficial charts

Here are three charts showing the structure proposed
in the recent E+R Committee "Blueprint" document:
 -- ICANN structure
 -- Nominating Committee
 -- GNSO Council

http://www.icannchannel.de/erc-blueprint.pdf (PDF, 124 kB)

Best regards,
/// Alexander 

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 07:59:40 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] GA Bucharest Agenda

Dear Alex,

In view of the issues raised in the just-published "Blueprint for Reform", I 
would recommend immediately reorganizing the GA's Bucharest Agenda.  The very 
future of the GA is at stake.

Best regards,
Danny
- --
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, 21 Jun 2002 07:30:53 -0500
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kent
> Crispin
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 12:27 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] WLS
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 08:40:23PM -0400, John Berryhill wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Dramatically increase the cost for whom?  Registrars, speculators? or
> > > consumers?
> > >
> > > Chuck
> >
> > Please provide a meaningful distinction between a "speculator" and a
> > "consumer".
>
> Speculators register domain names for the primary intent of reselling
> them later for a profit.  Consumers don't have resale as a primary
> intent.  As you know, the law is quite capable of using intent as a
> meaningful distinguishing characteristic.  In general, you are making a
> "slippery slope" argument, and, again, as you know, slippery slope
> arguments are not valid.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                          lonesome."  -- Mark Twain
>

In the stock market you have some people that buy and sell stocks as an
investment and others that buy and sell stocks on pure speculation.  The
first group are called, "investors"; the second group, "speculators".  But
investors and speculators are simply subsets of the more broad terms,
"buyers" and "sellers".

In regards to domain names, IMHO, *way* too much emphasis has been placed on
trying to make the distinction between a "consumer" and a "speculator".
Both are simply members of the more broad term, "registrant".  The basic
question that needs answering regarding WLS is whether or not "registrants"
will be harmed.

Best regards,

Jeff

- --
jeff field
952-848-7626
952-848-7627 fax
[email-masked] <mailto:[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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1291
*************************