Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1307
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, June 30 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1307

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:07:02 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

That is really their problem.

You can't go around regulating to take care of every possible error a
customer may make.

This is really about personal responsibility.  The registrant is the
one ultimately responsible.  If they use an email address under their
domain, then they have to accept the risk, and make sure that they do
not let that domain end up on hold for non-payment.

We do not need to, nor should we, coddle people.

Friday, June 28, 2002, 1:56:29 PM, L. Gallegos wrote:

> My point is that the registrant has to use the email address to contact 
> the system in order to verify the transaction (email verification).  Many 
> registrants use their domain for email and some even just for email, so 
> that they do not have to continually change email addresses if they 
> change ISPs, etc.  So, going to a neighbor to use his email addy is not 
> going to do anything.  It won't compute.  That has been one of the 
> bugaboos when people do change email addresses due to ISP 
> changes, especially when it is due to an ISP failure or other emergency 
> change.  Suddenly one can't do anything about modifying domain 
> information and it all has to be done by phone.  With Verisign it is 
> extremely painful to do anything via phone or fax.  Other registrars do 
> not even make their phone numbers public - or at least easy to find.  

> It is an issue whether some feel otherwise or not.

> The telephone or electric bill analogy is not a good one, IMO, since 
> most people would be able to deal with that simply - by using another 
> phone.  Verification of an email address is not necessary, nor is 
> verification of the number from which you are calling.

> Leah

> On 28 Jun 2002, at 13:54, Dan Steinberg wrote:

>> I have to agree. If your phone gets disconnected, it doesnt matter if
>> its because you 'thought you had paid' but hadnt or if its turly telco
>> error or lost cheque.  You still have to go visit a neighbour, or use a
>> cell phone or trundle down to find a pay phone just to establish what
>> the problem is and see if you have to do something (like pay). It's your
>> repsonisibility to find a way to do this.
>> 
>> William X Walsh wrote:
>> > 
>> > Friday, June 28, 2002, 1:31:08 AM, L. Gallegos wrote:
>> > 
>> > > Well, the board approved it, but I still have a question that no one
>> > > seems to have addressed.
>> > 
>> > > If an expired domain is placed on registry hold and no longer resolves,
>> > > and the contact email is based on that domain, how will the registrant
>> > > be able to "undelete" it or move it to another registrar to redeem it if
>> > > there can be no contact?
>> > 
>> > > It seems to me that there should be some resolution to this question or
>> > > what good is the Grace and Redemption perioid?  The only other means
>> > > to communicate in this scenario, would be by telephone.  Some of the
>> > > registrars do not even list their phone numbers on their websites and
>> > > there would be little time to handle it via snail mail.
>> > 
>> > > Anyone have any comments?
>> > 
>> > Personal Responsibility.
>> > 
>> > --
>> > 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
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dan Steinberg
>> 
>> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
>> 35, du Ravin          phone: (613) 794-5356
>> Chelsea, Quebec               fax:   (819) 827-4398
>> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
>> --
>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> ("unsubscribe ga-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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.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: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:04:23 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

John and all assembly members,

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> > Personal Responsibility.
>
> Mr. Walsh is correct.   Some people simply are beyond help, and those people
> who use an email address based on the domain name itself as the contact email
> address for the domain are dumb beyond any assistance that can be provided by
> any policy.

  Your of course right here John.  However I find it a bit amusing that
WXW would be making such statements as he is one the people which
uses various Domain names for E-Mail purposes, and hiding.  So I
suppose he would know.  >;)

>
>
> No matter what is done, people will lose domain names due to their own
> mismanagement, and will seek to blame others for what they have done to
> themselves.

  How true!  Sad, but true...  That's why we have courts of law, law's
themselves, and lawyers, right John?  >;)  I guess that the "Domain Name
Chasers" are like the "Ambulance Chasers" in legal parlance's on the
internet, eh?

>
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:57:28 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

At 2:07 PM -0700 6/28/02, William X Walsh wrote:
>This is really about personal responsibility.  The registrant is the
>one ultimately responsible.  If they use an email address under their
>domain, then they have to accept the risk, and make sure that they do
>not let that domain end up on hold for non-payment.

Exactly.

And let's face it. With the option to pay for up to 10 years in advance,
there really is no excuse!

This extended grace period just keeps names out of circulation longer,
which is inefficient.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 01:46:19 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

- --=======56755451=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-46121C94; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Leah,
on a civilized network the registrant:

1. has for free a name associated with him or with his internet belonging 
on a permanent basis
2. this on only a decent thing for the others so they know where to find him.
3. he carries a smart card or has a password to access himself his DNS entries
4. he has no need for a registrar, but may be helped by a Consultant he can 
change when he wants
5. he pays for the yearly usage made of his name

at least this is what registrants of our test ULD Members get.
jfc

PS. In our countries usage, laws and contracts makes the breaking of an 
agreement to require a charged letter. Not in yours? Quite enough to cope 
with the problem IMO. In any case, sending a mail is what Verisign does.

On 22:56 28/06/02, L. Gallegos said:

>My point is that the registrant has to use the email address to contact
>the system in order to verify the transaction (email verification).  Many
>registrants use their domain for email and some even just for email, so
>that they do not have to continually change email addresses if they
>change ISPs, etc.  So, going to a neighbor to use his email addy is not
>going to do anything.  It won't compute.  That has been one of the
>bugaboos when people do change email addresses due to ISP
>changes, especially when it is due to an ISP failure or other emergency
>change.  Suddenly one can't do anything about modifying domain
>information and it all has to be done by phone.  With Verisign it is
>extremely painful to do anything via phone or fax.  Other registrars do
>not even make their phone numbers public - or at least easy to find.
>
>It is an issue whether some feel otherwise or not.
>
>The telephone or electric bill analogy is not a good one, IMO, since
>most people would be able to deal with that simply - by using another
>phone.  Verification of an email address is not necessary, nor is
>verification of the number from which you are calling.
>
>Leah
>
>
>On 28 Jun 2002, at 13:54, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>
> > I have to agree. If your phone gets disconnected, it doesnt matter if
> > its because you 'thought you had paid' but hadnt or if its turly telco
> > error or lost cheque.  You still have to go visit a neighbour, or use a
> > cell phone or trundle down to find a pay phone just to establish what
> > the problem is and see if you have to do something (like pay). It's your
> > repsonisibility to find a way to do this.
> >
> > William X Walsh wrote:
> > >
> > > Friday, June 28, 2002, 1:31:08 AM, L. Gallegos wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, the board approved it, but I still have a question that no one
> > > > seems to have addressed.
> > >
> > > > If an expired domain is placed on registry hold and no longer resolves,
> > > > and the contact email is based on that domain, how will the registrant
> > > > be able to "undelete" it or move it to another registrar to redeem 
> it if
> > > > there can be no contact?
> > >
> > > > It seems to me that there should be some resolution to this question or
> > > > what good is the Grace and Redemption perioid?  The only other means
> > > > to communicate in this scenario, would be by telephone.  Some of the
> > > > registrars do not even list their phone numbers on their websites and
> > > > there would be little time to handle it via snail mail.
> > >
> > > > Anyone have any comments?
> > >
> > > Personal Responsibility.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> > --
> > Dan Steinberg
> >
> > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> > 35, du Ravin          phone: (613) 794-5356
> > Chelsea, Quebec               fax:   (819) 827-4398
> > J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.372 / Virus Database: 207 - Release Date: 20/06/02

- --=======56755451=======--

- --
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, 28 Jun 2002 19:55:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Andy Gardner wrote:

> And let's face it. With the option to pay for up to 10 years in advance,
> there really is no excuse!
>
> This extended grace period just keeps names out of circulation longer,
> which is inefficient.

let's not forget rediculous.  i deleted pccf.net recently from netsol and
it's still listed.

i don't think one needs a grace period.  in a perfect world the only rule
of law policy the governments can contribute is that new domain owners of
a formerly used domain do not register it to committ fraud.

this concerns me with respect to pccf.net

but i'm assuming no one will abuse that.

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: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:20:41 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

Friday, June 28, 2002, 3:56:29 PM, L. Gallegos <[email-masked]> wrote:
LG> My point is that the registrant has to use the email address to contact 
LG> the system in order to verify the transaction (email verification).
<SNIP>
LG> Leah

Not necessarily. There are Registrars who provide web based control
panels, i.e. Tucows, eNom, VeriSign, et al, and don't authenticate via
an e-mail address. In fact, we were notified by VeriSign that they are
dropping their e-mail template interface in the very near future.

I recently renewed a new customer's expired domain name by going to
VeriSign's site and using my personal credit card. I did not have to
authenticate. All that was required was to know the domain name and
pay the fee.

There are valid business reasons for Registrars and Resellers to make
it extremely easy for a customer to renew and it is likely that most,
if not all, of them have figured that out. In fact, I wonder just how
many Registrar's today are using some kind of e-mail authentication
system as a pre-requisite to renewing a domain name. Do you or anyone
else know? My guess is there isn't many, if any.

Granted, the above renewal example didn't fix the probable problem
with outdated or erroneously information, but it did prevent the
domain name from being deleted. Isn't that the objective of the RGP?

If the Registrant doesn't remember the identity of their Registrar or
Reseller, doesn't know how to use WhoIs to determine that and doesn't
have enough common sense to contact someone who might have a tad more
saavy, then I think we have identified an extreme situation and an
extremely infrequent one.

I think the RGP is intended to provide uniformity, hopefully it will
have a positive affect on the domain name hoarding issue, but the
primary intent of it is to notify registrants, through non-resolution,
that their domain name is in an expired state.

OTOH, the RGP will not prevent "every" domain name from being deleted,
in opposition to the Registrant's wishes. However, there is a
practical limit to what can be done and I don't think anyone is really
in favor of adding cost to the system by hunting those mosquitos with
Howitzers, mortars or even 00 buckshot. Consequently, I think that
William Walsh's statement about "coddling them" was really an
understatement.

Thanks,

LG> On 28 Jun 2002, at 13:54, Dan Steinberg wrote:

>> I have to agree. If your phone gets disconnected, it doesnt matter if
>> its because you 'thought you had paid' but hadnt or if its turly telco
>> error or lost cheque.  You still have to go visit a neighbour, or use a
>> cell phone or trundle down to find a pay phone just to establish what
>> the problem is and see if you have to do something (like pay). It's your
>> repsonisibility to find a way to do this.
>> 
>> William X Walsh wrote:
>> > 
>> > Friday, June 28, 2002, 1:31:08 AM, L. Gallegos wrote:
>> > 
>> > > Well, the board approved it, but I still have a question that no one
>> > > seems to have addressed.
>> > 
>> > > If an expired domain is placed on registry hold and no longer resolves,
>> > > and the contact email is based on that domain, how will the registrant
>> > > be able to "undelete" it or move it to another registrar to redeem it if
>> > > there can be no contact?
>> > 
>> > > It seems to me that there should be some resolution to this question or
>> > > what good is the Grace and Redemption perioid?  The only other means
>> > > to communicate in this scenario, would be by telephone.  Some of the
>> > > registrars do not even list their phone numbers on their websites and
>> > > there would be little time to handle it via snail mail.
>> > 
>> > > Anyone have any comments?
>> > 
>> > Personal Responsibility.
>> > 
>> > --
>> > 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
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dan Steinberg
>> 
>> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
>> 35, du Ravin          phone: (613) 794-5356
>> Chelsea, Quebec               fax:   (819) 827-4398
>> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
>> --
>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>> 
>> 

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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, 28 Jun 2002 20:29:02 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

Joe and all assembly members,

Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Andy Gardner wrote:
>
> > And let's face it. With the option to pay for up to 10 years in advance,
> > there really is no excuse!
> >
> > This extended grace period just keeps names out of circulation longer,
> > which is inefficient.
>
> let's not forget rediculous.  i deleted pccf.net recently from netsol and
> it's still listed.

  Are you surprised?  I am not.  >;)

>
>
> i don't think one needs a grace period.  in a perfect world the only rule
> of law policy the governments can contribute is that new domain owners of
> a formerly used domain do not register it to committ fraud.

  Agreed.  The problem arises is the whom is going to enforce such
a law?  And will they do so actively and efficiently?  I doubt that
any government will.

>
>
> this concerns me with respect to pccf.net

  I for one can understand that...  I am sure others do as well...

>
>
> but i'm assuming no one will abuse that.

  With ICANN registrars I would not make such an assumption.
The ICANN BOD and staff have shown clearly that they cannot,
or will not do their already obligated and contracted duty to doing
oversight of their own "Accredited Registrars" or "Accredited
Registries".

>
>
> 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

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: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:42:38 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

Someone coined this phrase for a domain name registration concept.
It is dead wrong. And should not be used.
Grace and Redemption are matters not earned but given.
Registration and continuing registration must be earned by diligence.
Any suggestion of a fail safe method is not of this world.
While JFC's suggestion is honourable it is idealistic and non pragmatic.
WXW's is cut-throat and cold and should recognize some compassion (for
the stupid).

Within this mix we find a perfect compromise.
Give the dummies something, but let the higher of the species compete.
Do not allow monopoly but allow free competition to obtain results.
Herein lies vitality and ultimate success of the game.

Jeffs and Joes comments demand attention.  Our respect for human
endeavour should not 
be mired in mollycoddling of imbeciles for we hurt our work in this
regard.
But alas we are a world of taking care of the feeble and should provide
some safeguards.

Eric

Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
>
> > > Personal Responsibility.
> >
> > Mr. Walsh is correct.   Some people simply are beyond help, and those people
> > who use an email address based on the domain name itself as the contact email
> > address for the domain are dumb beyond any assistance that can be provided by
> > any policy.
> >
> > No matter what is done, people will lose domain names due to their own
> > mismanagement, and will seek to blame others for what they have done to
> > themselves.
>
> I disagree.  I think it depend on how you look at it - operations.  In a
> trully free internet - i.e. anything but the ICANN/USG dog and pony show -
> one can associate with a group of people who want permanency in their
> email contact addresses and for a tld speciically for that purpose - and
> they can run it themselved on a purly volunteer basis.  After all - our
> devoted god and saviour jon postel ran it by himself before he handed
> control over to the doc/icann goons.
>
> love and kisses
> from joe and enza
>
> --
> 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: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 17:35:21 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:12:37 +0200, you wrote:

>On 18:41 27/06/02, James Love said:
>>   It will be easy to get your organization included in the at-large.org 
>> thing.
>
>to date, france@large, the only specificly @large oriented incorporate 
>organization I know of and germany@large are not quoted for Europe.
>
>But ISOC and ISOC, but not all the ISOC, are quoted. Are there good and bad 
>ISOC ?

Simply, there are ISOC Chapters (and other orgs) who answered the ALSC call
for support, then were recontacted by Denise Michel after the creation of
the ALOC, and then accepted to take part in it; these, I believe, are the
organizations that currently compose the ALOC (Denise, of course, will
correct me if I'm wrong). I think that if any organization which can
reasonably represent individual Internet users contacts Denise and asks to
be part of the ALOC, it will be included.
- -- 
.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
Vittorio Bertola     <[email-masked]>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology

DISCLAIMER, PLEASE NOTE: This communication is intended only for use by the
addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information. 
Transmission, distribution and/or copy cannot be permitted. Please notify
immediately the sender by replying if you are not the intended recipient.
- --
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: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 17:35:31 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:41:53 -0400, you wrote:

>Marc, I think you are missing the point.  It will be easy to get your 
>organization included in the at-large.org thing.  It just doesn't mean 
>anything.   You can't vote or freely choose your own leaders.  You just 
>become a volenteer focus group for the staff, and you get used to allow the 
>board to claim they have an at large.

This is a risk we have to prevent. I think that we can prevent it by
participating in the process and making sure that procedures to (s)elect
ALAC members are bottom-up and not top-down. Of course, if the ALAC members
or organizations would be picked by the NomCom or the Board, the whole thing
would be ridiculous.
- -- 
.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
Vittorio Bertola     <[email-masked]>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology

DISCLAIMER, PLEASE NOTE: This communication is intended only for use by the
addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information. 
Transmission, distribution and/or copy cannot be permitted. Please notify
immediately the sender by replying if you are not the intended recipient.
- --
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: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 09:27:30 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

I believe based upon experience and a long history this is naive.
Eric

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:12:37 +0200, you wrote:
>
> >On 18:41 27/06/02, James Love said:
> >>   It will be easy to get your organization included in the at-large.org
> >> thing.
> >
> >to date, france@large, the only specificly @large oriented incorporate
> >organization I know of and germany@large are not quoted for Europe.
> >
> >But ISOC and ISOC, but not all the ISOC, are quoted. Are there good and bad
> >ISOC ?
>
> Simply, there are ISOC Chapters (and other orgs) who answered the ALSC call
> for support, then were recontacted by Denise Michel after the creation of
> the ALOC, and then accepted to take part in it; these, I believe, are the
> organizations that currently compose the ALOC (Denise, of course, will
> correct me if I'm wrong). I think that if any organization which can
> reasonably represent individual Internet users contacts Denise and asks to
> be part of the ALOC, it will be included.
> --
> .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
> Vittorio Bertola     <[email-masked]>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
> Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology
>
> DISCLAIMER, PLEASE NOTE: This communication is intended only for use by the
> addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information.
> Transmission, distribution and/or copy cannot be permitted. Please notify
> immediately the sender by replying if you are not the intended recipient.
> --
> 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: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 18:01:09 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Change from without and within

I would suggest that until our charter is changed or pursuant to our own
rules we change the procedure that no one take unilateral action to
change anything within the GA.

Whatever effect it has on the outside will be determined in the proper
fashion.

Anything else would be uncivilized.

Eric

- --
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 #1307
*************************