Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1327
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, July 12 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1327

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:22:15 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

>
> Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that the best way to foster competition
> is to get out of the way.

ICANN is already "out of the way".

You make it sound as if ICANN exerts some kind of physical force which
prevents Verisign and Snapnames from introducing WLS, ICANN or not.

The *only* thing that prevents Verisign and Snapnames from starting WLS
*tomorrow* is their own lack of will, and their desire to have ICANN's
blessing (which, if you think about it, answers a previous question of
yours - they want that defense).

I'll go out on a limb here, Bret, and I'm going to guess that you and I have
both heard the same rumors.

Louis Touton's pen merely makes marks on paper.  Verisign runs a domain name
registry.  So, let's look at the simpler form of your question.  They are
the ones who assert that ICANN cannot fairly stop them.  So isn't it more
efficient to ask them to grow a spine, introduce WLS, and then defend
themselves against the remote possibility of ICANN asserting their disputed
authority to stop them?

They are the ones whining about the unfairness of it all.  Let them act
according to their professed belief.  But let's not pretend that they
obtained a consensus in the ICANN process.

The hypothesis you are testing is not one of ICANN "getting out of the way".
Your hypothesis is for ICANN to take a positive action of some kind, and one
which is wholly unrelated to actual ability of Verisign to run the WLS.

The question is not whether ICANN should allow them, the question is whether
ICANN could stop them.  If they are as convinced that ICANN cannot as they
bellow, then they should proceed at full steam.

What, in your mind, or in theirs, is stopping them?  It's not as if anyone
in the alternative roots is waiting for ICANN approval.

There is no truth, however, to the rumor that ORSC is buying Verisign.

- --
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, 11 Jul 2002 17:53:46 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

Thursday, July 11, 2002, 5:22:15 PM, John Berryhill wrote:

> There is no truth, however, to the rumor that ORSC is buying Verisign.

Why not? VRSN is near their 52-week low......   :)

Wouldn't take much right now.......

- -- 
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: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:59:43 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

Don and all assembly members,

Don Brown wrote:

> That is usually true. However, it is not totally true in this case
> because there is a monopoly involved and WLS will be a monopoly
> service.

  Good point here Don.  And this amongst a number of other reasons
clearly shows how WLS is both anti competitive as well as a
security problem.  If WLS becomes an ICANN or semi regulatory
standard for dealing with expired or soon to be expired domain names
(and not just in .com as some have contended, should WLS become a
standard or "Best practice"), than WLS is at that point, a monopolistic
protocol, and as such, directly effects negatively security as well
as thwarting, if not eliminating already existing competition...

>
>
> One of the reasons for ICANN's existence was to break-up the monopoly
> and foster competition. I think that's also why VeriSign's contract
> requires ICANN's permission/approval for it to offer any other
> service. ICANN seems to already have a watch dog/regulatory role.

  And this is one of the problem with the ICANN BOD and staff making
all of the decisions from a Top Down type approach as predicated by
the "Blueprint"/"Black-and-Blueprint" without any benefit of the
stakeholders/users directly or through an At-Large where that
At-Large elects at least 51% of the BoD.

>
>
> >From a slightly different perspective, a party can currently obtain
> service from several different sources (SnapNames, included) and there
> is competition between them. If ICANN approves WLS, then there will be
> only one source. So, in that scope your statement is true, since ICANN
> would be getting in the way of free enterprise and not fostering
> competition.

  Precisely right.  Not to mention not even completely addressing the
Delete problem as WLS purports to do...

>
>
> Within the narrow confines of the foregoing, ICANN's best course of
> action is quite clear.

  It is clear to many yes.  It doesn't seem to be clear to the ICANN
BoD or staff...

>
>
> Thursday, July 11, 2002, 4:08:34 PM, Bret Fausett <[email-masked]> wrote:
> BF> John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
> >> However, ICANN is required to do what it does...in such a manner as to foster
> >> and promote some concept of "competition".  Because you are a lawyer, you
> >> translate that into some legal standard.
>
> BF> Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that the best way to foster competition
> BF> is to get out of the way. Make sure you preserve the private law remedies of
> BF> private parties and then let them do what they will.
>
> BF>      -- Bret
>
> BF> --
> BF> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> BF> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> BF> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> BF> 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

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, 11 Jul 2002 21:40:40 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

As an individual domain name registrant and consumer of DN products and
services, I have to say that George Kirikos speaks for me on this issue. I
am also heartened to see a poaition paper by a provider, namely Dotster,
that defends the rights of those of us who have no constituency, votes, or
other effective mechanism within ICANN for our voice to be heard.
Thank you.
Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of George
> Kirikos
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 12:07 PM
> To: Bret Fausett; DNSO General Assembly
> Subject: Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS
>
>
> Hi Bret,
>
> --- Bret Fausett <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > I'm particularly concerned that many of the arguments against the WLS
> > focus
> > on the fact that it is allegedly anticompetitive. It strikes me that
> > ICANN,
> > with its limited staff resources and its necessary reliance on
> > volunteer
> > policy contributions from the stakeholder community, ought not be
> > placed in
> > the position of deciding what is or is not "anticompetitive."
>
> Excuse me, but part of ICANN's mission is to promote competition.
> Stuart Lynn testified before the US Government that ICANN's major
> success has been in the promotion of competition. It is wholly within
> ICANN's scope to consider the anticompetitive aspects of proposals, and
> their impacts on the marketplace and its participants. Since you're a
> lawyer, read:
>
> http://www.icann.org/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm
>
> and in particular read:
>
> Section C:
>
> "This Agreement promotes the management of the DNS in a manner that
> will permit market mechanisms to support competition and consumer
> choice in the technical management of the DNS. This competition will
> lower costs, promote innovation, and enhance user choice and
> satisfaction." (Obviously WLS fails this)
>
> "This Agreement is intended to result in the design, development, and
> testing of a private coordinating process that is flexible and able to
> move rapidly enough to meet the changing needs of the Internet and of
> Internet users. This Agreement is intended to foster the development of
> a private sector management system that, as far as possible, reflects a
> system of bottom-up management."
>
> With regards to the second paragraph, you're proposing a top-down
> system, which is diametrically opposite to the bottom-up consensus
> approach required of ICANN. Furthermore:
>
> "Neither Party, either in the DNS Project or in any act related to the
> DNS Project, shall act unjustifiably or arbitrarily to injure
> particular persons or entities or particular categories of persons or
> entities."
>
> ICANN needs to be able to justify things, not put its head in the sand
> as you suggest.
>
> > That
> > would leave the anti-competition issue to a more appropriate forum --
> > a
> > court -- where experts, economists and others could weigh in on the
> > effects
>
> SnapNames couldn't have written what you said any better. ;) FYI, one
> does not need to be an expert in Einstein's Theory of Gravity or have a
> Ph.D. in physics to know that jumping off the top of the Empire State
> Building will lead to your death when you hit the ground. Similarly, it
> is obvious that WLS is anti-competitive. Do you suggest Dotster's Clint
> Page or eNom's Paul Stahura were lying when they said that if WLS goes
> forward, their expired names services will be out of business? Surely
> one expects better from you than "let Verisign do whatever they want,
> and force others to sue them". Good for the lawyers, perhaps, but not
> policy choices of leaders. ICANN exists to make the tough decisions. If
> they can't handle the job, give it to someone who will.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
> http://sbc.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
>

- --
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, 11 Jul 2002 21:09:30 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Fwd: [ga] Why so long

I would like to know exactly why it is taking my posts almost an hour
to be distributed to this list.

More particularly, I would like to know exactly how an extraneous ">"
was in the post which was published to this list, but not in the post
which was sent.

Thomas and Alexander, are either of you responsible for this or can
you at least explain it?

This message was sent at 9:09 p.m. Central Time (Dallas, TX).

Thanks,

This is a forwarded message
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thursday, July 11, 2002, 6:51:45 PM
Subject: [ga] Why so long

<==============Original message text===============>
Why does it take so long for a post to be distributed?

I posted almost an hour ago and it has yet to show up.

Are we in moderator/censorship mode or is there some other logical
reason for such a delay?

Thanks,

- ----
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

<===========End of original message text===========>

- ----
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: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 23:10:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [ga] Why so long

i have not been paying much attention here - to the specifics of your
extraneous ">".  but i know they censor here.  it is after all an open
bottom up process ;)

but i wonder - have they censored from the archives the nude of ester
dyson a friend of heres sent me?  just curious if anyone knows if its
still there - or has it been chopped from the official record.

regards
joe
www.dot-god.com

On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Don Brown wrote:

> I would like to know exactly why it is taking my posts almost an hour
> to be distributed to this list.
>
> More particularly, I would like to know exactly how an extraneous ">"
> was in the post which was published to this list, but not in the post
> which was sent.
>
> Thomas and Alexander, are either of you responsible for this or can
> you at least explain it?
>
> This message was sent at 9:09 p.m. Central Time (Dallas, TX).
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is a forwarded message
> From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Date: Thursday, July 11, 2002, 6:51:45 PM
> Subject: [ga] Why so long
>
> <==============Original message text===============>
> Why does it take so long for a post to be distributed?
>
> I posted almost an hour ago and it has yet to show up.
>
> Are we in moderator/censorship mode or is there some other logical
> reason for such a delay?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> ----
> 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
>
>
> <===========End of original message text===========>
>
>
> ----
> 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
>

- --
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, 11 Jul 2002 20:29:48 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [ga] Why so long

all posts to the ga list are delayed before sent to [email-masked]
because of the filtering.

If you want more immediate delivery, subscribe to the ga-full list,
but then you get all the spam sent to the list, posts from disrupters
who have been removed, etc.

Thursday, July 11, 2002, 7:09:30 PM, Don Brown wrote:

> I would like to know exactly why it is taking my posts almost an hour
> to be distributed to this list.

> More particularly, I would like to know exactly how an extraneous ">"
> was in the post which was published to this list, but not in the post
> which was sent.

> Thomas and Alexander, are either of you responsible for this or can
> you at least explain it?

> This message was sent at 9:09 p.m. Central Time (Dallas, TX).

> Thanks,

> This is a forwarded message
> From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Date: Thursday, July 11, 2002, 6:51:45 PM
> Subject: [ga] Why so long

> <==============Original message text===============>
> Why does it take so long for a post to be distributed?

> I posted almost an hour ago and it has yet to show up.

> Are we in moderator/censorship mode or is there some other logical
> reason for such a delay?

> Thanks,

> ----
> 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

> <===========End of original message text===========>

> ----
> 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-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: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:50:30 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [ga] Why so long

Those must be some really bad filters, to consumer an hour.  Is the
list running on a Z80A or a 3090 Mainframe or somewhere in between?

An hour to distribute a list, really?  I wish our customers would let
us get away with that kind of service.  We might actually be able to
make some good profit . . .

I don't doubt want you say is the truth, William. I just find it hard
to believe. Really? There aren't that many posts on this list every
day to make an impact. Really?

I guess I just don't understand.  Yes, really.  It doesn't compute for
me.

Thanks,

p.s.  How did the extra text get added to my post?  Did the filtering
do that, too?  Really? (o.k., I had to say it one more time, because
it doesn't make logical sense to me).

Thursday, July 11, 2002, 10:29:48 PM, William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:

WXW> all posts to the ga list are delayed before sent to [email-masked]
WXW> because of the filtering.

WXW> If you want more immediate delivery, subscribe to the ga-full list,
WXW> but then you get all the spam sent to the list, posts from disrupters
WXW> who have been removed, etc.

WXW> Thursday, July 11, 2002, 7:09:30 PM, Don Brown wrote:

>> I would like to know exactly why it is taking my posts almost an hour
>> to be distributed to this list.

>> More particularly, I would like to know exactly how an extraneous ">"
>> was in the post which was published to this list, but not in the post
>> which was sent.

>> Thomas and Alexander, are either of you responsible for this or can
>> you at least explain it?

>> This message was sent at 9:09 p.m. Central Time (Dallas, TX).

>> Thanks,

>> This is a forwarded message
>> From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
>> To: [email-masked]
>> Date: Thursday, July 11, 2002, 6:51:45 PM
>> Subject: [ga] Why so long

>> <==============Original message text===============>
>> Why does it take so long for a post to be distributed?

>> I posted almost an hour ago and it has yet to show up.

>> Are we in moderator/censorship mode or is there some other logical
>> reason for such a delay?

>> Thanks,

>> ----
>> 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

>> <===========End of original message text===========>

>> ----
>> 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-full" in the body of the message).
>> 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: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 23:04:40 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [ga] Why so long

WXW and all assembly members,

William X Walsh wrote:

> all posts to the ga list are delayed before sent to [email-masked]
> because of the filtering.

  This statement is patently untrue.  See archives for further information.

>
>
> If you want more immediate delivery, subscribe to the ga-full list,
> but then you get all the spam sent to the list, posts from disrupters
> who have been removed, etc.
>
> Thursday, July 11, 2002, 7:09:30 PM, Don Brown wrote:
>
> > I would like to know exactly why it is taking my posts almost an hour
> > to be distributed to this list.
>
> > More particularly, I would like to know exactly how an extraneous ">"
> > was in the post which was published to this list, but not in the post
> > which was sent.
>
> > Thomas and Alexander, are either of you responsible for this or can
> > you at least explain it?
>
> > This message was sent at 9:09 p.m. Central Time (Dallas, TX).
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > This is a forwarded message
> > From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Date: Thursday, July 11, 2002, 6:51:45 PM
> > Subject: [ga] Why so long
>
> > <==============Original message text===============>
> > Why does it take so long for a post to be distributed?
>
> > I posted almost an hour ago and it has yet to show up.
>
> > Are we in moderator/censorship mode or is there some other logical
> > reason for such a delay?
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > ----
> > 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
>
> > <===========End of original message text===========>
>
> > ----
> > 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-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

- --
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, 12 Jul 2002 06:15:33 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [ga] Why so long

On 2002-07-11 21:09:30 -0500, Don Brown wrote:

>I would like to know exactly why it is taking my posts almost an 
>hour to be distributed to this list.

 From the received headers, it looks like the message sat in the  
mail queue on the DNSO server for some time, waiting for final  
delivery.  It's certainly not a delay caused by filtering, and the  
list is not in "censorship mode" beyond what's usual - i.e.,  
filtering out postings from non-subscribers, and applying list  
monitor decisions.

(Note that "filtering out" more precisely means that the secretariat 
gets these particular messages for approval - the rest is passed  
through directly.  See majordomo's documentation for more details on 
this.)

>More particularly, I would like to know exactly how an extraneous 
>">" was in the post which was published to this list, but not in 
>the post which was sent.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that ">".  Where precisely is it?

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] oh, my gaud

Verisign announced today that it is selling "1.9 million B2B and consumer
names to 24/7 Mail," an opt-in only e-mail marketing service.

great just waht I wanted... more spam.

- -rick

- --
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, 11 Jul 2002 21:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS: Dotster posts the definitive arguments against it, and more

Hi Leah,

- --- "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> That being said, please tell me how WLS will effect the stability and
> security of the internet?  That is a technical issue.  How is the
> registry 
> operation of a service going to effect it?  WLS is not going to
> technically 
> effect the stability of the internet, the DNS or the security of the
> system.
>  It's a business issue.

You answered the question yourself, but perhaps didn't realize it. :)
Stability and security are much more than simply "technical issues".
Issues of trust and acceptance are also involved. For example, we use
US Dollars as currency because it is trusted that others will continue
to accept them as payment, and are happy to store those in banks. If a
monetary system like that loses its trust (e.g. due to hyperinflation,
printing of money, etc.), folks will abandon that currency, even though
"technically", the paper and coins that the currency is printed on
haven't changed. Remember Verisign's motto -- "The Value of Trust" --
it's all about trust.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.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, 11 Jul 2002 23:52:00 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] oh, my gaud

At 9:36 PM -0700 7/11/02, Rick Wesson wrote:

>Verisign announced today that it is selling "1.9 million B2B and consumer
>names to 24/7 Mail," an opt-in only e-mail marketing service.

Domain names, or customer's names?

>great just waht I wanted... more spam.

How do you spell d-e-s-p-e-r-a-t-i-o-n again?

- -- 
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: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 00:02:51 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

John Berryhill
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 8:22 PM
> What, in your mind, or in theirs, is stopping them?

IMHO, nothing is stopping VeriSign, they are on track to launch. My guess is
that the only reason the Staff referred the issue back to a DNSO TF (whose
opinions and processes they could not care less about) is for damage
limitation purposes. Anything process, however inconvenient, that limits
potential future lawsuits from the industry leaders that will go bust as a
result of WLS introduction, can only be worthwhile. From the ICANN BoD view,
it's far better to say that community consensus was divided, than for the
Board to take a clear cut position on a controversial issue.

The real question is: what benefit can ICANN Staff possibly gain from
stopping WLS?

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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 #1327
*************************