Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1337
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, July 23 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1337

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:19:02 -0400
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Official gTLD Statement re:  WLS (Revised)

All,
Here is the revised gTLD Statement which has been approved by the
Constituency regarding the TF report.  I know it is a little bit past the
deadline, but since it is our formal position, I thought you may want to see
it.  The parts that are different from the last statement are italicized.
****************************************************************************
**********************************
Dear Transfer Task Force/Names Council,

The gTLD Constituency, which represents both the sponsored and unsponsored
gTLD registries, has had the opportunity to review the DNSO Transfer Task
Force's Report on the Wait List Service ("Report") presented to the Board at
the ICANN meeting in Bucharest. As we have consistently stated within the
Transfer Task Force, the gTLD constituency has several serious concerns with
the report and the process behind producing that Report, which prevent us
from giving it our support.

More specifically, the constituency unanimously believes that the Report
delves into matters that are beyond the scope of any policy task force and
certainly are not appropriate for the policy consensus process. These
matters include, but are not limited to: (1) whether a Registry Service can 
be introduced by a Registry Operator; and (2) the price of a Registry
Service. We believe that such issues are related to the business of the
individual registry and are more appropriate for the market place to
regulate rather than the policy making body of ICANN.

Although for the reasons above the gTLD Constituency will vote to reject the
NC report, it would like to reiterate the following points:

1) The gTLD Constituency supports the notion that the ICANN board move with
all haste to implement and
actively enforce the proposed Redemptions Grace Period. In addition, ICANN
should move forward with conducting a thorough review of current practices
on the deletion of domain names in order to work with the gTLD Registries
and gTLD Registrars to establish a Code of Conduct or Best Practices
document. This process should be completely independent of its decision on
whether or not to allow the WLS to move forward. 

2) The gTLD Constituency believes that the Interim Redemptions Grace Period
proposed by VeriSign only for names subject to the WLS is satisfactory to
allow the WLS to go forward, so long as the core elements (including the
time periods and ability to restore deleted domain names subject to the WLS)
of the Redemptions Grace Period are implemented by VeriSign concurrently
with the WLS.

3) The TF Report indicates that there were three areas of comments received
by the Community. We believe there were actually four such areas of comments
and the fourth is that comments were received questioning the jurisdiction
of the Task Force in being able to provide recommendations to the Names
Council and ultimately to the ICANN on pricing of a Registry Service. As has
been stated above, we believe that the price of any Registry Service does
not amount to a "policy" that is subject to review by the Domain Name
Supporting Organization.

In light of the comments above, and the representations already made by
VeriSign, we strongly believe that VeriSign's proposed amendment to Appendix
G be approved by ICANN and that they be allowed to introduce the Wait List
Service.

*We want to note for the record that because of VeriSign's inherent interest
in this issue, VeriSign did not participate in the gTLD Constituency's
discussion of this particular issue.

Thank you for this opportunity to present our comments and we would be happy
to answer any questions that you may have.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:32:52 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New Research: "Registrations in Open ccTLDs"

GA members have on multiple occasions discussed registrations in open
ccTLDs -- remarking on ccTLDs like .CC, .TV, and .WS which have opened their
registration systems to anyone interested, worldwide.  In recent research, I
have investigated the ways that these ccTLDs are used, placing particular
emphasis on their apparent use and non-use, on defensive registrations, on
warehousing, and on cybersquatting.  In my recent "Registrations in Open
ccTLDs," I attempt to quantify each of these behaviors.

I first report the number of open ccTLD web pages indexed by Google, finding
open ccTLDs to be less than one one-hundredth as large as .COM when measured
in this way.

I next consider registration of commonly-used dictionary nouns; while many
such domains have been registered in the tested ccTLDs, more than 80% lead
only to placeholders or to no web content at all.

Finally, I investigate open ccTLD registrations that use the same
second-level strings as the primary .COM domains of major corporations
worldwide (including the Fortune 1000 and Forbes International 500).  Again,
many such domains have been registered, and more than two thirds of such
registrations are by registrants other than the registrant of the
corresponding .COM.  Indeed, the web content and WHOIS data of sampled
domains provide evidence both of substantial defensive registrations and of
substantial cybersquatting.

My full report is available at
  <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/open-cctlds/>.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:02:00 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Working Paper on At Large Advisory Committee

Alex,

The ALSC spent a year's time and $450,000 to arrive at the conclusion that 
the needs of the At-Large are best served within the context of a Supporting 
Organization that elects its own set of directors to the Board.  Why should 
we support a committee approach (ALAC) over the recommended SO approach that 
already has the full support of the community?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 15:16:42 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] On constituencies

Alejandro,

In the Blueprint for Reform, you correctly noted that some constituencies may 
cease to be active which might necessitate a change in the size of the 
Council.  As I have noted the increasing level of inactivity within your own 
Non-Commercial Constituency lately, I would ask what criteria the Board would 
use to arrive at a decision to decertify an existing constituency.  

Fortunately, we are in a position to evaluate the degree of "activity" within 
the NCDNHC because we have recourse to a publicly archived discussion list.  
This, however, is not true for other constituencies that don't maintain such 
archives and that keep their own inactivity well hidden from the rest of the 
community.  This leads me to ask how the relative degree of activity is to be 
properly evaluated.

I think we need to take a close look at what is really happening within the 
constituent communities and to arrive at a new determination as to who really 
belongs in the Council.  Is there ostensibly any difference at all between 
the Intellectual Property Constituency and the Business Constituency?  Should 
these two groups in fact be merged?  Should the Non-Commercial Constituency 
remain intact, or should it be carved up (thereby allowing academic 
institutions and NGOs, for example, to form their own separate 
constituencies)?

Should the ISPs with only 38 members even have a constituency while 
icannatlarge.com with 936 members does not have constituency status?  Are the 
600 voting members of the General Assembly not a constituent group in their 
own right, with just as much right to representation as the ISPs?  Doesn't 
the registrant community deserve to have the Board act on its own motion to 
establish a constituency for them?  

The ERC proposal regarding the GNSO does little to implement any meaningful 
reform where it is most needed -- you have simply given us a clone of the 
DNSO... we expected a lot more thought being put into this major problem 
area.  

You have had the benefit of extensive commentary on DNSO reform over the last 
eighteen months... Why then so little by way of actual reform?

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] On constituencies

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> In the Blueprint for Reform, you correctly noted that some constituencies may 
> cease to be active which might necessitate a change in the size of the 
> Council.  As I have noted the increasing level of inactivity within your own 
> Non-Commercial Constituency lately, I would ask what criteria the Board would 
> use to arrive at a decision to decertify an existing constituency.  

Since every "constituency" is represented either by a government or by
individual people who could be part of the so-called ALAC, we ought to
follow the advice of the GA's past chair and current chair of the IETF, to
abolish the constituency structure altogether.

With the elimination of last pretenses of public participation within
ICANN it is time to eliminate the privileges that have been given to those
few selected interests that are euphemistically called "constituencies".

The idea of "constituencies" was wrong from the first.

		--karl--

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:51:04 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] On constituencies

Karl raises a valid point.  

The DNSO Review consensus-development process resulted in the conclusion that 
either (1) the constituency structure be abolished (replaced by 
one-person/one-vote), or (2) that a constituency add/modify/delete mechanism 
be established. 

ERC members have apparently considered the latter choice, but have not 
provided any implementational details.  True reform of this organization will 
require either such details, or pure democracy as the only other viable 
option.

Karl wrote:

Since every "constituency" is represented either by a government or by
individual people who could be part of the so-called ALAC, we ought to
follow the advice of the GA's past chair and current chair of the IETF, to
abolish the constituency structure altogether.

With the elimination of last pretenses of public participation within
ICANN it is time to eliminate the privileges that have been given to those
few selected interests that are euphemistically called "constituencies".

The idea of "constituencies" was wrong from the first.

        --karl--

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:38:53 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  On Constituencies

Vint,

I have an issue that I would like to discuss with you...  

There are some groups that actively discuss policy matters.

Today alone there must have been at least 60 comments on the registrars list 
regarding WLS.  
The GA always participates (with hundreds of comments posted on this topic 
over the course of many months).
The Public Forum also contains hundreds of comments as well.

On the other hand, there haven't been ANY member comments at all regarding 
WLS on the IPC list.
No comments whatsoever are to be found on the Non-Com list (and this covers 
several months).
The ISP archives always return "Page not Found", and the members of the 
Business Constituency almost never have anything to say (which is probably 
why they don't publicly archive their list).

To conduct a "voting" session of the Names Council when so many 
constituencies can't justify the position of their membership (since 
literally no discussion has taken place) in my view does not serve the best 
interests of the Corporation.

Such a vote cannot possibly represent a "consensus" of the community.  

If the constituency approach is flawed to such a degree, with members of many 
constituencies almost never discussing the day-to-day "work" of ICANN, then 
what is there to truly favor the continuation of this particular constituency 
approach within the GNSO?

Such non-participation is a major problem that warrants a fresh solution of 
the type first proposed by Stuart.

I still see merit in the proposal put forward by the gTLDs that registries, 
registrars and registrants be organized in their own SO (with the other 
constituencies operating as Forums outside the SO structure).  As these other 
constituencies rarely seem to bring anything to the table that can be 
justified by actual member comments, this strikes me as an appropriate reform 
measure.  

I need to ask:  Are we "locked in" to the initial recommendations of the ERC, 
or is there still room to consider more pragmatic solutions?  

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:35:41 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New Research: "Registrations in Open ccTLDs"

Ben and all assembly members,

Ben Edelman wrote:

> GA members have on multiple occasions discussed registrations in open
> ccTLDs -- remarking on ccTLDs like .CC, .TV, and .WS which have opened their
> registration systems to anyone interested, worldwide.  In recent research, I
> have investigated the ways that these ccTLDs are used, placing particular
> emphasis on their apparent use and non-use, on defensive registrations, on
> warehousing, and on cybersquatting.  In my recent "Registrations in Open
> ccTLDs," I attempt to quantify each of these behaviors.
>
> I first report the number of open ccTLD web pages indexed by Google, finding
> open ccTLDs to be less than one one-hundredth as large as .COM when measured
> in this way.

  Yes this is a problem with allot of search engines as has been pointed out
some time ago on this forum and maintained on a number of occasions by
various media sources such as Wired, and CMBC..  However using google
or any search engine that I am familiar with or have used myself doesn't in
any way reflect accurately the registration of domain names in ccTLD
name spaces in comparison with .COM or even .NET...

>
>
> I next consider registration of commonly-used dictionary nouns; while many
> such domains have been registered in the tested ccTLDs, more than 80% lead
> only to placeholders or to no web content at all.

  Placeholders are in some respects a very good thing for a web based
business or future expansion of any business with a web site presence
should that expansion be planed to enter into the countries local.

>
>
> Finally, I investigate open ccTLD registrations that use the same
> second-level strings as the primary .COM domains of major corporations
> worldwide (including the Fortune 1000 and Forbes International 500).  Again,
> many such domains have been registered, and more than two thirds of such
> registrations are by registrants other than the registrant of the
> corresponding .COM.

  This is of course good news!  FCFS seem to be working well if your research
is accurate.

> Indeed, the web content and WHOIS data of sampled
> domains provide evidence both of substantial defensive registrations and of
> substantial cybersquatting.

  I suppose this statement as part of your research would directly depend
on the randomness or the domains you sampled.  As you do not show
or state any use of random sampling as is generally considered
a standard for accurate sampling data results, I would have to
therefore conclude that this statement is relatively worthless as
any kind of a accurate reflection of any kind.

>
>
> My full report is available at
>   <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/open-cctlds/>.
>
> Ben Edelman
> Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> Harvard Law School
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:43:48 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] On constituencies

Karl, Danny and all assembly members,

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > In the Blueprint for Reform, you correctly noted that some constituencies may
> > cease to be active which might necessitate a change in the size of the
> > Council.  As I have noted the increasing level of inactivity within your own
> > Non-Commercial Constituency lately, I would ask what criteria the Board would
> > use to arrive at a decision to decertify an existing constituency.
>
> Since every "constituency" is represented either by a government or by
> individual people who could be part of the so-called ALAC, we ought to
> follow the advice of the GA's past chair and current chair of the IETF, to
> abolish the constituency structure altogether.

  I agree with you on this Karl.  As I recall Harald was certainly not
the first to make such a recommendation either.  I believe that honor
belongs to Roeland Mayer, no longer a participant on the DNSO GA
or even with any ICANN related activities as a result of this very
same recommendation in part...

>
>
> With the elimination of last pretenses of public participation within
> ICANN it is time to eliminate the privileges that have been given to those
> few selected interests that are euphemistically called "constituencies".

  Euphemistically called, is oh so correct.  The COnstituency model
could have worked had the ICANN BOD and staff not limited
it so severally.  But they have and did, so as a result and over some
time now too much water is passed under the bridge, so to speak,
and the restricted constituency model has failed.

>
>
> The idea of "constituencies" was wrong from the first.

  Well maybe not wrong, but certainly not done openly,
transparently and therefore a dismal mess and failure.

>
>
>                 --karl--
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 00:31:17 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Working Paper on At Large Advisory Committee

Hello Eric and Danny,

At 22.07.2002 02:21, Eric Dierker wrote:
>kindly please explain why this is not simply a filter mechanism for ICANN, 
>providing both plausible deniability and a whipping group should things go 
>wrong.
>
>Why not just have the groups directly inerface with ICANN?

let me explain by taking a look at a very different Advisory
Committee, the GAC. Of course, governments could do without
a GAC: They could simply send letters to ICANN, talk to ICANN
Board and Staff in public and private, attend ICANN meetings
et cetera. Instead of *only* having this, they have a
formal Committee which is somehow part of the ICANN structure,
but on the other hand not under ICANN's direct control.
Nothing stops individual governments from doing the things
mentioned above, but the GAC is the formal interface between
governments and ICANN.

User groups currently *don't* have that kind of interface.
Of course, they can again send letters, talk to people and
attend meetings, but they don't have any formal role.
User participation has been sporadic, sometimes unorganized,
sometimes even unprofessional. The proposal is to turn into
a continuous participation with bottom-up roots (user
organizations) reaching into the ICANN structure.

(I'm of course not suggesting that the ALAC should meet behind
closed doors and emit cryptic messages which have to be 
deciphered by the Board and the public -- the internal workings
of an ALAC must be open and transparent.)

At 22.07.2002 12:02, [email-masked] wrote:
>The ALSC spent a year's time and $450,000 to arrive at the conclusion that 
>the needs of the At-Large are best served within the context of a Supporting 
>Organization that elects its own set of directors to the Board.  

Whereas the NAIS Final Report concludes:

  In addition to At-Large Directors, an At-Large Advisory Committee may be
  regarded as one of the most appropriate "representational models" to 
  ensure public representation and participation within the ICANN structure.
  (NAIS report, http://www.naisproject.org/report/final/2.2.1.4.shtml)

Both ALSC and NAIS argue for the election of Board directors
and I *don't* disagree. As you know, the Board has decided against
this election for the time being. My proposal takes the current 
circumstances into account and proposes a structure which the
user organizations can build upon. 

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: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:25:32 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New Research: "Registrations in Open ccTLDs"

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:32:52AM -0400,
 Ben Edelman <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 39 lines which said:

> Finally, I investigate open ccTLD registrations that use the same
> second-level strings as the primary .COM domains of major corporations
> worldwide (including the Fortune 1000 and Forbes International 500).  Again,
> many such domains have been registered, and more than two thirds of such
> registrations are by registrants other than the registrant of the
> corresponding .COM. 

So what? Is it a problem? Do you really think that one company,
worldwide, is entitled to COMPANY.com, COMPANY.tv, COMPANY.cc,
COMPANY.fr and so on?

If the DNS is hierarchical, it is for a reason: the ability to have
two organizations with the same name coexist.

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:30:50 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Working Paper on At Large Advisory Committee

Alexander and all assembly members,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Hello Eric and Danny,
>
> At 22.07.2002 02:21, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >kindly please explain why this is not simply a filter mechanism for ICANN,
> >providing both plausible deniability and a whipping group should things go
> >wrong.
> >
> >Why not just have the groups directly inerface with ICANN?
>
> let me explain by taking a look at a very different Advisory
> Committee, the GAC. Of course, governments could do without
> a GAC: They could simply send letters to ICANN, talk to ICANN
> Board and Staff in public and private, attend ICANN meetings
> et cetera. Instead of *only* having this, they have a
> formal Committee which is somehow part of the ICANN structure,
> but on the other hand not under ICANN's direct control.
> Nothing stops individual governments from doing the things
> mentioned above, but the GAC is the formal interface between
> governments and ICANN.

  Yes.  But the GAC is not itself and open structure, not to mention
even and organization per se.  There is no interface between the
GAC and the stakeholders/users or any stakeholder/user
organization already in existence.  Hence, any communications
are of a private nature, and this leads to mistrust between different
stakeholder/user groups.  That is not exactly a healthy thing IMHO.
On the other hand however, at least most of the GAC members
can be contacted via E-Mail.

>
>
> User groups currently *don't* have that kind of interface.
> Of course, they can again send letters, talk to people and
> attend meetings, but they don't have any formal role.

  Yes, and this is the crux of ICANN's structure problems
that the ICANN BoD and staff have purposefully made for themselves
and thereby lead to ever increasing mistrust.

>
> User participation has been sporadic, sometimes unorganized,
> sometimes even unprofessional. The proposal is to turn into
> a continuous participation with bottom-up roots (user
> organizations) reaching into the ICANN structure.

  Reaching into the ICANN structure is not good enough
Alex.  These groups however formed, must be able to
be an entragal PART of the ICANN structure...  Otherwise
ever increasing mistrust for ICANN and amongst these
stakeholder/user organizations will continue.

>
>
> (I'm of course not suggesting that the ALAC should meet behind
> closed doors and emit cryptic messages which have to be
> deciphered by the Board and the public -- the internal workings
> of an ALAC must be open and transparent.)

  Good point.  Currently the ALAC is not open and transparent
enough, if at all...

>
>
> At 22.07.2002 12:02, [email-masked] wrote:
> >The ALSC spent a year's time and $450,000 to arrive at the conclusion that
> >the needs of the At-Large are best served within the context of a Supporting
> >Organization that elects its own set of directors to the Board.
>
> Whereas the NAIS Final Report concludes:
>
>   In addition to At-Large Directors, an At-Large Advisory Committee may be
>   regarded as one of the most appropriate "representational models" to
>   ensure public representation and participation within the ICANN structure.
>   (NAIS report, http://www.naisproject.org/report/final/2.2.1.4.shtml)
>
> Both ALSC and NAIS argue for the election of Board directors
> and I *don't* disagree. As you know, the Board has decided against
> this election for the time being. My proposal takes the current
> circumstances into account and proposes a structure which the
> user organizations can build upon.
>
> 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

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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1337
*************************