Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1347
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, July 30 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1347

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:53:06 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

Your answers show only that you have NO understanding of how the DNS
works, or why it works that way, Todd.

Go read some articles that explain HOW the dns works, and its
heirarchal structure, and then go back and answer my questions.

Until then, this is just more uninformed suggestions from an
uninformed source.

Monday, July 29, 2002, 9:00:10 AM, todd glassey wrote:

> William -

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
> To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Ga" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 12:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

>> Sunday, July 28, 2002, 8:42:10 PM, todd glassey wrote:
>>
>> > My feeling is that a Root Zone Protocol as a top layer of a DNS
> resolution
>> > model might be also functional. The idea would be that if there was a
> Root
>> > Zone specified in the URI/URL then it would be used otherwise the
> default
>> > set would be (i.e. the ICANN set).
>>
>> > The real win as I have said would be properly outfitted search engines
> since
>> > these are really the next generation resolution services anyway.
>>
>> All your proposal does is essentially create a network of third level
>> domain registries, and solves none of the problems.

> Sorry - this is simply not true. My RZP allows for multiple root domains to
> exist together in any number of models. These clearly are not Domain
> Registries but rather a simple LDAP infrastructure listing which sets of
> Registries are attached to which sets of  domains. And it does solve the
> Domain Collission and IP issues without any major hurdles. Thats why this
> would actually work - becuase it does not do as you claim, create a third
> tier of registries.

>> Who then gets to
>> decide what "roots" (which are really TLDs, and TLDs become second
>> level domains)

> WRONG - no William, the root zones are not new TLD's in and of
> themselves, they are collections of TLD's that are resolved by any
> specific stated number of servers that make up that ROOT's top-level
> of DNS servers.

>> get into the master dns?

> What are you referring to, in the ICANN Root? (dot ARPA), if that's the case
> then ICANN would, just like it does now. As to the China Root, the Chinese
> government likely would, one would think.

>>
>> Or do you not understand how the hierarchy in the dns works, and why
>> it works that way?

> William - I am tired of your verbal harassment to justify your position. Not
> only is it wrong but its par for the course for you - that's what you do-
> you verbally abuse people and the records speak for themselves. Look at the
> archives over the past few years and what's there - your unhealthy slamming
> of everything that offers anything that is different from your opinion. So
> that means you must be the only right person here - eh...

> Todd Glassey

>>
>> --
>> 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
>>

> --
> 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: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:07:17 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

At 05:31 PM 29/07/02 -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote:

>Every TM specialist who argued for or against the WLS
>in front of the task force seemed to agree WLS was
>intellectual property neutral, a position I happen to
>agree with.

If that is the case then does that mean TM specialists
have no rationale for arguing about it at all?

>So todd, how does creating a WLS or WLS-type service
>create a new trademark class?

Not that it does, but it strikes me as strange that
someone can register a domain name identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark and lose it via
the UDRP or the courts even if they never use it
for anything. OTOH one can sign up for the WLS on
a trademarked name and one is safe (including
presumably to sell that slot to others).

So as has been seen in some recent UDRP cases one
registers famous names and then finds someone of
the same name to be its registrant. Or one registers
a trademarked name and then offers it to the highest
bidder from amongst those holding that trademark.

The squatters will be there in droves, looks more
like a new trademark free class to me. -g

- --
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, 29 Jul 2002 18:32:39 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A special  excite game

Milton has a virus.

Monday, July 29, 2002, 5:18:04 PM, mueller wrote:

> Hi,This is a  excite game
> This game is my first work.
> You're the first player.
> I expect you would enjoy it.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:32:28 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ICANN & transfers

Vint,

In Bucharest the Board resolved [02.71] to adopt Reconsideration Decision 
02-2 which basically stated that, "Because the "registrar requirements" 
regarding transfers are not included in any contract enforceable by ICANN, it 
is not appropriate that ICANN attempt to enforce them".

While ICANN is not a signatory to the registry-registrar agreements (in which 
transfers are governed by the language of an Exhibit therein), those specific 
agreements are, in fact, appendices that are referenced within the primary 
ICANN-registry agreements to which indeed ICANN is a signatory -- there is 
"linkage", and there is also language that states:  "Entire Agreement. This 
Agreement (including its appendices, which form a part of it) constitutes the 
entire agreement of the parties..."

Obviously I am not a lawyer, but I would think that based on such linkage, 
ICANN does have an implied role in the enforcement of such provisions.  May I 
ask what your view is on this matter?  Registrants clearly have an interest 
in this transfers issue, and probably would want some assurances that someone 
is acting to protect their best interests... is that someone ICANN, or should 
they be turning elsewhere?  Is it part of ICANN's mission to afford such 
protections?

- --
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, 29 Jul 2002 21:53:36 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

The thing is...getting a WLS slot does not get you anything real. If you
'get' some 'famousnamedomain' WLS 
and then... the domain expires 
and then... you register the name

then...the TM holder...might take you to UDRP or to the courts. And even
that...would depend on how litigious they feel and whether you are doing
something that they think might have a shot at being deemed something
useful under UDRP or Lanham act or whatever legislation they were in the
jurisdiction to use.

Until you are actuallly... 'at the wheel' of the domain in
question....there really is no TM issue.
For example... I could get the WLS slot for daimlerchrysler.com...is
there a snowball's chance in puerto plata that I would actually get a
chance to infringe? no...of course not.

thats the whole point.  A WLS slot...is not a TM. It's not even a
domain. It's just the chance to get the domain if the domainholder
messes up or abandons. Thasssalll. In fact...its just a slightly more
'exclusive' form...of something that has been going on for a while.
People have been using services to go after domains they are interested
in for a long time.

As for squatters getting there in droves, I fail to see what exactly
they are 'squatting'. Can someone enlighten me?

Gary Osbourne wrote:
> 
> At 05:31 PM 29/07/02 -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote:
> 
> >Every TM specialist who argued for or against the WLS
> >in front of the task force seemed to agree WLS was
> >intellectual property neutral, a position I happen to
> >agree with.
> 
> If that is the case then does that mean TM specialists
> have no rationale for arguing about it at all?
> 
> >So todd, how does creating a WLS or WLS-type service
> >create a new trademark class?
> 
> Not that it does, but it strikes me as strange that
> someone can register a domain name identical or
> confusingly similar to a trademark and lose it via
> the UDRP or the courts even if they never use it
> for anything. OTOH one can sign up for the WLS on
> a trademarked name and one is safe (including
> presumably to sell that slot to others).
> 
> So as has been seen in some recent UDRP cases one
> registers famous names and then finds someone of
> the same name to be its registrant. Or one registers
> a trademarked name and then offers it to the highest
> bidder from amongst those holding that trademark.
> 
> The squatters will be there in droves, looks more
> like a new trademark free class to me. -g

- -- 
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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:58:46 -0400
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

Danny,

neither of us is a lawyer but the general question of registrants and
transfers seems to rise to visibility regularly. I'm looking into the
question.

vint

At 09:32 PM 7/29/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>Vint,
>
>In Bucharest the Board resolved [02.71] to adopt Reconsideration Decision 
>02-2 which basically stated that, "Because the "registrar requirements" 
>regarding transfers are not included in any contract enforceable by ICANN, it 
>is not appropriate that ICANN attempt to enforce them".
>
>While ICANN is not a signatory to the registry-registrar agreements (in which 
>transfers are governed by the language of an Exhibit therein), those specific 
>agreements are, in fact, appendices that are referenced within the primary 
>ICANN-registry agreements to which indeed ICANN is a signatory -- there is 
>"linkage", and there is also language that states:  "Entire Agreement. This 
>Agreement (including its appendices, which form a part of it) constitutes the 
>entire agreement of the parties..."
>
>Obviously I am not a lawyer, but I would think that based on such linkage, 
>ICANN does have an implied role in the enforcement of such provisions.  May I 
>ask what your view is on this matter?  Registrants clearly have an interest 
>in this transfers issue, and probably would want some assurances that someone 
>is acting to protect their best interests... is that someone ICANN, or should 
>they be turning elsewhere?  Is it part of ICANN's mission to afford such 
>protections?

- --
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, 29 Jul 2002 19:44:20 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

At 09:53 PM 29/07/02 -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote:

>For example... I could get the WLS slot for
>daimlerchrysler.com...is there a snowball's
>chance in puerto plata that I would actually
>get a chance to infringe? no...of course not.

Agreed, except...

>In fact...its just a slightly more 'exclusive'
>form...of something that has been going on for
>a while. People have been using services to go
>after domains they are interested in for a long
>  time.

Agreed, except it is considerably more 'exclusive'.
Prior to the WLS one could never be sure of having
the single slot that *would* get the domain if it
dropped, with the WLS they will.

>As for squatters getting there in droves, I fail
>to see what exactly they are 'squatting'. Can
>someone enlighten me?

OK, to reiterate, a squatter, to use your example,
signs up for daimlerchrysler.com and gets the slot.

He then finds a person named Daimler Chrysler and
sells that slot to them. That person also has rights
to the name, and if the automaker let the name drop,
that could be used as evidence they no longer wanted
it. My use of your example is silly of course, but
what about Ford.com? Dodge.com? And what about if
the squatter gets one of the latter slots and then
offers it to some of the scores of non-automakers
out there who also hold that trademarked name and
can claim rights to it?

While those examples aren't quite as silly, they
still aren't the best ones. The squatters may well
be more likely to go after somewhat less high
profile but still trademarked names. What about if
the original owner and trademark holder never
actually used it, which isn't that hard to check,
and then someone else registers it with some
claim to the name, trademark or otherwise? Is it
then a slam dunk they'd get it back under the
UDRP or the courts? If so, OK, no need for
concern I suppose, but don't think for a minute
some enterprising squatters won't try that or
other wrinkles.

And while I think about it, perhaps a name
registration and a slot aren't that different.
If I register but don't use a domain name that
might be a trademark, its just an entry in a
database, an intent to use that may never be
used.

If I get that WLS slot, it's just an entry in
a database, an intent to use that may never be
used. If it actually does drop, through error
or whatever (and there is no shortage of such
examples), then it presumably could be used,
for a pr0n site, say, for a month or two until
the original registrant gets it back. I'm rather
surprised the IP folks are neutral about this.

So perhaps they're not that different, except
that the latter database won't be public.
Hey, just another squatter selling point. -g

- --
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, 29 Jul 2002 22:32:04 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Cavebear overcomes stonewall. Auerbach wins decisively.

On 29 Jul 2002, at 13:37, Gary Osbourne wrote:

> Bret Fausett, who attended the court case this
> morning, has the details at:
> http://icann.blog.us/
> As they're still being posted I won't link to an
> individual item. Congrats to Karl and real openness.
> Let's see ICANN spin this one. -g

From the ICANN blog.
1) non-confidential records maintained in electronic form shall be delivered to Mr. 
Auerbach by August 2nd; (2) non-confidential documents maintained in non-
electronic form shall be made available for Mr. Auerbach's review in Marina del 
Rey at a mutually agreeable time before August 9th (and Mr. Auerbach is 
entitled to request copies of the non-confidential documents  

"Confidential" documents, whether in electronic form or in hard-copy, shall be 
made available for Mr. Auerbach's review in Marina del Rey at a mutually 
agreeable time before August 9th. Mr. Auerbach cannot disclose the contents of 
a document designated "confidential" without giving ICANN at least  10 days 
notice (and the burden then would fall to ICANN to seek further protective orders 
preventing disclosure). Mr. Auerbach's access is not conditioned on his signing, 
or agreeing to abide by, the confidentiality form presented by ICANN."

Here's ICANN's spin:

"The Court also ruled orally that ICANN must, by Friday of this week, provide Mr. 
Auerbach with electronic copies of all "non-confidential" (as designated by 
ICANN) materials he has requested that already exist in electronic form. 
However, the Court also established a procedure where the Court will decide the 
extent, if any, to which Mr. Auerbach may publish materials that ICANN 
considers confidential. The Court also sided with ICANN that Mr. Auerbach's 
inspection of such materials must be at ICANN's offices.  "

"The ultimate effect of the Court order is essentially the same as the ICANN 
procedure that Mr. Auerbach refused to follow. In both cases, Mr. Auerbach had 
the full right to inspect any and all documents at the ICANN offices, a right that 
was never in dispute. And in both cases any disagreements about his right to 
publish any of those materials would ultimately be resolved by a court, not by 
ICANN or Auerbach."  

Wasn't Karl's point that he was refused access unless he signed the document 
that the ICANN staff required?  He also has the right to copies of all non-
confidential documents, whether electronic or non-electronic.  That was 
something else ICANN did not want to allow.  Karl never said he would publish 
"confidential" material.  However, he has to only provide a 10 day notice to 
ICANN if he intends to publish and it is up to ICANN to seek remedy from the 
court to prevent it - not the other way around.

I agree with Brett that Karl won the issue, which is a good sign for us, the public.

And here is the sorry final paragraph:

"It is unfortunate that ICANN's limited resources must be used for matters such 
as this, which do not advance the core mission of ICANN. But so long as one of 
ICANN's directors continues to assert that he has a unilateral right to make 
decisions on behalf of ICANN without regard to the views of his fellow directors, 
ICANN is required to seek to protect the rights of the corporation from being 
abridged by the unilateral action of an individual director."

It is the precise role of a minority director to do exactly what Karl is doing and 
the court noted this role.  If a minority director had no right or power to insist on 
those rights, there might be no stopping a run away board.  At least there is one 
director who takes it seriously enough to make an effort to do the right thing.

I found it noteworthy that ICANN attempted to compare its position to that of 
Microsoft and IBM.  The court pointed out the difference between a for-profit 
corporation and a non-profit, public benefit corp.  Now, should that have even 
been necessary?

Leah

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:30:52 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN & transfers

At 09:32 p.m. 29/07/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>Vint,
>
>In Bucharest the Board resolved [02.71] to adopt Reconsideration Decision
>02-2 which basically stated that, "Because the "registrar requirements"
>regarding transfers are not included in any contract enforceable by ICANN, it
>is not appropriate that ICANN attempt to enforce them".
>
>While ICANN is not a signatory to the registry-registrar agreements (in which
>transfers are governed by the language of an Exhibit therein), those specific
>agreements are, in fact, appendices that are referenced within the primary
>ICANN-registry agreements to which indeed ICANN is a signatory -- there is
>"linkage", and there is also language that states:  "Entire Agreement. This
>Agreement (including its appendices, which form a part of it) constitutes the
>entire agreement of the parties..."
>
>Obviously I am not a lawyer, but I would think that based on such linkage,
>ICANN does have an implied role in the enforcement of such provisions.  May I
>ask what your view is on this matter?  Registrants clearly have an interest
>in this transfers issue, and probably would want some assurances that someone
>is acting to protect their best interests... is that someone ICANN, or should
>they be turning elsewhere?  Is it part of ICANN's mission to afford such
>protections?

With permission, I would like to add my name to this request for clarity on 
ICANN's role and mission.
Mr Touton, what is ICANN's legal position here?

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:00:51 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

Vint and all assembly members,

  Great non-answer.  Another of many BTW as you of course know.
Warming up for court on the fraud problems with Worldcom perhaps?
Well in any event, perhaps someone else should look into these
questions of danny's and have a full and complete answer.

vint cerf wrote:

> Danny,
>
> neither of us is a lawyer but the general question of registrants and
> transfers seems to rise to visibility regularly. I'm looking into the
> question.
>
> vint
>
> At 09:32 PM 7/29/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Vint,
> >
> >In Bucharest the Board resolved [02.71] to adopt Reconsideration Decision
> >02-2 which basically stated that, "Because the "registrar requirements"
> >regarding transfers are not included in any contract enforceable by ICANN, it
> >is not appropriate that ICANN attempt to enforce them".
> >
> >While ICANN is not a signatory to the registry-registrar agreements (in which
> >transfers are governed by the language of an Exhibit therein), those specific
> >agreements are, in fact, appendices that are referenced within the primary
> >ICANN-registry agreements to which indeed ICANN is a signatory -- there is
> >"linkage", and there is also language that states:  "Entire Agreement. This
> >Agreement (including its appendices, which form a part of it) constitutes the
> >entire agreement of the parties..."
> >
> >Obviously I am not a lawyer, but I would think that based on such linkage,
> >ICANN does have an implied role in the enforcement of such provisions.  May I
> >ask what your view is on this matter?  Registrants clearly have an interest
> >in this transfers issue, and probably would want some assurances that someone
> >is acting to protect their best interests... is that someone ICANN, or should
> >they be turning elsewhere?  Is it part of ICANN's mission to afford such
> >protections?
>
> --
> 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, 29 Jul 2002 20:21:20 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A special  excite game

At 06:32 PM 29/07/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>Milton has a virus.

I dunno. I once falsely (but privately) accused
Bret Fausett of sending me one without first
checking the headers. It turned out to be from
another list member who shall remain nameless,
I never notified that other member, but as it
also went to the GA list that would have been
piling on. Is Milton in Mexico?

Mhybmdz 148.246.11.253

That's the apparent originating IP and that's
where the block leads. There's certainly nothing
in the headers corresponding to syr.edu, though
that's not definitive. I don't have other email
from Milton to compare.

I'm sure you know this, but some may be unaware
that there are virii out there that will appear
to come from someone, whereas they're actually
from someone else who has that first someone in
their address book, typically MicroSoft Outlook
(and Express), AKA the world's largest open relay,
although some virii do go so far as to get it
from elsewhere on an infected system, any *@*.*
will do. This must be more than 5 posts, sorry. -g

- --
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, 29 Jul 2002 22:14:48 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] A special  excite game

Wouldn't you agree it is more likely Kent Crispin sent it while pretending 
to be Mr. Mueller?

Seriously, why is a virus as lame as this being forwarded to all recipients 
on the mail list?  Is there nothing the Domain Name Service Organization 
can do to keep itself from propagating programs like this?

~k

At 06:32 PM 7/29/2002 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>Milton has a virus.
>
>Monday, July 29, 2002, 5:18:04 PM, mueller wrote:
>
> > Hi,This is a  excite game
> > This game is my first work.
> > You're the first player.
> > I expect you would enjoy it.
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>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

- --
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, 29 Jul 2002 22:25:57 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

>
> > Danny,
> >
> > neither of us is a lawyer but the general question of registrants and
> > transfers seems to rise to visibility regularly. I'm looking into the
> > question.
> >
> > vint
> >
<snip>

Vint,

What do you mean by "look into the question" above?

Is this some sort of freaky legal phrase or does it mean you don't 
understand the question and are looking for an enhanced comprehension level 
or what exactly are you communicating?

Thanks,

~k

- --
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, 29 Jul 2002 20:48:58 -0700
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A special  excite game

This is Klez virus - one of its characteristics is to  scan email
addresses in the infected person's machine and cloak itself as FROM one
of those addresses NOT from the infected person's address - so most
likely, it is not Milton who has it, it is someone entirely different
who had Milton's email in their address book.  More info on this bugger
can be found in antivirus sites mcafee.com or symantec.com
cheers
Genie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Osbourne" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "mueller" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] A special excite game

> At 06:32 PM 29/07/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:
>
> >Milton has a virus.
>
> I dunno. I once falsely (but privately) accused
> Bret Fausett of sending me one without first
> checking the headers. It turned out to be from
> another list member who shall remain nameless,
> I never notified that other member, but as it
> also went to the GA list that would have been
> piling on. Is Milton in Mexico?
>
> Mhybmdz 148.246.11.253
>
> That's the apparent originating IP and that's
> where the block leads. There's certainly nothing
> in the headers corresponding to syr.edu, though
> that's not definitive. I don't have other email
> from Milton to compare.
>
> I'm sure you know this, but some may be unaware
> that there are virii out there that will appear
> to come from someone, whereas they're actually
> from someone else who has that first someone in
> their address book, typically MicroSoft Outlook
> (and Express), AKA the world's largest open relay,
> although some virii do go so far as to get it
> from elsewhere on an infected system, any *@*.*
> will do. This must be more than 5 posts, sorry. -g
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:40:20 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN Blog: Auerbach wins

Joe Baptista
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 5:26 PM
> congrats to karl .. the question of course is .. will icann appeal?  i'd
> put the odds at 10 to 1, that is of course if they have the right to
> appeal under the relevent laws.
>
> Cheers
> Joe Baptista

The question is, "What aspect of the public interest is served by ICANN
filing an appeal?", for above all, ICANN must act in the public interest,
directing its limited resources for this purpose, and this purpose alone.

In the face of a court order that essentially opined that ICANN's defense
has no merits, they now have the Herculean task of justifying further legal
expense drawn from resources donated essentially for the public benefit, for
which purpose they exist.

No doubt ICANN's accounts department has shredders in its future, so what we
really need now is a plea bargain in exchange for immunity.

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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 04:03:18 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Blog: Auerbach wins

Joanna and all assembly members,

  Why plea bargain if you have won?  Bad idea there Joanna.

  I believe that DOC/NTIA would have something to say about
any appeal that the ICANN BoD and staff MAY have in mind
as ICANN is still under contract with DOC/NTIA...

  An immediate seizure request to the court might be a good idea
though...

  I think you are getting a little carried away with the mention
of shredding machines at this point Joanna...

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Joe Baptista
> > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 5:26 PM
> > congrats to karl .. the question of course is .. will icann appeal?  i'd
> > put the odds at 10 to 1, that is of course if they have the right to
> > appeal under the relevent laws.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Joe Baptista
>
> The question is, "What aspect of the public interest is served by ICANN
> filing an appeal?", for above all, ICANN must act in the public interest,
> directing its limited resources for this purpose, and this purpose alone.
>
> In the face of a court order that essentially opined that ICANN's defense
> has no merits, they now have the Herculean task of justifying further legal
> expense drawn from resources donated essentially for the public benefit, for
> which purpose they exist.
>
> No doubt ICANN's accounts department has shredders in its future, so what we
> really need now is a plea bargain in exchange for immunity.
>
> 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

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 #1347
*************************