Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1373
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, August 14 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1373

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:27:30 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

Elisabeth,

You may be right that the election of a Director for a very short term is
appropriate. I simply don't want to see the DNSO make a decision now that
then becomes binding on the GNSO. The GNSO, as you know, will have a
separate focus (generic names, not country names), and it will have a
different set of constituencies. It also will appoint two Directors instead
of three. So if we proceed to elect a Director now, it should be with the
understanding that we will do this again, if necessary, as soon as the
reform plan is implemented.

     -- Bret

- --
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, 13 Aug 2002 23:27:55 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for 4 month and half
of GAC Secretariat (after Bucharest to 15 November 2002):

http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-13aug02.htm

Resolved [EC02.8] that the President is authorized to provide 
reimbursement to the Australian Government for its actual costs 
of providing chair and secretariat services to the GAC, in a total 
amount not to exceed US$75,000, for the period ending 15 November 2002, 
after which alternative arrangements by the GAC to provide these 
functions can be implemented.

Deux poids deux mesures ?

While the DNSO Constituencies provide 90% of the whole ICANN
budget, circa 5 million USD, the DNSO have been asking ICANN Board 
to provide $100,000 per annum for the DNSO Secretariat.
The DNSO function of developping policy for gTLD space is
the main reason for which ICANN has been created under the MoU
with the USG.

Elisabeth Porteneuve
- --
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, 13 Aug 2002 17:42:59 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

Hmmm...

Seems to me that the elected at-large directors tems could easily be 
extended until the reform is implemented.  It only takes a bylaws 
change and that has been demonstrated to be easily done if the Board 
wishes to do so.  Ah, but there's the problem.  The board doesn't wish 
to do so, does it.  

In view of the flux ICANN will be in due to the reform, it would only make 
sense to extend the current at-large directors terms in order to not 
reduce the board to a point where there is no director from the greater 
community and no legitimacy left at all.

Leah

On 13 Aug 2002, at 21:28, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Bret,
> 
> I do not see Article V as easy adapted to the exceptional
> situation when you have to coordinate actions in ALL 3 SOs.
> Not much doubt for myself, it requires Board action (but
> I am not a lawyer).
> 
> But my real point in not there.
> 
> The acting Board Director need to be reelected, and to have
> a strong support to achieve the work on Reform. What if extension
> of 90 days is not sufficient ? 
> How long does it take to have a request for extension ready
> and ratified by the Board ?
> 
> Please note that after Shaghai the Board will be reduced 
> to SOs Directors only (see below), and probably until
> the first ICANN meeting in 2003. The time is necessary
> to set up the Nominating Committee representing 19 various groups 
> of interest and respecting the geographic diversity.
> Once this Nominating Committee is set up, it will have to find 
> and seat Board Directors.
> 
> Am I pessimistic on implementation ? Maybe.
> 
> Anyway, it is easier in my opinion to have SOs Directors
> in place and to replace all of them by new structure, when
> ready.
> 
> To be clear: I think that the DNSO election underway is in 
> support of Mr Pisanty.
> 
> Elisabeth
> --
> 
> 1. Article V, Section 1. INITIAL BOARD
>    ...
>    The remaining four "At Large" members of the Initial Board 
>    shall serve until the conclusion of the Annual Meeting of 
>    the Corporation in 2002. No At Large member of the Initial 
>    Board shall be eligible for additional service on the Board 
>    until two years have elapsed following the end of his or her 
>    term on the Board.
> 
>    Will leave: Hans Krajinenbrink, Linda Wilson, Jun Murai 
>    and Frank Fitzsimmons
> 
> 2. Article II, about FIVE "AT LARGE" DIRECTORS elected IN THE YEAR 2000
> 
>    Section 3. TERMS OF "AT LARGE" DIRECTORS
> 
>    The five "At Large" Directors seated as described in 
>    Section 2 shall serve terms that expire at the conclusion of 
>    the Annual Meeting of the Corporation in 2002.
> 
>    Will leave: Nii Quaynor, Ivan Campos, Masanobu Katoh, Karl Auerbach,
>    Andy Mueller-Maguhn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > From [email-masked] Fri Aug  9 23:37 MET 2002
> > X-UIDL: RhY!!+JU!!%QJ"!kIY"!
> > User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006
> > Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 14:39:04 -0700
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board
> > Director 	candidates From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]> To:
> > Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> > Message-ID: <[email-masked]> Mime-version: 1.0
> > Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> > 
> > There's more than one way to do this...without throwing ourselves into
> > anarchy. Here are just three alternatives, each possible under the
> > current bylaws:
> > 
> > (1) Ask each of the DNSO-elected Directors to resign now but effective at
> > the close of the Board meeting on 31 October 2002. Hold elections now for
> > two replacements (plus one alternate in the event that three Directors
> > are required under ICANN 2.0). The current bylaws permit the DNSO to fill
> > a vacancy under Article V, Section 12.
> > 
> > (2) Vote now to remove the sitting DNSO Directors under Article V,
> > Section 11 effective at the close of the Board meeting on 31 October
> > 2002. Then, as described in (1), hold new elections.
> > 
> > (3) Have the Council vote to extend the term of Mr. Pisanty, with the
> > blessing of the Board, for a period of 90 days, which ought to be
> > sufficient to finalize reform and hold new elections within the new GNSO.
> > 
> > Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> > > Today Bylaws set up obligations on each SOs, one of them is to proceed
> > > on time and to elect ICANN Board directors.
> > > 
> > > Until we receive the clear implementation schedule and timeline
> > > for ICANN 2 (whatever it is, as amended in Bucharest, work in progress,
> > > letters to DoC in progress, see your own blog), we have to follow
> > > rules. Otherwise it is anarchy.
> > 
> > --
> 
> --
> 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, 13 Aug 2002 17:47:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

wouldn't it be nice if these decisions were taken at public meetings?

On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> 
> 
> ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for 4 month and half
> of GAC Secretariat (after Bucharest to 15 November 2002):
> 
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-13aug02.htm
> 
> Resolved [EC02.8] that the President is authorized to provide 
> reimbursement to the Australian Government for its actual costs 
> of providing chair and secretariat services to the GAC, in a total 
> amount not to exceed US$75,000, for the period ending 15 November 2002, 
> after which alternative arrangements by the GAC to provide these 
> functions can be implemented.
> 
> Deux poids deux mesures ?
> 
> While the DNSO Constituencies provide 90% of the whole ICANN
> budget, circa 5 million USD, the DNSO have been asking ICANN Board 
> to provide $100,000 per annum for the DNSO Secretariat.
> The DNSO function of developping policy for gTLD space is
> the main reason for which ICANN has been created under the MoU
> with the USG.
> 
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
**NOTE: 7/31-8/14 law.miami.edu will have random downtime due to
"network upgrades".  Mail will bounce, and www.law.tm will 404.**

		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--

- --
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, 13 Aug 2002 18:30:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

> While the DNSO Constituencies provide 90% of the whole ICANN
> budget, circa 5 million USD, the DNSO have been asking ICANN Board
> to provide $100,000 per annum for the DNSO Secretariat.
> The DNSO function of developping policy for gTLD space is
> the main reason for which ICANN has been created under the MoU
> with the USG.

elisabeth - i detect some bitterness here.  i guess the icann infigting
continues.

regards
joe

- --
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, 13 Aug 2002 16:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for 4 month and half
> of GAC Secretariat (after Bucharest to 15 November 2002):
 
> Deux poids deux mesures ?

> While the DNSO Constituencies provide 90% of the whole ICANN...

While I may have certain complaints and concerns about the DNSO, the
effectiveness of its administrative functions is not among them.  I have
been impressed with the ever-improving mechanisms that the DNSO has put
into place: e-mail archives, audio recordings of meetings, etc.

(Had I had the opportunity to do so, I would not have voted for this
bail-out of the GAC.)

		--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: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 02:04:45 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

- --=======12CD10C7=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-76C15559; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 00:30 14/08/02, Joe Baptista said:
>elisabeth - i detect some bitterness here.  i guess the icann infigting
>continues.

I suspect you may detect I suppose the money ICANN is not paying for nearly 
one year of DNSO secretariat? As you may recall Stuart Lynn called on the 
GAC (Govs) to help him to pay ... now they are the ones getting paid.
jfc

- --=======12CD10C7=======--

- --
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, 13 Aug 2002 18:57:31 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

Jefsey and all assembly members,

  Trusting Vint, which I also once did, is dead on here now given that
the Worldcom fraud scandal has reach Vint as well...

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> On 21:28 13/08/02, Elisabeth Porteneuve said:
> >Please note that after Shaghai the Board will be reduced
> >to SOs Directors only (see below),
>
> Dear Elisabeth,
> Vint committed on this list that it will noty be so because the @large
> Directors will stay seated until replaced. I trust Vint.
>
> The ICANN could not have any legitimacy left..
> jfc

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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, 13 Aug 2002 20:18:48 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

I must disagree, respectively, with any view that this is a bail-out.
We are all engaged in trying to achieve an effective next stage to ICANN.
I am a firm believer that the private sector should do what ICANN is doing.
Governments should be, and are, key advisors. The GAC is a critical resource
in this aspect. Support of the secretariat for the GAC makes sense.  We are all
in transition. 

Let's look forward to the future and the common vision which I believe most share -
we can be bogged down in past experiences. OR we can understand that evolution means
just that.

It is hard to put one's personal experiences and to look to a broader more common
perspective... but that is necessary.  In the future, I believe we have agreement to support
of staff for SOs ... I have supported that extension to Advisory Councils, but noted that 
I believe that AC's must advise SO's, where policy is made, not just Board.

:-)

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 7:33 PM
To: Elisabeth Porteneuve
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for 4 month and half
> of GAC Secretariat (after Bucharest to 15 November 2002):
 
> Deux poids deux mesures ?

> While the DNSO Constituencies provide 90% of the whole ICANN...

While I may have certain complaints and concerns about the DNSO, the
effectiveness of its administrative functions is not among them.  I have
been impressed with the ever-improving mechanisms that the DNSO has put
into place: e-mail archives, audio recordings of meetings, etc.

(Had I had the opportunity to do so, I would not have voted for this
bail-out of the GAC.)

		--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

- --
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, 13 Aug 2002 18:17:46 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

Sheesh Marilyn,
What happened to your proof-reader, on Euro Vacation?
I thought you got paid for this stuff?
So what is this about personal experience?
Marilyn you should accept a moral responsibility to pay those
for labor who have served you.  The GA - DNSO Secretariat
should be paid long before the GAC who can afford it.
But then your position is consistent with a US centric Government
Big Business monopolistic control over my Internet.

Sincerely,
Eric

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> I must disagree, respectively, with any view that this is a bail-out.
> We are all engaged in trying to achieve an effective next stage to ICANN.
> I am a firm believer that the private sector should do what ICANN is doing.
> Governments should be, and are, key advisors. The GAC is a critical resource
> in this aspect. Support of the secretariat for the GAC makes sense.  We are all
> in transition.
>
> Let's look forward to the future and the common vision which I believe most share -
> we can be bogged down in past experiences. OR we can understand that evolution means
> just that.
>
> It is hard to put one's personal experiences and to look to a broader more common
> perspective... but that is necessary.  In the future, I believe we have agreement to support
> of staff for SOs ... I have supported that extension to Advisory Councils, but noted that
> I believe that AC's must advise SO's, where policy is made, not just Board.
>
> :-)
>
> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 7:33 PM
> To: Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat
>
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
>
> > ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for 4 month and half
> > of GAC Secretariat (after Bucharest to 15 November 2002):
>
> > Deux poids deux mesures ?
>
> > While the DNSO Constituencies provide 90% of the whole ICANN...
>
> While I may have certain complaints and concerns about the DNSO, the
> effectiveness of its administrative functions is not among them.  I have
> been impressed with the ever-improving mechanisms that the DNSO has put
> into place: e-mail archives, audio recordings of meetings, etc.
>
> (Had I had the opportunity to do so, I would not have voted for this
> bail-out of the GAC.)
>
>                 --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
>
> --
> 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, 13 Aug 2002 20:27:33 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
"We are all engaged in trying to achieve an effective next stage to ICANN."
==============================================

You seem to be missing a lot of history, when did AT&T start paying you to become involved
in the DNS industry ? Is C. Michael Armstrong aware of your activities ?

Going back in time...
ICANN was created to add 5 or 6 TLDs to the legacy root servers as a Proof-of-Concept
market trial. The thinking was (at the time) that the obvious 5 or 6 TLDs would be added in
a few months and people would move rapidly forward to the "next stage". It took years and
it was a fiasco. Part of what took time was the pushing aside of the obvious people and companies
in line, in favor of insiders carefully positioned and selected by the I* society. No one was fooled.
Despite that, the 5 or 6 TLDs have helped to develop people and companies with an interest in an SLD.TLD name. Other companies, such
as http://www.New.Net, have accomplished more, in less time. People can now compare. More importantly, companies can now move
forward with more TLDs
and also add to the services offered to the people and companies emerging from the IPv4 32-bit DNS
experiments. ICANN is no longer needed, but it will clearly now grow and prosper. About all it
can really do is manage 0:0 .ARPA and IN-ADDR.ARPA. Since many of the ICANN roots come
from the .ARPA and DARPA funding days, it should be no surprise that the "owners" of large
IPv4 32-bit non-TOS address blocks would continue to back ICANN, to maintain their control.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

Freedom-loving-people can route around 0:0 .ARPA....and sell services to people and
companies that emerge from the marketing experiments held in the IPv4 32-bit DNS "sandbox".
The Next Generation Internet and 128-bit DNS will open up many opportunities for small to
mid-size companies. It should be no surprise that large companies will pay lobbyists to oppose it.
Ultimately, the people will choose as they create the marketplace.

Here is one sample of what the people want....they appear to be getting what they want...

http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/icann-current/msg00342.html
10514 INC
9264 ONLINE
7288 NET
6472 USA
4481 GROUP
4101 WEB
3891 TECH
3077 UK
2762 DESIGN
2570 SYSTEMS
2542 IT
2415 US
=====

By the way, who owns http://www.ATT.ONLINE ?

http://www.name-space.com
http://www.adns.net/NEWS/2002070101.html

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
To: "Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>; "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 7:18 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

>
> I must disagree, respectively, with any view that this is a bail-out.
> We are all engaged in trying to achieve an effective next stage to ICANN.
> I am a firm believer that the private sector should do what ICANN is doing.
> Governments should be, and are, key advisors. The GAC is a critical resource
> in this aspect. Support of the secretariat for the GAC makes sense.  We are all
> in transition.
>
> Let's look forward to the future and the common vision which I believe most share -
> we can be bogged down in past experiences. OR we can understand that evolution means
> just that.
>
> It is hard to put one's personal experiences and to look to a broader more common
> perspective... but that is necessary.  In the future, I believe we have agreement to support
> of staff for SOs ... I have supported that extension to Advisory Councils, but noted that
> I believe that AC's must advise SO's, where policy is made, not just Board.
>
> :-)
>
> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 7:33 PM
> To: Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
>
> > ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for 4 month and half
> > of GAC Secretariat (after Bucharest to 15 November 2002):
>
> > Deux poids deux mesures ?
>
> > While the DNSO Constituencies provide 90% of the whole ICANN...
>
> While I may have certain complaints and concerns about the DNSO, the
> effectiveness of its administrative functions is not among them.  I have
> been impressed with the ever-improving mechanisms that the DNSO has put
> into place: e-mail archives, audio recordings of meetings, etc.
>
> (Had I had the opportunity to do so, I would not have voted for this
> bail-out of the GAC.)
>
> --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
>
> --
> 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, 13 Aug 2002 20:41:47 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ATT-ONLINE.COM

Who owns http://www.ATT.ONLINE ?

http://www.name-space.com
http://www.adns.net/NEWS/2002070101.html

Subject: ATT-ONLINE.COM

> Organization:
>       AT&T Corp.
>       Corporate Administrator
>       32 Avenue of the Americas
>       New York, NY 10013
>       US
>       Phone: 908-221-5578
>       Fax..: 908-221-5581
>       Email: [email-masked]
> 
>    Registrar Name....: Register.com
>    Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
>    Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com
> 
>    Domain Name: ATT-ONLINE.COM
> 
>       Created on..............: Wed, Feb 16, 2000
>       Expires on..............: Wed, Feb 16, 2005
>       Record last updated on..: Tue, Apr 30, 2002
> 
>    Administrative Contact:
>       AT&T Corp.
>       Frank Politano
>       295 North Maple Avenue
>       Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
>       US
>       Phone: 908-221-5578
>       Fax..: 908-221-5581
>       Email: [email-masked]
> 
>    Technical Contact:
>       AT&T Corp.
>       William Holland
>       8372 E. Broad Street
>       Reynoldsburg, OH 43068
>       US
>       Phone: 614-501-2720
>       Fax..: 614-501-2702
>       Email: [email-masked]
> 
>    Zone Contact:
>       AT&T Corp.
>       William Holland
>       8372 E. Broad Street
>       Reynoldsburg, OH 43068
>       US
>       Phone: 614-501-2720
>       Fax..: 614-501-2702
>       Email: [email-masked]
> 
>    Domain servers in listed order:
> 
>    KCGW1.ATT.COM                                     192.128.133.77    
>    ALGW1.ATT.COM                                     192.128.167.77    
> 
> 
> 

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

- --
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, 13 Aug 2002 21:09:58 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "...Can we have teleconference..."

http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-panel/0208/msg00178.html
From: "YJ Park" <[email-masked]>
"...Can we have teleconference..."
====

Have you ever considered using the Internet for .ONLINE meetings ?

You could also call for a meeting on a .ISLAND...

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
0:201     COM
0:202     ISLAND
0:203     ONLINE

- --
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, 13 Aug 2002 21:05:41 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ATT-ONLINE.COM

Fading a bet . . .

Tuesday, August 13, 2002, 8:41:47 PM, Jim Fleming <[email-masked]> wrote:
JF> Who owns http://www.ATT.ONLINE ?

JF> http://www.name-space.com
JF> http://www.adns.net/NEWS/2002070101.html

JF> Subject: ATT-ONLINE.COM

>> Organization:
>>       AT&T Corp.
>>       Corporate Administrator
>>       32 Avenue of the Americas
>>       New York, NY 10013
>>       US
>>       Phone: 908-221-5578
>>       Fax..: 908-221-5581
>>       Email: [email-masked]
>> 
>>    Registrar Name....: Register.com
>>    Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
>>    Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com
>> 
>>    Domain Name: ATT-ONLINE.COM
>> 
>>       Created on..............: Wed, Feb 16, 2000
>>       Expires on..............: Wed, Feb 16, 2005
>>       Record last updated on..: Tue, Apr 30, 2002
>> 
>>    Administrative Contact:
>>       AT&T Corp.
>>       Frank Politano
>>       295 North Maple Avenue
>>       Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
>>       US
>>       Phone: 908-221-5578
>>       Fax..: 908-221-5581
>>       Email: [email-masked]
>> 
>>    Technical Contact:
>>       AT&T Corp.
>>       William Holland
>>       8372 E. Broad Street
>>       Reynoldsburg, OH 43068
>>       US
>>       Phone: 614-501-2720
>>       Fax..: 614-501-2702
>>       Email: [email-masked]
>> 
>>    Zone Contact:
>>       AT&T Corp.
>>       William Holland
>>       8372 E. Broad Street
>>       Reynoldsburg, OH 43068
>>       US
>>       Phone: 614-501-2720
>>       Fax..: 614-501-2702
>>       Email: [email-masked]
>> 
>>    Domain servers in listed order:
>> 
>>    KCGW1.ATT.COM                                     192.128.133.77    
>>    ALGW1.ATT.COM                                     192.128.167.77    
>> 
>> 
>> 

JF> Jim Fleming
JF> 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
JF> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
JF> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

JF> --
JF> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
JF> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
JF> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
JF> 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: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:29:33 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: "...Can we have teleconference..."

Jim perhaps you should take me off this list as i am;
A Practising Eucharistic Minister,
ex (very happily) lawyer,
Marketing Educator,
Interglobal Strategist,
and International Trader
and first but not least a Philosopher.

I do not belong in a league with these wonderful folks.
I talk and walk in a world of morality and should and should not.
If you want a Benediction or Invocation Cool!
But I add nothing to the technical aspects of your lives.
If you want some guidance as to the moral and proper way to function and
the implications of your actions perhaps I may be of service.  If you
want the probable philosophical consequences of what you accomplish or
plan count me in.

But you folks are not interested in these matters.  So I will continue
to speak but not guide.

Thank you,
Your humble servant,
eric

Jim Fleming wrote:

> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-panel/0208/msg00178.html
> From: "YJ Park" <[email-masked]>
> "...Can we have teleconference..."
> ====
>
> Have you ever considered using the Internet for .ONLINE meetings ?
>
> You could also call for a meeting on a .ISLAND...
>
> Jim Fleming
> 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> 0:201     COM
> 0:202     ISLAND
> 0:203     ONLINE

- --
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, 13 Aug 2002 20:33:54 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

Marilyn, you don't think it the slightest bit odd that a group constituted
of dozens of representatives of world governments, who purport to speak on
behalf of those governments, can't fund its own secretarial activities, at
least through in-kind donations of time if not from money? I think this
speaks volumes about the legitimacy of the GAC.

     -- Bret 

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> I must disagree, respectively, with any view that this is a bail-out. We are
> all engaged in trying to achieve an effective next stage to ICANN. I am a firm
> believer that the private sector should do what ICANN is doing. Governments
> should be, and are, key advisors. The GAC is a critical resource in this
> aspect. Support of the secretariat for the GAC makes sense.  We are all in
> transition.
> 
> Let's look forward to the future and the common vision which I believe most
> share - we can be bogged down in past experiences. OR we can understand that
> evolution means just that.
> 
> It is hard to put one's personal experiences and to look to a broader more
> common perspective... but that is necessary.  In the future, I believe we have
> agreement to support of staff for SOs ... I have supported that extension to
> Advisory Councils, but noted that I believe that AC's must advise SO's, where
> policy is made, not just Board.
> 
> :-)
> 
> Marilyn
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 7:33 PM
> To: Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat
> 
> 
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> 
>> ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for 4 month and half
>> of GAC Secretariat (after Bucharest to 15 November 2002):
> 
>> Deux poids deux mesures ?
> 
>> While the DNSO Constituencies provide 90% of the whole ICANN...
> 
> While I may have certain complaints and concerns about the DNSO, the
> effectiveness of its administrative functions is not among them.  I have
> been impressed with the ever-improving mechanisms that the DNSO has put
> into place: e-mail archives, audio recordings of meetings, etc.
> 
> (Had I had the opportunity to do so, I would not have voted for this
> bail-out of the GAC.)
> 
> --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
> 
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1373
*************************