Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1379
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, August 17 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1379

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

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:14:56 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..." [resend]

The original concept was that ICANN was to be a bottoms-up, grass roots
driven organization.  We have not seen that, yet.

In contrast, ICANN has been closely controlled by a fraternity of a
few.  If you passed their Rush Test, you received admittance.  "How
much" could have very well been one of the Rush tests.

The original concept of ICANN has not been a failure.  It hasn't even been
tested, yet.

The failure has been the "unchecked" ability of a few to control the
many.

Perhaps some like a Dictatorship.  Certainly, the Dictators do . . .

Each of us has to come to our own resolution of what it is that we are
willing to accept.  For me, it is not the present day ICANN or the so
called "blue print."

Let's deal with "what is was suppose to be" to see if it works, before
we venture off into yet more unchartered waters to play more political
games.

Thanks,

Friday, August 16, 2002, 7:11:01 PM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law <[email-masked]> wrote:
MFUMSoL> for some reason the message below doesn't seem to have reached the GA list
MFUMSoL> I've trimmed the cc's for this resend.  Apologies for any duplication.

MFUMSoL> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
MFUMSoL> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:48:47 -0400 (EDT)
MFUMSoL> From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law <[email-masked]>
MFUMSoL> To: Jonathan Cohen <[email-masked]>
MFUMSoL> [cc's were included in the original message]

MFUMSoL> I see you do have time to send email.  Well then, allow me to check facts:

MFUMSoL> Is it true as alleged on the GA list that the ITU was willing to pick up
MFUMSoL> the charges needed to support the GAC, but ICANN chose to pay US$75,000
MFUMSoL> itself...in the absence of any need or contractual obligation to do so?

MFUMSoL> And why exactly should I be denied my right to petition congress and the
MFUMSoL> executive for a redress of grievances?  When it's the actions of the us
MFUMSoL> government that empower ICANN?  And it's ICANN which has chosen to
MFUMSoL> disenfranchise me.  I certainly have no vote on anything ICANN does, and
MFUMSoL> you are planning to put the last nail in that coffin in October.  I should
MFUMSoL> sit quietly and take my medicine?  

MFUMSoL> Incidentally, I find your comment that we should try to imagine what it is
MFUMSoL> like to be in your shoes especially insulting, as it is your decisions
MFUMSoL> which ensure that no one representing me will ever get to do exactly that.
MFUMSoL> And of course, there's no 'try again later' once you've been shut out
MFUMSoL> completely of the voting power.   In fact, we had about 3 tries on getting
MFUMSoL> user representation, all rejected by the ICANN board.  That's a lot of
MFUMSoL> tries already. 

MFUMSoL> My cultural bias is in favor of representative structures and strict
MFUMSoL> accountability.  What's yours?

MFUMSoL> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Jonathan Cohen wrote:

>> And will those who disagree stop villifying, name calling ,cheap shotting
>> because they dont get their way.Will people from 'some ' country stop
>> invoking its world view on every aspect of ICANN and the Internet.Will
>> ,those who dont like directions or decisions of ICANN stop whining to
>> Congress or the DOC,will they take the time to check their facts,.Bob Dylan
>> said it in a song a long time ago .....''try spending a day in our shoes''
>> ,as VOLUNTEERS, at considerable personal cost in time,energy and MONEY!!Try
>> listening to the push and pull from every direction,the criticism,the
>> Politics,the Rhetoric, name calling AND WORSE,while you try to do the Best
>> Job you can.Noone on the Board expects sympathy or "flowers"...But it would
>> sure be refreshing to get some 'Balance'and some decent debate ,where if you
>> dont win you shake hands and try again later...But maybe thats ''culturally
>> biased''  see you around the "Ranch"
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Fleming [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 1:12 PM
>> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Vittorio
>> Bertola; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> [email-masked]; todd glassey; Richard Henderson; Kristy McKee;
>> [email-masked]; Joop Teernstra; Joe Baptista; Joanna Lane;
>> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Richard J. Sexton
>> Subject: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc10/msg05002.html
>> From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
>> 
>> "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."
>> ======
>> 
>> Are they trying to decide whether to charge $1 per domain name per year or
>> 25 cents ?
>> 
>> Will ICANN be raising enough money to hire you as the CEO, now that Worldcom
>> is history ?
>> 
>> Does ICANN plan to move out of the current location to a ranch it purchases
>> overlooking the
>> Pacific Ocean ? Will there be an airstrip and stables for horses ? Will
>> those be in the budget ?
>> 
>> When will companies like IBM, HP and AT&T start paying their equivalent
>> share of rent for
>> address space ? Will that gain them special access to the ICANN Ranch and
>> horseback rides ?
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
>> 
>> Will there also be room in the ICANN budget to pick up a mansion in the
>> Beverly Hills area ?
>> ....to host various gatherings to maintain the stability....job
>> security....etc...
>> 
>> 
>> Jim Fleming
>> 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
>> 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-full" in the body of the message).
>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>> 
>> 

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:42:06 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: What does a /8 Lease For ?

Correction...not $160,777,216....$167,772,160....or call it $161,000,000

Also, does this mean that companies like AT&T have been saving on the order of $161,000,000
per year by distracting ICANN into other topics ?....How much does AT&T pay people to distract
the ICANN Board and Staff ?

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

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
To: "'The IETF'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>; "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Kristy McKee" <[email-masked]>; "Richard Henderson"
<[email-masked]>; "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Vittorio Bertola" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>; "Jonathan Cohen" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 8:28 PM
Subject: What does a /8 Lease For ?

> There are 16,777,216 IPv4 addresses in a /8.
> Many companies lease those addresses for $10 per month.
> It is common for a broker to take one month as their annual fee in the real estate market.
>
> Given the above...that would mean a /8 leases for $160,777,216 per year.
>
> Will AT&T and the other companies be prepared to pay ICANN that each year ?
> ...will that be split with Lucent ?
>
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> 012/8           AT&T Bell Laboratories                  Jun 95
> ======
>
> What about ARIN, RIPE and APNIC ?
> Will they be paying that each year to ICANN for *each* of the /8s they have ?
>
> Does ICANN need that much revenue from Address Space Leasing with the $1 per domain per year fee?
> ....which may yield ~$50,000,000 a year...
>
> Should domain name fees subsidize address space users ?
> Why does ARIN pay ICANN and not AT&T ?
>
>
> Jim Fleming
> 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
> 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: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:00:41 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..." [resend]

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Brown" <[email-masked]>

> The original concept was that ICANN was to be a bottoms-up, grass roots
> driven organization.  We have not seen that, yet.
> 

That was the ICANN that the U.S. Government and the incumbent Registries "sold" to the TLD
developers with the promise that "in a few months, 5 or 6 of the obvious TLDs would be added
to the legacy roots...". The TLD developers at the time (.BIZ, .WEB, .NEWS, .INC, etc.) believed
the people speaking from the White House. They were duped into thinking that Jon Postel would
make that happen, in a few months. He was then removed. Some claim he died. Then, the world
changed, the military industrial complex went into action. All the promises went out the window.
The CIA then planted people in the process. The incumbent Registries continued to grow. It is
all a matter of the "public record". In summary, the "spooks" made a mess of it. That is how they
control things. They disrupt, distract, and derail. They have unlimited people and funds to do that.

You now will get a new ICANN, which is revenue driven. With the Enron and Worldcom situations,
the world will be doing the accounting with a very sharp pencil. It all begins with how and why these
people and companies were able to obtain these allocations and why some pay each year for them
and why some do not.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

You also have the revenue from SLD sales in all the TLDs. At $1 per domain per year, there should
be enough money to pay the salary of the person tasked with sending the bill, as well as the Board
and Staff to manage that person. That is not rocket science. You can bet that every Senator and
Capital Hill staffer is lining up to get their own TLD, once they get past the 2-year waiting period
now that Clinton is gone. When they were in office, they clearly did not want people to prosper,
while they toiled at government jobs. They are now out of that 2 year window and ready to move into
the "new ICANN".

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
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: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:16:35 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..." [resend]

Well, the "new ICANN" as you described it, just plain sucks!

Friday, August 16, 2002, 9:00:41 PM, Jim Fleming <[email-masked]> wrote:
JF> ----- Original Message ----- 
JF> From: "Don Brown" <[email-masked]>

>> The original concept was that ICANN was to be a bottoms-up, grass roots
>> driven organization.  We have not seen that, yet.
>> 

JF> That was the ICANN that the U.S. Government and the incumbent Registries "sold" to the TLD
JF> developers with the promise that "in a few months, 5 or 6 of the obvious TLDs would be added
JF> to the legacy roots...". The TLD developers at the time (.BIZ, .WEB, .NEWS, .INC, etc.) believed
JF> the people speaking from the White House. They were duped into thinking that Jon Postel would
JF> make that happen, in a few months. He was then removed. Some claim he died. Then, the world
JF> changed, the military industrial complex went into action. All the promises went out the window.
JF> The CIA then planted people in the process. The incumbent Registries continued to grow. It is
JF> all a matter of the "public record". In summary, the "spooks" made a mess of it. That is how they
JF> control things. They disrupt, distract, and derail. They have unlimited people and funds to do that.

JF> You now will get a new ICANN, which is revenue driven. With the Enron and Worldcom situations,
JF> the world will be doing the accounting with a very sharp pencil. It all begins with how and why these
JF> people and companies were able to obtain these allocations and why some pay each year for them
JF> and why some do not.
JF> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

JF> You also have the revenue from SLD sales in all the TLDs. At $1 per domain per year, there should
JF> be enough money to pay the salary of the person tasked with sending the bill, as well as the Board
JF> and Staff to manage that person. That is not rocket science. You can bet that every Senator and
JF> Capital Hill staffer is lining up to get their own TLD, once they get past the 2-year waiting period
JF> now that Clinton is gone. When they were in office, they clearly did not want people to prosper,
JF> while they toiled at government jobs. They are now out of that 2 year window and ready to move into
JF> the "new ICANN".

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

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:36:30 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: "ICANN's purpose is to serve the public interest."  ??

Don and all assembly members,

Don Brown wrote:

> All you guys are .25 cent on-line lawyers. Spare us, please. Karl has
> the extra 4 yrs of college and admittance to the bar, to decide what
> is most topical and appropriate.

  You have already been spared!  >;) Some of us including myself, and
I know Jim have more than just 4 year degrees as if that is really
relevant, which it isn't...

>
>
> It doesn't take an additional four year of college to determine that
> ICANN might just suck.  Excuse my french . . .  The truth will set you
> free . . .

  Now you've go it Don!  ...  >;)  I am no longer wondering as I had been
when we would be getting some truth out of the ICANN BOD, staff and
other few fellow travelers...  I know that we shall not... Karl's court
case victory proved that if nothing else...

>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Friday, August 16, 2002, 8:03:48 PM, Jim Fleming <[email-masked]> wrote:
> JF> Can you point to the positive, pro-active, actions that Karl has taken since elected to the Board ?
>
> JF> Has Karl prepared a proposed budget for next year ?
>
> JF> When was the last time Karl was in the ICANN offices and reviewed the employee time records ?
>
> JF> Despite a Directors disagreements with an organization, they still have to bear full responsibility for
> JF> their actions from the day they become a Director to the day they are no longer a Director.
>
> JF> It appears as though ICANN will clean house and get new Directors and new Staff. In order to
> JF> attract quality Directors and Staff, revenues have to be arranged to support payment of quality people.
> JF> It makes no sense to have Directors who are never in the ICANN offices. It makes no sense to
> JF> have Staff who do not report to work, or report on their progress. The Directors have (or had)
> JF> a fiduciary responsibility to make it all happen...has that happened ?
>
> 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> ----- Original Message -----
> JF> From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> JF> To: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> JF> Cc: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Vittorio Bertola" <[email-masked]>;
> JF> "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>; "Kristy McKee" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra"
> JF> <[email-masked]>; "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> JF> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
> JF> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 7:45 PM
> JF> Subject: Re: "ICANN's purpose is to serve the public interest." ??
>
> >> No Jeff - he (Karl)  is bound by a confidentiality agreement between him and
> >> the Board, and  I am sure of that. So Karl cannot legally disclose the
> >> contents of any board actions or its finances or those actions of ICANN
> >> management under penalty of a civil suit.
> >>
> >> The problem is that ICANN would be really hard pressed to actually get any
> >> money out of the suit, but they could under the California Bar's new ethics
> >> sensitivity, file a complaint that he was unethical and that might be an
> >> issue. Either way, I would not be surprised to hear Karl say that he would
> >> not disclose the contents of the financial records that he was to review as
> >> a Director.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> >> To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> >> Cc: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> >> <[email-masked]>; "Vittorio Bertola" <[email-masked]>; "Richard
> >> Henderson" <[email-masked]>; "Kristy McKee" <[email-masked]>;
> >> <[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>; "Joe
> >> Baptista" <[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>;
> >> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> >> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Eric Dierker"
> >> <[email-masked]>
> >> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 7:10 PM
> >> Subject: Re: "ICANN's purpose is to serve the public interest." ??
> >>
> >>
> >> > Todd and all,
> >> >
> >> > todd glassey wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Response inline below - Karl - please feel free to correct me if I am
> >> wrong
> >> > > anywhere here.
> >> > >
> >> > > Todd
> >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> >> > > To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> >> > > Cc: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> >> > > <[email-masked]>; "Vittorio Bertola" <[email-masked]>; "Richard
> >> > > Henderson" <[email-masked]>; "Kristy McKee"
> >> <[email-masked]>;
> >> > > <[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>; "Joe
> >> > > Baptista" <[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>;
> >> > > <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> >> > > <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Karl Auerbach"
> >> > > <[email-masked]>
> >> > > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 6:19 PM
> >> > > Subject: Re: "ICANN's purpose is to serve the public interest." ??
> >> > >
> >> > > > Todd and all,
> >> > > >
> >> > > >   I believe that what you suggest is exactly what Karl is doing now
> >> > > > with the financial records he is recieving from ICANN as the
> >> > > > legal action he took required ICANN to provide...
> >> > >
> >> > > I dont think that Karl can legally disclose anything he is exposed to in
> >> > > confidence as a board memeber unless he sees something that he knows is
> >> an
> >> > > illegality.
> >> >
> >> >   I believe that he actually can legally.  None the less Todd, Karl will
> >> > not be a member of the BOD much longer...  Hence this may be a moot
> >> > point...
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > What I want is a full-on audit capable of catching any illegality or
> >> > > contrdictions in its operations, since the organization (as far as I can
> >> > > tell) has failed under the Laws of California to operate itself in
> >> concert
> >> > > with its charter and original by-laws that were necessary to obtain the
> >> NTIA
> >> > > contract. What this means is that ICANN either made promises to the
> >> Federal
> >> > > Government in order to beawarded the NTIA contract that they allegedly
> >> have
> >> > > not kept, and that they are now voting to eliminate from the by laws to
> >> > > permanently silence that requirement. But from all I can see, a
> >> concerted
> >> > > effort to actually accomplish that would be fraud and since it would
> >> take
> >> > > many people within ICANN to pull that off and they are across State
> >> Lines,
> >> > > this becomes a Federal Matter for the FBI and takes on a real ugly set
> >> of
> >> > > possibilities.
> >> > >
> >> > > Before we get to a Qui Tam action against ICANN on the behalf of the US
> >> > > Domain Owners, I think an end-to-end audit by a real world professional
> >> > > auditor (KPMG, E&Y, D&T, or PWC) should be done and presented as a
> >> public
> >> > > document to NTIA and NIST to document ICANN's operations under the NTIA
> >> > > contract. Further I bet Senator Burns office would like a copy too! My
> >> gut
> >> > > level feeling is that this audit might send a number of people running
> >> for
> >> > > cover.
> >> > >
> >> > > So that's my point. What I want is a real end-to-end SAS70 compliant
> >> audit
> >> > > for ICANN and it needs to happen now.
> >> >
> >> >   I see your point here now clearly, and agree with it as well.  Again
> >> though,
> >> > none the less this can be done at a not to distant later date as well
> >> > depending on what Karls data shows, and can be found if he
> >> > wishes to do so...
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > todd glassey wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Actually folks - this is closer than you think to the reality but
> >> what's
> >> > > > > funny is that ICANN is not really NPO. Its just not supposed to show
> >> a
> >> > > > > profit on paper, but I assure you the business of serving names and
> >> the
> >> > > > > people writing the rules for it really needs an end-to-end financial
> >> > > audit.
> >> > > > > My feeling is that ICANN's paperwork processes may make Enron's look
> >> > > like a
> >> > > > > joke.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > But hey - only an Audit would tell, Eh? So why don't we demand one?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Todd
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > > > From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
> >> > > > > To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Vittorio Bertola"
> >> > > > > <[email-masked]>; "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>;
> >> > > "Richard
> >> > > > > Henderson" <[email-masked]>; "Kristy McKee"
> >> > > <[email-masked]>;
> >> > > > > <[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>;
> >> "Joe
> >> > > > > Baptista" <[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>;
> >> > > > > <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> >> <[email-masked]>;
> >> > > > > <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> >> <[email-masked]>
> >> > > > > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 5:42 AM
> >> > > > > Subject: "ICANN's purpose is to serve the public interest." ??
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc10/msg04998.html
> >> > > > > > From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > "ICANN's purpose is to serve the public interest."
> >> > > > > > ========
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Have you ever heard the comment, "Do not judge a book...by it's
> >> cover"
> >> > > ?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Do you really think the people behind ICANN have any interest in
> >> > > "serving
> >> > > > > the public" ?
> >> > > > > > ...have you noticed how they are always at the head of any line to
> >> the
> >> > > > > buffet ?
> >> > > > > > ...and there is no food left for the public...once they have eaten
> >> > > their
> >> > > > > fill...
> >> > > > > > ...follow the money...it comes from the public and does not
> >> return...
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Have you considered an approach where you face the facts that
> >> ICANN
> >> > > has
> >> > > > > > nothing to do with "serving the public" ?...just imagine they are
> >> a
> >> > > > > private club...that
> >> > > > > > serves the people who choose to join...who knows ?....maybe ICANN
> >> will
> >> > > > > convert
> >> > > > > > to for-profit and go for an IPO...would the "public" be served by
> >> > > being
> >> > > > > allowed to
> >> > > > > > own part of the company ?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > 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
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 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
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>
> 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
> ----

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: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 00:18:44 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Icann/reform/purpose

Balance: The ability to remain upright.
Jack: (a modern term) meaning as it may sound to not do the real thing.

We must find a balance between this jacking and righteous indignation
and history.
The BoD must move, they are in a swamp with a few good rowers on their
sinking ship.

I recently suffered an attack and a serious accident to my now fiancé'.
Both "victims" are now doing well;
The attacker saw a psychologist and my fiancé' saw a doctor.  My love's
scars will heal and the anger of my attacker is dissipated and we
attended a mass together, tonight.

My point being that either through design or otherwise ICON and Internet
users have been assaulted and have had serious accidents.  Now we must
find solutions and assistance to get well and go beyond past wounds.  We
must look beyond the knife in hand. We should do as some suggest and
find some middle ground or be ready for the ground assault that comes
from all out war.

I am speaking specifically to our radical and correct architects of new
and innovative concepts and our swing votes on the BoD.  You know who
you are.
Do the right thing!

Your humble servant,
e

( I spending my life healing wounds between two countries that fought a
war and killed one another, i would hope that this should be easier)

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

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

Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 10:23:51 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Listadmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Admin] Header field too long (>1024)

This Saturday morning there is 14 messages bounced due to:
     Subject: BOUNCE [email-masked]: Header field too long (>1024)
     Subject: BOUNCE [email-masked]: Header field too long (>1024)

It is a technical reason, and none of those messages get to
either ga or ga-full message.

In summary: more CC and To, less are the chances it will get 
to any of the lists. 

The 14 authors listed below may wish to repost to [email-masked] 
WITHOUT long To/Cc list.

DNSO Listadmin
- --

The 14 messages and their time of arrival at the dnso.org (UTC+2):
>U  1 DNSO.Listadmin     Fri Aug 16 21:38  234/9956  BOUNCE [email-masked]:
 U  2 DNSO.Listadmin     Fri Aug 16 21:38  234/9931  BOUNCE [email-masked]: Heade
 U  3 DNSO.Listadmin     Fri Aug 16 21:49  176/8605  BOUNCE [email-masked]: Heade
 U  4 DNSO.Listadmin     Fri Aug 16 21:49  176/8630  BOUNCE [email-masked]:
 U  5 DNSO.Listadmin     Fri Aug 16 21:49   90/4637  BOUNCE [email-masked]:
 U  6 DNSO.Listadmin     Fri Aug 16 21:49   90/4612  BOUNCE [email-masked]: Heade
 U  7 DNSO.Listadmin     Fri Aug 16 22:16   81/3911  BOUNCE [email-masked]: Heade
 U  8 DNSO.Listadmin     Fri Aug 16 22:16   81/3936  BOUNCE [email-masked]:
 U  9 DNSO.Listadmin     Fri Aug 16 22:48  216/9828  BOUNCE [email-masked]:
 U 10 DNSO.Listadmin     Fri Aug 16 22:48  216/9803  BOUNCE [email-masked]: Heade
 U 11 DNSO.Listadmin     Fri Aug 16 23:10   91/4079  BOUNCE [email-masked]: Heade
 U 12 DNSO.Listadmin     Fri Aug 16 23:10   91/4104  BOUNCE [email-masked]:
 U 13 DNSO.Listadmin     Fri Aug 16 23:11   93/5303  BOUNCE [email-masked]:
 U 14 DNSO.Listadmin     Fri Aug 16 23:11   93/5278  BOUNCE [email-masked]: Heade
 U 15 DNSO.Listadmin     Sat Aug 17 00:14   91/4427  BOUNCE [email-masked]:
 U 16 DNSO.Listadmin     Sat Aug 17 00:14   91/4402  BOUNCE [email-masked]: Heade
 U 17 DNSO.Listadmin     Sat Aug 17 01:45  159/7769  BOUNCE [email-masked]:
 U 18 DNSO.Listadmin     Sat Aug 17 01:46  159/7744  BOUNCE [email-masked]: Heade
 U 19 DNSO.Listadmin     Sat Aug 17 03:27   79/3515  BOUNCE [email-masked]:
 U 20 DNSO.Listadmin     Sat Aug 17 03:28   79/3490  BOUNCE [email-masked]: Heade
 U 21 DNSO.Listadmin     Sat Aug 17 04:14  342/14671 BOUNCE [email-masked]:
 U 22 DNSO.Listadmin     Sat Aug 17 04:14  342/14646 BOUNCE [email-masked]: Heade
 U 23 DNSO.Listadmin     Sat Aug 17 04:19   87/4023  BOUNCE [email-masked]: Heade
 U 24 DNSO.Listadmin     Sat Aug 17 04:19   87/4048  BOUNCE [email-masked]:
 U 25 DNSO.Listadmin     Sat Aug 17 04:25   93/4498  BOUNCE [email-masked]:
 U 26 DNSO.Listadmin     Sat Aug 17 04:25   93/4473  BOUNCE [email-masked]: Heade
 U 27 DNSO.Listadmin     Sat Aug 17 05:10   96/4638  BOUNCE [email-masked]:
 U 28 DNSO.Listadmin     Sat Aug 17 05:10   96/4613  BOUNCE [email-masked]: Heade

The corresponding 14 authors:
1.
From: [email-masked]
From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
From: [email-masked]
From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
2.
From: [email-masked]
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
From: [email-masked]
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
3.
From: [email-masked]
From: veni markovski <[email-masked]>
From: [email-masked]
From: veni markovski <[email-masked]>
4.
From: [email-masked]
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
From: [email-masked]
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
5.
From: [email-masked]
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
From: [email-masked]
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
6.
From: [email-masked]
From: "Richard J. Sexton  Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
From: [email-masked]
From: "Richard J. Sexton  Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
7.
From: [email-masked]
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
From: [email-masked]
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
8.
From: [email-masked]
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
From: [email-masked]
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
9.
From: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
From: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
10.
From: [email-masked]
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
From: [email-masked]
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
11.
From: [email-masked]
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
From: [email-masked]
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
12.
From: [email-masked]
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
From: [email-masked]
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
13.
From: [email-masked]
From: "Naavi" <[email-masked]>
From: [email-masked]
From: "Naavi" <[email-masked]>
14.
From: [email-masked]
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
From: [email-masked]
From: "Jim Fleming" <[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: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 10:17:40 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Your latest rant

Your "cultural bias," as best I can tell, is to try to get your 15 minutes
of fame by becoming the Cassandra of ICANN, apparently hoping to rescue an
otherwise unimpressive career by finding a niche where you can be perceived
as the expert.  And I have to admit that you have been pretty successful at
that goal -- at least in the sense that you do get lots of attention, and
invitations to testify, and calls from reporters.  Is it exciting?  Of
course, there is one little thing:  it does not appear that your constant
criticism has much impact, on anything.  Maybe that is because there are
lots of other people, many of whom are also critical of some aspects of
ICANN, who instead of just posting rants on the GA list and exercising
their ego to run a webpage, actually dig in and work at trying to make
ICANN more effective; those people do make progress in trying to shape
ICANN more to their liking, because they invest the elbow grease it takes
to get that done.  Of course, you sneer at these folks as "collaborators,"
but the real sneers here from serious people are reserved for folks like
you, who have no skin in the game, no willingness to invest even a little
positive effort, and who insist that their positions are written on tablets
and not subject to compromise.  Junk like the stuff you post is exactly the
reason why more people do not participate in this or other similar forums,
because it is a waste of time.  Of course, perhaps the worst thing from
your point would be to actually succeed, since there would no longer be an
excuse to pontificate on such weighty issues.  An advance warning: I am not
going to engage in a continuing debate with you or your fellow travelers on
this point, so fire away all you want; you won't get a response.  But your
attack on Jon, who actually went to the (apparently useless) trouble to try
to engage in a dialogue, has left me with an irresistable compulsion to
point out that, despite all the noise generated by Froomkin Inc., there is
no "there" there.  Have a good day.

Joe Sims
Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
51 Louisiana Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963

==========
The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.  It
is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you are
not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
==========

- --
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 #1379
*************************