Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1401
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, August 30 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1401

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:22:54 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:212     BIZ.....going out of BIZness ?

0:212 BIZ.....going out of BIZness ?

http://www.icannfacts.org/about.html
http://forum.icann.org/org-eval/preliminary-report/threads.html
http://forum.icann.org/org-eval/preliminary-report/msg00003.html
"NeuStar has been in free fall since the
Marina del Rey 2001 meeting, executing 15% layoffs every 60 days and closing
its London, Seattle, Chicago (data center), and Washington head offices in an
effort to stay afloat."
===========

Will .BIZ survive past the Proof-of-Concept phase ?

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
0:212 BIZ

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:05:50 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212     BIZ.....going out of BIZness ?

The other .BIZ has been in existence since 1995 and is still going.

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 08:22
Subject: [ga] 0:212 BIZ.....going out of BIZness ?

> 0:212 BIZ.....going out of BIZness ?
> 
> http://www.icannfacts.org/about.html
> http://forum.icann.org/org-eval/preliminary-report/threads.html
> http://forum.icann.org/org-eval/preliminary-report/msg00003.html
> "NeuStar has been in free fall since the
> Marina del Rey 2001 meeting, executing 15% layoffs every 60 days and closing
> its London, Seattle, Chicago (data center), and Washington head offices in an
> effort to stay afloat."
> ===========
> 
> Will .BIZ survive past the Proof-of-Concept phase ?
> 
> 
> 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
> 0:212 BIZ
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] my comments to the WHOIS Task Force reports

Absolutely,

WLS and WHOIS can be intelligently routed around.

But we like to think that intellegent actions should be taken here in the 
ICANN also.

But just like lawyers and doctors have done we make it so complicated as to 
take it out of the hands of the users and into "professionals" hands only.

In cal we have a rule that you cannot file a lawsuit against a doctor 
without another doctor swearing to malpractice (with some exceptions of 
course but you need a lawyer to explain them).  Perhaps we should have a 
similar rule for IP, you cannot file a lawsuit against a domain name holder 
without an ISP swearing that it is the right defendant.  I appeared 3 times 
in court in the 90s because a registrant had an email with us.

"people of petty outlook are fretful,doubting;
the more they hurry, the more they fall behind.
Sticklers always miss the proper measure,
certain to set off on wrong roads."
(HSIN-HSIN-MING)
e
> Each user controls the "content" of their whois information, on a
> name-by-name basis... They do not have to have a web-based result...
> 
> http://whois.cavebear.com
> 
> They can control what they put into the DNS whois...name by name...
> 
http://www.analogx.com/cgi-bin/cgidig.exe?DNS=205.214.45.10&Query=whois.cave
bear.com&Type=255&submit=Lookup
> 
> 
> 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: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 1:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] my comments to the WHOIS Task
> Force reports
> 
> 
>> How can anyone buy into any of this load of crap?
>> 
>> The Whois in its' entirety stinks.
>> 
>> This is IP supterfuge and dead wrong!
>> 
>> Vittorio is wrong in engaging in this dialogue, it hurts privacy
>> rights and  is nothing but a ploy to deny privacy rights.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> Eric
>> 
>> --
>> 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: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:38:10 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] [council] Names Council chair (from: [email-masked])

fyi
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- ----- Forwarded message from Philip Sheppard <[email-masked]> -----

From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
To: "Stuart Lynn ICANN" <[email-masked]>,
	"Vint Cerf ICANN" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "NC (list)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:00:52 +0200
Subject: [council] Names Council chair
Organization: AIM
X-No-Spam: whitelist

   Stuart, Vint,

   may I ask you to forward this to the Board and ICANN staff.

   I am pleased to announce that Bruce Tonkin, of the Registrars
   Constituency, has been elected Chair of the Names Council with effect
   from 1st September for a term of office of six months. I wish him much
   success.

   Please find attached a short report with highlights of the progress of
   the Names Council during my chairmanship.

   Philip

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:45:39 -0400
From: Allan Liska <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212     BIZ.....going out of BIZness ?

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: MD5

Hello Jim,

Thursday, August 29, 2002, 9:22:54 AM, you wrote:

JF> Will .BIZ survive past the Proof-of-Concept phase ?

Since there are no viable alternatives, lets hope so.

allan
- - --
Allan Liska
[email-masked]
http://www.allan.org

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAwUAPW4zmH+n87oa5a9VAQF9kAQA1mBi2rmtoSbruoNm0BNHxO6gQCW5fvLx
SSiqHik3DxVzo5nMexcIcaxb0ZLxrR9u8JejnkW9iNlDlRkuorcoacHNNU9yjugl
24VEX3oJXx+H1zeYo5Y2PB3U1AuCChOfWSMNrkksZ8IGLPFq6LWu7uu6XD2xtda0
BcZczr56Jk8=
=+9Ue
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:21:13 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212     BIZ.....going out of BIZness ?

Dont be silly - there are around 10,000 top level domains out there
that are working quite nicely.

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Allan Liska" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 09:45
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212 BIZ.....going out of BIZness ?

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: MD5
> 
> Hello Jim,
> 
> Thursday, August 29, 2002, 9:22:54 AM, you wrote:
> 
> JF> Will .BIZ survive past the Proof-of-Concept phase ?
> 
> Since there are no viable alternatives, lets hope so.
> 
> 
> allan
> - --
> Allan Liska
> [email-masked]
> http://www.allan.org
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6
> 
> iQCVAwUAPW4zmH+n87oa5a9VAQF9kAQA1mBi2rmtoSbruoNm0BNHxO6gQCW5fvLx
> SSiqHik3DxVzo5nMexcIcaxb0ZLxrR9u8JejnkW9iNlDlRkuorcoacHNNU9yjugl
> 24VEX3oJXx+H1zeYo5Y2PB3U1AuCChOfWSMNrkksZ8IGLPFq6LWu7uu6XD2xtda0
> BcZczr56Jk8=
> =+9Ue
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:37:01 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf MP3 recording August 29, 2002

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

The MP3 recording of the Names Council teleconference to confirm the vote
for the new Names Council Chair, Bruce Tonkin is available
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020829.NCteleconf.mp3

DNSO Secretariat

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:49:25 +0200
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Mueller (sort of) pro WLS

On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 12:28:27AM +0200, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin took time to write:
> On 10:32 28/08/02, Alexander Svensson said:
> >"Mueller speaks out on WLS (Warning: here be heresy)"
> >http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=921&mode=&order=0
> 
> I think Milton is only describing what ICANN wants - get rid of the 
> Registrars.... 

And where do you get that from ?

> they are of no more use the way they are. jfc

heh ?

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Dotster to appeal WLS

Hello,

See:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg03049.html

"Should our appeal to ICANN be rejected, we are fully prepared to
exercise other legal remedies to stop the implementation of the WLS."

Methinks ICANN should not take this lightly. It can't prove WLS was a
consensus policy, so instead of wasting resources that it can ill
afford, should reverse its decision now.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:27:27 -0400
From: "Jonathan Cohen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."

Danny,
First let me thank you for the tone of your letter.It appears that my
earlier comments ,which did contain some 'frustration'caused a flurry of
rhetoric,which maybe I deserved...a little.There is the perception,however,
in some circles ,that "At-Large" is a topic of such emotion that sensible
debate has been made very difficult.So many accusations and insults have
been hurled and so few people (always the same few people) have really come
forward to discuss it.While I KNOW I am treading on sensitive ground,it is
not unnoticed that most of those speakers are American.You have an American
view of the world,which is obviously fine and very important...but not
'exclusive'.The USG decided ICANN would be International.  As long as it is
their judgement that is the correct way to go, then the Board will have a
strong International Flavour which may result ,from time to time ,in
decisions which dont sit as well with US Citizens who have a very strong
sense of what is right,"Constitutional",Fair etc.The United States ,in my
opinion ,is clearly one of the greatest (if not THE greatest ) Countries and
''ideas'' ..ever to exist.I am very proud to call Amreica a friend. But<
friends should tell each other ,(kindly) what they think.I think the Balance
required ,is in part ,that of those with deeply held convictions in the US
to understand there are other views on what is fair and reasonable ...and
some of them just might be ..correct... even if they dont meet the US test
for fair or constitutional.
All this being said. I and several other Board Members STRONGLY support the
Direct On-Line Election of At- Large Members to the Board of ICANN so soon
as it can be acheived fairly!.....This is not a 'dead horse'
At Large representation on the Board is essential for the Board to get a
balanced view of the community which includes millions of ordinary users who
have no "corporate" or Legal or Business connections to ICANN or the
internet.I can not think of any significant decision of the Board where this
was not raised and discussed and considered and MANY times factored into the
decision.That is the simple truth.You may not agree with the decisions ,or
feel the representation of the At -Large position was not clear enough or
strong enough ...but that it was not heard ,listened to and acted upon
regularly is simply not so.Whatever we are ,from wherever we come ..we are
all private citizens with family and a love of freedom and justice.We may
express it differently and we may have to compromise sometimes as much as it
galls but we are moving forward in a manner which I believe (my opinion) is
the best we can do ''in the circumstances imposed by Reality'', in the best
interests of the Internet Community and which will within a reasonable time
frame,probably result in some direct on-line elections that are freer from
capture and unhealthy national competition that will bring to the Board At
Large Members that meet "YOUR" requirements.
 There ''are ''and ''will be'' a significant number of Board  Members who
will be At Large.They will be ''''appointed ''and it is there that the
question/issue needs to be debated. Who should decide who is an At Large
Board Member and How should they reach the Board.For now it is the wisdom of
this Board ,that it should be through a nominating Ctee.,..lets see how it
works> Are the candidates good ones..do they fairly represent a cross
section of the International At Large Community.Are they effective Board
Members getting across the important issues and points of view of that
diverse community. Then we can see what should be done.
I come from a country where the right for citizens to directly elect their
personal representatives is strongly held BUT ICANN is NOT a Government.It
"may" not be the best way for a Board to be peopled and even the Best way to
see At Large at the Table.I think the Board has an open mind on the Question
..certainly I do! As long as I have a Board seat I will try my best to
listen to ALL points of view.
I guess sometimes we both feel like we are banging our heads against a stone
wall and just simply NOT being heard...maybe its partly true..but I know
many (most I think) Board members care about their decisions and their
effect.They try very hard to look at the competing interests and often
modify decisions based on the input from a constituency Including At-Large.
I have no direct or indirect financial or personal interest in ICANN.I dont
get paid.I DONT get business out of it (and havent tried) and Ive seen no
plans to build a statue of me on Parliament Hill! Most of the Board Members
are in the same Boat.Try to keep that in mind,when you are feeling
frustrated.Im always willing to talk.. but not to be insulted or 'suckered'
which has happened...so ...lets talk nicely
regards
Jonathan
PS I understand

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 4:56 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]
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its
proposals..."

Jon,

I respect your call for "balance" and some decent debate.  To that end, I
would like to offer you my perspective as a volunteer that like yourself has
also participated in the ICANN process at considerable personal cost in
time,
energy, and money.

There was a time when the Internet community expected to see nine At-large
directors on the Board.  Some of us were able to comprehend the rationale to
reduce this number to five.  But now after several year's worth of
discussion, the number has been reduced to Zero.  If you were in our shoes,
you would assuredly think that the pendulum has swung way too far in the
wrong direction.  While others are entitled to representation and are able
to
elect their own directors onto the Board, the At-large community is now
being
denied this opportunity -- simply put, this is not in keeping with the
spirit
of fairness that ICANN seeks to promote as a core value.  The concept of
"balance" would dictate at least some degree of representation for the
At-Large.

I, for one, am prepared to accept and make concessions.  While (9) is the
magic number for me, and (0) is the magic number for the Board, somewhere in
that range should be a number that reasonable people can agree upon... it is
time to end this unnecessary posturing and arrive at a solution that no one
will truly like, but that everyone can live with.

Zero representatives for the At-large is not a "reasonable" proposition --
you can't expect us to accept that scenario without ongoing never-ending
acrimony.  For ICANN to function well it needs to resolve this issue
amicably
so that we can all return to a focus on the day-to-day problems that require
our full-time attention.  As a reasonable man, would you be willing to come
back to the table and offer up another proposal that at least provides for
some degree of representation for the At-Large?  Feel free to ask for
concessions on our part as well.

Best wishes,
Danny

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:49:53 -0400
From: "Jonathan Cohen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."

please explain more clearly what decisions or policies of ICANN are
troubling and why.What alternative do you propose and why is it better.I do
need help understanding many aspects of the Internet ,its operation and
constituencies in which I have no experience or background other than that
gained through this process .speak to me and I will listen (if it is not
rhetoric or insults) ..I would be grateful for the information
thanks
Jonathan

- -----Original Message-----
From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 4:30 PM
To: Jonathan Cohen; Jim Fleming; [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]; Richard J. Sexton
Subject: RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."

At 21:17 16/08/02, Jonathan Cohen wrote:

>And will those who disagree stop villifying, name calling ,cheap shotting
...

Dear Jonathan,
first, I want to thank you for this mail:  its probably the first one I
receive from you with my name on it; thank's to Jim. .

What you say certainly makes sense, and I (we all) certainly share concerns
for your own volunteer effort, at your own money expense (BTW except
professional lobbyists, we all are the same).

Many of us would be ready to help you. But you are a very difficult person
to help and assist. Should Andy and Karl have not said you are a very
dedicated, interesting and nice person to work with, how would we know?

What you have to understand is many have an experience of politics, of the
network, of international issues, of technical issues, etc.. equivalent to
yours and possibly higher in some aspects. It happens that you share
responsibility in ICANNn but you do not share with them. As they are
responsible persons, with duties to their own communities, countries,
mankind and kids their question is simple: "since ICANN does not share,
will we share?", and BoD bores more and more of them in saying "no" .

Yet, until now nothing is irreversible.

Vint is on the GA,
Alejandro tries to be on the NCC from time to time
even Joe is on the GA from times to times
Karl is on several lists
Stuart is no more anywhere
Andy is on a few lists from time to time
you respond for the first time

where are the others?

I do not think we distrust you, BoD people. What we see is that you
distrust us.

Why do you want us to continue being interested in your ICANN. As Mike said
"we ICANN", that could work. "you ICANN" will never work.

There are more important things to do: there is a network, a world, an
economy, a technology, innovations to develop and people to serve and to
love with sustainable development. There is also souls to protect from what
you do, or permit doing. I am sad when I see what ICANN does, I am sad for
you, I am sad for your efforts, I am sad for your good intents... because
you do not permit us to help you not doing it or find ways to do it less
badly.

This is your decision. Do not accuse us for it.

As long as ICANN is here we will be ready to help because it is more
efficient to build than to rebuild.
But up to you to tell us - just to tell us - "ICANN still exists". What we
see is not existence, just pretence.

Existence is when people talk.
Pretence is when abscond lawyers tend smoke screens.
jfc

>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/02

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:50:33 -0400
From: "Jonathan Cohen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."

Hi Michael, glad to see you are alive and full of fight. We have debated
many issues in person and with you thats the way I like to do it.(I am a 2
finger typist and it is painful) You know I support representative structure
and personal freedom..I am not talking about curtailing that ...anyway hope
to 'see'you somewhere soon.Why dont you put something on at Miami U Law
School and get a good Debate going >i will come and probably some others
..?? Maybe we should air some of this on neutral ground and in person??
regards
jonathan

- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 3:49 PM
To: Jonathan Cohen
Cc: Jim Fleming; [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];
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;
Joop Teernstra; Joe Baptista; Joanna Lane; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; Richard J. Sexton
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its
proposals..."

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

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

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

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

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

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
>
>

- --
		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: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:35:58 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212     BIZ.....going out of BIZness ?

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212 BIZ.....going out of BIZness ?

> The other .BIZ has been in existence since 1995 and is still going.
> 
===================================================

John,

With all due respect, there are not two .BIZ TLDs.
.BIZ is three letters. It is only spelled one way....B...I...Z...

All that really matters, moving forward, is the list of [SLD].BIZ owners.
Apparently, the I* society insiders have helped to do some market research
and Proof-of-Concept testing, to bring these potential customers to light.
Someone should thank them for their efforts, but not pay them anything.
They are non-profit, public benefit, volunteer organizations, or supposed to be.

If there are enough serious .BIZ owners to move past the market trial phase,
then commercial companies will likely deploy 128-bit DNS services for the
.BIZ owners. How many serious .BIZ owners are there ? 50,000 ? 80,000 ?

In order to serve the serious .BIZ owners, there needs to be a working Registry
for them to register. When they do register, it would seem prudent to check their
potential prior-use-rights from any Proof-of-Concept market testing they did on
a name-by-name basis. That is easy because servers can query the 32-bit DNS
and legacy (out-of-date) whois servers to carry forward any history a .BIZ owner
may have.

Any company (accredited or not), can clearly be a .BIZ Registrar.
http://www.thepricedomain.com/index.php?domainlist=biz
The more [SLD].BIZ owners cultivated, the more likely that .BIZ will survive.

How does one register in these .BIZ TLD servers ?
biz. 2D IN NS ns1.adns.net.
biz. 2D IN NS ns2.adns.net.

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
0:212 .BIZ

=====================================================
http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=biz&submit=Submit
.biz - NS Resource Records.

ANIC : AlterNIC : 160.79.129.192
VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 3. 
biz. 5d1h9m5s IN NS d.gtld.biz.
biz. 5d1h9m5s IN NS e.gtld.biz.
biz. 5d1h9m5s IN NS f.gtld.biz.
biz. 5d1h9m5s IN NS a.gtld.biz.
biz. 5d1h9m5s IN NS b.gtld.biz.
biz. 5d1h9m5s IN NS c.gtld.biz.

BORN : Business Oriented Root Network : 213.70.103.18
VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 6. 
biz. 2D IN NS D.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS E.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS F.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS A.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS B.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS C.GTLD.biz.

CINICS : Common Interest Network Information Center Society : 216.15.192.130
Result = No Response

iDNS : i-DNS.net International : 208.184.174.7
VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 6. 
biz. 2D IN NS E.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS F.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS A.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS B.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS C.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS D.GTLD.biz.

LRS : Legacy Root Servers : 198.41.0.4
VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 6. 
biz. 2D IN NS C.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS D.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS E.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS F.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS A.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS B.GTLD.biz.

NSpace : Name.Space : 209.48.2.11
VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 1 : Additional = 0. 
.biz not found.

Nnet : New.net Inc : 206.132.100.42
VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 6. 
biz. 1D IN NS D.GTLD.biz.
biz. 1D IN NS E.GTLD.biz.
biz. 1D IN NS F.GTLD.biz.
biz. 1D IN NS A.GTLD.biz.
biz. 1D IN NS B.GTLD.biz.
biz. 1D IN NS C.GTLD.biz.

ONIC : The OpenNIC Project : 131.161.247.226
VueDig Results : Answer = 4 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 4. 
biz. 2D IN NS ns1-pacroot.opennic.glue.
biz. 2D IN NS ns2-pacroot.opennic.glue.
biz. 2D IN NS ns3-pacroot.opennic.glue.
biz. 2D IN NS ns4-pacroot.opennic.glue.

ORSC : Open Root Server Confederation : 199.166.24.1
VueDig Results : Answer = 3 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 3. 
biz. 1H IN NS NS2.ADNS.NET.
biz. 1H IN NS NS.ROOTFIX.NET.
biz. 1H IN NS NS1.ADNS.NET.

ORSN : Open Root Server Network : 217.146.140.67
VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 6 : Additional = 6. 
biz. 2D IN NS F.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS A.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS B.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS C.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS D.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS E.GTLD.biz.

TINC : The Internet Namespace Cooperative : 64.6.65.10
Result = No Response
====================================================

TPR : The PacificRoot : 204.107.129.2
VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2. 
biz. 2D IN NS ns1.adns.net.
biz. 2D IN NS ns2.adns.net.

TUR : The Universal Registry : 66.38.220.12
Result = No Response

- --
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 #1401
*************************