Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1406
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, September 2 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1406

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

Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 15:07:57 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Sorry, No one to do the work

MCFADDEN:   "...my constituency has real troubles adding people to, or 
nominating people to task forces.  I don't know if you remember - for people 
who do remember the beginning of this task force.  Originally, there was no 
ISP.   So, I'm one of the - I'm in one of the constituencies, to be honest, 
that would have trouble naming someone.  And if the Names Council actually 
said 'well let's set up a separate task force, I can tell you that the ISP 
constituency would be one of the constituencies that would delay the process 
of getting the task force going, because it would take it a long time to find 
it's representative."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/doc00035.doc

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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 21:16:33 +0200
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Groundbreaking NAF Decision in NEW.NET Domain Case

Joe,

yes, he sent amazon.com cease-and desist letters to stop selling tanning oil
and things like that on their website because of his fake amazon trademarks
http://home.arcor.de/easytech/steinle-biz/kalaydjian-tms.jpg
look who owns amazontan.com now:
http://netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=amazontan.com&SearchType=do

and his lawyer Michael Diliberto always represented him in his questionable
actions. e.g. his lawyer claimed in the SEX.SHOP case that Kalaydjian sells
his products worldwide. In the case amazon vs. amazontan (Kalaydjian) it is
stated that he only sold 100 bottles of his tanning oil, of that 98 bottles
on the flea market in Pasadena. His lawyer in this case was Mr. Diliberto.
Mr. Diliberto was fully aware that Kalaydjian does not sell worldwide but he
claimed Kalaydjian does.
The best is: According to his website he "frequently serves as an arbitrator
and mediator for intellectual property, entertainment and business disputes"
http://www.kleinberglerner.com/profile.asp?wld_id=3199612
In light of this I don't wonder about questionable Arbitration results
anymore.

Best regards,
Simon
http://www.steinle.law.pro

btw. exhibits of the SEX.SHOP case are now up on http://sex.shop.steinle.biz
,on http://sex.shop.law.pro and on http://www.steinle.law.pro

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Groundbreaking NAF Decision in NEW.NET Domain Case

> thank you Simon - that works perfectly
>
> kindest regards
> joe baptista
>
> p.s. looks like this chap Von Eric Lerner Kalaydjian has a bit of a
> history.
>
>
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Now you could use http://www.steinle.law.pro or http://sex.shop.law.pro
> > instead of http://sex.shop.steinle.biz .
> > This works in the ORSC, in the Name.Space and in the Pacific Root.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "steinle" <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 4:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Groundbreaking NAF Decision in NEW.NET Domain Case
> >
> >
> > >
> > > hi - i can't reach http://sex.shop.steinle.biz - i'm don't use usg
root
> > > servers and the usg .biz is not recognized.  would you have an
alternative
> > > url instead of http://sex.shop.steinle.biz
> > >
> > > regards
> > > joe baptista
> > >
> > > On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, steinle wrote:
> > >
> > > > You can browse the decision in full with links to the exhibits and
> > proofs under http://sex.shop.steinle.biz
> > > >
> > > > See e.g. the Complainants "website", see the link to the
Complainants
> > abuse trademark registrations, see the link to the Case "Amazon.com, Inc
v.
> > Von Eric Lerner Kalaydjian et al, docket C00-1740R (U.S.D.C. W.D.Wa.)",
look
> > who has registered the domain name http://www.pizza.hut, ...
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > > --
> > > > 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: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:06:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request to ban Basque nationalist sites via DNS

I have to confess that I don't quite follow the logic here, especially
starting from point (2)....

On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:

> Dear Vittorio, Dear Michael,
> I am afraid Vittorio you go by the normal laws we lived with for centuries. 
> I am calling now our legal expert, Michael, and I revert to US law. ICANN 
> has been created as a front-end for the USG to apply the US law and its 
> claim to a worldwide dominance over the data exchanges and relations.
> 
> 1. this dominance is expressed by 1996 communications acts. They say two 
> things:
> 
> 1.1. the "enhanced" services are now "information" services and as such 
> removed from the ITU rules, agreements and jurisprudence protection which 
> helped an non US controlled development - and which are replaced by the 
> ICANN "contractnet" policy legitimated by the GAC and the constant call of 
> ICANN to Govs.
> 
> 1.2 that the Internet is made of all the computers connected to 
> interoperated packet switch networks in the world. Under that dominance 
> there is an unique continuum ruled by ICANN under the USG root originated 
> name space.
> 
> 2. What Spains claims is that this continuum is to be used in its favor and 
> not only in US favor. This may mean two things: either that Spain puts 
> itself under ICANN jurisdiction, ie under the US dominance, or that Spain 
> claims that the namespace is to be ruled by a concertance, at least where 
> existing antiterrorist rules and agreements apply.
> 
> Judge Garzon is unfortunately probably more interested in his name being 
> known than in Spanish digital sovereignty. Calling on the Australian 
> Government is a proper move - Gov to Gov. Calling on the Spanish Gov to 
> implement a serious European and Spanish root policy permitting to address 
> that kind of problem (barring Spanish access to Batasunna sites, 
> prosecuting people accessing them, sueing the ASP/ISPs permmiting access 
> from Spain to their site - like in the French Yahoo case) would be a proper 
> move. But calling on ICANN is to acknowledge the US dominance and to create 
> a legal doctrine about an ICANN governed International Internet continuum. 
> This opposes the exiting/begining practice of more informed countries like 
> Viet-Name (national views), China (national root), Saudi (control of adult 
> hosts), Tunisia (e-mail control), France (Yahoo), USA (Homeland), etc. and 
> the general move towards  specific national rules (about logging the calls) 
> and legal protection (privacy).
> jfc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 10:31 01/09/02, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 17:37:11 +0200, you wrote:
> >
> > >>Spain steps up pressure on Basque militants at home and abroad
> > >(...)
> > >>Spanish prosecutors Friday also requested Judge Garzon to apply to the
> > >>Australian government and The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
> > >>and Numbers, based in the United States, to ban Batasuna web sites
> > >>including www.batasuna.org, www.euskal-herritarrok.org et
> > >>www.batasuna-barakaldo.org.
> >
> >Well - the usual display of ignorance. Even supporters of the "strong
> >ICANN" model don't think that ICANN should ever be able to "ban web
> >sites" :-)
> >
> >If I were the Spanish government... well, if I actually were, I'd
> >perhaps try other roads to deal with the persistent Basque terrorism,
> >and surely I wouldn't go round the world trying to turn off web sites,
> >but that's another story. However, assuming that I were a government
> >wishing to close a web site, firstly I'd act on the hosting; and even
> >in this case, it seems unlikely to me that the DoC will let foreign
> >governments or law courts force the dissolution of any hosting
> >contract with an US company, if not on a basis of very informal "moral
> >suasion".
> >
> >But for us it is more interesting to understand what might practically
> >happen about the domain name registration. Of course ICANN does not
> >have the power of deleting specific registrations, does it? (And I
> >hope it will never have.) So the Spanish could only challenge the
> >validity of the registration, either by trying to force Melbourne IT
> >to delete the registration - but I don't think that a Spanish law
> >would affect an Australian company, and I don't think that that
> >registration is in any way illegal under Australian laws - or by
> >starting an UDRP.
> >
> >By the way, the UDRP would possibly be the only "safe" way - if you
> >simply get the registration deleted, nothing forbids anyone else to go
> >and register the domain name again one day later; so - given that,
> >differently from what happens in many ccTLDs, there is not a list of
> >"forbidden words" that gTLD registries will refuse as domain names -
> >what you need is really to have the "offending name" owned by
> >yourself.
> >
> >Now, if you take the UDRP rules, I don't think there's anything that
> >says that the Spanish government has any right over batasuna.org more
> >than Batasuna itself. So either the UDRP rules are modified for this
> >kind of cases (or simply, a sympathetic ruler invents something funny
> >to let the Spanish win the cause, perhaps after a set of invisible
> >international pressures), or we could see the Spanish government
> >registering "Batasuna" as a trademark trying to exploit it to win the
> >UDRP - at least if the Basque didn't do it before them :-)
> >
> >So in the end, my conclusion is partly positive and partly negative:
> >the positive part is that shutting off web sites still seems to be
> >very hard, and the negative part is that the only ways you could
> >possibly use are either by informally and privately exploiting your
> >power to "convince" service providers to voluntarily close the site,
> >or by using intellectual property tools. Apparently, the current
> >international Internet framework is much more favourable to trademark
> >owners than it is to anti-terrorism efforts.
> >--
> >vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> >----------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <--------------------------
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> >
> >---
> >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
> 

- -- 
		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: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 20:43:50 -0400
From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: New TLD Evaluation Process : Specific Question to the Board

richard, 

my understanding is that at least some, if not all, reports have been received but some contain proprietary information. Before these reports can be released in public form, they have to be redacted to preserve the confidentiality of proprietary data. Staff has simply been busy with other work so this is still on the task queue.

vint

At 03:25 PM 9/1/2002 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:
> 
> 
>Why hasn't the NTEPPTF had access to the "Proof of Concept Evaluation reports" which had to be submitted by Afilias, in accordance with Appendix U of the .info Agreement with ICANN?
> 
>This task force was specifically set up by the Board to Evaluate the New TLDs. How can it have done so without access to the vital data?
> 
>Has this data been fully submitted by Afilias?
> 
>Where is it?
> 
>Why hasn't it been provided, even to the Task Force set up to evaluate it? I have had it confirmed to me by members of this Task Force that these documents have not been provided to them.
> 
>Will Stuart Lynn now please confirm that all the documents have been properly submitted, and will the NTEPPTF please now reconvene and submit a revised report based on this data?
> 
>And will the ICANN Board please make this data available for others too, as specifically allowed under the terms of Appendix U?
> 
>What is the point of a "proof of concept" or an evaluation process if you withhold the vital data from the Registries involved?
> 
>It makes it seem like the Board wants to "go through the motions" without having to address all the details. 
> 
>Richard Henderson
> 

Vint Cerf
SVP Architecture & Technology
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax

- --
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: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 19:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: New TLD Evaluation Process : Specific Question to the Board

vint,

first of all I'm always impressed you actually take the time to read all
the posts I see you reply to, my hat is off to you.

this isn't a query but more of a point of information regarding reporting
required by registries and ICANN's ability to publish them.

In appendix T of the new gTLD contracts Registries are required to report
many mundane statistics, see http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/unsponsored/registry-agmt-appt-11may01.htm

The data required in Appendix T and Appendix U are mostly statistical in
nature which makes it hard to buy the confidentiality restrictions. Also
Appendix T does not have the option for a confidentiality restriction but
not one of the Appendix T reports has been published either.

There is one registry that does publish Monthly Operator reports much like
what is required in Appendix T, see
http://www.gtldregistries.org/reports.html The VeriSign Registry has
published reports, available, dating as far back as March 2000.

My point is that ICANN is loosing its credibility, this isn't your fault,
but telling us the reports are there make no difference if they cannot be
reviewed. This leaves us with just one person to ask... Karl Auerbach.
which seems silly, because the Appendix T reports have no confidentiality
restrictions. Which makes it this pill so hard to swallow.

Isn't this all just a bit ironic? I've evn offered to part-time as a
webmaster to help get these reports out, apparently ICANN staff doesn't
take well volunteers either.

nntr,

- -rick

On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, vinton g. cerf wrote:

> richard,
>
> my understanding is that at least some, if not all, reports have been
> received but some contain proprietary information. Before these
> reports can be released in public form, they have to be redacted to
> preserve the confidentiality of proprietary data. Staff has simply
> been busy with other work so this is still on the task queue.
>
> vint
>
> At 03:25 PM 9/1/2002 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >
> >
> >Why hasn't the NTEPPTF had access to the "Proof of Concept Evaluation reports" which had to be submitted by Afilias, in accordance with Appendix U of the .info Agreement with ICANN?
> >
> >This task force was specifically set up by the Board to Evaluate the New TLDs. How can it have done so without access to the vital data?
> >
> >Has this data been fully submitted by Afilias?
> >
> >Where is it?
> >
> >Why hasn't it been provided, even to the Task Force set up to evaluate it? I have had it confirmed to me by members of this Task Force that these documents have not been provided to them.
> >
> >Will Stuart Lynn now please confirm that all the documents have been properly submitted, and will the NTEPPTF please now reconvene and submit a revised report based on this data?
> >
> >And will the ICANN Board please make this data available for others too, as specifically allowed under the terms of Appendix U?
> >
> >What is the point of a "proof of concept" or an evaluation process if you withhold the vital data from the Registries involved?
> >
> >It makes it seem like the Board wants to "go through the motions" without having to address all the details.
> >
> >Richard Henderson
> >
>
> Vint Cerf
> SVP Architecture & Technology
> WorldCom
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
> 703 886 0047 fax
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 22:26:55 -0400
From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: New TLD Evaluation Process : Specific Question to the Board

I don't know that the reported material contains anything confidential but staff has to read it to find out.

vint

At 07:13 PM 9/1/2002 -0700, Rick Wesson wrote:

>vint,
>
>first of all I'm always impressed you actually take the time to read all
>the posts I see you reply to, my hat is off to you.
>
>this isn't a query but more of a point of information regarding reporting
>required by registries and ICANN's ability to publish them.
>
>In appendix T of the new gTLD contracts Registries are required to report
>many mundane statistics, see http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/unsponsored/registry-agmt-appt-11may01.htm
>
>The data required in Appendix T and Appendix U are mostly statistical in
>nature which makes it hard to buy the confidentiality restrictions. Also
>Appendix T does not have the option for a confidentiality restriction but
>not one of the Appendix T reports has been published either.
>
>There is one registry that does publish Monthly Operator reports much like
>what is required in Appendix T, see
>http://www.gtldregistries.org/reports.html The VeriSign Registry has
>published reports, available, dating as far back as March 2000.
>
>My point is that ICANN is loosing its credibility, this isn't your fault,
>but telling us the reports are there make no difference if they cannot be
>reviewed. This leaves us with just one person to ask... Karl Auerbach.
>which seems silly, because the Appendix T reports have no confidentiality
>restrictions. Which makes it this pill so hard to swallow.
>
>Isn't this all just a bit ironic? I've evn offered to part-time as a
>webmaster to help get these reports out, apparently ICANN staff doesn't
>take well volunteers either.
>
>nntr,
>
>-rick
>
>
>
>On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, vinton g. cerf wrote:
>
>> richard,
>>
>> my understanding is that at least some, if not all, reports have been
>> received but some contain proprietary information. Before these
>> reports can be released in public form, they have to be redacted to
>> preserve the confidentiality of proprietary data. Staff has simply
>> been busy with other work so this is still on the task queue.
>>
>> vint
>>
>> At 03:25 PM 9/1/2002 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Why hasn't the NTEPPTF had access to the "Proof of Concept Evaluation reports" which had to be submitted by Afilias, in accordance with Appendix U of the .info Agreement with ICANN?
>> >
>> >This task force was specifically set up by the Board to Evaluate the New TLDs. How can it have done so without access to the vital data?
>> >
>> >Has this data been fully submitted by Afilias?
>> >
>> >Where is it?
>> >
>> >Why hasn't it been provided, even to the Task Force set up to evaluate it? I have had it confirmed to me by members of this Task Force that these documents have not been provided to them.
>> >
>> >Will Stuart Lynn now please confirm that all the documents have been properly submitted, and will the NTEPPTF please now reconvene and submit a revised report based on this data?
>> >
>> >And will the ICANN Board please make this data available for others too, as specifically allowed under the terms of Appendix U?
>> >
>> >What is the point of a "proof of concept" or an evaluation process if you withhold the vital data from the Registries involved?
>> >
>> >It makes it seem like the Board wants to "go through the motions" without having to address all the details.
>> >
>> >Richard Henderson
>> >
>>
>> Vint Cerf
>> SVP Architecture & Technology
>> WorldCom
>> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
>> Ashburn, VA 20147
>> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
>> 703 886 0047 fax
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>

Vint Cerf
SVP Architecture & Technology
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax

- --
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: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:30:47 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: New TLD Evaluation Process : Specific Question to the Board

>
> I don't know that the reported material contains anything
> confidential but staff has to read it to find out.
>
> vint

That's ridiculous.

It is up to the owner of proprietary information to make that determination.
If an unqualified disclosure is made to an outside party, i.e. ICANN, then
the information is by definition not proprietary.

How does ICANN staff determine whether material they have received from
someone else is proprietary to the party making the disclosure.

- --
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: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 22:50:26 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Admin] Temporary posting rights suspension

Eric, Alex, Jim and all assembly members,

  Of course suspending Jim was purely political in nature!  It is well known
and has been for sometime that when Jim states the truth in his postings,
as well as provides direct documentation to support those truths, that some
of the ICANN'ites send in a complaint to have his posting rights suspended.
It's utter nonsense, but some forms of subversion are utter nonsense.  This
is one of them IMHO...

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Number of posts is such a silly criterion for suspension.
> As we all know Jim's are short and going to the links provided is completely
> up to the readers.
> But in this case it is completely political.
> Who complained to the abuse line?
> Why was he really suspended? was it TR or AS and who asked for it?
> Abridgment of freedom of speech should not be so light?
> Eric
>
> >
> > The posting rights of Jim Fleming have been temporarily
> >suspended because of violations of the GA list rules.
> >
> >>- If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the number of
> >>posts
> >>  per person per day, this must be respected
> > (from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html)
> >
> >>The Chair of the GA has set the posting limit at FIVE postings per
> >>person, list and calendar day, calculated according to the sender's
> >>local time.
> > (from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/GA.list-monitoring.html)
> >
> > Jim Fleming has violated the posting limit again: He has done
> >so before and had been warned on 18 August 2002.
> >
> > Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:11:36 -0500
> > Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:55:32 -0500
> > Fri, 16 Aug 2002 14:43:51 -0500
> > Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:44:24 -0500
> > Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:03:48 -0500
> > Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:42:06 -0500
> > Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:00:41 -0500
> >
> > Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:45:22 -0500
> > Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:37:54 -0500
> > Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:47:56 -0500
> > Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:13:41 -0500
> > Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:22:54 -0500
> > Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:35:58 -0500
> > Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:01:12 -0500
> > Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:26:35 -0500
> > Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:23:40 -0500
> >
> >
> >>A list monitor may impose 2 sanctions against offenders:
> >>
> >>- Monitoring of posts. This will cause delay of postings from the
> >>affected
> >>  individual until a list moderator approves them as being within the
> >>  content  rules, or rejects them
> >>- Suspension of posting rights. This will cause mail from that person
> >>not to be
> >>  sent to the GA list.
> >>
> >>Both sanctions are imposed for a limited period of time (typically 2
> >>weeks),  and are announced on the mailing list. Repeat offenders may
> >>get correspondingly  longer sentences (for instance 4 weeks for a
> >>second offense, 8 weeks for a third). The period is decided by the list
> >>monitor.
> > (from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html)
> >
> > Jim Fleming's posting rights have already been suspended for two weeks
> > in the past. The current suspension of posting rights therefore lasts
> > four weeks.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > /// GA List Monitor
> >
> > --
> > 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

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: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 23:01:07 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Fw: "...How is the Board to retain their judgement..."

Jim and all assembly members,

  You again post of course a good question here Jim.  Seems like there is
a bit of subterfuge going on here.  I hope others are catching or recognizing it.

Jim Fleming wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 1:31 PM
> Subject: "...How is the Board to retain their judgement..."
>
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc11/msg00061.html
> > From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
> >
> > "...How is the Board to retain their judgement if staff posts a press announcement
> > titled "Preliminary Report to ICANN Board: ISOC to Run .org?"?..."
> > ========
> >
> > http://www.cathouse-fcc.org/images/cisco01.jpg
> >

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: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 04:50:03 -0400
From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: New TLD Evaluation Process : Specific Question to the Board

John,

I agree - the point is that if the material is marked proprietary by supplier, staff will need to edit that part out before posting to the public. 

vint

At 11:30 PM 9/1/2002 -0400, John Berryhill wrote:
>>
>> I don't know that the reported material contains anything
>> confidential but staff has to read it to find out.
>>
>> vint
>
>That's ridiculous.
>
>It is up to the owner of proprietary information to make that determination.
>If an unqualified disclosure is made to an outside party, i.e. ICANN, then
>the information is by definition not proprietary.
>
>How does ICANN staff determine whether material they have received from
>someone else is proprietary to the party making the disclosure.

Vint Cerf
SVP Architecture & Technology
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax

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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:24:53 +0100
From: "Karen Elizaga" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)

Hello Ross & Alexander,

To be clear, what we have described in our .org application is a technical system that has been developed, built and will continue to be operated solely by Global Name Registry.  Nothing in our application alludes to any system, or even components of a system, built by VeriSign.  Therefore, this puts us on an even playing field with only those bidders who have not had the opportunity to have our systems reviewed by Gartner. 

This may or may not have hurt us and other similarly situated bidders - we just don't know.  Our point in raising this issue was simply that (1) previous knowledge about any of the bidders should have been disclosed prior to evaluation, and (2) with the existence of Gartner's previous knowledge about any of the bidders (and therefore the uncertainty of whether this resulted in any advantage of one bidder over another) it can't be said unequivocally that the evaluation was thoroughly impartial or based solely on the evidence provided in each of the carefully prepared bids.

Regards.
KE

- -----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Svensson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 31 August 2002 16:03
To: DNSO General Assembly
Cc: Ross Wm. Rader
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)

Hello Ross,

At 31.08.2002 08:34, Ross Rader wrote:
>Any thoughts on GNR's complaint that Neustar may have an unfavorable
>advantage over GNR because of Gartner's prior analysis? 

The report on NeuStar was written by David Fraley of Gartner's
Network Infrastructure group. NeuStar's registry services are
part of that report. There has also been a report on 
how VeriSign cut their fraud rates (fraud against VeriSign, 
that is). It's hard to tell what's in the NeuStar report
without paying the 795 US$, but from the table of contents,
it looks rather like a company portrait, not an in-depth
analysis of their domain name business or their .org chances.

That said, I don't believe that Gartner's prior analysis of
NeuStar has had a significant impact on their recent report.
At least I don't see anything in the Gartner report for ICANN
which indicates that they were more familiar with NeuStar than
with other bidders.

>What I mean is given
>GNR's technical & economic association with Verisign, wouldn't GNR benefit
>from a similar evaluative bias given that Verisign's operation could be
>viewed as the standard by which all other comers are being judged? One would
>assume that the technical evaluators would have a high degree of
>pre-existing familiarity with Verisign and therefore GNR.

GNR gets a 3.48 Gartner score for criterion 1 (stability);
UIA using VeriSign gets a 3.60 score, Afilias scores 3.67,
NeuStar 3.85. It doesn't look like GNR's association with
VeriSign has made a tremendous impression, and some bids
were rated higher than the one using VeriSign (UIA).

It's understandable that almost all the bidders are unhappy
with the evaluation reports which rate them down. However,
there are some points which stick out:
- -- The Academic CIO analysis with its "group discussion"
   approach is not suitable for such an evaluation, since
   the ranking is intransparent. Five academic CIOs stating
   that their "team feels [!] that two proposals, NeuStar and 
   ISOC, were the strongest" is utterly unconvincing.
- -- The NCDNHC report is much more transparent; unfortunately,
   some errors made it into the published version. Even
   though transparent, the evaluation method is of course
   debatable and it seems that there have been problems
   with contacting some of the bidders (e.g. Organic Names).
- -- The Gartner evaluation states criteria and evaluation in
   detail. Even though there are mistakes or at least areas
   where bidders disagree, it is quite transparent. Where
   errors are clear, they should be corrected (as in all other
   reports).
- -- The Staff Report should not have recommended a particular
   bidder, and I hope the Board makes it clear to their staff
   that this should never happen again! How is the Board to
   retain their judgement if staff posts a press announcement
   titled "Preliminary Report to ICANN Board: ISOC to Run .org?"?

Best regards,
/// Alexander

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

Information contained herein is Global Name Registry Proprietary Information and is made available to you because of your interest in our company.    This information is submitted in confidence and its disclosure to you is not intended to constitute public disclosure or authorization for disclosure to other parties.
*****************
What's your .name?
Get one at www.name
*****************

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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 05:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: New TLD Evaluation Process : Specific Question to the Board

> I agree - the point is that if the material is marked proprietary by supplier, staff will need to edit that part out before posting to the public. 
> 
> vint
> 

Hi Vint -

ok, I'm totally confused.  I went back and re-read all the reporting requirements in the tld
agreements and still can't think of a single example of what such proprietary data might be 
in the various mandated technical reports (and I tried *really* hard.  :)

The only examples I could think of might be in any due diligence by staff asking the vendor to 
back up claims made in a report (e.g., staff says "show me the algorithm you used to determine 
this metric" and vendor responds "ok, but some of our proprietary code is mixed in so please 
don't release it"). 

Can you give me a simple (hypothetical) example of something that might be proprietary or am
I confused and looking at the wrong reporting requirements?

Regards,

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

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

Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 10:44:32 -0400
From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: New TLD Evaluation Process : Specific Question to the Board

Carl, there may be none - I haven't seen the reports. The generic example might have to do with customer data, revenues, etc.

vint

At 05:41 AM 9/2/2002 -0700, Carl Malamud wrote:
>Hi Vint -
>
>ok, I'm totally confused.  I went back and re-read all the reporting requirements in the tld
>agreements and still can't think of a single example of what such proprietary data might be 
>in the various mandated technical reports (and I tried *really* hard.  :)
>
>The only examples I could think of might be in any due diligence by staff asking the vendor to 
>back up claims made in a report (e.g., staff says "show me the algorithm you used to determine 
>this metric" and vendor responds "ok, but some of our proprietary code is mixed in so please 
>don't release it"). 
>
>Can you give me a simple (hypothetical) example of something that might be proprietary or am
>I confused and looking at the wrong reporting requirements?
>
>Regards,
>
>Carl 

Vint Cerf
SVP Architecture & Technology
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax

- --
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 #1406
*************************