Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1488
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, October 25 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1488

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

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 21:48:00 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
>Roberto,
>
>My guess is that you did not mean to imply that the current operator made a
>'unitlateral' decision not to enforce the conditions recommended by RFC
>1591, but just in case some might conclude that, I would like to point out
>as has been pointed out in the past that that decision was recommended by
>Jon Postel and then followed by the current operator.
>

I did not imply anything like that, because as much as I consider myself an 
"oldcomer", I entered this circus when .com, .org and .net were already not 
enforcing the charter. I assume that this was done with the agreement of Jon 
and!or IANA, but I consider this irrelevant to my point, which is that a 
registry aiming at large numbers *cannot* put in place filters, while some 
"special purpose" registries, like .int, *can*.

Whatever the judgement on NSi, later VeriSign, we have to admit one thing: 
much of the success of the Internet today is related to the possibility of 
giving Mr. Jones the chance to register a Domain Name. Had NSi put 
complicated filters in place (as the original charter could be interpreted 
to call for), the development of the Internet would have been slower. Of 
course, we can argue that the very reason why this was put in place was not 
altruistic but profit for NSi, but this will parallel to the dismissal of 
the importance of the ModelT because Ford did not mean to build an 
affordable car in order to allow the "masses" to take advantage of it, but 
because he saw in this a source of profit. Whatever the motivation, the fact 
is that, as the Taylorist approach has allowed mass production of cars, the 
"light filtering" has allowed mass registration of domain names.
And this has been a "Good Thing". Now, we need to correct the effects of it, 
as much we need to correct the effect of mass ownership of private 
transportation in terms of pollution, traffic, etc.
Does this need regulation or can this be left to the free market? Hard 
question. As usual, the truth is in the middle, methinks. The problem is not 
"regulate nothing" or "regulate all" but to keep a good balance between what 
is regulated and what not.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

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

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

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 22:37:55 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>I agree with most parts of your description. I am not convinced though it 
>would be the
>best solution if the ITU stepped in and took over the control over the 
>root.
>
>What I find really unfortunate is that the idea of self governance is 
>linked to the
>oversight of one government. What is necessary I think is some form of 
>political
>framework that would enable a new attempt of self-governance. ICANN's 
>failure and
>incapability of reforming itself in a legitimate way does not prove that 
>self-governance
>is impossible alltogether.

I never meant to imply that self-governance is impossible altogether.
But we have to be pragmatic.
Reality has always been more a mixture of shades of gray (the optimistics 
usually say a mixture of different colours) rather than black and white.
We should refrain from categorizing things, and use Orwellian-type slogans 
like "self-governance=good;oversight=bad", and see in detail the good/bad of 
a specific solution for a specific problem.
I am culturally prone to self-governance whenever possible, but given the 
intrinsic problems of self-governance (which unfortunately equates very 
often to "leave it to the market", and therefore to the stronger players) 
when it has to do with the control of scarce and valuable resources.
Would it have been possible to coordinate the international telephone 
numbering scheme by self-governance, rather than assigning the task to a 
body "over the parties"? Would it be possible to leave the use of water and 
land to self-regulation (hint: remove the regulation that controls building 
in the US National Parks, and see what happens)?

Anyway, this is philosophy. Going back to practice, yuo mention the root.
I dont understand (or I misunderstood). Why should be an ITU-controlled 
A-root be "regulated", while an US-controlled rood considered 
"self-governed"? Please note that I am not talking at all about the 
legitimate right of private parties to try to build alternate-roots, or 
inclusive-roots, or whatever-roots, I am just talking about the jurisdiction 
under which the current A-root should be operated.

>ICANN's failure does prove though that both stricter and more
>comprehensive forms of accountability are necessary. By comprehensive I 
>mean more than
>just one government should oversee names and numbers administration.  
>Ideally, this could
>be achieved by a convention that restricts the role of governments to a 
>minimum of
>sanity,
>fairness and similar types of checks. Such a convention would provide the 
>political space
>for a new attempt governance model that aims to manage without direct 
>government
>intervention. Btw, "regulation of self-regulation" has become quite a 
>popular strategy
>recently.

Absolutely true.
Nevertheless, I was talking about function that do not imply policy 
decisions, just impartial assignment of scarce resources (addresses), or 
international jurisdiction on a key resource (the A-root).
Again, pragmatism should indicate that if we have a practical mechanism 
today, we should not try to reinvent the wheel.
About the partitioning of the address space, how do you see a convention 
gathering, and deciding? And to which extent this will become different from 
one of the existing international treaty organizations? If so, why should we 
waste resources to build a new one?
About the A-root, what do you see as a fit-for-purpose governing (or 
self-governing) body? How will this body be protected juridically from petty 
lawsuits? (incidentally, *under which jurisdiction will this body be*?)

We should clearly distinguish between what can be the object of 
self-governance, and what should be regulated. Neither set will be void.

Moreover, among the objects belonging to the latter set, we have to 
distinguish which are in the domain of a single sovereign country, and which 
are the ones that have to be governed by the international community.

Maybe if we have a clear definition of what belongs to what we can attack 
other discussions (like ccTLDs vs. gTLDs, for instance) with a more suitable 
set of tools.

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

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

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

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 22:57:04 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> > Why ICANN maintain that enormous $6 cap fee per domain name
> > in extra-judiciary international space? Why ICANN does not use
> > that money collected worldwide for the benefit of international
> > domain name Registrants?
>
>This might just be the most ridiculous line of reasoning that I've seen for
>a long time. Either that or a very poor attempt at fear-mongering. Which is
>it?
>

We might discuss whether this Elisabeth´s was the best way to reasoning, but 
the fact is that that the whole world has to pay $6 to a company in the US 
for registering a domain name in the most popular gTLD.
Moreover, the fact that this gTLD has remained the unchallenged "most 
popular" is not due to the ineptitude of other (domestic or international) 
competitors, but simply to the fact that the introduction of new gTLDs has 
been stopped until recently.
Nowadays, limited (and late) competition has been introduced, but so much 
time has passed that the .com has been in the meantime become worldwide the 
symbol itself of the gTLD. In other words, the entry of competitors in the 
gTLD market has been artificially delayed until the .com has had a chance to 
build a very high "barreer to entry" to competitors, by virtue of its 
deployment.

Simple.
And it worked.
(but to me it stinks)

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access! 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

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

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

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 23:04:12 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

David Farrar wrote:

>
>As a point of principle I don't believe any registrant who is
>operating in good faith should lose their domain name due to
>retrospective policy changes.
>
>.........
>
>So good idea to tighten up criteria for .int but kicking out current
>registrants would set a fairly nasty thin end of the wedge principle.
>

Agree.
I don´t think that current "bona fide" registrants in .int will be kicked 
out, but on one hand, given the small number thereof, it should be possible 
to get to a transaction with them so that the migration out could be 
consensual, and on the other hand, for new registrants it should be made 
clear that they are allowed the use of the name as long as they comply with 
the charter, and as soon as this condition is no longer verified, the loss 
of the name should be automatic.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

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

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

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 20:17:59 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

ummmmmmmm,
I have been following this thread in silence for a while but I fear its time
for me to say something.

My 'something' is in the form of a question: the question is.........
why bother? as everyone agrees.... .int is sparsely populated.  So why mess
with it?  Are we setting an example? are we setting precedents for others to
follow? at the end of the day...will it make a difference?  with so many .org
and .net that dont appear to follow the rulez... since we appear to agree it is
impractical to make changes there...why bother worrying about dot int?
sure...as Roberto says, it is probably possible.  But many things are
possible.  Would our energies not be better spent doing something that actual
makes a difference?

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> David Farrar wrote:
>
> >
> >As a point of principle I don't believe any registrant who is
> >operating in good faith should lose their domain name due to
> >retrospective policy changes.
> >
> >.........
> >
> >So good idea to tighten up criteria for .int but kicking out current
> >registrants would set a fairly nasty thin end of the wedge principle.
> >
>
> Agree.
> I don´t think that current "bona fide" registrants in .int will be kicked
> out, but on one hand, given the small number thereof, it should be possible
> to get to a transaction with them so that the migration out could be
> consensual, and on the other hand, for new registrants it should be made
> clear that they are allowed the use of the name as long as they comply with
> the charter, and as soon as this condition is no longer verified, the loss
> of the name should be automatic.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
> --
> 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

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:42:41 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Developing Nations/Whois

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> What you say on this thread is exactly why we refer to us as developing
> nations. Our process and due process and need over rights are being
> developed.  What you say is idealic in nature.

  I disagree wit your conclusion here Eric as to what I was saying.
Nothing idealic with basic human rights at all, all over the world.
My example of Afghanistan is just that, and example.  I said there
are many many more...  A couple of others of recent times would
be Bosnia, and South Africa...  And there are still many many more...

>
>
> Just as with our whois data bases being marketable, we must review the here
> and now and adjust not ignore it, and talk of what should be but rather what
> is.

  I agree.  And until ICANN came into being what is was and still is
that privacy in the WHOIS database as to a listing on a DN
did not require that a persons personal address or Phone # be listed
so as to make that WHOIS record accurate.  Perhaps you have
forgotten that small fact?

>
>
> I agree with you that these are not technical or even policy issues but are
> becoming basic human right issues.

  They are all the above Eric...

>  the right to be educated and have access
> to information is really becoming a human right, perhaps that is the best
> gift to come out of 911 and Afghanastan.
>
> Sincerely,
> eric

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: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:47:02 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] IPC Meeting time in Shanghai

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

  The IPC meeting has been scheduled from 3:30 to 5:30 pm.  If there is
anyone else who should receive this information in order for it to be
properly reflected in the signage and program onsite in Shanghai, please
advise, or feel free to forward.

Thank you!
Steve Metalitz,IPC president

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, 24 Oct 2002 03:38:49 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

Dan and all assembly members,

  Good points here Dan!  Well done!

  As you probably know Dan, some folks have long been concerned
about who registers a DN in what Name space for what reason or
usage.  Hence the great interest in attempting to take long standing
practice, and retrofit it back into rules that were long ago discarded
and than reinstating those rules as if they applied today.  This to
me is a form of wanting to control the stakeholders/users to a
very specific and defined degree.  It also to me shows that a
tiny group of stakeholders/users is disarrange to control a much
larger group to and extend that is extraordinary at this juncture
of stage in the DNS history or history of some name spaces.

  So make a long story short, all of this yacking smells allot like
a way of justifying restraint of trade and DN stealing/acquiring
by and for different interested parties presently not holding those
particular DN's in those particular Name spaces (TLD's)...

  Of course none of this sort of manipulating should be unexpected.
I know that some in the NCDNHC as well as many or our [INEGroup]
members have been expecting some sort of movement in this skewed
direction.  This is in part the motivations behind the WHOIS TF
recommendations.  In other words, looking for vehicles to implement
that can and will be used to rest DN's from their proper and/or
original registrants regardless of cause...  The UDRP is and has
always been a tool for the IP community for this purpose as well.

Dan Steinberg wrote:

> ummmmmmmm,
> I have been following this thread in silence for a while but I fear its time
> for me to say something.
>
> My 'something' is in the form of a question: the question is.........
> why bother? as everyone agrees.... .int is sparsely populated.  So why mess
> with it?  Are we setting an example? are we setting precedents for others to
> follow? at the end of the day...will it make a difference?  with so many .org
> and .net that dont appear to follow the rulez... since we appear to agree it is
> impractical to make changes there...why bother worrying about dot int?
> sure...as Roberto says, it is probably possible.  But many things are
> possible.  Would our energies not be better spent doing something that actual
> makes a difference?
>
> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> > David Farrar wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >As a point of principle I don't believe any registrant who is
> > >operating in good faith should lose their domain name due to
> > >retrospective policy changes.
> > >
> > >.........
> > >
> > >So good idea to tighten up criteria for .int but kicking out current
> > >registrants would set a fairly nasty thin end of the wedge principle.
> > >
> >
> > Agree.
> > I don´t think that current "bona fide" registrants in .int will be kicked
> > out, but on one hand, given the small number thereof, it should be possible
> > to get to a transaction with them so that the migration out could be
> > consensual, and on the other hand, for new registrants it should be made
> > clear that they are allowed the use of the name as long as they comply with
> > the charter, and as soon as this condition is no longer verified, the loss
> > of the name should be automatic.
> >
> > Regards
> > Roberto
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:52:00 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .de nameservers updated

On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 04:40:51PM +0200,
 Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 9 lines which said:

> As of serial number 2002102300 (i.e. today) ICANN has updated the
> nameservers for .DE in the root zone. It seems this struggle is
> over. 

.ro (Romania), one of the victims of ns.eu.net has just been updated
(whois still shows the old list but a.root-servers.net has the proper
list of nameservers).

As one private comment I received indicate: there is probably a
cleaning before Shangai, to limit possible protests during the
meeting.

- --
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, 24 Oct 2002 09:59:54 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

> We might discuss whether this Elisabeth´s was the best way to reasoning,
but
> the fact is that that the whole world has to pay $6 to a company in the US
> for registering a domain name in the most popular gTLD.
> Moreover, the fact that this gTLD has remained the unchallenged "most
> popular" is not due to the ineptitude of other (domestic or international)
> competitors, but simply to the fact that the introduction of new gTLDs has
> been stopped until recently.
> Nowadays, limited (and late) competition has been introduced, but so much
> time has passed that the .com has been in the meantime become worldwide
the
> symbol itself of the gTLD. In other words, the entry of competitors in the
> gTLD market has been artificially delayed until the .com has had a chance
to
> build a very high "barreer to entry" to competitors, by virtue of its
> deployment.

This is why its important to stick to the issues and work on resolving them
to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Those that have the most to gain from
delays are often those that thwart this process at every turn. Lets stop
playing into their hands. It is remarkably easy to open up an effective
dialogue with those that have common interests - and I suspect that there
are far more common interests in this "room" than what the historical
dialogue might immediately indicate.

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

> Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
> > > Why ICANN maintain that enormous $6 cap fee per domain name
> > > in extra-judiciary international space? Why ICANN does not use
> > > that money collected worldwide for the benefit of international
> > > domain name Registrants?
> >
> >This might just be the most ridiculous line of reasoning that I've seen
for
> >a long time. Either that or a very poor attempt at fear-mongering. Which
is
> >it?
> >
>
>
> We might discuss whether this Elisabeth´s was the best way to reasoning,
but
> the fact is that that the whole world has to pay $6 to a company in the US
> for registering a domain name in the most popular gTLD.
> Moreover, the fact that this gTLD has remained the unchallenged "most
> popular" is not due to the ineptitude of other (domestic or international)
> competitors, but simply to the fact that the introduction of new gTLDs has
> been stopped until recently.
> Nowadays, limited (and late) competition has been introduced, but so much
> time has passed that the .com has been in the meantime become worldwide
the
> symbol itself of the gTLD. In other words, the entry of competitors in the
> gTLD market has been artificially delayed until the .com has had a chance
to
> build a very high "barreer to entry" to competitors, by virtue of its
> deployment.
>
> Simple.
> And it worked.
> (but to me it stinks)
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access!
> http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
>

- --
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, 24 Oct 2002 19:50:53 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .de nameservers updated

On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 06:17:50PM +0200,
 Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 26 lines which said:

> If I were you, before crying wolf I would asked those NIC if they
> requested the change, 

Vojo Spahiu <[email-masked]>, from the Albanian NIC, testified
today on the CENTR mailing list that he sent the update on October
10th to root-mgmt. ".al" has not yet been updated by ICANN.

- --
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, 24 Oct 2002 11:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .de nameservers updated

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> As of serial number 2002102300 (i.e. today) ICANN has updated the
> nameservers for .DE in the root zone. It seems this struggle is over. Who
> is the winner?

There is a ccTLD group meeting on this in Shanghai this coming Sunday.  
(Unfortunately I'll be in transit at that time and will arrive too late to 
attend.)

But it would me, and presumably others, greatly if someone could gather,
into one place, the authoritative status of each of the affected ccTLDs.

		--karl--

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

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

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:55:10 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .de nameservers updated

Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> There is a ccTLD group meeting on this in Shanghai this coming Sunday.  
> (Unfortunately I'll be in transit at that time and will arrive too late to 
> attend.)
> 
> But it would me, and presumably others, greatly if someone could gather,
> into one place, the authoritative status of each of the affected ccTLDs.
> 
> 		--karl--

Karl,

The ccTLDs meet over 3 days, 27 to 29, Sunday to Tuesday.

On Monday 28th in the morning we have zone files on the agenda.

On Tuesday 29th in the morning, the ccTLD will attend the DNSO GA,
the slot related to zone files, for public information.
Louis Touton, representing ICANN staff executing IANA function 
will be on the panel, as well as some persons from the SAC and RSSAC.

The ICANN Board members are welcome to join, I think
the ccTLD Secretariat posted invitation to the Board.

We are looking forward to see you in Shanghai,

Best regards,
Elisabeth
- --

ccTLD Meeting
Venue:  Room Trinity (3H-3I-3J), Oriental Riverside Hotel

DAY 1, 27 October 2002  (Chair:  Peter Dengate Thrush)
- ------------------------------------------------------

09:00 - 12:30 Plenary 1 (closed for members)

1.1 Pre-report from ccNSO Assistance Group (09:00-11:00)
1.2 Reaction to ERC's Implementation Report (11:00-12:30)

12:30 - 14:00 Lunch

14:00 - 18:00 Plenary 1

1.3 Session with the Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform
1.4 Funding to DNSO, ICANN
1.5 Secretariat Report (BK Kim)
       -  Secretariat Report
       -  Funding

DAY 2, 28 October 2002  (Chair:  Peter Dengate Thrush)
- ------------------------------------------------------

09:00 - 12:30 Plenary 2

2.1 ccSO Formation (9:00-10:30)
       http://www.wwtld.org/meetings/cctld/Bucharest2002/documents.html
      - Regional and Personal Positions
      - ccSO Secretariat
2.2 Zones Files Access Session (10:30-11:30)
      - ccTLDs' position on zone file
2.3 Updated Report from ccNSO Assistance Group (11:30-12:30)

12:30 - 14:00 Lunch

14:00 - 18:00 Plenary 3

3.1 IDN in ccTLD (14:00 - 15:00)
      - ICANN IDN Committee - Masanobu Katoh (14:00-14:30)
      - IETF and JET - John Klensin (14:30-15:00)
3.2 Preparation for meeting with GAC (15:00-15:30)
3.3 Joint Meeting with GAC (15.30 - 17.30)
3.4 Pre-meeting for ccTLD Drafting

DAY 3, 29 October 2002  (Chair:  Peter Dengate Thrush)
- ------------------------------------------------------

09:00 - 12:30 Plenary 4

4.1 DNSO GA Panel on the IANA's Zone-File Access Policy (09:45 - 10:30)
4.2 Session with ICANN Board Members (10:30-11:30)
4.3 Open session with the GA and/or other DNSO groups (11:30-12:30)

12:30 - 14:00 Lunch

14:00 - 18:00 Plenary 5

5.1 DNS service level (Hiro Hotta) (14:00-15:00)
       1) what is a service level of DNS operation?
       2) how to measure a service level?
       3) how to maintain a service level as a registry?
       4) how to cooperate with users to maintain a service level?
5.2 New Authorative Nameserver (Jaap Akkerhuis) (15:00-16:00)
5.3 Drafting and Approving Final Documents from working groups (if any)
5.4 Drafting of the ccTLD Communique

- --
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, 24 Oct 2002 20:57:55 +0200
From: Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .de nameservers updated

On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 07:50:53PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer took time to write:
> > If I were you, before crying wolf I would asked those NIC if they
> > requested the change, 
> 
> Vojo Spahiu <[email-masked]>, from the Albanian NIC, testified
> today on the CENTR mailing list that he sent the update on October

(can we have an URL of a public archive of this post ?)

> 10th to root-mgmt. ".al" has not yet been updated by ICANN.

This was barely two weeks ago. You are making all of this for two
weeks ?
A lot of noise for a small thing.

On delays, some NIC are well known to be worse than 2 weeks. So your
post seems very funny to me.

Anyway, have you anything/anyone else to criticize today ?
Or do you have anything positive to propose/contribute ?
(I don't currently on this topic, but at least I am not coming here
to fire bullets on people)

Again please read: I do NOT need CC  (which is was the Netiquette
recommands for mailing-list, so please apply it).
People being new to something (a process, a mailing-list), coming
without respecting anything/anyone, nor taking into account former
inputs, and not respecting rules are really annoying to me.

The fact that nameservers are not updated quickly by ICANN is well
known, and, sorry, Stephane, you do not bring anything new here.
What could be new is propositions to make things better/smoother.

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: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 00:12:49 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Wholesale Price Regulation

Ray Fassett wrote:
>
>Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
>"In other words, the entry of competitors in the gTLD market has been
>artificially delayed until the .com has had a chance to build a very
>high "barreer to entry" to competitors, by virtue of its
>deployment."
>
>It sounds like you are suggesting that competition has not been
>accomplished at the top level...that a barrier to entry exists, mostly
>artificial in nature. Are you also saying that ICANN should continue to
>regulate by contract the wholesale price of .com as a protection to
>community members because it has yet to achieve gTLD competition?  Is this
>an example where the community needs ICANN to act as DNS regulatory body,
>outside of its technical mission, to the benefit of the majority of
>community members?
>

Interesting how much people can read in simple sentences.

You are absolutely right in interpreting my post as "suggesting that 
competition has not been accomplished at the top level".
I have stated this in many circumstances, and I believe that ICANN has been 
instrumental in delaying and/or opposing full competition.
I mentioned, in the post you answer to, delay in introduction of gTLDs. But 
in other posts I have mentioned the very fact of the creation of ICANN as a 
delaying factor for the process that was already underway well before the 
USG papers of multiple colours, the Sclavos amendment as a factor of 
reduction of competition at the gTLD level (as well as a change in policy 
without proper process), and many others.

OTOH, all other deductions you made from my message are just extrapolations 
of yours, and were not at all implied in my message.

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access. 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

- --
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 #1488
*************************