Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1493
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, October 31 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1493

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:53:35 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fundamental Question

Eric and all assembly members,

  Interesting questions indeed here Eric.

  I, as many of our members have noted on a number of occasions,
believe that ICANN in it's present form and under it's present
leadership, is perhaps not fraudulent, but is playing a political
shell game at a minimum.  DOC/NTIA has been sucked in
and does not really know how to get out with it's whole
hide intact, I personally believe.  Hence we go round
and round...

[email-masked] wrote:

> Is ICANN a regulatory body with authority over Verisign?
>
> The Answer is simple no.  It is a "blue ribbon" panel that allows the US
> DoC to claim openness, transparency and representativeness, in its'
> decision making process.  Is it bullshit?  Yes; we all see that now.
> Are the folks in the DoC perpetrating a fraud?  Maybe.  Are ICANN and
> their lawyers perpetrating a fraud?
>
> But if we have the elements of a fraud we must have injury/damage, who
> has been damaged?  Who are the rightful claimants to such malfeasance?
> Interesting.
>
> e
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:48:25 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nuclear Threat from the ccTLDs

David and all assembly members,

  Humm?  I had heard of this potential before but never took
it seriously myself.  Some of our EU members do though...
Not all that bad of an idea really...  This could be a
method of stepping up to shared Root structures though
also...

DPF wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:05:35 +0100 (CET), Marc Schneiders
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >From the ccTLD communique from Sjanghai:
> >
> >"2.3     In view of the continuing failures by ICANN in conducting its
> >stewardship of the IANA function, particularly in relation to ccTLD
> >database updates, managers agreed to set up a Working Group to develop
> >a plan to set up a system of independent management of the DNS root
> >entries and database entries. It is expected this plan will be
> >developed in parallel with attempts to create an acceptable ccSO, and
> >to be available in the event that is unsuccessful."
> >
> >That would be the end of the ICANN root. The ccTLDs have never, I
> >think, been so clear before.
>
> It is certainly a sign that ICANN's tactics of using their
> guardianship of the IANA function to try and force contracts and new
> policies on ccTLDs has really peeved people off.  There are few thing
> more reprehensible that refusing to update the root zone when you know
> information is manifestly incorrect.
>
> What the above could imply (I am guessing as I was not there) is that
> if ICANN continues down the same path, then ccTLDs could apply to DOC
> to take over the IANA function.  ICANN could still remain as the gTLD
> policy body but the IANA function can be removed from them quite
> easily.
>
> DPF
> --
> E-mail: [email-masked]
> ICQ:    29964527
> MSN:    [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: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 23:57:43 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nuclear Threat from the ccTLDs

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, at 20:54 [=GMT-0000], David Farrar wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, at 06:59 [=GMT+1300], DPF wrote:

> > > What the above could imply (I am guessing as I was not there) is that
> > > if ICANN continues down the same path, then ccTLDs could apply to DOC
> > > to take over the IANA function.
> >
> > Why would they do that? Does DoC have any authority over .NL or .MG or
> > ..EU or .JP or .NZ? They could apply to the ITU, or to ... themselves?
>
> The simple answer is yes.  DoC have policy control of Root Server A and hence
> do have ultimate control over all TLDs.

Assuming that it is very difficult to set up another RootServer A (and
B-M) you are right. And then only de facto.

- --
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, 30 Oct 2002 15:27:37 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign writes to Joe Sims re: WLS!

Hello,

As reported on http://icann.blog.us/ Verisign has written to Joe Sims,
regarding WLS:

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/sbarbaro-letter-to-sims-16oct02.htm

No need to comment on the self-serving statements in that letter --
many ironic ones, if you read it carefully, such as:

"From a customer perspective, it is likely that most registrants are
unaware of the wait-listing concept, and therefore will be confused by
the notification." (after VGRS pretended to know what consumers wanted,
admitting now that the majority of people hadn't heard of WLS!)

Anyhow, I'd like to have someone explain how Verisign's letter is on
ICANN's agenda for Octobee 31st:

http://www.icann.org/shanghai/#31October

yet Dotster's appeal and reconsideration requests are not on the
agenda??!!??

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.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, 31 Oct 2002 00:00:12 -0000
From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Verisign writes to Joe Sims re: WLS!

Very carefully VGRS did not use the RFR procedure for this and no that
is not a mistake.

What the main trick in their arguments is?

"Although the Board has voted in favor of the WLS service, as you are
well aware, VeriSign respectfully disagrees with ICANN's position that
ICANN (1) has the authority to so regulate the business affairs of any
registry, and (2) has any legitimate basis for appending "conditions" on
to the service which substantially impair its viability and economic
success. Pursuant to the terms of the registry agreements for .com and
.net, VeriSign recognizes the need to add a WLS price to Appendix G of
those agreements, which is all that VeriSign originally requested."

And their thoughts on the efforst of the entire process:

"As you are aware, in an effort to move this new service to the
marketplace, we reluctantly have cooperated with a process established
by ICANN which we strongly oppose as inappropriate and ineffective. "

This makes clear what you and I thought from the beginning, that it was
a rigged race, we were only in it for the decorum.

It might be wise to "unite" some users and start finding some law
organizations that are willing to file some hefty law-suits against VGRS
as soon as this "product" hits the market.
I for one will gladly do my bit for that.

Oh and why this one is on the agenda and not Dotster ? You did not think
that this "position" of VGRS was not thought out and discussed between
VGRS and ICANN council ?? 
If VGRS get's that position "accepted" (of course) then Dotsters appeal
becomes "moot".

Naw, you gotta hand it to them, smooth as a baby's butt.

Kind regards

Abel

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of George Kirikos
Sent: 30 October 2002 23:28
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Verisign writes to Joe Sims re: WLS!

Hello,

As reported on http://icann.blog.us/ Verisign has written to Joe Sims,
regarding WLS:

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/sbarbaro-letter-to-sims-16oct02.htm

No need to comment on the self-serving statements in that letter -- many
ironic ones, if you read it carefully, such as:

"From a customer perspective, it is likely that most registrants are
unaware of the wait-listing concept, and therefore will be confused by
the notification." (after VGRS pretended to know what consumers wanted,
admitting now that the majority of people hadn't heard of WLS!)

Anyhow, I'd like to have someone explain how Verisign's letter is on
ICANN's agenda for Octobee 31st:

http://www.icann.org/shanghai/#31October

yet Dotster's appeal and reconsideration requests are not on the
agenda??!!??

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. Send mail
to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body
of the message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:35:23 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nuclear Threat from the ccTLDs

At 06:05 p.m. 30/10/2002 +0100, Marc Schneiders wrote:

>If you treat it like an enemy, it will behave like one.

The more so with the At Large membership and the spurned Individuals 
Constituency of the DNSO.

- --Joop

- --
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, 30 Oct 2002 19:01:07 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign writes to Joe Sims re: WLS!

Abel and all assembly members,

  I think you finally got it here Abel!  Well done at last!  >;)

Abel Wisman wrote:

> Very carefully VGRS did not use the RFR procedure for this and no that
> is not a mistake.
>
> What the main trick in their arguments is?
>
> "Although the Board has voted in favor of the WLS service, as you are
> well aware, VeriSign respectfully disagrees with ICANN's position that
> ICANN (1) has the authority to so regulate the business affairs of any
> registry, and (2) has any legitimate basis for appending "conditions" on
> to the service which substantially impair its viability and economic
> success. Pursuant to the terms of the registry agreements for .com and
> .net, VeriSign recognizes the need to add a WLS price to Appendix G of
> those agreements, which is all that VeriSign originally requested."
>
> And their thoughts on the efforst of the entire process:
>
> "As you are aware, in an effort to move this new service to the
> marketplace, we reluctantly have cooperated with a process established
> by ICANN which we strongly oppose as inappropriate and ineffective. "
>
> This makes clear what you and I thought from the beginning, that it was
> a rigged race, we were only in it for the decorum.
>
> It might be wise to "unite" some users and start finding some law
> organizations that are willing to file some hefty law-suits against VGRS
> as soon as this "product" hits the market.
> I for one will gladly do my bit for that.
>
> Oh and why this one is on the agenda and not Dotster ? You did not think
> that this "position" of VGRS was not thought out and discussed between
> VGRS and ICANN council ??
> If VGRS get's that position "accepted" (of course) then Dotsters appeal
> becomes "moot".
>
> Naw, you gotta hand it to them, smooth as a baby's butt.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Abel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of George Kirikos
> Sent: 30 October 2002 23:28
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Verisign writes to Joe Sims re: WLS!
>
> Hello,
>
> As reported on http://icann.blog.us/ Verisign has written to Joe Sims,
> regarding WLS:
>
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/sbarbaro-letter-to-sims-16oct02.htm
>
> No need to comment on the self-serving statements in that letter -- many
> ironic ones, if you read it carefully, such as:
>
> "From a customer perspective, it is likely that most registrants are
> unaware of the wait-listing concept, and therefore will be confused by
> the notification." (after VGRS pretended to know what consumers wanted,
> admitting now that the majority of people hadn't heard of WLS!)
>
> Anyhow, I'd like to have someone explain how Verisign's letter is on
> ICANN's agenda for Octobee 31st:
>
> http://www.icann.org/shanghai/#31October
>
> yet Dotster's appeal and reconsideration requests are not on the
> agenda??!!??
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
> http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. Send mail
> to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body
> of the message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 22:26:21 -0300
From: Patricio Poblete <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nuclear Threat from the ccTLDs

On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 09:33:18AM +1300, Steven Heath wrote:
> 
> Thomas Roessler reported this on his http://notebook.does-not-exist.org blog
> that .ca said Leaving ICANN is plan B. Not complete consensus behind every
> point of the communiqué.

This is partly inaccurate. Plan B is to have a ccTLD-run system to manage
the part of the IANA database that refers to ccTLDs. (Note that this would not
be an alternate root, the idea would be to get the USG to accept this as the
authoritative source of information for ccTLDs in the A root.)

Plan B is being developed as a contingency plan, in case the current work
aimed at defining the relation between ICANN and the ccTLDs ("Plan A")
would fail for any reason. The work of the assistance group charged with
fleshing out Plan A was supported unanimously by the ccTLDs.

Leaving ICANN (which would go a big step further than Plan B) has not been
discussed in the ccTLD meetings, and Peter DT made clear that the comments
that alluded too such possibility were his personal opinions.

Patricio Poblete
- --
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, 31 Oct 2002 13:06:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] high noon at Shanghai - so what happened?

The chinese are sucking up to the american government.

The icann meeting were a complete lost cause.  monitoring them was
tedious.  lots of technical difficulties.  and i'm trying to find out what
happened at the root server presentation - and there's nothing to be found
with respect to the resports.

have the icann shanghai meeting been themselves shanghaied?

Cheers
Joe Baptista

- --
Planet Communications & Computing Facility
a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited

- --
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, 31 Oct 2002 18:36:07 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nuclear Threat from the ccTLDs

Patricio Poblete wrote:
>
>This is partly inaccurate. Plan B is to have a ccTLD-run system to manage
>the part of the IANA database that refers to ccTLDs. (Note that this would 
>not
>be an alternate root, the idea would be to get the USG to accept this as 
>the
>authoritative source of information for ccTLDs in the A root.)
>

True, with an additional clause, that Plan B can work without risk for the 
stability of the Internet only if ICANN's "part" of the root will never have 
2-chars codes (please note that at any point in time a new country can be 
created, and ISO will allocate a new 3166 code for it, hence a potentially 
new ccTLD).
What I mean by this is that still there must be co-operation between ccTLDs 
and ICANN, or strict rules enforced (by whom?) on the entries in the A-root.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.  Join now! 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.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, 31 Oct 2002 23:07:37 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nuclear Threat from the ccTLDs

On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, at 18:36 [=GMT-0000], Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> True, with an additional clause, that Plan B can work without risk for the
> stability of the Internet only if ICANN's "part" of the root will never have
> 2-chars codes (please note that at any point in time a new country can be
> created, and ISO will allocate a new 3166 code for it, hence a potentially
> new ccTLD).
> What I mean by this is that still there must be co-operation between ccTLDs
> and ICANN, or strict rules enforced (by whom?) on the entries in the A-root.

It will then be as with the spelling reforms of languages spread over
several countries, sometimes far apart. They either do not happen for it
is unclear who has the authority (English...), or take a very long time
(German IIRC).
If the root has a split authority, it won't easily change anymore. Some
people might not mind that.

- --
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 #1493
*************************