Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1526
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, December 12 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1526

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:01:33 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bizconst on new gTLDs.

- --=======77873A02=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-12E018DF; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 11:17 11/12/02, Thomas Roessler said:
>On a side note, I find the proposal's focus on sponsored/restricted
>gTLDs rather courageous, given that there is not a single
>sponsored/restricted gTLD which has proven to be reasonably
>successful.

The difference between Man and animal by the Bible is that God told Adam to 
name animals. ICANN is superior to God since it decides for Man how animals 
will all be called the same. So a cow is named a donkey and ICANN a mess.

>On the other hand, the sheer number of registrations in
>..info seems to indicate that the market indeed has demand for
>unrestricted/unsponsored gTLDs...

hmmmm. From my own .info registrations I chose them because of the meaning 
to the users (I do not give a damn about the restricted, sponsored matrix. 
An old lawyer trick to oblige you to think along Joe's and Louis' ways, and 
to put you at disadvantages).
jfc

PS. When I say Joe in here I mean U/JDRP Sims. Sorry for true .GOD Joe Batista.

- --=======77873A02=======--

- --
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, 12 Dec 2002 03:30:27 +0900
From: "YJ Park" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Announcement] Amsterdam ICANNatlarge.org Meeting

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0074_01C2A18E.D0806AA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

- ------=_NextPart_000_0074_01C2A18E.D0806AA0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

- ------=_NextPart_000_0074_01C2A18E.D0806AA0--

- --
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, 11 Dec 2002 13:52:27 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bizconst on new gTLDs.

Thomas and all assembly members or other interested parties,

  I as well as many others that have commented on this approach that
Stuart Lynn wishes to impose without consultation or measured
consensus of the stakeholders/users is one that is if his own
making and does not in any way approach the demand or desires
of the pent up demand for gTLD's.  Hence it would seem obvious
that Mr. Lynn is only interested in creating or maintaining a
scarcity in TLD's that he alone cannot reasonably determine
as necessary.  It also again shows ICANN's willingness to
thwart their own often touted RFC's from the IETF, in this case
namely RFC 1591.

  Of course this debate has been raging for at least 5 years
that I am aware of, and continues to be gerrymandered in such a way
as to thwart free enterprise in the gTLD arena.  I, amongst a host
of other stakeholders/users, find such a position to be insupportable
and grossly unconvincing.

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> http://forum.icann.org/gtld-plan-comments/general/pdf00000.pdf
>
> The business constituency has posted, in response to the Lynn plan,
> a position paper on the introduction of new gTLDs.  In that position
> paper, the BC advocates a "logical names space" which should be
> established according to a set of principles.  All new gTLDs would,
> according to the paper, be sponsored/restricted.
>
> The principles proposed are very high-level, and somewhat nebulous.
> Particularly irritating is the combination of principle 1
> (Differentiation, "A gTLD must be clearly differentiated from other
> gTLDs.") and 4 (Competition, "A gTLD must create value-added
> competition"), in combination with this note later in the text: "The
> structure does not imply a rapid expansion. The choice of one name
> will preclude future non-differentiated choices."
>
> I may quite well be mis-reading this -- but wouldn't this proposal
> boil down to establishing a structure in which overlap between the
> "relevant publics" for different gTLDs would be minimized?  I.e.,
> wouldn't this proposal effectively reduce competition between gTLDs
> to the minimum achievable [given the constraint that some new gTLDs
> must be added]?
>
> On a side note, I find the proposal's focus on sponsored/restricted
> gTLDs rather courageous, given that there is not a single
> sponsored/restricted gTLD which has proven to be reasonably
> successful.  On the other hand, the sheer number of registrations in
> .info seems to indicate that the market indeed has demand for
> unrestricted/unsponsored gTLDs...
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/
> --
> 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, 11 Dec 2002 15:27:23 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bizconst on new gTLDs.

I suspect the anti-trust bar will be delighted with this suggestion that
competition be rigorously barred from the namespace.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> http://forum.icann.org/gtld-plan-comments/general/pdf00000.pdf
> 
> The business constituency has posted, in response to the Lynn plan,
> a position paper on the introduction of new gTLDs.  In that position
> paper, the BC advocates a "logical names space" which should be
> established according to a set of principles.  All new gTLDs would,
> according to the paper, be sponsored/restricted.
> 
> The principles proposed are very high-level, and somewhat nebulous.
> Particularly irritating is the combination of principle 1
> (Differentiation, "A gTLD must be clearly differentiated from other
> gTLDs.") and 4 (Competition, "A gTLD must create value-added
> competition"), in combination with this note later in the text: "The
> structure does not imply a rapid expansion. The choice of one name
> will preclude future non-differentiated choices."
> 
> I may quite well be mis-reading this -- but wouldn't this proposal
> boil down to establishing a structure in which overlap between the
> "relevant publics" for different gTLDs would be minimized?  I.e.,
> wouldn't this proposal effectively reduce competition between gTLDs
> to the minimum achievable [given the constraint that some new gTLDs
> must be added]?
> 
> On a side note, I find the proposal's focus on sponsored/restricted
> gTLDs rather courageous, given that there is not a single
> sponsored/restricted gTLD which has proven to be reasonably
> successful.  On the other hand, the sheer number of registrations in
> ..info seems to indicate that the market indeed has demand for
> unrestricted/unsponsored gTLDs...
> 
> 

- -- 
		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 warm here.<--

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:17:24 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] At-Large -- Open Meetings, Amsterdam

FYI
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/

- ----- Forwarded message from Denise Michel <[email-masked]> -----

From: Denise Michel <[email-masked]>
To: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:15:36 -0800

   
   At-Large -- Open Meetings, Amsterdam

   Sponsored by the At-Large Organizing Committee

   13 -15 December

   Sheraton Amsterdam Airport Hotel & Conference Center at Schiphol
   (Amsterdam) Airport, the Netherlands, http://www.icann.org/amsterdam/

   Friday, 13 December

   18:00 - 20:00   At-Large/ALOC dinner (no host, all welcome).  (check
   email/announcement board on Friday for location).

   Saturday, 14 December 

   10:00 - 13:00   At-Large/ALOC meeting (open to public).  Saturn Room.

   13:00 - 17:00   ICANN Public Forum.   Ballroom.

   18:00 - 20:00   At-Large/ALOC dinner (no host, all welcome) (check
   email/announcement board on Saturday for location).

   Sunday, 15 December 

   7:30 - 12:00 (estimated end time)   ICANN Board meeting.   Ballroom.

   12:00 - 15:00 (estimated times)   At-Large/ALOC meeting.  Saturn Room.

   Agenda Items:

   1.  Develop input for Interim ALAC's consideration:

   -          Accreditation criteria for At-Large Structures

   -          Approval process for At-Large Structures

   -          Criteria for ALAC delegates to Nominating Committee

   -          Criteria for, responsibilities of, liaisons to Board and
   GNSO Council

   -          Criteria for ALAC members (permanent)

   -          RALO MOU template -- definition/composition/structure of a
   RALO

   -          Actions/processes for outreach, infrastructure building,
   "internationalization"

   -          Actions/processes for education, input, advice on relevant
   ICANN activities

   -          Interim ALAC reporting and task completion (suggestions,
   target dates)

   2.  Europe RALO

   -          Discussion of formation of a European RALO

   3.  DNSO's Transfers and WHOIS Task Force reports

   -          Briefing, discussion

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 02:33:05 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GNSO.ORG - Dispute in the UDRP Task force?

All assembly members or other interested parties,

  Seems that there is a dispute as to whom should own the DN
GNSO.ORG which is currently registered to John Berryhill.
It also seems that an implied threat from Mr. Sheppard regarding
using the very same UDRP to rest the name from John.
See: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/msg00509.html
John's response, see:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/msg00515.html
and http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/msg00516.html

  I for one salute John for his forthrightness in his comments and
ethical
tone in his remarks in his responses ( see above ).  I also hope John
sticks to his guns as well...  So far John, Well done!

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, 12 Dec 2002 11:23:55 +0100
From: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC Transfers task Force Final report- update

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

Please find the latest updated version of the Names Council Transfer Task
Force at:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021212.NCTransferTF-gaining-and-losing-regi
strars.html

There are small, but important differences between this and
the last report that were distributed.

Thank you.
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, 12 Dec 2002 14:59:24 +0100
From: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Link for updated Transfer task force Final report

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

Please find the latest updated version of the Names Council Transfer Task
Force at:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021212.NCTransferTF-gaining-and-losing-regi
strars.html

Difficulty in opening this link has been alerted, so you can find the
updated copy at:
http://www.dnso.org/  home page

There are small, but important differences between this and
the last report that were distributed.

Thank you.
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, 12 Dec 2002 12:10:49 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Transfers TF Final Report

Ross,

Marilyn made the comment on the Transfers Discussion list that "There is a 
small group of registrars, who appear to be supported by some in the registry 
constituency -- who believe that it should be possible to make substantive 
changes during the implementation work to take into account other views, or 
new inputs, etc."   

Having taken note of the vote within the registrar constituency that 
indicates that 43% of the eligible voting members do not support "all" of the 
principles enumerated by the Transfers Task Force, I am concerned by (1) the 
characterization of these parties as a "small group of registrars" -- 43% is 
no longer a "small group",  (2) the obvious attempt to route around certain 
unacceptable recommendations by recourse to the implementation process, and 
(3) the need to determine which recommendations are deemed objectionable by 
these parties.

With regard to (1), I would appreciate knowing who these dissenting 
registrars are, and, if possible, what percent of total registrations they 
represent.

With regard to (2), rather than creating a situation in which a large block 
of registrars will attempt to game the policy process by lobbying ICANN staff 
to allow for favorable "modifications" in the implementation phase, wouldn't 
it make more sense to admit that a consensus on the recommendations within 
your constituency still doesn't exist, and to continue working until a 
reasonable degree of compromise is reached between the two camps?  As far as 
I can determine, there seems to be a greater amount of support for the 
transfer "Principles" cited by Chuck Gomes than there is for the transfer 
"Recommendations" as put forth by the Task Force... perhaps that is a 
foundation upon which a concluding effort can be built.

With regard to (3), the average reader could well conclude that the TF 
recommendations are more than somewhat lopsided in favor of the gaining 
registrar... perhaps this is the major stumbling block that is preventing the 
emergence of consensus on the recommendations.  It could well be the case 
that those registrars that have the most to lose simply don't trust the 
"presumption" that in all cases the Gaining Registrar will apply due 
diligence to the authentication process, and that they consequently don't 
wish to find themselves facing the financial and human resource burden 
associated with determining whether the registrant "intent" to transfer was 
legitimate.  You have already considered a dispute resolution process... just 
an idea, but has anyone looked at the possibility of a neutral third party 
authentication process?   The lack of trust between gaining and losing 
registrars might not be an issue if a trusted third party were involved at 
this critical stage.
- --
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 #1526
*************************