Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1562
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, January 20 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1562

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:40:22 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proposal for fairer round-robin process in future landrush events

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C2C03E.0B933FA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

HelpWith reference to Landrush queues, submitted by registrars, I =
believe they should make them equal length.

This could be largely achieved by giving each registrar a mandatory =
queue of (say) 1000 applications.

If a registrar did not fill up those application spaces with customers =
orders, then the remaining unused applications up to a thousand would =
simply be "Blank Applications".

In this way, the majority of registrars would have identical chances in =
the round-robin process.

There would be a problem for the 4 or 5 registrars who submitted even =
larger queues than a 1000, but they would still have the same chance as =
everyone else for the first 1000 names and only after 1000 would their =
chances diminish. In other words, ALL registrars would have the same =
chance for their first 1000 applications - in the phase where the =
domains most in demand would be taken.

Alternatively, you simply increase the threshold from 1000 to a higher =
number.

IN CONTRAST...

What we saw in .biz2B were incredibly short queues from certain =
registrars, designed to "game" the system - against the public interest =
- - for the benefit of the registrar themselves or a favoured client.

For example: Signature Domains effectively "queue-jumped" their rivals =
by applying with a tiny list - they got just 9 registrations for Joshua =
Blacker, a Signature partner, but what outstanding domains they were. =
They registered NO other domains for any other customer. They had simply =
used their registrar privilege to help themselves.

Others (like the Lubsens' secondary registrar DomainPro) also played the =
short list game.

After .biz2B, ICANN and Afilias were both warned that the same use of =
short queues by registrars would occur again in the .info LR2. Afilias =
refused to do anything about this, and ICANN - approached through Dan =
Halloran - would not even enter into dialogue over the problem.

Sure enough, LR2 saw the same "gaming" of the system. For example, Moshe =
Fogel operates two registrars. Through ONE of these registrars he =
submitted a normal list for most of his ordinary customers. Through his =
second company, he submitted a short list for himself and a few favoured =
clients. As a result, his applications effectively queue-jumped most of =
his rivals, and Moshe himself obtained www.domains.info

The fact that Moshe Fogel is a Director, close to the heart of Afilias, =
and was acting CEO for a period, with a close involvement in Afilias =
policies, makes this easily-abused process all the more disappointing.

So yes - I strongly advocate that future landrushes would benefit from =
equal-length queues if the round-robin process is used again.

Why is it left to ordinary members of the public to express these =
obvious principles? Do you suppose the industry insiders could not think =
of these solutions themselves?

Of course they could. The "anything goes" approach was conscious policy. =
But it was NOT "the fair distribution of the DNS" that ICANN was =
mandated to uphold and oversee.

Ordinary consumers, as usual, came low down the list of priorities.

Richard H

- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C2C03E.0B933FA0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Help</TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><BASE=20
href=3Dfile://C:\WINDOWS\>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>With reference to Landrush queues, submitted by registrars, I =
believe they=20
should make them equal length.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>This could be largely achieved by giving each registrar a mandatory =
queue=20
of (say) 1000 applications.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>If a registrar did not fill up those application spaces with =
customers=20
orders, then the remaining unused applications up to a thousand would =
simply be=20
"Blank Applications".</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>In this way, the majority of registrars would have identical =
chances in the=20
round-robin process.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>There would be a problem for the 4 or 5 registrars who submitted =
even=20
larger queues than a 1000, but they would still have the same chance as =
everyone=20
else for the first 1000 names and only after 1000 would their chances =
diminish.=20
In other words, ALL registrars would have the same chance for their =
first 1000=20
applications - in the phase where the domains most in demand would be=20
taken.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Alternatively, you simply increase the threshold from 1000 to a =
higher=20
number.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>IN CONTRAST...</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>What we saw in .biz2B were incredibly short queues from certain =
registrars,=20
designed to "game" the system - against the public interest - for the =
benefit of=20
the registrar themselves or a favoured client.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>For example: Signature Domains effectively "queue-jumped" their =
rivals by=20
applying with a tiny list - they got just 9 registrations for Joshua =
Blacker, a=20
Signature partner, but what outstanding domains they were. They =
registered NO=20
other domains for any other customer. They had simply used their =
registrar=20
privilege to help themselves.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Others (like the Lubsens' secondary registrar DomainPro) also =
played the=20
short list game.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>After .biz2B, ICANN and Afilias were both warned that the same use =
of short=20
queues by registrars would occur again in the .info LR2. Afilias refused =
to do=20
anything about this, and ICANN - approached through Dan Halloran - would =
not=20
even enter into dialogue over the problem.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Sure enough, LR2 saw the same "gaming" of the system. For example, =
Moshe=20
Fogel operates two registrars. Through ONE of these registrars he =
submitted a=20
normal list for most of his ordinary customers. Through his second =
company, he=20
submitted a short list for himself and a few favoured clients. As a =
result, his=20
applications effectively queue-jumped most of his rivals, and Moshe =
himself=20
obtained <A href=3D"http://www.domains.info">www.domains.info</A></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>The fact that Moshe Fogel is a Director, close to the heart of =
Afilias, and=20
was acting CEO for a period, with a close involvement in Afilias =
policies, makes=20
this easily-abused process all the more disappointing.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>So yes - I&nbsp;strongly advocate that future landrushes would =
benefit from=20
equal-length queues if the round-robin process is used again.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Why is it left to ordinary members of the public to express these =
obvious=20
principles? Do you suppose the industry insiders could not think of =
these=20
solutions themselves?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Of course they could. The "anything goes" approach was conscious =
policy.=20
But it was NOT "the fair distribution of the DNS" that ICANN was =
mandated to=20
uphold and oversee.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Ordinary consumers, as usual, came low down the list of =
priorities.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Richard H</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C2C03E.0B933FA0--

- --
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, 20 Jan 2003 13:08:53 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] [council] New gTLDs committee - timeline (from: [email-masked])

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

- ----- Forwarded message from Philip Sheppard <[email-masked]> -----

From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
To: "NC (list)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:25:10 +0100
Subject: [council] New gTLDs committee - timeline

   Council members,
   at the Council meeting January 17 the following agreements were made:
   a. To respond to the Board request to make a recommendation on new
   gTLDs.
   b. To do so via a committee of the whole, comprising all GNSO Council
   members plus (if available) a liaison from the At-Large with observer
   status. This group is hereafter referred to as the "gTLD committee."
   c. To appoint Philip Sheppard, past NC Chair, as the chair of this
   committee.
   d. To ask the chair to recommend a process and time line for
   responding to the Board request.

   The rest of this message responds to point (d).
   -------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Task (terms of reference)
   At the Board meeting in Amsterdam 2002, the Board approved an Action
   Plan regarding moving forward on new gTLDs. As part of that resolution
   the Board requested the GNSO " to provide a recommendation by such
   time as shall be mutually agreed by the President and the Chair of the
   GNSO Names Council on whether to structure the evolution of the
   generic top level namespace and, if so, how to do so." This was in
   response to part III of the Action Plan:
   [1]http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/new-gtld-action-plan-18oct0
   2.htm#III
   -
   Proposed time line
   Working as a committee of the whole and on such an issue is an
   exceptional case and does not seem compatible with the aggressive time
   lines of the policy development process intended for narrower
   issues. I have tried to balance a fixed time line with the need for
   regular constituency consultation, and to interpose meetings between
   regular Council meetings. The timelines are realistic based on the
   achievability of working as a "committee of the whole" in the past. We
   have indicative results for Rio and a final report by May, which I
   hope fits with the Board needs on this challenging issue. There can be
   lots of work by e-mail in between meetings.
   -
   1. 20 January. gTLD committee chair calls for Constituency positions
   latest 1 March 2003.
   2. First committee telephone conference 6 February 2003 14.00 UTC
   (alignment work plan, strategy).
   (Progress report for GNSO council 20 February).
   3. Second committee telephone conference 6 March 2003 14.00 UTC
   (discussion of constituency positions).
   4. Initial report compiling individual constituency opinions prepared
   for Rio (information basis).
   (Progress report for  GNSO Council at Rio 25? March). (Special session
   of the committee?)
   5. Third committee telephone conference 10 April 2003 14.00 UTC
   (alignment on consensus view, preparation of preliminary report).
   (Progress report for GNSO Council 24 April).
   6. Preliminary report comments by 30 April.
   7. Fourth committee telephone conference 8 May 2003 14.00 UTC (review
   of comments, preparation final report).
   8. Final report presented for adoption GNSO Council 22 May.
   -
   Your comments to this time line and process are most welcome.
   -
   Philip

References

   1. http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/new-gtld-action-plan-18oct02.htm#III

- ----- End forwarded message -----

- ----- Forwarded message from Philip Sheppard <[email-masked]> -----

From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
To: "Council (list)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:32:12 +0100
Subject: [council] gTLDs commitee - call for constituency positions

   In line with the posted timeline and terms of reference for the new
   gTLD committee, this is a formal call to all constituencies to post to
   the Council list relevant position papers.

   Constituencies are asked to do so at the latest 1 March 2003.

   Many thanks.

   Philip Sheppard
   Chair gTLD committee

- ----- 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: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 06:38:14 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Planning for 2007 -- ICANN negotiations over .com wholesale pricing

Hello,

Verisign has a stranglehold over the .com registry until 2007. However,
at some point, probably sooner than we expect, negotiations will take
place to renew that contract. Given how we've seen how ICANN has
bungled previous negotiations, I think it's important that consensus
principles be put in place by the community well in advance (i.e. we
should start now, and pass any necessary resolutions/votes), so that
the Board has no doubt what is acceptable and what is not in future
negotiations, to force it to comply with certain standards.

I believe Tucows/OpenSRS has already stated that they'd be happy to
take over the registry at a wholesale price of $2/name-year, which is
much lower than the current $6/name-year realized by Verisign. Other
parties, if offered the opportunity, might be able to do similar or
better pricing. Lower wholesale pricing of registrations would provide
huge consumer benefits, as the savings by registrars are passed on to
consumers. Registrars themselves would probably also benefit, due to
increased volumes from the new lower prices they can offer.

Thus, maximization of competition for the contract over operation of
the .com registry, in order to provide consumer benefits, should be one
of the cornerstone principles, in my view. Is there a consensus for
this?

How can this be accomplished? I think one obvious way is to prepare, at
an early stage (years in advance), performance and technical standards
for the .com registry (these might already be in place, i.e. for
Verisign. Thus, companies who are interested in operating the .com
registry can begin the process now of achieving or beating those
standards.

I think another important thing to do would be to widely promote those
standards, and invite companies that are interested in competing with
Verisign for the .com registry to begin a dialogue with ICANN, via a
special public discussion list, or other public means (so as not to
advantage any one party, and to enhance transparency) early. I'm sure
many of us can identify parties who'd be interested in operation of the
registry (e.g. possibly other registry operators, Oracle, IBM, Dun &
Bradstreet, Sun, Yahoo, Amazon.com, AOL, EDS, etc.) Perhaps even
consortiums of companies would emerge to create best-of-breed
solutions, if they had early enough notice of the opportunity.

This is a starting point....hopefully some creative brainstorming will
lead us to a document that can be voted upon at some point, to give the
Board proper direction. Otherwise, we're apt to see the Board presented
with a 'done deal' one day, negotiated behind closed-doors, which might
not be in the community's best interests.

Putting things to a 'vote' in the Names Council/GNSO eventually, I
think we might even get unanimity over these principles (the only
constituency that might be against competition in the .com registry is
the gTLD constituency, but I don't think Verisign has a majority of the
votes there; even then, they'd likely have to abstain).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.Kirikos.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: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:24:06 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Patrick Corliss

I am trying to contact Patrick Corliss but his e-mail addresses don't seem to work anymore. Please let me know if you have heard
from him lately.

John

- --
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, 20 Jan 2003 13:25:17 -0500
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Olympic Hymn Complaint

In case any of you are wondering what this has to do with ICANN and domain 
names, I can assure you that it is quite relevant because "Olympic" domains 
are protected property on the Web.  Just try to register an Olympic domain 
with an American registrar or to transfer an "Olympic" domain to one.  If 
the "Olympic" domains are protected, then what about the content they 
display on such domains?

I have spoken with my legal counsel, and I am waiting to hear from the 
British Olympic Association.  I have edited my Complaint and reproduced it 
below.If you would like to express your support for my Complaint, please 
contact the British Olympic Association at [email-masked]

To persons of good conscience everywhere, I respectfully request that you 
distribute the following material to anybody anywhere who might be 
interested in it:

January 20, 2003

Without Prejudice.

A couple of years ago I translated the Olympic Hymn by Costis Palamas from 
Greek to English.  I thought the translation was rather good, even had some 
compliments. So, I sent the Athens Olympics Organizing Committee a copy.  I 
did not hear back from them.  Then, I contacted the IOC, they did respond 
after a few months.  A Marienne Chappuis from their Legal Department told 
me that the IOC was not currently in need of an updated translation of the 
Olympic Hymn.  Her exact words were "This is in follow-up to your 
correspondence to the IOC with respect to the new translation from Greek 
into English that you propose for the Olympic Anthem. Please note that, 
although the IOC has studied with much interest your proposal, the IOC 
still considers that the Official Translation of the Olympic Anthem is the 
one that was adopted in 1957." [I posted her exact initial message to an 
academic Classics list
http//omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu8080/hyper-lists/classics-l/01-12-01/0366.html 
plus I have copies of her messages] When I questioned her on what criteria 
the decision had been based, she repeated herself and didn't provide me 
with any details. Well, my translation with full credits can be found 
online at http//fp.gnosis.f9.co.uk/olympics/ (scroll to just before the 
bottom of that page or simply click on the anchor link to the Official 
Olympic Anthem (Greek & English)  The person who posted it on that page is 
completely unknown to me, I've never met them.  They borrowed the 
translation, with my permission, from a web page I maintain at 
http//greekwisdom.com/olympichymn.html

Interestingly enough (despite the snubs from the IOC and ATHOC), yesterday 
[Friday, January 17, 2003], BY ACCIDENT I discovered that the British 
Olympic Association is currently using my translation of the OLYMPIC HYMN 
on their web site (and who knows where else!), but they have NOT included 
my name as the translator, nor was I even informed!  To see the poem 
http//www.olympics.org.uk/olympicmovement/olympicmovement.asp [about 2/3 of 
the way down the page.]

One compelling proof that the translation belongs to me is a message I sent 
to the Classics-L mailing list which is docuemented here 
http//omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/hyper-lists/classics-l/01-09-01/0217.html 
and another  signed with a digital certificate on Aug 7, 2001 which 
contains a copy of my original translation and which I subsequently 
modified only very slightly (changed the word "of" to "in" and I removed an 
"and" etc.) but it is recognizably my translation in its pre-final form. [A 
copy of the original digitally certified message containing the poem that I 
had sent to the publisher Aristide Caratzas on Aug 21, 2001 regarding my 
translation can be viewed at
https//maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/mgsa-l/2003-January/001347.html

The other gentleman, one Leon Leonidou, who had legally posted my 
translation to his website with my permission (mentioned above 
http//fp.gnosis.f9.co.uk/olympics/) had this to say when I sent him an 
email yesterday apprising him of the situation
- ----------------
Dear Sotiris

I had a look at their website and the translation they have there it is
indeed your translation. I can confirm what happened if I am asked to do so.
This is unbelievable!!!

Regards
Leon Leonidou
- -----------------

A further example of evidence that it is my translation is the explanation 
I gave about my work when questioned about the translation after I had 
posted it to the Classics-L list on Wed Aug 08 2001 
http//omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu8080/hyper-lists/classics-l/01-09-01/0287.html

Now, yesterday (i.e. Friday, January 17, 2003, before I discovered the 
copyright violation by the BOA), I got a call from a man who identified 
himself as Philip Barker of Sky (Sports) Television UK.  He was interested 
in my translation of the Olympic Hymn, and he asked me why I thought the 
Hymn had been kept in obscurity for so many years, between 1896 and 1957 
when it was officially adopted by the IOC.  We had a chat, and when we 
disconnected, I just chalked it up to another interested party who had run 
across my translation (as it's happened before).

Now, I am truly appalled at the action of the British Olympic Association 
vis a vis my translation of the Olympic Hymn. Most especially when one 
considers how zealously the various official Olympic organizations champion 
the cause of their Intellectual Property.

Using an interesting facility called "The Wayback Machine" I have 
discovered the following regarding the British Olympic Association's 
webpages (specifically the contents of the page now found at
http//www.olympics.org.uk/olympicmovement/olympicmovement.asp that is, the 
page where they are currently displaying my uncredited translation of 
Costis Palamas' Olympic Hymn). Please go here to see what I mean 
http//web.archive.org/web/*/www.olympics.org.uk/olympicmovement/olympicmovement.asp

The first archived instance of the web page in question is from Jul 14, 
2001, and in the section "Olympic Hymn" it contains a different translation 
from the one currently displayed (i.e. my own). See 
http//web.archive.org/web/20010714052425/http//www.olympics.org.uk/olympicmovement/olympicmovement.asp

The second available archive instance is from Aug 05, 2001 and again, it 
does not contain my version of the translation but rather, it contains the 
same one as the preceeding 
date.  See 
http//web.archive.org/web/20010805185822/http//www.olympics.org.uk/olympicmovement/olympicmovement.asp

On Aug. 6, 2001 I sent the following message (containing my translation) to 
the Classics-L academic list 
http//omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu8080/hyper-lists/classics-l/01-09-01/0217.html 
As well, I have a copy of an email I sent to Mr. Isidoros at 
[email-masked] from Aug 6, 2001 which contains my translation.  Also, 
on Aug. 7, 2001 I sent a digitally certified email to the publisher 
Aristide Caratzas (as mentioned in my previous email) which contained my 
translation.  On Aug. 8, 2001 I responded onlist on Classics-L to questions 
about my translation from Dr. Rudolph Masciantonio.

The third referenced copy from the "Wayback Machine" archive of the same 
BOA web page from Oct 31, 2001 is unavailable.  See 
http//web.archive.org/web/20011031121141/http//www.olympics.org.uk/olympicmovement/olympicmovement.asp

The fourth archived instance of the same web page is from Feb 22, 2002, and 
it contains MY translation (without any credit to 
myself)!  See 
http//web.archive.org/web/20020222234751/http//www.olympics.org.uk/olympicmovement/olympicmovement.asp

So, my translation has been on their web site for about 1 year, for 
sure.  They replaced a previous translation with my own and didn't ask for 
my permission, nor did they properly identify my Interest in the Material.

What concerns me further is that if one does a Google or Yahoo or Altavista 
search on the terms "IOC Olympic Hymn", you will see that the number one or 
two ranking spots take you to my uncredited translation on *their* 
page.  This means that their site has achieved considerable search 
penetration and propagation and my rights as a producer have certainly been 
violated.  Repeatedly, to be sure.

I call on the British Olympic Association to right the wrong they have done 
to me.  If you would like to express your support for my Complaint, please 
contact the British Olympic Association at [email-masked]

Very Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
         Hermes Network Inc.
         Toronto, Canada
         416-422-1034 or 1-866-991-HOST
         http://hermesnetwork.com - Web Hosting & IT Services
         Established, Fast, Reliable.  Since 1998

- --
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, 20 Jan 2003 16:07:05 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Olympic Hymn [arete]

Well done Sotiris!

You hold your ground with a noble and justified indignation.

Please don't misunderstand me. I don't deny your rights in the matter. I was
just observing wryly that once text is let loose on the net, there is little
way we can control all the hidden corners and disparate outlets. And I'm
frankly glad we can't. It is an illusion to think that control can be
exerted effectively from the centre. As the namespace expands (and
multiplies) and as roots get copied and new roots evolve, we are dealing
with a multiplicity of multiplicities. Like Borges labyrinth of labyrinths,
(with its diverse futures, diverse times, which themselves also proliferate
and fork) the internet and other internets will proliferate and roots will
evolve at more and more local levels. That's why centralist efforts to
"capture" the Net will inevitably fail. The nature of the net is network.
The nature of the net is "I am empowered to publish, and frankly either
no-one will know or a million people may know". The nature of the net is my
root and your root and our root. The nature of the net is humanity at
grassroots ignoring the controllers.

All that will happen in the end is that local/national networks who create
their own roots will bypass the people who think they control it all. They
will create their own roots, and mirror others, and before you know it there
will be a multiplicity of mirrors, and interdependent roots. It is sure to
come.

And we see the controllers, like emperors standing before the sea with
outstretched hands, saying to those on shore "We control this - go back, go
back" and shouting "You may not sail on it" to the people already far out on
the water...

...sailing away from Icann Island.

Richard H

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
To: Richard Henderson <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Olympic Hymn [arete]

> At 08:51 PM 1/19/2003 +0000, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >Sotiris!
> >
> >What a tangled web we weave... and how strange to be touched by your poem
in
> >this barren ghetto with its endless attrition.
> >
> >"O saeclum insipiens et infacetum"
> >
> >You fret over your poem, and yet seem to overlook the knowledge it
imparts,
> >in itself and of itself.
>
> The value of that knowledge is exactly what I am fretting over,
> Richard.  Others get paid handsomely for far more ephemeral produce.  I am
> an Injured Party, have been for at least 11 months and change.
>
>
> >Knowledge comes imparted like that, sometimes. When I recall a particular
> >encounter, an unsolicited encounter ten years ago, what resides and
> >resonates in my memory is not the spectacular technology and unimagined
> >power of advanced minds, but simply an awareness:  awareness of
> >communication, of an untaught knowledge imparted whole. Just suddenly
there.
>
> Knowledge comes about as the result a Synthesis of preceeding
> Experience(s).  It doesn't appear out of thin air, just like my
translation.
>
>
> >Plato understood this too, in a separate way.
>
> To be honest, I prefer to hear my Socrates through Xenophon.  Plato
doesn't
> carry much weight with me.
>
>
> >Your poem captures something of the wholeness of another place. it is an
> >achievement.
>
> Others get commercial endorsements and big bucks for their achievements
> Richard, I have not.  I have to eat, Richard.  I am only human.
>
>
> >Do you seriously think you can control and contain your excellent
> >translation, once it has been created?
>
> That's what the Laws are there for Richard.  Redress of wrongs
> committed.  I have been wronged.  How many eyes drank in my poem without
> even an acknowledgment of my achievement?  There are plenty of venues for
> this kind of news.
>
> >Don't you realise the nature of this
> >web, its repetition of repetitions? Soon, even this forum, this ICANN,
will
> >exist only as one of innumerable parallel worlds.
> >
> >...or as Borges said:
> >
> >"The Governor of Yunnun renounced all worldly power to construct a
> >labyrinth - a labyrinth in which all men would become lost. I imagined it
> >inviolate. I imagined it infinite. I thought of a labyrinth of labyrinths
> >that would encompass the past and the future. An invisible labyrinth of
> >time. To me, a barbarous Englishman, has been entrusted the revelation of
> >this diaphanous mystery. I read, uncomprehendingly and with fervour,
these
> >words written by a man of my blood : I leave to the various futures my
> >garden of forking paths. The forking in time. Diverse futures, diverse
times
> >which themselves also proliferate and fork."
>
> I am of Greek heritage and we have a Labyrinth too, but Theseus showed us
> how to get out a long time ago.
>
> >"In a riddle whose answer is chess, what is the only prohibited word? I
> >thought a moment and replied: the word Chess. To omit a word always, is
> >perhaps the most emphatic way of stressing it."
> >"In contrast to Newton and Schopenhauer, your ancestor did not believe in
a
> >uniform, absolute time. He believed in an infinite series of times, in a
gro
> >wing, dizzying net of divergent, convergent and parallel times. We do not
> >exist in the majority of these times; in some you exist and not I; in
others
> >I, and not you; in others, both of us. Time forks perpetually towards
> >innumerable futures."
> >"The least things in the universe must be secret mirrors to the greatest.
> >Every man is on Earth to symbolize something he is ignorant of. I do not
> >know what right we have to that continuity which is time. Each moment is
> >autonomous. My life is a flight and I lose everything and everything
belongs
> >to oblivion."
> >
> >But the significance of your Hymn is that it reaches out from another
place.
> >Inviolable. It has a classic timelessness and dignity.
>
> Thank you, I know.  But it was still STOLEN without my permission and
> displayed where conceivably millions got what you got out of it, and I got
> NOTHING, not even the dignity of a little CREDIT.
>
>
> >Just let it go, and the path will fork, and fork. Maybe it is not yours.
> >Maybe it was given to you.
>
> It came out of my head, Richard.  Nothing could be more mine.
>
>
> >Outside, the sun shines bright - and your fingers can trace the rough
bark -
> >and a breeze as ancient as Thermopylae feels ardent against your cheek.
> >Offerings are given up in honour of the gods. You can smell their
fragrance
> >but you cannot bring them back. That is part of the dignity. Part of the
> >arete or excellence.
>
> So is GERAS and I want my share for my part
>
> Regards,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
>
>
> >Richard H
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
> >To: <[email-masked]>
> >Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 7:49 PM
> >Subject: [ga] Olympic Hymn [continued]
> >
> >
> > > Using an interesting facility called "The Wayback Machine"
> > > I have found the following regarding the British Olympic
> > > Association's webpages (specifically the contents of the
> > > page now found at:
> > > http://www.olympics.org.uk/olympicmovement/olympicmovement.asp
> > > that is, the page where they are currently displaying my
> > > uncredited translation of Costis Palamas' Olympic Hymn).
> > >
> > > Please go here to see what I mean:
> > >
>
>http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.olympics.org.uk/olympicmovement/olympicmov
e
> >ment.asp
> > >
> > > The first archived instance of the web page in question is
> > > from Jul 14, 2001, and in the section "Olympic Hymn" it
> > > contains a DIFFERENT translation from the one currently
> > > displayed (i.e. my own).
> > >
> > > The second available archive instance is from Aug 05, 2001
> > > and again, it does not contain my version of the
> > > translation but rather, it contains the same one as the
> > > preceeding date.
> > >
> > > On Aug. 6, 2001 I sent the following message (containing
> > > my translation) to the Classics-L academic list:
> > >
>
>http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu:8080/hyper-lists/classics-l/01-09-01/021
7
> >.html
> > > As well, I have a copy of an email I sent to Isidoros at
> > > [email-masked] from Aug 6, 2001 which contains my
> > > translation.  Also, on Aug. 7, 2001 I sent a digitally
> > > certified email to the publisher Aristide Caratzas (as
> > > mentioned in my previous email) which contained my
> > > translation.  On Aug. 8, 2001 I responded onlist on
> > > Classics-L to questions about my translation from Dr.
> > > Rudolph Masciantonio.
> > >
> > > The third referenced copy from the "Wayback Machine"
> > > archive of the same BOA web page from Oct 31, 2001 is
> > > unavailable.
> > >
> > > The fourth archived instance of the same web page is from
> > > Feb 22, 2002, and it contains MY translation (without any
> > > credit to myself)!
> > >
> > > So, my transltion has been on their web site for about 1
> > > year, for sure.  They replaced a previous translation with
> > > my own.
> > >
> > > How do you like that?
> > >
> > > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>          Hermes Network Inc.
>          Toronto, Canada
>          416-422-1034 or 1-866-991-HOST
>          http://hermesnetwork.com - Web Hosting & IT Services
>          Established, Fast, Reliable.  Since 1998
>
>

- --
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, 20 Jan 2003 15:39:21 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proposal for fairer round-robin process in future landrush events - Mk2

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C2C09A.1A7D21A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

HelpI've made two minor changes to my proposal, because I should have =
been suggesting a minimum of 5000 applications from each registrar, not =
1000 as I previously wrote. So, the proposal again:

With reference to Landrush queues, submitted by registrars, I believe =
they should make them equal length.

This could be largely achieved by giving each registrar a mandatory =
queue of (say) 5000 applications.

If a registrar did not fill up those application spaces with customers =
orders, then the remaining unused applications up to five thousand would =
simply be "Blank Applications".

In this way, the majority of registrars would have identical chances in =
the round-robin process.

There would be a problem for the registrars who submitted even larger =
queues than 5000, but they would still have the same chance as everyone =
else for their first 5000 applications and only after 5000 would their =
chances diminish. In other words, ALL registrars would have the same =
chance for their first 5000 applications - in the phase where the =
domains most in demand would be taken.

Alternatively, you simply increase the threshold from 5000 to a higher =
number.

IN CONTRAST...

What we saw in .biz2B were incredibly short queues from certain =
registrars, designed to "game" the system - against the public interest =
- - for the benefit of the registrar themselves or a favoured client.

For example: Signature Domains effectively "queue-jumped" their rivals =
by applying with a tiny list - they got just 9 registrations for Joshua =
Blacker, a Signature partner, but what outstanding domains they were. =
They registered NO other domains for any other customer. They had simply =
used their registrar privilege to help themselves.

Others (like the Lubsens' secondary registrar DomainPro) also played the =
short list game.

After .biz2B, ICANN and Afilias were both warned that the same use of =
short queues by registrars would occur again in the .info LR2. Afilias =
refused to do anything about this, and ICANN - approached through Dan =
Halloran - would not even enter into dialogue over the problem.

Sure enough, LR2 saw the same "gaming" of the system. For example, Moshe =
Fogel operates two registrars. Through ONE of these registrars he =
submitted a normal list for most of his ordinary customers. Through his =
second company, he submitted a short list for himself and a few favoured =
clients. As a result, his applications effectively queue-jumped most of =
his rivals, and Moshe himself obtained www.domains.info

The fact that Moshe Fogel is a Director, close to the heart of Afilias, =
and was acting CEO for a period, with a close involvement in Afilias =
policies, makes this easily-abused process all the more disappointing.

So yes - I strongly advocate that future landrushes would benefit from =
equal-length queues if the round-robin process is used again.

Why is it left to ordinary members of the public to express these =
obvious principles? Do you suppose the industry insiders could not think =
of these solutions themselves?

Of course they could. The "anything goes" approach was conscious policy. =
But it was NOT "the fair distribution of the DNS" that ICANN was =
mandated to uphold and oversee.

Ordinary consumers, as usual, came low down the list of priorities.

Richard H

- ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C2C09A.1A7D21A0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Help</TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><BASE=20
href=3Dfile://C:\WINDOWS\>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>I've made two minor changes to my proposal, because I should have =
been=20
suggesting a minimum of 5000 applications from each registrar, not 1000 =
as I=20
previously wrote. So, the proposal again:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>With reference to Landrush queues, submitted by registrars, I =
believe they=20
should make them equal length.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>This could be largely achieved by giving each registrar a mandatory =
queue=20
of (say) 5000 applications.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>If a registrar did not fill up those application spaces with =
customers=20
orders, then the remaining unused applications up to&nbsp;five thousand =
would=20
simply be "Blank Applications".</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>In this way, the majority of registrars would have identical =
chances in the=20
round-robin process.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>There would be a problem for the registrars who submitted even =
larger=20
queues than 5000, but they would still have the same chance as everyone =
else for=20
their first 5000&nbsp;applications and only after 5000 would their =
chances=20
diminish. In other words, ALL registrars would have the same chance for =
their=20
first 5000 applications - in the phase where the domains most in demand =
would be=20
taken.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Alternatively, you simply increase the threshold from 5000 to a =
higher=20
number.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>IN CONTRAST...</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>What we saw in .biz2B were incredibly short queues from certain =
registrars,=20
designed to "game" the system - against the public interest - for the =
benefit of=20
the registrar themselves or a favoured client.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>For example: Signature Domains effectively "queue-jumped" their =
rivals by=20
applying with a tiny list - they got just 9 registrations for Joshua =
Blacker, a=20
Signature partner, but what outstanding domains they were. They =
registered NO=20
other domains for any other customer. They had simply used their =
registrar=20
privilege to help themselves.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Others (like the Lubsens' secondary registrar DomainPro) also =
played the=20
short list game.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>After .biz2B, ICANN and Afilias were both warned that the same use =
of short=20
queues by registrars would occur again in the .info LR2. Afilias refused =
to do=20
anything about this, and ICANN - approached through Dan Halloran - would =
not=20
even enter into dialogue over the problem.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Sure enough, LR2 saw the same "gaming" of the system. For example, =
Moshe=20
Fogel operates two registrars. Through ONE of these registrars he =
submitted a=20
normal list for most of his ordinary customers. Through his second =
company, he=20
submitted a short list for himself and a few favoured clients. As a =
result, his=20
applications effectively queue-jumped most of his rivals, and Moshe =
himself=20
obtained <A href=3D"http://www.domains.info/">www.domains.info</A></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>The fact that Moshe Fogel is a Director, close to the heart of =
Afilias, and=20
was acting CEO for a period, with a close involvement in Afilias =
policies, makes=20
this easily-abused process all the more disappointing.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>So yes - I&nbsp;strongly advocate that future landrushes would =
benefit from=20
equal-length queues if the round-robin process is used again.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Why is it left to ordinary members of the public to express these =
obvious=20
principles? Do you suppose the industry insiders could not think of =
these=20
solutions themselves?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Of course they could. The "anything goes" approach was conscious =
policy.=20
But it was NOT "the fair distribution of the DNS" that ICANN was =
mandated to=20
uphold and oversee.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Ordinary consumers, as usual, came low down the list of =
priorities.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Richard H</DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C2C09A.1A7D21A0--

- --
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 #1562
*************************