Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1585
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, February 8 2003         Volume 01 : Number 1585

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

Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 13:25:54 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The list - atlarge vote of trust/distrust: result

At 1:56 PM -0500 2/8/03, Joe Baptista wrote:
>One of the most important movers and shackers in
>dns - one of the biggest contributors in ascii production alone - where is
>his name?

A puzzling question.

I'm on the list, and I never even knew it existed. :^)

Here's what I find interesting:

Alejandro Pisanty scored very low, for someone coming from the
non-commerical constituency, and therefore someone you would think would be
in tune with the common man. Perhaps this deems further scrutiny?

Some of the low scores may be due to those people being unknown by the
voters? I would have expected Kevin Kelly to score above Dave Crocker.

As someone who is so obviously anti-ICANN, I seem to have a popularity
rating figure usually reserved for the pro-ICANN people. What's with that?
I scored lower than Javier Solo for chrissake! He was instrumental in
blocking registrant representation in the formation years (and hasn't been
heard from since!).

Who ran the vote? Was it audited by anyone?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 14:47:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] i'm conducting an experiment - my last (fwd)

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 14:47:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: i'm conducting an experiment - my last

project name: inverted root vortex

project description: some time ago i showed the dangers of root and that
root trust and stability was critical to the evolution of the net.

i think we all remember the baptista vortex

http://www.dot-god.com/communications/Diebold_Inc/baptista-vortex-namespace.txt

and of course the vortex stop sign

http://www.dot-god.com/communications/Diebold_Inc/

Diebold went up the wall.  I have evidence their lawyers called every
network operator except for the one in charge - i.e. yours trully.

anyway ... it is possible to reverse the vortex through end user control.
I have been inspired by the data from CAIDA.

which see:

http://www.caida.org/outreach/presentations/2002/nanog0210/duane.pdf

page 31 is no surprise to me.  However CAIDA has been selective in their
presentation of the data on illegitimate tlds.  i've tried to get the full
rankings - which see

http://www.dot-god.com/bod/jb/theregister/CAIDA/CAIDA-email.txt

but CAIDA has been silent on the data.  so i don't trust them.

incidentally i would strongly reccomend the tlda send a letter to caida
requiesting the full rankings of the illegitimate tlds.  thats essentially
the work of the taproot committee - it will be in that survey.  even
without the sources it would be a simple matter to harvest and identify
the namespaces through a poll of some 300,000 nameservers.

but the other claims in the CAIDA presentaion to nanog concerning the
roots show me something very wrong is going on.  but thats not my
department.  what i want is to see the roots used as a public voting
booth.

this can be accomplished easily by publishing inclusive namespace urls.
every user can leverage their ability to absorb the usroots into inclusive
namespace.  its a bit like the star trek borg things.  you will be one
with us or you will become irrelevant.  the inclusive namespace impact on
the usg root at this time is limited.  but if every one of the members of
the tlda joined me and started using inclusive namespace in their usg work
that alone could top their alledged illegitimate rank right out the
window.

so the best way to vote against the damage the usg root is doing is to use
your inclusive namespace urls and let the usg users send them the message.
every click a vote of confidence.

cheers
joe baptista

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

 have you seen where the Cable News Network has been
                                                      http://cnn.news/

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

     Manor Park, East London - UK
                                    http://east-london.england.earth/

- --
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: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 14:53:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: ATTN Nacy Victory NTIA

Ms. Smith.  How long does it take for you to answer my question?  This is
something you should know.

Who is the name of the civil servant who's position and responsibilities
are defined by Amendment 11.

Im sure you know the name.

regards
joe baptista

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

  The NOMAD Internetwork
                               http://www.nomad
  .............................................
  inclusive namespace Internet Service Provider

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Joe Baptista wrote:

>
> Dear Ms. Smith:
>
> Im familiar with Amendment 11 to the Cooperative Agreement.  What I'm not
> impressed with is your falure to answer a simple question.  Well lets' go
> through the legilastion - i ask you look at the section titled "Miscellaneous"
> concerning "Root Servers" which states:
>
>   "NSI agrees to continue to function as the administrator for the primary
> root server for the root server system and as a root zone administrator
> until such time as the USG instructs NSI in writing to transfer either or
> both of these functions to NewCo or a specified alternate entity.
>
>
>   "While NSI continues to operate the primary root server, it shall
> request written direction from an authorized USG official before making
> or rejecting any modifications, additions or deletions to the root zone
> file. Such direction will be provided within ten (10) working days and it
> may instruct NSI to process any such changes directed by NewCo when
> submitted to NSI in conformity with written procedures established by
> NewCo and recognized by the USG."
>
> USG is defined by Amendment 11 as being the Department of Commerce.  SO I
> ask you what is the name of the individual charged with this duty.
>
> Cheers
> Joe Baptista
> www.baptista.god
>
> --
> Planet Communications & Computing Facility
> a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Kathy Smith wrote:
>
> > Dear Mr. Baptista: The file to which the link
> > ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/root.zone.gz points is a copy of what is
> > known as the authoritative root zone file.  The authoritative root zone
> > file is generated by VeriSign, Inc. (formerly Network Solutions, Inc.)
> > pursuant to Amendment 11 to the Cooperative Agreement NCR # 9218742
> > between VeriSign and the U.S. Department of Commerce.  For your
> > information, the text of Amendment 11 is available on the National
> > Telecommunications and Information Administration's web site at
> > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/docnsi100698.htm.
> >  Kathy Smith
> >
> > Kathy Smith
> > Chief Counsel
> > National Telecommunications and Information Administration
> > U.S. Department of Commerce
> > Washington, DC 20230
> >
> >
> > >>> Joe Baptista <[email-masked]> 01/27/03 07:10PM >>>
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Kathy Smith wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Mr. Baptista:  Assistant Secretary Victory forwarded your
> > request
> > > for information to me and asked me to respond directly to you.  With
> > > respect to your question of your legal options, I regret that we
> > will
> > > be
> > > unable to be of assistance.  It would be inappropriate for the
> > > National
> > > Telecommunications and Information Administration to provide you
> > with
> > > legal advice.  I suggest that you seek such legal advice from
> > > your own counsel in this regard.  Kathy Smith
> >
> > my appologies for any misunderstandings my query may have caused.
> >
> > let me be more direct - who is the editor of this file?  and who is
> > the
> > publisher?
> >
> > this is the file ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/root.zone.gz
> >
> > thanks
> > joe baptista
> >
> > >
> > > Kathy Smith
> > > Chief Counsel
> > > National Telecommunications and Information Administration
> > > U.S. Department of Commerce
> > > Washington, DC  20230
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> Joe Baptista <[email-masked]> 01/27/03 06:28AM >>>
> > >
> > > ATTN: Nancy Victory, Assistant Secretary, NTIA
> > >       Kathy Smith, Chief Counsel, NTIA
> > >
> > > REF: http://secure.dot-god.com/information/doc/doc-jan-21-2002.html
> > >
> > > I need an answer to a specific question.
> > >
> > > Who would I serve a judicial order on (NTIA? DOC? NSI? VeriSign?
> > > ICANN?)
> > > in order to remore an top level domain from the root?
> > >
> > > 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: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 14:58:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NTIA DOC USG - the civil service drag (fwd)

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 14:58:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: NTIA DOC USG - the civil service drag

incidentally i suspect Kathy Smith is the person responsible.  it's a pity
she does not know she's the reponsible representative of the usg.  i call
this behaviour - civil service dementia.

regards
joe baptista

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 14:53:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
To: Kathy Smith <[email-masked]>
Cc: Nancy Victory <[email-masked]>,
     General Assembly of the DNSO <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: ATTN Nacy Victory NTIA

Ms. Smith.  How long does it take for you to answer my question?  This is
something you should know.

Who is the name of the civil servant who's position and responsibilities
are defined by Amendment 11.

Im sure you know the name.

regards
joe baptista

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

  The NOMAD Internetwork
                               http://www.nomad
  .............................................
  inclusive namespace Internet Service Provider

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Joe Baptista wrote:

>
> Dear Ms. Smith:
>
> Im familiar with Amendment 11 to the Cooperative Agreement.  What I'm not
> impressed with is your falure to answer a simple question.  Well lets' go
> through the legilastion - i ask you look at the section titled "Miscellaneous"
> concerning "Root Servers" which states:
>
>   "NSI agrees to continue to function as the administrator for the primary
> root server for the root server system and as a root zone administrator
> until such time as the USG instructs NSI in writing to transfer either or
> both of these functions to NewCo or a specified alternate entity.
>
>
>   "While NSI continues to operate the primary root server, it shall
> request written direction from an authorized USG official before making
> or rejecting any modifications, additions or deletions to the root zone
> file. Such direction will be provided within ten (10) working days and it
> may instruct NSI to process any such changes directed by NewCo when
> submitted to NSI in conformity with written procedures established by
> NewCo and recognized by the USG."
>
> USG is defined by Amendment 11 as being the Department of Commerce.  SO I
> ask you what is the name of the individual charged with this duty.
>
> Cheers
> Joe Baptista
> www.baptista.god
>
> --
> Planet Communications & Computing Facility
> a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Kathy Smith wrote:
>
> > Dear Mr. Baptista: The file to which the link
> > ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/root.zone.gz points is a copy of what is
> > known as the authoritative root zone file.  The authoritative root zone
> > file is generated by VeriSign, Inc. (formerly Network Solutions, Inc.)
> > pursuant to Amendment 11 to the Cooperative Agreement NCR # 9218742
> > between VeriSign and the U.S. Department of Commerce.  For your
> > information, the text of Amendment 11 is available on the National
> > Telecommunications and Information Administration's web site at
> > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/docnsi100698.htm.
> >  Kathy Smith
> >
> > Kathy Smith
> > Chief Counsel
> > National Telecommunications and Information Administration
> > U.S. Department of Commerce
> > Washington, DC 20230
> >
> >
> > >>> Joe Baptista <[email-masked]> 01/27/03 07:10PM >>>
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Kathy Smith wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Mr. Baptista:  Assistant Secretary Victory forwarded your
> > request
> > > for information to me and asked me to respond directly to you.  With
> > > respect to your question of your legal options, I regret that we
> > will
> > > be
> > > unable to be of assistance.  It would be inappropriate for the
> > > National
> > > Telecommunications and Information Administration to provide you
> > with
> > > legal advice.  I suggest that you seek such legal advice from
> > > your own counsel in this regard.  Kathy Smith
> >
> > my appologies for any misunderstandings my query may have caused.
> >
> > let me be more direct - who is the editor of this file?  and who is
> > the
> > publisher?
> >
> > this is the file ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/root.zone.gz
> >
> > thanks
> > joe baptista
> >
> > >
> > > Kathy Smith
> > > Chief Counsel
> > > National Telecommunications and Information Administration
> > > U.S. Department of Commerce
> > > Washington, DC  20230
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> Joe Baptista <[email-masked]> 01/27/03 06:28AM >>>
> > >
> > > ATTN: Nancy Victory, Assistant Secretary, NTIA
> > >       Kathy Smith, Chief Counsel, NTIA
> > >
> > > REF: http://secure.dot-god.com/information/doc/doc-jan-21-2002.html
> > >
> > > I need an answer to a specific question.
> > >
> > > Who would I serve a judicial order on (NTIA? DOC? NSI? VeriSign?
> > > ICANN?)
> > > in order to remore an top level domain from the root?
> > >
> > > 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: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 15:16:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The list - atlarge vote of trust/distrust: result

andy - come on - relax - this is another icann red herring.  my only
objection is whereis jeff williams on this list.  how unrepresentative can
you be without including my friend jeff.

regards
joe

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

 .sci domain registration http://www.register.sci

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 1:56 PM -0500 2/8/03, Joe Baptista wrote:
> >One of the most important movers and shackers in
> >dns - one of the biggest contributors in ascii production alone - where is
> >his name?
>
> A puzzling question.
>
> I'm on the list, and I never even knew it existed. :^)
>
> Here's what I find interesting:
>
> Alejandro Pisanty scored very low, for someone coming from the
> non-commerical constituency, and therefore someone you would think would be
> in tune with the common man. Perhaps this deems further scrutiny?
>
> Some of the low scores may be due to those people being unknown by the
> voters? I would have expected Kevin Kelly to score above Dave Crocker.
>
> As someone who is so obviously anti-ICANN, I seem to have a popularity
> rating figure usually reserved for the pro-ICANN people. What's with that?
> I scored lower than Javier Solo for chrissake! He was instrumental in
> blocking registrant representation in the formation years (and hasn't been
> heard from since!).
>
> Who ran the vote? Was it audited by anyone?
>
>
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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
>

- --
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: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 14:57:50 -0500
From: Esther Dyson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Esther Dyson..... - a modest clarification 

Andy -

three suggestions:

One: Ask yourself: If I am really as power-hungry/money-grubbing as they 
say, why am I wasting my time on ICANN?  Because I believe in what it 
*should* be, not because I can benefit from it.  Meanwhile,  I do have 
another life.  You can check on my site: My own conference is at the same 
time as ICANN's March meeting; I couldn't be chairman of the ALAC even if I 
wanted to.  Furthermore, take a look at the conference speakers and agenda 
and you'll see I have a rich intellectual and commercial life apart from 
ICANN.  ICANN is not my power base.

Two:  Don't believe everything you read. What I actually said was quite 
different, and not that new.  Please do read Oxford's precis of the 
conference when it is posted.  Or you can read what I wrote for the Wall 
Street Journal last June.  It's fairly short and simplified, but it's the 
best statement of my position I can make, and it's on the record.
You can agree with it or not, believe it or not, but I got it published in 
the most influential medium I have access 
to.  http://www.edventure.com/conversation/article.cfm?Counter=9153289

Whose Domain Is It Anyway?
by Esther Dyson
originally published in The Wall Street Journal - June 17, 2002
Last week, the Senate held hearings on the putative governing authority of 
the whorls of cyberspace, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
Numbers. On Monday, Sen. Conrad Burns, (R., Mont.) announced plans for a 
bill to give the U.S. government greater sway in ICANN's operations. At 
stake is just who should oversee the non-government policy-setter of the 
domain name business -- the U.S. government, many governments or the 
Internet community itself.

At the moment, this international body fills an important vacuum. It is, in 
a way, the center of the Internet, dictating policies and picking managers 
for who gets to call themselves wsj.com or fbi.gov. But ICANN doesn't 
directly provide domain names or other Internet services. It simply sets 
the standards by which independent parties provide these services.

ICANN is weak and powerless. But while it needs to be fixed, it should 
remain weak and powerless. Its role should be to set only the least 
controlling of policies, fostering the orderly allocation of domain names 
to anyone, regardless of the meaning of the name or the content of the 
site. ICANN's proper role is not to oversee whatever a bureaucracy wants to 
control, but to resolve issues most people agree are problems.

Since ICANN is not a government body, it has no statutory authority and 
imposes its policies through contracts with its members. But many of those 
domain managers have taken a pass on joining, creating a stalemate in which 
the Web's technical infrastructure can't evolve and is subject to continual 
attempts at government control around the world -- including our Congress's.

ICANN was supposed to keep control of the Internet's infrastructure out of 
the hands of government, and in the hands of users worldwide. The 
distinction matters because governments potentially restrict freedom of 
speech; ICANN can control not so much freedom of speech as freedom of 
presence on the Internet.

The trouble is that despite some early successes, ICANN suffers from a 
flawed decision-making structure and lacks adequate staffing and funding.

If ICANN is not fixed, control over its functions will revert to the 
Department of Commerce, which gave the agency its original contract in 
1998. But when Commerce privatized naming policy, it took it out of the 
domestic realm. There is no way that Commerce could now reassert U.S. 
authority without causing an international battle and perhaps ceding ICANN 
to an organization like the U.N.

How can ICANN fix itself when its board meets next week in Bucharest? The 
staff needs to develop contracts that will lure non-U.S. managers to the 
table by inviting their input on policy. It also needs a management and 
board structure that would make it accountable not just to corporations and 
engineers but to individual users. The departing president and senior staff 
need to be replaced with fresh blood that will welcome constructive criticism.

ICANN's creation reflected a remarkable leap of faith -- relinquishing de 
facto U.S. power to a global community, through an organization that has to 
win adherence from a diverse range of participants without the power to 
raise taxes or enforce laws. We should give it time -- but also hold to the 
original vision. It needs to ratify global consensus onlywhere it should 
exist, and leave the rest of the issues -- serving the poor, policing 
fraud, setting prices -- up to local societies, governments or markets.

If ICANN can learn to live with diversity, allow new competitors to enter 
the fray, and remain open even to critics, it will prove the virtues of 
voluntary cooperation and open systems that gave us the Net itself.
Copyright (c) 2002, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Three:  Meanwhile, please *do* get active in the ALAC and the At-large 
membership and try to change things to your satisfaction.  Your duty does 
not end with criticism.

Esther Dyson

At 07:46 PM 2/7/2003, Andy Gardner wrote:
>At 7:00 AM -0500 2/7/03, Esther Dyson wrote:
> >Not only that; it is already determined that I will *not* chair it.... but
> >who will is still not clear.
>
>Good job!
>
>You appear to be absolving yourself of responsibility of anything that
>happened while you chaired ICANN (what the hell were you there for then?)
>so I'd prefer you stayed away from positions of responsibility of ANY
>entity that attempts to speak for the little guy - whom you ensured was
>COMPLETELY SCREWED OVER.
>
>What really amazes me is to see people who got the royal shafting from you,
>now working along side you as if nothing ever happened. Surely they don't
>think you're lining them up for anything but another buggering?
>
>IMHO, etc.
>
>
>--
>Andrew P. Gardner
>barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
>We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
>Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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

Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
[email-masked]
1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com

The conversation continues..... at
http://www.edventure.com/conversation/

PC Forum 2003 - March 23 to 25, Phoenix
Who? what? where? Data comes alive!

- --
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: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 15:25:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Icann At Large Poll rejects RALOs and ICANN's new At Largestructure

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Richard Henderson wrote:

> 171 people took part in the ballot.

who are these 170 people or alledged 1000?  is there a membership
list.  i have more domain owners then you have members.  and you consider
that representative?

who are these lost soals?

regards
joe baptista

>
> This was virtually the same as our last ballot to confirm our name, when 170
> people voted.
>
> >From this you can deduce that, even though there were a dozen quite detailed
> questions, the core of our membership wanted to get involved.
>
> They also expressed a clear majority wish for more polls and regular polls.
>
> Clearly, with a membership of over 1000, you could ask "Where are the rest?"
>
> But I think any group like ours attracts sympathetic watchers who want to be
> members without getting drawn in too deep.
>
> Everyone can draw their own conclusions.
>
> The results are informative, as far as they go.
>
> They will help our organisation determine its future, and they are a green
> light to much more co-operation with other At Large orgs around the world,
> to build a coalition outside the unpopular ICANN structure. They also
> effectively stop any support from our organisation for the RALOs dead in its
> tracks.
>
> As far as the list of names to trust/mistrust goes, I did not see this in
> advance, but I find it an interesting indicator of opinion with regard to
> Denise Michel and Esther Dyson's initiative. I don't say this as any
> personal criticism of the people involved. I just think that (taken with the
> other votes) it demonstrates the opposition that exists to a "top down"
> ICANN agenda.
>
> At least we have actively initiated a "bottom up" process.
>
> It's a shame ICANN won't do the same. It's a shame they chose to EXPEL the
> elected representatives on their Board. No wonder the grassroots of the At
> Large don't trust them.
>
> Richard Henderson
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 4:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Icann At Large Poll rejects RALOs and ICANN's new At
> Largestructure (fwd)
>
>
> > I do not see the results published. I would be interested in the number
> > who voted.
> >
> > --
> > [04] We value you like our close relations.
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 20:38:02 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Icann At Large Poll rejects RALOs and ICANN's new AtLargestructure

Hi Joe:

The membership list can be viewed at www.IcannatLarge.com or .org

For a convenient breakdown, by country, I've listed the membership here:

http://www.theinternetchallenge.com/memberswholelistnames.htm

Or view by Region, here:

http://www.theinternetchallenge.com/memberswholelist.htm

Have a nice day -

Richard H

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
To: Richard Henderson <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Icann At Large Poll rejects RALOs and ICANN's new
AtLargestructure

>
> On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> > 171 people took part in the ballot.
>
> who are these 170 people or alledged 1000?  is there a membership
> list.  i have more domain owners then you have members.  and you consider
> that representative?
>
> who are these lost soals?
>
> regards
> joe baptista
>
> >
> > This was virtually the same as our last ballot to confirm our name, when
170
> > people voted.
> >
> > >From this you can deduce that, even though there were a dozen quite
detailed
> > questions, the core of our membership wanted to get involved.
> >
> > They also expressed a clear majority wish for more polls and regular
polls.
> >
> > Clearly, with a membership of over 1000, you could ask "Where are the
rest?"
> >
> > But I think any group like ours attracts sympathetic watchers who want
to be
> > members without getting drawn in too deep.
> >
> > Everyone can draw their own conclusions.
> >
> > The results are informative, as far as they go.
> >
> > They will help our organisation determine its future, and they are a
green
> > light to much more co-operation with other At Large orgs around the
world,
> > to build a coalition outside the unpopular ICANN structure. They also
> > effectively stop any support from our organisation for the RALOs dead in
its
> > tracks.
> >
> > As far as the list of names to trust/mistrust goes, I did not see this
in
> > advance, but I find it an interesting indicator of opinion with regard
to
> > Denise Michel and Esther Dyson's initiative. I don't say this as any
> > personal criticism of the people involved. I just think that (taken with
the
> > other votes) it demonstrates the opposition that exists to a "top down"
> > ICANN agenda.
> >
> > At least we have actively initiated a "bottom up" process.
> >
> > It's a shame ICANN won't do the same. It's a shame they chose to EXPEL
the
> > elected representatives on their Board. No wonder the grassroots of the
At
> > Large don't trust them.
> >
> > Richard Henderson
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 4:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Icann At Large Poll rejects RALOs and ICANN's new At
> > Largestructure (fwd)
> >
> >
> > > I do not see the results published. I would be interested in the
number
> > > who voted.
> > >
> > > --
> > > [04] We value you like our close relations.
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
>

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

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

Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 16:59:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Esther Dyson..... - a modest clarification 

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Esther Dyson wrote:

> Andy -
>
> three suggestions:
>
> One: Ask yourself: If I am really as power-hungry/money-grubbing as they
> say, why am I wasting my time on ICANN?  Because I believe in what it
> *should* be, not because I can benefit from it.

the koreans call your actions "saving face".  unfortunately you can't be
trusted.  you betrayed the internet community.  but thats ok you were only
doing your job.  what i find repulsive is that you betrayed your own and
now are desparately distancing yourself so as to avoid the nuclear
fallout.

your a bit slow ester but i do think you now see the big picture.  i know
it's still murky for you and difficult to see, maybe scary - but i do
think you are doing your best to give penance.  you know icann has
destroyed your reputation and now your repenting.  how quaint.

there's just that little problem of being a traitor to your own.  icann
insiders elevated you to a position you could not possible comprehend.  as
queen of the internet - and chairman to icann you profited expertly from
you elevation to the status of internet guru.  so you owe these people
much more then stabing them in the back.

i suggest if you want to reach sainthood that you confess.  tell all the
inside information to us.  tell everything.  and then go away.  or just go
away.  the worst position to be in is to betray your own.

> Meanwhile,  I do have
> another life.  You can check on my site: My own conference is at the same
> time as ICANN's March meeting; I couldn't be chairman of the ALAC even if I
> wanted to.  Furthermore, take a look at the conference speakers and agenda
> and you'll see I have a rich intellectual and commercial life apart from
> ICANN.  ICANN is not my power base.

i'm sure in your heart of hearts that you regret having been fooled into
it.  ester i'm will to admit that your induction into icann was due to the
vint cerf mind melt.  ester they fooled you.  then they dumped you.  i
still remember that meeting when vint cerf kept interrupting you the chair
to correct you on various technical details.  the sharks made a mistake
when they crowned you internet queen.  they assumed you could swim.  they
fell for you guru status.

i just can't believe your betrayal.  you were invited to have a burger
with the Bilderbergers.

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/Bilderbergers.html

they supported the world domnimation of root based on your crap.  your
were after all presented as the internet guru.

and now look what has happened!  egg on your face.

and your not alone ester.  other rats are abondoning ship.  saint vixie f
f.root has been making some noise which leads me to suspect he's about to
abond ship too.

the saint has been rushing to setup new root infrastracture in the pacific
rim.  does saint saint vixie of f.root know something we don't?

an expansion of the root servers into asia pacific announced nov 17 2002

http://www.isc.org/ISC/news/pr-11172002.html

then jun murai joins the isc board on nov 18 2002

http://www.isc.org/ISC/news/pr-11182002.html

and now another root server in spain .... oley

http://www.isc.org/ISC/news/pr-01072003.html

now lets not forget that f.root server provided the data for caida

http://www.caida.org/outreach/presentations/2002/nanog0210/

as mentioned in my recent article

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29185.html

now something is going on.  more egg in the face.  so rest assured i
suspect your not alone.  i just can't accept a traitor - at least paul
isn't being vocal about his departure.

now i don't think your a money grubber.  you've had money all your life
as a dyson your life has been privilaged.  and power hungry.  i once
considered this a possibility - but no more.  no ester - your just like
every other little person.  you just want to be loved and accepted as a
star - and got tarnished.  you trusted these twits and now you betray
them.  i can't understand that.

and the sad thing is you had an opportunity to be loved by the only power
in charge on the internet - the users.  and they don't trust you.

> Two:  Don't believe everything you read. What I actually said was quite
> different, and not that new.  Please do read Oxford's precis of the
> conference when it is posted.  Or you can read what I wrote for the Wall

well make sure you post the url if your still around.

> Street Journal last June.  It's fairly short and simplified, but it's the
> best statement of my position I can make, and it's on the record.
> You can agree with it or not, believe it or not, but I got it published in
> the most influential medium I have access
> to.  http://www.edventure.com/conversation/article.cfm?Counter=9153289

ester enough with the propaganda - confess.  tell all.

regards
joe baptista

p.s. ester you can consider this my formal socratica appologia regarding
my recent tits comment.  i enjoy abusing your insecurities but in your
downfall I can afford to be kind.

> Whose Domain Is It Anyway?
> by Esther Dyson
> originally published in The Wall Street Journal - June 17, 2002
> Last week, the Senate held hearings on the putative governing authority of
> the whorls of cyberspace, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers. On Monday, Sen. Conrad Burns, (R., Mont.) announced plans for a
> bill to give the U.S. government greater sway in ICANN's operations. At
> stake is just who should oversee the non-government policy-setter of the
> domain name business -- the U.S. government, many governments or the
> Internet community itself.
>
> At the moment, this international body fills an important vacuum. It is, in
> a way, the center of the Internet, dictating policies and picking managers
> for who gets to call themselves wsj.com or fbi.gov. But ICANN doesn't
> directly provide domain names or other Internet services. It simply sets
> the standards by which independent parties provide these services.
>
> ICANN is weak and powerless. But while it needs to be fixed, it should
> remain weak and powerless. Its role should be to set only the least
> controlling of policies, fostering the orderly allocation of domain names
> to anyone, regardless of the meaning of the name or the content of the
> site. ICANN's proper role is not to oversee whatever a bureaucracy wants to
> control, but to resolve issues most people agree are problems.
>
> Since ICANN is not a government body, it has no statutory authority and
> imposes its policies through contracts with its members. But many of those
> domain managers have taken a pass on joining, creating a stalemate in which
> the Web's technical infrastructure can't evolve and is subject to continual
> attempts at government control around the world -- including our Congress's.
>
> ICANN was supposed to keep control of the Internet's infrastructure out of
> the hands of government, and in the hands of users worldwide. The
> distinction matters because governments potentially restrict freedom of
> speech; ICANN can control not so much freedom of speech as freedom of
> presence on the Internet.
>
> The trouble is that despite some early successes, ICANN suffers from a
> flawed decision-making structure and lacks adequate staffing and funding.
>
> If ICANN is not fixed, control over its functions will revert to the
> Department of Commerce, which gave the agency its original contract in
> 1998. But when Commerce privatized naming policy, it took it out of the
> domestic realm. There is no way that Commerce could now reassert U.S.
> authority without causing an international battle and perhaps ceding ICANN
> to an organization like the U.N.
>
> How can ICANN fix itself when its board meets next week in Bucharest? The
> staff needs to develop contracts that will lure non-U.S. managers to the
> table by inviting their input on policy. It also needs a management and
> board structure that would make it accountable not just to corporations and
> engineers but to individual users. The departing president and senior staff
> need to be replaced with fresh blood that will welcome constructive criticism.
>
> ICANN's creation reflected a remarkable leap of faith -- relinquishing de
> facto U.S. power to a global community, through an organization that has to
> win adherence from a diverse range of participants without the power to
> raise taxes or enforce laws. We should give it time -- but also hold to the
> original vision. It needs to ratify global consensus onlywhere it should
> exist, and leave the rest of the issues -- serving the poor, policing
> fraud, setting prices -- up to local societies, governments or markets.
>
> If ICANN can learn to live with diversity, allow new competitors to enter
> the fray, and remain open even to critics, it will prove the virtues of
> voluntary cooperation and open systems that gave us the Net itself.
> Copyright (c) 2002, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
>
>
>
> Three:  Meanwhile, please *do* get active in the ALAC and the At-large
> membership and try to change things to your satisfaction.  Your duty does
> not end with criticism.
>
> Esther Dyson
>
>
> At 07:46 PM 2/7/2003, Andy Gardner wrote:
> >At 7:00 AM -0500 2/7/03, Esther Dyson wrote:
> > >Not only that; it is already determined that I will *not* chair it.... but
> > >who will is still not clear.
> >
> >Good job!
> >
> >You appear to be absolving yourself of responsibility of anything that
> >happened while you chaired ICANN (what the hell were you there for then?)
> >so I'd prefer you stayed away from positions of responsibility of ANY
> >entity that attempts to speak for the little guy - whom you ensured was
> >COMPLETELY SCREWED OVER.
> >
> >What really amazes me is to see people who got the royal shafting from you,
> >now working along side you as if nothing ever happened. Surely they don't
> >think you're lining them up for anything but another buggering?
> >
> >IMHO, etc.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Andrew P. Gardner
> >barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> >We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> >Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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
>
>
>
> Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> [email-masked]
> 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com
>
> The conversation continues..... at
> http://www.edventure.com/conversation/
>
> PC Forum 2003 - March 23 to 25, Phoenix
> Who? what? where? Data comes alive!
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

 Atlantic Ocean http://atlantic.ocean/
 ISP and domain hosting.

- --
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 #1585
*************************