Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1599
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, February 16 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1599

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

Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:05:43 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] BULK whois

On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 09:49:45AM -0500, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
[...]
> So we have the regular spectacle of contributors such as Mr. Crispin, who
> make the point that ICANN is not a consumer protection agency,

Which is undeniably true...

> but entirely
> miss the point that the relevant contracts bearing on registrar procedures
> are contracts with ICANN.  Mr. Crispin's point boils down to "if registrars
> breach their contract with ICANN, it is not ICANN's job to care.  *You* can't
> require ICANN to care if the contracts are not followed".  Ha, ha, the joke
> is on you for believing these contracts mean anything.

Sorry, my point does not "boil down" to the above wild extrapolation.  
Please, don't try to "boil down" my points, since you clearly have no 
interest in them.  :-)

[ rant deleted ]

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:08:23 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BULK whois

At 4:05 PM -0800 2/14/03, [email-masked] wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 09:49:45AM -0500, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
>[...]
>> So we have the regular spectacle of contributors such as Mr. Crispin, who
>> make the point that ICANN is not a consumer protection agency,
>
>Which is undeniably true...
>
>> but entirely
>> miss the point that the relevant contracts bearing on registrar procedures
>> are contracts with ICANN.  Mr. Crispin's point boils down to "if registrars
>> breach their contract with ICANN, it is not ICANN's job to care.  *You*
>>can't
>> require ICANN to care if the contracts are not followed".  Ha, ha, the joke
>> is on you for believing these contracts mean anything.
>
>Sorry, my point does not "boil down" to the above wild extrapolation.
>Please, don't try to "boil down" my points, since you clearly have no
>interest in them.  :-)

To prevent future boil down, perhaps you'd like to get someone at ICANN to
produce some evidence of the number of complaints against registrars that
ICANN has received, the categoried nature of these complaints, and what, if
any, action has been taken by ICANN?

- -- 
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: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:35:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

I ment -- EPP is the protocol that may be used in a thick and thin mode
where RRP cannot, RRP is only a thin registry protocol.

- -rick

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Rick Wesson wrote:

>
>
> A thin -> thick transition was not required though it was encouraged.
> Moving from RRP to EPP was required; remember RPP works in both modes
> thick and thin.
>
> -rick
>
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Alan Bawden wrote:
>
> >    Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:56:35 +0100
> >    From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
> >
> >    > Why does my expectation of privacy continue to be eroded in this
> >    > ICANN process?
> >
> >    What makes this even more interesting is that PIR requires
> >    registrars to transfer WHOIS information to the registry, ...
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken, the switch to a thick registry was one of the things
> > that was required of all bidders for .ORG.  So PIR isn't exactly to blame
> > for this.  At most you can fault them for making the transition clumsy and
> > confusing.
> >
> > The real question is why ICANN required that .ORG go thick.
> > --
> > 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
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 22:08:58 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BULK whois

Andy and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  As Louis Touton some time ago along with soon afterward,
Start Lynn posted to the ICANN web site some statement
to the effect of ICANN does not handle such complaints,
I doubt that now or even last June-July, ICANN could
produce such evidence that you rightly seek.

  For ICANN to now produce such evidence, should they
have it, would be tantamount to admitting that they, through
their inane and ill advised policies, produced such a huge,
disgusting and destabilizing mess, that some legal folks
might consider using the new Patriot act in a legal filing
against ICANN...

Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 4:05 PM -0800 2/14/03, [email-masked] wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 09:49:45AM -0500, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
> >[...]
> >> So we have the regular spectacle of contributors such as Mr. Crispin, who
> >> make the point that ICANN is not a consumer protection agency,
> >
> >Which is undeniably true...
> >
> >> but entirely
> >> miss the point that the relevant contracts bearing on registrar procedures
> >> are contracts with ICANN.  Mr. Crispin's point boils down to "if registrars
> >> breach their contract with ICANN, it is not ICANN's job to care.  *You*
> >>can't
> >> require ICANN to care if the contracts are not followed".  Ha, ha, the joke
> >> is on you for believing these contracts mean anything.
> >
> >Sorry, my point does not "boil down" to the above wild extrapolation.
> >Please, don't try to "boil down" my points, since you clearly have no
> >interest in them.  :-)
>
> To prevent future boil down, perhaps you'd like to get someone at ICANN to
> produce some evidence of the number of complaints against registrars that
> ICANN has received, the categoried nature of these complaints, and what, if
> any, action has been taken by ICANN?
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 15 Feb 2003 05:14:23 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, at 12:44 [=GMT-0500], Bruce Beckwith wrote:

> and as a global registry, we will not implement any product or
> service without considering fully all implications from a world-wide
> perspective.

> We welcome comments and suggestions, either via lists, or off-list

Thank you for your invitation. Maybe you can send an announcement to this
list when plans for a whois that offers either more information or extra
search facilities or options are on the table?

It would not be nice if .ORG domain name holders suddenly would have to
find out that people can see what other domains they registered, thanks to
an innovative search engine, like the one at http://www.whobiz.biz.

It would be great to know how many .ORG domains are registered in
different countries and states, or how many registrants have more than 1
domain. This sort of statistical information was published in the past by
Networksolutions, and nobody found that a problem. In fact I regret that
it is not done anymore, and never was in greater detail. So maybe PIR can
take the lead in this respect?

It would be horrible, if it were possible to find out online, which
domains are owned by my neighbours. For .biz this may even be possible
already, if you pay whobiz.biz. The free search is limited to Registrant
Name, and this must match exactly. But with $$ you seem to be allowed to
search on a street name in a specific city, or on a family name worldwide.
Or for email addresses that contain a certain string, e.g. "Sandra" or
"icann.org".

I am not saying this cannot be useful or even helpful at times. But do we
want this?

- --
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, 15 Feb 2003 17:47:09 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] A Different Approach

For many years a lot of people have worked hard to have a mechanism
where individual internet users can have input into ICANN.  But both
the IDNO and now icannatlarge.org have ended in failure.  IDNO spent
several years trying to get things to happen but died and
icannatlarge.org in a year has failed to even agree on the most basic
things and has now lost almost every panelist.

Both these organisations tried to set them selves up from scratch with
no common agreement on anything except we want to have an organisation
and hence got so bogged down in issues of process that as Danny
Younger points out there was never any opportunity for people to
discuss issues of substance such as whois policies, UDRP, deletions,
transfers which are real issues being decided which affect the people
we want to give a voice to.

So rather than repeat the mistakes of our past, I would like to try
setting something up a different way and I am seeking offers from
volunteers who would help me with this.

I want to try and establish the framework for an individual
registrants constituency within the GNSO.  I think it will be
difficult to set up a meaningful at large organisation until the
interim ALAC has come up with details on how the RALOS will work and
associated criteria.  I expect that to take some time.  However we
have a functioning GNSO with criteria on how to apply for a new
constituency.  And also of importance as with the dissolving of the GA
there is no way to get registrant representation on Taskforces without
such a constituency, so I see this as the better opportunity for now.

Instead of calling for 1,000 members up front and then expecting they
will be happy with years of inaction while we battle on structure and
process, I want to have a small group of people work on putting
together a workable, open, transparent structure for the proposed
constituency and then for it to be taken out to individual registrants
for their support and it would of course only be successful if there
is over whelming support for the end product.

As an unbreakable condition of involvement in putting together such a
structure, the people involved would be barred from standing for any
office of any sort for a period of at least one, maybe two or more
years.  Taking part would be as a public service only and with no
possibility of personal promotion or office.

This group would set itself a maximum 6 - 9  month time line to come
up with the following for a proposed individual registrants
constituency:

- - Mission
- - Constitution
- - Infrastructure (website, e-mail, online membership, banking)
- - Process for Ratification by Registrants including minimum numbers
- - Process for Application to GNSO of ICANN

I believe you need to work on it all together as one package as trying
to do everything sequentially has shown not to work very well.  I also
believe it needs a very precise focus - its role is to represent gTLD
registrants within the GNSO of ICANN and all efforts should be on
getting a process which will allow that to happen.  Other
organisations such as icannatlarge.org/com can focus on wider issues.

Now some may not like this approach and prefer others.  That is fine -
I am not asking for universal blessing at this stage.  What I am after
is expressions of interest from up to say 15 people who will actually
put in the hard work to come up with something which is good enough
that registrants will flock to it, to have their say.  So I'm talking
about people who will do detail work, who will spend a bit of their
own money in paying for initial costs like domain names, secure
banking services, who are of high integrity and who are willing to
rule themselves out of any immediate leadership role once the
constituency is up and running.  

And most of all people who know that there is no guarantee of success
- - that all their work may come to nothing unless what we come up with
is supported widely by the registrant community.

So if you like challenges and want to try and make a difference,
contact me and we'll see what we can do.  I'm willing to spend six
months working on it and hope a few others will be also.  Note that to
make this workable an organising group of 100 people will not work, so
if you are not involved during this process, you'll have the
opportunity to have your say when there is some output to be consulted
on.

DPF
- --
E-mail: [email-masked]
ICQ:    29964527
MSN:    [email-masked]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 02:27:27 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

Marc and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  There are a number of tools such as ussearch.com, that will give
you allot more detailed, although likely not all accurate information
regarding individuals registered to what Domain names much
as whobiz.biz, which is highly inaccurate in the information it provides,
that can be useful and possibly even at times, helpful.  However due
often to the inaccuracy of such data retained from these tools, the
reliability of this information is often misused and promoted
in ways that are also harmful as well.  So like some filtering
software, these tools need to be used with care.

  I have a version of Carnivore, that I occasionally use.  I never
however have promoted the returned data in it's native form
to any public forum or otherwise, unless I have a legal reason
to do so, or and requested by law enforcement agencies
for that data.  The latter, has been requested on a few
occasions from myself, and I gladly complied.

  As to suggestions to Bruce, per his request.  The following
are some that our members have suggested on a number of
occasions:

1.) Remove Don Heath from the BoD at PIR

2.) Discontinue displaying registrants Addresses in your Whois
     data upon a display or provide for an opt-out to provide for
     this.

3.) Start conducting your business in an honest and forthright manner.

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, at 12:44 [=GMT-0500], Bruce Beckwith wrote:
>
> > and as a global registry, we will not implement any product or
> > service without considering fully all implications from a world-wide
> > perspective.
>
> > We welcome comments and suggestions, either via lists, or off-list
>
> Thank you for your invitation. Maybe you can send an announcement to this
> list when plans for a whois that offers either more information or extra
> search facilities or options are on the table?
>
> It would not be nice if .ORG domain name holders suddenly would have to
> find out that people can see what other domains they registered, thanks to
> an innovative search engine, like the one at http://www.whobiz.biz.
>
> It would be great to know how many .ORG domains are registered in
> different countries and states, or how many registrants have more than 1
> domain. This sort of statistical information was published in the past by
> Networksolutions, and nobody found that a problem. In fact I regret that
> it is not done anymore, and never was in greater detail. So maybe PIR can
> take the lead in this respect?
>
> It would be horrible, if it were possible to find out online, which
> domains are owned by my neighbours. For .biz this may even be possible
> already, if you pay whobiz.biz. The free search is limited to Registrant
> Name, and this must match exactly. But with $$ you seem to be allowed to
> search on a street name in a specific city, or on a family name worldwide.
> Or for email addresses that contain a certain string, e.g. "Sandra" or
> "icann.org".
>
> I am not saying this cannot be useful or even helpful at times. But do we
> want this?
>
> --
> 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 LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 15 Feb 2003 17:04:54 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

On 2003-02-14 11:07:54 -0500, Ram Mohan wrote:

> xWhois is on PIR's list of possible new services.  So is
> OrgCloak.  Neither have prices or plans announced - you should
> ask PIR for specifics.  So before you make a claim about
> legality, might be worthwhile checking what is mandatory (Whois)
> and what is not (xWhois, OrgCloak, and a host of other potential,
> optional services).  I'm not a lawyer myself, but it seems very
> clear that you're linking two entirely different things
> (mandatory services vs. optional services).

What, precisely, is "optional" about the following language?

| 8. Extended Whois (xWhois)
| 
| Registry Operator will use its best commercial efforts to develop
| and implement an extended Whois (xWhois) service. This
| subscription-based service is intended to provide:
| 
| An interface to the Whois database that will permit interested third
| parties to conduct enhanced Whois searches using Boolean and
| character string technologies.

...

(From Appendix O of the .org Registry Agreement.)

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

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

Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 11:22:35 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Price for Redemption

The pricing is unconscionable.

2,000 x 85 = $170,000.  $170,000 / $100/hr = 1,700 hours or 42.5
man-weeks.  Do you believe it required that much in development cost?

$40 for a recovery vs. $6 for a new registration?  And, the Registrars
mark it up from there?

Looks like world class gouging, to me.

What about the poor Registrant who loses his domain name, through no
fault of his own -- perhaps the Registrar, Registry or someone else in
the chain is responsible.  Who pays, the consumer/Registrant?

I realize that Network Solutions needs cash flow and a reasonable
profit, but this is ridiculous.

Friday, February 7, 2003, 12:13:05 PM, [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote:
Dcc> as noted on the registrar's list:

Dcc> "Fees for the redemption grace period service will be charged upon successful
Dcc> restoration of domain name registrations. To provide for recovery of one-time
Dcc> development costs while allowing a reduced price in the longer term, the fee
Dcc> will initially be $85, but will later be reduced to $40. Specifically, through
Dcc> the end of the second calendar month after the calendar month in which the
Dcc> cumulative total of registered domain names restored pursuant to the 
Dcc> Redemption
Dcc> Grace Period policy reaches 2000, the price per successful restore command 
Dcc> will
Dcc> be $85; thereafter the fee will be $40.00."

Dcc> Registrars remain entitled to add their markup to this fee.  

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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, 15 Feb 2003 13:34:22 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Price for Redemption

Don and all former DNSO GA members,

  Your Right of course Don.  I prefer to call it a a Flim-Flam myself.
But it certainly it is world class!  Or should I say World Classless! :(

  As you likely know figures don't lie, but liars figure!

  And so the saga continues....

Don Brown wrote:

> The pricing is unconscionable.
>
> 2,000 x 85 = $170,000.  $170,000 / $100/hr = 1,700 hours or 42.5
> man-weeks.  Do you believe it required that much in development cost?
>
> $40 for a recovery vs. $6 for a new registration?  And, the Registrars
> mark it up from there?
>
> Looks like world class gouging, to me.
>
> What about the poor Registrant who loses his domain name, through no
> fault of his own -- perhaps the Registrar, Registry or someone else in
> the chain is responsible.  Who pays, the consumer/Registrant?
>
> I realize that Network Solutions needs cash flow and a reasonable
> profit, but this is ridiculous.
>
> Friday, February 7, 2003, 12:13:05 PM, [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Dcc> as noted on the registrar's list:
>
> Dcc> "Fees for the redemption grace period service will be charged upon successful
> Dcc> restoration of domain name registrations. To provide for recovery of one-time
> Dcc> development costs while allowing a reduced price in the longer term, the fee
> Dcc> will initially be $85, but will later be reduced to $40. Specifically, through
> Dcc> the end of the second calendar month after the calendar month in which the
> Dcc> cumulative total of registered domain names restored pursuant to the
> Dcc> Redemption
> Dcc> Grace Period policy reaches 2000, the price per successful restore command
> Dcc> will
> Dcc> be $85; thereafter the fee will be $40.00."
>
> Dcc> Registrars remain entitled to add their markup to this fee.
>
> Dcc> Comments?
> Dcc> --
> Dcc> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Dcc> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> Dcc> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Dcc> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> [email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
> --
> 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 LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 15 Feb 2003 15:40:42 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Thomas

> What, precisely, is "optional" about the following language?
>
> | 8. Extended Whois (xWhois)
> |
> | Registry Operator will use its best commercial efforts to develop
> | and implement an extended Whois (xWhois) service. This
> | subscription-based service is intended to provide:
> |
> | An interface to the Whois database that will permit interested third
> | parties to conduct enhanced Whois searches using Boolean and
> | character string technologies.

The phrase "use its best commercial efforts to" is a qualifier to "will
develop". This gives the Registry Operator the option not to
develop/implement the service if they consider it is not commercially
viable. They don't even have to say why.

Anytime the language "best endeavors" appears, or variations of the sort,
you can be sure it's been inserted as the mechanism to get out, because
somebody can't, or doesn't want to commit.

Otherwise it would just say "Registry Operator will develop and implement an
extended Whois....", which is a clear statement that they have to do it at
all costs.

Regards,
Joanna
(IANAL)

- --
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, 15 Feb 2003 16:41:23 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BULK whois

>
> Sorry, my point does not "boil down" to the above wild extrapolation.

Kent, whenever people complaint that registrars are not following the RAA,
the answer is "ICANN is not a consumer protection agency".

It would make more sense, for consistency, if ICANN didn't put provisions in
the RAA which it has no motivation, will, intent, desire, or resources to
enforce.  It would certainly go a long way toward avoiding the impression
that ICANN has any role in determining how registrars are supposed to behave,
or comply with ICANN contracts for that matter.

- --
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: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 01:13:52 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: 0:190 .ORG

Jim and all,

Jim Fleming wrote:

> http://www.pir.org/about.html
> Marc Rotenberg

  What is missing here in the link you kindly provided is that it is out of date.
Don Heath recently joined the PIR board, of ISOC Fame.  It does
look to me that the PIR BOd is a little bit lopsided in ISOC or Ex-ISOC
dignitaries of some note.  That hardly seems very diverse or adequately
address the .ORG registrant's to which they are suppose to be serving...

>
> http://www.epic.org/epic/staff_and_board.html
> Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director

  It is also interesting that Marc is both on the BOD and the Executive
director ( Staff) of Epic, as well as being on the BoD of PIR.
Perhaps some nepotism is attributable here...

>
> http://www.epic.org/epic/advisory_board.html
> D. James Bidzos...serves as Chairman of the Board of VeriSign
> ....Vinton G. Cerf is senior vice president of Internet Architecture and Technology for WorldCom.
> ....David Farber is a faculty member of the Computer and Information Science Department
> =====================

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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 #1599
*************************