Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #163
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, October 6 2000           Volume 01 : Number 163

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

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Council, new TLDs,  and interests in pending applications

On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, James Love wrote:

> This is a request that the Names Council address a basic issue
> concerning ethics.  I would think that for starters, each member of the
> Names Council should declare any interest they have in any pending TLD
> applications (including interests as competitors), and they should adopt
> procedures to address the issue of such interests.  The Names Council
> should also indicate what role it should play in the selection process,
> and how its rules regarding member interests in applications relate to
> what the Names Council does.  

This is very appropriate thing to do.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell                          
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:39:49 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: Names Council, new TLDs,  and interests in pending applications

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: Names Council, new TLDs, and interests in pending applications

 hello Jamie..

 although I am confident that  you are aware that the names council plays no
 role in the selection process  (as I am familiar of your background and am
 quite certain you have read the proposal outlines and related material), I
 feel that your request for disclosure is most fair so here is mine:

  I am a member of the names council representing the registrar constituency

 I am the current chairman of CORE and Core is involved in an application
for
 a restricted TLD (.I.e. ".nom) as the proposing organization and in other
 applications as the back-end provider

 I am also involved as a member of the board of managers of Afilias, llc
 www.afilias.com   ( in which CORE is a participant) in its proposal for an
 unrestricted TLD as well.

 I am also an officer of iDomains, inc, which has proposed a restricted TLD
 (I.e. ".BIZ)

 I am also an officer in Domainbank, Inc which is both a member of CORE (as
 you are aware, CORE is an association of companies)  as well as a separate
 participant in the afilias, llc organization which I represent on the
 Afilias, LLC  board of managers.

 the selection process & related guidelines has been clearly outlined and
can
 be viewed through links located at the following urls:

 http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr16aug00.htm

 http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr03aug00.htm

 my very best wishes to you

 ken stubbs
 p.s. i also would be most interested if you or any other regular ga
 contributors have provided direction, advice or consultation services to or
 whether you or your organization has any interest in any proposing entity
as
 well

 ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 10:01 AM
> Subject: Names Council, new TLDs, and interests in pending applications
>
>
> > This is a request that the Names Council address a basic issue
> > concerning ethics.  I would think that for starters, each member of the
> > Names Council should declare any interest they have in any pending TLD
> > applications (including interests as competitors), and they should adopt
> > procedures to address the issue of such interests.  The Names Council
> > should also indicate what role it should play in the selection process,
> > and how its rules regarding member interests in applications relate to
> > what the Names Council does.
> >
> > I am not asking that the Names Council members automatically recuse
> > themselves from any and all issues, and of course, some Names Council
> > members have zero interests in specific new applications, but have an
> > interest in stopping the new TLDs go forward, and so there are also
> > problems with limiting votes.
> >
> > A minimum standard would seem to be more disclosure, and more self
> > awareness of the issues that such interest present.  Even more is
> > probably appropriate.  The Names Council should really consider how it
> > can fairly address these issues, which are now front and center.
> >
> >   Jamie
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Love  mailto:[email-masked] http://www.cptech.org
> > Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
> > voice 1.202.387.8030  fax  1.202.234.5176
> >
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:44:28 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Review - Questions on DNSO Responsibilities

My personal comments only....

At 09:31 03/10/2000 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>·       To what extent has the DNSO fulfilled the responsibilities in A, B and
>  C?

A (UDRP): Succeeded in creating the policy. Failed to provide a structure 
for its modification after its behaviour in practice has been seen.
B (new GTLDs): Succeeded in expressing a minimal consensus (6-10, 
evaluation). Failed in establishing a procedure for evaluating proposals 
for those 6-10.
6 (votes): In form, yes.

>·       Have the policies recommended by the DNSO represented an adequate
>consensus of the affected stakeholders?  Have the       viewpoints of all
>stakeholders been considered?

Adequate consensus: To the degree that there was an adequate consensus to 
be found, yes. Has failed to prove that consensus can be reached when there 
are strong conflicts between different stakeholders.
The viewpoints of all stakeholders have been aired. It is impossible to say 
whether they have been considered or not.

>·       Have the recommendations been well defined, useful in terms of being
>timely and being structured with a degree of specificity/flexibility
>appropriate to allow practical implementation?

No. They have been unclear, limited and have taken a long time getting 
produced. They have left far too much of the practical implementation 
details to the ICANN board and ICANN staff. The root cause of this is, I 
believe, the inability to reach consensus.

>·       To the extent the recommendations have been adopted as policies, have
>they received the support of those being asked to implement them?

Yes (6-10 and UDRP).

>·       Has the DNSO failed to address problems that have been called to its
>attention through the Names Council?
>
>
>·       Does the DNSO performance require improvement, and if so, how?

Yes, and I don't know.

>·       Are the responsibilities of the components (NC, Constituencies, GA)
>and the relationship among them well defined?

No.

>·       How can the DNSO minimize the amount of subjectivity and increase the
>amount of objective consensus building, with its current structure? With
>  a different structure?

Input into the process, an idea:

Abandon constituencies as a basis for reaching proposals. Go with groups of 
named experts and open fora instead, leaving the constituencies with the 
role of saying "yes" or "no" to finished proposals from expert groups.

>·       Has the DNSO process brought expertise to the issues it has addressed?
>   If not, how can the degree of expertise be    enhanced?

It has brought a great deal of shouting. It is not clear that this shouting 
has been done mainly, or even to any large degree, by experts.
Some experts say that they cannot participate in DNSO open fora because 
they do not have time or temperament to listen to the noise. If true, this 
is a problem.

My answers only....
- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 13:16:34 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Review of the Applications 

Will Jones Day, the law firm, be doing  any due diligence on the TLD
applications?  If so, could we have some type of disclosure statement
from Jones Day?

  Jamie

- -- 
James Love  mailto:[email-masked] http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
voice 1.202.387.8030  fax  1.202.234.5176
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 12:51:17 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Names Council, new TLDs,  and interests in pending applications

Dear Ken,

First, I would like to thank you for your very prompt and clear note
regarding your own interests in various LTD application.  My cc to you
was really intended as the Chair of the Names Council.  I believe your
own involvement in various applications has been pretty up front all
along, and I certainly appreciate your own example setting disclosure. 
My missive was really intended, however, for the Names Council itself,
and I would appreciate the Names Council addressing the issue of the
appropriate degree of disclosures that NC members should make, and if
such disclosures should be on the DNSO web page.  This isn't intended as
casting aspersions on anyone, but rather a more general practice that
would seem to enhance the confidence and effectiveness of the DNSO. 
Again, I will say that your own interests have always been quite
transparent, and indeed, also for many other NC members, and this is
mostly about making the process a bit more formal and complete.

Second, I think your request that members of the General Assembly also
make disclosures has merit.  I wasn't sure if you were suggesting that
this would be appropriate as a matter of policy as a condition of
participation, or as a matter of voluntary good practice.  

A request for disclosures of my interests is particularly appropriate,
because I push these disclosure issues from time to time.  

As you know, I work with the Consumer Project on Technology (CPT) and
Essential Information, and we had earlier filed expressions of interest
in several TLD strings.  And while we did not file an application for
the testbed, several others did, including those that included strings
for which we had earlier expressed interest.  However, I should also
note that we do not have any objection to any of the current TLD
applications on that grounds alone.  That is, as far as we are
concerned, if ICANN wants to approve a TLD string that we had expressed
earlier interest in, it is fine by us.  Indeed, I hope that ICANN
approves as many new TLDs as it can, consistent with ICANN
responsibilities to protect various user interests.  

Also, as you know, myself and Manon Ress have both been actively
interested in the creation of the .union domain, and while it was
proposed by John Richard and myself in March, we were all delighted that
the labor union movement has moved the application forward, and we are
very supportive of the excellant application by the labor union
consortium proposal, that was forwarded by the ICFTU.  Many and I both
gave advice on this one, particularly Manon, who words for a labor union
funded NGO.  But the most credit really goes to the ICFTU and the other
labor unions who worked out the proposal specifics, reached consensus,
and worked through the ICANN proposal.  

Manon Ress has also participated in discussions on the .eu proposal (a
ccTLD apparently), and has given quite a bit of advice to the group
headed by Affinity, which has proposed a restricted TLD for business
(asking for domain strings such as .biz, .ebiz, .firm, .inc and .real,
apparently in competition with your group), and I believe Manon may be
on an (unpaid) advisory board for this application (which I have not
seen).  Manon has also been working on a proposal for .humanrights, a
civil society TLD application that was not filed in this round, but
which may be filed later.  Unfortunately for our household, Manon's
advice on all of the above has been pro-bono.

 Jamie

Ken Stubbs wrote:
> 
> hello Jamie..
> 
> although I am confident that  you are aware that the names council plays no
> role in the selection process  (as I am familiar of your background and am
> quite certain you have read the proposal outlines and related material), I
> feel that your request for disclosure is most fair so here is mine:
> 
>  I am a member of the names council representing the registrar constituency
> 
> I am the current chairman of CORE and Core is involved in an application for
> a restricted TLD (.I.e. ".nom) as the proposing organization and in other
> applications as the back-end provider
> 
> I am also involved as a member of the board of managers of Afilias, llc
> www.afilias.com   ( in which CORE is a participant) in its proposal for an
> unrestricted TLD as well.
> 
> I am also an officer of iDomains, inc, which has proposed a restricted TLD
> (I.e. ".BIZ)
> 
> I am also an officer in Domainbank, Inc which is both a member of CORE (as
> you are aware, CORE is an association of companies)  as well as a separate
> participant in the afilias, llc organization which I represent on the
> Afilias, LLC  board of managers.
> 
> the selection process & related guidelines has been clearly outlined and can
> be viewed through links located at the following urls:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr16aug00.htm
> 
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr03aug00.htm
> 
> my very best wishes to you
> 
> ken stubbs
> p.s. i also would be most interested if you or any other regular ga
> contributors have provided direction, advice or consultation services to or
> whether you or your organization has any interest in any proposing entity as
> well
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 10:01 AM
> Subject: Names Council, new TLDs, and interests in pending applications
> 
> > This is a request that the Names Council address a basic issue
> > concerning ethics.  I would think that for starters, each member of the
> > Names Council should declare any interest they have in any pending TLD
> > applications (including interests as competitors), and they should adopt
> > procedures to address the issue of such interests.  The Names Council
> > should also indicate what role it should play in the selection process,
> > and how its rules regarding member interests in applications relate to
> > what the Names Council does.
> >
> > I am not asking that the Names Council members automatically recuse
> > themselves from any and all issues, and of course, some Names Council
> > members have zero interests in specific new applications, but have an
> > interest in stopping the new TLDs go forward, and so there are also
> > problems with limiting votes.
> >
> > A minimum standard would seem to be more disclosure, and more self
> > awareness of the issues that such interest present.  Even more is
> > probably appropriate.  The Names Council should really consider how it
> > can fairly address these issues, which are now front and center.
> >
> >   Jamie
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Love  mailto:[email-masked] http://www.cptech.org
> > Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
> > voice 1.202.387.8030  fax  1.202.234.5176
> >

- -- 
James Love  mailto:[email-masked] http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
voice 1.202.387.8030  fax  1.202.234.5176
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:28:02 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Afflias?  Another monopoly (with NSI)? 

FYI ...Will the consortium be a monopoly?  Even has NSI involved too.

Wednesday October 4, 8:00 am Eastern Time
Press Release
SOURCE: NETNATION COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
via BCE Emergis e-News Services

NetNation Is Founding Member Of International Consortium Looking To Create 
New Internet Domain Names
Vancouver, BC and San Diego, CA 
World's Leading Registrars Unite to introduce New Top Level Domains With 
Global Appeal 

NetNation Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq: NNCI - news), a global, top-ranked 
web site hosting company, domain name registrar (DNR) and application service 
provider (ASP), announced today that Afilias, an international consortium of 
nineteen of the world's leading domain name registrars which includes 
NetNation's wholly owned subsidiary, DomainPeople, Inc., as well as Network 
Solutions Inc., a VeriSign company (Nasdaq: VRSN - news) and Register.com 
(Nasdaq: RCOM - news), has applied to the Internet Corporation for Assigned 
Names and Numbers (ICANN) to operate an unrestricted generic top level domain 
(TLD) registry intended to transform the Internet into a truly global 
resource for individuals and businesses everywhere. 

True globalization of the Internet requires a domain name choice beyond the 
existing generic TLDs - principally .com, .net, and .org - which are 
primarily used by Americans. With new choices for domain names, Internet 
users will be able to secure web site addresses of their first choice. 
Afilias proposed three possible TLD names to ICANN. If its application is 
approved by ICANN later this year, Afilias will announce its TLD name 
selection. 

``We are pioneering a new channel in cyberspace to foster international 
communication and commerce,'' said John L. Kane, head of Afilias' marketing 
task force. ``There is no reason to limit access to what is truly the world's 
most unifying vehicle. Our mission is to quickly eliminate the digital divide 
and promote a global community.'' 

With its powerful alliance of the world's leading registrar companies, 
Afilias believes it has the industry experience to effectively administer a 
new worldwide registry. Building an entirely new registry system will permit 
Afilias to employ next-generation solutions to address limitations in the 
current registry system. Afilias' open business model, which will allow other 
ICANN-accredited registrars to join the consortium, promotes growth and 
competition for the Internet community and its registrars, a long-term goal 
of ICANN. 

``We are delighted in being a founding member of Afilias and participating in 
an organization that will promote greater communication among Internet 
users,'' said Joseph Kibur, CEO of NetNation Communications, Inc. and board 
member of the newly formed Afilias. ``DomainPeople contributed to the 
technical, business and marketing task forces during the development stages 
of Afilias, and is pleased to be a part of this strategic international 
venture. We look forward to the introduction of new top level domains in the 
market place as this event will trigger an influx of new domain registrations 
which will help fuel our future growth.'' 

``Drawing on the experience and expertise of our member registrars, Afilias 
is in a unique position to enhance the domain name system while maintaining 
the stability of the Internet,'' said Ken Stubbs, a member of the Board of 
Afilias and chairman of the executive committee of the Internet Council of 
Registrars (CORE). ``We have the international resources necessary to 
implement and responsibly manage a global TLD.'' 

Afilias decided to act on its vision of a broader domain name space in July 
following ICANN's decision to accept applications for the introduction of new 
TLDs. Afilias submitted an application to ICANN on October 2, 2000. 
Applications that are approved later this year could be permitted to operate 
new TLDs as early as 2001. ICANN is hosting a two-week public comment period 
online at http://www.icann.org beginning October 5th. Afilias will also 
provide information updates and invite feedback on its web site 
http://www.afilias.org. 

Increased Traffic on the World Wide Web 

Internet use and domain name registration is on the rise, according to 
research firm LightSpeed Research. International surveys conducted online in 
September 2000 reveal that during a typical month, nearly half of the 
respondents (47 percent) spend 11 hours or more online. One in four Internet 
users have registered a domain name in the past, and over half (55 percent) 
are likely to register a domain name in the future. 

Of American Internet users, nearly half (49 percent) have registered a domain 
name, according to surveys conducted by Yankelovich Partners in September 
2000. This includes two out of five Internet users (40 percent) who have 
registered up to five domain names and nine percent who have registered six 
or more names. Half of those surveyed (50 percent) say they are likely to 
register a domain name in the future. 

``According to recent studies, more than 75 million domain names are expected 
to be registered by the end of 2002,'' said Kane. ``Increased traffic on the 
World Wide Web requires new avenues to meet the growing need for a truly 
global Internet address. If Afilias is given the opportunity to operate a new 
TLD, we will attempt to expand the use of the Internet and endeavor to 
eradicate digital stereotypes currently associated with the US-centric 
dominant .com address.'' 

About NetNation Communications, Inc. 

NetNation Communications, Inc. (http://www.netnation.com) is a global, 
top-ranked web site hosting company, domain name registrar (DNR) and 
application service/infrastructure provider (ASP/AIP) with clients in more 
than 130 countries. NetNation has been consistently ranked among the top 10 
web hosting companies in the world by leading industry evaluators. The 
company's wholly owned subsidiary, DomainPeople, Inc. 
(http://www.domainpeople.com) is an ICANN accredited and operational 
registrar of Internet domain names. NetNation has strategic alliances with 
Cobalt Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: COBT - news), GT Group Telecom (Nasdaq: GTTLB, 
TSE: GTG.B) and SmartAge.com. The company has offices in Vancouver, BC, San 
Diego, CA, and London, England. NetNation is a trademark of NetNation 
Communications, Inc. 

About Afilias 

Formed in September 2000, Afilias is a limited liability company formed by a 
consortium of nineteen ICANN-accredited Internet domain name registrars that 
have collectively applied to ICANN to operate an unrestricted generic top 
level domain name registry. One-time competitors, such as Network Solutions 
Registrar Operations, Register.com, and Tucows.com, have banded together to 
introduce a truly global Internet address. 

In the aggregate, the company's member registrars registered more than 10 
million domain names in their last fiscal year. In addition to their strong 
position in the domain name registration market for the .com, .net, and .org 
top level domains, the member registrars collectively offer a wide range of 
related Internet services, including country-code domain name registrations, 
country-code registry operations, Web hosting, and ISP services. As a group, 
the member registrars provide their services on a global basis, with 65% 
having offices in North America, 53% in Europe, 26% in Asia and the Pacific 
Rim, 5% in Australia, and 5% in the Middle East. 

Afilias' member registrars include: 1stDomain.net, a division of G+D 
International LLC; Corporate Domains, Inc.; Domain Bank, Inc.; DomainInfo AB; 
DomainPeople, Inc.; Domain Registration Services; Enter-Price Multimedia AG 
(EPAG); Internet Council of Registrars (CORE); interQ, Inc.; NameSecure.com, 
Inc.; Netnames International Ltd; Network Solutions, Inc. Registrar 
Operations; Polar Software Ltd. d/b/a Signdomains.com; Procurement Services 
International (Japan), Inc.; Register.com; Schlund + Partner AG; Sitename; 
Speednames, Inc.; and Tucows, Inc. 

``Safe Harbor'' statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act 
of 1995: In this news release, the word ``will'' and similar conditional or 
future-oriented expressions are intended to identify forward-looking 
statements. Such statements are inherently subject to a variety of risks and 
uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those 
reflected in such forward-looking statements. 

Contacts: 

NetNation Communications, Inc. 

John Gomez Investor Relations Tel. 888 277 0000 Ext. 133 [email-masked] 

Afilias 

Gertrude Bakel Hill and Knowlton Tel. 212 885 0606 
[email-masked] 

# # # 

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:37:28 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] TLD feedback from a client

At 10:02 am +0200 10/4/00, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>Again (I think I am the old Caton): this calls for a DN definition
>in the UDRP document. You cannot rule about something you
>do not know. TM lobby says the DN is a label, a label is what
>is a TM, hence the DN is TM like and TM rules apply (which is
>quite specious - this way you prove a women to be a man -
>allthemore than they havd to create new rules for the TLD
>specifics). I say the DN is a "road sign": it only tells where is a
>site the users accept or want to call with that name: standard
>rules apply to the site and to the users.
>Jefsey

NSI has already discovered the truth about domain names.

They don't sell domain names, they sell "web addresses".

I don't see Amazon running around suing book retailers that run their
business on "Amazon Blvd", or in the town of Amazon, Arkansas.

We need the US supreme court to rule that a domain name is really an
address. That'll stop all this UDRP crap in its tracks.

- -- 
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.domain-owners.org 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: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 17:29:36 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Review of the Applications

Apparently my previous note here wasn't very clear to some readers, so I
will re-phrase it.  What I was trying to say is:  ICANN is evaluating
new TLD applications.  If ICANN hires someone to help with the
evaluation, such as Jones Day, but also anyone else, it would seem
appropriate to have a disclosure regarding any ties the firm may have to
the applicants for the new TLDs.   Jamie

James Love wrote:
> 
> Will Jones Day, the law firm, be doing  any due diligence on the TLD
> applications?  If so, could we have some type of disclosure statement
> from Jones Day?
> 
>   Jamie
> 
> --
> James Love  mailto:[email-masked] http://www.cptech.org
> Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
> voice 1.202.387.8030  fax  1.202.234.5176
> --
> 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

- -- 
James Love  mailto:[email-masked] http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
voice 1.202.387.8030  fax  1.202.234.5176
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 14:37:22 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] TLD feedback from a client

At 01:37 PM 10/4/00 -0500, Andy Gardner wrote:
>At 10:02 am +0200 10/4/00, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >Again (I think I am the old Caton): this calls for a DN definition
> >in the UDRP document. You cannot rule about something you
> >do not know. TM lobby says the DN is a label, a label is what
> >is a TM, hence the DN is TM like and TM rules apply (which is
> >quite specious - this way you prove a women to be a man -
> >allthemore than they havd to create new rules for the TLD
> >specifics). I say the DN is a "road sign": it only tells where is a
> >site the users accept or want to call with that name: standard
> >rules apply to the site and to the users.
> >Jefsey
>
>NSI has already discovered the truth about domain names.
>
>They don't sell domain names, they sell "web addresses".

Not any more. NSI is now in the business of registering telephone numbers 
and associating service specific addresses (domain names) to those numbers. 
See:

http://www.nsol.com/news/2000/pr_20000926.html

http://www.enumworld.com/faqs.html#12
Q. Can there be more than one Registry for ENUM?

A. We believe that there can and will be more than one registry for
ENUM based services. These multiple registries will compete in the
open marketplace based on their merits - compliance with the
standards, ease of use, cost, speed and reliability.

Q. Who will handle the back-end?

A. Who do you think?

Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

- --
It's a feature not a bug...

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 16:05:03 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Review of the Applications

At 05:29 PM 10/4/00 -0400, James Love wrote:

ICANN are only evaluating some of the applications. Not all of them have 
been acknowledged.

>Apparently my previous note here wasn't very clear to some readers, so I
>will re-phrase it.  What I was trying to say is:  ICANN is evaluating
>new TLD applications.  If ICANN hires someone to help with the
>evaluation, such as Jones Day, but also anyone else, it would seem
>appropriate to have a disclosure regarding any ties the firm may have to
>the applicants for the new TLDs.   Jamie
>
>James Love wrote:
> >
> > Will Jones Day, the law firm, be doing  any due diligence on the TLD
> > applications?  If so, could we have some type of disclosure statement
> > from Jones Day?
> >
> >   Jamie
> >
> > --
> > James Love  mailto:[email-masked] http://www.cptech.org
> > Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
> > voice 1.202.387.8030  fax  1.202.234.5176
> > --
> > 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
>
>--
>James Love  mailto:[email-masked] http://www.cptech.org
>Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
>voice 1.202.387.8030  fax  1.202.234.5176
>--
>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: Thu,  5 Oct 2000 13:35:32 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RE: [ga] DNSO Review

Jefsey,
>
>Agreed. First question is therefore to decide about the appropriate 
form of
>the reponse. Due to the importance of what follows, I would ask we 
consider
>not to respond until the WG has been created. Our role is also to 
protect
>ICANN and DNSO against such errors and from possible disbanding.

I agree with the principle of showing "protest" to the decision, but not
 to respond will be the *very best* help we can give to NC to disregard 
the matter altogether, and to write in the final report that "there's no
 interest".
Up to now, very few people have pushed for this thing happening: if the 
GA will not provide useful input, the chances of having any result at 
all will be even lower.

Can't we simply mass-answer that we consider important that a WG be 
established, instead of keeping silent?

Thanks
Roberto
- --
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, 06 Oct 2000 13:16:23 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RE: [ga] DNSO Review

At 13:35 5/10/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>Up to now, very few people have pushed for this thing happening: if the 
>GA will not provide useful input, the chances of having any result at 
>all will be even lower.
>
>Can't we simply mass-answer that we consider important that a WG be 
>established, instead of keeping silent?
>

We can, but should that be limited to writing to this obscure list?
We have had a vote on a resolution that showed overwhelmingly what the GA
wanted.
We can have a list-vote to again , but as you said yourself, it is
unnecessary.
Do you still think so now?
People don't mind to vote, but they get tired of posting in the wind.

Can we blame people who now say: "I'ts all useless.
Forget it, forget the DNSO, forget ICANN. We are wasting our precious time."

Small illustration: I asked Dr Ramadass, one of the @large candidates in
Asia, nominated by ICANN's nomination committee, who is now guest on the
IDNO-discuss list, if he was subscribed to the [email-masked]  list.
His reply:
"I dont know what this is".

  

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  

- --
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 #163
************************