Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1638
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, March 20 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1638

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

Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:34:21 -0800
From: Doug Mehus <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Hi John:

I haven't read the entire white paper, but I am about 1/3 of the way through, and from what I understand, Dr. Mueller proposes that:

* 40 new Top-Level Domains (TLDs) be introduced every year, beginning in 2005
* 30 of those spots will be allocated for commercial interests
* 10 are reserved for non-commercial interests and such

This has nothing to do with second-level domain names (example: microsoft.com). Dr. Mueller and Mr. Knight mean that forty new domain name *extensions* (examples: .com, .net, .org, .info, etc.) be introduced and each one would be operated by a Registry. For instance, the World Health Organization could operate .health if it introduced that TLD for consideration to ICANN, Google could operate .blog (since its Blogger product is the predominant one), etc. Dr. Mueller does NOT propose auctioning off existing second-level domain names. When he speaks about auctions, he means that if there are two companies vying for the same domain name *extension*, the two would go into an auction to see who would operate the *extension* (example: .web) Registry.

So far, I have agreed with every point in this white paper as it does not advocate getting rid of ICANN, but rather, it outlines a clear and precise policy for adding new TLDs to the domain name system root. Dr. Mueller and Mr. Knight are to be commended for the sheer brilliance of this paper. Well done you two!

Best,
Doug

- --
Doug Mehus
[email-masked]

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Please explain why that is fair to auction off what is potentially the fruits of someone else's labor.

Some of us have been operating registries and have been supporting TLDs in
for almost 9 years now. Why can't we have the property that we have worked
hard to develop? 

You get NO support from me on this. Only the rich will be able to bid on this. My company
has already spent upwards of $300,000 on our investment. I should be able to protect that
investment by not having my business product stolen from me and auctioned off to some
fat cat.

Your proprsal is a non-starter.

Next....
- --
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, 19 Mar 2003 17:42:33 -0800
From: Doug Mehus <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Just a suggestion you may want to consider here. I'm sure Secretary Evans, Assistant Secretary Victory, and COTR Handley do not need to read every reply you send to the GNSO's General Assembly forum. Heck, they are probably already on this forum so any CC:s you send only add to their amount of mail and make personal responses to other unrelated requests not possible because they are busy weeding through their mailing list mail -- not to mention the fact they each receive tonnes of spam.

The courteous thing to do would be to e-mail them privately, and ask if they would like you to continue sending carbon copies of all your replies to the GA mailing list. :)

Best,
Doug

- --
Doug Mehus
[email-masked]

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>; "Don Evans" <[email-masked]>; "Kathy Smith" <[email-masked]>; "Nancy J. Victory" <[email-masked]>; "Robin Layton" <[email-masked]>; "cathy Handley" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

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

  I must agree with John here.  Tha last time around the Lottery
process produced poor stuarts of TLD's as registries.  A auction
has little or even less of a chance to produce better results.
- --
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, 19 Mar 2003 17:46:41 -0800
From: Doug Mehus <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS email addresses and spam: some stats

I believe it. And, another big source of spam: web-based archives of messages from mailing lists.

Personally, my amount of spam has increased. I probably receive, on average, five spam messages per day or about 30 per week.

Best,
Doug

- --
Doug Mehus
[email-masked]
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 4:59 PM
Subject: [ga] WHOIS email addresses and spam: some stats

Hello,

CDT has done a study on sources of spam (including emails from the
WHOIS database), with a report (PDF format) at:

http://www.cdt.org/speech/spam/030319spamreport.pdf

It turns out that in the period of the study (6 months), they only
received 1 spam from WHOIS. A policy of rotating WHOIS email addresses
regularly, using 'disposable' email addresses, as some registrars have
started to do, would probably alleviate most of the concerns over
"mining" the WHOIS database by spammers.

Other sources, like posting e-mail addresses on websites, turn out to
be far more important in attracting spam.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.autoinsurance.ca/
- --
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, 19 Mar 2003 21:22:35 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

On 19 Mar 2003 at 14:46, Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, John Palmer wrote:
> 
> > Please explain why that is fair to auction off what is potentially the
> > fruits of someone else's labor.
> 
> > Some of us have been operating registries and have been supporting TLDs
> > in for almost 9 years now. Why can't we have the property that we have
> > worked hard to develop? 
> 
> If a name in a competing root has established itself as a actual
> designator of actual goods or services through use and/or registration,
> then you've possibly got cognizable legal rights.
> 
> But you've got to be willing to defend those rights.  Otherwise you are
> simply whining.

I'm sorry, Karl, but I have to strongly disagree here.  Since ICANN is 
sanctioned by the US government, all the power rests with ICANN to simply 
take from others what it chooses with very little recourse.  

Sure, small registries can use the courts, just as registrants can use the 
courts when attacked by covetous entities that steal domain names through 
UDRP.  The problem is that the average small registry or domain name 
holder doesn't have the millions of dollars to fight the battle, so they 
lose their businesses.  

If this is whining, then so are all the disenfranchised registrants who 
could not afford to pursue actions when they lost domain names.  Losing a 
TLD by having it usurped is no different other than not even having a 
procedure to try to keep it and not disenfranchising the existing domain 
name holders as in the .BIZ issue.  Where does it stop?  What else can 
ICANN and the DoC do to take property from others?  What protections are 
there for those who have worked for a decade to create something only to 
have another covetous entity take it from them?

Like John, I cannot support such a program.  There are thousands of TLDs 
in existance, as you know.  Why not just incorporate them into the USG 
root a few at a time instead of arbitrarily auctioning what is not IcANN's 
to auction?

> 
> So if you believe that you have laboured to build something, then the forum
> to vindicate those rights is the courthouse.
> 
> The best that ICANN can do is to be blind to rights that may or may not
> exist in names, leaving the resolution of disputes to forums better suited
> to that kind of thing.

Well, that makes sense since IcANN is blind to the rights of others in 
every sense anyway.  This is just one more way to exacerbate it.  Turning 
a blind eye is a great part of the problem with ICANN.  You can't even say 
"ignorance is bliss" because ICANN is fully aware of what it is doing.  
I'm surprised at Milton, though.

If his proposal is the way to go, then perhaps we should form some sort of 
cartel to take some corporations products and auction them off to the 
highest bidder.  If they have rights, they can sue.  So lets go after the 
little ones with really good products and ideas since they can't afford to 
fight a big cartel.  Heck, why not?  Betcha we could find some hefty 
backers if the takings were good enough.

> 
> That doesn't mean that I agree with Milton's paper - I believe that ICANN
> ought to be cranking new TLDs out at a rate of rather more than one per
> day, and that the choice of what TLD ought to be totally blind to the
> actual character string being sought (other than to ensure that it doesn't
> clash with an already allocated string.)  But Milton's approach is
> certainly a far sight better than the status quo of do-nothingness.

Allocated by whom?  We've seen the results of colliding TLDs.  It's going 
to be a real mess when there are hundreds of them doing the same thing.  

Leah

- --
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, 19 Mar 2003 21:29:33 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

On 19 Mar 2003 at 17:34, Doug Mehus wrote:

> Dr. Mueller does NOT propose
> auctioning off existing second-level domain names. When he speaks about
> auctions, he means that if there are two companies vying for the same
> domain name *extension*, the two would go into an auction to see who would
> operate the *extension* (example: .web) Registry.
> 

That's right, Doug.  He propses ignoring the existence, once again, of 
exisiting TLD registries, such as .USA, .Z, .COM2, .ONLINE... and 
thousands of others.  He proposes auctioning off TLDs without 
consideration for anything else or anyone else's decade long effort to 
build them.  The result is that we'll have the same mess we had with .BIZ, 
only multiplied by hundreds - all over the world this time.  Not all 
registries are held in the US.  It would be a real abuse by DoC to auction 
off TLDS in use by others, but it would not surprise me one bit.

Leahl

- --
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, 19 Mar 2003 23:21:32 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

On 19 Mar 2003 at 14:46, Karl Auerbach wrote:

> The best that ICANN can do is to be blind to rights that may or may not
> exist in names, leaving the resolution of disputes to forums better suited
> to that kind of thing.
> 
> That doesn't mean that I agree with Milton's paper - I believe that ICANN
> ought to be cranking new TLDs out at a rate of rather more than one per
> day, and that the choice of what TLD ought to be totally blind to the
> actual character string being sought (other than to ensure that it doesn't
> clash with an already allocated string.)  But Milton's approach is
> certainly a far sight better than the status quo of do-nothingness.

Karl, try to answer this for me.  Is it in the best interests of the 
economy to undermine entrepreneurial efforts by simply taking the unique 
product of small businesses and organizations by fiat?  Please tell me 
what incentive there might be for small businesses to start up if 
somewhere down the road the government will elect to just destroy them at 
will, with no recourse.  Keep in mind that requesting a Rulemaking did 
nothing more than to have DoC abrogate its responsibility and deny they 
had any such responsibility.  If DoC is the entity/agency handling or 
overseeing these takeovers, the courts are not an option.  No small 
business could survive it.  Estimated costs for going against the 
government were in excess of 1.5 million with no possibility of damages.  
Is that to be the plan?  If so, it does not bode well for anyone planning 
to go into a small business.  Why expend the money and effort just to lose 
it to a whim of DoC?  

Leah

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 16:55:44 +1200
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Leah Gallegos said: 

> Please tell me what incentive there might be for small businesses to start
up if 
> somewhere down the road the government will elect to just destroy them at
will, 
> with no recourse.  

If a person or company decides to enter a heavily controlled market and
spend money so be it.

It is called 'Business Risk'. No one said in business if you spend X you get
X +15%.

What right did these companies have to operate their own TLD's and/or
alternative root(s)?

None.

They decided to do it. Now, one would hope they went in with their eyes wide
open knowing 
that if they did not get 'access' to the 'master root' then they were sh*t
out of luck.

The thing I could never understand that if I did .money (or .web, or .store
or .smallfurryanimal) what stopped others from also doing it? What if my
.money was in New Zealand and the 'upstart' .money was in Spain?

A gentlemen's agreement or would you use the courts to stop them? 

As far as I can see a number of companies rolled the dice and appeared to
have lost...

This has nothing to do with ICANN. It has all to do with companies rushing
and doing things to try and gain a competitive advantage for their own gain.

I am not a big fan of ICANN but whinging about them and saying 'but it's not
fair' is worthless. Your right, it's not fair, but no one TOLD you to do
this.

Steven Heath
.nz news & views
www.nznews.org.nz

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 00:33:57 -0500
From: "Gene Marsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Steve,

With this logic, anyone (or any company) would have the right to steal any
other intellectual property with no consequence.  Your argument holds no
water.

Gene Marsh

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Steven
Heath
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:56 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Leah Gallegos said:

> Please tell me what incentive there might be for small businesses to start
up if
> somewhere down the road the government will elect to just destroy them at
will,
> with no recourse.

If a person or company decides to enter a heavily controlled market and
spend money so be it.

It is called 'Business Risk'. No one said in business if you spend X you get
X +15%.

What right did these companies have to operate their own TLD's and/or
alternative root(s)?

None.

They decided to do it. Now, one would hope they went in with their eyes wide
open knowing
that if they did not get 'access' to the 'master root' then they were sh*t
out of luck.

The thing I could never understand that if I did .money (or .web, or .store
or .smallfurryanimal) what stopped others from also doing it? What if my
.money was in New Zealand and the 'upstart' .money was in Spain?

A gentlemen's agreement or would you use the courts to stop them?

As far as I can see a number of companies rolled the dice and appeared to
have lost...

This has nothing to do with ICANN. It has all to do with companies rushing
and doing things to try and gain a competitive advantage for their own gain.

I am not a big fan of ICANN but whinging about them and saying 'but it's not
fair' is worthless. Your right, it's not fair, but no one TOLD you to do
this.

Steven Heath
.nz news & views
www.nznews.org.nz

- --
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: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:59:32 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Steven and all former DNSO GA members,

  In fact Steven, despite your very well put argument here in response
to Leah's, what she and many others are "Whining" about, as you
put it again here, is worse than unfair, it may very well be illegal,
and perhaps even fraudulent in that the USG/Legacy Root name
space is a "Public Resource" not a play toy for ICANN to do with
as it will or so determine without the stakeholders approval.  Hence
the real crux of this long standing, terribly divisive and already
somewhat damaged result thus far.

  The real question that remains unanswered satisfactorily is how can
we ( Inclusive sense/tense here ) to fix or set right this thus far failed
and destructive path that ICANN has thus far chosen  that is inclusive
of all interested parties...

  This white paper offered along with Stuart Lynn's "Sponsored TLD"
approach are not the answer...  Yet both may contain part of the
answer...

Steven Heath wrote:

> Leah Gallegos said:
>
> > Please tell me what incentive there might be for small businesses to start
> up if
> > somewhere down the road the government will elect to just destroy them at
> will,
> > with no recourse.
>
> If a person or company decides to enter a heavily controlled market and
> spend money so be it.
>
> It is called 'Business Risk'. No one said in business if you spend X you get
> X +15%.
>
> What right did these companies have to operate their own TLD's and/or
> alternative root(s)?
>
> None.
>
> They decided to do it. Now, one would hope they went in with their eyes wide
> open knowing
> that if they did not get 'access' to the 'master root' then they were sh*t
> out of luck.
>
> The thing I could never understand that if I did .money (or .web, or .store
> or .smallfurryanimal) what stopped others from also doing it? What if my
> .money was in New Zealand and the 'upstart' .money was in Spain?
>
> A gentlemen's agreement or would you use the courts to stop them?
>
> As far as I can see a number of companies rolled the dice and appeared to
> have lost...
>
> This has nothing to do with ICANN. It has all to do with companies rushing
> and doing things to try and gain a competitive advantage for their own gain.
>
> I am not a big fan of ICANN but whinging about them and saying 'but it's not
> fair' is worthless. Your right, it's not fair, but no one TOLD you to do
> this.
>
> Steven Heath
> .nz news & views
> www.nznews.org.nz
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:50:45 -0800
From: Doug Mehus <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Well said, Steve. I'm not a fan of ICANN either, but I strongly oppose alternate roots even more. They have no legitimate right to operate a domain name Registry, only ICANN does -- like it or not. Dr. Mueller's white paper gets my full support.

Best,
Doug

- --
Doug Mehus
[email-masked]

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Heath" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:55 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

If a person or company decides to enter a heavily controlled market and
spend money so be it.

It is called 'Business Risk'. No one said in business if you spend X you get
X +15%.

What right did these companies have to operate their own TLD's and/or
alternative root(s)?

None.

They decided to do it. Now, one would hope they went in with their eyes wide
open knowing 
that if they did not get 'access' to the 'master root' then they were sh*t
out of luck.

The thing I could never understand that if I did .money (or .web, or .store
or .smallfurryanimal) what stopped others from also doing it? What if my
.money was in New Zealand and the 'upstart' .money was in Spain?

A gentlemen's agreement or would you use the courts to stop them? 

As far as I can see a number of companies rolled the dice and appeared to
have lost...

This has nothing to do with ICANN. It has all to do with companies rushing
and doing things to try and gain a competitive advantage for their own gain.

I am not a big fan of ICANN but whinging about them and saying 'but it's not
fair' is worthless. Your right, it's not fair, but no one TOLD you to do
this.

Steven Heath
.nz news & views
www.nznews.org.nz
- --
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, 19 Mar 2003 23:57:07 -0800
From: Doug Mehus <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

>With this logic, anyone (or any company) would have the right to steal any
>other intellectual property with no consequence.  Your argument holds no
>water.
>
>Gene Marsh

<--- I'm not a legal expert by any means, but since when does a three letter TLD created in an illegitimate alternate root have any legal standing? And how is it considered "intellectual property"? I believe Steve's point was well put on every aspect and his is in fact the camel. Yours is elderly woman with incontinence.

(Okay, so those were probably the weirdest metaphors I have made. ;-)

Best,
Doug

- --
Doug Mehus
[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: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:12:31 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Dear All,
we clearly have to understand where we go in here. The international naming 
space has been created in 1977 and developed until now with a fork in 1983 
with the identification of the numeric names specificity to support the 
X.121 recommendation.

In 1984 the internet naming space has been included into that plan, making 
the IANA TLD file an ARPA sub-file of the intl data file which listed all 
the public/private services registries and descriptions.

The terms and conditions where:

- - on the international side: the global agreement of the digital 
sovereignty of the concerned States, enforced through the ITU treaty where 
the name space operator (Tymnet) was operating by delegation of the USA, 
through an FCC valued added carrier licence.

- - on the Internet side: they were defined in Oct. 1984 by the RFC 920 which 
gives the constraints of all the Internet connections with other network, 
private or public. These constraints include the way to create new TLDs, 
necessarily by the global international naming authority, which obviously 
could only accept them if they did not conflict among the interrelated 
packet switch networks.

When ICANN was created it was only to manage the Legacy (that sub-file). 
The claim and constraints of ICANN have been clearly established in the 
ICP-3 document which roots the legitimacy of the ICANN right to manage the 
IANA file into the RFC 920 (the rules) and FTC 921 (the practical issues) 
of 1984. It is to be noted that ICP-3 calls for experimentation and 
acknowledges that it is part of the internet normal development, and sets 
precise limitations to such experimentations (what dot-root does respect). 
This is important since the 1984 introduction of the Internet namespace 
into the international namespace was initially on an free experimental basis.

Alphanumeric names usage has mostly continued only on the Internet 
intra/extranet, the numeric name space (data and telephone) being a leading 
application for a while. But this does not means that the others national 
and private shares of the namespace have been given to the US Internet 
project. Nor than other applications than the DNS may/do not use their own 
portions of the namespace. Many does, including the non-legacy TLDs (open 
roots, ITU DNICs, etc) an din different ways than the DNS.1 (all the 
possibilities offered even on the Internet by the schemes).

The Internet has well established its international legitimacy over the 
legacy namespace in respecting the 1984 consensus for 18 years - as 
perfectly did the ccTLDs (except they quite did not animated and 
represented their local communities). The commercial use of "com" and "net" 
was questionable from the authors point of view, but the real owner (at 
that time WorldCom through BT) did not made any claim against Verisign. 
When ICANN introduced 7 new TLDs in 2000 it certainly violated the 1984 
consensus concerning ".biz". But the others were legitimate as they 
respected the criteria (good support and likely more than 500 DNs).

I have had no time reading yet Milton's proposition. But in essence it is a 
GWB's like appropriation of the namespace, exactly like Iraq and it will 
receive the same response from the global community. We understand that USA 
wants to become the world government and that Americans wants to rule the 
world, selling or auctioning what belongs to everyone - may be the daily 
need of $ 1.2 billion a day from the rest of the world explains that. But, 
I am sorry, this would be here pure plundering.

The need is not to satisfy the financial needs of some (in addition in a 
money losing way). It is not to permit the intellectual ruling of the world 
by some or another one. The need is to permit this networks (data, 
telephone, home, city, etc ) to develop in harmony and stability with no 
mutual blocking and in responding the need of the users. This may only 
result from a reality based consensus, ie concertation (European meaning) 
based on experimentation.

Someone has a need, he implements a test response not violating anyone's 
right or challenging any other parallel test (we are polite grown up 
people). He demonstrates everyone that he does not hurt anything (ICP-3), 
that there is a real need through the response of a significant amount of 
test users when compared to the proposition basis, and that he has got a 
consensual approval of the overall community. Then it stays. Otherwise the 
project dies or is revived by someone else.

Let be clear about this. If ICANN is not able to warranty and help this 
process under the sole US Gov authority in a way everyone is happy with, 
this will de facto switch to the ITU as experience shown that the 
independence of interoperated network system is better protected by 190 
sovereign States proceeding by consensus than by one proceeding by opaque 
decisions favoring its own industry.

I certainly accept that ICANN can start its own TLD destruction war. That 
it tested its destruction capacity against the US small industry interests 
in the .biz case. I am quite certain it will not win it, because ICANN is 
not a world government, but mostly because it has absolutely no grip on the 
users.

So, let forget the dispute and let enter concertation. Our common interest 
is not to dispute among ourselves, but to work out the best common 
relations with the lower support (Telecoms) and upper protection (Gov) layers.

All this looks to me childish. Some had not the guts to go for it and to 
try best serve the users, so now they only want to make money and 
appropriate/steal what other debugged. What was the name of these people 
from the North who did that in the South after the Secession War?

Now why 40 a year and 30/10. EIther it is a need and it must be addressed 
appropriately after serious testing, or it is not and there is no reason to 
force dead born projects.

My 1.8 eurocent.
jfc

On 08:57 20/03/03, Doug Mehus said:

> >With this logic, anyone (or any company) would have the right to steal any
> >other intellectual property with no consequence.  Your argument holds no
> >water.
> >
> >Gene Marsh
>
><--- I'm not a legal expert by any means, but since when does a three 
>letter TLD created in an illegitimate alternate root have any legal 
>standing? And how is it considered "intellectual property"? I believe 
>Steve's point was well put on every aspect and his is in fact the camel. 
>Yours is elderly woman with incontinence.
>
>(Okay, so those were probably the weirdest metaphors I have made. ;-)
>
>Best,
>Doug
>
>--
>Doug Mehus
>[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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.461 / Virus Database: 260 - Release Date: 10/03/03

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 08:45:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Doug - you must be new here.  John knows what he's talking about.  ICANN
is not the only root which registered tlds.  There are many other roots
which have a greater selection of tlds then icann.

And these alternative roots are havong an impact on the icann root - which
see

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

So you see ICANN is not the only game in town.  And they have been loosing
market share - so it's the game no one want to play anymore

regards
joe baptista

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

  Website Not Found http://nic.etc/
  we have alot of these in the inclusive namespace
  the more things change - the more they remain the same

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Doug Mehus wrote:

> Hi John:
>
> I haven't read the entire white paper, but I am about 1/3 of the way through, and from what I understand, Dr. Mueller proposes that:
>
> * 40 new Top-Level Domains (TLDs) be introduced every year, beginning in 2005
> * 30 of those spots will be allocated for commercial interests
> * 10 are reserved for non-commercial interests and such
>
> This has nothing to do with second-level domain names (example: microsoft.com). Dr. Mueller and Mr. Knight mean that forty new domain name *extensions* (examples: .com, .net, .org, .info, etc.) be introduced and each one would be operated by a Registry. For instance, the World Health Organization could operate .health if it introduced that TLD for consideration to ICANN, Google could operate .blog (since its Blogger product is the predominant one), etc. Dr. Mueller does NOT propose auctioning off existing second-level domain names. When he speaks about auctions, he means that if there are two companies vying for the same domain name *extension*, the two would go into an auction to see who would operate the *extension* (example: .web) Registry.
>
> So far, I have agreed with every point in this white paper as it does not advocate getting rid of ICANN, but rather, it outlines a clear and precise policy for adding new TLDs to the domain name system root. Dr. Mueller and Mr. Knight are to be commended for the sheer brilliance of this paper. Well done you two!
>
> Best,
> Doug
>
> --
> Doug Mehus
> [email-masked]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released
>
> Please explain why that is fair to auction off what is potentially the fruits of someone else's labor.
>
> Some of us have been operating registries and have been supporting TLDs in
> for almost 9 years now. Why can't we have the property that we have worked
> hard to develop?
>
> You get NO support from me on this. Only the rich will be able to bid on this. My company
> has already spent upwards of $300,000 on our investment. I should be able to protect that
> investment by not having my business product stolen from me and auctioned off to some
> fat cat.
>
> Your proprsal is a non-starter.
>
> Next....
> --
> 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, 20 Mar 2003 08:49:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

No - the proper thing to do with government officials is print the email
on stiff paper - crumple it up - and shove it up their assholes as you
hang them high at the end of a hemp rope.  I'm certain a few hanging would
get us better government.

regards
joe baptista

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

    iRADIO.nomad          http://iradio.nomad/

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Doug Mehus wrote:

> Just a suggestion you may want to consider here. I'm sure Secretary Evans, Assistant Secretary Victory, and COTR Handley do not need to read every reply you send to the GNSO's General Assembly forum. Heck, they are probably already on this forum so any CC:s you send only add to their amount of mail and make personal responses to other unrelated requests not possible because they are busy weeding through their mailing list mail -- not to mention the fact they each receive tonnes of spam.
>
> The courteous thing to do would be to e-mail them privately, and ask if they would like you to continue sending carbon copies of all your replies to the GA mailing list. :)
>
> Best,
> Doug
>
> --
> Doug Mehus
> [email-masked]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> To: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>; "Don Evans" <[email-masked]>; "Kathy Smith" <[email-masked]>; "Nancy J. Victory" <[email-masked]>; "Robin Layton" <[email-masked]>; "cathy Handley" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released
>
> John and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,
>
>   I must agree with John here.  Tha last time around the Lottery
> process produced poor stuarts of TLD's as registries.  A auction
> has little or even less of a chance to produce better results.
> --
> 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, 20 Mar 2003 09:46:41 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Posting Suspension(s)

Regarding http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc12/msg00770.html
Per the published list moderation guidelines Joe Baptista's
[[email-masked]] posting rights will be suspended from March 20,
2003 until April 3, 2003.

Regarding http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc12/msg00795.html
Per the published list moderation guidelines Joe Baptista's
[[email-masked]] posting rights will be suspended an additional 30
days from April 3, 2003 until May 3, 2003.

Rules of Order;	
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html

General GNSO Mailing List Information;
http://www.dnso.org/mailinglists.html

Regards,

           -rwr

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 09:50:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Steven Heath wrote:

> What right did these companies have to operate their own TLD's and/or
> alternative root(s)?
>
> None.

TLD databases are covered by copyright law ... we've defended in the past
successfully - and we will defend again if necessary.

regards
joe baptista

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

 Old Time Radio http://OTR.ind |
                               | on the inclusive namespace

- --
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 #1638
*************************