Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1643
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, March 24 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1643

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:31:51 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GWB (Golf War Bis) impact on Rio

under the circumstances I would suggest our Members in Rio to be carefull 
in their motions and debates. We are concerned by the internet 
infrastructure, its security and most of all its stability. We should avoid 
to commit our future through votes or debates we would not support under 
normal circumstances (ccTLDs, IDNs, ALAC, ERC).

"Business as usual", "Show must go on" are good formula. But they not only 
means continuing carrying business, but to carry it as we would usually 
carry it. The GWB should not impact the Rio meeting in any way. Fear or 
excitement are ill advisors. But they may help better listen and understand 
each others.

This way, the GWB could help: figuring what is important, remembering what 
ICANN is about. An open to all international structure. Good and productive 
meeting to all of you!
jfc

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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:50:34 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] GWB (Golf War Bis) impact on Rio

- --part1_1e3.520bc91.2bb0834a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I fully agree. Nothing should be treated as normal business when a war is 
concerned. Specially one that can and will have grave implications for years 
to come on many fronts such as international rule of law for example, as well 
as the involvement of IDN regions of the world and their sense of perception 
of justice and  fair play. This will determine whether their active 
participation will takes place through alienation Vs co-operation, to name a 
few.

I also agree that this Rio conference should be an opportunity to help make 
us better listen and understand each others, but that can only happen if the 
desire to want to understand is there and the recognition that one thinks one 
can learn more.

While I hope that to be the case. I believe we can all agree that hope alone 
never accomplished anything whereas action based on a constructive vision 
does. 

Khaled Fattal 
Minc Chairman

In a message dated 3/24/2003 12:49:54 PM GMT Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> 
> 
> under the circumstances I would suggest our Members in Rio to be carefull 
> in their motions and debates. We are concerned by the internet 
> infrastructure, its security and most of all its stability. We should avoid 
> 
> to commit our future through votes or debates we would not support under 
> normal circumstances (ccTLDs, IDNs, ALAC, ERC).
> 
> "Business as usual", "Show must go on" are good formula. But they not only 
> means continuing carrying business, but to carry it as we would usually 
> carry it. The GWB should not impact the Rio meeting in any way. Fear or 
> excitement are ill advisors. But they may help better listen and understand 
> 
> each others.
> 
> This way, the GWB could help: figuring what is important, remembering what 
> ICANN is about. An open to all international structure. Good and productive 
> 
> meeting to all of you!
> jfc
> 
> 

- --part1_1e3.520bc91.2bb0834a_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">I fully agree. Nothing should be treated as normal bus=
iness when a war is concerned. Specially one that can and will have grave im=
plications for years to come on many fronts such as international rule of la=
w for example, as well as the involvement of IDN regions of the world and th=
eir sense of perception of justice and&nbsp; fair play. This will determine=20=
whether their active participation will takes place through alienation Vs co=
- -operation, to name a few.<BR>
<BR>
I also agree that this Rio conference should be an opportunity to help make=20=
us better listen and understand each others, but that can only happen if the=
 desire to want to understand is there and the recognition that one thinks o=
ne can learn more.<BR>
<BR>
While I hope that to be the case. I believe we can all agree that hope alone=
 never accomplished anything whereas action based on a constructive vision d=
oes. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Khaled Fattal <BR>
Minc Chairman<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 3/24/2003 12:49:54 PM GMT Standard Time, jefsey@club-inte=
rnet.fr writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><BR>
<BR>
under the circumstances I would suggest our Members in Rio to be carefull <B=
R>
in their motions and debates. We are concerned by the internet <BR>
infrastructure, its security and most of all its stability. We should avoid=20=
<BR>
to commit our future through votes or debates we would not support under <BR=
>
normal circumstances (ccTLDs, IDNs, ALAC, ERC).<BR>
<BR>
"Business as usual", "Show must go on" are good formula. But they not only <=
BR>
means continuing carrying business, but to carry it as we would usually <BR>
carry it. The GWB should not impact the Rio meeting in any way. Fear or <BR>
excitement are ill advisors. But they may help better listen and understand=20=
<BR>
each others.<BR>
<BR>
This way, the GWB could help: figuring what is important, remembering what <=
BR>
ICANN is about. An open to all international structure. Good and productive=20=
<BR>
meeting to all of you!<BR>
jfc<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_1e3.520bc91.2bb0834a_boundary--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:58:37 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:0 .ARPA...ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE...IP address registries...$676,000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0662_01C2F1F4.5231B9E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

        http://www.icann.org/financials/financial-report-fpe-31dec02.htm

        IP address registries

        =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
     676,000 857,000=20

As long as people use the 0:0 .ARPA address space, they will be subject =
to the=20
http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ietf.org//mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg18554.html
From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
"Vint Cerf was working the Levers of Power at ARPA."
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200212/msg0=
0058.html
From: Dave Farber [email-masked]
"I still have the button and still have the memories..."
http://www.bizforward.com/wdc/issues/2002-07/forward40/myforward40.shtml
by Vint Cerf
Senior vice president of Internet Architecture and Technology,
WorldCom
"It gets hard to pick out people who have a lot of impact. The people =
who have money left [are important]."
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

- ------=_NextPart_000_0662_01C2F1F4.5231B9E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 =
face=3DArial size=3D2=20
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF">
<DIV>
<TABLE width=3D"80%" border=3D0>
  <TBODY>
  <TR>
    <TD>
      <BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
        <P><FONT size=3D2><A=20
        =
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/financials/financial-report-fpe-31dec02.htm"=
>http://www.icann.org/financials/financial-report-fpe-31dec02.htm</A></FO=
NT></P>
        <P>IP address registries</P>
        =
<P>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</P></BLOCKQUOTE></TD>
    <TD align=3Dright>676,000</TD>
    <TD align=3Dright>857,000</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
<DIV>As long as people use the 0:0 .ARPA address space, they will be =
subject to=20
the <BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers">http://www.iana.org/a=
ssignments/as-numbers</A><BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space">http://www.ia=
na.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space</A><BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.ietf.org//mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg18554.html">htt=
p://www.ietf.org//mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg18554.html</A><BR>From:=20
Bob Braden &lt;<A =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>&gt;<BR>"Vint=20
Cerf was working the Levers of Power at ARPA."<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200=
212/msg00058.html">http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting=
- -people/200212/msg00058.html</A><BR>From:=20
Dave Farber <A href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A><BR>"I =
still=20
have the button and still have the memories..."<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.bizforward.com/wdc/issues/2002-07/forward40/myforward4=
0.shtml">http://www.bizforward.com/wdc/issues/2002-07/forward40/myforward=
40.shtml</A><BR>by=20
Vint Cerf<BR>Senior vice president of Internet Architecture and=20
Technology,<BR>WorldCom<BR>"It gets hard to pick out people who have a =
lot of=20
impact. The people who have money left [are=20
important]."<BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</DIV></FONT></FONT><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0662_01C2F1F4.5231B9E0--

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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:12:48 -0600
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

What about the right of a nation over the ccTLD that corresponds to it
(provided that the ccTLD in question in fact corresponds to a nation-state).

As Prfr. Froomkin put it in one of his papers (please note that this is not
an exact quote), sovereign nations may come to hold the position that
control over the ccTLD assigned to them is an "appurtenance" of their
sovereignty. Spain and Colombia have, for example.

I do beleive that the right of sovereign nations, and other subjects of
public international law, to control their ccTLD should be acknowledged.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Eric
Dierker
Enviado el: Sábado, 22 de Marzo de 2003 06:24 PM
Para: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Asunto: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

I can show you!  Try,  it.com.vn
I do not buy into the TLD garbage but I buy into ccTLD market.
We must back it up with secondary market contributers.
e
> At 04:08 20/03/03, [email-masked] wrote:
>>Please show me only one case where your sole rights in a TLD was
>>acknowledged.
>
> No one has right in an TLD, as no one as right into a nation.
> Exept to some extend its registrants.
>
> That ICANN has accepted an absurd economical model
> where people buy their own name or lose them, does not
> change anything to this.
>
> Please eread RFC 920 and 1591.
> jfc
>
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:01:30 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

I, of course, argued that no such right exists.  For it to exist it must
have a source.  The name is a convenience created by a private standards
body and used on a private network.  How could it become a subject of
public international law?  No one has ever been able to explain this to me
except to say they think it would be a nice result.  But to be legal it
has to have a legal mechanism.  What is it?

On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:

> What about the right of a nation over the ccTLD that corresponds to it
> (provided that the ccTLD in question in fact corresponds to a nation-state).
> 
> As Prfr. Froomkin put it in one of his papers (please note that this is not
> an exact quote), sovereign nations may come to hold the position that
> control over the ccTLD assigned to them is an "appurtenance" of their
> sovereignty. Spain and Colombia have, for example.
> 
> I do beleive that the right of sovereign nations, and other subjects of
> public international law, to control their ccTLD should be acknowledged.
> 
> 
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Eric
> Dierker
> Enviado el: Sábado, 22 de Marzo de 2003 06:24 PM
> Para: [email-masked]
> CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Asunto: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released
> 
> 
> I can show you!  Try,  it.com.vn
> I do not buy into the TLD garbage but I buy into ccTLD market.
> We must back it up with secondary market contributers.
> e
> > At 04:08 20/03/03, [email-masked] wrote:
> >>Please show me only one case where your sole rights in a TLD was
> >>acknowledged.
> >
> > No one has right in an TLD, as no one as right into a nation.
> > Exept to some extend its registrants.
> >
> > That ICANN has accepted an absurd economical model
> > where people buy their own name or lose them, does not
> > change anything to this.
> >
> > Please eread RFC 920 and 1591.
> > jfc
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:09:33 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Dear All,
(sorry for leaving the comet tail but it seems right in this case)

ccTLDs are sovereign - this ain't comin from no prophet just an ordinary man.
When we use the Internet to shelter children, when we use it to teach and help,
and when we promote international freedom and understanding, we shall be free,
those of us in the trenches must stand straight and walk proud.

I can only speak for programs in Mexico and Vietnam and right here in my
temporary home of San Diego and for my wife Hang Nguyen Dierker and my wonderful
children throughout these places.

A ccTLD must stand for the Independence, Freedom and Happiness of the country in
which it is located.
I am proud to work with groups that see this as a primary importance.

We must rid our Internet of regimes and empower the people.  Dotcommoners just
like Iraqi people and Afghanistan's and Mexicans and Vietnamese must start to
take responsibility for their own destiny and Information Technology is the best
way to do it at this time.

Hoo Rah for the ccTLDs

Eric Dierker
Interglobal strategist
us 858 974 3709

Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:

> What about the right of a nation over the ccTLD that corresponds to it
> (provided that the ccTLD in question in fact corresponds to a nation-state).
>
> As Prfr. Froomkin put it in one of his papers (please note that this is not
> an exact quote), sovereign nations may come to hold the position that
> control over the ccTLD assigned to them is an "appurtenance" of their
> sovereignty. Spain and Colombia have, for example.
>
> I do beleive that the right of sovereign nations, and other subjects of
> public international law, to control their ccTLD should be acknowledged.
>
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Eric
> Dierker
> Enviado el: Sábado, 22 de Marzo de 2003 06:24 PM
> Para: [email-masked]
> CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Asunto: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released
>
> I can show you!  Try,  it.com.vn
> I do not buy into the TLD garbage but I buy into ccTLD market.
> We must back it up with secondary market contributers.
> e
> > At 04:08 20/03/03, [email-masked] wrote:
> >>Please show me only one case where your sole rights in a TLD was
> >>acknowledged.
> >
> > No one has right in an TLD, as no one as right into a nation.
> > Exept to some extend its registrants.
> >
> > That ICANN has accepted an absurd economical model
> > where people buy their own name or lose them, does not
> > change anything to this.
> >
> > Please eread RFC 920 and 1591.
> > jfc
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:00:03 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

> What about the right of a nation over the ccTLD that corresponds to it

Where does this "right" come from?

Do they have the same right to the appearance of their name, or abbreviation,
at any other level of the hierarchy?
( hint: http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html)

If I establish mx.johnberryhill.com, then must I delegate that 3LD to Mexico?

Why is the argument any different at the root level than it is at the level
above johnberryhill.com?

> As Prfr. Froomkin put it in one of his papers (please note that this is not
> an exact quote), sovereign nations may come to hold the position that
> control over the ccTLD assigned to them is an "appurtenance" of their
> sovereignty. Spain and Colombia have, for example.

I may come to hold the position that my neighbor's car belongs to me.  Only
in the minds of two-year-old children does a strong desire transform into a
perceived right of ownership.

> I do beleive that the right of sovereign nations, and other subjects of
> public international law, to control their ccTLD should be acknowledged.

Yes.  Let those sovereign nations operate their own root servers and their
own root zone files, and then they can exercise sovereignty over them.
Nobody is stopping them.

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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:11:29 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

> I do beleive that the right of sovereign nations, and other
> subjects of public international law, to control their ccTLD 
> should be acknowledged.
 
I agree - wasn't this the intention in the first place?
 
- -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: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:37:41 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Joe, et al,

There is no reason why this should not happen simultaneously.
Both points are well taken.
It is like being a Buddhist Christian - they are not mutually exclusive.

e

Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
>
> > What about the right of a nation over the ccTLD that corresponds to it
> > (provided that the ccTLD in question in fact corresponds to a nation-state).
> >
> > As Prfr. Froomkin put it in one of his papers (please note that this is not
> > an exact quote), sovereign nations may come to hold the position that
> > control over the ccTLD assigned to them is an "appurtenance" of their
> > sovereignty. Spain and Colombia have, for example.
> >
> > I do beleive that the right of sovereign nations, and other subjects of
> > public international law, to control their ccTLD should be acknowledged.
>
> Nations have no default right to cctlds.  I have no idea why we have all
> fallen for this nonsense.  If a nation wants it's own tld then it should
> set it up.  The cctlds belong to the managers who recieved the assignments
> from postel.  Leave it that way and create tlds for nations who want them.
>
> regards
> joe baptista
>
> Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god
>
>      http://latinos.nomad/
>
> >
> >
> > Atentamente, Regards
> > Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> >
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Eric
> > Dierker
> > Enviado el: Sábado, 22 de Marzo de 2003 06:24 PM
> > Para: [email-masked]
> > CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Asunto: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released
> >
> >
> > I can show you!  Try,  it.com.vn
> > I do not buy into the TLD garbage but I buy into ccTLD market.
> > We must back it up with secondary market contributers.
> > e
> > > At 04:08 20/03/03, [email-masked] wrote:
> > >>Please show me only one case where your sole rights in a TLD was
> > >>acknowledged.
> > >
> > > No one has right in an TLD, as no one as right into a nation.
> > > Exept to some extend its registrants.
> > >
> > > That ICANN has accepted an absurd economical model
> > > where people buy their own name or lose them, does not
> > > change anything to this.
> > >
> > > Please eread RFC 920 and 1591.
> > > jfc
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> >

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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:48:01 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Professor Froomkin et al,

In law it is my limited understanding that we follow the authority as such;
1. Written statute;
2. Precedence
3. Contract
And if all that is a contradictory mess - we look to the course and conduct
between the parties and the custom and practice of the trade to determine the
rules applied in an IRAC (issue, rule, application and conclusion)
manner.
Of course I am not a lawyer although I have practised and taught in the past, it
would seem that applying these principals would lead us to the conclusion, barring
well based legal argument to the contrary, that these are matters of sovereignty.
If you have any of the foregoing that is contrary, I would be most interested.
It is poor to argue that a void of law leads to a void of rights.

Eric

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> I, of course, argued that no such right exists.  For it to exist it must
> have a source.  The name is a convenience created by a private standards
> body and used on a private network.  How could it become a subject of
> public international law?  No one has ever been able to explain this to me
> except to say they think it would be a nice result.  But to be legal it
> has to have a legal mechanism.  What is it?
>
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
>
> > What about the right of a nation over the ccTLD that corresponds to it
> > (provided that the ccTLD in question in fact corresponds to a nation-state).
> >
> > As Prfr. Froomkin put it in one of his papers (please note that this is not
> > an exact quote), sovereign nations may come to hold the position that
> > control over the ccTLD assigned to them is an "appurtenance" of their
> > sovereignty. Spain and Colombia have, for example.
> >
> > I do beleive that the right of sovereign nations, and other subjects of
> > public international law, to control their ccTLD should be acknowledged.
> >
> >
> > Atentamente, Regards
> > Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> >
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Eric
> > Dierker
> > Enviado el: Sábado, 22 de Marzo de 2003 06:24 PM
> > Para: [email-masked]
> > CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Asunto: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released
> >
> >
> > I can show you!  Try,  it.com.vn
> > I do not buy into the TLD garbage but I buy into ccTLD market.
> > We must back it up with secondary market contributers.
> > e
> > > At 04:08 20/03/03, [email-masked] wrote:
> > >>Please show me only one case where your sole rights in a TLD was
> > >>acknowledged.
> > >
> > > No one has right in an TLD, as no one as right into a nation.
> > > Exept to some extend its registrants.
> > >
> > > That ICANN has accepted an absurd economical model
> > > where people buy their own name or lose them, does not
> > > change anything to this.
> > >
> > > Please eread RFC 920 and 1591.
> > > jfc
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's warm here.<--

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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:44:40 -0600
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Eric, I tip my hat to you and Ross.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

Asuntos Jurídicos Internacionales y Especiales
Legal International and Special Affairs
BANCODEMÉXICO
(55)5237-2328

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Enviado el: Lunes, 24 de Marzo de 2003 03:48 PM
Para: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
CC: Rodrigo Orenday Serrato; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Asunto: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Professor Froomkin et al,

In law it is my limited understanding that we follow the authority as such;
1. Written statute;
2. Precedence
3. Contract
And if all that is a contradictory mess - we look to the course and conduct
between the parties and the custom and practice of the trade to determine
the
rules applied in an IRAC (issue, rule, application and conclusion)
manner.
Of course I am not a lawyer although I have practised and taught in the
past, it
would seem that applying these principals would lead us to the conclusion,
barring
well based legal argument to the contrary, that these are matters of
sovereignty.
If you have any of the foregoing that is contrary, I would be most
interested.
It is poor to argue that a void of law leads to a void of rights.

Eric

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> I, of course, argued that no such right exists.  For it to exist it must
> have a source.  The name is a convenience created by a private standards
> body and used on a private network.  How could it become a subject of
> public international law?  No one has ever been able to explain this to me
> except to say they think it would be a nice result.  But to be legal it
> has to have a legal mechanism.  What is it?
>
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
>
> > What about the right of a nation over the ccTLD that corresponds to it
> > (provided that the ccTLD in question in fact corresponds to a
nation-state).
> >
> > As Prfr. Froomkin put it in one of his papers (please note that this is
not
> > an exact quote), sovereign nations may come to hold the position that
> > control over the ccTLD assigned to them is an "appurtenance" of their
> > sovereignty. Spain and Colombia have, for example.
> >
> > I do beleive that the right of sovereign nations, and other subjects of
> > public international law, to control their ccTLD should be acknowledged.
> >
> >
> > Atentamente, Regards
> > Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> >
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Eric
> > Dierker
> > Enviado el: Sábado, 22 de Marzo de 2003 06:24 PM
> > Para: [email-masked]
> > CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Asunto: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released
> >
> >
> > I can show you!  Try,  it.com.vn
> > I do not buy into the TLD garbage but I buy into ccTLD market.
> > We must back it up with secondary market contributers.
> > e
> > > At 04:08 20/03/03, [email-masked] wrote:
> > >>Please show me only one case where your sole rights in a TLD was
> > >>acknowledged.
> > >
> > > No one has right in an TLD, as no one as right into a nation.
> > > Exept to some extend its registrants.
> > >
> > > That ICANN has accepted an absurd economical model
> > > where people buy their own name or lose them, does not
> > > change anything to this.
> > >
> > > Please eread RFC 920 and 1591.
> > > jfc
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's warm here.<--

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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:03:06 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Absolutely,
But as a caveat, they should do both and demand their right over their existing
ccTLD.
That right extends from DOC rulings that ICANN assignments are appropriate and
adopting pre-conditioned
assignments from the predecessors of ICANN and etc. etc. and custom and practice
over the last several years and no contrary law and BTAs and WTO and WIPO and the
UN charter.

Sometimes lawyers, who are trained in law must look to life to find it, not the
other way around.
If you want some ideas on this look to dots and NICs of EU, CA, US, AU, CN.

This want of clarification in a non statutory rule by legal professor types is
simply red herrings in a sea filled with obviousness.  One day will go to court
perhaps and the Judge will ask "how have you been operating over the last five to
ten years" and you will answer " there is no law on that your honor" and he will
say "sit down and have your client answer the question because that is the rule
in this matter". That is real life.

Eric

"John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." wrote:

> > What about the right of a nation over the ccTLD that corresponds to it
>
> Where does this "right" come from?
>
> Do they have the same right to the appearance of their name, or abbreviation,
> at any other level of the hierarchy?
> ( hint: http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html)
>
> If I establish mx.johnberryhill.com, then must I delegate that 3LD to Mexico?
>
> Why is the argument any different at the root level than it is at the level
> above johnberryhill.com?
>
> > As Prfr. Froomkin put it in one of his papers (please note that this is not
> > an exact quote), sovereign nations may come to hold the position that
> > control over the ccTLD assigned to them is an "appurtenance" of their
> > sovereignty. Spain and Colombia have, for example.
>
> I may come to hold the position that my neighbor's car belongs to me.  Only
> in the minds of two-year-old children does a strong desire transform into a
> perceived right of ownership.
>
> > I do beleive that the right of sovereign nations, and other subjects of
> > public international law, to control their ccTLD should be acknowledged.
>
> Yes.  Let those sovereign nations operate their own root servers and their
> own root zone files, and then they can exercise sovereignty over them.
> Nobody is stopping them.
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1643
*************************