Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1644
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, March 25 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1644

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

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:39:17 -0500
From: "Gene Marsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

>
> 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.
>

Oh, I don't know, John.  There are plenty of three-year-olds, Democrats and
ICANN operatives who have the same problem.  Isn't this analogous to the
ICANN view of consensus?

Gene...

- --
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 18:13:33 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

I am afraid you are confusing national law and international law (and
international public law with international private law). What you have
written is (sort of, in a very basic and oversimplified fashion) the rule
for national law. But national law does not (much) extend beyond the
state's borders.

Public International law is quite different.  Simplifying, the sources of
international are broadly considered to be those found in Article 38 of
the statute of the international court of justice (cf.
http://www.un.org/Overview/Statute/chapter2.html), to wit:

<blockquote>

a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing
rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;

b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as
law;

c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;

d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the
teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations,
as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

</blockquote>

I cannot prove to you a negative, but I have searched high and low -- I am
writing an article about this very issue -- and it is my contention to you
that not a single one of these four sources exists to support the
proposition that a state "owns" the ccTLD whose TLD is identical to the
ISO country code associated with that state as a matter of public
international law. [It cannot be international private law as there is
neither treaty nor contract to support this claim.] Note, in this context,
that the ISO is itself a private body.  If the matter is so obvious,
surely someone could come up with a citation prior to the GAC's
declaration that this rule was already a fact?

Of course, a state that does not already control its cognate ccTLD could
apply its national rules to take the ccTLD from its domiciliary [since the
delegee of the ccTLD must be resident]. In the absence of some principle
of public international law lodging the ownership of the ccTLD in the
state a priori, the state must do this act in conformity with its own
rules: in some places that means it can expropriate at will, in others it
could threaten to torture the delegee, but in still others it may have to
follow due process and/or offer compensation.

The significance of the debate we are having is that, were it the case
that there were an existing rule of public international law which stated
that ownership of the ccTLD was (always?) (inalienable?) vested in the
state, even a civilized state would not need to observe domestic due
process, and would never need to provide compensation, but could simply
take the ccTLD directly.

There are indeed rights here, but they are rights that sound in
international private law: the rights of the ccTLD delegate to the quiet
enjoyment of his agreement with IANA during good behavior without
interference from outsiders to the relationship.

I hope this has helped you understand why you have used false premises to
reason to an incorrect conclusion.

On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 [email-masked] wrote:

> 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.<--
> 
> 

- -- 
		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 18:10:59 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

> And if all that is a contradictory mess - we look to the course and conduct
> between the parties

Very good.  Now, take a hypothetical:

Let's say that Country X does not control the corresponding ccTLD in a zone
file under the control of a private party who owns a root server not located
in Country X.  Let's say that Country X never has had control of that ccTLD.
As between Country X and the root server operator, the course of dealing and
conduct of the parties is pretty well established - i.e. the ccTLD does not
belong to Country X.

> 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.

Precisely.  Country X is sovereign over all within its territorial control.
The root server is not located there, nor is the root server operator, nor is
the zone file.  How do you propose they exercise their "right"?  Invade?

Oh, you want Country A, the home country of the root server operator, to
compel him/her, at gunpoint if necessary, to make a change in the zone file.
Do I have this correct?  And if the root server operator refuses to obey,
what sort of punishment do you propose Country A should visit upon him/her?

And Country A should do this.... why?

> 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.

And it is pretty poor to argue that countries all over the world gain an
ownership interest in data entries in the memory of my computer.

- --
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 16:18:57 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Doctor,

This dang post is so good it requires response and dignity.  I put on my stupid
reading glasses and reread it.
May I respond in kind and follow your thoughts below?

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

> > And if all that is a contradictory mess - we look to the course and conduct
> > between the parties
>
> Very good.  Now, take a hypothetical:
>
> Let's say that Country X does not control the corresponding ccTLD in a zone
> file under the control of a private party who owns a root server not located
> in Country X.  Let's say that Country X never has had control of that ccTLD.
> As between Country X and the root server operator, the course of dealing and
> conduct of the parties is pretty well established - i.e. the ccTLD does not
> belong to Country X.
>

Darn conundrum. When this "hypothetical" occurs ( .AU ) then we see the results.
It is called redelegation.
Now should a country be so ignorant as to put all their eggs in one basket and
not at least dualise like Leah offers, Jim, Joe and Jeff recommend then they
suffer from their own ignorance.

>
> > 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.
>
> Precisely.  Country X is sovereign over all within its territorial control.
> The root server is not located there, nor is the root server operator, nor is
> the zone file.  How do you propose they exercise their "right"?  Invade?
>

A group I work with is dividing the root structure in order to provide security
and integrity and marketability for that country.  If we have learned one thing
over the past five years it is that Lawyers, Judges or technicians cannot run
what we call the Internet.  It requires strategists with knowledge in all areas.
The DOC is a failure and ICANN is corrupt.

>
> Oh, you want Country A, the home country of the root server operator, to
> compel him/her, at gunpoint if necessary, to make a change in the zone file.
> Do I have this correct?  And if the root server operator refuses to obey,
> what sort of punishment do you propose Country A should visit upon him/her?
>
> And Country A should do this.... why?
>

A combination of finance, economies of scale, politics and law and national
security and custom and practice and practicality leading to security,
reliability and access feed into this equation.  Perhaps they should hire Joe,
Jim Jeff or Leah.  Peter was fond of this idea for backup redundancy.

>
> > 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.
>
> And it is pretty poor to argue that countries all over the world gain an
> ownership interest in data entries in the memory of my computer.

There is no right a proper excuse for any NIC to farm out databases. Period end
of story.
I am furious with the violations of privacy in this regard.  The DOC and US
congress is most horrible in this matter - but we forgive them for they know not
what they do.

Eric

- --
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 20:03:15 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 [email-masked] wrote:

> It is called redelegation.

Or, rather, "tortious interference with contractual relations".

- -- 
		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: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:08:07 +1200
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > > And if all that is a contradictory mess - we look to the 
> course and conduct
> > > between the parties
> >
> > Very good.  Now, take a hypothetical:
> >
> > Let's say that Country X does not control the corresponding 
> ccTLD in a zone
> > file under the control of a private party who owns a root 
> server not located
> > in Country X.  Let's say that Country X never has had 
> control of that ccTLD.
> > As between Country X and the root server operator, the 
> course of dealing and
> > conduct of the parties is pretty well established - i.e. 
> the ccTLD does not
> > belong to Country X.
> >
> 
> Darn conundrum. When this "hypothetical" occurs ( .AU ) then 
> we see the results.
> It is called redelegation.

Really? OK, I know that some people get confused with country A and country
X talk so lets use .au to compare to John Berryhill's hypothetical outline.

Lets see, did .au reside in Australia?

Yes... ok, that's different than Johns outline

OK, was .au run by a resident of Australia?

Yes... ok, that's different than Johns outline

Hmm, ok, was the .au name servers etc located in country?

Yes... ok, that's different than Johns outline

OK Eric, can you please explain, using well written English, why you cited
.au as an example of Johns hypothetical case?

Steven Heath
.nz news & views
www.news.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: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:33:27 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

The legal mechanism is quite simple. There are 13 pieces of gear (iron) systems spread around the world.
They are operated by the I* society insiders. Some of the widely-used 32-bit, toy, legacy, DNS software
has those 13 pieces of gear, more or less hard-wired into the configuration information. People are not prone
to change it, and if they do, the I* society thugs (like a labor union) strong-arm them into changing back, with
the fear their packets will be black-holed at key points on the amateur-run Internet back-bone. The legal
mechanism is that the people who OWN and OPERATE those 13 pieces of gear, dance in a tigh-knit circle
pointing to each other and to their cronies as the source for keeping out anyone they have not approved. They
use their influence from, in and around, various government agencies (and some of the 13 are government agencies)
to portray to the average netizen that some higher-level tank-driving missle-tossing government official is backing
them in their quest to control all of the network resources, cash-flow, etc. The roots of the club run deep into
psuedo-academic organizations funded by spooks who can derail anyone that gets in the way, or have them
tossed off a cliff, all for the good of the I* mafia...who write the documents...design the software and cash the checks...

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
To: "Rodrigo Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "'Eric Dierker'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:01 PM
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
>

- --
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 21:56:31 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Which TLD corresponds to Mexico ?

Which TLD corresponds to Mexico ?
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/annualrpt/2002/cy2002annualreport.htm
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
1:34 MEXICO
1:37 NEW-MEXICO
1:43 MEXICO-CITY
1:198     MX   (MEXICO)
1:255     MEX  (MEXICO)
========================

Does Mexico (New or Old) have a contract with the U.S. Government for a TLD ?

Does Mexico have a license to use IPv16 technology ?

Are all of the oil wells in Mexico, now the property of the U.S. Government or the Sovereign Nation of Texico ?
http://www.texico.com/texicomap.html

Is this confusing ?
banxico.org
banxico.org.mx

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Rodrigo Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Eric Dierker'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 2:12 PM
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
>

- --
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 22:38:13 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Don't all of the Registrars have Private Jets at this point ?

http://www.byte.org/archives/2003_03_24.html#001728
by ross wm. rader 
"There wasn't enough charm in the world to talk ourselves on that plane..."
====

Are you serious ?...Don't all of the Registrars have Private Jets at this point ?

- --
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 23:34:03 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The Rio Party Budget...$8,300,000 ?

With ~415 people at the Rio .ORGy...
...and each with a budget of $20,000 for the week...

...that would be an $8,300,000 party budget...

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc02/msg00921.html
"It is my guess that the incremental cost of one more registration to 
Verisign, Afilias and Neulevel is less than $0.25.  For Verisign, that 
would be a cost of 4.2%, Afilias 4.3%, Neulevel 4.7% on each registration."
====

At $6 per name per year and a $5.75 profit per name...

1,443,478 domain names would need to be sold to pay for the RIO.ORGy...
...with 2,048 TLDs...that is only 704 SLD names per TLD...

That of course assumes that rent is not collected on the /8 allocations...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
...which should be generating $5 to $6 billion dollars per year in revenue...
At $5.5 billion from /8 leases...that would fund 662 RIO parties each year...
...and domain names would be free...

- --
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: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:59:46 -0500
From: "Gene Marsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The Rio Party Budget...$8,300,000 ?

Jim,

You forgot about the $50,000 per TLD applicant (say, 2500 for your
theoretical 2048) which could be $125,000,000.

Gene...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jim
> Fleming
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:34 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] The Rio Party Budget...$8,300,000 ?
>
>
> With ~415 people at the Rio .ORGy...
> ...and each with a budget of $20,000 for the week...
>
> ...that would be an $8,300,000 party budget...
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc02/msg00921.html
> "It is my guess that the incremental cost of one more registration to
> Verisign, Afilias and Neulevel is less than $0.25.  For Verisign, that
> would be a cost of 4.2%, Afilias 4.3%, Neulevel 4.7% on each
> registration."
> ====
>
> At $6 per name per year and a $5.75 profit per name...
>
> 1,443,478 domain names would need to be sold to pay for the RIO.ORGy...
> ...with 2,048 TLDs...that is only 704 SLD names per TLD...
>
> That of course assumes that rent is not collected on the /8 allocations...
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> ...which should be generating $5 to $6 billion dollars per year
> in revenue...
> At $5.5 billion from /8 leases...that would fund 662 RIO parties
> each year...
> ...and domain names would be free...
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:11:29 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Rio Party Budget...$8,300,000 ?

Wasn't that $50,000 spent to fund the competitors and to give them a couple of years to delay ?
...while companies that were ready...long before the beauty pageant...were denied access to U.S. Government servers ?...simply
because The Big Lie Society was able to keep people illiterate...while setting up illegal lotteries...etc...

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Marsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 11:59 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] The Rio Party Budget...$8,300,000 ?

> Jim,
>
> You forgot about the $50,000 per TLD applicant (say, 2500 for your
> theoretical 2048) which could be $125,000,000.
>
> Gene...
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jim
> > Fleming
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:34 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: [ga] The Rio Party Budget...$8,300,000 ?
> >
> >
> > With ~415 people at the Rio .ORGy...
> > ...and each with a budget of $20,000 for the week...
> >
> > ...that would be an $8,300,000 party budget...
> >
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc02/msg00921.html
> > "It is my guess that the incremental cost of one more registration to
> > Verisign, Afilias and Neulevel is less than $0.25.  For Verisign, that
> > would be a cost of 4.2%, Afilias 4.3%, Neulevel 4.7% on each
> > registration."
> > ====
> >
> > At $6 per name per year and a $5.75 profit per name...
> >
> > 1,443,478 domain names would need to be sold to pay for the RIO.ORGy...
> > ...with 2,048 TLDs...that is only 704 SLD names per TLD...
> >
> > That of course assumes that rent is not collected on the /8 allocations...
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> > ...which should be generating $5 to $6 billion dollars per year
> > in revenue...
> > At $5.5 billion from /8 leases...that would fund 662 RIO parties
> > each year...
> > ...and domain names would be free...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:18:23 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] =?Windows-1252?Q?Rio_is_one_of_Las_Vegas=B4_hottest_entertainment_destina?= =?Windows-1252?Q?tions?=

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0769_01C2F264.0C69D8F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

http://www.harrahs.com/our_casinos/rlv/location_home.html
Rio is one of Las Vegas´ hottest entertainment destinations
====

Where are all of the DNS meetings being held ?

- ------=_NextPart_000_0769_01C2F264.0C69D8F0
Content-Type: image/jpeg;
	name="Harrahs.jpg"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Harrahs.jpg"

- ------=_NextPart_000_0769_01C2F264.0C69D8F0--

- --
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 #1644
*************************