Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1651
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, March 29 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1651

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:02:01 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .CA deledated to CAlifornia...http://www.SanFrancisco.CA

Note, some of the so-called ccTLDs are being preserved, re-delegated, etc...
...just because some group in some country is profiting from their own multi-level-marketing (MLM) business
does not prevent the **true usage** of the TLD to come to the marketplace...

http://www.SanFrancisco.CA

Note also that IN-ADDR.CA exists...

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:10:28 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] A puzzle about ccTLDs and sovereignty

Jim,
I don't agree. People take pride in their nationality, or have feelings
about it anyway, even if negative. Humans are fiercely territorial and do
not want fuzzy borders in cyberspace any more than they want their
geographical borders broken down in the real world. A ccTLD may be an
arbitrary boundary to you, but it has a comfort factor to drive demand in
the public sector, and over time, more ccTLDs will develop distinguishing
characteristics that mark out their "terroir".

Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jim
> Fleming
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 11:50 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] A puzzle about ccTLDs and sovereignty
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 9:21 AM
> Subject: [ga] A puzzle about ccTLDs and sovereignty
>
>
> > I personally find it odd that many of the same people who see a ccTLD as
> > belonging to a state -- usually by some theory that it is an
> appurtenance
> > of sovereignty -- can also argue that the *sovereign* state is
> misusing it
> > if it leases it out or uses it for revenue.  Is Burundi
> "misusing" postage
> > stamps if it creates them to sell to collectors?
> >
> > Can these views be reconciled? How?
> > --
>
> Michael,
>
> With all due respect, you apparently do not have the time to keep
> up with all of the changes taking place.
>
> The so-called ccTLDs have been shipped off-shore. The decision
> was made to phase them out and to
> let the GAC handle the baby-sitting of the 0:0 .ARPA and
> IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name space. Keep
> in mind....that is a very small address space. There is really
> not much to do, but watch the paint dry at this
> point in time. The same can be said for the so-called ccTLDs that
> have no potential in the free marketplace.
> They will eventually fade completely from the scene. Most
> netizens already have no interest or knowledge
> about them. They have no mind-share or market-share. Using your
> "stamps" comparison, a country can
> print anything they want and if some fool buys it, collects it,
> etc. then who cares ? What .0000000001 %
> of the world does, is not interesting.
>
> The InterNAT (aka NAT, ICS, IPv8, etc.) is focused on selling to
> the market. The Top 2,048 TLDs will
> be the marketplace leaders. The software selects them and the
> so-called ccTLDs are not in that population.
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IPv8.info
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:59:46 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] A puzzle about ccTLDs and sovereignty

Clearly the use and control of ccTLDs is controlled by market factors
not by legal factors. Any government control must include government
technological intelligence. (i.e. a lawsuit in any court dealing with
any type of sophisticated matter uses expert testimony and not only
percipient witnesses, indeed in any type of malpractice or
mechanical malfeasance one is required)
Even policy writing for developing nations IT must be so elastic as to
not need to be adapted every week.
With that said one can still advocate and scribe policy which protects
privacy, promotes security, and has some economic and social value to a
nation.
The economics and financial systems and building of infrastructure do
not allow for the scale like Verisign it requires much higher costing on
the name.
Providers must be ready to channel names into usable scenarios and offer
"package deals" so that the names may be readily used for commercial
purposes.

We may say that this is an industry and custom and course of trade based
rule system.  National laws will catch-up eventually but they must not
impede the progress of intellectual growth.
In developing countries we often find this lack of control to bother
academics and bureaucratic types.  In the U.S we see it bother those
that want government protection from someone with a better mousetrap.
In white water rafting we say "go with the flow" those who do not are
soon capsized and drowning along with their passengers.

Eric Dierker

Jim Fleming wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 9:21 AM
> Subject: [ga] A puzzle about ccTLDs and sovereignty
>
> > I personally find it odd that many of the same people who see a ccTLD as
> > belonging to a state -- usually by some theory that it is an appurtenance
> > of sovereignty -- can also argue that the *sovereign* state is misusing it
> > if it leases it out or uses it for revenue.  Is Burundi "misusing" postage
> > stamps if it creates them to sell to collectors?
> >
> > Can these views be reconciled? How?
> > --
>
> Michael,
>
> With all due respect, you apparently do not have the time to keep up with all of the changes taking place.
>
> The so-called ccTLDs have been shipped off-shore. The decision was made to phase them out and to
> let the GAC handle the baby-sitting of the 0:0 .ARPA and IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name space. Keep
> in mind....that is a very small address space. There is really not much to do, but watch the paint dry at this
> point in time. The same can be said for the so-called ccTLDs that have no potential in the free marketplace.
> They will eventually fade completely from the scene. Most netizens already have no interest or knowledge
> about them. They have no mind-share or market-share. Using your "stamps" comparison, a country can
> print anything they want and if some fool buys it, collects it, etc. then who cares ? What .0000000001 %
> of the world does, is not interesting.
>
> The InterNAT (aka NAT, ICS, IPv8, etc.) is focused on selling to the market. The Top 2,048 TLDs will
> be the marketplace leaders. The software selects them and the so-called ccTLDs are not in that population.
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IPv8.info
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:43:47 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WIANA - Wireless IANA ?

http://www.communitywireless.org/
http://www.locustworld.com/
http://wiana.org/faq.php
What type of addresses and ranges are you allocating? 
Currently, IPv4 style addresses in the 1.x.x.x range.
===================

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:21:17 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] A puzzle about ccTLDs and sovereignty

I personally find it odd that many of the same people who see a ccTLD as
belonging to a state -- usually by some theory that it is an appurtenance
of sovereignty -- can also argue that the *sovereign* state is misusing it
if it leases it out or uses it for revenue.  Is Burundi "misusing" postage
stamps if it creates them to sell to collectors?

Can these views be reconciled? How?
- -- 
		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: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:05:05 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WIANA - Wireless IANA ?

1/8 has not been allocated yet, Jim. Bogon filters will catch them.

_______________________
American Webmasters - Home of the $4.95 Webhosting
www.american-webmasters.com

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 08:43
Subject: [ga] WIANA - Wireless IANA ?

> http://www.communitywireless.org/
> http://www.locustworld.com/
> http://wiana.org/faq.php
> What type of addresses and ranges are you allocating? 
> Currently, IPv4 style addresses in the 1.x.x.x range.
> ===================
> 
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IPv8.info
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:04:01 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Area Code 214

Jim and all former DNSO GA members,

Jim Fleming wrote:

> 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
> ===================================
>
> America has now been **liberated** from the I* society.
> As the InterNAT takes shape, Area Codes will play an important role.
> It appears that Area Code 214 is in the Dallas area.
>
> PUCT - Telecommunications - Texas Area Codes - Dallas Map - Area ...
> ... Dallas area code 214 split in 1996, when area code 972 was added. The boundaries
> between the two area codes were erased in 1998 when area code 469 was added. ...
> www.puc.state.tx.us/telecomm/areacodes/dallas.cfm
> ====

  Yes 214 is an area code for the Dallas area.  So also is 817 which you
did not mention above, Jim.

>
>
> When will you be able to meet, face-to-face, in meat space with several other people in Area Code 214 ?

  Sure.  And I do regularly now.

>
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IPv8.info
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:12:18 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WIANA - Wireless IANA ?

Jim and all former DNSO GA members,

  It looks as though all of these Domain Names are all regisered by
the same person.

Jim Fleming wrote:

> http://www.communitywireless.org/
> http://www.locustworld.com/
> http://wiana.org/faq.php
> What type of addresses and ranges are you allocating?
> Currently, IPv4 style addresses in the 1.x.x.x range.
> ===================
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IPv8.info
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:22:00 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A puzzle about ccTLDs and sovereignty

Roberto and all former DNSO GA members,

  Indeed Roberto, for once here is quite correct.  Is it true that
because .US domains are sometimes commercial entities
presence, that .US is mismanaged.  Of course not.

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Michael Froomkin asked:
>
> >Is Burundi "misusing" postage
> >stamps if it creates them to sell to collectors?
> >
>
> Obviously not.
>
> Would a private organization misuse Burundi postage stamps if it creates
> them by delegation from a private body without official stamp ;>) of
> approval by Burundi Government, and by doing so preventing the Burundi Post
> Administration (or any authority delegated by them) to issue their own for
> the use stamps are originally meant for?
> Probably yes.
>
> In other words, if the Tuvalu government wants to manage .tv for commercial
> purposes, it is their right to do so. But it must be a delegation that comes
> from the Tuvalu government, not by a private body like IANA or ICANN. (No, I
> don't imply that the current TV-NIC acts without the Tuvalu authorization,
> it's just an example)
>
> Anyway, if yours was meant to be a comment of a misuse from my part of the
> term misuse, the point is taken. I have to admit that this long period of
> lurking without posting has reduced my ability to get the point across in a
> correct and understandable way. Sorry.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:47:37 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] A puzzle about ccTLDs and sovereignty

At 07:10 a.m. 29/03/2003, Joanna Lane wrote:
>Jim,
>I don't agree. People take pride in their nationality, or have feelings
>about it anyway, even if negative. Humans are fiercely territorial and do
>not want fuzzy borders in cyberspace any more than they want their
>geographical borders broken down in the real world. A ccTLD may be an
>arbitrary boundary to you, but it has a comfort factor to drive demand in
>the public sector, and over time, more ccTLDs will develop distinguishing
>characteristics that mark out their "terroir".

I agree with Joanna on this .
ccTLD's with 'jurisdiction were the registry is"  are holding out a tiny 
hope for resistance against a completely American regulated internet.

- - Those who believe in direct democracy pass the real test when they still 
respect it when they disagree with the results.

- -joop

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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:52:30 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A puzzle about ccTLDs and sovereignty

Some may consider TLDs to more like Tribal Names than Country Names or Codes.
Cyberspace allows for people to move beyond the traditional meat-space boundaries.
Also, a TLD to one person may mean different things, take the .LANE TLD as an example.
Some people may use it for their last name and others as part of their street address. Another
group may just want to be in the Fast.Lane, whatever that is. No matter what, the new 128-bit
DNS software can find the .LANE and lock into it and track it...or is that into.IT and track.IT
as in Register.IT which clearly has nothing to do with Information Technology (.IT) or .Italy...

The toy 32-bit legacy IPv4 Internet is a great sandbox for people to play and crash TLDs.
When they mature, they can move to the commercial 128-bit DNS and the InterNAT....
...maybe that is the Fast.Lane....?

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 12:10 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] A puzzle about ccTLDs and sovereignty

> Jim,
> I don't agree. People take pride in their nationality, or have feelings
> about it anyway, even if negative. Humans are fiercely territorial and do
> not want fuzzy borders in cyberspace any more than they want their
> geographical borders broken down in the real world. A ccTLD may be an
> arbitrary boundary to you, but it has a comfort factor to drive demand in
> the public sector, and over time, more ccTLDs will develop distinguishing
> characteristics that mark out their "terroir".
> 
> Regards,
> Joanna
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jim
> > Fleming
> > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 11:50 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] A puzzle about ccTLDs and sovereignty
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 9:21 AM
> > Subject: [ga] A puzzle about ccTLDs and sovereignty
> >
> >
> > > I personally find it odd that many of the same people who see a ccTLD as
> > > belonging to a state -- usually by some theory that it is an
> > appurtenance
> > > of sovereignty -- can also argue that the *sovereign* state is
> > misusing it
> > > if it leases it out or uses it for revenue.  Is Burundi
> > "misusing" postage
> > > stamps if it creates them to sell to collectors?
> > >
> > > Can these views be reconciled? How?
> > > --
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > With all due respect, you apparently do not have the time to keep
> > up with all of the changes taking place.
> >
> > The so-called ccTLDs have been shipped off-shore. The decision
> > was made to phase them out and to
> > let the GAC handle the baby-sitting of the 0:0 .ARPA and
> > IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name space. Keep
> > in mind....that is a very small address space. There is really
> > not much to do, but watch the paint dry at this
> > point in time. The same can be said for the so-called ccTLDs that
> > have no potential in the free marketplace.
> > They will eventually fade completely from the scene. Most
> > netizens already have no interest or knowledge
> > about them. They have no mind-share or market-share. Using your
> > "stamps" comparison, a country can
> > print anything they want and if some fool buys it, collects it,
> > etc. then who cares ? What .0000000001 %
> > of the world does, is not interesting.
> >
> > The InterNAT (aka NAT, ICS, IPv8, etc.) is focused on selling to
> > the market. The Top 2,048 TLDs will
> > be the marketplace leaders. The software selects them and the
> > so-called ccTLDs are not in that population.
> >
> > Jim Fleming
> > http://www.IPv8.info
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> 

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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:03:52 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A puzzle about ccTLDs and sovereignty

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>
> 
> I agree with Joanna on this .
> ccTLD's with 'jurisdiction were the registry is"  are holding out a tiny 
> hope for resistance against a completely American regulated internet.
> 

What TLDs do you still consider to be so-called ccTLDs ?

Do any of those have IN-ADDR.[TLD] zones ?

Do you think .CA is Canada or California ?...do you think the Registry really cares ?
[There is an IN-ADDR.CA zone]
[Note that IN-ADDR.US is reserved but not in the DNS]

There is a long waiting list of TLDs to replace the so-called ccTLDs that have not made it past the Proof-of-Concept phase.

As for American "regulation", the American InterNAT is a liberation from the shackles of the I* society.
Those shackles were made possible by some of the so-called ccTLDs who claimed to want fairness
but really just wanted protection for their own under-performing operations which were never subjected
to the same scrutiny as the other TLDs. In summary, they wanted an unfair advantage, which is not
what democracies and America is all about. The world is being liberated from those that want an unfair advantage.
The free ride and free lunches are over...

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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:15:44 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Area Code 214

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> >
> > When will you be able to meet, face-to-face, in meat space with several other people in Area Code 214 ?
> 
>   Sure.  And I do regularly now.
> 

When do you plan to meet next ?....will people from the various forums your frequent be invited ?

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

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:28:09 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A puzzle about ccTLDs and sovereignty

Joop, Joanna and all former DNSO GA members,

  "America" is not regulating the Internet.  ICANN is indeed a
California USA corp. that is contracted to the USG via the
DOC/NTIA.  However ICANN's board is somewhat regionally
diverse.  To the limited extent that ICANN could impose such
a regulation regarding any ccTLD that is not hosted in it's
hone country is of course not reasonable.  But not for the reasons
that Joop here seems to wish to put forward.  Pure propaganda.

  Joanna of course in her grasp of the situation in this debate, is
much more accurate yet still misses the mark slightly.

  ccTLD's by ISO agreement are under the jurisdiction of the
assigned country to which the depict or represent, thereby
acknowledging to whom those ccTLD's "Belong".  And therefore
sovereignty is implied if not assured to the respective country.

  Where certain members of the ICANN BoD and staff seem
to be having a problem is the notion that gTLD's and ccTLD's
due to some ccTLD's business and marketing practices, are
in direct competition with some of ICANN's "Accredited"
gTLD registries and that some majority of ccTLD's are not
in agreement with the terms of those "Accreditation" contracts
and will not voluntarily sign such a contract as such would
impede the business interests of those ccTLD's now, or in the
changing and uncertain future.

  ICANN wishes to have a "One world under ICANN, TLD
set of standards".  Much of the rest of the world and their
respective ccTLD's are not in agreement with that set of
standards for operation of a TLD registry that ICANN would
wish to either impose or strongly pressure them into.

  And so, the TLD name space front of these battles continue...

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 07:10 a.m. 29/03/2003, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >Jim,
> >I don't agree. People take pride in their nationality, or have feelings
> >about it anyway, even if negative. Humans are fiercely territorial and do
> >not want fuzzy borders in cyberspace any more than they want their
> >geographical borders broken down in the real world. A ccTLD may be an
> >arbitrary boundary to you, but it has a comfort factor to drive demand in
> >the public sector, and over time, more ccTLDs will develop distinguishing
> >characteristics that mark out their "terroir".
>
> I agree with Joanna on this .
> ccTLD's with 'jurisdiction were the registry is"  are holding out a tiny
> hope for resistance against a completely American regulated internet.
>
> - Those who believe in direct democracy pass the real test when they still
> respect it when they disagree with the results.
>
> -joop
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:14:12 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A puzzle about ccTLDs and sovereignty

At 18:34 28/03/03, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>In other words, if the Tuvalu government wants to manage .tv for 
>commercial purposes, it is their right to do so. But it must be a 
>delegation that comes from the Tuvalu government, not by a private body 
>like IANA or ICANN. (No, I don't imply that the current TV-NIC acts 
>without the Tuvalu authorization, it's just an example)

Dear Roberto,
even this doesnot stand. Because you want to establish by your own a rule 
supersedeing the State of Tuvalu's sovereignty. This can only be done 
through international treaty. State of Tuvalu is sovereign in accepting or 
not that a private body uses ".tv" for whatever purpose, should it consider 
".tv" a Tuvalu property.

Why an international treaty. Only because ".tv" can be both conseived as a 
service to the registrants (for them to be happy with a ".tv" name) and to 
the Internet users (to indentify a name as belonging to a Tuvalu interest 
or resident). Both possibilities were initially supported. The second one 
was killed by the "international TLD business" (Mike Roberts) 
created/enforced by ICANN.
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: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:16:35 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] A puzzle about ccTLDs and sovereignty

At 03:47 29/03/03, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>ccTLD's with 'jurisdiction were the registry is"  are holding out a tiny 
>hope for resistance against a completely American regulated internet

Interestingly enough there are only 150.000 ".fr".
Because they are the tougher at applying these "American" technical 
regulations. 

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

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:49:00 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A puzzle about ccTLDs and sovereignty

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

  Lets face the facts or truth here.  ICANN, and especially
Joe Simms and Louis Touton don't like the fact that other parties,
other than ICANN are selling their ccTLD's to the highest bidder
or those ccTLD's are in the hands of contracted entities that
ICANN doesn't like and cannot impose of convince to abide
by quasi standards that that are not only not supported by
those operators of most of the ccTLD registries but most
stakeholders as well.

  Hence ICANN through Stuart Lynn especially, have delayed
introduction of desired gTLD's until ICANN has effective
control of ALL ccTLD's thereby creating an arbitrary
shortfall of demand for other TLD name spaces.

  Abrogating free market place demand or forces and
trying to thwart ISO with respect to ccTLD's is not
a wise or useful method of applying pressure to
the pent up registry industry industry at the behest
of the IP interests singing the song of chaos if not
strictly controlled by entities of their approval..

  This is no way to properly manage a Public Resource,
and is akin to a dictatorial regiment.

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> At 18:34 28/03/03, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >In other words, if the Tuvalu government wants to manage .tv for
> >commercial purposes, it is their right to do so. But it must be a
> >delegation that comes from the Tuvalu government, not by a private body
> >like IANA or ICANN. (No, I don't imply that the current TV-NIC acts
> >without the Tuvalu authorization, it's just an example)
>
> Dear Roberto,
> even this doesnot stand. Because you want to establish by your own a rule
> supersedeing the State of Tuvalu's sovereignty. This can only be done
> through international treaty. State of Tuvalu is sovereign in accepting or
> not that a private body uses ".tv" for whatever purpose, should it consider
> ".tv" a Tuvalu property.
>
> Why an international treaty. Only because ".tv" can be both conseived as a
> service to the registrants (for them to be happy with a ".tv" name) and to
> the Internet users (to indentify a name as belonging to a Tuvalu interest
> or resident). Both possibilities were initially supported. The second one
> was killed by the "international TLD business" (Mike Roberts)
> created/enforced by ICANN.
> 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

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:18:34 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A puzzle about ccTLDs and sovereignty

On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:21:17 -0500 (EST), you wrote:

>I personally find it odd that many of the same people who see a ccTLD as
>belonging to a state -- usually by some theory that it is an appurtenance
>of sovereignty -- can also argue that the *sovereign* state is misusing it
>if it leases it out or uses it for revenue.

Not at all - the point is different: since a ccTLD is to be managed by
its country, then the country may decide to do whatever it wants with
it. But it is the country that must do so, not ICANN/IANA on behalf of
the U.S. government.
- -- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:21:44 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: 0:0.1.*.*.*...ARPA...Re: [ga] WIANA - Wireless IANA ?

What does the ICANN Board and their team of technical experts plan to do about it ?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
...note the similar problems with 69/8...
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg08423.html
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg08580.html

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] WIANA - Wireless IANA ?

> 1/8 has not been allocated yet, Jim. Bogon filters will catch them.
> 
> _______________________
> American Webmasters - Home of the $4.95 Webhosting
> www.american-webmasters.com
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 08:43
> Subject: [ga] WIANA - Wireless IANA ?
> 
> 
> > http://www.communitywireless.org/
> > http://www.locustworld.com/
> > http://wiana.org/faq.php
> > What type of addresses and ranges are you allocating? 
> > Currently, IPv4 style addresses in the 1.x.x.x range.
> > ===================
> > 
> > Jim Fleming
> > http://www.IPv8.info
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1651
*************************