Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1657
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, April 8 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1657

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

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 16:12:13 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212     BIZ..."...I did notice that IN-ADDR.BIZ..." ?

Jim and all former DNSO GA Members,

  I think it is clear that .BIZ and .INFO are failures as they have lead
to further degrading of stability of the DNS and registrant confidence.
Same can be said for .NAME and .Museum as well...

Jim Fleming wrote:

> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> 0:212     BIZ
> ===
>
> .BIZ is still in the early stages of Proof-of-Concept....market-trial development...
>
> With all of the 32-bit legacy (IPv4) TLD market development, the goal is to run a market test
> and to see how many early adopters (customers?) there are for a TLD. Once the size of the market
> for a TLD is determined, then one can start to consider the investments required to provide the
> serious 128-bit DNS infrastructure. The toy 32-bit systems are OK for market tests, but not for
> commercial services that are comparable to what one gets in the .USA from their local phone company
> or their cellular provider.
>
> As an example, if the market for .BIZ names during the Proof-of-Concept phase shows there are
> one million early adopters, and one uses the typical 60% follow-on renewal rate, then there may be
> a potential for 600,000 serious users, but the price may determine their interest. If the 128-bit DNS
> .BIZ Registry requires $600,000,000 to deploy and operate annualy, then each .BIZ owner would
> to pay $1,000 per year which is what you see some of the so-called ccTLD Registries charging.
> At $1,000 per year, there may not be 600,000 serious customers, there may only be 60,000 which
> is what the market research shows to be closer to reality in a truely open and free market, not controlled
> by the U.S. Government. With 60,000 customers, the 128-bit DNS Registry may have to settle for
> an annual budget of $60,000,000 which still results in the $1,000 per name per year price.
>
> No matter how it is priced or what company (or companies) operate the 128-bit DNS .BIZ Registry,
> the customer base developed during the Proof-of-Concept Market Trial(s) will be preserved. A company
> would not want to have to start over and spend millions on marketing when the customers are ready and
> waiting for the Next Generation InterNAT services.
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IPv8.info
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 7:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] A registrar with shockingly bad WHOIS data....
>
> > Jim and all former DNSO GA members,
> >
> >   Your on a good roll here Jim, I did notice that IN-ADDR.BIZ
> > at least is not accurate.  Yet Jeff Neuman insists that Neulevel
> > is a honest organization...  IN-ADDR.US is available for registration
> > as well.  And you have IN-ADDR.INFO registered.  And
> > IN-ADDR.WS is also available for registration...
> >
> > Jim Fleming wrote:
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
> > > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 3:28 AM
> > > Subject: [ga] A registrar with shockingly bad WHOIS data....
> > >
> > > > Performing a WHOIS for vcnr.com:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Have you checked....?
> > >
> > > IN-ADDR.COM
> > > IN-ADDR.NET
> > > IN-ADDR.DE
> > > IN-ADDR.ORG
> > > IN-ADDR.BIZ
> > > IN-ADDR.US
> > > IN-ADDR.INFO
> > > IN-ADDR.NL
> > > ...
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 18:52:22 +0200
From: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GNSO Council teleconference April 17, 2003 - Agenda

[To:[email-masked], [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]

           GNSO Council Teleconference on 17 April 2003 - agenda

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

Proposed GNSO Council Agenda Thursday , 17 April 2003

This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the DNSO
Names Council
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020418.NCprocedures-v7.0.html

Coordinated Universal Time UTC 12:00 - see below for local times

Bruce Tonkin will be chairing the GNSO Council teleconference.
Scheduled time for meeting - 120 mins.

Dial-in number sent individually to each Council member.

     1. Approval of Agenda

     2. Summary of last meetings
     ICANN meeting in Rio,
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030325.GNSOrio-minutes.html

     3. Ratify email vote on ICANN Board seat #14 resolution [15 mins]

     4. Discuss any adjustments to process for Board seat #13 [10 mins]

     5. Presentation by Nominating Committee and discussion regarding
     filling three seats on the GNSO Council [15 mins]
     http://www.icann.org/committees/nom-comm/formal-call-05apr03.htm

     6. Vote to approve the Deletes Task Force recommendations and report
     for submission to the ICANN Board [30 mins]
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030323.DeletesTF-final-report.html

     The consensus recommendations from the report are:

     3.1 Uniform deletion practice after domain name expiry by registrars.

     3.1.1 Domain names must be deleted if a paid renewal has not been
     received by the registrar from the registrant or someone acting on the
     registrant's behalf by the end of the Auto-renew Grace Period
     (generally forty-five days after the domain's initial expiration). As a
     mechanism for enforcing this requirement, registries may elect to
     delete names for which an explicit renew command has not been received
     prior to the expiration of the grace period.

     3.1.2 Domain names must be deleted within 45 days of the expiration of
     the registration agreement between the registrar and registrant, unless
     the agreement is renewed.

     3.1.3 These requirements retroactively apply to all existing domain
     name registrations beginning 180 days after the adoption of the policy.

     3.1.4 Registrars must provide a summary of their deletion policy, as
     well as an indication of any auto-renewal policy that they may have, at
     the time of registration. This policy should include the expected time
     at which a non-renewed domain name would be deleted relative to the
     domain's expiration date, or a date range not to exceed ten days in
     length.

     3.1.5 Registrars must provide their deletion and auto-renewal policies
     in a conspicuous place on their websites.

     3.1.6 Registrars should provide, both at the time of registration and
     in a conspicuous place on their website, the fee charged for the
     recovery of a domain name during the Redemption Grace Period.

     3.2 Registrar deletion practice after domain name expiry for domain
     names subject to a pending UDRP dispute

     3.2.1 In the event that a domain the subject of a UDRP dispute is
     likely to expire during the course of the dispute, the dispute
     resolution provider will notify both the complainant and respondent of
     the impending expiration either at the time the dispute is filed, or no
     later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the domain. In order to
     facilitate this process, registrars will provide the expiration date of
     the domain at the time it confirms the registration of the domain to
     the UDRP provider.

     3.2.2 In such an event, the complainant will have the option to pay for
     a one year renewal at the sponsoring registrar's current prevailing
     rate for renewals.

     3.2.3 In the event that the complainant paid the renewal fee prior to
     the domain name's expiration, the original registrant will have up to
     thirty days after the end of the relevant registry's Auto-renew Grace
     Period in which to pay for the renewal of the domain name. If neither
     the complainant nor the original registrant pay for the renewal of
     domain name, it will be subject to deletion no later than the end of
     the Auto-renew Grace Period.

     3.2.4 In the event that both the registrant and the complainant pay for
     the renewal, the name will be renewed on behalf of the original
     registrant in accordance with the registrar's usual policy, and any
     renewal fee paid by the complainant will be refunded. shall not effect
     this provision.

     3.2.5 In the event that only the complainant pays for the renewal of
     the domain name, prior to the expiration of the Auto-renew Grace Period
     the registrar will:

     3.2.5.1 Place the name on REGISTRAR HOLD and REGISTRAR LOCK, with the
     result that the name will no longer resolve in the DNS.

     3.2.5.2 Modify the WHOIS entry for the domain name to indicate that the
     name is the subject to a UDRP dispute, and to remove all specific
     registration information for the WHOIS record.

     3.2.5.3 If the complaint is terminated prior to a panel decision being
     rendered, but after the domain name reaches this state, the domain name
     will be deleted.

     3.2.6 Where only the complainant paid the renewal fee for a domain name
     the subject of a UDRP action and the complainant's UDRP case fails, if
     the relevant registry's normal renewal grace period has expired, the
     domain name will be deleted.

     3.2.7 In all other cases, the registrar shall comply with the outcome
     of the UDRP dispute in accordance with its regular policies.

     3.3 Deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy

     3.3.1 The Redemption Grace Period will apply to names deleted due to a
     complaint on WHOIS accuracy. However, prior to allowing the redemption
     in such a case, the registrar must update the registration with
     verified WHOIS data and provide a statement indicating that the data
     has been verified in conjunction with the request for the name's
     redemption. The same rules that apply to verification of WHOIS data for
     regular domain names following a complaint will apply to deleted names.

     7. Discussion on WIPO recommendations regarding names and acronyms of
     International Intergovernmental Organisations [20 mins]
     From: http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-12mar03.htm

     Whereas, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) sent ICANN
     a letter dated 21 February 2003

(http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-letter-to-cerf-lynn-21feb03.htm)

     providing information about two decisions, concerning recommendations
     about the names and acronyms of International Intergovernmental
     Organizations and about country names, which WIPO member states
     requested be transmitted to ICANN;

     Whereas, Article XI-A, Section 1(6) of the bylaws provides that "The
     Governmental Advisory Committee, in addition to the Supporting
     Organizations and other Advisory Committees, shall have an opportunity
     to comment upon any external advice received prior to any decision by
     the Board";

     Whereas, the WIPO recommendations appear to be directed to substantive
     policies relating to generic top-level domains, and are thus within the
     policy-development scope of the Generic Names Supporting Organization
     (GNSO);

     Whereas, the Board believes that in the future a policy-development
     process should be initiated in the GNSO concerning issues discussed in
     the WIPO letter, but believes that the formulation of the issues would
     benefit from comments from Supporting Organizations and Advisory
     Committees before the process is formally initiated;

     Resolved [03.22] that Board hereby requests the President to inform the
     Governmental Advisory Committee, the Supporting Organizations, and the
     other Advisory Committees of the 21 February 2003 letter from WIPO; to
     provide those bodies with a copy of the text of the letter; and to
     invite them to provide, no later than 12 May 2003, any comments they
     may formulate, according to their processes, concerning the matters
     discussed in the WIPO letter.

     Note the Government Advisory Committee has responded as follows from:
     http://www.gac.icann.org/RioMeeting/CommuniqueRioDeJaneiro.htm

     4. WIPO II recommendations on names of countries and Inter Governmental
     Organisations (IGO)

     4.1 GAC considered the WIPO communication to ICANN of 21 February 2003
     and the ICANN request for Advice, 12 March 2003. GAC took note that the
     WIPO II recommendation to ICANN was based on a formal decision by
     Member States, resulting from more than two years' work in the official
     WIPO instances.

     4.2 GAC's Advice to ICANN is as below:

     GAC endorses the WIPO II recommendations that the names and acronyms of
     IGOs and country names should be protected against abusive registration
     as domain names.

     GAC advises the ICANN Board to implement the WIPO II recommendations
     regarding the protection of the names of Inter-Governmental
     Organisations (IGO) and the protection of Country Names in the Domain
     Name System.

     As the practical and technical aspects of extending this protection,
     and notably the implications for the UDRP, need to be fully understood,
     GAC proposes that a joint working group should be established in
     conjunction with other interested ICANN constituencies, in particular
     the gTLD and ccTLD communities.

     8. UDRP Task Force - [10 mins]
     - propose closing down the current task force and re-initiating the
     policy development process under the new GNSO Policy development
     process
     - UDRP review needs to take into account experience with new tlds, and
     the recommendations from WIPO on names and acronyms of International
     Intergovernmental Organisations
     - Council to vote to initiate a new policy development process and seek
     an issues report from the ICANN Staff Manager on current UDRP issues
     taking into account of the work done so far by the UDRP task force and
     recent developments.
     - allow staff 45 days for this report to be completed.

     9. Report from gtld committee - Philip Sheppard [10 mins]
     - progress to provide a recommendation
     "on whether to structure the evolution of the generic top level
     namespace and, if so, how to do so."

     10. Any other business

     Agenda topics for next meeting (22 May 2003)
     o updated rules of procedure for GNSO council
     o ratify election for Board seat #13
     o Budget update
     o Structure for additional gtlds
     o Staff Manager's report on Privacy

     (5:00 LA, 8:00 New York, 14:00 Paris, 21:00 Japan/Korea, 22:00
     Melbourne)
     --------------------------------------------------------------------

     Local time between April and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere

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

     Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 12:00
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
     California, USA UTC-8+1DST 5:00
     Monterrey, Mexico UTC-6+1DST 7:00
     Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 8:00
     Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 9:00
     London, United Kingdom UTC+0+1DST 13:00
     Brussels, Belgium (CET) UTC+1+1DST 14:00
     Barcelona, Spain (CET) UTC+1+1DST 14:00
     Karlsruhe, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 14:00
     Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+1DST 14:00
     Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 14:00
     Jerusalem, Israel UTC+2+1DST 15:00
     Seoul, Korea UTC+9+0DST 21:00
     Melbourne, Australia UTC+10+0DST 22:00
     Auckland, New Zealand UTC+12+0DST 24:00
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------

     The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2003, 2:00 or 3:00 local
     time (with exceptions)
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------

     For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

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

                        Information from: © GNSO Council

- --
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, 8 Apr 2003 15:41:33 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: WHOIS is not the DNS...Re: [ga] GNSO Council teleconference April 17, 2003 - Agenda

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <[email-masked]>
>
>      3.2.5.1 Place the name on REGISTRAR HOLD and REGISTRAR LOCK, with the
>      result that the name will no longer resolve in the DNS.
>
>      3.2.5.2 Modify the WHOIS entry for the domain name to indicate that the
>      name is the subject to a UDRP dispute, and to remove all specific
>      registration information for the WHOIS record.
>
=====

WHOIS is not the DNS...

...It appears that people want to regulate name spaces (Dictionaries) via WHOIS, yet ICANN is only supposed to deal with the DNS,
which is a separate protocol and database.

Do people think they will be able to regulate ALL databases that contain whois-like information ?

Does all of the focus on domain names indicate that people have totally lost sight of the fact that
it is the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone, which is part of the DNS, which provides the market-locking-function
for the I* society Multi-Level-Marketing (MLM) Machine....?

As long as people use the 0:0 .ARPA **Address Space**, they will be subject to...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
===========================================================

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: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 17:19:43 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Noncommercial charter revision committee

In line with the new governance arrangements of ICANN, the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) must submit a revised charter to ICANN by July 2003. The NCUC sees this as an important opportunity to revitalize its membership growth and improve the effectiveness of its organizational arrangements. It wants to assemble a representative and committed core of volunteers to guide Adcom in the task of rechartering. Volunteers should be current members of NCUC, prospective members, or former members. All three categories of volunteers must display a strong and sincere commitment to becoming active in the constituency, if eligible under GNSO concepts of constituency representation.

The goal of this call is to have a work-team as broadly representative as possible in order to develop a new charter that could represent all the interests and views existing among noncommercial internet users.

Please send name to [email-masked] by April 21.

- --
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 #1657
*************************