Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1712
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, May 31 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1712

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 23:40:12 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [More misinformation from Verisign re: WLS]

Excellent, focussed mail! Thank you Don.

"If the community wants democracy and a voice in Internet governance, then
the community will need to create it..."

Precisely... so... let's set about creating it... a starting point is the
creation of a focus/umbrella for an alliance of sympathetic groups and
individuals, from across various constituencies.

There are many organisations (and many other countries) who would at least
be prepared to engage in a dialogue and build up a forum... a forum and
alliance which would, in the end, attract media attention as an alternative
way of doing things... in the face of ICANN's self-interest, autocracy, and
opaque undemocratic governance.

Many streams flow down from the mountainsides... when they converge, they
form a river.

What is needed is an alliance and an intelligent critique, carried out
across a number of fronts. The alliance may draw in the comments of various
ccTLDs; the alternate root; the at large movement (I mean the real one, not
the ALAC invention); as well as parties which fear refute top-down
globalisation of DNS resources.

People don't all have to agree on every point... they need to converge.

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [More misinformation from Verisign re: WLS]

> It is the lobbyists/special interests and their cash who inevitably
> get what they want. Community consensus, and what's really in the best
> interest of the Internet Community, is clearly irrelevant to ICANN.
>
> The Internet Community was strongly against WLS and the Names Council
> opposed it as well.  It is abundantly clear that VeriSign's money was
> much more attractive to the ICANN Board than doing the right thing for
> the Community, the Registrars and for fair and healthy competition.
>
> It is also very clear that with this ICANN reorganization and the
> assassination of the GA, ICANN has every intention to completely
> stifle the voice of the Community or, perhaps better said, to mold
> that voice into whatever ICANN wants it to be.
>
> ICANN has, indeed, become part of the very monopoly which it was
> charged to dissolve. Their actions just with .com, .net and WLS speak
> volumes.
>
> Maybe it is time to consider letting ICANN, VeriSign and the
> "insiders" play, all by themselves, in the sandbox, which is clearly
> what they want. Maybe it is time for the Community to abandon this
> inequity and prove to ICANN and the insiders that it is not the
> Community which is irrelevant, but it is they who are the irrelevant
> ones.
>
> I have never endorsed the Alternate Root, but I can certainly see the
> merit of it, particularly in the face of what ICANN has come to be and
> of what ICANN has come to stand for.
>
> If the Community wants equity, democracy and a voice in Internet
> governance, then the Community will need to create it.  It's not
> happening within the ICANN structure and the evidence shows it's
> ICANN's intent for it never to happen.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
> Friday, May 30, 2003, 1:32:51 PM, George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
wrote:
> GK> Hello,
>
> GK> --- Andy Gardner <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >> And if it was, even a half-arsed programmer could add rate limiting
> >> to
> >> the SRS protocol very easily. Surely Verisign's got a spare
> >> half-arsed
> >> programmer sitting around somewhere?
>
> GK> Exactly -- throttling was a trivial fix, and solved the problem. See
> GK> the February 2002 document where Verisign answered that and other
> GK> questions, namely B.2. and B.3.
>
> >> Or maybe they're not interested in the easy fix?
>
> GK> The technical problem was fixed long ago -- the drop system is
> GK> functioning in an orderly manner every day at 2 pm Eastern time for
> GK> com/net. Verisign only trots out the load issue when they want to pull
> GK> the strings of the "technologists" in ICANN, suggesting that there
> GK> still needs to be an engineering solution, even though the problem is
> GK> solved. This pulls the wool over the eyes of those in ICANN who have
> GK> only a cursory knowledge of WLS, by framing the debate in such a way
> GK> that PRESUMES a problem. There's no problem whatsoever at present.
>
> GK> The true "problem" is that Verisign can't abuse its monopoly position
> GK> under the status quo, and needs WLS to soak consumers and registrars
> GK> with unnecessary charges, for a service already offered in a
competitve
> GK> manner at the registrar layer.
>
> GK> Sincerely,
>
> GK> George Kirikos
> GK> http://www.kirikos.com/
> GK> --
> GK> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> GK> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> GK> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> GK> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> [email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
> --
> 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, 30 May 2003 20:12:44 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [More misinformation from Verisign re: WLS]

On 30 May 2003 at 16:03, Don Brown wrote:

> I have never endorsed the Alternate Root, but I can certainly see the
> merit of it, particularly in the face of what ICANN has come to be and of
> what ICANN has come to stand for.
> 
> If the Community wants equity, democracy and a voice in Internet
> governance, then the Community will need to create it.  It's not
> happening within the ICANN structure and the evidence shows it's
> ICANN's intent for it never to happen.
> 

Those who have been involved with the inclusive name space have been saying the 
same thing for many years.  ICANN was the result of special interests.  It could 
never have evolved into a true community effort because all the cards were stacked 
from the beginning.  The alternate roots are not just rootzone files.  They are efforts 
by much of the community to have exactly what it needs - choice and a voice.  The 
idea of multiple roots is not something to be avoided, but embraced.  Allowing 
market forces to determine which TLDs will survive and which will not is also 
something to be embraced.  It also doesn't mean that a small entity can't operate a 
TLD, that they must be either for-profit or non-profit, free or fee based.  For that 
matter, multiple TLD registries may have both and some do. Some are US based 
and many are not.

If people could just get beyond the notion that a TLD is an index or search engine, 
the concept of thousands of TLDs would be welcomed.  Search engines today 
based their results on page text, not domain names.  If there are thousands of TLDs 
(and there are) search engines would come up with many methods to list web sites 
(for those who think that the internet is the web).  Trademarks would be irrelevant, 
as they should be in the DNS and there are many alternatives to the few open TLDs 
offered in the USG root by ICANN favorites.

There is already an effort to scan for all existing TLDs and produce a list that anyone 
can access.  I would love to see the community get behind efforts such as this and 
route around the damage.  

As for the alternate roots themselves, anyone can join the community and have a 
voice.

Leah

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 20:12:10 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "...They sealed us into an electronically impenetrable room..."

Who opened the door of the "impenetrable room" ?

http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/1007/042.html
"...they were delighted when I returned later, bringing with me a platoon of Internet gurus, including Esther Dyson, Mitch Kapor,
Tony Rutkowski, and Vint Cerf. They sealed us into an electronically impenetrable room to discuss the radical possibility that a
good first step in lifting their blackout would be for the CIA to put up a Web site."
=====

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Esther Dyson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Vittorio Bertola" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

> Thanks, Vittorio!
> 
> Esther
> 
> At 06:50 AM 5/30/2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> >On Thu, 29 May 2003 10:42:33 +0100, you wrote:
> >
> > >At present ALAC is not defending Users. It is acquiescing.
> >
> >I don't think that the ALAC is "acquiescing" to anything - especially
> >if you have a look at some of the things we said in the last weeks. We
> >try to do our best to keep up with all policy proceedings and at the
> >same time go on building the regional representation mechanism (and
> >still have a job, a life and so on); and we want to be constructive,
> >so we usually try to focus our comments on current issues and specific
> >points. But we are not afraid to speak when we think it's necessary.
> >--
> >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
> 
> 
> 
> Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> [email-masked]
> 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com
> 
> see my new blog (finally!) at
> http://release4.blogspot.com/
> 
> Release 1.0 - the first good look
> at technology that matters
> 
> 
> --
> 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, 30 May 2003 20:33:55 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [More misinformation from Verisign re: WLS]

And remember, the ICANN monopoly is only an illusion - If people
will change their root.cache files or their dns settings on their
workstations, then their power vanishes. 

So, there is still hope. The problem is that the internet community as
a whole doesn't understand the ramifications of ICANN. All they know
is when they type in www.mypornsite.com, it gets them to their
dirty pictures, etc. Beyond that, it gets too complicated for their lazy minds.

Sad but true - and this is the way it is in politics in general, not just
with ICANN.

The INS has been making very slow in-roads and continues to progress.
Projects are in the works with large (multi $100 millions) donors to move
this forward even faster. 

John
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [More misinformation from Verisign re: WLS]

> 
> 
> On 30 May 2003 at 16:03, Don Brown wrote:
> 
> > I have never endorsed the Alternate Root, but I can certainly see the
> > merit of it, particularly in the face of what ICANN has come to be and of
> > what ICANN has come to stand for.
> > 
> > If the Community wants equity, democracy and a voice in Internet
> > governance, then the Community will need to create it.  It's not
> > happening within the ICANN structure and the evidence shows it's
> > ICANN's intent for it never to happen.
> > 
> 
> Those who have been involved with the inclusive name space have been saying the 
> same thing for many years.  ICANN was the result of special interests.  It could 
> never have evolved into a true community effort because all the cards were stacked 
> from the beginning.  The alternate roots are not just rootzone files.  They are efforts 
> by much of the community to have exactly what it needs - choice and a voice.  The 
> idea of multiple roots is not something to be avoided, but embraced.  Allowing 
> market forces to determine which TLDs will survive and which will not is also 
> something to be embraced.  It also doesn't mean that a small entity can't operate a 
> TLD, that they must be either for-profit or non-profit, free or fee based.  For that 
> matter, multiple TLD registries may have both and some do. Some are US based 
> and many are not.
> 
> If people could just get beyond the notion that a TLD is an index or search engine, 
> the concept of thousands of TLDs would be welcomed.  Search engines today 
> based their results on page text, not domain names.  If there are thousands of TLDs 
> (and there are) search engines would come up with many methods to list web sites 
> (for those who think that the internet is the web).  Trademarks would be irrelevant, 
> as they should be in the DNS and there are many alternatives to the few open TLDs 
> offered in the USG root by ICANN favorites.
> 
> There is already an effort to scan for all existing TLDs and produce a list that anyone 
> can access.  I would love to see the community get behind efforts such as this and 
> route around the damage.  
> 
> As for the alternate roots themselves, anyone can join the community and have a 
> voice.
> 
> Leah
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 
> 

- --
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, 31 May 2003 01:28:37 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] I've been waiting to see something like this

E-COMMERCE COMPANIES FACE CHALLENGES OF TRADE SANCTION LAW
The Associated Press runs a story on the challenge
e-commerce companies face in complying with trade sanction
law.  While the Monster.com incident from earlier this year
received the greatest amount of attention, domain name
registration and global debt ratings are also cited as
potential areas of concern.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/124257_netsanctions30.html

Would the registry be the entity to require the blocking or would it be at registrar 
level, where some registrars are outside the US.  Can the US block transactions 
from customers dealing with those off-shore registrars?  The money is paid to the 
registrar, not the registry and the customer belongs to the registrar and not the 
registry.  Could a registry like Verisign restrict the sales of a registrar in the UK or 
elsewhere?  It's the registrar that is paying Verisign and is the customer of Verisign.

However, with the WLS, couldn't that change?  If the registry is a "thick" model 
where the registrations come directly through the registry, would that make a 
difference?  If the registry is not US based, would that make a difference?  Would 
the registrars who are US based be the ones restricted based on their location?

It's an interesting situation, IMO.  Just how much can the US dictate to global 
registries/registrars?

Leah

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

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

Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 01:43:34 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [More misinformation from Verisign re: WLS]

On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 07:12  PM, L. Gallegos wrote:

> It could
> never have evolved into a true community effort because all the cards 
> were stacked
> from the beginning.

The warning light should have flashed right from day one.

You show me a Navy Officer who is interested in gaining consensus from 
the lower ranks, rather than blindly following orders from on high, and 
I''ll show you someone who's going to have a very short career.

- --
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, 31 May 2003 09:58:57 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Notes from yesterday's WHOIS telephone conference.

See <http://log.does-not-exist.org/story/03053015561054303019.html>.
- -- 
Thomas Roessler				<[email-masked]>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 10:52:52 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

On Fri, 30 May 2003 11:12:24 -0500, you wrote:

>> I don't think that the ALAC is "acquiescing" to anything - especially
>> if you have a look at some of the things we said in the last weeks. We
>> try to do our best to keep up with all policy proceedings and at the
>> same time go on building the regional representation mechanism (and
>> still have a job, a life and so on); and we want to be constructive,
>> so we usually try to focus our comments on current issues and specific
>> points. But we are not afraid to speak when we think it's necessary.
>>
>Although grammatically correct, technically speaking, "we" should be 
>replace with "Denise, Esther and I"

This is not correct. You may visit

http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/

and see for yourself that almost all the members of the Committee
participate actively in discussions. Also, Thomas Roessler and Wendy
Seltzer are our liaisons to the GNSO and its task forces, and they are
the authors of a good part of our documents. You may see this post:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc12/msg00270.html

as an example of a case where the ALAC stressed the importance of
proper process and public comment opportunities (and since the same
concern was shared by other constituencies, this actually affected the
final decision by the GNSO council).
- -- 
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, 31 May 2003 04:34:16 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "The ALAC would like to express its worry for..."

http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00294.html
"The ALAC would like to express its worry for the growing practice of
providing affirmative replies to DNS queries for unregistered domain
names at the registry level."
====

1. How many people on the so-called ALAC know anything about the DNS ?
2. Are you talking about A Records (32-bit replies) ?
3. What about AAAA Record (128-bit) replies ?
4. What about Registries that look at the AM/FM bit ?

http://www.wiana.org
"IPv4 style addresses in the 1.x.x.x range."
http://www.ampr.org/amprnet.html
"IPv4 Network 44/8 is known as the AMPRNet, named from "AMateur Packet Radio Network". "
=======================

Are you on the AM Internet or the FM InterNAT ?

128-bit DNS AAAA Record Flag Day Formats
2003:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address]
[YMDD]:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address]
1-bit to set the Reserved/Spare ("AM/FM") bit in Fragment Offset [S]
1-bit to set the Don't Fragment (DF) bit [D]
2-bits to select 1 of 4 common TTL values (255, 128, 32, 8) [LL]
1-bit for Options Control [O]
7-bits to set the Identification Field(dst) [FFFFFFF]
4-bits to set the TOS(dst) Field [TTTT]
Default SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT = 0000.0000.0000.0000
FFF.FFFF.TTTT = GGG.SSSS.SSSS
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
IPv8
0QQQQGGGSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port]
IPv16
0QQQQGGGSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port]
1AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA[32-bits][Port]
A...A=ASN=32769...65535

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: Sat, 31 May 2003 21:39:10 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

At 12:10 a.m. 31/05/2003, Esther Dyson wrote:
>Thanks, Vittorio!
>
>Esther
>
>At 06:50 AM 5/30/2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>>On Thu, 29 May 2003 10:42:33 +0100, you wrote:
>>
>> >At present ALAC is not defending Users. It is acquiescing.
>>
>>I don't think that the ALAC is "acquiescing" to anything - especially
>>if you have a look at some of the things we said in the last weeks. We
>>try to do our best to keep up with all policy proceedings and at the
>>same time go on building the regional representation mechanism (and
>>still have a job, a life and so on); and we want to be constructive,
>>so we usually try to focus our comments on current issues and specific
>>points. But we are not afraid to speak when we think it's necessary.

Vittorio and Ester,

It is true that the ALAC have made the right noises lately.
Wendy Selzer said good things things about new gTLD introductions. Maybe 
there is hope.

But the fundamental problem remains . Making the right noises for a while 
is the easy part and will not make you "the real voice of the users" .
Not without an open representational structure that can nominate, elect and 
dismiss your spokespersons.

- -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: Sat, 31 May 2003 05:02:44 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vittorio Bertola" <[email-masked]>
> >>
> >Although grammatically correct, technically speaking, "we" should be 
> >replace with "Denise, Esther and I"
> 
> This is not correct. You may visit
> 
> http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/
> 
2003 May 23 
[alac] Announcement, Paul Twomey
=====

Do you really think the average American is interested in being censored, constrained, silenced, etc.
by some narrow-minded people, operating on a toy 32-bit network, that has no band-width to the U.S. ?

The laws of physics, the speed of light and electrons, etc. will move Americans closer together. The
censored world will therefore be moved much farther away. You can not change the laws of physics.
http://www.telegeography.com/resources/maps_and_schematics/telephony/tg99_tariff_maps.html

The always-on, broadband Internet, and the coming services (including 128-bit DNS) will not be deployed
around the world, before they are wide-spread in America. People on the toy, 32-bit Internet, will
therefore, always be looking in, via a small pipe, and will become a more and more irrelevant group of wannabees.
You can not change the laws of physics.

Americans and the American marketplace will always reject censorship from abroad.
That is one of the reasons why people around the world are still attracted to America
...where the InterNAT (North American Transport) continues to grow...

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: Sat, 31 May 2003 05:32:46 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 1:86 SEX

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
1:86 SEX
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/02/sp_technews_dyson112002.htm
founding chair of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
"...forgive me, but that's a bad idea...."
"...you get into issues like making sure that .sex does *not* happen, and you realize that the effort is worthwhile..."
===

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: Sat, 31 May 2003 05:28:45 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "Making the right noises for a while is the easy part and will not make you "the real voice of the users" ...

From: "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>
"Making the right noises for a while is the easy part and will not make you "the real voice of the users" ."
===

Joop,

With all due respect, you and others from NZ, have been making noises for a long time.
As you have seen, some Americans have used your noises to impede the marketplace in America.
You, therefore become a tool of the censors and those who seek to control and constrain.
[It would be interesting to know if you are paid to do that, even without your knowledge.]
Their agenda is to claim that Americans can not progress until the rest of the world is even.
That can not happen. You can not change the laws of physics. The new services will exclude
the rest of the world. North America is like one planet and the rest of planet Earth is another.
Sending an alien from down-under to further help to censor and contrain Americans will have
zero impact. If anything, it will make Americans work harder to resist the censorship.

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>
To: "Esther Dyson" <[email-masked]>; "Vittorio Bertola" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 4:39 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

> At 12:10 a.m. 31/05/2003, Esther Dyson wrote:
> >Thanks, Vittorio!
> >
> >Esther
> >
> >At 06:50 AM 5/30/2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> >>On Thu, 29 May 2003 10:42:33 +0100, you wrote:
> >>
> >> >At present ALAC is not defending Users. It is acquiescing.
> >>
> >>I don't think that the ALAC is "acquiescing" to anything - especially
> >>if you have a look at some of the things we said in the last weeks. We
> >>try to do our best to keep up with all policy proceedings and at the
> >>same time go on building the regional representation mechanism (and
> >>still have a job, a life and so on); and we want to be constructive,
> >>so we usually try to focus our comments on current issues and specific
> >>points. But we are not afraid to speak when we think it's necessary.
> 
> Vittorio and Ester,
> 
> It is true that the ALAC have made the right noises lately.
> Wendy Selzer said good things things about new gTLD introductions. Maybe 
> there is hope.
> 
> But the fundamental problem remains . Making the right noises for a while 
> is the easy part and will not make you "the real voice of the users" .
> Not without an open representational structure that can nominate, elect and 
> dismiss your spokespersons.
> 
> 
> -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
> 
> 

- --
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, 31 May 2003 05:17:02 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Notes from yesterday's WHOIS telephone conference.

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 2:58 AM
Subject: [ga] Notes from yesterday's WHOIS telephone conference.

> See <http://log.does-not-exist.org/story/03053015561054303019.html>.
> -- 

It looks like people are not able (or interested) in using the Internet, but instead
are more attracted to the voice services of the InterNAT (North American Transport).

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com

- --
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, 31 May 2003 11:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

On Fri, 30 May 2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> >At present ALAC is not defending Users. It is acquiescing. 

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is acquescing.  That would be to 
attribute to the ALAC a degree of backbone and action on behalf of the 
internet user communit that I do not believe the ALAC posesses.

I perceive the ALAC as being nothing more than a powerless blob created
explicitly to do nothing more than cover, but not fill, an embarrassing
gap on ICANN's organizational chart - that gap being the fact that a body
who's purpose is to benefit the public has locked its doors against the
public.

> I don't think that the ALAC is "acquiescing" to anything

I do not agree.  The ALAC's statement that it will accept limitations that
are imposed on no other element of ICANN is, in a word, acquiescence.

The ALAC has the ability to say "no".  The ALAC has the power to stand up
and say that it will do no act that will further disempower the internet
public.

> We try to do our best to keep up ... ... (and still have a job, a life
> and so on)

I've burned about 40 to 60 hours a week on ICANN for several years now I
do not easily accept the excuse that says, in essence, "we will help the
public, but only in our spare time".

> .... But we are not afraid to speak when we think it's necessary.

The ALAC needs to learn to say "this shall not pass" and refuse to
continue to help ICANN bury the public interest under a tombstone that
says, "Here lies the public voice in internet governance, never really
born, aborted by ICANN, without a wimper of objection from the ALAC, under
a think smothering bureaucratic blanket of RALOs, Structures, Liasons, and
Committees"

		--karl--

- --
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, 31 May 2003 11:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Registry Load and WLS: Myth vs. Reality

Hello,

As Chuck failed to answer yes or no as to whether registry load is
still an issue in the WLS debate, I did some checking.

See the most recently released registry report at:

http://www.gtldregistries.org/reports/2003/march_2003.pdf

On page 3, it shows that there's a SLA requirement for the "check"
command of 3 seconds, and for the "add domain" command of 5 seconds.
Verisign's actual performance?? 0.01 seconds for each. 

This means that under the status quo, VGRS has an OVERCAPACITY of 300
to 500 TIMES the required level of performance. Sure sounds like
they're bursting at the seams....NOT! It's not whether the glass is
half-full or half-empty.....the glass has a droplet in it, yet Verisign
would have you believe it's the Pacific ocean!

Given the introduction of RGP on January 25th, there were no domain
drops for a 30 day period, roughly all of February 2003. This gives us
a great opportunity to see what happens to the registry without the
"strain" of registrars attempting to catch deleted domains. Page 8 of
the PDF shows that the average daily transaction range for February
2003 is only *marginally* lower than that of January 2003. Indeed, when
the drops resumed in March 2003, the average daily transaction range
was even *lower* than that of February 2003!

Thus, it's clear that excessive transaction load at the registry level
is a clear myth, used to "frame" the debate and gain sympathy from some
technocrats at ICANN with only cursory knowledge of the true facts. 

The only real registry load is the load of BS that some of the VGRS
employees spew, to confuse decision-makers.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.LOFFS.com/
- --
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, 31 May 2003 20:16:42 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

It's simple :

ALAC needs to demand (as a pre-condition of operating on behalf of the User
Constituency) that the regular election of At Large representatives to the
ICANN Board is restored.

It needs to repeat this and repeat this.

This needs to be the message of ALAC.

Either ALAC is ICANN's poodle, or it voices and represents what the At Large
community is actually saying.

Karl's comments are both on target and sad.

Instead of Elected Board members.... the sham called ...ALAC

ALAC is just an instrument of the ICANN Board

If ALAC represented users, it would know what to say...

Again and again, without compromise... representation on the Board, chosen
by the people being represented

This is the true message to the Board

yrs

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
To: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Cc: Richard Henderson <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

> On Fri, 30 May 2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> > >At present ALAC is not defending Users. It is acquiescing.
>
> I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is acquescing.  That would be to
> attribute to the ALAC a degree of backbone and action on behalf of the
> internet user communit that I do not believe the ALAC posesses.
>
> I perceive the ALAC as being nothing more than a powerless blob created
> explicitly to do nothing more than cover, but not fill, an embarrassing
> gap on ICANN's organizational chart - that gap being the fact that a body
> who's purpose is to benefit the public has locked its doors against the
> public.
>
> > I don't think that the ALAC is "acquiescing" to anything
>
> I do not agree.  The ALAC's statement that it will accept limitations that
> are imposed on no other element of ICANN is, in a word, acquiescence.
>
> The ALAC has the ability to say "no".  The ALAC has the power to stand up
> and say that it will do no act that will further disempower the internet
> public.
>
> > We try to do our best to keep up ... ... (and still have a job, a life
> > and so on)
>
> I've burned about 40 to 60 hours a week on ICANN for several years now I
> do not easily accept the excuse that says, in essence, "we will help the
> public, but only in our spare time".
>
> > .... But we are not afraid to speak when we think it's necessary.
>
> The ALAC needs to learn to say "this shall not pass" and refuse to
> continue to help ICANN bury the public interest under a tombstone that
> says, "Here lies the public voice in internet governance, never really
> born, aborted by ICANN, without a wimper of objection from the ALAC, under
> a think smothering bureaucratic blanket of RALOs, Structures, Liasons, and
> Committees"
>
> --karl--
>
>
>
>
>
>

- --
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 #1712
*************************