Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1716
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, June 5 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1716

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:23:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign spamming domain name registrants??

Why, if it is unique and targeted to the registrant, is it 'bulk' in any
meaningful way?

On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> According to the ICANN Board's WLS decision (which is subject to
> ongoing appeals, however):
> 
> "(d) ...there shall be an effective mechanism for actively notifying
> the current domain-name holder upon the placing of a WLS subscription
> on the name..."
> 
> (from http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-02jun03.htm )
> 
> If that notification is provided by email, doesn't that constitute
> Unsolicited Bulk Email? Certainly Verisign has no pre-existing business
> relationship with a significant number of the folks who would receive
> those notifications. Many want nothing to do with Verisign. It shall be
> interesting to see how residents of Washington and other strong
> anti-spam states will react, when they can take Verisign to court for
> possibly spamming them, or whether the "real-time blocking systems"
> will "BlackHole" Verisign's servers for spamming.
> 
> As resellers and registrars, we'll need to explain to *our* clients
> exactly what these notifications mean, raising our support costs. Will
> we be compensated in any way by Verisign? And, most of us value our
> time at more than what Verisign pays its "world class" support
> personnel in the Philippines....
> 
> Anyone who has had experience with the various companies who send out
> phony renewals notices knows exactly what I'm talking about.
> Furthermore, clients will assume that *we* provided their contact
> details for these unsolicited messages, which in many ways constitute
> crafty marketing. A client who owns more than one domain might feel
> *compelled* to purchase "protective" WLS subscriptions due to the Fear,
> Uncertainty and Doubt created by receiving a notification that someone
> anonymous has purchased a WLS subscription on one of their names. If
> you received an official-looking notification in the mail that someone
> had bought a life insurance policy that paid them $1,000,000 if *your*
> house burned down, wouldn't you be asking a lot of questions, and
> possibly taking precautions to protect yourself and your loved ones?
> 
> Furthermore, Verisign does not even know what language(s) the domain
> registrants prefer correspondence, as they have no business
> relationship with the registrant. A client who does not understand
> English will easily be confused by the meaning of a notification sent
> by Verisign about their domain name if it is sent only in English. They
> might even wonder if their Registrar has gone out of business,
> wondering why they are receiving mail from Verisign instead. Some
> clients might even be visually impaired, and need correspondence in
> Braille. With no pre-existing business relationship, Verisign will not
> know these things, paying attention to the important "localizations"
> that registrars and resellers do day-in and day-out for *their*
> clients.
> 
> It is even possible that Verisign will send these "notifications" by
> regular postal mail, instead of e-mail. I think many registrars will
> not appreciate having Verisign contacting their clients by mail, and
> will be accused by numerous clients of having sold their contact
> details for bulk mailings. Verisign has been in trouble in the past for
> sending out deceptive mail, for instance 
> 
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,101729,00.asp
> 
> How does Verisign get around the fact that in order to send
> notifications, they will likely need to mine contact details from port
> 43 WHOIS? That WHOIS, even in bulk form at $10,000 per year (which I
> doubt Verisign has purchased from all ICANN-registrars), has stringent
> terms of use forbidding unsolicited bulk use, except for its own
> customers. With Verisign and its partners projecting millions of WLS
> subscriptions, I think that qualifies as "bulk", and a significant
> chunk of those are *not* Verisign customers.
> 
> Any other party who mined WHOIS to send out informational notices, such
> as political messages, warnings to boycott various companies (e.g. 10
> million emails saying "Verisign sucks!" or "ICANN Rules" (as if...))
> would be in hot water. How is it Verisign receives preferential
> treatment, vis-a-vis others who wish to send out comparable
> "information notices"?? 
> 
> Is it because there's a "consensus policy" ordering Registrars to abide
> by WLS, and turn a blind eye to the above abuse of their customer data?
> As ICANN's response to the Dotster Reconsideration Request admitted:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-5.htm
> 
> there *is* no consensus policy *for* WLS. Indeed, there was a consensus
> vote *against* WLS. Somehow ICANN thought they can sneak this through,
> violating consensus, but their admission of violating consensus will
> come back to haunt them and Verisign soon enough...
> 
> I think ICANN and Verisign can expect to see challenges soon based on
> the above, as part of broader attacks on WLS which will include
> anti-trust and violation of registrar contracts, in order to protect
> consumers and registrars from this violation of the Consensus Policy
> against WLS that ICANN's Board ignored, at their own peril.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.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
> 
> 

- -- 
		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 hot here.<--

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign spamming domain name registrants??

Hi Michael,

- --- "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
wrote:
> Why, if it is unique and targeted to the registrant, is it 'bulk' in
> any
> meaningful way?

It'd be as "personalized" (i.e. unique and targeted) as any of the
phony renewals notices, I imagine.

Would it be ok for others, following this precedent, to do as Verisign
does, with their own "informational messages"?

An abuser could make each email targeted and unique to the registrant,
for example by using the geographical data contained in the WHOIS. "I
saw you walking down the street of Coral Gables last week, to offer you
a free sample of Viagra, but you didn't see me." (using the
geographical data in the WHOIS for ICANNWatch.com, for instance)

If that's ok, God have mercy on all of us.....I already get about 1000
spams/day, across all my domains.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.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: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:21:37 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Responsiveness and Standards

From an Internet User point of view, there is also an extremely strong case
for mandatory minimum standards for registrars, with loss of
ICANN-accreditation
status for non-compliance. The trouble with "best practices" (which ICANN
already sets out for registrars) is that they are not enforced... the whole
thing is self-regulated... as a result, the 'good' registrars try to work to
best practices and the cowboy firms just ignore them. ICANN does not enforce
its advised "best practices".

What's needed is teeth in the Registry and Registrar Agreements. Clear and
defined sanctions. The right to trade in the people's DNS should only be
granted and maintained if companies are prepared to comply with mandatory
standards and rules. Don't comply? Then they lose their right to trade with
'our' (the world's) DNS. Life is full of decisions. People playing in the
DNS
Supply Industry should have to accept choices to. Accept enforced rules, or
go
sell donuts.

The trouble is, ICANN doesn't see it as the world's DNS. To them the DNS is
a profit-making commodity which 'insiders' exist to benefit from...

If mandatory standards were written into contracts / agreements, then the
Internet User would benefit and it might pre-empt all kinds of rogue
activity...

Like the registrars who committed fraud in the .info roll-out   ...  or the
registrars who warehoused domains in the .biz rollout, using their
registrar's advantage to submit short lists to the round-robin in order to
queue jump.

Ask yourself:

.info roll-out... who got domain.info? who got domains.info?

Answer:

Well ask the Directors of Afilias, because their Registrars got them... how
was domains.info got... by submitting a short queue which bucked the
system...
or to be more precise, the system was set up to be bucked...

And ask Signature Domains who got key names in the .biz roll out by
submitting a minute queue only for their own Partner...

Is the DNS for the insiders in the supply industry, or for the world and
ordinary Internet Users?

I'd like to know precise answers from ICANN to precise questions, and
implicit
in the questions is the concern that ICANN 'turns a blind eye' as long as
the
registrars keep paying them...  but over a year after asking Dan
Halloran (ICANN's Registrar Liaison) I've had no reply. Asked Paul Twomey if
I could have a response from Dan, and Paul hasn't responded either...

ICANN shows no serious commitment to ordinary Internet Users, and I fear
"best practices" will be little more than a mantra, unless they are
mandatory and punitive.

We need a User Watchdog which is independent of ICANN
(and not the ALAC poodle) in order to fight for the rights and interest of
Ordinary Users... and I guess that is probably why ICANN is so intent on
keeping
the Elected Users out of their Board Room and keeping the At Large at arm's
length,
through the labyrinths of their processes, and layer upon layer upon layer
of delegated
or nominated unaccountable entities... and then, if you *do* ask direct and
challenging
questions, they can just *ignore* the questions and never even acknowledge
them...
I'm still waiting for Dan and Paul, but for all DoC's spin about
'responsiveness'
and Paul's words about responsiveness... there is...

no response

yrs,

Richard Henderson
Icann At Large Member
UK Region

(PS: I notice that .au sets mandatory limits to the period consumers have to
wait for a response
to their correspondence. I feel that 380 days is rather on the long side to
wait for a response...)

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 5:19 AM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] An opportunity to help

> On May 23, a Mr. Al Bode wrote a letter and posted it to the ALAC forum --
> http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/domain/msg00000.html
>
> No one on the ALAC has even noticed this letter.  Mr. Bode's problem deals
> with hosting companies that list themselves as the
registrant/administrative
> contact when registering domain names for clients of their hosting
services.
> When these Hosting/ISP entities go bankrupt, it poses a problem for those
> individuals that paid for rights to the domains but now are faced with a
registrar
> that won't respond to their needs (as registrars will cite ICANN rules
that
> disallow namespace changes if such modifications are not authorized by the
> registrant and/or administrative contact).
>
> This particular practice is common in the hosting community worldwide, and
> affects a substantial number of registrants (many of whom aren't educated
with
> regard to the finer points of DNS registration services) as a fair number
of
> ISPs go out of business on a regular basis.
>
> If the ALAC won't communicate with Mr. Bode, perhaps the members of
> icannatlarge can act to help solve this vexing problem by bringing the
issue to the
> attention of the ICANN Board.  What is probably called for is the
development of
> a set of "Best Practices for ISPs" that has the blessing of ICANN's ISP
> Constituency.  It might also be wise for ICANN to survey the ISP Community
to
> determine the magnitude of the problem (most especially in the developing
world).
>
> Here is an opportunity to help.  How will this organization act to address
> this challenge?

- --
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: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:31:01 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign spamming domain name registrants??

On 4 Jun 2003 at 11:39, George Kirikos wrote:

> It'd be as "personalized" (i.e. unique and targeted) as any of the
> phony renewals notices, I imagine.
> 
> Would it be ok for others, following this precedent, to do as Verisign
> does, with their own "informational messages"?
> 

Define "informational messages."  If it means administrative notices, that should 
come from the registrar of record for the domain, not the registry.  I am not the 
customer of the registry unless it is a "thick" model.  

If a message is issued by the registrar with whom you have the domain, it would be 
not only acceptable, but, IMO, expected.  However, coming from the parent registry 
with whom you do "not" have a customer/vendor relationship, it is spam.  Even if the 
registry (assuming a "thin" model) is instituting changes in policy, it should reach 
registrants via the sponsoring registrar.  In the case of a "thick" model, where the 
registrant also has a relationship with the registry itself, administrative messages 
might be expected from both registrar and registry.

My domains are registered with a registrar other than NSI and I delete messages 
from NSI and/or Verisign.  I get Verisign spams all the time and simply filter them to 
dev/null.  Any message I receive from my registrar is opened immediately as long as 
there are no attachments and no html.  My mail client is set to read text only and 
attachments are stripped or quarantined by my firewall.

There are many negative issues with WLS.  I have a sick feeling that it's going to 
backfire badly and do substantial harm to registrants, along with the extortion 
exhibited with RGP.  The unprededented greed is geared to milk the public world 
wide until individuals revolt in some way.  How long before this happens?  I don't 
know, but we're all in for a rocky ride.

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: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign spamming domain name registrants??

Leah,

organize a protest in Montreal, have real persons picket, if you can just
get .0001 of the Internet population to show up in force at a free meeting
in Canada I'm sure it would turn some heads and maybe change some minds.

- -rick

On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, L. Gallegos wrote:

>
>
> On 4 Jun 2003 at 11:39, George Kirikos wrote:
>
> > It'd be as "personalized" (i.e. unique and targeted) as any of the
> > phony renewals notices, I imagine.
> >
> > Would it be ok for others, following this precedent, to do as Verisign
> > does, with their own "informational messages"?
> >
>
> Define "informational messages."  If it means administrative notices, that should
> come from the registrar of record for the domain, not the registry.  I am not the
> customer of the registry unless it is a "thick" model.
>
> If a message is issued by the registrar with whom you have the domain, it would be
> not only acceptable, but, IMO, expected.  However, coming from the parent registry
> with whom you do "not" have a customer/vendor relationship, it is spam.  Even if the
> registry (assuming a "thin" model) is instituting changes in policy, it should reach
> registrants via the sponsoring registrar.  In the case of a "thick" model, where the
> registrant also has a relationship with the registry itself, administrative messages
> might be expected from both registrar and registry.
>
> My domains are registered with a registrar other than NSI and I delete messages
> from NSI and/or Verisign.  I get Verisign spams all the time and simply filter them to
> dev/null.  Any message I receive from my registrar is opened immediately as long as
> there are no attachments and no html.  My mail client is set to read text only and
> attachments are stripped or quarantined by my firewall.
>
> There are many negative issues with WLS.  I have a sick feeling that it's going to
> backfire badly and do substantial harm to registrants, along with the extortion
> exhibited with RGP.  The unprededented greed is geared to milk the public world
> wide until individuals revolt in some way.  How long before this happens?  I don't
> know, but we're all in for a rocky ride.
>
> 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: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:16:39 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 1:2  TENNESSEE...http://www.Memphis.TN...http://www.Elvis.TN

http://www.LosAngeles.CA
http://www.icann.org/carthage/
http://www.Carthage.IL

http://www.ati.nat.tn/services/dns.html
Déclaration des domaines :
Seules les organisations et les individus légalement résidants en Tunisie ont le droit d'enregistrer leurs noms de domaine dans le
domaine tunisien (tn) . Et seule l'ATI est chargée de créer l'identité officielle du serveur à héberger et de le déclarer sur le
réseau Internet en format domaine : www.domaine.tn
====

http://www.Memphis.TN
http://www.Elvis.TN

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
1:218     MEMPHIS
1:2 TENNESSEE

- --
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: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:41:27 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 1:18 MARYLAND...http://www.Annapolis.MD

http://register.md
http://register.dns.md
http://register.dns.md/cgi-bin/wh.cgi?dom_name=annapolis

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
1:18 MARYLAND

- --
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: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:46:54 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 1:206     VIRGINIA...3:244     VA

http://www.icann.org/calendar.htm
      March 2004 ICANN Meetings Rome, Italy 

http://www.iana.org/root-whois/va.htm
.va - Holy See (City Vatican State)
===

http://www.Reston.VA

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
3:244     VA
1:206     VIRGINIA

- --
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: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:59:52 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Verisign spamming domain name registrants??

Rick
> Wesson
> Leah,
>
> organize a protest in Montreal, have real persons picket, if you can just
> get .0001 of the Internet population to show up in force at a free meeting
> in Canada I'm sure it would turn some heads and maybe change some minds.
>
> -rick

You organize a protest and don't hold your breath for registrants to step
foward. This is one of the prices you pay for throwing out the Individual
Registrants constituency from the GNSO and burying the At Large under
mountains of ICANN Staff so that any protest that has merit will never see
the light of day. Too little, too late. Everybody left. Sorry.

Joanna

>
>
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, L. Gallegos wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 4 Jun 2003 at 11:39, George Kirikos wrote:
> >
> > > It'd be as "personalized" (i.e. unique and targeted) as any of the
> > > phony renewals notices, I imagine.
> > >
> > > Would it be ok for others, following this precedent, to do as Verisign
> > > does, with their own "informational messages"?
> > >
> >
> > Define "informational messages."  If it means administrative
> notices, that should
> > come from the registrar of record for the domain, not the
> registry.  I am not the
> > customer of the registry unless it is a "thick" model.
> >
> > If a message is issued by the registrar with whom you have the
> domain, it would be
> > not only acceptable, but, IMO, expected.  However, coming from
> the parent registry
> > with whom you do "not" have a customer/vendor relationship, it
> is spam.  Even if the
> > registry (assuming a "thin" model) is instituting changes in
> policy, it should reach
> > registrants via the sponsoring registrar.  In the case of a
> "thick" model, where the
> > registrant also has a relationship with the registry itself,
> administrative messages
> > might be expected from both registrar and registry.
> >
> > My domains are registered with a registrar other than NSI and I
> delete messages
> > from NSI and/or Verisign.  I get Verisign spams all the time
> and simply filter them to
> > dev/null.  Any message I receive from my registrar is opened
> immediately as long as
> > there are no attachments and no html.  My mail client is set to
> read text only and
> > attachments are stripped or quarantined by my firewall.
> >
> > There are many negative issues with WLS.  I have a sick feeling
> that it's going to
> > backfire badly and do substantial harm to registrants, along
> with the extortion
> > exhibited with RGP.  The unprededented greed is geared to milk
> the public world
> > wide until individuals revolt in some way.  How long before
> this happens?  I don't
> > know, but we're all in for a rocky ride.
> >
> > 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
>

- --
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: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:43:49 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 1:79 CANADA..."This is one of the prices you pay for throwing out the Individual..." ?

From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
"This is one of the prices you pay for throwing out the Individual..."
===

Joanna,

With all due respect, you may have this backwards. They did not "pay" a price, they reaped profits...
...while telling everyone they are non-profit...public-benefit, etc...

Follow the money...at $250,000 per person per year...a few people are very satisfied with the results...
...and the international vacations all year...
http://www.Montreal.Canada

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
1:79 CANADA

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
To: "Rick Wesson" <[email-masked]>; "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:59 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] Verisign spamming domain name registrants??

> Rick
> > Wesson
> > Leah,
> >
> > organize a protest in Montreal, have real persons picket, if you can just
> > get .0001 of the Internet population to show up in force at a free meeting
> > in Canada I'm sure it would turn some heads and maybe change some minds.
> >
> > -rick
> 
> You organize a protest and don't hold your breath for registrants to step
> foward. This is one of the prices you pay for throwing out the Individual
> Registrants constituency from the GNSO and burying the At Large under
> mountains of ICANN Staff so that any protest that has merit will never see
> the light of day. Too little, too late. Everybody left. Sorry.
> 
> Joanna
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, L. Gallegos wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4 Jun 2003 at 11:39, George Kirikos wrote:
> > >
> > > > It'd be as "personalized" (i.e. unique and targeted) as any of the
> > > > phony renewals notices, I imagine.
> > > >
> > > > Would it be ok for others, following this precedent, to do as Verisign
> > > > does, with their own "informational messages"?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Define "informational messages."  If it means administrative
> > notices, that should
> > > come from the registrar of record for the domain, not the
> > registry.  I am not the
> > > customer of the registry unless it is a "thick" model.
> > >
> > > If a message is issued by the registrar with whom you have the
> > domain, it would be
> > > not only acceptable, but, IMO, expected.  However, coming from
> > the parent registry
> > > with whom you do "not" have a customer/vendor relationship, it
> > is spam.  Even if the
> > > registry (assuming a "thin" model) is instituting changes in
> > policy, it should reach
> > > registrants via the sponsoring registrar.  In the case of a
> > "thick" model, where the
> > > registrant also has a relationship with the registry itself,
> > administrative messages
> > > might be expected from both registrar and registry.
> > >
> > > My domains are registered with a registrar other than NSI and I
> > delete messages
> > > from NSI and/or Verisign.  I get Verisign spams all the time
> > and simply filter them to
> > > dev/null.  Any message I receive from my registrar is opened
> > immediately as long as
> > > there are no attachments and no html.  My mail client is set to
> > read text only and
> > > attachments are stripped or quarantined by my firewall.
> > >
> > > There are many negative issues with WLS.  I have a sick feeling
> > that it's going to
> > > backfire badly and do substantial harm to registrants, along
> > with the extortion
> > > exhibited with RGP.  The unprededented greed is geared to milk
> > the public world
> > > wide until individuals revolt in some way.  How long before
> > this happens?  I don't
> > > know, but we're all in for a rocky ride.
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> 
> --
> 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: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:10:31 +0200
From: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GNSO Council teleconference June 5, MP3 recording

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

Please find the mp3 recording of the GNSO council teleconference held on
Thursday June 5, 2003

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20030605.GNSOteleconf.mp3

Happy listening

GNSO Secretariat

- --
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: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:04:36 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Another Anonymous ALAC Announcement

http://alac.icann.org/drafts/draft-als-ralo-4jun03.htm

The ALAC has posted a document entitled "At-Large Infrastructure Formation 
Proposals:  Draft for Public Comment".  As there has been no discussion of this 
document whatsoever on their discussion list, one can only assume that this 
too was drafted by the Icann Staff (Denise Michel) and posted without the 
Committee's knowledge, input, or tacit agreement.  

Where has the Committee documented their consensus to approve this latest 
submission?  Answer -- nowhere.  Neither has there been a Committee decision on 
quorum requirements prior to releasing statements, nor a formal vote, nor has 
the Committee demonstrated the decency to await input from the Nominating 
Committee members that will soon be joining the ALAC.  

This is an abuse of process that must be investigated.  The recommendations 
of the IRP NomCom were voided because the slate suggested by three members of 
that Committee did not constitute a quorum of the NomCom... why then are the 
non-quorate proclamations of the ALAC allowed to stand without challenge?  Why 
hasn't the ALAC posted notice of their announcements on any relevant ICANN 
discussion lists other than their own barely read website?
- --
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 #1716
*************************