Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1725
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, June 18 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1725

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:18:10 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "So how or under what mandate will the scope of the ccNSO be developed?"

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephan Welzel/Denic" <[email-masked]>
> >
> > So how or under what mandate will the scope of the ccNSO be developed?
> 
> ;) I guess the worse problem is that this way the ccSO
> might end up with a way broader scope than originally
> envisaged...
> 

With all due respect, you may want to consider the reality that there will now be a distinct
North American Internet (InterNAT) and an inferior network for the rest of the world. The
so-called ccTLD community is gravitating to the inferior solutions. If you look at the long
history of telecommunications on planet Earth, almost all developments have followed that
path. The ITU has prospered by serving the weaker, second-rate, markets. The people that
make the InterNAT (North American Transport) happen, largely ignore the plight of the rest
of the world, and they move forward, with less regulation, with leading-edge solutions, and a
life-style they protect, preserve and pass on to their children.

The writing is clearly on the wall. V$ and M$ will attempt to dominate the InterNAT market.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc02/bin00007.bin
The aging legacy Internet will follow the path of the ITU...
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16jun03.htm

Some people (or peoples) require Geneva to tell them everything to do...they are weak...like chickens...
http://www.chicken.ca/E_geneva.htm
      Geneva Watch 
     Geneva Watch is published by Dairy Farmers of Canada, Canadian Broiler Hatching 
      Egg Marketing Agency, Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency 
      and Chicken Farmers of Canada to report on the various events occurring in Geneva, 
      particularly on the WTO negotiations on agriculture.
=========================

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: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:53:56 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .COOP ?..."The system that we operate under is commonly known as supply management." ?

http://www.Chicken.COOP

http://www.chicken.ca/E_who.htm

"Our main responsibility is to ensure that our 2,800 farmers produce enough chicken to meet the needs of the market place. The
system that we operate under is commonly known as supply management."

=====

http://www.Chicken.COOP

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, 17 Jun 2003 09:35:36 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "...eventually we concluded that IPv5 (which was an experiment) was a dead end..." ?

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg21125.html
From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
"...eventually we concluded that IPv5 (which was an experiment) was a dead end..."
====

Who is this "we" you refer to ?

Have you ever written any computer software ?

http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9909/msg00035.html
@05:19pm 07/06/99-0400, vinton g. cerf wrote:
>I would then launch a campaign with GIP, ITAA, Internet Society,
>and other interested groups on the basis that ICANN must succeed
>or Internet will be in jeopardy.  This ought to play well with any
>company whose stock price is dependent on a well-functioning Internet.
==============================

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, 17 Jun 2003 13:42:40 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 6:247 WS...WEB Site..."I want to stay independent from users organizations to better support them in a neutral way..."

From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]> 
"I want to stay independent from users organizations to better support them in a neutral way - and I will partly use
http://atlarge.ws
====

Moving from a so-called ccTLD (.FR) to a generic TLD like .WS may be wise.

Do you plan to add 128-bit DNS services for .WS owners ?

http://www.ws/
http://website.ws/

Note, the WebSite TLD features wildcard DNS with 32-bit A Records being returned for ALL names.

http://www.ThisNameIsNotLikelyRegistered.WS

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, 17 Jun 2003 19:55:28 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Re: [cctld-discuss] Re: Revised Draft ICANN  ccNSO Bylaws ....

From: <[email-masked]>
> My much preffered option is for a clearly defined scope rfom the outset.
====

You might want to start with a list of TLDs that you consider to be countries, as opposed to tribal names.
Now that all of the legacy 2-letter TLDs have been picked over for their marketing value, you might find
that the list of so-called ccTLDs is very small. Couple that with the growth of the InterNAT (North American
Transport), and you might find the list gets smaller. At some point, small lists and narrow minds fade away.

http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-June/002420.html
Bob Braden braden at ISI.EDU 
Mon Jun 16 14:33:11 CEST 2003 
"Jon came to the conclusion that having a primary numbering space that
is mult-dimensional is bound to lead to confusion."
====

http://www.Chicago.IL
http://www.LosAngeles.CA
http://www.Delmar.DE

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "Stephan Welzel/Denic" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [cctld-discuss] Re: Revised Draft ICANN ccNSO Bylaws ....

> On 17 Jun 2003 at 13:52, Stephan Welzel/Denic wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Paulos,
> > 
> > On 17.06.2003 12:07 "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" <[email-masked]> wrote: >
> > > Without a defined scope, the development of a scope for the ccNSO
> > will be > outside the > scope of the new ccNSO. > > So how or under
> > what mandate will the scope of the ccNSO be developed?
> > 
> 
> Good point, Paulos.
> Stephan said
> > ;) I guess the worse problem is that this way the ccSO
> > might end up with a way broader scope than originally
> > envisaged...
> >
> I see a broader scope itself as advantageous -a broader scope simply 
> increases the power of the SO, as any policy made within the scope must 
> be carried out by the Board. If its not in the scope, then the Board can 
> ignore the SO.
> 
> But to return to this point, its a common enough "bootstrapping" or "start-
> up" problem. It could be avoided by a tight definition, but, in the absence 
> of that, it means that the Policy Recommendation from the SO on Scope 
> (after a PDP )  does not need to be adopted by the Board, which could 
> substitue its own definition of scope for the SO....
> 
> 
> My much preffered option is for a clearly defined scope rfom the outset.
> 
> Regards
> 
> .Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair, 
> APTLD
> 
> Office  64 4 499 8959
> Mobile 64 21 499 888
> Fax     64 4 4710672
> 
> 
> 

- --
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, 17 Jun 2003 22:12:25 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: [atlarge-discuss] 1:240 .DELAWARE...3:89 DE

From: "Daniel R. Tobias" <[email-masked]>
".DE.US is more logical."
====

Is .DE.EU more logical ?

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel R. Tobias" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] 1:240 .DELAWARE...3:89 DE

> On 17 Jun 2003 at 21:04, Jim Fleming wrote:
> 
> > http://www.ci.wilmington.de.us/
> 
> The official Wilmington, Delaware site, using the proper geographical 
> subdomain.
> 
> > http://Wilmington.dot.DE
> 
> Just goes to the above site, only stuck inside a frameset (and seems 
> to attempt to put up a popup window too, but I've got Mozilla 
> configured to reject this).  .DE is the TLD for Germany, so it makes 
> no sense for a site about Delaware to be there, even though "DE" is 
> also the postal abbreviation for that state; .DE.US is more logical.
> 
> > http://www.Wilmington.Delaware
> 
> Hostname not found; .DELAWARE is not an existent TLD.
> 
> -- 
> == Dan ==
> Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
> Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [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: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:19:31 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Do they have any market value yet?

From: "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" <[email-masked]>
"Do they have any market value yet?"
====

Stay tuned....

http://www.ActiveWorlds.com
http://www.SecondLife.com
http://www.OuterWorlds.com
http://www.There.com

The InterNAT (North American Transport) routes around censorship and uneducated populations...

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [cctld-discuss] Re: Revised Draft ICANN ccNSO Bylaws ....

> 
> On 17 Jun 2003 at 19:55, Jim Fleming <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> > http://www.Chicago.IL
> > http://www.LosAngeles.CA
> > http://www.Delmar.DE
> 
> I guess these must be based on tribal names.
> 
> Do they have any market value yet?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Paulos
> ======================
> Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
> .mw ccTLD
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> Malawi has a travel ban that covers Canada in June 03 due to SARS
> 
> 
> > From: <[email-masked]>
> > > My much preffered option is for a clearly defined scope rfom the outset.
> > ====
> > 
> > You might want to start with a list of TLDs that you consider to be countries, as
> > opposed to tribal names. Now that all of the legacy 2-letter TLDs have been picked
> > over for their marketing value, you might find that the list of so-called ccTLDs is
> > very small. Couple that with the growth of the InterNAT (North American Transport),
> > and you might find the list gets smaller. At some point, small lists and narrow minds
> > fade away.
> > 
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-June/002420.html
> > Bob Braden braden at ISI.EDU 
> > Mon Jun 16 14:33:11 CEST 2003 
> > "Jon came to the conclusion that having a primary numbering space that
> > is mult-dimensional is bound to lead to confusion."
> > ====
> > 
> > http://www.Chicago.IL
> > http://www.LosAngeles.CA
> > http://www.Delmar.DE
> > 
> > Jim Fleming
> > http://www.IPv8.info
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>; "Stephan Welzel/Denic" <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 5:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: [cctld-discuss] Re: Revised Draft ICANN ccNSO Bylaws ....
> > 
> > 
> > > On 17 Jun 2003 at 13:52, Stephan Welzel/Denic wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Paulos,
> > > > 
> > > > On 17.06.2003 12:07 "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" <[email-masked]> wrote: >
> > > > > Without a defined scope, the development of a scope for the ccNSO
> > > > will be > outside the > scope of the new ccNSO. > > So how or under
> > > > what mandate will the scope of the ccNSO be developed?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Good point, Paulos.
> > > Stephan said
> > > > ;) I guess the worse problem is that this way the ccSO
> > > > might end up with a way broader scope than originally
> > > > envisaged...
> > > >
> > > I see a broader scope itself as advantageous -a broader scope simply 
> > > increases the power of the SO, as any policy made within the scope must 
> > > be carried out by the Board. If its not in the scope, then the Board can 
> > > ignore the SO.
> > > 
> > > But to return to this point, its a common enough "bootstrapping" or "start-
> > > up" problem. It could be avoided by a tight definition, but, in the absence 
> > > of that, it means that the Policy Recommendation from the SO on Scope 
> > > (after a PDP )  does not need to be adopted by the Board, which could 
> > > substitue its own definition of scope for the SO....
> > > 
> > > 
> > > My much preffered option is for a clearly defined scope rfom the outset.
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > 
> > > .Peter Dengate Thrush
> > > Senior Vice Chair, 
> > > APTLD
> > > 
> > > Office  64 4 499 8959
> > > Mobile 64 21 499 888
> > > Fax     64 4 4710672
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 

- --
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 #1725
*************************