Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1726
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, June 20 2003            Volume 01 : Number 1726

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:33:26 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ?:? .AC

From: "Paul M. Kane" <[email-masked]>
"the Council members facilitate/encourage/cajole discussion on specific topics.  The members 
of the Board do not have "power"...
====

Have you signed a contract for the .AC top-level-domain (TLD) ?
http://www.AC.nic

Has "the Board" fixed your .AC prices ?

How much do you pay "the Board" to maintain the .AC TLD ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
?:? .AC 

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul M. Kane" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Stephan Welzel/Denic" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 1:44 AM
Subject: Re: [cctld-discuss] Re: Revised Draft ICANN ccNSO Bylaws ....

> [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> >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.
> >  
> >
> Power of the SO - what power??  ... carried out by the Board .......????
> 
> The SO is a _forum_ for discussion and development of Recommended Best 
> Practice which by consensus may become Policy of Best Practice. It is 
> not "power" of Council members of the SO - it is the Council members 
> facilitate/encourage/cajole discussion on specific topics.  The members 
> of the Board do not have "power" (other than to hire and fire staff) - 
> they are there to ensure the forums operate efficiently - and 
> discussions are coordinated.
> 
> Giving the ICANN Board "power" has already proven to be stupid - 
> reference the iDN debate. ICANN should not be "in the way" of JPRS' (or 
> any Registry's) ability to best serve it's customers particularly where 
> the IETF have developed a standard in an open and transparent manner to 
> ensure interoprability, security and reliability.
> 
> The ICANN Bylaws as currently drafted need to be fixed - they currently 
> take responsibility undertaken by grown adults/managers (peers of the 
> ICANN Board), and best handled at the LOCAL level, (local culture, 
> appropraite legal framework, responsive local policy making to best 
> serve the local community),  - and hand that responsibility over to 
> ICANN.  Is that what people want??  I don't think so - and also I don't 
> think it is in the interest of ICANN's long term stability.
> 
> >
> >My much preffered option is for a clearly defined scope rfom the outset.
> >
> I agree and I hope we can clearly _define_ ICANN's _limited_ scope in 
> Montreal - after all that is not about power - just a simple management 
> technique :-)
> 
> Best
> 
> Paul
> 
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 

- --
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 08:46:58 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ?:? .AC is a new domain ??...Where is .DC ?

http://www.nic.ac
“Power up your web site with a .AC domain name!”
.AC is a new domain
"For GBP 60 (approx US$ 100) for year one..."
Administrator
ICB Plc.
Bridge House
181 Queen Victoria Street
London EC4V 4DD
United Kingdom
Email: [email-masked]
===

Where is .DC ?
http://www.Washington.DC

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
?:? .AC

- --
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, 19 Jun 2003 15:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Some anti-WLS news

Hello,

See:
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/19/2112237&mode=nested

which has some news re: WLS. I expect we'll continue to see more
anti-WLS action if/when Verisign tries to push their unwanted service
down people's throats. Verisign's best move would be to listen to their
customers (registrars) and registrants who on a consensus basis
rejected WLS, and unilaterally withdraw the proposal, saving face for
both themselves and the ICANN Board, lest they face a monumental defeat
in a higher venue that would hurt them even more in the long-term. 

ICANN continues to refuse to provide the Independent Review Panel,
which was formally requested on September 9, 2002:

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/brannon-letter-to-lynn-09sep02.htm 
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/brannon-letter-to-twomey-09apr03.htm

Certainly 9 months is more than enough time to convene an independent
panel.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1726
*************************