Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1727
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, June 21 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1727

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Washington Post about WLS

Hello,

See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14022-2003Jun19.html?nav=hptoc_tn

Of course, Mary Hewitt failed to mention that in the public
discussions, there was CONSENSUS opposition to it, and that ICANN's
Board's decision was not reflective of the public discussions. I'm glad
to see folks are beginning to notice that ICANN has crossed a line, and
that unless they shape up, they will no longer be put in a position to
make those poor decisions again.

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: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 20:25:29 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Washington Post about WLS

"ICANN is negotiating with VeriSign to hammer out the details of the
service, including the fee, which VeriSign said would be no higher than
$24."

Heh... remember when the fee was going to be "high enough to deter
speculators"?

- --
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 18:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Washington Post about WLS

Hi John,

- --- John Berryhill <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Heh... remember when the fee was going to be "high enough to deter
> speculators"?

Yeah, I think VGRS is saving that argument for when they ultimately
propose that .com wholesale prices should be $1000/yr, to deter those
evil speculators....

Speculators like P&G sitting on Beautiful.com?

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: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] News.com picks up story on federal investigation into ICANN and WLS

Hello,

My final post of the day (I promise!):

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-1019438.html

"An ICANN spokeswoman said the wait-list change would not become
effective until after an October board meeting in Carthage, Tunisia. 

"We welcome any kind of interest in ICANN because we are a transparent
and accountable organization," ICANN spokeswoman Mary Hewitt said.
"Whether it's the U.S. government or Belgium that wants to look at us,
we welcome the interest. We post everything on our Web site." 

If that's truly the case, perhaps Mary Hewitt can explain why 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

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: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:51:31 -0500
From: Erick Iriarte Ahon <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Primera Convocatoria: II Congreso Latinoamericano de Derecho Informatico  y IV de Nombres de Dominio

Nota: Con el Ruego de su Difusión y distribución, dado que del conocimiento 
de esta información estará pendiente su exito

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

Información: http://www.alfa-redi.org/congreso/iberolatino.asp

II Congreso Latinoamericano de Derecho Informatico
UNLZ / Alfa-Redi
y

IV Congreso Iberoamericano Independiente de Nombres de Dominio
UNLZ / Alfa-Redi / Dominiuris

"Políticas públicas y marco jurídico  de la Sociedad de la Información"

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 al 5 de diciembre de 2003
Buenos Aires - Argentina
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Convocatoria

“Para las Naciones Unidas (ONU), el mundo enfrenta la más grande revolución 
social de su historia: el paso de la sociedad industrial a la sociedad de 
la información. La convergencia de Internet con la radio, la televisión, 
los sistemas multimedia, la telefonía y otras tecnologías de la información 
y la comunicación, genera nuevos productos y servicios que modifican la 
vida cotidiana de las personas, la forma de hacer negocios, de comerciar, 
de enseñar y aprender y, hasta, de hacer política”. Diario Clarín, 
11/06/2003 Buenos Aires  Argentina

Señores miembros de los Gobiernos Iberoamericanos, empresas vinculadas a 
esta temática, colegas de todas las ramas del Derecho:

La Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Nacional de Lomas de Zamora y la 
ONG Alfa  Redi han asumido la organización de los Congresos II 
Latinoamericano de Derecho Informático y, conjuntamente con Dominiuris, el 
IV Iberoamericano Independiente de Nombres de Dominio

La nota del encabezado es una síntesis del desafío que asumimos, pero no 
solo los organizadores de ambos Congresos, sino todos nosotros en forma 
individual en nuestro trabajo diario, o como integrantes de distintas 
comunidades involucradas en la Sociedad de la Información

Sabemos que falta mucho que analizar, estudiar, escuchar y debatir sobre la 
temática seleccionada. Pero cada reunión de orden nacional o internacional 
que realizamos, es parte de ese compromiso que asumimos para tratar de 
contribuir a allanar ese arduo camino que deberemos recorrer 
constantemente, a fin de obtener la seguridad legal y la seguridad jurídica 
que solo nos brindan legislaciones correctas, cumplibles y cumplidas.

Es por ello que tenemos el alto honor de invitar a representantes de los 
gobiernos iberoamericanos, a las empresas desarrolladoras o 
comercializadoras de software propietario, a organizaciones que apoyan el 
uso de software abierto, a las organizaciones que nuclean a los 
profesionales de todas las ramas del Derecho, a las Cámaras y Programas de 
Gobierno, y a los colegas interesados en las políticas públicas y el marco 
jurídico de la Sociedad de la Información, a participar activamente en los 
congresos de Buenos Aires.

Pretendemos trabajar en un foro internacional, multidisciplinario, 
altamente capacitado y altamente participativo, que logre plasmar el 
tratamiento de temas trascendentes, expuestos desde distintos puntos de 
vista, y que escuchados desde los opuestos, tratar de llegar al consenso, o 
dejar planteada la posibilidad de lograrlo en un corto tiempo.

Adherimos a la temática planteada para la próxima cumbre de la Sociedad de 
la Información, y esperamos las ponencias referidas a:

1) Infraestructura de la información y las comunicaciones: financiación e 
inversión, asequibilidad, desarrollo y sostenibilidad

Brecha digital
Conectividad
Plataformas
Infraestructura de red de banda ancha regional e internacional
Centros comunitarios
Políticas de acceso universal
Fenómeno de la convergencia de las tecnologías
Optimización de conexiones entre las grandes redes
Liberalización, privatización y competencia

2) La función de los gobiernos, el sector empresarial y la sociedad civil 
en la promoción de las TIC para el desarrollo

Cometido, responsabilidades y objetivos de cada asociado.
Sector privado: modalidades innovadoras para corregir las insuficiencias 
del mercado
Gobierno electrónico: políticas rigurosas y transparentes, que permitan 
mejorar el control, la evaluación y la supervisión de los servicios públicos.
Cooperación y asociaciones entre los gobiernos y las organizaciones 
intergubernamentales
Cooperación y asociaciones entre el sector privado y la sociedad civil
Establecimiento de marcos de política y el desarrollo de contenido y 
aplicaciones locales que respondan a condiciones culturales específicas.
Fortalecimiento de las micro, pequeñas y medianas empresas locales mediante 
su integración en la economía digital.
Políticas públicas: difusión de la innovación y el espíritu empresarial y 
el desarrollo de empresas con base tecnológica

3) Creación de capacidad: Desarrollo de los recursos humanos, educación y 
capacitación

Niveles de alfabetización y aptitudes con respecto a las TIC.
E-learning
Cursos sobre “alfabetización digital”

4) Derecho informático

Marco jurídico, de política y reglamentación adecuados
Libertad de expresión
Privacidad
Seguridad Informática
Delitos informáticos
Gestión de los nombres de dominio y las direcciones Internet
Protección del consumidor
Actividades encaminadas hacia el establecimiento de normas internacionales
Derechos de propiedad intelectual e interés público
Software Libre - Aspectos Legales
Administración del espectro radioeléctrico

5) Fomento de aplicaciones TIC orientadas al desarrollo para todos

Desarrollo económico y social
Cibercomunidades
Gobierno electrónico
Transparencia de la Gestión Pública
E-democracy
Actividad económica virtual
E-salud.

6) Fomento de la identidad cultural y la diversidad lingüística, el 
contenido local y los medios de comunicación

Diversidad lingüística y cultural
Creación de contenido de información variado
Promoción de las redes de banda ancha
Ficheros digitales

7) Nombres de Dominio y Números IP

Administración de Nombres de dominio bajo ccTLD's en la Región Iberoamericana
UDRP o LDRP?: Avances y desarrollos regionales.
UDRP: Análisis situacional
Políticas Públicas Regionales e Internacionales, y Nombres de Dominio: 
ALCA, Comunidad Andina, Declaración WSIS
Proceso de Reforma del ICANN, cambios y contracambios.
IPv6 y desarrollo de Políticas de Números IP en la Región.
Privacidad y Nombres de Dominio

Las ponencias serán recepcionadas hasta el 30 de septiembre inclusive, 
siendo la fecha de aceptación el 30 de octubre del corriente año.

Toda inquietud, consulta o colaboración, será bien recibida en el siguiente 
correo electrónico: [email-masked] o en: 
http://www.alfa-redi.org/congreso/iberolatino.asp

Cordialmente

Dr. Alberto Soto
Presidente del Comité Organizador
II Congreso Latinoamericano de Derecho Informático
IV Congreso Iberoamericano Independiente de Nombres de Dominio

Erick Iriarte Ahon
Alfa-Redi
http://www.alfa-redi.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: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:18:20 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Fwd: [minc-announce] MINC announces Tender Document for Interoperability Test...

- --part1_4e.1e0f57ca.2c242b5c_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- --part1_4e.1e0f57ca.2c242b5c_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

From: "Minc Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [minc-announce] MINC announces Tender Document for Interoperability Testbed After Extensive Feedback
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:37:19 +0300
Sender: [email-masked]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MINC announces Tender Document for Interoperability Testbed
After Extensive Feedback

London, Friday, 20 June 2003.
Two years ago, MINC [1] initiated a project to evaluate the
formation of an Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)
Interoperability Testbed. In view of the time lag of issuance
of IETF standards, this was postponed till late last year
2002 [2] when the IETF standards were impending, when MINC
Board passed a resolution to set up Interoperability Testing
and noted that a subsequent call for participation was
impending.

In early this year 2003, a MINC document for setting up an
Interoperability Testbed was circulated for comment [3].
Based on extensive feedback from that document, drafts have
been iterated and a final version of the tender document for
MINC IDN Interoperability Testbed has been achieved.

In addition, now that IETF proposed IDN standards (RFC
3490, 3491 and 3492) have been published, MINC has engaged
a contractor to set up the tender process, and is presently
making the invitation to potential tenderers to bid for
operating the MINC Interoperability Testbed. Subsequent to
this, we will be expecting a call for participation in this
Interoperability Testbed.

The MINC Website http://www.minc.org/interop/ will contain
the latest information about the tender, and all interested
parties are requested to respond to [email-masked] by 10am
GMT+0800h SST (i.e. 10 am Local Singapore Time) on 14th
July 2003.

MINC Chairman, Khaled Fattal, has appointed an
Interoperability Testing Committee comprising Milton Choo,
Tan Tin Wee, Dongman Lee and Sergey Charikov to provide
oversight for this MINC activity. Said Fattal "This is a
vital step in the overall delivery of true IDN and the
multilingualization of the global Internet and will further
ensure its proper development, deployment and stability."

[1] MINC Statement on Internationalised Domain Names and
Interoperability Testing. 12 March 2001
http://www.minc.org/pr/interopMar2001.shtml

[2] MINC Announces Interoperability Testing For
Internationalized Domain Names. 4 Nov 2002
http://www.minc.org/pr/interopNov2002.shtml

[3] Release of MINC Document on Interoperability Testbed:
Request For Comments. 25 Feb 2003.
http://www.minc.org/pr/interopMar2003.shtml

- ----------------------------------------------------------
For more information about MINC and this tender bid, please
contact the MINC Secretariat at [email-masked] and
[email-masked].

About MINC
- ---------
MINC is the Multilingual Internet Names Consortium, formed in
June 2000 to promote the internationalisation of Internet
names including multilingual Internet domain names. For more
information about MINC, please refer to its website at
http://www.minc.org/. To contact MINC, please send email
to [email-masked]

- --part1_4e.1e0f57ca.2c242b5c_boundary--
- --
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, 20 Jun 2003 06:35:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] BAPTISTA TESTS INTERNET RADIO NETWORK IN PETERBOROUGH OUTSIDE USG CONTROL

This one may interest the Internet, Peterborough and the DNS community. I
am currently testing the first radio station launched in inclusive
namespace at http://radio.baptista.god:8000/

You can also reach the "Baptista Radio Network" via the ShoutCast Radio
Network at www.shoutcast.com - just search for "Baptista" and click on
the "Tune In" button.

This is a first.  Not only is this the first radio station to launch
itself in inclusive namespace but also the first such station to
broadcast from Peterborough Ontario.

WHAT IS INCLUSIVE NAMESPACE?  Those of you who dont understand inclusive
namespace let me offer this brief explaination.  Inclusive namespace is
the future of the network.  We are a community of people who have decided
to show the U.S. government the finger and take over internet operations
ourselves.  Signs of the times and signs of the future.

Your all welcomed to tune in and listen ;)

The station was operational last night when I commenced testing it for the
first time.  Please let me know of any connection problems.  At this time
we limit connections to five at any one time.

cheers
joe baptista

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

Of US troops: "They are most welcome. We will butcher them."
 ... Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf former Iraqi Information Minister

- --
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, 20 Jun 2003 13:04:11 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Volvo's doing, or an over-zealous junior partner at Sughrue Mion, PLLC ?

Almost as stupid as launching the newzealand.com UDRP case.

volocars.com

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0306.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, 20 Jun 2003 18:36:21 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI

Good evening.
For your information, further to my previous comment to the proposed changes 
to the geographical regions, I have sent the attached comment.
Regards
Roberto

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

Good evening.
I would like to substantiate my position, expressed already, about keeping 
the territories geographically located in a different Region than the mother 
country where they are, and not moving them in a different geographic 
region.
I would like to call your attention to an international treaty that 
indirectly addresses this matter: the treaty of Tlatelolco 
(http://www.opanal.org/opanal/Tlatelolco/Tlatelolco-i.htm). If you check the 
Additional Protocol I 
(http://www.opanal.org/opanal/Tlatelolco/Tlatelolco-i.htm#35), you will 
notice that this engages States that have territories in Latin America and 
Caribbean. While the signatories are the States (so far France, the 
Netherlands, UK and US, as in 
http://www.opanal.org/opanal/Tlatelolco/status-i.htm) that are, de jure or 
de facto, internationally responsible for territories in LAC, the treaty 
applies only to said territories, creating a juridical distinction between, 
for instance, France (FR) and French Guyane (GF). The residents of the 
French Guyane are protected by an international treaty against any direct or 
indirect use of nuclear weapons in their territory (including testing or 
storage), and this status is different from the one of their colleagues in 
Metropolitan France.
All this to say that for international law the common nationality is not a 
sufficient reason for lumping together residents of different regions.
As for the second problem, i.e. the question of Antartica, it can be 
assigned to AP by redesigning AP to include AQ, but this only with the 
agreement of Argentina and Chile. I just incidentally note that, if the same 
logic that led to the assignment of GF to Europe had been applied to AQ, the 
latter should have been split in the slices of different sovereignity. Of 
course with terrible problems, because the slices themselves to not have an 
ISO-3166 code. But again, this shows only that the "belonging to a country" 
is an attribute and not a property of a territory. On the other hand, 
geographical location is a property (assuming we can limit our observation 
to few thousand years), and therefore should remain the guiding factor.
Regards
Roberto Gaetano

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

- --
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, 20 Jun 2003 11:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Internationalized Domain Names deployed

Hello,

See the announcement at:

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20jun03.htm

Reading the RFCs, I think a lot of folks should be worried about the
security implications, as abusers will be able to register domains that
use characters that are indistinguishable to the naked eye, due to the
extended character sets in the internationalized domain names.

E.g. you might get an email purporting to be from Microsoft, AOL, AT&T,
your ISP, etc., and to the naked eye the email address and web
addresses look perfectly legitimate -- instead, they redirect you to a
site designed to steal your credit card details or passwords....

I expect a backlash, once the IP community and Business Constituencies,
amongst others, begin to see the abuses.

Be afraid, be very afraid....

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: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 20:24:44 +0100
From: Michael Froomkin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] News.com picks up story on federal investigation into ICANN and WLS

This statement of ICANN's is simply a lie -- they wouldn't post any of 
Karl's stuff at all.

George Kirikos wrote:

>Hello,
>
>My final post of the day (I promise!):
>
>http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-1019438.html
>
>"An ICANN spokeswoman said the wait-list change would not become
>effective until after an October board meeting in Carthage, Tunisia. 
>
>"We welcome any kind of interest in ICANN because we are a transparent
>and accountable organization," ICANN spokeswoman Mary Hewitt said.
>"Whether it's the U.S. government or Belgium that wants to look at us,
>we welcome the interest. We post everything on our Web site." 
>
>If that's truly the case, perhaps Mary Hewitt can explain why 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
>
>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
>
>
>
>  
>

- --
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, 20 Jun 2003 15:40:14 -0400
From: "Ram Mohan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internationalized Domain Names deployed

This is exactly the motivation behind guideline development
(http://www.icann.org/general/idn-guidelines-20jun03.htm) -- the RFCs by
themselves provide the opportunity for mischief as you suggest.  Registries
have to consider the "on-the-street" realities with implementation of IDNs
... which include conflicts in IP, TM and in IDN vs. non-IDN registrations
(see points 3, 4, 5 of the guidelines)

- -ram
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 2:54 PM
Subject: [ga] Internationalized Domain Names deployed

> Hello,
>
> See the announcement at:
>
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20jun03.htm
>
> Reading the RFCs, I think a lot of folks should be worried about the
> security implications, as abusers will be able to register domains that
> use characters that are indistinguishable to the naked eye, due to the
> extended character sets in the internationalized domain names.
>
> E.g. you might get an email purporting to be from Microsoft, AOL, AT&T,
> your ISP, etc., and to the naked eye the email address and web
> addresses look perfectly legitimate -- instead, they redirect you to a
> site designed to steal your credit card details or passwords....
>
> I expect a backlash, once the IP community and Business Constituencies,
> amongst others, begin to see the abuses.
>
> Be afraid, be very afraid....
>
> 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
>

- --
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, 20 Jun 2003 21:56:05 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internationalized Domain Names deployed

On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 11:54:28AM -0700,
 George Kirikos <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 30 lines which said:

> See the announcement at:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20jun03.htm

[Not relevant for ".fr" but I digress...]
 
> I expect a backlash, once the IP community and Business Constituencies,
> amongst others, begin to see the abuses.

IPR people are not the only stakeholders we need to take into
account. Many other people are quite eager to see the actual
deployment of IDN, specially outside of Great Britain's former
colonies.

> Be afraid, be very afraid....

Be happy we have at last the opportunity to use your own alphabet.

- --
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, 21 Jun 2003 07:47:34 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI

I tend to agree with Robert's very well made points but have a concern
about the North American Region and the ccNSO bylaws.

North America, using UN criteria, has only five member ccTLDs.  They
would be:

Bermuda (.bm)
Canada (.ca)
Greenland (.gl)
Saint Pierre and Miquelon (.pm)
United States (.us)

Under ICANN proposal there would be slightly more, eight:

American Samoa (.as)
Canada (.ca)
Guam (.gu)
Northern Mariana Islands (.mp)
Puerto Rico (.pr)
US Minor Outlying Islands (.um)
United States (.us)
Virgin Islands US (.vi)

Now the problem is that Article XX of the proposed bylaws says that at
least four ccTLDs in each Region must join the ccNSO before it is
"quorate".

This means under the geographic proposal that just two out of five
ccTLDs in North America can stop the ccNSO even if the rest of the
world joins up.   

One of these (.pm) is actually run by AFNIC.  .gl appears to be a tiny
affair as their iso3166 page was last updated in 1997.  I apologise if
I am wrong but I don't recall them being active in ccTLD discussions
at all.  Likewise I can not recall how active, if at all, Bermuda is.

So my concern is that using the UN model, one may never get a ccNSO -
not because there is opposition to it, but just because there are not
enough active ccTLDs in North America.

Even using the ICANN model with 8 ccTLDs in North America, this is
still a high threshold of 50% must join up to be able to form the
ccNSO.  Again some of these ccTLDs are very small (.um and .mp) and
not very active.  Does anyone have any data on how many NA ccTLDs have
for example turned up to an ICANN meeting or participated on the
cctld-discuss list?

DPF

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:36:21 +0000, "Roberto Gaetano"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Good evening.
>For your information, further to my previous comment to the proposed changes 
>to the geographical regions, I have sent the attached comment.
>Regards
>Roberto
>
>------------------------------------------------
>
>Good evening.
>I would like to substantiate my position, expressed already, about keeping 
>the territories geographically located in a different Region than the mother 
>country where they are, and not moving them in a different geographic 
>region.
>I would like to call your attention to an international treaty that 
>indirectly addresses this matter: the treaty of Tlatelolco 
>(http://www.opanal.org/opanal/Tlatelolco/Tlatelolco-i.htm). If you check the 
>Additional Protocol I 
>(http://www.opanal.org/opanal/Tlatelolco/Tlatelolco-i.htm#35), you will 
>notice that this engages States that have territories in Latin America and 
>Caribbean. While the signatories are the States (so far France, the 
>Netherlands, UK and US, as in 
>http://www.opanal.org/opanal/Tlatelolco/status-i.htm) that are, de jure or 
>de facto, internationally responsible for territories in LAC, the treaty 
>applies only to said territories, creating a juridical distinction between, 
>for instance, France (FR) and French Guyane (GF). The residents of the 
>French Guyane are protected by an international treaty against any direct or 
>indirect use of nuclear weapons in their territory (including testing or 
>storage), and this status is different from the one of their colleagues in 
>Metropolitan France.
>All this to say that for international law the common nationality is not a 
>sufficient reason for lumping together residents of different regions.
>As for the second problem, i.e. the question of Antartica, it can be 
>assigned to AP by redesigning AP to include AQ, but this only with the 
>agreement of Argentina and Chile. I just incidentally note that, if the same 
>logic that led to the assignment of GF to Europe had been applied to AQ, the 
>latter should have been split in the slices of different sovereignity. Of 
>course with terrible problems, because the slices themselves to not have an 
>ISO-3166 code. But again, this shows only that the "belonging to a country" 
>is an attribute and not a property of a territory. On the other hand, 
>geographical location is a property (assuming we can limit our observation 
>to few thousand years), and therefore should remain the guiding factor.
>Regards
>Roberto Gaetano
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
>http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

- --
E-mail: [email-masked]
ICQ:    29964527
MSN:    [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: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 20:32:29 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "...how many NA ccTLDs..." ?

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "DPF" <[email-masked]>
 Does anyone have any data on how many NA ccTLDs have
> for example turned up to an ICANN meeting or participated on the
> cctld-discuss list?
> 
====

Calling 2-letter TLDs...ccTLDs...only helps to perpetuate the myths of the 32-bit DNS regimes...

If you are looking for 2-letter TLDs that North Americans seem to like, here are some samples...

http://Toys.R.US
http://www.dot.AM
http://www.dot.FM
http://www.LosAngeles.CA
http://www.LA
http://www.Chicago.IL
http://www.Register.IT
http://www.Register.MD
http://www.TV
http://WebSite.WS
http://www.nic.BZ
http://www.Boston.MA
http://www.nic.IO
http://www.dot.DE
http://www.nic.TM
http://www.CD
http://go.TO
http://This.IS

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1727
*************************