Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1732
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, June 26 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1732

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] sound issues

Hello,

- --- Bret Fausett <[email-masked]> wrote:
> If anyone is in the room in Montreal, please inform the webcasters
> that the
> gain on the microphones seems to be set too high, as we're getting a
> great
> deal of static on all the voices on the webcast. Thanks!

I hope there'll be a written transcript available later. The sound
truly has been awful.

I hope someone in the public asks about WLS, too -- in particular, why
there hasn't been an Independent Panel Review(there was a
Reconsideration Committee, but there was ALSO supposed to be an
Independent Panel Review, as per Dotster's appeal in September 2002).
Nice to have the answer to than on the record, as they've refused to
answer numerous times already. Maybe Sotiris or someone else in the
audience can get that in, on behalf of a lot of interested people.....

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, 25 Jun 2003 19:39:53 +0100
From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] sound issues

Bret, 

From a notebook in the audience the sound is friendlier on
shoutcast.icannatlarge.org:12000

Regards

Abel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of Bret Fausett
> Sent: 25 June 2003 19:05
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] sound issues
> 
> 
> If anyone is in the room in Montreal, please inform the 
> webcasters that the gain on the microphones seems to be set 
> too high, as we're getting a great deal of static on all the 
> voices on the webcast. Thanks!
> 
>       Bret
> 
> --
> 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: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:47:07 -0700
From: "Bret Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] sound issues

Thanks for the quick responses everyone. I understand the issue is being
addressed. Those of us in remote-land appreciate the assistance!

              -- Bret

- --
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, 25 Jun 2003 14:58:26 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] sound issues

Bret Fausett wrote:

>If anyone is in the room in Montreal, please inform the webcasters that the
>gain on the microphones seems to be set too high, as we're getting a great
>deal of static on all the voices on the webcast. Thanks!
>
>      Bret
>

I relayed your concern.  We are also webcasting the meeting though so if 
you like try our feed:

shoutcast.icannatlarge.org

- --SS

- --
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, 25 Jun 2003 20:16:36 +0100
From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] sound issues

George, 

I hope Sotiris can take care of this for us, also the sound on
shoutcast.icannatlarge.org:12000 is better, beit softer and no video,
but perfectly adequate to listen

Kind regards

Abel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of George Kirikos
> Sent: 25 June 2003 19:40
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] sound issues
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> --- Bret Fausett <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > If anyone is in the room in Montreal, please inform the webcasters 
> > that the gain on the microphones seems to be set too high, as we're 
> > getting a great
> > deal of static on all the voices on the webcast. Thanks!
> 
> I hope there'll be a written transcript available later. The 
> sound truly has been awful.
> 
> I hope someone in the public asks about WLS, too -- in 
> particular, why there hasn't been an Independent Panel 
> Review(there was a Reconsideration Committee, but there was 
> ALSO supposed to be an Independent Panel Review, as per 
> Dotster's appeal in September 2002). Nice to have the answer 
> to than on the record, as they've refused to answer numerous 
> times already. Maybe Sotiris or someone else in the audience 
> can get that in, on behalf of a lot of interested people.....
> 
> 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: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:26:21 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] sound issues

George Kirikos wrote:

>Hello,
>
>--- Bret Fausett <[email-masked]> wrote:
>  
>
>>If anyone is in the room in Montreal, please inform the webcasters
>>that the
>>gain on the microphones seems to be set too high, as we're getting a
>>great
>>deal of static on all the voices on the webcast. Thanks!
>>    
>>
>
>I hope there'll be a written transcript available later. The sound
>truly has been awful.
>
>I hope someone in the public asks about WLS, too -- in particular, why
>there hasn't been an Independent Panel Review(there was a
>Reconsideration Committee, but there was ALSO supposed to be an
>Independent Panel Review, as per Dotster's appeal in September 2002).
>Nice to have the answer to than on the record, as they've refused to
>answer numerous times already. Maybe Sotiris or someone else in the
>audience can get that in, on behalf of a lot of interested people.....
>

I will try to ask it during the open microphone session at the end.

- --SS

- --
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, 25 Jun 2003 21:02:52 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Who'se done it? .org IDNs killed

Dear Marc,
In MdR 2000 James (I think it was him?) was extremely brilliant in 
presenting i-DNs/Minc problematic. This led us all to think of IDN in an 
open manner. This makes us "feel" that RFC 3490 (also in part an opus by 
James) is not the first attempt at IDNs.

At 16:36 25/06/03, James Seng wrote:
>Actually, RFC3490 and other related RFCs are indeed the first set of RFCs 
>on IDN from the IETF.
>-James Seng
>
>Marc Schneiders wrote:
>>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, at 17:11 [=GMT+0200], Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>>>Stability?
>>>
>>>Stability between standards: if RFC 3490 is one day updated or
>>>replaced by another, we expect that the registrants of RFC3490 domains
>>>will be offered some form of free upgrade. We expect that they will
>>>not loose anything just because IETF evolved.
>>>
>>>But there is no reason to guarantee any stability between experiments
>>>and the real stuff.
>>
>>I find this an arbitrary distinction with no basis in reality. 3490 is not
>>the first RFC about IDN, is it? Why make this particular text into some
>>sort of law and paradigm? Whether it leads to something in real internet
>>life remains to be seen, as with all RFCs for new protocols or new
>>enhancements.

This was the argument at the IETF to close the text. Temporary and 
experimental usually lasts. And then new solutions are added. This is why I 
feel the ACE label creates a problem because it introduces a new 
underlaying naming hierarchy in the DNS, and this has not been discussed as 
such.

today binary: "xn--" and "no xn--". Next "x1--" etc.
Some national filtering applications are already investigated.

>>>That's what experiments are for. (ICP-3 gives
>>>details about that, although this document is not often quoted because
>>>the pro-domo speech of ICANN is annoying.)
>>
>>ICP-3 has indeed even less value as a 'law'.

ICP-3 defines very precises conditions for experimentation.
- - non-profit
- - reversible
- - at the global community initiative
- - does not affect real operations

This is what the dot-root test bed project tries to respect. I doubt IDNA 
can be just that.

But, please. IDNA is the only one we have for a real need.  I opposed James 
a lot, before, on this. Now we have this and we have to manage with it. The 
risk was that ICANN imposed positions while we have no experience, adding 
to the problem.

I read the Guidelines as a disengagement of ICANN as giving responsibility 
to the Registrars? Among the risks now, IMHO we have:

- - ICANN keeping guidelines binding instead of BPs: this
   would lead to lingual SLDs and national TLDs opposing
   ICANN. Please respect National independence and
   do not call for Sovereign States to enter the debate.

- - a registration mess. This should be solved through a
   semi GPL universal solution (like for Bind). One solution
   is adopted so: contracts, FAQ, services etc are universal
   and texts easily available in languages and registrants
   made familiar with a unique look and feel. But each
   country/language may need modules adapted to its own
   ruleset and management procedures. This will call for
   some quick development support and homogeneity. It
   will probably best served/supported if a software company
   does it - may be with a Registrars/Resellers Club in
   background. IMHO the cost could be easily footed through
   a small share on registrations. This would permit every
   Registrar to ask for specifics and so to help developed
   and tested the whole service.

- - the need for an evolution. The problem of IDNs is that
   they extend the DNS character set to Unicode. They do
   not support internetted language networks. Please
   remember, Vint Cerf, Bob Khan, Louis Pouzin reminded
   it not long ago at IETF. Internet is about internetting:
   technologies, networks, today languages. It we continue
   doing it in a virtual star network way, with ICANN at the
   core, we will have the same problems with IDN as we have
   with DNS, IP addresses, ccTLDs, @large, etc.

   MDN (multilingual DNs, with MLTLD)  is a service Gov and
   operators want. But the real users demand is for "vernacular"
   names. That is not only the way the people speak or write,
   but also the way they leave with names. Users expect the
   network to technically work and to support a naming space,
   a space of trust, and a service space. VDNs must address
   that demand.

IDN are not _the_ response, but they are a step ahead.
Because when you think of it, many things we need will
probably be better identified through their support.
jfc

>--
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/03

- --
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, 25 Jun 2003 15:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Video archives?

Hi,

Will the Real Video streams be available in archived form later, so
that those who missed parts of the meeting can review what was said? If
so, a link to them (along with the transcripts) would be great.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.AutoInsurance.ca/
- --
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, 25 Jun 2003 23:57:36 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Advice sought

My thanks to over a dozen people who have mailed me privately or on this
list, about the case of www.BritishNationalParty.com

For those following the case and advising me, the continuing correspondence
is posted beneath (and my apologies to those who are not interested in this
particular case of an individual user trying to protect his domain)

*****

Dear Mr xxxxxxx,

Thank you for the courtesy of keeping me informed.

Please understand that I mean your party no harm, and am simply operating a
distinct website which publicly and prominently disassociates itself from
BNP. There is no question of trying to "pass" as your party : nothing could
be further from my intention. I am acting in good faith and I chose
www.BritishNationalParty.com because (a) that is exactly what my website is
about; (b) the name was available and, although you could have registered
it, you did not; (c) I was aware that you already had a website for your
organisation at www.bnp.org.uk

You suggest in your mail today that by having 'British National Party' in my
domain name, this is "misleading to the voting public". I would welcome your
advice about how members of the public could be misled, if displayed
prominently below the domain name - immediately below it, the first thing
you read - are the words "This website has no association with the British
National Party". If a visitor to my site is literate, they cannot
misunderstand this clear statement in large print. If it would set you at
your ease, I would be happy to consider further wording which you feel would
prevent any confusion. I'm trying to be as reasonable and helpful as I can.

I respectfully request that, before expecting me to take down my website,
you communicate to me the precise legal grounds which you feel justify such
a demand. I cannot be expected to accede to your requests until I have a
reasonable opportunity to explore the legal basis for your claims. Also -
and with all due respect to your concerns - I will not be held accountable
for any costs incurred by you (for example in seeking advice) prior to a
defined request based on legal arguments, and a reasonable passage of time
to allow me to investigate any such legal arguments. Nor do I anticipate
being accountable whatsoever, as all I am doing is operating a
legally-registered website, and it will be your own choice if you elect to
explore its status (although I will abide by any court decisions on the
status of my domain). My accountability to you would commence at the
hypothesised point where I defied a court order, or if a court found that
you had suffered financial loss as a result of my website - a decision which
I find unlikely in the extreme.

I would prefer to co-exist with you and your party's own website, as I
believe neither website is harmful to the other. I am also happy to place a
direct link in a prominent place or places to your own long-term homepage at
www.bnp.org.uk

With regard to challenges to domain name ownership, I refer you to ICANN's
established UDRP procedure, operated through WIPO, which is designed to
provide a low-cost method of establishing rights to domain names. The UDRP
procedure is the world standard for challenging domain name ownership, and
will help you avoid undue expenses (if you judge that you have a case in the
first case, which at this present time I do not personally believe that you
do).

For your assistance and clarification (if needed) I refer you to the
following webpage which offers a FAQ on UDRP:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/udrp/faq.cgi

You write that you "see no alternative" and yet I only received your first
notice to desist 24 hours ago. I advise you to allow time for a little
research of your own and perhaps you would care to consider my suggestion of
an agreed wording and link to your own established site, as a sensible way
of co-existing without hostility or any unnecessary expense.

I will continue to forward this correspondence as it unfolds to lawyers and
others who are advising me over this concern of yours. I assure you of my
good faith and good intentions.

With kind regards,

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 8:24 PM
Subject: RE: (Fwd) Re: Website

> Dear Sir,
>
> We do not dispute your right to discuss any political party on a
> web-site owned by yourself.
> However the name of your web-site in dispute currently uses the
> registered name of the British National Party. Though we do not claim
> that this was done with any harmful intent, it clearly is misleading
> to the voting public.
> Will feel that we have no alternative to pass this matter on to our
> legal department for possible breaches of the PPERA and the RPA.
> Unlike a company holding a name on the web,political parties do not
> come under the same UK/EU regulations.By placing .com after the name
> is in no way any different than placing .org.
>
> We regret these actions,but see no other alternative.
>
> xxxxxxxxxx
> National Treasurer.
> British National Party.
>

- --
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, 26 Jun 2003 02:49:15 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internationalized Domain Names deployed

At 13:14 25/06/03, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>I am sure this satisfies civil servants and lawyers, since it is easy to
>apply. Those who think words have a meaning are silly anyway, right?

we all know a word with no meaning: ICANN.

Will I be entitled to register http://icânn.fr which would have certainly a 
very clear connotation to many French people. May be not because I will not 
have a "K-bis". IDNs are not the only oddities on the net.

- --
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, 26 Jun 2003 12:10:12 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] why we are being ignored

Vittorio Bertola made the following comment on the ALAC discussion list:
http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00321.html

I have just read the draft request for proposals for new TLDs:
http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm

What can I say... being a well mannered person, I will not use the terms
that came to my mind while reading it, but there are a few of the points I'd
like to make:

- - Restricting new TLD proposals to sponsored TLDs goes against common sense
and the prevailing consensus in the community; furthermore, it goes against
market competition and innovation.

- - Restricting new TLD proposals to year 2000 applicants is an unfair way to
stifle competition. Three years on the Internet are a huge amount of time,
and I am sure that there are new ideas and new people out there who would
like to apply for new TLDs even if they didn't in 2000. Moreover, it is
likely that most of the year 2000 applicants, due to the changes in the
economical conditions, will not be interested in resubmitting an
application, thus making it very easy for the reapplicants to win the domain
using this sort of "preferential lane".

- - Furthermore, the list of year 2000 applicants is almost entirely composed
by US companies. In practice, ICANN is preventing non-US entities from
getting new TLDs.

- - For ICANN, being unable to start a regular service of examination and
approval of new TLD proposals, after 5 years from its start, is a proof of a
huge failure. By this, ICANN is effectively hampering innovation and
evolution over the Internet. Approving a few new sponsored TLDs chosen from
a list of ICANN-selected applicants is only a fig leaf that does not hide
ICANN's complete failure in establishing a quick, effective and
uncontroversial process for the creation of any kind and number of new TLDs
- - and its lack of will of doing so!

- - Asking for 25'000$ to re-examine slightly reviewed versions of
applications for which the applicants already paid 50'000$ is unreasonable.

- - Our proposal about lower fees for non-profit applicants, as well as the
proposal of 2-step fees (one for applying, one for winning), have been
completely ignored. This fee policy effectively prevents any kind of
non-commercial or bottom-up new TLD from being created, and makes the losers
pay the negotiation and implementation costs of the winners.

- - Apparently, ICANN is completely ignoring the ALAC statements on the
matter, and doing the exact opposite. It is true that we are not the GAC and
do not have a right to explanations recognized by the Bylaws... and yet I
would like to understand whether it makes any sense for us to spend all this
time in advising the organization about the needs of the general public, if
ICANN chooses to do the exact opposite of what we advise. I do not think
that we own the ultimate truth or that all we say must be accepted by the
Board, but at least I would like to get an explanation from Board members on
the rationale underlying their choice.

I would like to get other opinions on this document. Perhaps you do not
share my views, but I think that we absolutely have to submit comments and
to ask explanations about why we are being ignored.

MY COMMENT FOLLOWS:

Vittorio,

the ALAC was designed solely as an instrument to placate the U.S. Department 
of Commerce.  You are being ignored because it has always been ICANN's 
intention to ignore concerns expressed by the general public.  In their eyes, you do 
not matter... you are not a stakeholder, and you have no representation on the 
Board of Directors.  Thank you for finally waking up to the reality that is 
ICANN, a trade association who sole goal is to protect the financial interests 
of its incumbent cartel members.  Maybe now you'll appreciate the difference 
between participation and representation.
- --
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, 26 Jun 2003 11:32:34 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] why we are being ignored

>  Apparently, ICANN is completely ignoring the ALAC statements on the
> matter, and doing the exact opposite.

And this comes of some sort of surprise to anyone?

>  It is true that we are not the GAC and
> do not have a right to explanations recognized by the Bylaws... and 
> yet I
> would like to understand whether it makes any sense for us to spend 
> all this
> time in advising the organization about the needs of the general 
> public, if
> ICANN chooses to do the exact opposite of what we advise.

1. It kept you busy.

2. Your work made it appear as though ICANN was prepared to listen.

As long as you idiots keep doing what ICANN wants, this is just going 
to happen again and again and again and again and AGAIN. I won't post 
examples, but we all know what they are.

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE FARCE!!!!!

You've been sucked in by Esther and her friends.

Again.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice..."

- --
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, 26 Jun 2003 09:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Success Metrics (was Re: [ga] why we are being ignored)

Hello,

While they're pondering new TLDs, have they ever issued a report on the
"success" of the old ones that were added?

In particular, has ICANN ever even defined metrics for judging the
success/failure of new TLDS? Without specifying those criteria IN
ADVANCE, the whole thing is a sham. This came up in the WLS debate,
too, where the only "success criteria" was whether Verisign makes money
(for real, check Verisign's answers to public questions in the document
at http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf ), and no study of the
existing landscape was ever conducted, to be able to judge the impact
of any changes.

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, 26 Jun 2003 10:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] why we are being ignored

We are not allowed a voice from the inside or the outside.
But in just plain doing it we are a much louder voice than DoC or ICANN will 
ever be.
Eric

- --
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, 26 Jun 2003 21:49:31 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internationalized Domain Names deployed

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 01:14:10PM +0200,
 Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 23 lines which said:

> > not always legal French (so, "la", "là" and "lâ" - the latter being
> > non-existant - will automatically be reserved to the registrant of
> > "la").
> 
> I am sure this satisfies civil servants and lawyers, 

I'm not in any of these two categories so am I supposed to be
unsatisfied?

> Those who think words have a meaning are silly anyway, right?

No, but do you suggest that DNS registries only accept words that have
a meaning?
- --
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 #1732
*************************