Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1733
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, June 27 2003            Volume 01 : Number 1733

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:54:19 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internationalized Domain Names deployed

On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:55:17AM +0200,
 Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 31 lines which said:

> Well... but who is going to make policies in this field (if any)
> regarding gTLDs? 

Ah, yes, we have a problem here. I'm glad I'm not in charge of solving
it.
 
> If you could tie up any possible IDN string to a single language, you
> could decide to apply for that string the rules decided locally for
> that language (i.e. use the French rules for libertè.com, but the
> Italian ones for libertà.com). But this is clearly impossible in
> practice.

Multi-lingual countries (like Switzerland) can have a map that suits
every national language. It is easy in Europe, probably more difficult
for countries like India.
 
> So either someone (perhaps CENTR and other ccTLD associations?) can
> come up with best practices for variant tables to be applied at the
> global level, or we won't be able to have any policy in the field.

CENTR is just working on exchanging information between ccTLD. To
develop common (but optional) frameworks, we have the idn-reg-policy
mailing list <URL:http://www.imc.org/idn-reg-policy/index.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, 26 Jun 2003 21:07:47 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Success Metrics (was Re: [ga] why we are being ignored)

ICANN introduced the New TLDs with a much-vaunted "Proof of Concept" process
to accompany them.

The launch of the new TLDs was to be a carefully studied test by which to
measure the viability of any future New TLDs.

They committed themselves to a New TLD Evaluation Process. Members of the
public have been contributing valuable information about the New TLDs for
almost 2 years on ICANN's New TLD Public Fora (which sadly Stuart Lynn
branded "a joke"). In reality, many of the problems associated with these
New TLDs first broke to the public through the vigilance of the public, on
these fora, as well as at ICANNWatch.

Meanwhile, what has ICANN done to measure the 'proof of concept', to
evaluate the New TLDs, and assess their viability?

Firstly, ICANN has been asked to clarify exactly who is going to chair the
New TLD Evaluation Process, which has yet to formally commence. (There was a
committee set up to define the aims and methods of a subsequent evaluation
process - but where is the process itself?)

Secondly, ICANN required mandatory and publishable Evaluation Reports from
the New TLD Registries. These were required under Appendix U of the
ICANN-Registry Agreements. Very specific details had to be assessed and
reported back on by the Registries, and it was made clear that these were
predominantly for public consumption.

I have been asking ICANN staff and Board *for over a year* why these
Evaluation Reports have never been published. They were mostly due for
publication 12 to 18 months ago. I first asked in Spring of 2002. There was
no reply. I then asked again in the Summer of 2002. Stuart Lynn said that
ICANN staff had been "too busy to upload the reports onto the ICANN
website". I asked again in Autumn 2002, and again in January 2003 and Spring
2003.

It is now June 2003 - and ICANN staff still have not had enough time to
upload the Registry Evaluation Reports. My 12 year old daughter could have
done it in half an hour.

What does this tell us about the seriousness of ICANN's commitment to the
"Proof of Concept", the Evaluation Process, and the need to consider all
aspects of New TLD releases, rather than just their own arbitrary criteria?

And ICANN always goes on about wanting to involve all constituencies in
participation and policy development. How can people engage in informed
participation, if key data is withheld (in what I now regard as an
obstructive manner)?

The issue of New TLDs is of immense interest and concern, internationally,
to sincere internet users all over the world.

This California quango gives the appearance of just acting arbitrarily, with
inadequate respect or acknowledgement of the viewpoints of the world beyond.

Where are the Evaluation Reports?

Where is the Evaluation Process?

Why have I waited 400 days for an acknowledgement from Dan Halloran to a
serious and detailed mail about the new TLDs? Why does ICANN arbitrarily
ignore parties it does not wish to face?

This thread is entitled "Why we are being ignored".

I have been ignored for over 400 days on the issue of the New TLDs. How is
that for ICANN's much vaunted "Responsiveness"?

I'm just grateful that ICANNWatch has afforded space to publish the detailed
concerns over the release of these New TLDs, and is prepared to offer a
voice to the worldwide constituency which ICANN treats with disdain.

If we do not fully evaluate the difficulties, abuse of process, and problems
which accompanied previous New TLDs, then how can we hope to avoid a
repetition of similar problems?

Sincerely,

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 5:44 PM
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
>

- --
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 15:09:41 -0700
From: "Ali Farshchian" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Success Metrics (was Re: [ga] why we are being ignored)

These are the closest we have been able to come to when it comes to such
reports or metrics:

http://www.circleid.com/article/66_0_1_0_C/
http://www.circleid.com/article/72_0_1_0_C/

Regards,

Ali Farshchian
http://www.circleid.com

|-----Original Message-----
|From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Richard
|Henderson
|Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 1:08 PM
|To: George Kirikos; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|Cc: [email-masked]
|Subject: Re: Success Metrics (was Re: [ga] why we are being ignored)
|
|
|ICANN introduced the New TLDs with a much-vaunted "Proof of
|Concept" process
|to accompany them.
|
|The launch of the new TLDs was to be a carefully studied test by which to
|measure the viability of any future New TLDs.
|
|They committed themselves to a New TLD Evaluation Process. Members of the
|public have been contributing valuable information about the New TLDs for
|almost 2 years on ICANN's New TLD Public Fora (which sadly Stuart Lynn
|branded "a joke"). In reality, many of the problems associated with these
|New TLDs first broke to the public through the vigilance of the public, on
|these fora, as well as at ICANNWatch.
|
|Meanwhile, what has ICANN done to measure the 'proof of concept', to
|evaluate the New TLDs, and assess their viability?
|
|Firstly, ICANN has been asked to clarify exactly who is going to chair the
|New TLD Evaluation Process, which has yet to formally commence.
|(There was a
|committee set up to define the aims and methods of a subsequent evaluation
|process - but where is the process itself?)
|
|Secondly, ICANN required mandatory and publishable Evaluation Reports from
|the New TLD Registries. These were required under Appendix U of the
|ICANN-Registry Agreements. Very specific details had to be assessed and
|reported back on by the Registries, and it was made clear that these were
|predominantly for public consumption.
|
|I have been asking ICANN staff and Board *for over a year* why these
|Evaluation Reports have never been published. They were mostly due for
|publication 12 to 18 months ago. I first asked in Spring of 2002. There was
|no reply. I then asked again in the Summer of 2002. Stuart Lynn said that
|ICANN staff had been "too busy to upload the reports onto the ICANN
|website". I asked again in Autumn 2002, and again in January 2003
|and Spring
|2003.
|
|It is now June 2003 - and ICANN staff still have not had enough time to
|upload the Registry Evaluation Reports. My 12 year old daughter could have
|done it in half an hour.
|
|What does this tell us about the seriousness of ICANN's commitment to the
|"Proof of Concept", the Evaluation Process, and the need to consider all
|aspects of New TLD releases, rather than just their own arbitrary criteria?
|
|And ICANN always goes on about wanting to involve all constituencies in
|participation and policy development. How can people engage in informed
|participation, if key data is withheld (in what I now regard as an
|obstructive manner)?
|
|The issue of New TLDs is of immense interest and concern, internationally,
|to sincere internet users all over the world.
|
|This California quango gives the appearance of just acting
|arbitrarily, with
|inadequate respect or acknowledgement of the viewpoints of the
|world beyond.
|
|Where are the Evaluation Reports?
|
|Where is the Evaluation Process?
|
|Why have I waited 400 days for an acknowledgement from Dan Halloran to a
|serious and detailed mail about the new TLDs? Why does ICANN arbitrarily
|ignore parties it does not wish to face?
|
|This thread is entitled "Why we are being ignored".
|
|I have been ignored for over 400 days on the issue of the New TLDs. How is
|that for ICANN's much vaunted "Responsiveness"?
|
|I'm just grateful that ICANNWatch has afforded space to publish
|the detailed
|concerns over the release of these New TLDs, and is prepared to offer a
|voice to the worldwide constituency which ICANN treats with disdain.
|
|If we do not fully evaluate the difficulties, abuse of process,
|and problems
|which accompanied previous New TLDs, then how can we hope to avoid a
|repetition of similar problems?
|
|
|Sincerely,
|
|Richard Henderson
|
|----- Original Message -----
|From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
|To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
|Cc: <[email-masked]>
|Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 5:44 PM
|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
|>
|
|--
|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, 26 Jun 2003 22:45:07 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] why we are being ignored

Bravo. 100% in agreement on everything.
jfc

At 18:10 26/06/03, [email-masked] wrote:
>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 22:41:25 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] why we are being ignored

On 19:37 26/06/03, Eric Dierker said:
>But in just plain doing it we are a much louder voice than DoC or ICANN will
>ever be.

Absolutely true.

The error of the alt-root proponents was to think this would be understood 
quick by the largest number.

Our own response is to organize ourselves outside of the NTIA system. The 
internet is two directories: IP addresses and the DNS. ISPs need to sell to 
us and for that they take care of the IP addmess. We only have to care 
about DNS. The only thing we need to do is to start a conerted development 
of ULDs (user level domains) as corporate, community, service SLD Managers.

An ULD costs $ 10 to 100 per year (the same mnemonic in several registries 
may be interesting for  security purposes). Then the cutting (second level 
root) management will call for a few machines. The CIC (community 
inormation center) is what we work on for a stable, sercure, vernacular 
solution. This permits life long, free, protected e-names. Then we need an 
economical moder and to organize a space of trust and services. The space 
of trust should be organized through the payment system for the services.

Now we need the dedicated team, per country and per language, to manage the 
ULDs CIC on a non-profit basis (but services functions should be 
subscontracted to make sure the service is serious) and a lawyer panel to 
establish an international e-name charter and confirm an ULD BP.

- --
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, 27 Jun 2003 16:54:23 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] why we are being ignored

At 04:10 a.m. 27/06/2003, [email-masked] wrote:
>   Maybe now you'll appreciate the difference
>between participation and representation.

Representation needs to be structured. It needs boring rules and  procedures.
Participation has all the glamour of being involved with the issues of the day.

The hero's are those who quitely beaver away at creating credible, scalable 
representational structure.
The misguided are those who expect ICANN to do it for them.

- --Joop--
icannatlarge Panel Member
www.icannatlarge.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, 27 Jun 2003 07:41:00 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internationalized Domain Names deployed

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, at 21:49 [=GMT+0200], Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> 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?

Not according to the rules of logic, or any type of textual interpretation
I am familiar with.

> > 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?

No, why do you think so?

>

- --
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, 27 Jun 2003 02:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Success Metrics (was Re: [ga] why we are being ignored)

> These are the closest we have been able to come to when it comes to
> such reports or metrics:
> 
> http://www.circleid.com/article/66_0_1_0_C/
> http://www.circleid.com/article/72_0_1_0_C/
> 
Well these are not close they are quite good.
e

- --
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, 27 Jun 2003 06:42:09 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] why we are being ignored

jefsey  - if you list properly with search engines the domain name is
unimportant as well. In fact if the search engines got their acts together
there would be much less dependence on named web addresses and searchable IP
addresses can take their place.

Todd

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] why we are being ignored

> On 19:37 26/06/03, Eric Dierker said:
> >But in just plain doing it we are a much louder voice than DoC or ICANN
will
> >ever be.
>
> Absolutely true.
>
> The error of the alt-root proponents was to think this would be understood
> quick by the largest number.
>
> Our own response is to organize ourselves outside of the NTIA system. The
> internet is two directories: IP addresses and the DNS. ISPs need to sell
to
> us and for that they take care of the IP addmess. We only have to care
> about DNS. The only thing we need to do is to start a conerted development
> of ULDs (user level domains) as corporate, community, service SLD
Managers.
>
> An ULD costs $ 10 to 100 per year (the same mnemonic in several registries
> may be interesting for  security purposes). Then the cutting (second level
> root) management will call for a few machines. The CIC (community
> inormation center) is what we work on for a stable, sercure, vernacular
> solution. This permits life long, free, protected e-names. Then we need an
> economical moder and to organize a space of trust and services. The space
> of trust should be organized through the payment system for the services.
>
> Now we need the dedicated team, per country and per language, to manage
the
> ULDs CIC on a non-profit basis (but services functions should be
> subscontracted to make sure the service is serious) and a lawyer panel to
> establish an international e-name charter and confirm an ULD BP.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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, 27 Jun 2003 16:14:36 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] why we are being ignored

On 06:54 27/06/03, Joop Teernstra said:
>At 04:10 a.m. 27/06/2003, [email-masked] wrote:
>>   Maybe now you'll appreciate the difference
>>between participation and representation.
>
>Representation needs to be structured. It needs boring rules and  procedures.
>Participation has all the glamour of being involved with the issues of the 
>day.

Dear Joop,
I feel I am the old Caton :-)  This is true in democracy. This is not 
necesarily true in what we can call netocracy.

In democracy one have pepole a representation. Because with talk of the 
interest of each and every individuals.

In netocracy we want ideas and needs being represented because we think 
that every one  counts, including all those who are not here yet. Also 
because individual rigths are already represented by the democratic system 
(GAC, ISO, States). We do not want to conflict, we want to address 
additional needs in a different environement, at a different level, in a 
different way. We have no law, no Justice, no police to protect the 
representative. This is why we must be represented by ideas.

Look at ouy debate. No one is voting or lobbying for someone, it would be 
ridiculous. We inly hope that candidates stand for our vision, our culture, 
our ideas.

>The hero's are those who quitely beaver away at creating credible, 
>scalable representational structure.
>The misguided are those who expect ICANN to do it for them.

The erroneous ones are thos who believe they can use democratic thinking in 
creating netocratic representational structures. IMHO all our problem is 
here. Our own activists are more activists than e-networks men.

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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] To: [email-masked]

It is truly good and just to be judged by your thoughts, words and actions.
Those that would rule simply by their power and not by their ideas are 
living and
dying
two centuries behind.
The first bombs dropped in our latest horrible conflicts were leaflets not
gunpowder.
By increasing communication, participation and education we find a 
correlating
reduction
in conflict. Some call it a gap, I call it an opportunity for a bridge.
When an OS has a failure it is cause for caffeine, nicotine and all nighters 
to
repair or replace
or reroute or recreate.  Men in general are solution oriented while their
opposites are more
creation oriented yet there are marriages that last forever.
Bridging these gaps are difficult, as are the technical and financial 
divides.
However; dialogue and hardwork by our tireless troops will win in the end.
e

"J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" wrote:

> In democracy one have pepole a representation. Because with talk of the
> interest of each and every individuals.
>
> In netocracy we want ideas and needs being represented because we think
> that every one  counts, including all those who are not here yet. Also
> because individual rigths are already represented by the democratic system
> (GAC, ISO, States). We do not want to conflict, we want to address
> additional needs in a different environement, at a different level, in a
> different way. We have no law, no Justice, no police to protect the
> representative. This is why we must be represented by ideas.
>
> Look at ouy debate. No one is voting or lobbying for someone, it would be
> ridiculous. We inly hope that candidates stand for our vision, our 
culture,
> our ideas.
>
> >The hero's are those who quitely beaver away at creating credible,
> >scalable representational structure.
> >The misguided are those who expect ICANN to do it for them.
>
> The erroneous ones are thos who believe they can use democratic thinking 
in
> creating netocratic representational structures. IMHO all our problem is
> here. Our own activists are more activists than e-networks men.
>
> 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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:07:31 -0500
From: Erick Iriarte Ahon <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Aprovação de proposta pelo Comitê   Consultivo Em Geral

Visto que, em 15 junho 2003 o Comitê Consultivo Em Geral Interino publicou 
um documento que descreve suas recomendações à respeito do processo de 
formalização das Estruturas Em Geral e  Organizações Regionais Em Geral 
(RALOs);

Visto que, consultas públicas foram previstas por esse documento, tanto por 
email como no Fórum Público da ICANN em Montreal, em 25 de junho de 2003;

Visto que, após a consideração dos comentários públicos recebidos, a 
Diretoria concluiu que as recomendações para o Comitê Consultivo Em Geral 
Interino deveriam ser adotadas e aprovadas;

Resolveu, [ 03.102 ] que a Diretoria, deste modo, aprovou a recomendação do 
Comitê Consultivo Em Geral Interino de "critérios mínimos para uma 
Estrutura Em Geral", e deste modo foram estabelecidos por sobre o Artigo 
XI, Seção 2(4)(i) do estatuto como critérios e padrões para a certificação 
das Estruturas Em Geral em todas as Regiões Geográficas, sujeitos à revisão 
por qualquer região sob a escrituração de um Memorando de Compreensão entre 
a ICANN e o RALO para essa região;

Além disso, ficou decidido [ 03.103 ] que a Diretoria aprovou o "processo 
de certificação para as Estruturas Em Geral" e "Designação de Aplicação 
para 'Estruturas Em Geral' (ALS)" recomendado pelo Comitê Consultivo Em 
Geral Interino;

Ficou decidido [ 03.104 ] que a Diretoria, por este meio, adota os 
"Procedimentos propostos para a análise das decisões de certificação 
da  ALAC" como recomendados pelo Comitê Consultivo Em Geral Interino, e por 
isso ficaram estabelecidos sob o Artigo XI, Seção (2)(4)(i) do estatuto 
como os procedimentos para análise das decisões do Comitê Consultivo Em 
Geral Interino no licenciamento ou revogação de licença das Estruturas Em 
Geral, e

Ficou decidido [ 03,105 ] que a Diretoria, por este meio, adota as 
"Diretrizes propostas para a formação de cada Memorando de Entendimento 
(MoU) das Organizações Regionais em Geral (RALO) a serem participadas à 
ICANN" como recomendadas pelo Comitê Consultivo Em Geral Interino, e deste 
modo estabelecem-nas sob o Artigo XI, Seção 2(4)(g) do estatuto como os 
critérios e padrões para a certificação de RALOs.

Traducción: Omar Kaminski
LatinoamerICANN (http://latinoamericann.derecho.org.ar)

- --
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 #1733
*************************