Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #298
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, March 21 2001          Volume 01 : Number 298

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

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 20:02:16 +0300
From: Andrew Moulden <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga]straw poll 

My straw poll position is for option 1: the status quo.

Major reasons:

- - separation of registry and registrar desirable
- - presumption favoring renewal anti-competitive
- - staff negotiation: inadequate time for consensus process
- - .org confusion: dangerous precedent

- --
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, 20 Mar 2001 10:50:29 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Posting counts

I agree Bret, Mr. Gomes may have mine as well, "I cede him four posts a day
from my allotment."

He and VeriSign do have a large stake in progress.

/Bruce
GA Voting Member

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Bret Fausett" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Posting counts

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> The list monitor will take action if participants continue to display
> consistent high volume posting.

As the primary topic under discussion is the Verisign agreements, it's
entirely appropriate that Mr. Gomes respond to the various comments. I'd
suggest the limit not be enforced as to him for the next two weeks.
Otherwise, I'll cede him four posts a day from my allotment.

     -- 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: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:22:02 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Posting counts

Yes, we need to hear from Chuck as much as possible!

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Weisberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 12:47 PM
To: Bret Fausett
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Posting counts

I am sure we all share Bret's sentiments.

Bret Fausett wrote:
> 
> Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> > The list monitor will take action if participants continue to display
> > consistent high volume posting.
> 
> As the primary topic under discussion is the Verisign agreements, it's
> entirely appropriate that Mr. Gomes respond to the various comments. I'd
> suggest the limit not be enforced as to him for the next two weeks.
...

Indeed, I had written (but, held) the following observations, which I
now share:

I appreciate the service performed by Mr. Alvestrand during his term as
alternate chair.  He has been
instrumental in moving this body a long way toward functionality.  For
many, participation in that
process has required the imposition of rules which others (me, included)
do not consider to be
efficacious.  He has graciously suffered our disagreement and performed
the thankless task he has assumed. 

The instant case illustrates both the basis of our disagreement and its
amelioration under Harald's
administration. 

  - Chuck Gomes: 8 

  The recommended per-day posting limit for one list member is 5.

Obviously, everything Chuck has to say on this list is appreciated and
encouraged.  His "excesses" in
this case were in response to questions and objections on an issue of
significant current concern about
which he is peculiarly knowledgeable and, it appears, "lonely."  Thus,
the burden of explanation, if not
advocacy, falls almost exclusively upon his shoulders.  I don't think
any of us, including the list
administrator, wanted him to limit his participation in conformity with
the posting
RECOMMENDATIONS. 

Thus, we should note Harald's flexible approach-- 

  ...The list monitor will take action if participants continue to
display consistent high volume posting.

I don't think Harald is suggesting that Chuck's participation has been
"consistently" excessive
within these stated parameters.
- --
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: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:27:15 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Posting counts

Peter, Harald and all remaining assembly members,

  We NEED to hear as much debate and discussion from ALL
participants on this forum as possible.  The 5 postings a day limit
is both illegitimate, and inconsistent with open discourse principals.

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Yes, we need to hear from Chuck as much as possible!
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Weisberg
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 12:47 PM
> To: Bret Fausett
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Posting counts
>
> I am sure we all share Bret's sentiments.
>
> Bret Fausett wrote:
> >
> > Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> > > The list monitor will take action if participants continue to display
> > > consistent high volume posting.
> >
> > As the primary topic under discussion is the Verisign agreements, it's
> > entirely appropriate that Mr. Gomes respond to the various comments. I'd
> > suggest the limit not be enforced as to him for the next two weeks.
> ...
>
> Indeed, I had written (but, held) the following observations, which I
> now share:
>
> I appreciate the service performed by Mr. Alvestrand during his term as
> alternate chair.  He has been
> instrumental in moving this body a long way toward functionality.  For
> many, participation in that
> process has required the imposition of rules which others (me, included)
> do not consider to be
> efficacious.  He has graciously suffered our disagreement and performed
> the thankless task he has assumed.
>
> The instant case illustrates both the basis of our disagreement and its
> amelioration under Harald's
> administration.
>
>   - Chuck Gomes: 8
>
>   The recommended per-day posting limit for one list member is 5.
>
> Obviously, everything Chuck has to say on this list is appreciated and
> encouraged.  His "excesses" in
> this case were in response to questions and objections on an issue of
> significant current concern about
> which he is peculiarly knowledgeable and, it appears, "lonely."  Thus,
> the burden of explanation, if not
> advocacy, falls almost exclusively upon his shoulders.  I don't think
> any of us, including the list
> administrator, wanted him to limit his participation in conformity with
> the posting
> RECOMMENDATIONS.
>
> Thus, we should note Harald's flexible approach--
>
>   ...The list monitor will take action if participants continue to
> display consistent high volume posting.
>
> I don't think Harald is suggesting that Chuck's participation has been
> "consistently" excessive
> within these stated parameters.
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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, 20 Mar 2001 20:43:23 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Advantages to Option B

> Option B Advantages to ICANN &/or the Internet Community:
> 
> 1. 10-year $200M investment in research and development and infrastructure
> to increase the efficiency and stability of the .com, .net and .org
> registries and the ability of ICANN accredited registrars to access those
> registries (Sclavos letter to Cerf)
> 2. $5M contribution for the creating of a new .org registry (Sclavos letter
> to Cerf)
> 3. Terms for VeriSign financial support to ICANN in the .com, .net and .org
> agreements are modified to be the same as that for the new gTLD registries.
> Not only does this result in a replacement of the old fee caps but it also
> allows ICANN to greatly simplify its fee collection structure so that all
> fees are collected through registries instead of through both registries and
> registrars.  This adds additional responsibility to the VeriSign Registry
> while at the same time reducing fee collection costs and increasing
> efficiency for ICANN.  (com-II.7; new-3.14; old-6)
> 4. In addition to continuing the 'fire-wall' requirements in the old
> agreement, the NSI Registrar must become a separate corporate subsidiary of
> VeriSign. (com-II.23, new-23, old-21)
> 5. The .net and .org agreements become essentially the same as the new gTLD
> agreements with the exception of the term and any clauses specifically
> related to the gTLDs themselves.  Note: In my opinion, these terms are
> definitely less favorable to VeriSign.
> 6. VeriSign will lose the .org TLD at the end of 2002, five years earlier
> than under the existing agreement, assuming the 4-year extension after the
> separation of the Registry and Registrar.  (org-5, old-23)
> 7. The .net TLD will be re-competed at the end of 2005, 22 months earlier
> than under the existing agreement, assuming the 4-year extension after the
> separation of the Registry and Registrar.  (net-5, old-23)
> 8. The termination clause in the .net and .org agreements is expanded to
> include several additional causes for termination.  (new-5.4, old-23)
> 9. The new .org registry will be allowed to use VeriSign Global Registry
> Services gTLD server constellation for free for one year and thereafter, if
> the new registry so desires, at a price to be determined.  (org-5.1.5)
> 10. In the new .net and .org agreements, the list of possible topics for
> specifications and policies is expanded.  (new-4.2; old-3.C)
> 
> Whereas some may want to debate whether or not some of the above are clearly
> advantages to the Internet community at large, in my opinion, they are all
> advantages to ICANN and are all 'take-aways' for VeriSign.  In trade for
> these 'take-aways,' which I think are very significant for VeriSign,
> VeriSign is given a clearer procedure for renewal for the .com registry
> (com-II.25) and the requirement to divest of the Registrar is removed if the
> Registrar is made a separate corporate subsidiary (com-II.23.C).

This is a pretty good summary of what is there.  Some issues are less clear cut 
like what exactly the $200 will entail and is it extra on top of what was 
planned anyway but we have had that debate.

The big question for the Internet community is whether the 10 (IMO fairly 
minor) gains outweigh the two (IMO large) concessions.  That is not something 
which one can objectively measure - it is a judgement call.

Could I suggest to the Chair that in order to provide a full report to the 
Names Council and Board we consider two resolutions - a majority and a minority 
one.

Those who opposse the proposals will be asked to indicate support for a 
statament setting out why (I will publish later today a revision on my earlier 
draft) they beleive they do not benefit the Internet Community.  At the moment 
this looks like it will be the majority report.

Those who support the proposals also indicate support for a statement setting 
out why they do, which I suggest could be based largely on Mr Gomes'post 
above.  Again at this stage this looks to be the minority report.

This will hopefully demonstrate to the NC and Board that the GA has debated and 
considered both points of view.

DPF

- --
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, 20 Mar 2001 15:59:39 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Corrections and Additions to my Post

My apologies Erica... I have misread the scribe's notes.

Sincerely,

Kendall

At 09:20 AM 3/19/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>I think I've been confused with Mike Roberts and statements made by him
>have been attributed to me.   Please note that - far from claiming that the
>proposed new agreement negotiated by Verising and ICANN staff did not
>involve any policy change - I argued strongly that it involves a critical
>policy change that goes to the heart of the ICANN competition model and that
>the Board should make no decision on this issue pending advice from the
>DNSO.

- --
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, 20 Mar 2001 22:48:09 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Advantages to Option B

Dear Chuck,
Thank you again for your cooperation. I am sure our responses also serve 
VeriSign in better understanding what their market thinks. So I will look 
at the negative aspect since you proposed the positive one already.

On 13:40 20/03/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
>The following is Chuck Gomes' personal opinion and is not presented as a
>VeriSign position.  References to agreement sections are provided in
>parentheses; 'com' refers to the new .com agreement; 'new' refers to any of
>the new agreements for .net, .org or the new gTLDs; 'net' refers
>specifically to the new .net agreement; 'org' refers specifically to the new
>.org agreement; and 'old' refers to the existing agreements for .com, .net
>and .org.
>
>Option B Advantages to ICANN &/or the Internet Community:
>
>1. 10-year $200M investment in research and development and infrastructure
>to increase the efficiency and stability of the .com, .net and .org
>registries and the ability of ICANN accredited registrars to access those
>registries (Sclavos letter to Cerf)

True if development are under GNU license.

>2. $5M contribution for the creating of a new .org registry (Sclavos letter
>to Cerf)

True if the creation rules are publicly defined and accepted. Untrue if the 
.orgNIC is a straw cover for the Staff and is used to provide that money to 
the iCANN.

>3. Terms for VeriSign financial support to ICANN in the .com, .net and .org
>agreements are modified to be the same as that for the new gTLD registries.
>Not only does this result in a replacement of the old fee caps but it also
>allows ICANN to greatly simplify its fee collection structure so that all
>fees are collected through registries instead of through both registries and
>registrars.  This adds additional responsibility to the VeriSign Registry
>while at the same time reducing fee collection costs and increasing
>efficiency for ICANN.  (com-II.7; new-3.14; old-6)

I am not sure the community is satisfied with the new gTLDs period.
Nor if it is satisfied them all being a cc of the other?
Nor if it is that sastified with the current contractual approach.
What I know is that VeriSIgn had not to collect and pay $ 50.000.
What I know is that to the countrary to the ccTLDs it has not to be
approved by GAC Members nor even DNSO as it should

You are right it simplifies a lot the life (and lower the costs) to
VeriSIgn. In plain Telecom language this is named
crossubsidization. And the FCC fougth for years against that
anti-competition practice.

Any addition to the responsibility of VeriSIgn means a more
omnipresent involvement of VeriSIgn (give us some air to
breath please) and is in the eventual disinterest of everyone
as an anti-Trust case would dramatically impact on the
stability and the development of the network and related
industries.

>4. In addition to continuing the 'fire-wall' requirements in the old
>agreement, the NSI Registrar must become a separate corporate subsidiary of
>VeriSign. (com-II.23, new-23, old-21)

Only a full separation of the shareholders would be satisfactory.

>5. The .net and .org agreements become essentially the same as the new gTLD
>agreements with the exception of the term and any clauses specifically
>related to the gTLDs themselves.  Note: In my opinion, these terms are
>definitely less favorable to VeriSign.

May be true. But this is to be put in context. In puting
.net and .org at the same level as .info or .museum,
the incentive is in favor of .com.

>6. VeriSign will lose the .org TLD at the end of 2002, five years earlier
>than under the existing agreement, assuming the 4-year extension after the
>separation of the Registry and Registrar.  (org-5, old-23)

The real issue is the financial forecast.
How much money will VeriSIgn make for the years to come in
Plan A and in Plan B. If VeriSign staff is cute and I think it is,
the figures of Plan B should be better than Plan A at least to
justify the expense in drafting and negotiating plan B.

>7. The .net TLD will be re-competed at the end of 2005, 22 months earlier
>than under the existing agreement, assuming the 4-year extension after the
>separation of the Registry and Registrar.  (net-5, old-23)

Probably a cute move we can object. It will still early time
for new gTLD. So stability will plead in favor of VeriSign.
It looks to me that Stratton is good at Bridge (or Poker) but
the whole scheme is a clever one.

>8. The termination clause in the .net and .org agreements is expanded to
>include several additional causes for termination.  (new-5.4, old-23)

hmmm. Do ou really want to see iCANN sueing VeriSign.
The impact on Network stability would be bad.

>9. The new .org registry will be allowed to use VeriSign Global Registry
>Services gTLD server constellation for free for one year and thereafter, if
>the new registry so desires, at a price to be determined.  (org-5.1.5)

Not a real advantage if you consider that they will be bound
by costly DNS management technology and methods. I am
sure we can find less brillant but may be more stable solution
at a lower cost of .org. But I accept it will help transition.

>10. In the new .net and .org agreements, the list of possible topics for
>specifications and policies is expanded.  (new-4.2; old-3.C)

Why is that something concerning VeriSIgn. You keep them
or you leave them?

>Whereas some may want to debate whether or not some of the above are clearly
>advantages to the Internet community at large, in my opinion, they are all
>advantages to ICANN and are all 'take-aways' for VeriSign.  In trade for
>these 'take-aways,' which I think are very significant for VeriSign,
>VeriSign is given a clearer procedure for renewal for the .com registry
>(com-II.25) and the requirement to divest of the Registrar is removed if the
>Registrar is made a separate corporate subsidiary (com-II.23.C).

True. This is a candid and clear statement. Thank you.
Now, would this be a take away ???

>As already stated at the beginning, the above is based on my personal
>analysis of the old and new agreements.  (That analysis was primarily done
>in route to and from Melbourne.)

And I am sure Stratton was just flying in the next chair :-)
Unless you would want to be expelled form VeriSign I
suppose he reviewed this or at least the spirit of it. It would be
despising for him, for you and for us if it was not this way.

Jefsey

- --
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, 20 Mar 2001 16:06:08 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Advantages to Option B

Chuck and all remaining assembly members,

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> The following is Chuck Gomes' personal opinion and is not presented as a
> VeriSign position.  References to agreement sections are provided in
> parentheses; 'com' refers to the new .com agreement; 'new' refers to any of
> the new agreements for .net, .org or the new gTLDs; 'net' refers
> specifically to the new .net agreement; 'org' refers specifically to the new
> .org agreement; and 'old' refers to the existing agreements for .com, .net
> and .org.
>
> Option B Advantages to ICANN &/or the Internet Community:
>
> 1. 10-year $200M investment in research and development and infrastructure
> to increase the efficiency and stability of the .com, .net and .org
> registries and the ability of ICANN accredited registrars to access those
> registries (Sclavos letter to Cerf)

  Yes, but this is NOT in the "New Deal" contract, but only promised once
the contract is agreed to and singed.  So I don't see this as a major
benefit to the contract itself.  Second on this point, is that how these
proposed/promised moneys ($200m) are to be utilized is not
very specific, whom decides how specifically these moneys are to
be spent is also not outlined or specified, and what exactly and specifically
these moneys ar to be spent....

>
> 2. $5M contribution for the creating of a new .org registry (Sclavos letter
> to Cerf)

  Again as in your point #1, there is no specifics how how, whom, and what
this $5m is to be used for.

>
> 3. Terms for VeriSign financial support to ICANN in the .com, .net and .org
> agreements are modified to be the same as that for the new gTLD registries.
> Not only does this result in a replacement of the old fee caps but it also
> allows ICANN to greatly simplify its fee collection structure so that all
> fees are collected through registries instead of through both registries and
> registrars.

  Yes the "Caps" are effectively removed.  I don't see this as a benefit
at all...

>  This adds additional responsibility to the VeriSign Registry
> while at the same time reducing fee collection costs and increasing
> efficiency for ICANN.  (com-II.7; new-3.14; old-6)
> 4. In addition to continuing the 'fire-wall' requirements in the old
> agreement, the NSI Registrar must become a separate corporate subsidiary of
> VeriSign. (com-II.23, new-23, old-21)

  As a subsidiary, NSI Register, will still be answerable to Versign, as
Versign is the parent company.  This is hardly true separation of
registrar and registry as it relates to Versign and NSI...  Again no
real benefit here either...

>
> 5. The .net and .org agreements become essentially the same as the new gTLD
> agreements with the exception of the term and any clauses specifically
> related to the gTLDs themselves.  Note: In my opinion, these terms are
> definitely less favorable to VeriSign.
> 6. VeriSign will lose the .org TLD at the end of 2002, five years earlier
> than under the existing agreement, assuming the 4-year extension after the
> separation of the Registry and Registrar.  (org-5, old-23)
> 7. The .net TLD will be re-competed at the end of 2005, 22 months earlier
> than under the existing agreement, assuming the 4-year extension after the
> separation of the Registry and Registrar.  (net-5, old-23)
> 8. The termination clause in the .net and .org agreements is expanded to
> include several additional causes for termination.  (new-5.4, old-23)
> 9. The new .org registry will be allowed to use VeriSign Global Registry
> Services gTLD server constellation for free for one year and thereafter, if
> the new registry so desires, at a price to be determined.  (org-5.1.5)

  This is a very tiny benefit to the stakeholders, but a huge benefit to
Versign.

>
> 10. In the new .net and .org agreements, the list of possible topics for
> specifications and policies is expanded.  (new-4.2; old-3.C)
>
> Whereas some may want to debate whether or not some of the above are clearly
> advantages to the Internet community at large, in my opinion, they are all
> advantages to ICANN and are all 'take-aways' for VeriSign.  In trade for
> these 'take-aways,' which I think are very significant for VeriSign,
> VeriSign is given a clearer procedure for renewal for the .com registry
> (com-II.25) and the requirement to divest of the Registrar is removed if the
> Registrar is made a separate corporate subsidiary (com-II.23.C).

  Yes, but ICANN is supposed to represent ALL stakeholders, not just
a select few.  As such it seems fairly obvious that the benefits to Versign
and NSI are substantial, but very few of your points benefits the
broad stakeholder community, most especially .ORG Domain Name
holders.

>
>
> As already stated at the beginning, the above is based on my personal
> analysis of the old and new agreements.  (That analysis was primarily done
> in route to and from Melbourne.)
>
> P.S. - For those who are concerned about rights to data in the new
> agreements, please read the following sections: com-II.12, new-3.13,
> old-10).
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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, 20 Mar 2001 14:49:29 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Advantages to Option B

Hello Chuck,

Tuesday, March 20, 2001, 4:40:53 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Whereas some may want to debate whether or not some of the above are clearly
> advantages to the Internet community at large, in my opinion, they are all
> advantages to ICANN and are all 'take-aways' for VeriSign.  In trade for

I'm not concerned with what benefits ICANN, to be honest.  I'm more
concerned about the internet community, and I don't see much here that
takes that into account.

Instead it is a contract that seems to benefit both of the parties to
the contract in some way, at the expense of what is best for internet
community.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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, 21 Mar 2001 08:41:34 +0100 (MET)
From: Per Koelle <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Posting counts

Dear Harald,

Allthough I understand your point here, I think that it is unfair to
restrict the opportunities for Chuck (or others) to respond to all
the challenges that may arise. It is normal procedures to have the
right to defend one self at any time.

Regards
Per Koelle
DK Hostmaster

On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> On the day of March 19, out of a total of 58 messages with this dateline, 
> the following per-user posting counts were noted:
> 
> - Jefsey Morfin: 8
> - Jeff Williams: 12
> - Chuck Gomes: 8
> 
> The recommended per-day posting limit for one list member is 5.
> 
> A large volume of posting is usually not an increase of information passed; 
> on the contrary, it tends to reduce the number of people who read the 
> posted messages, reducing the chance of those people sharing information 
> with the other members of the list.
> 
> The list monitor will take action if participants continue to display 
> consistent high volume posting.
> 
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: [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
> 
> 

- --
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, 21 Mar 2001 03:08:58 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Posting counts

Per and all remaining assembly members,

  In my opinion only:

  Well of course you are right Per.  But you must understand that Harald
takes his orders form "On High" i.e. the ICANN BoD and staff.  This is
particularly important when it is to effect "Damage Control", which we
have
with the Versign contract(s) issue.  So, it is now time to limit the
debate
and discussion so as to "Quiet Things down" so that not too many waves
are made, so to speak....  Can't have negative discussion or positions
expressed towards anything that the ICANN BoD wants on a ICANN
ML, now can we...  Of course not!  That would be paramount to
Sacrilege now wouldn't it?  >;)

Per Koelle wrote:

> Dear Harald,
>
> Allthough I understand your point here, I think that it is unfair to
> restrict the opportunities for Chuck (or others) to respond to all
> the challenges that may arise. It is normal procedures to have the
> right to defend one self at any time.
>
> Regards
> Per Koelle
> DK Hostmaster
>
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > On the day of March 19, out of a total of 58 messages with this dateline,
> > the following per-user posting counts were noted:
> >
> > - Jefsey Morfin: 8
> > - Jeff Williams: 12
> > - Chuck Gomes: 8
> >
> > The recommended per-day posting limit for one list member is 5.
> >
> > A large volume of posting is usually not an increase of information passed;
> > on the contrary, it tends to reduce the number of people who read the
> > posted messages, reducing the chance of those people sharing information
> > with the other members of the list.
> >
> > The list monitor will take action if participants continue to display
> > consistent high volume posting.
> >
> > --
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
> > +47 41 44 29 94
> > Personal email: [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
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
- --
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, 21 Mar 2001 13:11:23 +0100 (MET)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: GTLD-SERVERS.NET (RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution ))

> 
> The constellation shown in this reference is considerably outdated.
> 
> Chuck

I agree.

We may consider the correct one is in:
 http://www.icann.org/correspondence/roberts-testimony-14feb01.htm
 (Testimony of Michael M. Roberts Before U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce,
 Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Communications).

But there is no difference in geography between the two constellations 
(www.wia.org and Mike Roberts document), only names are updated
(no more reference to NSI-NSF etc).

According to Mike Roberts document:
 ROOT-SERVERS name org city            type
 a NSI Herndon, VA,                    US com
 b USC-ISI Marina del Rey, CA,         US edu
 c PSInet Herndon, VA,                 US com
 d U of Maryland College Park, MD,     US edu
 e NASA Mt View, CA,                   US usg
 f Internet Software C. Palo Alto, CA, US com
 g DISA Vienna, VA,                    US usg
 h ARL Aberdeen, MD,                   US usg
 i NORDUnet Stockholm,                 SE int
 j NSI (TBD) Herndon, VA,              US (com)
 k RIPE London,                        UK int
 l ICANN Marina del Rey, CA,           US org
 m WIDE Tokyo,                         JP edu

Elisabeth
- --

> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Siegfried Langenbach [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent:	Monday, March 19, 2001 2:19 PM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Subject:	Re: GTLD-SERVERS.NET (RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft
> Resolution))
> 
> see at
> 
> http://www.wia.org/pub/rootserv.html
> 
> siegfried
> 
> 
> On 19 Mar 01, at 19:20, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, at 10:12 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > 
> > > It is a commitment to invest at least $200M total in R&D and
> infrastructure
> > > improvements to improve the .com, .net and .org registries over 10
> years.
> > > Part of that would be used to improve the com/net/org gTLD zone server
> > > constellation which would be made available to the new .org registry for
> one
> > > year for free and beyond that at terms to be determined later.  Also,
> other
> > > registries would be allowed access to that constellation and thereby
> take
> > > advantage of by far the best zone server constellation available.
> > 
> > Is there perhaps a map somewhere, that shows where the
> > GTLD-SERVERS.NET are? I am just curious, not doubting that it is the
> > best constellation of zone servers :-)
> > 
> > Marc Schneiders
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 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
> 
> 

- --
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, 21 Mar 2001 13:29:26 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Posting counts

Bret Fausett wrote:
>
>Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> > The list monitor will take action if participants continue to display
> > consistent high volume posting.
>
>As the primary topic under discussion is the Verisign agreements, it's
>entirely appropriate that Mr. Gomes respond to the various comments. I'd
>suggest the limit not be enforced as to him for the next two weeks.
>Otherwise, I'll cede him four posts a day from my allotment.

Mr. Gomes has posted only one comprehensive document, very much appreciated 
I should say.
Other than that, he has replied and answered questions in relation to the 
Verisign contract, and this has been appreciated as well.
If the majority that favours one solution keeps posting on the subject, as 
it should do in the next two weeks, I don't see how we can have a meaningful 
debate if we don't allow the representatives of the minority to reply. I 
would encourage Chuck to continue contributing.

Harald was completely correct in raising the problem, and his intervention 
is in order. However, we must also take into account the spirit of the rule, 
which is to limit the irrelevant and/or repetitive postings, not to limit 
the right of replying to the questions.

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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 #298
************************