Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #306
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, March 25 2001            Volume 01 : Number 306

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

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 00:09:00 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Dear Marilyn,
may I recall you that the target of the .org as described in the Plan B
and associated document is to be allocated to non profits, i.e.
organization with no real money.

We will have http://ibm.com for $ 9 per year
and http://mother-theresa.org for $ 509 per year

if we consider that the nearest and cheapest solution at hand to control
if the resgistrant is not a cybersquater  is the $500 UDRP.

Great!
Jefsey

On 02:18 24/03/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
>-- I think that we should be willing to work within the ICANN process/policy
>development process to undertake to develop the policy for .org. That sounds
>like  a  process where the non-commercial constituency would want to be
>heavily involved--as well as probably many from the non commercial side who
>aren't yet involved.
>--Of course, I do think that those already registered need to be
>grandfathered but I would expect them/us to participate in the policy
>development process. :-)
>--as for cost of domain names, and what that will turn out to be: Costs vary
>now, from ccTLD to ccTLD, and from registrar to registrar.  I think the
>existing contracts with the new incoming TLDs covers the pricing issue,
>doesn't it?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 2:55 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN
>
>
>ICANN has added new answers to the FAQ about the Verisign agreement at
>
>http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm
>
>These are about the policy for ORG... At last.
>
>I note the following:
>
>1. There is no indication that the costs for an ORG domain will not go
>up. On the contrary. If the new ORG will enforce strict registration
>requirements, as is suggested, prices must go up or the new registry
>will go bankrupt. CHecking registrations takes time = costs money.
>2. There are no guarentees that we can keep our names.
>3. The interpreation of the RFC that describes ORG policy has been
>refuted already by a number of people. ORG was for *all* entities that
>did not fit into NET or COM, nit just ORGanizations.
>4. The real reason for a non-profit ORG registry is again kept from
>us: To make a competitor of Verisign's com impotent.
>
>So, the protest needs more support. Numbers, 1domain1vote, bottom
>up. Let them hear your voice, if you own an ORG!
>
>Please, send your ORGs
>to: [email-masked]
>
>or: [email-masked]
>
>The list of supporting ORG domains can be found at:
>
>http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.O
>RG/
>
>or again: http://disgrace.org/
>
>--
>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

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

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 01:12:15 +0100 (MET)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: NC telecon 28 March 2001, agenda **ATTENTION LOCAL TIME**

Names Council telecon 28 March 2001
- -----------------------------------
Dial in number: +1 312-470-0063 (US number) 
Passcode #: 4034 
Time: 5:00 LA, 8:00 New York, 15:00 Paris, 22:00 Tokyo, 23:00 Melbourne

**ATTENTION LOCAL TIME**
Please note that Europe is changing local time on Sunday, 25 March,
whereas the North America is changing local time on Sunday 1st April.
On 28th March the difference between local time in New York and Paris
will be of 7 hours instead of usual 6 hours.
**

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010328.NCtelecon-agenda.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: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 19:56:59 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Okay, now I see the problem. I don't agree that non commercial have "no
money". They have funds, and many actually charge membership fees. I would
question that the Association for Computing Professionals, ISOC, or other
non profits have no money. How about the Red Crescent Society? How about the
United Way? How about the American Libraries Association. 

Let's keep going on this... How about Ralph Nader's organizations? Green
Peace?  

there are, however, and I agree, many small non profits who don't have
funding. I see none of them in the non-commercial constituency, no effort by
the present members to outreach to them (correct me, please with concrete
efforts and examples... I'd love to hear about how I am wrong about that).  

Or is it Markle and the other foundations you are worried about, Jefsey?

I think the foundations are making a positive contribution, but I'm not
worried about their funding base.

Are you? Should I be?

Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 6:09 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Dear Marilyn,
may I recall you that the target of the .org as described in the Plan B
and associated document is to be allocated to non profits, i.e.
organization with no real money.

We will have http://ibm.com for $ 9 per year
and http://mother-theresa.org for $ 509 per year

if we consider that the nearest and cheapest solution at hand to control
if the resgistrant is not a cybersquater  is the $500 UDRP.

Great!
Jefsey

On 02:18 24/03/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
>-- I think that we should be willing to work within the ICANN
process/policy
>development process to undertake to develop the policy for .org. That
sounds
>like  a  process where the non-commercial constituency would want to be
>heavily involved--as well as probably many from the non commercial side who
>aren't yet involved.
>--Of course, I do think that those already registered need to be
>grandfathered but I would expect them/us to participate in the policy
>development process. :-)
>--as for cost of domain names, and what that will turn out to be: Costs
vary
>now, from ccTLD to ccTLD, and from registrar to registrar.  I think the
>existing contracts with the new incoming TLDs covers the pricing issue,
>doesn't it?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 2:55 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN
>
>
>ICANN has added new answers to the FAQ about the Verisign agreement at
>
>http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm
>
>These are about the policy for ORG... At last.
>
>I note the following:
>
>1. There is no indication that the costs for an ORG domain will not go
>up. On the contrary. If the new ORG will enforce strict registration
>requirements, as is suggested, prices must go up or the new registry
>will go bankrupt. CHecking registrations takes time = costs money.
>2. There are no guarentees that we can keep our names.
>3. The interpreation of the RFC that describes ORG policy has been
>refuted already by a number of people. ORG was for *all* entities that
>did not fit into NET or COM, nit just ORGanizations.
>4. The real reason for a non-profit ORG registry is again kept from
>us: To make a competitor of Verisign's com impotent.
>
>So, the protest needs more support. Numbers, 1domain1vote, bottom
>up. Let them hear your voice, if you own an ORG!
>
>Please, send your ORGs
>to: [email-masked]
>
>or: [email-masked]
>
>The list of supporting ORG domains can be found at:
>
>http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.
O
>RG/
>
>or again: http://disgrace.org/
>
>--
>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: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 20:10:37 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Michael, that's the critique. Where's the "here's what i can do to
contribute to a solution?" Or do you only critique? 

and if that is the case, then who offers solutions?

Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 2:24 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: 'William X. Walsh'; Eric Dierker; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Had ICANN set performace standards rather than command and control I think
that would have done.  It chose to be in control.  And then not to
exercise any quality control.  And to delay its review by a year.  

The worst of all worlds, I'd say.  

On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> One item where I disagree with your interpretation, but I can be wrong..
> 
> I don't recall that ICANN was ever in a position to say that every
registrar
> would be free to have their own dispute resolution policies, based on the
> input received in the White Paper process.  I didn't go back and research
> it, but if my memory is right,  I believe it was a big issue from the
> beginning that there be standard ICANN policies, which all accredited
> registrars would adhere to, to prevent forum shopping. Selecting different
> resources to implement the standard policies agreed to by ICANN for
> accredited registrars is indeed a different thing.
> 
> Not dwelt on but worth of note is that there was also much discussion
about
> the need to hold the registrar and registry "harmless" in these disputes.
> Some, perhaps not you, new registrars were very committed to ensuring that
> the adopted process prevented their being tied up in endless litigation
over
> disputed names.  Achieving an ICANN approved policy, which they can
> implement, was part of helping to achieve that goal. (Which I personally
> strongly support,by the way. I would not want to see registrars in a
> position of being drawn into disputes and law suits). 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 11:39 PM
> To: Eric Dierker
> Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN
> 
> 
> Hello Eric,
> 
> Friday, March 23, 2001, 11:28:19 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
> 
> > I am sorry Mr. Walsh but you must back up these statements with at least
a
> little
> > bit of facts.  I have reread the faqs and I still challenge anyone to
> educate me
> > on my assumption that this proposes no fundamental changes.
> 
> You can assume what you want, while they go ahead like they have in
> the past and shut your legs out from under you.
> 
> Much like they did when originally every registrar was supposed to be
> free to select their own dispute policies, but then in practice later
> were forced to adopt the UDRP.
> 
> What they SAY and what they MEAN are two different things, and those
> of us who are not new to the scene have learned to read ICANN-ese and
> to tell when this is happening.
> 
> This is what is happening, the writing is on the wall, and has been
> documented by many people showing the evidence.
> 
> You can refuse to see it, and issue your little challenges all you
> want.
> 
> But all you are doing is helping them pull this off.
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's warm here.<--
- --
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, 24 Mar 2001 17:18:54 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Hello Marilyn,

Saturday, March 24, 2001, 5:10:37 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Michael, that's the critique. Where's the "here's what i can do to
> contribute to a solution?" Or do you only critique? 

> and if that is the case, then who offers solutions?

This presumes that there is a problem that needs a solution.

What exactly is the problem, Marilyn?

- -- 
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: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 17:29:56 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Hello Marilyn,

Saturday, March 24, 2001, 4:56:59 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Okay, now I see the problem. I don't agree that non commercial have "no
> money". They have funds, and many actually charge membership fees. I would
> question that the Association for Computing Professionals, ISOC, or other
> non profits have no money. How about the Red Crescent Society? How about the
> United Way? How about the American Libraries Association. 

> Let's keep going on this... How about Ralph Nader's organizations? Green
> Peace?  

> there are, however, and I agree, many small non profits who don't have
> funding. I see none of them in the non-commercial constituency, no effort by
> the present members to outreach to them (correct me, please with concrete
> efforts and examples... I'd love to hear about how I am wrong about that).  

> Or is it Markle and the other foundations you are worried about, Jefsey?

I don't think anyone is worried about anything, Marilyn.

A change in .org policy is trying to solve a problem that does not
exist, and doing so with an inappropriate solution.

2 million domain holders are not insignificant, no matter how you cut
it.  Your view that they are is frankly amazing to me.  One that makes
me really question your objectivity.  And if I remember correctly, the
number is actually higher and growing at a VERY rapid rate.

So you think creating an exclusive namespace for organization you deem
to be worthy of being in an exclusive non-profit TLD that charges an
arm and a leg for registrations is more important than the existing
rights of over 2,000,000 REAL domain name registrants?

If that's what you truly think, then I must question your credibility.

- -- 
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: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 21:03:54 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

William, I think that 2M matters, and that means that it will be meaningful
and important TLD. that's the point here. Sorry if you and I
miscommunicated.

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 8:30 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Hello Marilyn,

Saturday, March 24, 2001, 4:56:59 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Okay, now I see the problem. I don't agree that non commercial have "no
> money". They have funds, and many actually charge membership fees. I would
> question that the Association for Computing Professionals, ISOC, or other
> non profits have no money. How about the Red Crescent Society? How about
the
> United Way? How about the American Libraries Association. 

> Let's keep going on this... How about Ralph Nader's organizations? Green
> Peace?  

> there are, however, and I agree, many small non profits who don't have
> funding. I see none of them in the non-commercial constituency, no effort
by
> the present members to outreach to them (correct me, please with concrete
> efforts and examples... I'd love to hear about how I am wrong about that).

> Or is it Markle and the other foundations you are worried about, Jefsey?

I don't think anyone is worried about anything, Marilyn.

A change in .org policy is trying to solve a problem that does not
exist, and doing so with an inappropriate solution.

2 million domain holders are not insignificant, no matter how you cut
it.  Your view that they are is frankly amazing to me.  One that makes
me really question your objectivity.  And if I remember correctly, the
number is actually higher and growing at a VERY rapid rate.

So you think creating an exclusive namespace for organization you deem
to be worthy of being in an exclusive non-profit TLD that charges an
arm and a leg for registrations is more important than the existing
rights of over 2,000,000 REAL domain name registrants?

If that's what you truly think, then I must question your credibility.

- -- 
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
- --
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, 24 Mar 2001 18:06:55 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

At 04:56 PM 3/24/2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>there are, however, and I agree, many small non profits who don't have
>funding. I see none of them in the non-commercial constituency, no effort by
>the present members to outreach to them (correct me, please with concrete
>efforts and examples... I'd love to hear about how I am wrong about that).

small, commercial companies usually are in the same economic bind.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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, 24 Mar 2001 21:09:04 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

You know, Dave, I agree with you completely on that point!!!

We have a lot of resellers of our data services, and a lot of small
companies as customers, and they couldn't possibly pay attention to these
issues. Every minute is consumed with competition, filling orders, etc.

So, they rely on associations that they join to represent them in these
policy issues.

but thanks for making that point! I didn't mean to ignore them. 

Especially since they, like non profits, are AT&T customers... 

Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 9:07 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

At 04:56 PM 3/24/2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>there are, however, and I agree, many small non profits who don't have
>funding. I see none of them in the non-commercial constituency, no effort
by
>the present members to outreach to them (correct me, please with concrete
>efforts and examples... I'd love to hear about how I am wrong about that).

small, commercial companies usually are in the same economic bind.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
- --
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, 24 Mar 2001 18:14:48 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Hello Marilyn,

Saturday, March 24, 2001, 6:03:54 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> William, I think that 2M matters, and that means that it will be meaningful
> and important TLD. that's the point here. Sorry if you and I
> miscommunicated.

Correct, you said "that given 100M users, that 2M was such a large
percentage that change couldn't be contemplated"

Same thing, really.

Must be nice to work for a company like AT&T who can so easily dismiss
a market that even at the wholesale level is worth $12,000,000 a year,
and at least $40,000,000 at the retail level.

But please, what problem is it you see that needs a solution that
would even permit you to contemplate harming the interests of those
2,000,000 domain holders in order to solve?

- -- 
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: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 21:17:28 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

William, you are (or I am miscommunication)... misunderstanding my concerns.
My business units (some have less than 2m customers.. so let's not
misconstrue what my point was/is.

We can manage change for 2M Internet users, differently than change for all
100 M. That doesn't mean that I dismiss the concerns of the 2M. I don't.

Want to continue to argue this point, or have a constructive conversation.
Your call at this point.

Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 9:15 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Hello Marilyn,

Saturday, March 24, 2001, 6:03:54 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> William, I think that 2M matters, and that means that it will be
meaningful
> and important TLD. that's the point here. Sorry if you and I
> miscommunicated.

Correct, you said "that given 100M users, that 2M was such a large
percentage that change couldn't be contemplated"

Same thing, really.

Must be nice to work for a company like AT&T who can so easily dismiss
a market that even at the wholesale level is worth $12,000,000 a year,
and at least $40,000,000 at the retail level.

But please, what problem is it you see that needs a solution that
would even permit you to contemplate harming the interests of those
2,000,000 domain holders in order to solve?

- -- 
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: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 21:32:38 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

"William X. Walsh" wrote:
> 
> I don't think anyone is worried about anything, Marilyn.

William, what Marilyn is not telling us is that
*she* and others like her are worried.  Actually,
it's not really Marilyn per se, she's just another
instrument and mouthpiece for corporate greed, as
is Chuck Gomes and the rest of them.  Don't kill
or maim the messengers, but do examine the
message...  

So, what are they worried about? 

Check out http://www.att.org and see...  The good
rabbis are selling software titles and I'll bet
the upstanding folks at http://www.att.com get no
cut from the proceeds.  If that's not enough,
check out http://www.amazon.org/ and see that
there's no books being sold there... not eve
interest titles!  But, just skip on over to
http://www.nike.org and see what you'll find! 
Surprise, surprise... Do you think Nike will lose
their .ORG, or will ever be unable to meet a
higher payment requirement?  

All of this hoopla for .ORG is just a smokescreen
for the Corporate world to further their
anti-competitive culture/influence in another
TLD... one that most of the biggies initially
overlooked!  But, in the spirit of true NSI
favouritism, Verisign is willing to take up their
fight!  This ploy is transparent.   
 
> A change in .org policy is trying to solve a problem that does not
> exist, and doing so with an inappropriate solution.

Not inappropriate... diabolical!
 
> 2 million domain holders are not insignificant, no matter how you cut
> it.  Your view that they are is frankly amazing to me.  One that makes
> me really question your objectivity.  And if I remember correctly, the
> number is actually higher and growing at a VERY rapid rate.

Marc Schneider already has my support.  He's the
first to move on this, let's get behind him and
organize NOW! visit: http://www.disgrace.org
 
> So you think creating an exclusive namespace for organization you deem
> to be worthy of being in an exclusive non-profit TLD that charges an
> arm and a leg for registrations is more important than the existing
> rights of over 2,000,000 REAL domain name registrants?

Considering the true motives...
 
> If that's what you truly think, then I must question your credibility.

I'm glad you said this, and not I.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network, Inc.
- --
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: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 12:33:26 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
|> Sent: Sunday, 25 March 2001 12:09 PM
|> To: 'Dave Crocker'
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN
|>
|>
|>
|> You know, Dave, I agree with you completely on that point!!!
|>
|> We have a lot of resellers of our data services, and a lot of small
|> companies as customers, and they couldn't possibly pay attention to these
|> issues. Every minute is consumed with competition, filling orders, etc.
|>
|> So, they rely on associations that they join to represent them in these
|> policy issues.

I have some doubts as to the validity of some representation.  There may or may
not be correctly defined procedures for the representation to be valid.

For instance, my own contributions to various forums may be motivated by
concerns with regard to DHS.  The views I express may be on behalf of the
160,000 odd users DHS has to clarify issues relevent to them.  However, it would
not be valid for me to say I represent them as they have not had the opportunity
to have direct input on what I post.  It could be argued that as I am
endevouring to protect DHS and their vested interests I am representing them
however.  For most organisations and associations, there are clearly defined
limits to any representation also.  It appears to me the DNSO has not defined
what "representation" actually is and how it is to be seen as valid.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 24 Mar 2001 18:46:58 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Hello Marilyn,

Saturday, March 24, 2001, 6:17:28 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> William, you are (or I am miscommunication)... misunderstanding my concerns.

Do you think it that a change in policy in .org is something that
should be given reasonable consideration?

If you think yes, then I understand you perfectly, and I stand by
every word I said as a result.

I'm still waiting for an answer to:

==================
> Michael, that's the critique. Where's the "here's what i can do to
> contribute to a solution?" Or do you only critique? 

> and if that is the case, then who offers solutions?

This presumes that there is a problem that needs a solution.

What exactly is the problem, Marilyn?
==================

- -- 
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: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 20:51:43 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign proves there is money in e-business

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C0B4A4.3B83BF20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Verisign proves there is money in e-business
Master of the web list: Largest registrar of Internet domain names

Simon Avery
Financial Post
March 21, 2001
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif-

~/Snip/~

Through Network Solutions, Verisign has registered about 15 million Web
addresses to date, generating a fee of US$35 for each, on a renewable annual
basis. In addition, through its management of the Web's domain database, the
company collects US$6 for every Web site any rivals register.

The subscription-style fees give Verisign the security of an annuity.

"The beauty of our model is that we have over US$500-million in deferred
revenue," said Anil Pereira, senior vice-president of enterprise services.

"We know that we're coming into certain revenue each quarter. It gives us
wonderful visibility."

~/snip/~

- ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C0B4A4.3B83BF20
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4613.1700" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>Verisign proves there is money in e-business
<DIV class=3Dstorysubhead>Master of the web list: Largest registrar of =
Internet=20
domain names</DIV><BR>
<DIV class=3Dstorybyline>Simon Avery</DIV>
<DIV class=3Dstorysource>Financial Post</DIV>
<DIV class=3Dstorysource>March 21, 2001</DIV>
<DIV class=3Dstorytext>
<P>MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif-</P>
<P>~/Snip/~</P>
<P>Through Network Solutions, Verisign has registered about 15 million =
Web=20
addresses to date, generating a fee of US$35 for each, on a renewable =
annual=20
basis. In addition, through its management of the Web's domain database, =
the=20
company collects US$6 for every Web site any rivals register.</P>
<P>The subscription-style fees give Verisign the security of an =
annuity.</P>
<P>"The beauty of our model is that we have over US$500-million in =
deferred=20
revenue," said Anil Pereira, senior vice-president of enterprise =
services.</P>
<P>"We know that we're coming into certain revenue each quarter. It =
gives us=20
wonderful visibility."</P>
<P>~/snip/~</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P></DIV></FONT></STRONG></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C0B4A4.3B83BF20--

- --
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 #306
************************