Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #308
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, March 26 2001            Volume 01 : Number 308

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

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 07:53:06 -0700
From: "Michael F. McNulty" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Endorsement/second for Jon Weinberg as chair

3a. Michael McNulty
3b. [email-masked]
3c. Jonathan Weinberg

Michael McNulty
2601 E. 8th St
Tucson, Arizona 85716

- --
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 12:55:09 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> Would you define "obligations to share holders as corporate greed?"   > If we are comparing capitalistic approaches to more socialistic > approaches, take a look at which have fared better in the world's  
> economies.  Neither is perfect, but economic systems with real 
> incentives for business have tended to fare much better.  I suspect 
> that that is why economies all over the globe have been moving toward > systems that are more market driven.

Mr. Gomes,

My comments had nothing to do with a comparison of
economic systems.  My post had to do with the
current anti-competitive leanings of the Domain
Name System's administrators.  NSI/Verisign *is* a
monopoly, has been for going on three years now. 
How market driven is the Registry business
currently Mr. Gomes?  Why has ICANN been
protecting this state of affairs?  Speaking as an
individual, I have to wonder about such monopoly
protection and your statements about "real
incentives for business".    

Your company/NSI had no problem in sullying the
"original" scope of the .ORG domain.  There was
money in selling .ORG indiscriminately, and of
course your company has obligations to its
shareholders... I understand that much.  Same goes
for your selling of domains which were
subsequently claimed/recognized as trademark
"property" by large corporate entities, at the
expense of the individuals and small businesses
that had *legally* registered them.  After all, is
it not the case that certain domains were *not*
allowed for registration, i.e. "Oylympic"
domains?  (What's the old saying about a Law
that's only applied part of the time?)  Yet,
despite the fact that NSI knowingly sold domains
that were later held to be obvious violations of
US trademark law, NSI cannot be held to account. 
If an individual/small business were to set up
shop in pretty much any country in the world, and
begin selling what they themselves (not to mention
the "owners") recognize to be other people's
"property", would not such a person/business be
held to account before the law?  Sure, the buyers
of the "stolen property" are held to account as
well, but what about the purveyor of the "goods"?  

Nonetheless, despite this state of affairs,
NSI/VSign and ICANN, now wish to curtail the
potential revenue streams of new Registry
operators by implementing "sunrise" schemas and
otherwise favouring the IP interests of a very
small group corporate Internet Users/Abusers.  All
at the expense of those individuals and small
businesses who don't wish to sell books under a
new TLD's "amazon", or sporting goods under a new
TLD "nike", etc... but do wish for a generic or
common language term with high mnemonic value. 
So, in effect, what's good for the proverbial
goose is not good for the gander, because some
interests are now basically telling the world that
they effectively own the English (and other)
language(s) on the Internet.  Is this what you
call "real incentives for business"?  Whose
business?  

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	sans affiliation
- --
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 13:07:36 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Thanks, Roberto. Now I better understand your meaning in the original email
I was responding to.  

On MLN's, of course, you are right. There will need to be modifications in
the present UDRP to accommodate for different languages, conflicts/overlaps
between duplicate characters, etc.

thanks, Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 2:50 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Marylin,
>
>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.

Off my memory, when the applications for the new TLDs were collected, one of

the information the applicant Registries had to provide was their dispute 
resolution policy.
This, IMHO, hinted the possibility of having different mechanisms for 
different registries: otherwise, ICANN should have stated since the 
beginning that everybody had to adopt UDRP.
Even in the discussion about the individual applications, the point never 
came up (incidentally, unlike the failure to separate Registry and 
Registrar, that was criticized for IOD's .web).

I still think that it will be a *good thing* to have different policies for 
different TLDs. In a multicultural, complex world the "one size fits all" is

indeed often a simple solution, but seldom the best one.

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
- --
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 13:19:18 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Roberto, thanks for your post.

It may be that the preferred outcome of the stakeholders will be to leave
.org alone, and start anew.  I didn't mean to rule out that option by
suggesting that the "policy" for .org should be worked out (IF option B was
chosen, sorry, should have said that in my original post as well), by the
community of stakeholders, and that would need to include the non-commercial
constituency.  That would be the case, I'd think, even if there was/were a
"new" non commercial TLD(s) in the future.

Your point about different pricing options between initial registration and
renewal was also useful as an idea.  That is the kind of thing I'd assume
would be taken up, IF the discussion ever came about. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 4:36 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Marylin,

>
>-- 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.

What's wrong in letting .org alone, and and work within the ICANN 
process/policy development process to undertake to develop the policy for *a

future TLD dedicated to non-commercial organizations*?
From what I understand, this is already the orientation in the non-com 
constituency, and already some time ago there has been discussion there 
about the proposal of such a TLD (.ngo was proposed as an example).
Frankly, I think that this discussion about the future of .org is a little 
out of place for the time being: it assumes that a decision for option B has

already been taken by the Board ;>)

>--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. :-)

See above.
Why should we open the can of worms of changing the charter en-route, 
artificially creating the problem of the existing registrations (or the 
coexistence of organizations fulfilling the charter and not) instead of 
having a brand new TLD?
Somebody can give me a reason? - other than that the ICANN Staff and/or 
VeriSign has already decided so ;>)

>--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?

I guess that Marc's point was that if additional effort is required in 
checking adherence to the charter and qualifications of the applicant 
registrant, the cost of the registration process is expected to rise, and 
hence the price of a domain name.
Of course, we may think of a different model, where the cost of the initial 
registration is higher, but the renewal fee is lower.

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

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

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 11:03:26 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 09:49:36AM +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Marylin,
> >
> >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.
> 
> Off my memory, when the applications for the new TLDs were collected, one of 
> the information the applicant Registries had to provide was their dispute 
> resolution policy.

But the comment Marily responded to concerned the original registRARS,
not gTLDs or their applicants:

    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. 

> This, IMHO, hinted the possibility of having different mechanisms for 
> different registries: otherwise, ICANN should have stated since the 
> beginning that everybody had to adopt UDRP.
>
> Even in the discussion about the individual applications, the point never 
> came up (incidentally, unlike the failure to separate Registry and 
> Registrar, that was criticized for IOD's .web).
> 
> I still think that it will be a *good thing* to have different policies for 
> different TLDs. In a multicultural, complex world the "one size fits all" is 
> indeed often a simple solution, but seldom the best one.

The different registries *do* have different policies, most of them
stronger than the UDRP.  In fact, the exception to that (.biz) got
considerable flak from the house judiciary committee because they were
inadequate.  (Incidentally, if anyone had thought that the USG policy
was going to provide some kind of haven from UDRP kinds of things,
listening to that tape should dispel that notion quickly.  In fact,
ICANN got beat up for not providing *enough* protection for intellectual
property interests.)

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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 12:00:59 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Hello Roberto,

Sunday, March 25, 2001, 1:36:02 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Frankly, I think that this discussion about the future of .org is a little
> out of place for the time being: it assumes that a decision for option B has 
> already been taken by the Board ;>)

Based on the slanting of the FAQ, I'd say that's an accurate
assumption.

- -- 
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: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 12:03:16 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Roberto,

Sunday, March 25, 2001, 2:16:19 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Moreover, should a charter be enforced by ICANN and/or agreed with the .org
> registry (and this regardless on whether the registry changes owner, i.e. 
> independently from option A or B being chosen), the GA is opposed to any 
> action to cancel existing registrations. Any action of this type would be 
> contrary to the legitimate interest of bona-fide owners of .org names.

This should be changed to:

"the GA is opposed to any action that results in a change of
current registration policy for the .org TLD.  Any action of this type
would eb contrary to the legitimate interests of bona-fide owners of
.org names."

There may be a couple who disagree with that, but the overwhelming
numbers suggest this is the way the GA feels.

- -- 
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: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 14:12:34 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

At 12:03 pm -0800 3/25/01, William X. Walsh wrote:
>This should be changed to:
>
>"the GA is opposed to any action that results in a change of
>current registration policy for the .org TLD.  Any action of this type
>would eb contrary to the legitimate interests of bona-fide owners of
>.org names."
>
>There may be a couple who disagree with that, but the overwhelming
>numbers suggest this is the way the GA feels.

One would hope that any policy change regarding .org owners would only be
allowed once all those .org owners were polled to find out if they agreed
with such a change.

<sarcasm>ICANN being a bottom-up process, and all that.</sarcasm>

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.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: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 22:56:56 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

I do agree with you Roberto. Also, the UDRP itself permits the different 
pannel to propose additional features. Some may greatly change the UDRP.
Jefsey

On 09:49 25/03/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>Marylin,
>>
>>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.
>
>Off my memory, when the applications for the new TLDs were collected, one 
>of the information the applicant Registries had to provide was their 
>dispute resolution policy.
>This, IMHO, hinted the possibility of having different mechanisms for 
>different registries: otherwise, ICANN should have stated since the 
>beginning that everybody had to adopt UDRP.
>Even in the discussion about the individual applications, the point never 
>came up (incidentally, unlike the failure to separate Registry and 
>Registrar, that was criticized for IOD's .web).
>
>I still think that it will be a *good thing* to have different policies 
>for different TLDs. In a multicultural, complex world the "one size fits 
>all" is indeed often a simple solution, but seldom the best one.
>
>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
>

- --
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 22:59:24 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

But I disagree here:
On 11:36 25/03/01, Roberto Gaetano 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.
>
>What's wrong in letting .org alone, and and work within the ICANN 
>process/policy development process to undertake to develop the policy for 
>*a future TLD dedicated to non-commercial organizations*?
> From what I understand, this is already the orientation in the non-com 
> constituency, and already some time ago there has been discussion there 
> about the proposal of such a TLD (.ngo was proposed as an example).
>Frankly, I think that this discussion about the future of .org is a little 
>out of place for the time being: it assumes that a decision for option B 
>has already been taken by the Board ;>)

The fact that .org is concerned the way it is by plan B is one of the 
reasons to oppose Plan B: it is just one of the fruits of the Plan B tree.
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: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 17:17:43 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

At 12:55 PM 3/25/01 -0500, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>  Same goes for your selling of domains which were
>  subsequently claimed/recognized as trademark
>"property" by large corporate entities, at the
>expense of the individuals and small businesses
>that had *legally* registered them.  After all, is
>it not the case that certain domains were *not*
>allowed for registration, i.e. "Oylympic"
>domains?

Good point Sotiris! There is a small pizza place around the corner from my 
house named "Olympic Pizza". I highly doubt that they would be allowed to 
register "olympicpizza.com" from NSI. (Not to mention the fight from the 
Olympics committee).... Meanwhile, you have people registering names like 
"americanexpress.net" and "attwireless.com" being bought from NSI without 
any problem. Generic words are not "property" and nobody has any god-given 
"right" to use these terms. This is why so many individuals and 
small-businesses are becoming disillusioned with ICANN. And the "Sunrise 
Proposal" is not going to help.

Regards,

Kendall

- --
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 17:41:23 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] one of those misposting things...

I inadvertedly posted the following to the wg-review, instead of this list.
My apologies to those who had to listen to me twice.  Soritis helpfully
pointed out my error in posting to my attention. Here goes, again.

Marilyn

- --------------------------------------
"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
> 
> Sotiris
> 
> A few posts ago, I took exception to a post from you, as my list
colleague,
> and shared my frustration with the list regarding your post. I apologize
to
> you and to the list for how I responded.
> 
> I didn't like how I thought I was being characterized, and thought it was
> unfair toward me as a corporate representative; I understand that it
wasn't
> intended as personal.  While I am disappointed with it, I am also
> disappointed in how I responded, and that I took up the group's time in
this
> way.
> 
> Time to go do something rather than read the list.   And, I'll bring my
> humor back with me when I return.
> 
> Thanks to another colleague who provided some much appreciated coaching to
> me on this.
> 
> :-)
> 
> Best regards,  Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA 
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 11:47 PM
To: 'Sotiropoulos'; William X. Walsh
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Is there really a need to be so....negative about an individual posting I've
made? I do take offense to the assertion that my postings are about
corporate greed. I spend a lot of time on the list, and do it, often, as you
do, at the expense of other business interests, because i think this is
important.

I don't appreciate at all your last posting. It is also rather
unprofessional... which isn't really like you at all. 

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 9:33 PM
To: William X. Walsh
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [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
- --
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 17:52:43 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

I thought that Roberto's original formulation was correct, based on the
polling language. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 3:03 PM
To: Roberto Gaetano
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Roberto,

Sunday, March 25, 2001, 2:16:19 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Moreover, should a charter be enforced by ICANN and/or agreed with the
.org
> registry (and this regardless on whether the registry changes owner, i.e. 
> independently from option A or B being chosen), the GA is opposed to any 
> action to cancel existing registrations. Any action of this type would be 
> contrary to the legitimate interest of bona-fide owners of .org names.

This should be changed to:

"the GA is opposed to any action that results in a change of
current registration policy for the .org TLD.  Any action of this type
would eb contrary to the legitimate interests of bona-fide owners of
.org names."

There may be a couple who disagree with that, but the overwhelming
numbers suggest this is the way the GA feels.

- -- 
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: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 18:10:56 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: getting back in the spirit of positive discourse, even when we  disagree on some things

Marilyn, 

Perhaps my use of certain characteristic terms
were not the best choice
of words to make my point, even though I did
qualify the statement against personal offense:
"Don't kill or maim the messengers, but do examine
the message..."  

As I appreciate your offer of a public apology,
let me offer my own apology for the unfortunate
choice of words in my posting which you found so
galling.

I certainly did not appreciate your response
either, but as we both know, two wrongs never make
a right.  So, in the spirit of cooperation and
goodwill, let us put this exchange behind us and
move forward with more constructive and
substantive comments on the problems within the
DNSO and other relevant ICANN issues.

Amiably,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Individual 

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
> 
> Sotiris
> 
> A few posts ago, I took exception to a post from you, as my list colleague,
> and shared my frustration with the list regarding your post. I apologize to
> you and to the list for how I responded.
> 
> I didn't like how I thought I was being characterized, and thought it was
> unfair toward me as a corporate representative; I understand that it wasn't
> intended as personal.  While I am disappointed with it, I am also
> disappointed in how I responded, and that I took up the group's time in this
> way.
> 
> Time to go do something rather than read the list.   And, I'll bring my
> humor back with me when I return.
> 
> Thanks to another colleague who provided some much appreciated coaching to
> me on this.
> 
> :-)
> 
> Best regards,  Marilyn
- --
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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 01:12:56 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, at 14:12 [=GMT-0600], Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 12:03 pm -0800 3/25/01, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >This should be changed to:
> >
> >"the GA is opposed to any action that results in a change of
> >current registration policy for the .org TLD.  Any action of this type
> >would eb contrary to the legitimate interests of bona-fide owners of
> >.org names."
> >
> >There may be a couple who disagree with that, but the overwhelming
> >numbers suggest this is the way the GA feels.
> 
> One would hope that any policy change regarding .org owners would only be
> allowed once all those .org owners were polled to find out if they agreed
> with such a change.

They can still say they do *not* at:

 http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.ORG

(or http://disgrace.org/)

> <sarcasm>ICANN being a bottom-up process, and all that.</sarcasm>

The above URL is bottom-up, and from the stakeholders :-)

- -- 
[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: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 15:31:11 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Marilyn,

Sunday, March 25, 2001, 2:52:43 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I thought that Roberto's original formulation was correct, based on the
> polling language. 

Based on what polling language?

The only thing we have to go on is what is said on this forum, and I
didn't see anyone say what was said in that document.

- -- 
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: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 18:30:51 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Ah, you're right, I should have been clearer about the forum language.
Well, maybe then, there is that flexibility  if enough concur.  But, can you
live with his original language, though? 
- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 6:31 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: Roberto Gaetano; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Marilyn,

Sunday, March 25, 2001, 2:52:43 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I thought that Roberto's original formulation was correct, based on the
> polling language. 

Based on what polling language?

The only thing we have to go on is what is said on this forum, and I
didn't see anyone say what was said in that document.

- -- 
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: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 15:35:52 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Marilyn,

Sunday, March 25, 2001, 3:30:51 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Ah, you're right, I should have been clearer about the forum language.
> Well, maybe then, there is that flexibility  if enough concur.  But, can you
> live with his original language, though? 

I don't see it as representative of the consensus of the GA.

It implies that the GA thinks a change in the policy for .org IS
something that should be considered provided that existing registrants
aren't required to give up their names.

I haven't seen any such consensus here on that, nor do I think that
statement is appropriate or reflective of the sense of the GA.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #308
************************