Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #314
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, March 28 2001          Volume 01 : Number 314

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

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:26:52 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: reeling in ICANN?

All remaining assembly members,

  The following is a post from the Domain Policy list
that I am resending to the DNSO GA for informational
purposes along with my response...

  Thank you for providing this interesting information.  I am sure it
will be reviewed with great interest.  I would also add the letter
to which you provided the URL below also states the following:

1.whether the delegation of authority over the
  domain name system (DNS) from the
  Department of Commerce (DOC) to ICANN is
  legal;
2.whether ICANN is the appropriate body to
   manage the DNS;
3.whether ICANN has performed well.

=========  end of additional excerpt =========

It would seem to me that #1 is not really all that important or
really in question.  But #'s 2 and 3, are indeed being questioned
on a global basis as time goes on...

Judith Oppenheimer wrote:

> http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=59&mode=thread&order=0
>
> Senator Conrad Burns to Secretary of Commerce:  "...further scrutiny of
> ICANN's mandate and activities are warranted through a special commission,
> Congressional hearings or other avenues ... I urge you to refrain from
> taking any major steps to further empower or delegate authority to ICANN."
>
> J
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Judith Oppenheimer
> 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert
> Publisher, http://ICBTollFreeNews.com
> "An important source of inside information," says InfoWorld;
> "superb", "invaluable", "critically intelligent", "exceedingly
> useful", report ICB Premium Subscribers.
> ENTER HERE:  http://www.roibot.com/w.cgi?R1764_sig
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------

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, 27 Mar 2001 14:20:55 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot orgfromunrestricted to restricted

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all remaining assembly members,
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> >  I
> > do not believe the U.S. Gov. is so lame they just look at finished work but rather
> > at the whole process.
>
>   I am not so sure that I would agree with this.  Historically the USG
> has NOT been this reasonable in some instances.  This much is pretty
> much commonly excepted.
>
> > These lists are their free consultants. They can especially
> > use these lists to test political winds and support for things such as monopolies.
>
>   Agreed.  But do they, are they, or will they, in this instance?

I think the good Senator's two letters now circulating answer your question in the
direct affirmative.  It is our BoD's refusal to watch this process that is leading to
these serious actions.

I feel that some of us stand somewhat vindicated.

Sincerely,

- --
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, 27 Mar 2001 16:03:09 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

Hello Kent,

Tuesday, March 27, 2001, 11:40:46 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 09:36:02AM -0600, Bruce James wrote:
>> ICANNs attempt to change the status of dot org runs "against" the current
>> dot
>> org definition by the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE:

> No.  Sorry, it does not.  The only real change attempted by ICANN is to
> remove .org from NSI, and start a non profit registry to run .org.
> Those proposed changes have nothing to do with the charter of .org, and 
> have no effect on who may register, or who has registered in the past.

Yes, it does, Kent.

- -- 
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:26:52 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 04:03:09PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Hello Kent,
> 
> Tuesday, March 27, 2001, 11:40:46 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 09:36:02AM -0600, Bruce James wrote:
> >> ICANNs attempt to change the status of dot org runs "against" the current
> >> dot
> >> org definition by the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE:
> 
> > No.  Sorry, it does not.  The only real change attempted by ICANN is to
> > remove .org from NSI, and start a non profit registry to run .org.
> > Those proposed changes have nothing to do with the charter of .org, and 
> > have no effect on who may register, or who has registered in the past.
> 
> Yes, it does, Kent.

Sorry, you are confused.  There are general, non-binding statements
about possible futures for .org; they are not binding on anyone.  There
are no binding contractual terms that say anything at all about the
policy that might be adopted in .org.  In general, the charter of a TLD
is independent of the entity who runs it.  For example, Nominet is a
non-profit; it runs .uk; .uk most definitely allows for-profit entities
to register. 

The charter of .org (whatever it might be or whether there even is one)
is independent of the entity (whatever it might be) that runs the TLD.  
The only thing mentioned in the contract is that there is a presumption 
that a non-profit entity would run .org.  There is no statement 
whatsoever about the policies that might or might not be adopted for 
.org.

- -- 
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:18:33 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

Hello Kent,

Tuesday, March 27, 2001, 4:26:52 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> Sorry, you are confused.  There are general, non-binding statements
> about possible futures for .org; they are not binding on anyone.  There
> are no binding contractual terms that say anything at all about the
> policy that might be adopted in .org.  In general, the charter of a TLD
> is independent of the entity who runs it.  For example, Nominet is a
> non-profit; it runs .uk; .uk most definitely allows for-profit entities
> to register. 

> The charter of .org (whatever it might be or whether there even is one)
> is independent of the entity (whatever it might be) that runs the TLD.  
> The only thing mentioned in the contract is that there is a presumption 
> that a non-profit entity would run .org.  There is no statement 
> whatsoever about the policies that might or might not be adopted for 
> .org.

And in the SAME FAQ, Kent, that presumption is BASED on that a
non-profit would be a better job managing a domain restricted to
NON-PROFITS.

The implication is there, this is all a part of the deal, Kent, even
if its not on paper.

You know it, and everyone here knows it.

If just once you would break ranks, you might have more 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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 03:37:47 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted (fwd)

On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, at 16:26 [=GMT-0800], Kent Crispin wrote:

> The charter of .org (whatever it might be or whether there even is one)
> is independent of the entity (whatever it might be) that runs the TLD.  
> The only thing mentioned in the contract is that there is a presumption 
> that a non-profit entity would run .org.  There is no statement 
> whatsoever about the policies that might or might not be adopted for 
> .org.

A faq (http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm) is
not a contract, sure. But why does ICANN deal with the matter
in the context of this contract at such length, if it isn't
relevant? The statements in the faq may have no legal force. But must
we assume that they are meaningless? And if we do not agree with
possible *implications* (explicit or not in a contract), why can't we
protest against them now, before it is too late? The ball is already
rolling...

Protest is the only answer. See my .sig ...

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

- --
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, 27 Mar 2001 21:16:31 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Senator Burns Queries Legality of ICANN-DoC Relationship

Rather than reposting our articles in full, I encourage you to post a
short summary and a link to it.  In that way, I hope, readers will
sometimes be enticed into posting comments on the icannwatch.org site.
Furthermore, 

(The link for that article by the way, was
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=59 )

- -- 
		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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 21:08:39 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Senator Burns Queries Legality of ICANN-DoC Relationship

Sure will, Michael, thanks for the good work....:)

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Senator Burns Queries Legality of ICANN-DoC Relationship

Rather than reposting our articles in full, I encourage you to post a
short summary and a link to it.  In that way, I hope, readers will
sometimes be enticed into posting comments on the icannwatch.org site.
Furthermore,

(The link for that article by the way, was
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=59 )

- --
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

- --
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, 27 Mar 2001 19:04:29 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 05:18:33PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Hello Kent,
> 
> Tuesday, March 27, 2001, 4:26:52 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > Sorry, you are confused.  There are general, non-binding statements
> > about possible futures for .org; they are not binding on anyone.  There
> > are no binding contractual terms that say anything at all about the
> > policy that might be adopted in .org.  In general, the charter of a TLD
> > is independent of the entity who runs it.  For example, Nominet is a
> > non-profit; it runs .uk; .uk most definitely allows for-profit entities
> > to register. 
> 
> > The charter of .org (whatever it might be or whether there even is one)
> > is independent of the entity (whatever it might be) that runs the TLD.  
> > The only thing mentioned in the contract is that there is a presumption 
> > that a non-profit entity would run .org.  There is no statement 
> > whatsoever about the policies that might or might not be adopted for 
> > .org.
> 
> And in the SAME FAQ, Kent, that presumption is BASED on that a
> non-profit would be a better job managing a domain restricted to
> NON-PROFITS.

Nope.  That is not what it says.  What it says is:

    Most non-commercial organizations have preferred to register in .org
    (or a ccTLD) rather than .com or .net, and there are many
    non-commercial organizations that view .org as their home.  In these
    circumstances, it seems appropriate for the registry operator of
    this TLD to be an organization that is likely to be sensitive to the
    needs of non-commercial organizations. 

That language and the surrounding language is very clear, but I will
paraphrase and expand it for you:

    RFC 1591 put commercial entities in .com, so, according to 1591
    entities that went into other TLDs, including .org, would be
    non-commercial.  While NSI stopped enforcing restrictions, in FACT,
    most non-commercial organizations do register by preference in .org,
    and in FACT, by far the bulk of registrants in .org are indeed
    non-commercial.  A non-commercial entity would be sensitive to this
    EXISTING SITUATION, whereas a for-profit registry would be more
    likely to trample over this CURRENTLY EXISTING SITUATION, and try to
    aggressively exploit .org for profit.  This would trample over the
    expectations, and the rights, of THE LARGE MAJORITY OF CURRENT
    REGISTRANTS.

The cold fact is that the bulk of registrants in .org are in fact,
surprise, surprise, non-commercial organizations, and THEY HAVE RIGHTS, 
TOO. 

> The implication is there, this is all a part of the deal, Kent, even
> if its not on paper.

Spare me your conspiracy theories.

> You know it, and everyone here knows it.

On the contrary, YOU don't know it, and NOBODY knows it.  You are simply
spinning a web of conspiracy, and waving your hands.  Your "arguments"
are statements about "implications", and things that "everybody here
knows", and other veiled nonsense.  You have no argument.

- -- 
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 21:35:14 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

At 7:04 pm -0800 3/27/01, Kent Crispin wrote:

>Spare me your conspiracy theories.
>
>> You know it, and everyone here knows it.
>
>On the contrary, YOU don't know it, and NOBODY knows it.  You are simply
>spinning a web of conspiracy, and waving your hands.  Your "arguments"
>are statements about "implications", and things that "everybody here
>knows", and other veiled nonsense.  You have no argument.

General rule of thumb for DNS policy lists:

Once the Crispy-Crockett duo start accusing people of "conspiracy
theories", you KNOW you're edging closer to the real truth.

Keep digging people.

- -- 
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 22:39:25 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

Kent:

IMO, the real point is that making any change to .org after it has 
evolved to its present status is unfair at the very least.  To even 
consider the possible disenfranchisement of any .org holder, 
whether non-commercial or not is wrong, wrong, wrong.  Unless the 
language is crystal clear, no change should be made at all.

When you consider that not one of the new TLDs can replace .org 
as it now exists in scope, there is really no alternative for those 
who don't fit neatly into non-profit/non-commercial categories.  
.info? .name?  Nope.

Guess we can start marketing some of the really neat inclusive 
name space TLDs, huh?  How about .ETC? <vbg>

Leah

> On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 05:18:33PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >
> Hello Kent, > > Tuesday, March 27, 2001, 4:26:52 PM, Kent Crispin
> wrote: > > Sorry, you are confused.  There are general, non-binding
> statements > > about possible futures for .org; they are not binding
> on anyone.  There > > are no binding contractual terms that say
> anything at all about the > > policy that might be adopted in .org. 
> In general, the charter of a TLD > > is independent of the entity who
> runs it.  For example, Nominet is a > > non-profit; it runs .uk; .uk
> most definitely allows for-profit entities > > to register. > > > The
> charter of .org (whatever it might be or whether there even is one) >
> > is independent of the entity (whatever it might be) that runs the
> TLD.  > > The only thing mentioned in the contract is that there is a
> presumption > > that a non-profit entity would run .org.  There is no
> statement > > whatsoever about the policies that might or might not be
> adopted for > > .org. > > And in the SAME FAQ, Kent, that presumption
> is BASED on that a > non-profit would be a better job managing a
> domain restricted to > NON-PROFITS.
> 
> Nope.  That is not what it says.  What it says is:
> 
>     Most non-commercial organizations have preferred to register in
>     .org (or a ccTLD) rather than .com or .net, and there are many
>     non-commercial organizations that view .org as their home.  In
>     these circumstances, it seems appropriate for the registry
>     operator of this TLD to be an organization that is likely to be
>     sensitive to the needs of non-commercial organizations. 
> 
> That language and the surrounding language is very clear, but I will
> paraphrase and expand it for you:
> 
>     RFC 1591 put commercial entities in .com, so, according to 1591
>     entities that went into other TLDs, including .org, would be
>     non-commercial.  While NSI stopped enforcing restrictions, in
>     FACT, most non-commercial organizations do register by preference
>     in .org, and in FACT, by far the bulk of registrants in .org are
>     indeed non-commercial.  A non-commercial entity would be sensitive
>     to this EXISTING SITUATION, whereas a for-profit registry would be
>     more likely to trample over this CURRENTLY EXISTING SITUATION, and
>     try to aggressively exploit .org for profit.  This would trample
>     over the expectations, and the rights, of THE LARGE MAJORITY OF
>     CURRENT REGISTRANTS.
> 
> The cold fact is that the bulk of registrants in .org are in fact,
> surprise, surprise, non-commercial organizations, and THEY HAVE
> RIGHTS, TOO. 
> 
> > The implication is there, this is all a part of the deal, Kent, even
> > if its not on paper.
> 
> Spare me your conspiracy theories.
> 
> > You know it, and everyone here knows it.
> 
> On the contrary, YOU don't know it, and NOBODY knows it.  You are
> simply spinning a web of conspiracy, and waving your hands.  Your
> "arguments" are statements about "implications", and things that
> "everybody here knows", and other veiled nonsense.  You have no
> argument.
> 
> -- 
> 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-full" 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, 27 Mar 2001 20:05:17 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

Hello Kent,

Tuesday, March 27, 2001, 7:04:29 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> Nope.  That is not what it says.  What it says is:

>     Most non-commercial organizations have preferred to register in .org
>     (or a ccTLD) rather than .com or .net, and there are many
>     non-commercial organizations that view .org as their home.  In these
>     circumstances, it seems appropriate for the registry operator of
>     this TLD to be an organization that is likely to be sensitive to the
>     needs of non-commercial organizations. 

Sorry, Kent, but you are not correct.  RFC1591 did not in any way
state that .org was a non-commercial TLD.

Just because some non-commercial entities elect to be there, because
of some misconception about what it is, doesn't mean anything, and has
no bearing.

>     whereas a for-profit registry would be more
>     likely to trample over this CURRENTLY EXISTING SITUATION, and try to
>     aggressively exploit .org for profit.

Bull.  .org is NOT a restricted TLD, nor should it be.  It is, and
should remain, an open generic TLD.  There is no reason to specify a
non-profit should run this domain, simply because a lot of non-profits
may register there.

> This would trample over the
>     expectations, and the rights, of THE LARGE MAJORITY OF CURRENT
>     REGISTRANTS.

Again, bull.  Back that up with some facts.  There is nothing to
indicate your statement above has ANY truth whatsoever.

>> The implication is there, this is all a part of the deal, Kent, even
>> if its not on paper.

> Spare me your conspiracy theories.

No, Kent, most of us have seen this kind of crap happen with ICANN
before, and we've seen people like you towing the company line,
refuting that what people are saying is going to happen will happen,
and then surprise surprise, it happens.  And then you claim it
happened because "consensus."

Spare me the crap, Kent.

- -- 
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:56:19 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 03:31:03AM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, at 16:26 [=GMT-0800], Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > The charter of .org (whatever it might be or whether there even is one)
> > is independent of the entity (whatever it might be) that runs the TLD.  
> > The only thing mentioned in the contract is that there is a presumption 
> > that a non-profit entity would run .org.  There is no statement 
> > whatsoever about the policies that might or might not be adopted for 
> > .org.
> 
> A faq (http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm) is
> not a contract, sure. But why does ICANN deal with the matter
> in the context of this contract at such length, if it isn't
> relevant?

Because there was a big stir in the community, and so they devoted some 
space in the FAQ to address the concerns that had been expressed.

> The statements in the faq may have no legal force. But must
> we assume that they are meaningless?

What are you talking about? The statements in the FAQ explicitly state
that *any* change to policies in .org would only come through community
consensus. 

- -- 
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:44:19 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

Hello Kent,

Tuesday, March 27, 2001, 7:56:19 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
>> The statements in the faq may have no legal force. But must
>> we assume that they are meaningless?

> What are you talking about? The statements in the FAQ explicitly state
> that *any* change to policies in .org would only come through community
> consensus. 

AFTER stating that a decision had ALREADY been made about the type of
entity that will manage it, and using the "possibility" of such a
restriction as a basis for it.

This is so plain as to be blatantly obvious. To everyone but someone
like yourself and Dave Crocker, who, for some odd reason, agree and
defend every single action of ICANN's, and never find themselves in
any disagreement with, or critical of any action or proposed action.

Your credibility (or lack thereof) when discussing ICANN policy
matters is clear.

- -- 
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 23:59:01 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot orgfrom  unrestricted to restricted

> General rule of thumb for DNS policy lists:
>
> Once the Crispy-Crockett duo start accusing people of "conspiracy
> theories", you KNOW you're edging closer to the real truth.
>
> Keep digging people.
>

Is this an appropriate post?  I concur completely however!

Sincerely,

If that is the best they can do?

- --
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, 27 Mar 2001 20:52:59 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 08:05:17PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Hello Kent,
> 
> Tuesday, March 27, 2001, 7:04:29 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > Nope.  That is not what it says.  What it says is:
> 
> >     Most non-commercial organizations have preferred to register in .org
> >     (or a ccTLD) rather than .com or .net, and there are many
> >     non-commercial organizations that view .org as their home.  In these
> >     circumstances, it seems appropriate for the registry operator of
> >     this TLD to be an organization that is likely to be sensitive to the
> >     needs of non-commercial organizations. 
> 
> Sorry, Kent, but you are not correct.  RFC1591 did not in any way
> state that .org was a non-commercial TLD.

You seem to have trouble with simple logic.  It says 

    1) it was inteneded commercial entities go in .com
    2) it was intended  that things that don't go elsewhere can go in .org
    3) things that are not commercial are non-commercial

    therefore:

    commercial entities don't go in .org

    corollary:

    .org was intended to be non-commercial

> Just because some non-commercial entities elect to be there, because
> of some misconception about what it is, doesn't mean anything, and has
> no bearing.

I see.

> >     whereas a for-profit registry would be more
> >     likely to trample over this CURRENTLY EXISTING SITUATION, and try to
> >     aggressively exploit .org for profit.
> 
> Bull.  .org is NOT a restricted TLD, nor should it be.  It is, and
> should remain, an open generic TLD.  There is no reason to specify a
> non-profit should run this domain, simply because a lot of non-profits
> may register there.
> 
> > This would trample over the
> >     expectations, and the rights, of THE LARGE MAJORITY OF CURRENT
> >     REGISTRANTS.
> 
> Again, bull.  Back that up with some facts.  There is nothing to
> indicate your statement above has ANY truth whatsoever.

Hmm.  You are claiming to believe the contrary, that most of the
registrations in .org are commercial.  Interesting.  

- -- 
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 21:40:47 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

Hello Kent,

Tuesday, March 27, 2001, 8:52:59 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:

>> Sorry, Kent, but you are not correct.  RFC1591 did not in any way
>> state that .org was a non-commercial TLD.

> You seem to have trouble with simple logic.  It says 

>     1) it was inteneded commercial entities go in .com
>     2) it was intended  that things that don't go elsewhere can go in .org
>     3) things that are not commercial are non-commercial

>     therefore:

>     commercial entities don't go in .org

>     corollary:

>     .org was intended to be non-commercial

No, this does not carry to that kind of conclusion, Kent.  The actual
charter for .org simply says organizations that don't fit elsewhere.
It doesn't say anything about WHY they might not fit elsewhere, nor
does it in any way imply or state anything about restrictions.  If
anything it directly implies that it is the only of the two that is
unrestricted, being the catch all.

> Hmm.  You are claiming to believe the contrary, that most of the
> registrations in .org are commercial.  Interesting.  

No, I'm challenging an assertion you made.  Back up your assertion,
Kent.  For once.

- -- 
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 22:18:54 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 09:40:47PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Hello Kent,
> 
> Tuesday, March 27, 2001, 8:52:59 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> >> Sorry, Kent, but you are not correct.  RFC1591 did not in any way
> >> state that .org was a non-commercial TLD.
> 
> > You seem to have trouble with simple logic.  It says 
> 
> >     1) it was intended commercial entities go in .com
> >     2) it was intended  that things that don't go elsewhere can go in .org
> >     3) things that are not commercial are non-commercial
> 
> >     therefore:
> 
> >     commercial entities don't go in .org
> 
> >     corollary:
> 
> >     .org was intended to be non-commercial
> 
> No, this does not carry to that kind of conclusion, Kent.  The actual
> charter for .org simply says organizations that don't fit elsewhere.

Precisely.  And 1591 explicitly states that commercial organizations
*do* fit elsewhere, hence they won't go in .org.  So, according to 1591,
commercial organizations don't go in .org.

This isn't rocket science.  It isn't complciated.  There isn't any
mystery.  It is simply the case that Jon really intended .org for
non-commercial entities.  People such as yourself have tried to torture
the language into meaning something else, but there really isn't any
question.  The mere fact that Jon told NSI that they might as well stop
trying to enforce that charter (as has been reported on this list) is
simple proof of what he originally intended. 

Moreover, there is no real question that most non-commercial entities 
use .org as the domain of choice, and contrariwise, most commercial 
entities vastly prefer .com.

[...]

- -- 
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 23:13:19 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

Hello Kent,

Let me know when you can use some facts to back up your assertions.

It will be a nice refreshing change from your standard MO.

Your arguments are so transparent that anyone can see through them,
the need to point it out each time you repeat it is no longer
necessary.

- -- 
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, 28 Mar 2001 04:44:09 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: reeling in ICANN?

- --------------4A7EC4CC85DA5563912D5D9E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

And herein lies a large part of the problem.

Jeff Williams wrote:

>
> 1.whether the delegation of authority over the
>   domain name system (DNS) from the
>   Department of Commerce (DOC) to ICANN is
>   legal;
> 2.whether ICANN is the appropriate body to
>    manage the DNS;
> 3.whether ICANN has performed well.
>
> =========  end of additional excerpt =========
>
> It would seem to me that #1 is not really all that important or
> really in question.  But #'s 2 and 3, are indeed being questioned
> on a global basis as time goes on...
>

While U.S laws are not imperfect the gist of the law is that if you allow private
manipulation of a public resource it must be done in certain ways.  All that
garbage about open and transparent and bottoms up and stakeholders is really the
crux of what the Senator is referring to in his remarks.  If you go to ICANNWatch
beginners page you see a nice little synopses of what ICANN was supposed to do
and did not do.  This is why the preceding 1 is really the conclusion of 2&3 and
is the bottom line.
Experienced Senators, if you will study them, only state in questions what they
have already concluded to be true.  It is the polite way of telling the recipient
Department what he is going to be nailed for unless some care is given or he
chooses to stand by his operation.  If he chooses to correct the situation the
Senator has left him some face saving wiggle room, if he chooses to maintain the
status quo, the battle lines have been drawn in an orderly fashion.
Making the statement so open and notorious is undoubtedly a combination of the
new department head and an indication that this situation will be resolved one
way or the other.  If there is a power struggle then the ICANN will get drawn and
quartered as a sacrifice.
There is an interesting fellow that goes by Conant who spends his time based upon
the destruction of ICANN and placing himself in a position to replace it.
Verisign and ICANN are at a very interesting partnership here, much like a
foreign power with a dictator.  Verisign must gather the internal support for
ICANN's actions in order to keep ICANN in power, if they cannot then their
dictator will be replaced by one which they have not cultivated and who most
likely has been cultivated by another.
You must constantly keep in mind that contracts with the government aren't.
those of us who do not know better think that communist or socialist governments
are more likely to take your property in the name of the state - wrong, ask
someone who lived where a freeway needed to go. Any contract with the Gov is null
and void if it violates any existing law or regulation, many of which are subject
to broad and varying interpretation.
Never forget who funds the DOC.

Sincerely,

- --------------4A7EC4CC85DA5563912D5D9E
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
And herein lies a large part of the problem.
<p>Jeff Williams wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>1.whether the delegation of authority over the
<br>&nbsp; domain name system (DNS) from the
<br>&nbsp; Department of Commerce (DOC) to ICANN is
<br>&nbsp; legal;
<br>2.whether ICANN is the appropriate body to
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; manage the DNS;
<br>3.whether ICANN has performed well.
<p>=========&nbsp; end of additional excerpt =========
<p>It would seem to me that #1 is not really all that important or
<br>really in question.&nbsp; But #'s 2 and 3, are indeed being questioned
<br>on a global basis as time goes on...
<br><a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html"></a>&nbsp;</blockquote>
While U.S laws are not imperfect the gist of the law is that if you allow
private manipulation of a public resource it must be done in certain ways.&nbsp;
All that garbage about open and transparent and bottoms up and stakeholders
is really the crux of what the Senator is referring to in his remarks.&nbsp;
If you go to ICANNWatch beginners page you see a nice little synopses of
what ICANN was supposed to do and did not do.&nbsp; This is why the preceding
1 is really the conclusion of 2&amp;3 and is the bottom line.
<br>Experienced Senators, if you will study them, only state in questions
what they have already concluded to be true.&nbsp; It is the polite way
of telling the recipient Department what he is going to be nailed for unless
some care is given or he chooses to stand by his operation.&nbsp; If he
chooses to correct the situation the Senator has left him some face saving
wiggle room, if he chooses to maintain the status quo, the battle lines
have been drawn in an orderly fashion.
<br>Making the statement so open and notorious is undoubtedly a combination
of the new department head and an indication that this situation will be
resolved one way or the other.&nbsp; If there is a power struggle then
the ICANN will get drawn and quartered as a sacrifice.
<br>There is an interesting fellow that goes by Conant who spends his time
based upon the destruction of ICANN and placing himself in a position to
replace it.
<br>Verisign and ICANN are at a very interesting partnership here, much
like a foreign power with a dictator.&nbsp; Verisign must gather the internal
support for ICANN's actions in order to keep ICANN in power, if they cannot
then their dictator will be replaced by one which they have not cultivated
and who most likely has been cultivated by another.
<br>You must constantly keep in mind that contracts with the government
aren't.&nbsp; those of us who do not know better think that communist or
socialist governments are more likely to take your property in the name
of the state - wrong, ask someone who lived where a freeway needed to go.
Any contract with the Gov is null and void if it violates any existing
law or regulation, many of which are subject to broad and varying interpretation.
<br>Never forget who funds the DOC.
<p>Sincerely,</html>

- --------------4A7EC4CC85DA5563912D5D9E--

- --
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 #314
************************