Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #355
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, April 6 2001            Volume 01 : Number 355

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

Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 11:06:35 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Whoa - Multilingualism

Thank you all for your comments on this thread. It indeed reveals great
overall confusion when it comes to multilingualism.  The following may
help.  Frustration in linguistics results from lack of understanding.
The frustration from lack of cultural and linguistic fusion on this list
is a great contibutor to the problems.  Think of Asian politeness facing
Arizonan directness and either may be insulted without basis in fact.
I use Jeff's Texas bluntness as example because many take offense when
he means none and at least less would be taken in his culture.
ICANN needs all of our contribution in this matter.

Sincerely,
http://www.epcc.edu/Community/NMIP/Welcome.html

                     Main Entry: lan·guage
                     Pronunciation: 'la[ng]-gwij, -wij
                     Function: noun
                     Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from
langue tongue,
                     language, from Latin lingua -- more at TONGUE
                     Date: 14th century
                     1 a : the words, their pronunciation, and the
methods of combining
                     them used and understood by a community b (1) :
audible, articulate,
                     meaningful sound as produced by the action of the
vocal organs (2) : a
                     systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings
by the use of
                     conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks
having understood
                     meanings (3) : the suggestion by objects, actions,
or conditions of
                     associated ideas or feelings <language in their
very gesture --
                     Shakespeare> (4) : the means by which animals
communicate (5) : a
                     formal system of signs and symbols (as FORTRAN or a
calculus in
                     logic) including rules for the formation and
transformation of admissible
                     expressions (6) : MACHINE LANGUAGE 1
                     2 a : form or manner of verbal expression;
specifically : STYLE b : the
                     vocabulary and phraseology belonging to an art or a
department of
                     knowledge c : PROFANITY
                     3 : the study of language especially as a school
subject

                     Main Entry: mul·ti·lin·gual
                     Pronunciation: -'li[ng]-gw&l, -'li[ng]-gy&-w&l
                     Function: adjective
                     Date: 1838
                     1 : of, containing, or expressed in several
languages <a multilingual
                     sign> <multilingual dictionaries>
                     2 : using or able to use several languages
<multilingual translators>
                     - mul·ti·lin·gual·ism /-gw&-"li-z&m, -gy&-w&-/ noun

                     - mul·ti·lin·gual·ly /-gw&-lE, -gy&-w&-lE/ adverb
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 20:08:48 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Kristy,

>
>Please list the "good things" ICANN has done so all of us are made aware of
>their good behavior.  I think it's important to note because ICANN appears
>to not be interested in the good of the public; but only their direct
>sponsors and if they are infact doing good things I for one would like to
>know about it.

Once upon a time there was a company that had the complete monopoly over the 
generic TLDs, as Registry and as Registrar ;>).
It seems ages, but it was just a couple of years ago when five new 
Registrars were allowed to compete with NSi at the Registrar level, and just 
few months ago the basis for the introduction of new generic TLDs has been 
put.

To the people like me, that have been fighting for years to achieve this 
result, it seems an achievement. And it does not seem to me that it was so 
obvious that ICANN could have achieved it: still in Cairo (one year ago) I 
was discussing with other old-timers about what could have been the next 
roadblock.

We do (at least some of us do) criticize the "OptionB" contract, but we have 
to admit that it is still a long way from the "OptionZero", which was 
basically "NSi has it all".

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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:03:21 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Lawmakers Divided Over How To Legislate Online Privacy

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0BE99.F5114F80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Lawmakers Divided Over How To Legislate Online Privacy 

 http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/164045.html

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0BE99.F5114F80
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
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=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4613.1700" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><FONT size=3D4><FONT=20
face=3DVerdana><STRONG>Lawmakers Divided Over How To Legislate Online =
Privacy<!--/PAGE_TITLE--></STRONG></FONT></FONT><FONT size=3D3>=20
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D4></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><BR>&nbsp;<A=20
href=3D"http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/164045.html">http://www.newsbyte=
s.com/news/01/164045.html</A></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2>/Bruce</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0BE99.F5114F80--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 20:26:42 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List decorum

Dave,

>First and foremost, I would like to apologize to Harald and Roberto for
>giving them such an unpleasant task at the end of their tenure.

No need to, we get paid for doing this job.
(it is a joke, of course)

>
>Second of all I would like to apologize to the list for my lapse in
>professional decorum.

Your apology is very much appreciated.

>.....
>
>Very much contrary to Roberto, I believe that it is almost always
>unacceptable -- in fact, entirely offensive -- to focus on the person
>rather than their content.  (There is a difference between citing a
>person's comments, versus focusing on them personally.)
>
>What is most bothersome is Roberto's assessment that direct slander does
>not cross the line of acceptability.  The reason it is bothersome is not
>merely that it is so very wrong but that it is widely held on this list.

I tend to think that there is a misunderstanding.
I don't remember having said that direct slander is acceptable: please point 
out where I did, I may be wrong.
What I do believe is that it is very difficult, and sometimes 
counterproductive, to apply strict sanctions whenever and wherever the 
behaviour crosses the line. In sanctioning, I tend to apply principles like 
repetition of the fault, in particular if a warning has been issued, or 
willingness to apologize.

I do believe that if we start applying rules in a strict way, we lose the 
point, which is not to exclude who misbehaved, but to try to bring the 
people that misbehaved to a behaviour that is more acceptable.

In this light, I see an apology and lifting of the sanction as a bigger step 
forward than the suspension.

>
>I used the word slander quite carefully.  The statement Roberto was
>commenting on was both false and malicious.  Yet folks on this list are
>quite casual about tossing such comments around.
>
>(Lest one claim that I am attacking Roberto, let me be clear that I am
>not.  I am attacking a problem in allowing ANY focus on people as
>legitimate content.  The example I am citing shows just how slippery this
>slope is, not matter how serious and diligent a person might be.)

Agree. It is difficult. And definitively not a task that puts me at ease.
I much prefered when people were concentrating the insults on me (and you 
may well remember what was the situation at the end of 1999) than to have to 
judge the words the people throw at eachother.
In the first case, I could ignore the thing altogether, in the second case, 
I have to provide a judgement.
And this is pretty much against my nature.

Hence the mistakes, that I do recognize, and about which I do apologize.

Best regards
Roberto
(hoping to be able to switch to other subjects)

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 11:38:58 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Policy & govern

If you review the meanings of these words you can find that it is very
easy to say.
ICANN is not a governing body - and be correct.
ICANN is a governing body -and be equally correct.
The same can be said for Policy making body.

I think the point is as we move forward that it is very helpful to try
and look at the concept being presented and not at the linguistic
sophistry of the words. I believe this will also lead to more progress
and less antogonism.

Sincerely,

                     Main Entry: gov·ern
                     Pronunciation: 'g&-v&rn
                     Function: verb
                     Etymology: Middle English, from Old French
governer, from Latin
                     gubernare to steer, govern, from Greek kybernan
                     Date: 14th century
                     transitive senses
                     1 a : to exercise continuous sovereign authority
over; especially : to
                     control and direct the making and administration of
policy in b : to rule
                     without sovereign power and usually without having
the authority to
                     determine basic policy
                     2 a archaic : MANIPULATE b : to control the speed
of (as a machine)
                     especially by automatic means
                     3 a : to control, direct, or strongly influence the
actions and conduct of
                     b : to exert a determining or guiding influence in
or over <income must
                     govern expenditure> c : to hold in check : RESTRAIN

                     4 : to require (a word) to be in a certain case
                     5 : to serve as a precedent or deciding principle
for <customs that
                     govern human decisions>
                     intransitive senses
                     1 : to prevail or have decisive influence : CONTROL

                     2 : to exercise authority
                     - gov·ern·able /-v&r-n&-b&l/ adjective

                     Main Entry: 1pol·i·cy
                     Pronunciation: 'pä-l&-sE
                     Function: noun
                     Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
                     Usage: often attributive
                     Etymology: Middle English policie government,
policy, from Middle
                     French, government, regulation, from Late Latin
politia
                     Date: 15th century
                     1 a : prudence or wisdom in the management of
affairs b : management
                     or procedure based primarily on material interest
                     2 a : a definite course or method of action
selected from among
                     alternatives and in light of given conditions to
guide and determine
                     present and future decisions b : a high-level
overall plan embracing the
                     general goals and acceptable procedures especially
of a governmental
                     body

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:50:46 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

I guess I've only been participating since 1995, so that doesn't make me an 
old timer.

There should have been an option C, so that modifications could have been made.

The Internet worked better when there was a monopoly.  The rules were 
simple:  first come first serve.  Problems were easily resolved over 
trademark and copyright issues within the courts, etc.  I think ICANN is 
several steps backwards.

You did not list any good thing they have done as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for trying.

:)

~k

At 08:08 PM 4/6/2001 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Kristy,
>
>>
>>Please list the "good things" ICANN has done so all of us are made aware of
>>their good behavior.  I think it's important to note because ICANN appears
>>to not be interested in the good of the public; but only their direct
>>sponsors and if they are infact doing good things I for one would like to
>>know about it.
>
>
>Once upon a time there was a company that had the complete monopoly over 
>the generic TLDs, as Registry and as Registrar ;>).
>It seems ages, but it was just a couple of years ago when five new 
>Registrars were allowed to compete with NSi at the Registrar level, and 
>just few months ago the basis for the introduction of new generic TLDs has 
>been put.
>
>To the people like me, that have been fighting for years to achieve this 
>result, it seems an achievement. And it does not seem to me that it was so 
>obvious that ICANN could have achieved it: still in Cairo (one year ago) I 
>was discussing with other old-timers about what could have been the next 
>roadblock.
>
>We do (at least some of us do) criticize the "OptionB" contract, but we 
>have to admit that it is still a long way from the "OptionZero", which was 
>basically "NSi has it all".
>
>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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 17:20:49 +0100
From: "Paul M. Kane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Privacy/WHOIS

Danny

Thanks for your email.  There are two committees with very similar titles, but
they are very different.

The Names Council WHOIS Committee is not due to start it's work of soliciting
comments on the WHOIS issue until the ICANN Staff WHOIS Committee publishes its
report, which is due out in about two weeks.

There are no archives of the WHOIS Staff Committee, but please be assured one
thing the NC members want to ensure is that all interested parties have the
opportunity to present position papers and for peer review/comment on those
position papers.  When we have the web site set-up and the comment (and archive)
mechanism in place I urge all GA members to submit opinions/positions. If the GA
would like to start preparing its position paper that would be most welcome.

Once the consensus areas have been identified, and the areas where more work is
necessary established, the NC WHOIS Committee will submit a report to the full
NC - who will then form either a Task Force or a Working Group to address the
issues where more attention is necessary.

I'll write to you and the GA when we the mechanisms in place and are about to
start inviting papers and soliciting comments.

Thanks again....

Paul Kane
Chair NC WHOIS Committee
(not the ICANN Staff WHOIS Committee !!)

"babybows.com" wrote:

> Dear Paul,
>
> As the issue of privacy is of great concern to many members of the General
> Assembly, I, and assuredly many others, would be grateful for the
> opportunity to participate in your WHOIS Committee activities.
> Unfortunately for those of us interested in pursuing this issue, there seems
> to be some difficulty finding any public archives listed that record your
> committee's dialogue on this topic.  I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly)
> that you communicate via a mailing list, and that such archives are
> available for public review.  If you could advise the URL, it would be most
> helpful and sincerely appreciated.
>
> Fortunately, I have been able to find the preliminary report of your
> committee (13 Dec 2000)
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00571.html which states:
>
> "Objective of this Report
>
> This initial effort aims at evaluating whether it is proper for ICANN
> staff to set up the Whois Committee through lack of consultation
> process with other relevant interest parties which has brought up
> criticisms such as lack of openess and its transparent procedural flaw."
>
> Can you perhaps provide an update?   It would be nice to know if your
> initial objective has been met.   Have you reached conclusions with regard
> to the ICANN staff issues?  It has been now almost four months since the
> release of your report... may I ask if you have moved on to policy
> considerations?  If so, might you briefly summarize those considerations?
>
> It is my belief that many members of the General Assembly are more than
> willing to assist the Committee in its efforts to deal with the Privacy
> issue as it relates to WHOIS.  I for one would certainly welcome the
> opportunity to participate in a working group devoted to this topic.  Can
> you advise if you are willing to convene such a working group?
>
> Thanking you for your assistance,
> Danny Younger

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:56:09 -0400
From: "Russ Smith" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

>Once upon a time there was a company that had the complete monopoly
>over the
>generic TLDs, as Registry and as Registrar ;>).
>It seems ages, but it was just a couple of years ago when five new
>Registrars were allowed to compete with NSi at the Registrar level,
>and just
>few months ago the basis for the introduction of new generic TLDs has been
>put.

Hi Roberto,

Registrar competition was put in place by the US Department of Commerce.
According to ICANN's general counsel Loius Touton, ICANN is not responsible
for any events prior to November 1999 when ICANN was officially put in place
(http://www.icann.org/nsi/coopagmt-amend19-04nov99.htm).

Mr. Touton told me that ICANN would not take any responsibility for
assisting in clearing up the incident with Races.com
(http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,32974,00.html) because it
happened prior to ICANN's existence.

I do not remember the exact date the shared registry system went into place
but the amendment to the NSI cooperative agreement was in April 1999,
several months before ICANN officially existed
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/amendment13.htm.

I guess you can say that some of the people who eventually formed ICANN were
involved in registrar competition but, according to ICANN's general counsel,
ICANN is not responsible for those events which took place prior to November
1999 even though Vint Cerf and ICANN made this claim in recent congressional
testimonies.

To summarize, that one doesn't count.

Russ Smith
http://consumer.net

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:02:18 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Hello Kristy,

Friday, April 06, 2001, 1:50:46 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:

> The Internet worked better when there was a monopoly.
> The rules were
> simple:  first come first serve.
> Problems were easily resolved over
> trademark and copyright issues within the courts, etc.  I think ICANN is 
> several steps backwards.

That's not entirely accurate.  NSI's flawed domain dispute policy
enabled a trademark holder to get a domain actually shut off until the
respondent actually won in court.

I don't consider that to be preferable, while I also agree the UDRP is
fatally flawed, at the least it doesn't turn off a domain until a
decision has been made, even if those decisions are being made in a
manner inconsistent with law and by a method which gives automatic
preference to the complainant.

I also take exception with Roberto's giving ICANN credit for
"breaking" NSI's monopoly.  That was going to happen regardless, the
green paper and white paper processes led to that.  ICANN just simply
assisted along a process that they didn't initiate nor decide on.

- -- 
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: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 22:06:30 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List decorum

On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, at 09:10 [=GMT-0700], Dave Crocker wrote:

> If the GA list is ever to be productive, it needs to focus on content and 
> not on people's affiliations or motives or competence or....  

I do not agree with the 'affiliations' part. I think it is
relevant.

> If the devil 
> sends a note saying that the sky is blue, should we focus on the fact that 
> it is the devil is speaking and even question its veracity?

The colour of the sky is like everything else a matter of perspective
and focus. Affiliations can have a tremendous bearing on these, esp.
in humans. The devil may be right. Still I would check his statements
with more care than those of, say, you.

> Focusing on the person is almost always entirely irrelevant to serious 
> content.

'Almost': true. But it certainly is relevant who someone works for or
is otherwise connected with to evaluate the statements that person
makes, if they are related to his 'boss's' interests or his own.

- -- 
[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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 15:21:38 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Mistakes happen.

When naturalhealth.com was in dispute, our website never went down.

:)

At 01:02 PM 4/6/2001 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>Hello Kristy,
>
>Friday, April 06, 2001, 1:50:46 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:
>
> > The Internet worked better when there was a monopoly.
> > The rules were
> > simple:  first come first serve.
> > Problems were easily resolved over
> > trademark and copyright issues within the courts, etc.  I think ICANN is
> > several steps backwards.
>
>That's not entirely accurate.  NSI's flawed domain dispute policy
>enabled a trademark holder to get a domain actually shut off until the
>respondent actually won in court.
>
>I don't consider that to be preferable, while I also agree the UDRP is
>fatally flawed, at the least it doesn't turn off a domain until a
>decision has been made, even if those decisions are being made in a
>manner inconsistent with law and by a method which gives automatic
>preference to the complainant.
>
>I also take exception with Roberto's giving ICANN credit for
>"breaking" NSI's monopoly.  That was going to happen regardless, the
>green paper and white paper processes led to that.  ICANN just simply
>assisted along a process that they didn't initiate nor decide on.
>
>--
>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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 15:34:27 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Thank you Jeff for stating more clearly.

At 03:13 PM 4/6/2001 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Kristy and all remaining assembly members,
>
>   I have to agree that in some ways ICANN has been a destructive and
>disruptive imposition on the Internet as a whole.  The Market's have
>shown this lately, as have the money folks (Read Venture Capital).
>
>   Some of the areas that have declined or been made worse as a
>direct result of ICANN policy are as follows:
>
>1.) Domain Names have been relegated or equated directly to
>      Trademarks.
>
>2.) Registration policy for Domain names has become a murky
>      proposition and overly restrictive.
>
>3.) No longer is there a standardized Whois.
>
>4.) Privacy has been trampled upon directly.
>
>5.) Registry security has gotten worse and this is escalating as a result of
>       lack of Registrants to be able to adequately exercise their privacy 
> rights.
>
>6.) the UDRP has been a terribly destructive tool against small
>      ecommerce business.
>
>7.) Inconsistency in standardization practice and policy.
>
>Kristy McKee wrote:
>
> > I guess I've only been participating since 1995, so that doesn't make me an
> > old timer.
> >
> > There should have been an option C, so that modifications could have 
> been made.
> >
> > The Internet worked better when there was a monopoly.  The rules were
> > simple:  first come first serve.  Problems were easily resolved over
> > trademark and copyright issues within the courts, etc.  I think ICANN is
> > several steps backwards.
> >
> > You did not list any good thing they have done as far as I'm concerned.
> >
> > Thanks for trying.
> >
> > :)
> >
> > ~k
> >
> > At 08:08 PM 4/6/2001 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > >Kristy,
> > >
> > >>
> > >>Please list the "good things" ICANN has done so all of us are made 
> aware of
> > >>their good behavior.  I think it's important to note because ICANN 
> appears
> > >>to not be interested in the good of the public; but only their direct
> > >>sponsors and if they are infact doing good things I for one would like to
> > >>know about it.
> > >
> > >
> > >Once upon a time there was a company that had the complete monopoly over
> > >the generic TLDs, as Registry and as Registrar ;>).
> > >It seems ages, but it was just a couple of years ago when five new
> > >Registrars were allowed to compete with NSi at the Registrar level, and
> > >just few months ago the basis for the introduction of new generic TLDs has
> > >been put.
> > >
> > >To the people like me, that have been fighting for years to achieve this
> > >result, it seems an achievement. And it does not seem to me that it was so
> > >obvious that ICANN could have achieved it: still in Cairo (one year ago) I
> > >was discussing with other old-timers about what could have been the next
> > >roadblock.
> > >
> > >We do (at least some of us do) criticize the "OptionB" contract, but we
> > >have to admit that it is still a long way from the "OptionZero", which was
> > >basically "NSi has it all".
> > >
> > >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
>
>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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 14:27:22 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List decorum

At 11:26 AM 4/6/2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>I tend to think that there is a misunderstanding.
>I don't remember having said that direct slander is acceptable: please 
>point out where I did, I may be wrong.

No, you did not say that and I'm sure you did not intend it.

However it is, I believe, a simple and direct implication:  Someone 
asserted on the list that I am a paid agent provococateur.  There is no 
substance to that claim, because it is entirely false; in fact it is silly.

False and malicious.  That is slander.

>What I do believe is that it is very difficult, and sometimes 
>counterproductive, to apply strict sanctions whenever and wherever the 
>behaviour crosses the line. In sanctioning, I tend to apply principles 
>like repetition of the fault, in particular if a warning has been issued, 
>or willingness to apologize.

This entire area is extremely difficult.  I have not seen many examples of 
good list behavior enforcement.

A "statistical" approach is understandable, but misses particularly 
egregious, one-time behaviors.  At base the problem is that fully objective 
measures are extremely difficult or else they are extremely 
simplistic.  That leads to subjective assessment and THAT leads to 
inconsistency.

And THAT is why I claim that the only reasonable policy is one which is 
intolerant of essentially any and all ad hominem content.  In other words, 
keep is simple.

>I do believe that if we start applying rules in a strict way, we lose the 
>point, which is not to exclude who misbehaved, but to try to bring the 
>people that misbehaved to a behaviour that is more acceptable.

That is a thoroughly laudable goal.  However please note that it really is 
not working very well, as demonstrated by that appalling mass of offenses 
yesterday.

>In this light, I see an apology and lifting of the sanction as a bigger 
>step forward than the suspension.

Assuming that I continue to behave properly (...) you are right.  About me.

But what about the rest of the participants on the list?  That is why I am 
repeatedly pointing to a problem with the normative behavior on the list.

>Hence the mistakes, that I do recognize, and about which I do apologize.

Stop trying to steal my thunder.  *I* am the one doing 
apologizing.  (Besides, you have nothing to apologize for.)

>(hoping to be able to switch to other subjects)

what a good idea.

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: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:21:26 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell, PhD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

My own situation might be unique (is it?) but nonetheless frustrating ... I
was the first to register "edu.com" And we owned and operated the site for
some months before getting a matter-of-fact letter from NSI telling us that
they had reconsidered issuing this domain name. They said that because some
older DNS servers might get confused between "edu" as an SLD and a TLD, they
had decided to make this a domain not available to anyone (reserved as
example.com is and the single digit/letter domains).

We argued, we fought. But they were adamant and our site got switched off.
But they promised us that if they ever changed their policy in respect to
this domain they would reinstate ownership to us again.

Then, years later, in about 1998, with no communication with us at all, they
put the domain name back in to the general pool and someone (big surprise)
grabbed it.

And so we started the complaints all over again .. with no movement
whatsoever after 3 years of trying. Any one got any thoughts?

Tim

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "(Kristy McKee)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 1:02 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

> Hello Kristy,
>
> Friday, April 06, 2001, 1:50:46 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:
>
> > The Internet worked better when there was a monopoly.
> > The rules were
> > simple:  first come first serve.
> > Problems were easily resolved over
> > trademark and copyright issues within the courts, etc.  I think ICANN is
> > several steps backwards.
>
> That's not entirely accurate.  NSI's flawed domain dispute policy
> enabled a trademark holder to get a domain actually shut off until the
> respondent actually won in court.
>
> I don't consider that to be preferable, while I also agree the UDRP is
> fatally flawed, at the least it doesn't turn off a domain until a
> decision has been made, even if those decisions are being made in a
> manner inconsistent with law and by a method which gives automatic
> preference to the complainant.
>
> I also take exception with Roberto's giving ICANN credit for
> "breaking" NSI's monopoly.  That was going to happen regardless, the
> green paper and white paper processes led to that.  ICANN just simply
> assisted along a process that they didn't initiate nor decide on.
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #355
************************