Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #374
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, April 12 2001           Volume 01 : Number 374

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

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:38:21 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Hello Dassa,

Wednesday, April 11, 2001, 2:09:05 AM, Dassa wrote:
> It would seem to me that there exists a serious flaw in the thinking behind the
> UDRP and what led up to it.  Any initial resolution policy should have been
> implemented to deal with internal matters.  By that, I mean domain name disputes
> between existing holders.

What type of disputes, exactly, do you mean by this?

It's not parsing for me.

- -- 
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, 11 Apr 2001 12:39:57 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Critics say "there's no shortage of dotcoms"

Hello Patrick,

Wednesday, April 11, 2001, 2:49:28 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> (2)    You say that "people disagree with me".  People who understand the
> subject don't.  From memory 67 characters are allowed including the .com which
> is four characters.  That means you can have 63 alphanumerics before the dot.

I'm one of those who understand the subject, and I'll disagree with
you.

There is an artificial scarcity.

But it is NOT because of domain hoarding or speculation.

It's because of restrictive policies on namespace expansion.

- -- 
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, 11 Apr 2001 12:41:16 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Critics say stick to the topic

Hello Robin,

As far as I know, he is not hear representing his employer.

There is really no basis for attacking him in this fashion over what
his employer has done.

Let's get back on track.

Wednesday, April 11, 2001, 2:48:11 AM, Robin Miller wrote:

> [email-masked] wrote:
>> 
>> Gee, Robin, I can't afford a DVD recorder, which would enable me to distribute my movies widely and with high quality.  I guess I'll steal one.
>> 
>> If I can't steal one, I'll fume and moan about Pioneer's pricing.
>> 
>> Whenever someone with pioneer.com in his E-mail address posts something, I'll attack him for things he has nothing to do with, and then launch into a diatribe about Pioneer's corporate practices
>> and how they bullied this or that hapless cowboy.
>> 
>> When Autodesk or Proctor & Gamble speak up in this forum, then you can respond to them.  Until then, LEAVE ME AND THE REST OF US OUT OF IT.

> Since you chose to use your biz addy to write here, you have to reap the
> consequences for that decision.

> To me, it seems more like you don't know what you're talking about. You
> complain about cybersquatting and there are no rules in ICANN to address it.
> There are rules. Its called the UDRP. 

> You complain about sunrise being for cybersquatters, when its really set up for
> corporations with lots of famous TMs - like the one you work for.

> BTW - I dont have a DVD recorder either. But I can record video disk. :-) and
> ~I~ can at least get a test version of a dvd recorder for a test drive if I
> really wanted it. Bet you can't. :)

> But still - I see no reason to use software that costs more than my computer
> does. Its against my philosophy on buying software. I know how development
> costs are. I have enough programmer friends, most with their own businesses.
> Who are you calling thief? Its not me. I ~paid~ for my software that I use.

> And what you forget is - I'm not complaining. I said I use other, less
> expensive alternatives. Its not like Max is the only 3d software on the market
> - its not like DVD recorders. And guess what. I have bought software here that
> can read and write 3ds format. :)

> And who is changing the subject? You are. I said. Again. Rinse. I shall repeat.
> This is what I am REALLY complaining about:

> Autodesk used not having a registration for Max as AN EXCUSE to THREATEN an
> artist out of his legally-held in-good-faith registered paid-for domain name
> that was being used for a legitimate website. What I did before, was show you
> how you may not be registered and yet be using the software legally... as I
> said before, the artists I know that use it, use it at work and are not
> licensed themselves. Their employers bought the license.

> Autodesk was doing the reverse-domain hijacking here in this case. I - having
> been on the receiving end of reverse-domain hijacking - understand this problem
> all too well. This kind of thing happens WAY TOO OFTEN to average Joes and
> Janes, and that is what I am complaining about. This is a 'real' threat to the
> public, they are losing their right to possess domain names and set up
> in-good-faith websites, losing their sites quietly to threats of long drawn-out
> lawsuits. Like what nearly happened in this example I just cited. This is what
> happened to us, and I got the 30K+ bill to prove it.

> If the UDRP is interpreted 'strictly' by arbitrators, it 'should' protect the
> average public too, and not just protect the TM holders. Unfortunately this
> does not happen all the time - it is better than what we had before, however.

> Robin
> --
> 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

- -- 
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, 11 Apr 2001 12:42:59 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Hello Sotiris,

Wednesday, April 11, 2001, 4:35:32 AM, Sotiris wrote:

> P.S.  Now will someone bring this List to order?

What do you mean by this?

The list is in order.  It doesn't need to be brought there.

- -- 
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, 11 Apr 2001 15:46:52 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

My mistake.

Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Sotiris,
>
> Wednesday, April 11, 2001, 4:35:32 AM, Sotiris wrote:
>
> > P.S.  Now will someone bring this List to order?
>
> What do you mean by this?
>
> The list is in order.  It doesn't need to be brought there.
>
> --
> 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, 11 Apr 2001 12:22:18 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

I will not repost your entire message, but let me just say this about it. You
are truly a master.  As we have discussed before you and I come from different
perspectives and often speak in different languages and have different concepts
of "ball". But posts like yours bridge all gaps, sure I had to look up a couple
of words and ask my CTO what some of what you said meant, but now I get it a
little better.
I also note that you did not attack my perspective, which is far more political
and far less technical, you simply added your understanding which greatly
enhanced mine.

Thank You!!

Roeland Meyer wrote:

>
> There is a serious disconnect here. When dealing with finite physical
> resources, these distinctions make sense. OTOH, when dealing with abstract
> resources these distinctions make absolutely no sense. I am sorry to see
> that some have managed to rat-hole the discussion into "argument by
> analogy". There are no definitive analogies that matter. We need to grasp
> the concepts directly and deal with them ... directly.

- --
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, 11 Apr 2001 12:57:11 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Hello Kent,

Wednesday, April 11, 2001, 12:05:10 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> ?? There was a very long and large scale review process, international in
> scope, and with multiple revisions along the way.

Which still resulted in a policy that grants trademark rights far
beyond what the laws of any country grants, at the expense of the
rights of legitimate domain name holders.

- -- 
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, 11 Apr 2001 16:16:04 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

<snip>

An SLD assumes SLD.TLD.  Second Level Domain automatically 
includes the Top Level Domain.  It must be unique in the tree at any 
level.

> That said, domain names (SLDs) are not unique in the real sense that
> even now there can be a given SLD registered under .com, .net, .org,
> and any ccTLD ... with of course several more TLDs coming soon. If you
> mean that a domain name is unique when one takes into its account the
> entire SLD.TLD string, then of course you are correct .... unless you
> take in to account the fact of all the altTLDs/roots whereupon even
> that statement is clearly incorrect. And what one has is rather like
> TV channels where "Channel 7" could be ABC in one city and NBC in
> another that has a different cable provider ...
> 

Ah, but NBC is NBC regarless of cable company or channel.  The 
correct analogy for cable companies is that there are not two 
versions of NBC.

That is the problem we must work on.  There should not be two 
versions of a TLD so that you can choose any root and know you 
will see the same "programming" no matter where you point.  Cable 
companies may choose to include a slightly different lineup of 
channels, but those channels are the same no matter which cable 
companies carry them.  Channel numbers don't mean much in that 
context, but the call signs mean everything.  

In the same context, IP addresses can change, but the TLD is the 
same, or should be.

> 
> 
> From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law"
> <[email-masked]> Cc: "Michael F. McNulty"
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 9:56 AM Subject: Re: [ga] Question No.
> 1
> 
> 
> > Excellent comparison.  It highlights fundamental misunderstandings
> > about domain names:
> >
> >          Children's names are assumed NOT to be unique.
> >
> >          Domain names MUST be unique.
> >
> > Hence domain name assignment requires a mechanism for ensuring
> > uniqueness.
> >
> > d/
> >
> >
> > At 08:26 AM 4/11/2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> > wrote:
> > >It belongs to more or less the same people to whom the "naming
> > >children space" belongs to.
> > >
> > >On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Michael F. McNulty wrote:
> > >
> > > > Who does the domain name space _belong to_?
> >
> > ----------
> > 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
> >
> >
> 
> --
> 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: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:19:04 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 12:00:26PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> The practical application is that;
> 
> ICANN cannot ignore the contextual referents of the other root-zone
> publishers. 

On the contrary, ICANN really has no choice but to ignore the entities
you call "root-zone publishers".  It is in contractual relationships 
with numerous entities for whom the assumption of a single 
authoritative root zone under ICANN custody is fundamental.  The 
largest of these contracting entities is the USG, but every single 
other entity involved also has a justified expectation that ICANN will 
carry out the mandate of preserving the authority of that single root 
zone. 

This is not just theory, it is dollars.  All the registries, and 
registries to be, have a direct financial stake in the authority of the 
current root.

- -- 
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: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:38:03 -0400
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

At 10:45 AM 4/11/2001 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>However the reasoned, responsible view is that the US Gov't is providing 
>stewardship and oversight for a process that is moving the DNS (and IP) 
>administrative structure into a long-term, non-governmental framework.

The problem with the "non-governmental framework" is that this private 
corporation is being used to route around thinks like the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA) and accountability. They can do pretty much whatever 
they want without any sort of explanation to anyone.

Professor Froomkin has written a very thorough description of the problem here:
http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann-main.htm

If ICANN is going to be a "non-governmental" steward then the people who 
are affected (ie: everyone on the Internet) need to be represented. 
Otherwise, if ICANN is not willing to allow representatives, or operate in 
an "open and transparent" manner - then the US Gov't needs to take back the 
responsibility for stewardship of the DNS. If you are talking about a 
private corporation - you can run it however you damn-well please. But, 
we're not talking about that - we're talking about something akin to a 
public utility -- where everyone has a stake in the service being provided.

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: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:44:47 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

> Dave and all remaining assembly members,
> 
> Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> > At 10:14 AM 4/11/2001, Bruce James wrote:
> > >Everyone and no one has a claim. But the USG thinks it does!
> >
> > There are some Congress-folk who either do not understand the global
> > nature of the DNS, or worse, believe that the US Gov't really does
> > "own" the thing.
> 
>   It does own the Root structure.  The USG does not own the DNS
>   however,
> you are correct to that extent.

It does not own the root structure, but does control the rootzone 
content.  It does own the a-root server (I think) which carries the 
rootzone file.  It's semantics, of course.  The bottom line is that 
most of the world points to the USG rootzone because it is included 
by default in distributed software.  Now if that were to change 
somehow since most of the software is open source (for Unix/Linux 
anyway) ...

Someone once said that if you do not progress, you regress.  
Nothing stands still.  Change comes whether you want it or not.  So 
it will with DNS, roots, TLDs and how the world utilizes them.  Either 
we all recognize progression or we lose out to those who do.

My opinion, of course. :)

Leah

> 
> >
> >
> > However the reasoned, responsible view is that the US Gov't is
> > providing stewardship and oversight for a process that is moving the
> > DNS (and IP) administrative structure into a long-term,
> > non-governmental framework.
> 
>   INdeed true.  And the White Paper and the MoU are the process by
>   which this
> is suppose to occur.  And the DNSO and IP administration transition to
> private industry does not mean that stakeholders, ANY and ALL
> stakeholders BTW, should be in any way disenfranchised.  However this
> is not the "Path" that the present ICANN BoD has decidedly taken.... 
> Hence, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the present path that
> the ICANN BoD has taken is not in the best interests of all
> "Interested Parties" and/or stakeholders....
> 
> >
> >
> > 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
> 
> 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-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: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:05:12 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Question No. 1

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 1:19 PM
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 12:00:26PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > The practical application is that;
> > 
> > ICANN cannot ignore the contextual referents of the other root-zone
> > publishers. 
> 
> On the contrary, ICANN really has no choice but to ignore the entities
> you call "root-zone publishers". 

The contextual referent is not the entity. How do you disagree? Are you
saying that context is irrelevent? That's how we got here in the first
place.

> It is in contractual relationships 
> with numerous entities for whom the assumption of a single 
> authoritative root zone under ICANN custody is fundamental.  The 
> largest of these contracting entities is the USG, but every single 
> other entity involved also has a justified expectation that 
> ICANN will 
> carry out the mandate of preserving the authority of that single root 
> zone. 

Ignoring your "argument from authority" for the moment, the other root-zone
publishers have been taking great pains to avoid collisions with each other
and the ICANN root zone. All of these are entities acting within their own
context but, trying to allow for the existance of meta-contextual relations.
This is actually a sign of good faith, IMHO. There are only two, maybe
three, entities that are not showing such good faith. One of them is ICANN,
by your argument. NameSpace is another. The third entity, whom has not shown
their flag clearly yet, may be New.NET.

The salient point here is that none of them can suppress the other's
existance, activity, or actions. This is an important point. Like it as not,
the others exist in a contingent universe. They WILL impact each other. The
goal is to minimize the impacts and resultant damage. The new player on the
scene (NEW.NET) has sufficient resources, maybe more resources than the
ICANN, unlike the ORSC and other players. The impact of this new player,
with the ICANN, is strictly up to the ICANN. I see NEW.NET as being
passive-aggresive. If they perceive ICANN as being predatory, or
unconscionably obtuse, they may take another course than amiable
negotiation. War is bad for business, but if survival is an issue then war
will occur. I'd rather not see a full-fledged market war in the name space,
thank you.

- --
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:22:32 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

On Thursday, April 12, 2001 2:56 AM (AEST)
Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

> Excellent comparison.  It highlights fundamental misunderstandings about
> domain names:
>
>          Children's names are assumed NOT to be unique.
>          Domain names MUST be unique.
>
> Hence domain name assignment requires a mechanism for ensuring uniqueness.

Hi Dave

You logic never makes sense.  IF domain names MUST be unique then you CANNOT
have two domain names with the same extension like crocker.biz.

Which means that alternate TLDs either (a) don't exist or (b) are not a problem.

IF domain name assignment MUST have a mechanism for ensuring uniqueness then one
MUST already exist (that's if domain names MUST be unique in the first place).

Of course, if there is such a mechanism it is singularly ineffective.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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, 11 Apr 2001 16:20:31 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

At 01:38 PM 4/11/2001, Kendall Dawson wrote:
>The problem with the "non-governmental framework" is that this private 
>corporation is being used to route around thinks like

For those who insist on viewing ICANN as a piece of "government" there are 
a vast number of issues raised.  Since ICANN does not attempt to be a 
government, there is no surprise that it does not conform well to the model.

For those who view ICANN as an administrative agency for names and numbers 
- -- gosh what an astonishingly narrow scope! -- then it is more open and 
more responsive than any other operational organization in history.

>Professor Froomkin has written a very thorough description of the problem 
>here:

Indeed Professor Froomkin is notably thorough.  In fact his papers raise as 
many questions as possible, essentially providing the legal equivalent of 
carpet-bombing.

Missing from the papers are focus and pragmatics.  They attack so broadly, 
that they undermine themselves -- there is an area of statistical research 
methodology devoted to the problem of asking too many questions when using 
the same data.

Further, practical aspects of Internet administration are notably absent 
from any of the writing.

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: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:27:15 -0700
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of JandL
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 12:38 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)
<--- snip --->
> It appears that the basic argument is the same one that ICANN
> uses.  They are responsible for only "their root" and all others can
> do as they please.  The fallacy here is due to the fact that there is
> a singular name space which makes the technical argument one of
> fragmentation of that name space.  Once ICANN divides it with a
> collider, it is a done deal.  Then it's a free-for-all.  Technically,
> there cannot be duplicates of any dn at any level in the tree.  Since
> the goal should be that anyone can point to any root and not have
> to wonder which version of a domain they will see, and that ICANN
> is tasked with maintaining that stability, their deliberate entry of a
> collider defeats that task or mandate.
<--- snip --->

The statement above, "Since the goal should be that anyone can point to any
root and not have to wonder which version of a domain they will see", got me
wondering...

Can anyone name a site, a site of substance, better yet a public company,
that currently operates their main business or provides their main content
utilizing (advertising, promoting, etc.) a domain name in either .biz or
.web, and *not* the .biz or .web alternative root registry itself, that will
be irreparably harmed if the alternative root .biz or .web TLDs never make
it into the ICANN root?  I'm just wondering if there's anything of substance
happening over there in alternative root country.  Perhaps it's time to take
a look?

Regards,

Jeff
- --
jeff field
925-283-4083
[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: 11 Apr 2001 17:50:33 -0700
From: Srikanth Narra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] domain name owner's bill of rights

Anywhere in the agreements (mela) that surround ICANN - is there any thing that sounds or feels like bill of rights for domain name owners ?

I just spent two calls one for 45 mins and another for 35 minutes without being able to speak to a representative with leading domainname register ($35 per year). Had no choice. The email to support resulted a reply that was completely useless - surely someone scanned for words sent reply without bothering to read the email. I am frequently overseas and the cost of calls is extrorbitary.

Then there is NSI - that can not be relied on to send a timely email notification (if at all) of upcoming renewal but can be trusted to handle "infrastructure".

Recently I heard from a friend working a company in consumer information business - that to meet targets for a quarter - quietly fired the entire staff (30 odd) manning support phone lines except for 1 person (it was mandatory). Seems the management made a concious decision..er..oversight to let consumers stay on hold and give up. 

Given the market blues and esteem with which, I am sure business, hold ICANN in.**sputter****sputter**
 
Is there some clause anywhere that trys to ensure some basic service to domain name holders. Any retributions against abusers ? Any place to complain ? Any thing anywhere that will stop registers from charging the domainname owners for bare minimal things like sending timely, if not mandatory, reminders ? 

If you think I am a delusionary participant who is expecting too much of ICANN, etc - after all its not a regulatory authority only technical one or business self regulation, yada yada yada. 

Pls just throw your suggestions for any non ICANNish options my way.

Thanks

Sri

- --
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, 11 Apr 2001 17:15:49 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] vote appeal

Yesterday I posted the following to this list and to Mr.Gaetano,

 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg00580.html
I have received no response.
Today I sent a private email requesting some type of response I got
none.

I looked to see if there was an objection or appeal process, there is
not one. There is absolutely no reference to 10 nominations being needed
to run for chair. And I think Mr. Corliss had all 10 of his lined up
when that was announced. hmm.

I then looked at the rules and found this:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html
SELECTION OF THE ALTERNATE CHAIR

The same process as for chair is used, but the candidate selected for
chair is eliminated before the counting starts.

(NOTE: This is likely to be a different candidate than the runner-up in
the selection procedure for chair, for instance when 90% of the
electorate
rank one person first and another second, while the remaining 10% vote
for a third. Re-running the process is considered more likely to select
a
team that can work well together.)

This shows that there was no need to change any rules, the process
itself would handle JW's withdrawal. And that we are supposed to have a
whole other subsequent election for Alternate Chair

 Then I looked at the watchdog list and found this;
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/

Which shows the committe knew that they would change the outcome of the
election if they changed the rules, allowing for revoting.

This is disgusting.  I can understand why these people do not want me as
alternate, but why did they do so much to get Mr. Corliss?  Could it be
his association with a competitor to ICANN.

The clock is ticking I cannot ignore this!

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: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:49:17 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Vote Appeal 2

- --------------C5F1E1937F2F608307A5F8D2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

It got me wondering so I looked to exactly who were these watchdogs and
how did they become so:

"IV.A nomination watchdog committee has been formed to police the
nomination process to help detect and cure any instances of fraudulent
     activity in connection with the nomination process."

It just got "formed".  Interesting, but more interesting is who watches
them when they commit fraudulent activity, like misrepresenting the
rules, remember intentional or wreckless misrepresentation is fraud in
ICANN's jurisdiction.

     "Any instances of fraudulent nominations or endorsements should be
reported to this committee at the following email address:
     [email-masked], with a copy to the Names Council at
[email-masked], This committee and the Names Council shall have the
     sole discretion as to how to deal with any such reported activity."

This I garauntee is not correct. That is why we have prosecutors and
courts.

     Watchdog Committee list archive in
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/

     The members to the Watchdog Committee in 2001 election are:
          Roberto Gaetano
          Harald Alvestrand
          Kent Crispin
          Dany Vandromme
          Alexander Svensson
          Izumi Aizu

          Jonathan Weinberg, who was member to the Watchdog Committee,
has resigned since he accepted his nomination, cf.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc01/msg00010.html

- --------------C5F1E1937F2F608307A5F8D2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
It got me wondering so I looked to exactly who were these watchdogs and
how did they become so:
<p>"IV.A nomination watchdog committee has been formed to police the nomination
process to help detect and cure any instances of fraudulent
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; activity in connection with the nomination
process."
<p>It just got "formed".&nbsp; Interesting, but more interesting is who
watches them when they commit fraudulent activity, like misrepresenting
the rules, remember intentional or wreckless misrepresentation is fraud
in ICANN's jurisdiction.
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "Any instances of fraudulent nominations or
endorsements should be reported to this committee at the following email
address:
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; [email-masked], with a copy to the Names
Council at [email-masked], This committee and the Names Council shall
have the
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; sole discretion as to how to deal with any
such reported activity."
<p>This I garauntee is not correct. That is why we have prosecutors and
courts.
<br>&nbsp;
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Watchdog Committee list archive in <a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/</a>
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The members to the Watchdog Committee in 2001
election are:
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Roberto Gaetano
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Harald Alvestrand
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Kent Crispin
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Dany Vandromme
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Alexander Svensson
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Izumi Aizu
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jonathan Weinberg,
who was member to the Watchdog Committee, has resigned since he accepted
his nomination, cf.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc01/msg00010.html">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc01/msg00010.html</a>
<br><a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc01/msg00010.html"></a>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------C5F1E1937F2F608307A5F8D2--

- --
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, 11 Apr 2001 21:27:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] vote appeal

Eric --

	You clearly feel wronged by the process here, but I'm honestly a
little unsure why.  As far as the "ten endorsements" issue is concerned,
the fact is that you *were* included on the ballot, so even if bad
decisions were made, they didn't end up harming you.  And the fact is that
the rules *weren't* changed after I decided to drop out -- the watchdog
committee decided to continue the election under the old rules.  The only
new thing that happened was that voters were sent duplicate copies of
their ballots in case they wanted to change their votes; the ability to
make a change was a right voters already had under the old rules.

	You made a good showing, but not enough people voted for you, and
there was no set of rules under which you could have been deemed to have
won -- Danny and Patrick each had more first-place votes than you, more
second-place votes, and more third-place votes.  There's no shame in
fighting the good fight but not getting enough votes to win.

Jon

On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Yesterday I posted the following to this list and to Mr.Gaetano,
> 
>  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg00580.html
> I have received no response.
> Today I sent a private email requesting some type of response I got
> none.
> 
> I looked to see if there was an objection or appeal process, there is
> not one. There is absolutely no reference to 10 nominations being needed
> to run for chair. And I think Mr. Corliss had all 10 of his lined up
> when that was announced. hmm.
> 
> I then looked at the rules and found this:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html
> SELECTION OF THE ALTERNATE CHAIR
> 
> The same process as for chair is used, but the candidate selected for
> chair is eliminated before the counting starts.
> 
> (NOTE: This is likely to be a different candidate than the runner-up in
> the selection procedure for chair, for instance when 90% of the
> electorate
> rank one person first and another second, while the remaining 10% vote
> for a third. Re-running the process is considered more likely to select
> a
> team that can work well together.)
> 
> This shows that there was no need to change any rules, the process
> itself would handle JW's withdrawal. And that we are supposed to have a
> whole other subsequent election for Alternate Chair
> 
>  Then I looked at the watchdog list and found this;
>  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/
> 
> Which shows the committe knew that they would change the outcome of the
> election if they changed the rules, allowing for revoting.
> 
> This is disgusting.  I can understand why these people do not want me as
> alternate, but why did they do so much to get Mr. Corliss?  Could it be
> his association with a competitor to ICANN.
> 
> The clock is ticking I cannot ignore this!
> 
> 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
> 

Jonathan Weinberg
[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 #374
************************