Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #395
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, April 17 2001           Volume 01 : Number 395

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

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:57:22 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists?

Sounds good to me. Lets get these up and running......:)

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists?

David Farrar wrote:
>
>The ideal situation to me it seems is that the Names Council delegates
>to the GA Chair and Co-Chair authority to request the Secretariat to
>set up new mailing lists.  It would need to be made clear that such
>mailing lists are GA mailing lists only and not DNSO mailing lists or
>working groups.
>

I think we went already through this. I proposed seaprate ML on subjects of
interest already several months ago.
I don't think there's any problem in starting a new GA ML, IMHO there's no
need for NC involvement: they have more important things to do then
micromanage the GA.
The point is only that there is an administrative overhead in starting a
list: it cannot be done for each and every real or supposed need.
I think it will be sensible that the (new) Chair assess the need (with a
straw poll if necessary.

Personally, I am in favour of a GA ML for:
- - DNSO Review, to continue discussion ongoing in the to-be-discontinued WG
Review;
- - alternate roots, to provide a specific forum for the subject (and possibly
to come up with a scope of the WG to be proposed to NC).

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 20:15:25 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

Patrick,

>
>Your argument is simply stating the problem we are all (or, at least, most 
>of
>us) are familiar with.  But the way you are arguing is supporting the 
>monopoly
>power position.  For a humane, internet-savvy person, it is not a good 
>argument.

On one thing I guess we all agree: the access to the root (system) has to be 
co-ordinated. One body of some sort has to act as co-ordinator. Whether this 
is ICANN, meta-ICANN, USG, ITU, UN, or the Wizard of Oz, is irrelevant to 
the debate.
This co-ordination is not about a "monopoly", but a "regulatory" body.

>
>Wouldn't you like to see a low-cost TLD for charities, NGOs, etc.?  Why 
>should
>everything be under the control of a single omnipotent, all-conquering  
>ICANN?

Indeed.
And I do believe that, once this first phase of limited, "testbed extension" 
of the domain name space (very welcome after years of "no extension") will 
be over, new rules can be put in place for "further extension".
Remember the accreditation of 5 testbed Registrars? Well, since then, many 
others have joined, and the conditions for entry have changed.
Ther initial barreer has a rationale in limiting the initial demand.
Who excludes that new Registries cannot be accredited in the future, in the 
same way that new Registrars have been accredited? But if we postpone this 
first step (once again!) with pretestuous excuses, we will never have the 
second step.

>
>Personally I like to see a bit of diversity in my life.  And varieties 
>other
>than vanilla.

Exactly.
7 initial flavours bring already the variety that has been denied by years 
of no-new-flavour policy. For the time being, I'm happy with vanilla and 
chocolate, if it's a first step towards tutti-frutti.
But don't try to sell me the promise of future tutti-frutti through the 
refusal of today's plain vanilla. I asked my daughters (ice-cream experts 
- -as well as Internet experts- of the family), and they told me not to buy 
it.

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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 20:23:05 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
>I'd be the first to admit that the alt roots haven't gained public support 
>for
>many reasons.  I see the whole situation as similar to the Medical 
>Associations
>and alternative medicine like acupuncture, chiropracters, naturopathy and
>iridology.  Some are charlatans and snakes but they still have a lot to 
>offer in
>helping improve people's health.

The main difference is that alternative medicine offer a different range of 
products (and approaches), while the TLDs in the "other" roots offer exactly 
the same thing: an ASCII string.

In fact, nobody is claiming about "collision" between alternative medicine 
and standard medicine.

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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:52:48 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists?

on 4/16/01 5:11 AM, DPF at [email-masked] wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:08:42 -0400, D Younger wrote:
> 
>> Over the course of the last week, I have noted several calls for the
>> establishment of supplemental mailing lists that would allow for focused
>> topical discussions.  I ask the members of this Assembly to comment further
>> upon this subject.
> 
> I believe this is a good initiative.  My experience with other
> organisations has been that specialised mailing lists are usually more
> productive than one large general one.

I agree.
> 
> As certain issues become topical, a specialised mailing list dedicated
> to them would be useful.  My caveat would be that any recommendations
> or summary of discussion should come back to the main GA list for
> final discussion and ratification.

I agree.
> 
> The ideal situation to me it seems is that the Names Council delegates
> to the GA Chair and Co-Chair authority to request the Secretariat to
> set up new mailing lists.  It would need to be made clear that such
> mailing lists are GA mailing lists only and not DNSO mailing lists or
> working groups.

I'm not so sure. Best practise would indicate a bottom-up procedure, meaning
any request for new resources, including mailing lists, should be initiated
by the GA, not the NC. The Chairs, empowered by consensus of the GA, would
need to make a formal request of the Secretariat, so first there has to a
discussion by the GA, then a vote to confirm consensus by a resolution to
that effect. It is for our Chairs to determine when is the appropriate time
to bring discussion to a close and present a formal motion.

Does the NC have the right to veto a GA resolution to form additional
mailing lists if resources are readily available?

Also, I thought WGs were drawn from members of the GA, so I don't understand
the distinction you are trying to make between GA lists and WG lists
exactly.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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, 17 Apr 2001 07:01:55 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists?

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 19:06:41 +0200, you wrote:

>David Farrar wrote:
>>
>>The ideal situation to me it seems is that the Names Council delegates
>>to the GA Chair and Co-Chair authority to request the Secretariat to
>>set up new mailing lists.  It would need to be made clear that such
>>mailing lists are GA mailing lists only and not DNSO mailing lists or
>>working groups.
>>
>
>I think we went already through this. I proposed seaprate ML on subjects of 
>interest already several months ago.
>I don't think there's any problem in starting a new GA ML, IMHO there's no 
>need for NC involvement: they have more important things to do then 
>micromanage the GA.

Oh excellent.  I wasn't aware the GA had any authority to do anything
apart from exist but I agree it would be sensible if we can facilitate
our own mailing lists.

>The point is only that there is an administrative overhead in starting a 
>list: it cannot be done for each and every real or supposed need.
>I think it will be sensible that the (new) Chair assess the need (with a 
>straw poll if necessary.

Agreed.  

>Personally, I am in favour of a GA ML for:
>- DNSO Review, to continue discussion ongoing in the to-be-discontinued WG 
>Review;
>- alternate roots, to provide a specific forum for the subject (and possibly 
>to come up with a scope of the WG to be proposed to NC).

I would suggest a third.  The WIPO 2 report has some very significant
recommendations and I believe it would be useful to have a mailing
list to start discussing these earlier rather than later.  If the NC
set up a working group then any prior work done can flow into that.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:18:17 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Testbed and precedent (Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free")

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, at 20:15 [=GMT+0200], Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> And I do believe that, once this first phase of limited, "testbed extension" 
> of the domain name space (very welcome after years of "no extension") will 
> be over, new rules can be put in place for "further extension".

Are you sure? I would sooner expect that this first phase sets a
precedent. Now *that* is the problem.

> Remember the accreditation of 5 testbed Registrars? Well, since then, many 
> others have joined, and the conditions for entry have changed.
> Ther initial barreer has a rationale in limiting the initial demand.
> Who excludes that new Registries cannot be accredited in the future, in the 
> same way that new Registrars have been accredited? But if we postpone this 
> first step (once again!) with pretestuous excuses, we will never have the 
> second step.

Is anyone seriously expecting that a next round will not include a
$50,000 application fee? On your reasoning it may even be higher, as
more organisations may a get a taste of it and are expected to
apply. Barriers higher and higher, that keep all non-commercial
entities safely out.

> 7 initial flavours bring already the variety that has been denied by years 
> of no-new-flavour policy. For the time being, I'm happy with vanilla and 
> chocolate, if it's a first step towards tutti-frutti.
> But don't try to sell me the promise of future tutti-frutti through the 
> refusal of today's plain vanilla. I asked my daughters (ice-cream experts 
> -as well as Internet experts- of the family), and they told me not to buy 
> it.

May daughter (aged 7) recently saw NL on a car license plate and asked
me: Are there also cars with COM?

- -- 
[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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:27:19 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

Kristy McKee wrote:

> I think at this point everyone understands the USG's Representatives (the
> ICANN and the DNSO)

They are not USG representatives. The whole point of ICANN is to construct an
international organisation that the USG can hand management off to.

You can claim they've done a lousy job of it. I would, though I'd have to
admit the issues are complex and the interest groups fierce so it isn't
entirely clear that they had a lot of choice about some of it.

The transfer isn't complete yet. You can claim that the USG still has far
too much influence here or that ICANN appears nowhere near ready to actually
do its job right. I'd be inclined to agree on both counts.

But calling ICANN and DNSO "the USG's Representatives" is at best disinginuous.

> support the rights of Major Corporations over those of any other entity.

Yes, they have both given the "intellecutual property" lobby far too much
and failed to manage the contractors at NSI/Verisign well.

> We can move past this.  It's important to note that not
> everyone feels so comfortable with the USG controlling all TLDs.

The USG does not control all TLDs. Even if we accept your flawed claim that
the USG controls ICANN, controlling the root and therefore the /allocation/
of TLDs is a far different thing from "controlling all TLDs".

> China, among others has no interest in using the legacy root services.

Have you any evidence for this? It seems to me .cn is in the root zone, and
I fairly often see Chinese sending to various mailing lists I'm on. All of
them are (surprise!) hosted on real domains whose TLDs are in the ICANN root.
The Chinese I see there seem to have no problem finding those domains.

> We haven't been all that successful in the IETF in working with the brighter
> individuals

Or this?

> and as a result IPv8, and many other advanced technologies are
> being used in development spaces and Internet Root systems that are not run
> by the USG.

Or this?

When I go look at www.6bone.net for a test framework for ipv6 (not 8, I think
you had a typo there), I notice:

	it's a .net address. Guess what root it's in?
	some of the RFC authors are USG employees:
	   ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2471.txt
	the mailing lisi is hosted at isi.edu, where IANA was
	   http://www.6bone.net/6bone_email.html

So I suspect your paragraph above is utter nonsense. Yes, there are experimental
IPv6 networks, and other experimental setups in areas such as wireless and
mobile IP. They have nothing to do with the bogus root systems you promote.

> This a real problem.  We should work towards it's resolution or just leave
> the DNSO to Crispin, Crocker, and their fans.
> 
> If we're not willing to create a solution that empowers the public instead
> of a few groups (of which many of us are not permitted to belong);

Not permitted? How? You're here. You could have voted in various elections.
You can speak. should you say something sensible, people will likely listen.

> then
> we're not worthy of existence.  We need to work towards working with China
> and other folks who may not agree with all of us on anything, not work
> toward the exclusion of China and nearly every netizen and Internet
> participant.

Exclusion? How? 

>  But we have a LONG WAY TO GO, especially considering our
> inability to publicly broadcast meetings using free software and a little
> bandwidth from our ISP constituency.  It's embarrassing to participate in a
> group who apparently has less access to technology than me and my little,
> itty bitty company.
> 
> ~k
>
- --
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, 17 Apr 2001 05:59:12 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Chinese Internet

On Tuesday, April 17, 2001 5:27 AM (AEST)
Sandy Harris <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

> Kristy McKee wrote:
> > China, among others has no interest in using the legacy root services.
>
> Have you any evidence for this? It seems to me .cn is in the root zone, and
> I fairly often see Chinese sending to various mailing lists I'm on. All of
> them are (surprise!) hosted on real domains whose TLDs are in the ICANN root.
> The Chinese I see there seem to have no problem finding those domains.

CHINESE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM LAUNCHES ON ALTERNATIVE ROOT SERVER

New York, NY February 7, 2001 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) People's Daily reports that
China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) has launched its Chinese
Domain Name System.

Internet surfers can also access other websites that do not end with ".cn" by
entering Chinese characters, so long as they have installed client software
provided by CNNIC, states the report.

Significantly, the "client software" referenced above means that CNNIC's Chinese
Domain Name System is using an alternate root server - an inclusive name space
root that operates in the same manner, but independently of the U.S./DoC root
system.

Users of ISPs that have installed the Chinese domain name resolving software
need not resort to installing the client software of their own. Many ISPs regard
the resolve function as a kind of value-added service, so they are actively
cooperating with CNNIC to promote and popularize this service.

CNNIC will provide three kinds of code formats for each domain name including
GBK, BIG5, UTF8 which are respectively used by Chinese mainland, Hong Kong &
Taiwan and Win2K users. Internet users can use their local code format
conveniently and there is no need to convert characters. This will undoubtedly
help lay a good foundation for interchanges between the motherland, Hong Kong
and Taiwan.

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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:17:17 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

Because of your limited experience and my limited time I will only comment 
on one item you wrote about.

IPV8 was not a typo.

~k

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:31:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

[massively edited]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Sandy Harris wrote:

> But calling ICANN and DNSO "the USG's Representatives" is at best
> disinginuous.
 
You're half right.  In law ICANN is the USG's agent.  Or agency.
http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann-main.htm 
for details

> The USG does not control all TLDs. Even if we accept your flawed claim that
> the USG controls ICANN, controlling the root and therefore the /allocation/
> of TLDs is a far different thing from "controlling all TLDs".

Again, half right.  Whether or not USG controls ICANN, it clearly controls
the root and thus the allocation of TLDs.  Again, see paper cited above.

- -- 
		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 hot 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:56:09 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

Hello Kristy,

Monday, April 16, 2001, 12:51:37 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:
> We haven't
> been all that successful in the IETF in working with the brighter 
> individuals and as a result IPv8, and many other advanced technologies are 
> being used in development spaces and Internet Root systems that are not run 
> by the USG.

Let's leave Jim Fleming's fantasy IPv8 out of this discussion.

We need to stick to things that had a basis in reality.

- -- 
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, 17 Apr 2001 01:04:56 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists?

Point of clarification (to be excluded from the five-post-limit)

Joanna Lane wrote:
>
>Also, I thought WGs were drawn from members of the GA, so I don't 
>understand
>the distinction you are trying to make between GA lists and WG lists
>exactly.

WGs are created by NC, not GA.
Therefore, WG lists have the blessing of the NC.
GA lists are not foreseen in the rules: it's just a reasonable hypothesis 
for effective GA work, proposed few months ago and now coming up again with 
more weight.
To start a GA working list does not need the blessing of the NC.

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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:34:48 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

William, IPV8 is fantastic.  You haven't tried it and you don't know.

And yes, Active Worlds is fantasy; but it's reality based and could 
possibly host all the meetings we have at the DNSO; but you wouldn't care 
about that.

Also, gee thanks for continuing to provide such a friendly environment here 
at the DNSO.

:)

~k

At 03:56 PM 4/16/2001 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>Hello Kristy,
>
>Monday, April 16, 2001, 12:51:37 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:
> > We haven't
> > been all that successful in the IETF in working with the brighter
> > individuals and as a result IPv8, and many other advanced technologies are
> > being used in development spaces and Internet Root systems that are not 
> run
> > by the USG.
>
>Let's leave Jim Fleming's fantasy IPv8 out of this discussion.
>
>We need to stick to things that had a basis in reality.
>
>--
>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, 17 Apr 2001 10:21:34 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists?

At 07:01 17/04/01 +1200, DPF wrote:
.
>
>I would suggest a third.  The WIPO 2 report has some very significant
>recommendations and I believe it would be useful to have a mailing
>list to start discussing these earlier rather than later.  If the NC
>set up a working group then any prior work done can flow into that.
>

David,

If you can reformulate this as a motion, I second it.

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 19:49:19 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

Shoot.....Just when I get IPv4 down and IPv6 running someone comes out with
another thing I *just* have to learn....:)    IPv8 is going to have to
wait.....:)
I think I see IPv16 in the horizon...:(

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "(Kristy McKee)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 5:56 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

Hello Kristy,

Monday, April 16, 2001, 12:51:37 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:
> We haven't
> been all that successful in the IETF in working with the brighter
> individuals and as a result IPv8, and many other advanced technologies are
> being used in development spaces and Internet Root systems that are not
run
> by the USG.

Let's leave Jim Fleming's fantasy IPv8 out of this discussion.

We need to stick to things that had a basis in reality.

- --
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:05:46 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 07:29:22PM +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> This makes me think of another possible example.
> (Suppose) I run an "enhanced" ;>) nameserver for .com, that includes all the 
> VeriSign SLDs plus some non-conflicting registrations of my own. I obviously 
> run an "enhanced root" that makes all this visible to the overwhelming 
> masses who point to it.
> One nice day, I discover that VeriSign is about to accept a registration for 
> foo.com, that I happen to have among my SLDs.
> I scream and yell that VeriSign fragments the domain space, and claim that, 
> in order to avoid this problem in the future, VeriSign should come to an 
> agreement with me to build a meta-.com that has to be managed by the two of 
> us "co-operatively".

That is a *great* example. :-)

- -- 
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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:08:30 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Testbed and precedent (Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free")

On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 09:18:17PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> 
> Is anyone seriously expecting that a next round will not include a
> $50,000 application fee? On your reasoning it may even be higher, as
> more organisations may a get a taste of it and are expected to
> apply. Barriers higher and higher, that keep all non-commercial
> entities safely out.

In fact, of course, the $50,000 did not serve to keep out 
non-commercial entities -- several applied, and some were accepted. 

- -- 
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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:24:26 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists?

David and Joop, et. al.,

I will treble it.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 07:01 17/04/01 +1200, DPF wrote:
> .
> >
> >I would suggest a third.  The WIPO 2 report has some very significant
> >recommendations and I believe it would be useful to have a mailing
> >list to start discussing these earlier rather than later.  If the NC
> >set up a working group then any prior work done can flow into that.
> >
>
> David,
>
> If you can reformulate this as a motion, I second it.
>
> --Joop--
> Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
> Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
> Developer of    The Polling Booth
> www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 19:32:19 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 06:34:48PM -0700, Kristy McKee wrote:
[...]
> Also, gee thanks for continuing to provide such a friendly environment here 
> at the DNSO.

And 3 messages earlier she wrote:
> This a real problem.  We should work towards it's resolution or just leave
> the DNSO to Crispin, Crocker, and their fans.

And thank *you* for providing a friendly environment...

- -- 
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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 19:48:41 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

> On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 07:29:22PM +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > 
> > This makes me think of another possible example.
> > (Suppose) I run an "enhanced" ;>) nameserver for .com, that includes all the 
> > VeriSign SLDs plus some non-conflicting registrations of my own. I obviously 
> > run an "enhanced root" that makes all this visible to the overwhelming 
> > masses who point to it.
> > One nice day, I discover that VeriSign is about to accept a registration for 
> > foo.com, that I happen to have among my SLDs.
> > I scream and yell that VeriSign fragments the domain space, and claim that, 
> > in order to avoid this problem in the future, VeriSign should come to an 
> > agreement with me to build a meta-.com that has to be managed by the two of 
> > us "co-operatively".

When you applied to Verisign, the monopoly coordinator for .com, for your
foo.com delegation, and paid them $50,000 to do so, did they let you in?
Was the process to apply for foo.com open and transparent?

Christopher

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 20:49:22 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

> And thank *you* for providing a friendly environment...

You reap what you sow.

Christopher

- --
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, 17 Apr 2001 00:15:05 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [icann-announce] Revised .com/.net/.org Agreements Forwarded to Commerce Department

That CEO M. Stuart Lynn can claim ICANN will continue to develop and mature
as a vehicle for consensus policy development on the same page that ICANN
refers to the process employed with respect to the new agreements defies
credibility.

Regards,
Joanna

on 4/16/01 6:57 PM, [email-masked] at [email-masked]
wrote:

<snip>

The agreements
> submitted today to DOC include significant changes from the original
> agreements as the direct result of comments received from many members
> of the Internet community, including ICANN's Names Council and its
> member constituencies.

<snip>
> ICANN's President and CEO M. Stuart Lynn said, "It is in the interests
> of all Internet users-commercial and private, businesses and
> individuals-that ICANN continue to develop and mature as a vehicle for
> consensus policy development.

> For more information on the ICANN/VeriSign registry agreements, see
> <http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/>.

- --
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 #395
************************