Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #396
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, April 17 2001           Volume 01 : Number 396

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

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:20:24 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 05:31:25PM -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> [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.

The above paper that Froomkin cites at every opportunity has to be
considered in light of several things:

1) While extremely erudite, the paper is fundamentally just a legal
*theory*, justified by obscure and abstruse legal research.  Other
lawyers, experienced in the area, do not share Froomkins view -- in
particular, the GAO study does not support Froomkins conclusions.  James
Boyle, in his introduction to that issue of the Duke Law Journal, in
general speaks very favorably about Froomkin's theories, but makes it
very clear that they are theories, with such phrases as "Whatever one
thinks of the descriptive accuracy of Professor Froomkin's statement of
the nondelegation doctrine..." and "Is all of this a stretch, however?
Is Froomkin describing the current law on delegation, or is this a plea
for the courts to return to the world before the New Deal in order to
deal with the world after the Internet?"  
(<http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?50+Duke+L.+J.+5>)

2) The paper deliberately and explicitly ignores the single most
distinctive issue concerning the root zone, and hence ICANN's
"authority" -- the fact that no law can compel use of a particular root
zone, and that control of the root zone is at best fragile and
problematic. 

3) The Duke Law Journal, like most academic law journals, is actually
edited by law students, with faculty advisors.  Consequently, while you
can be fairly confident that the facts that Froomkin states will be
checked, the students are not likely to have the experience to evaluate 
Froomkins paper in terms of contrary legal theories.

4) All this would perhaps not matter if Froomkin were an objective 
observer, but he is not.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:49:24 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Keeping Up The Barriers

On Tuesday, April 17, 2001 11:08 AM (AEST)
Kent Crispin <[email-masked]> wrote:
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.

Of course having a fee as high as $50,000 kept out people who couldn't afford
the $50,000 - whether they were commercial or non-commercial.

Brest 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 22:42:52 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

Kent Said...

> 4) All this would perhaps not matter if Froomkin were an objective 
> observer, but he is not.

Didn't Dave Crocker just take a number of people to task for
criticizing bias and objectivity rather than the facts themselves?

Pots, kettles... you know the rest.

In Kent's case, neither criticisms (the facts nor the person) were
on target.

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 16:13:46 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

NOTE:  The Chair is temporarily absent and I speak with his authority.

Hi Christopher

I appreciate the comment to which you refer was directed to Michael Froomkin
personally and, as such, may not comply with the list rules and protocols.

However, it is not appropriate to sully the list with further comments which can
only be regarded as prolonging the personal nature of these postings.

Of course, all of us -- and I include myself -- are tempted to respond with
personal characterisations. However, we must all resist the temptation if we
wish the General Assembly to be considered an appropriate forum for serious
debate.

I would remind everybody, without exception, that list protocols as outlined on
the DNSO website must be respected.  Should anyone have a complaint, they should
address it to [ga-abuse] in accordance with the proper procedures.

The Chair is in the process of appointing List Monitors and I'd ask that all
members not to take advantage of this transition period.

Yours faithfully
Patrick Corliss
Co-Chair Elect

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Ambler <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

> Kent Said...
>
> > 4) All this would perhaps not matter if Froomkin were an objective
> > observer, but he is not.
>
> Didn't Dave Crocker just take a number of people to task for
> criticizing bias and objectivity rather than the facts themselves?
>
> Pots, kettles... you know the rest.
>
> In Kent's case, neither criticisms (the facts nor the person) were
> on target.
>
> Christopher
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:24:19 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: List Rules and Protocols

There was no personal attack at all in my post.

I pointed out that Dave Crocker had recently expressed a
distaste for criticizing personal bias, and then expressed
my opinion that Kent's criticisms of Prof. Froomkin's
paper and person were both off-target. I did intimate
that Kent's personal comment was akin to the pot
calling the kettle black, a common American euphemism.

At no time did I make a personal attack of any kind. 

Christopher

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
To: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Michael Froomkin" <[email-masked]>; "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>; "[GA]" <[email-masked]>; "[ga-abuse]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 11:13 PM
Subject: List Rules and Protocols

> NOTE:  The Chair is temporarily absent and I speak with his authority.
> 
> Hi Christopher
> 
> I appreciate the comment to which you refer was directed to Michael Froomkin
> personally and, as such, may not comply with the list rules and protocols.
> 
> However, it is not appropriate to sully the list with further comments which can
> only be regarded as prolonging the personal nature of these postings.
> 
> Of course, all of us -- and I include myself -- are tempted to respond with
> personal characterisations. However, we must all resist the temptation if we
> wish the General Assembly to be considered an appropriate forum for serious
> debate.
> 
> I would remind everybody, without exception, that list protocols as outlined on
> the DNSO website must be respected.  Should anyone have a complaint, they should
> address it to [ga-abuse] in accordance with the proper procedures.
> 
> The Chair is in the process of appointing List Monitors and I'd ask that all
> members not to take advantage of this transition period.
> 
> Yours faithfully
> Patrick Corliss
> Co-Chair Elect
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Christopher Ambler <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 3:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection
> 
> 
> > Kent Said...
> >
> > > 4) All this would perhaps not matter if Froomkin were an objective
> > > observer, but he is not.
> >
> > Didn't Dave Crocker just take a number of people to task for
> > criticizing bias and objectivity rather than the facts themselves?
> >
> > Pots, kettles... you know the rest.
> >
> > In Kent's case, neither criticisms (the facts nor the person) were
> > on target.
> >
> > Christopher
> >
> > --
> > 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:51:42 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

Hello Patrick,

Monday, April 16, 2001, 11:13:46 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> NOTE:  The Chair is temporarily absent and I speak with his authority.

> Hi Christopher

> I appreciate the comment to which you refer was directed to Michael Froomkin
> personally and, as such, may not comply with the list rules and protocols.

I disagree.  These are NOT the kinds of comments that the list rules
were intended to address, neither Kent's nor Chris' response.

We need to be careful not to broaden the rules, or we make the
criticisms levied when they were enacted become prophecy instead.

- -- 
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 16:55:57 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: List Rules and Protocols

On Tuesday, April 17, 2001 4:24 PM (AEST)
Christopher Ambler wrote:

> There was no personal attack at all in my post.

My comments were not meant to suggest that there was.  Such issues are
determined by the List Monitors on receipt of a complaint in the proper form.

What I am doing is reminding everybody, without exception, that list protocols
as outlined on the DNSO website must be respected.  Should anyone have a
complaint, they should address it to [ga-abuse] in accordance with the proper
procedures.

Yours faithfully
Patrick Corliss
Co-Chair Elect

- --
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 08:32:28 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] An agenda for the SIG "WG-Inclusive Name Space Management Proposition"

Dear Milton,
As documented in my seconded motion and in my call to the Chair
the agenda for the WG-Inclusive Name Space is quite larger than the
relations with the non-legacy TLDs. Among others they include - non
limitative list - :

- - understanding the Inclusive Name Space within the Name Space:
   - the current DNS and its current and coming evolutions
   - the current character set and DN string size
   - the alternative ways of entering data into the DNS
   - the multinational character sets and relations with the ASCII base
   - the various propositions and their long term impact on the DNS
     stability
   - the legal structure of the Inclusive Name Space from the DNS
     code, history, real relations, public acceptance/demand

- - understanding the Inclusive Name Space relations with other types
   of segmentation of the Name Space:
    - the language name spaces
    - the national name spaces
    - the private naming space
    - the geographical name space
    - the UN treaties name space (air traffic, EDI, etc...)
    - the TM Space
    - the telephone numbering name space
    - the different industries Name Space: banking, EFT, healthcare,...
    - ethical impact : adult, insults, blasphemes, ....
    - level of priorities

- - understanding the organization of the Inclusive Name Space
   - the different levels and their nature/holders
   - the first level management: nature, de facto rules, existing
     partners, relations, management programs, evolution, laws
     and rules, IP, managing structures (non profit, commercial,
     cooperative, ...), roots : management, multiroot, sub-roots,
     viruscoms
   - the second level management: nature of the strings (Domain
     Names, Member Names, patterns, rules, dynamic entries),
     role (assignation, designation, ...), IP (ownership, holdership,
     mandate, ...) , the lower level roots (Second level services,
     multilevel roots like New.net, ...)
   - the next levels: nature, role, ownership, interaction with
     other Name Space, plus same question as above
   - technico/legal definition and nature of the Inclusive Name
     Space items

- - understanding the mission of the iCANN in this:
   - legitimate ownership of the various sub-spaces of the
     Inclusive Name Space. Methods of appropriation.
   - an RSC for the legacy TLD? Nature of the Legacy and of
     its extensions: a right? a duty? a label?
   - a leadership or a partnership for the iCANN. Resulting nature
     of the iCANN.
   - priorities : stability and development of the DNS or of the TM
   - relations with ccTLDs and survival of ccTLDs.
   - relations with the other segmentations of the Name Space
     (WIPO, Govs, ...)
   - relations with major actors as DoC, VRSN, national NICs,
     different RSCs, operators and ISPs, @large and users.
   etc... etc...

I do not pretend I am covering all the themes to address, nor I
propose them in the proper way and proper order. I say that this
is the kind of things we have to address if we want to understand,
document and organize a WG-Inclusive Name Space Management
of real use.

I also want to show that these matters are common to all the
RSC/TLD and that everyone should be interested in understanding
their business area and model. The question of knowing how
they relate together will come afterward and should be IMHO easy
to address after having studied the basis in common.

IMHO all the current discussions are quite of no use and only
show that on a religious basis people are afraid of what can be
the final consensus once everyone has been mutually educated
and has learned from a common analysis of the real nature of
the debated issues. This is unprofessionnal. When you think
that this Name Space is not structural and is probably simple
when compared with the IP adressing scheme ....

Jefsey

On 03:03 16/04/01, Milton Mueller said:
>Some more items of guidance: we could also specify things the WG should 
>NOT do.
>
>Such as:
>The WG is NOT intended to rule on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of any 
>particular claim to TLD strings.
>(That's a rathole we don't need to go down.)
>
> >>> "Erica Roberts" <[email-masked]> 04/13/01 20:46 PM >>>
>Hi Milton,
>Following th election of Patrick Corliss to the GA Alt Chair, the relevance
>of this topic is clear.  However, while I tend to agree with your comment
>that:
>,given enough time and some clear guidance, such a group might achieve some
>consensus points that could bring about a temporary ceasefire .....
>the key issue is the guidance that should be provided to such a TF.
>Do you have any thoughts on this?
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:27:37 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Rules of Order for the Mailing Lists of the General Assembly

List of mailling lists and archives
http://www.dnso.org/listsdnso.html

Two main principles since the origin of this server in June 1999, explicited in
the welcome message sent by majordomo to every new subscriber:

(1)    the non cross-posting rule is reinforced
(2)    the respect to the participants is mandatory

More explicit rules of order are defined in
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html

The following rules apply to content of messages on the GA list:

The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
* Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
* Not using offensive language
If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the number of posts per
person
per day, this must be respected.
The size of messages should be kept reasonable (there should be a VERY good
reason to send a message of more than 10 Kbytes).

Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have the task
of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules.
These are selected by the GA Chair for a given period of time, but may be
removed from the role by the GA Chair or at their own request at any time.
A list monitor may also be removed by a majority vote of the General Assembly.
Normally the appointment would be for 1 year.

A list monitor may impose 2 sanctions against offenders:

- - Monitoring of posts. This will cause delay of postings from the affected
  individual until a list moderator approves them as being within the content
  rules, or rejects them
- - Suspension of posting rights. This will cause mail from that person not to be
  sent to the GA list.

Both sanctions are imposed for a limited period of time (typically 2 weeks),
and are announced on the mailing list. Repeat offenders may get correspondingly
longer sentences (for instance 4 weeks for a second offense, 8 weeks for a
third).
The period is decided by the list monitor.

Note that due to technical issues, monitoring one member's postings may cause
monitoring to be applied to other members' posts. This is to be avoided as far
as
possible.

The action of the list monitor may be appealed to the GA Chair.

Regards
Patrick Corliss
Co-Chair Elect

- --
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 19:49:44 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists?

On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:21:34 +1200, you 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.

Okay here goes.  I move that the General Assembly set up the following
dedicated mailing lists (can be voted on separately).

1) A WIPO mailing list ([email-masked]) to discuss the third interim
report of the second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process.

The WIPO report is wide reaching with recommendations dealing with
personal names, Pharmaceutical INNs, international inter-governmental
organisations, geographical names and tradenames.

2) A DNSO Review mailing list ([email-masked]) to continue
discussion on ways to improve the structure and functioning of the
DNSO

3) An alternative roots mailing list ([email-masked]) to provide
a specific forum for the subject in terms of what bearing if any they
have on ICANN

And finally a piece of trivia - did anyone else know that world
intellectual property day is 26 April :-)

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: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:56:15 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:20:24 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>1) While extremely erudite, the paper is fundamentally just a legal
>*theory*, justified by obscure and abstruse legal research.  

Why does the fact you find his research hard to understand (dictionary
definition of abstruse) mean it is any less valid?

>4) All this would perhaps not matter if Froomkin were an objective 
>observer, but he is not.

Being objective is to be "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal
prejudices".  I am not aware Michael has any commercial interests
which would lead to be not objective or that he has any personal
prejudices.

Apart from the fact you disagree with what he says in what other way
is Michael not objective?

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: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 00:58:47 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [PRIVATE]  List Rules and Protocols

Hello Patrick,

Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 12:28:22 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi William

>> > I appreciate the comment to which you refer was directed to Michael Froomkin
>> > personally and, as such, may not comply with the list rules and protocols.
>>
>> I disagree.  These are NOT the kinds of comments that the list rules
>> were intended to address, neither Kent's nor Chris' response.
>>
>> We need to be careful not to broaden the rules, or we make the
>> criticisms levied when they were enacted become prophecy instead.

> You are not in a position to judge how many complaints are received on a daily
> basis in respect of comments such as these.  The fact that people are disposed
> to make complaints suggests that the issue of "ad hominem" attacks is a matter
> of concern.

A "matter of concern" is irrelevant.

> The posting by Kent Crispin falls into the category of making comments of a
> personal nature.  It suggests that Michael Froomkin is biased.  Chris Ambler's
> response was unfair as he attributed to Kent Crispin what was said by Dave
> Crocker.

Comments of a "personal nature" are not banned.  Personal ATTACKS are.

Chris did no such thing.  He merely pointed out that Dave was
criticizing people for looking at his underlying motives, while Kent
was doing the same thing.

Unfair posts are not rules violations anyway.

> All you are doing is undermining the integrity of the list.

> If you want to discuss the rules, please do so without discussing cases which
> may come before the List Monitors.  I'll post an extract of the rules onlist.

EXCUSE ME?

First of all do not tell me that I am undermining the integrity of the
list by telling you when you are crossing the line with overapplying
the rules.  The overapplication of the rules is VERY MUCH an ontopic
issue.

I will discuss the rules with specific or general points as I see fit,
Mr Corliss.  Specific Actions are infact on topic when making those
points.

- -- 
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 01:03:30 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Rules of Order for the Mailing Lists of the General Assembly

Hello Patrick,

Did you have something relevant to say here?

We all know the rules, posting them in response to my post about your
comments being an over extension of the rules doesn't change anything,
but in fact only shows that my points were correct.

Thank you.

I will also thank you not to try and keep private when you tell me
that my posting criticisms of attempts to overextend the rules are
violating the "integrity of the lists."

Your authority as alternative chair does not mean you that you dictate
what can or cannot be posted to the list within the confine of the
rules, nor that you are free from having your actions called to
question on the list.

Not a very good move to start out your term with.

- -- 
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 18:17:38 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: [PRIVATE]  List Rules and Protocols

- ----- Original Message -----
From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
To: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols

> Hello Patrick,
>
> Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 12:28:22 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > All you are doing is undermining the integrity of the list.
>
> > If you want to discuss the rules, please do so without discussing cases
which
> > may come before the List Monitors.  I'll post an extract of the rules
onlist.
>
> Toss something like this at me again, and not only will I make sure it
> is publicly documented as I did this time, but I will start a serious
> concerted campaign to have the Names Council replace you, something
> that will not help the "integrity of the list."
>
> I consider your comments above to be absolutely and totally
> inappropriate from someone in your position.
>
> You should ask yourself if you really are that well suited to this
> position, and if you are not, then you should consider stepping down.
>
> It is not your role, or within your power, to seek an extension of the
> rules by overextending their interpretation.
>
> Nor is it appropriate to tell someone to not discuss specific
> instances when the subject of the rules come up.
>
> The question of whether you understood what the role of the GA chairs
> was came up during the election, when it seemed you think it was a
> mandate for you to carry our your own agenda.
>
> That is NOT the case.  If I even suspect that is occurring, the Names
> Council will begin hearing my concerns, and others will be asked to do
> the same if they find themselves in agreement with 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: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 01:17:24 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Fw: [PRIVATE]  List Rules and Protocols

Hello Patrick,

Just a note, it was only posted to your privately to save you having
these issues regarding your suitability redressed in public unless and
until you crossed the line further.

Since you want to make them a public issue now, lets.

Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 1:17:38 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
> To: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 6:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols

>> Hello Patrick,
>>
>> Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 12:28:22 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>>
>> > All you are doing is undermining the integrity of the list.
>>
>> > If you want to discuss the rules, please do so without discussing cases
> which
>> > may come before the List Monitors.  I'll post an extract of the rules
> onlist.
>>
>> Toss something like this at me again, and not only will I make sure it
>> is publicly documented as I did this time, but I will start a serious
>> concerted campaign to have the Names Council replace you, something
>> that will not help the "integrity of the list."
>>
>> I consider your comments above to be absolutely and totally
>> inappropriate from someone in your position.
>>
>> You should ask yourself if you really are that well suited to this
>> position, and if you are not, then you should consider stepping down.
>>
>> It is not your role, or within your power, to seek an extension of the
>> rules by overextending their interpretation.
>>
>> Nor is it appropriate to tell someone to not discuss specific
>> instances when the subject of the rules come up.
>>
>> The question of whether you understood what the role of the GA chairs
>> was came up during the election, when it seemed you think it was a
>> mandate for you to carry our your own agenda.
>>
>> That is NOT the case.  If I even suspect that is occurring, the Names
>> Council will begin hearing my concerns, and others will be asked to do
>> the same if they find themselves in agreement with me.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>>  William                            mailto:[email-masked]
>>
>>

- -- 
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 09:48:49 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The fall of the iCANN Empire?

A new mission for the iCANN?

>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. These new agreements, by eliminating much
>of the unique legacy treatment of VeriSign/NSI, will be a major step in
>that direction. They will help to maintain the continuing stability of
>the DNS as an important and effective part of the Internet, and will
>improve the ability of ICANN to serve as an effective administrator of
>this important resource."
>
>For more information on the ICANN/VeriSign registry agreements, see
><http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/>.

The iCANN has no more the mission to keep the Name Space
(actually the Legacy Name Space) stable, but the DNS itself ....

What I explained yesterday and for weeks is under confirmation: there
will be a new "stable" DNS system under VRSN license and iCANN label
with a M$ 200 development budget and a first customer: ".org" managed
by the iCANN with a M$ 5 initial funding and a sub-licence to iCANN TLDs
(entrance fee of $ 50.000). With one million TLD targeted (cf. MDR
GAC open session, this represents a fair return to NSI's R&D).

This is a pure take away of the entire Internet for which they need the
Govs support against the DoC, in the best interest of a Name Space
stability (I mean the TM Name Space :-) ).

Question: are the current viruscoms talks of the town a thread on the
network, on the iCANN or a way for the iCANN/VRSN alliance to
accelerate the DNS change to a VRSN certified/protected, iCANN
stamped and Louis Touton fossilized TLD model compatible DNS?

But, viruscoms, New.net, MultiBind, SubRoots are here now ...

Actually, I am afraid that Mike Roberts' wording of the Yokohama
resolution on new TLDs has open a case of worms (we told him
immediatley) leading to a no-more-controlable situation.

Would it be realistic the legacy RSC (iCANN) would propose ASAP an
alliance to the other RSCs and a negociation with Name.Space and
New.net to see how to cope with the current situation. But at the
holy trinity, Louis and Joe are no software developpers (may be Louis?)
so only Vint may understand the danger... but he supported plan B and
he probably thinks he can cope with it using his current plan.

At the BoD Alejandro Pisanty and certainly the three who opposed the
Plan B, may be a few others, have the technical competence to
understand that the iCANN plan is too slow and too legally/politically
hazardeous to cope with the current time frame (probably a few days
before the first viruscoms spread around, last friday if "porn.com" is
not just a leak).

Jefsey

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #396
************************