Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #415
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, April 23 2001            Volume 01 : Number 415

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

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:11:30 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Rules for new lists -- needed or not?

Questions for those of you that participated in working groups A,B,C,D,E,
and Review...

Did your working groups have formal rules?  If not, were there many
instances of decorum problems?   Did you manage to get the work done without
recourse to an abuse resolution process?  We need to determine what rules,
if any, should govern these lists.  Perhaps past experience can guide us.

- --
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:21:15 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] At the Root of the problem

Members,

Thank you for your responses to my request for clarification on whether
non-ICANN roots are in competition with ICANN.  Not one post addressed
the issue directly.

"The DoC obtains an injunction against the derogatorily called alternate
roots, based upon allegations of interference with Interstate Commerce,
FCC joins in the action, six countries tune out the USG root and the EU
is considering action, China is innaccessable on the net, declares
accessing the www illegal."

One heck of a headline!  And there but for the grace of the GA go we.

Pursuant to the new agreement can Verisign host and sell the other
brands?  How about Register.com?

As an officer of the assembly I would expect Mr. Corliss to keep us
posted on any confidential decisions he is privy to regarding boards
which may have an impact on ICANN. Just as I assume he must keep them
posted on NC matters.

When all the White Paper and the MOU were drafted were "other" roots
contemplated as their users being internetstakeholders?  If so we have a
easy solution to many problems. If not then they are out.

Now if ICANN is in competition what about our tax status?

Maybe SS is right we should leave this alone, better to let some place
else deal with it rather than get burned either way we go!

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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:30:48 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Mr. Crispin's Unconstitutional Proposal was Re: [ga] "All roots" (Re:  Additional Mailing Lists)

No Kent, you are willing to ask congress to pass a law to protect the system
that you will
use to make big money. Let me remind you that Kent has a financial interest
in shutting out
competitive models. People like Kent have taken over ICANN and are using it
as a tool
to protect their own monopoly-like powers. Kent is a bad actor, plain and
simple.

Inclusive namespace TLDs are not "experiments" - they are businesses with
payrolls and are
part of the economy.

I would remind Mr. Crispin that people have the right to choose what root
server networks that
they use and that TLD operators are publishers who are protected by the 1st
Amendment. Our
business products are also protected from taking without just compensation
by the 5th Amendment.

Mr Crispin, you are the worst hypocrit on the list. YOU are a profiteer, not
a noble wise man
who is just "protecting the internet from evil forces".

ADNS has been operating our TLDs for almost 7 years now. We will not roll
over to ICANN or
any other force. Our business operation is protected by the US Constitution
and other laws and
we will defend it at all costs. Yes, we would like to some day make a
profit, but thats not a crime
and we don't intend to do it by supporting nazi-like goverment (or
quasi-government) actions that
limit the free and open trade within the industry. We support the addition
of as many TLDs
as anyone wants to add.

I submit these facts to to the public as another example of what ICANN
really is. Mr. Crispin has
today exposed a side of ICANN that many of us knew was there, but was not
always visible.

ICANN is a good old boys club that is designed to protect a clutch of
monoplists by making policy that
shuts out all other business models. ICANN insiders have made one move after
another
to shut out dissenting voices and solidify their control. ICANN must be
stopped.

John Palmer
President/CEO
AGN Domain Name Services, Inc.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>
To: "[GA]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] "All roots" (Re: Additional Mailing Lists)

> On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:56:52AM +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > Hi Harald
> >
> > Many lists would consider your posting to be a breach of list rules of
the "me
> > too" variety.  In this case you simply say that you do not agree without
> > stating any reasons.
> >
> > The argument is for a working group to discuss the policy implications
of
> > alternate roots.
> >
> > Can you be specific, please, not necessarily by answering Kristy's post
but by
> > stating why you think there are no policy implications for alternative
roots?
>
> Alternate roots and alternate TLDs destabalize the name space, and hence
> the primary policy question is how strongly ICANN should condemn them.
> So far ICANN has been content with letting the alternate roots (and
> alternate TLDs) self-destruct, but I think that with the appeance of
> new.net a case could be made that a stronger policy is necessary.
>
> That's probably worth another motion:
>
>     I move that the GA petition the NC to ask the Board to submit a
>     formal letter to the US Federal Trade Commission calling for the
>     immediate investigation of all alternate root and alternate TLD
>     providers.
>
> Moreover, I think the US congress should be informed, and that, for
> those of us in the US, we should encourage our congresspersons to pass a
> law to make knowingly attaching alternate roots or TLDs to the public
> Internet a criminal offense.  In other countries I think responsible
> people should take similar measures.
>
> I'm not saying this to be provocative, incidentally -- I really do
> believe that attaching alternate roots or TLDs to the Internet runs the
> risk of doing serious harm.  As long as the experiments are very small
> the risks of damage are very slight, but if the number of participants
> in these experiments gets very large, I believe the possibility of
> serious damage becomes quite real.
>
> > In other words, if you are saying the subject is not worthy of
discussion then
> > why is much of this list taken up with discussing it?
>
> Because there are a number of people who are either living in a
> technical dream world, or are willing to damage the Internet for their
> own personal gain.
>
> > As I said, it would
> > free up the main list.
>
> That's highly doubtful.
>
> > The other alternative is to keep ruling it "off topic" and banning
almost
> > everybody.
>
> Interesting that you think that the alternate root crowd is "almost
everybody".
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>

- --
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 22:29:16 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "All roots" (Re:  Additional Mailing Lists)

Joe Kelsey wrote:

A really excellent post, all of which (bar a nit or two) I agree with, but
I'll snip here to emphasize key points.

> Patrick Corliss writes:
>  > Can you be specific, please, not necessarily by answering Kristy's
>  > post but by stating why you think there are no policy implications
>  > for alternative roots?
>  >
>  > In other words, if you are saying the subject is not worthy of
>  > discussion then why is much of this list taken up with discussing it?
>  > As I said, it would free up the main list.
> 
> The subject is not worth discussing because there can never be an
> accomodation with the so-called "alternate" roots. ...
>
> There is nothing to be gained by re-hashing ...
> 
> There is absolutely no reason to believe that ICANN will ever change
> their position,

Right. Also, it is questionable whether there's any reason believe they
should even consider it.

> no matter how many so-called "alternate" root
> sympathizers manage to yell and scream ...
> 
> It is off-topic because there is no new information to add to a subject
> which everyone has already made up their minds on.

Is there anyone here who has not made up their mind yet? If so, do you
have questions?
 
> Every single person who is calling for the discussion has a vested
> interest in seeing one or another of the so-called "alternate" roots
> succeed, probably because they have some monetary stake in it.

Methinks this may be overstated. Certainly "many". My guess would be
somewhere between "most" and "nearly all", but I'm not sure your "every
single" is justified.

> Everyone else thinks that there is absolutely nothing to discuss because
> the so-called "alternate" roots have always been free to publicize their
> own private namespaces

That's the key point. Anyone is free to build a private space with its own
root, always have been, always will be.

However, that does not affect the Internet root. There can be only one of
those. ICANN is currently responsible for it.

> and they have always been free to promote their views in every other forum
> they want, especially in the commercial marketplace, the only forum that
> matters.

Yes. Is there any significant evidence of success?
- --
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 22:33:29 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Mr. Crispin's Unconstitutional Proposal was Re: [ga] "All roots"  (Re:  Additional Mailing Lists)

John Palmer wrote:

> ... Yes, we would like to some day make a profit, but thats not a crime
> and we don't intend to do it by supporting nazi-like goverment (or
> quasi-government) actions that limit the free and open trade within the industry.

http://tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/Godwin's-Law.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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:53:56 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] "All roots" (Re:  Additional Mailing Lists)

> From: Joe Kelsey [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 5:32 PM
> 
> Patrick Corliss writes:
>  > Can you be specific, please, not necessarily by answering Kristy's
>  > post but by stating why you think there are no policy implications
>  > for alternative roots?
>  > 
>  > In other words, if you are saying the subject is not worthy of
>  > discussion then why is much of this list taken up with 
> discussing it?
>  > As I said, it would free up the main list.
> 
> The subject is not worth discussing because there can never be an
> accomodation with the so-called "alternate" roots.  The only people on
> this list who want to talk about the subject are those who 
> have a vested
> interest in one so-called "alternate" root or another, in other words
> those with a conflict of interest with ICANN.

False ... prove it.

> There is nothing to be gained by re-hashing the same old 
> tired arguments
> that have already been re-hashed on every single mailing list that has
> anything remotely to do with this whole process (e.g., IAHC, white
> paper, etc., etc., ad naseaum).  What are the possible outcomes of any
> discussion of the so-called "alternate" roots?
> 
> o ICANN BoD agrees that the so-called "alternate" roots represent a
>   legitmate claim on the namespace and grandfathers them in.

How is this going to happen if it's not discussed? Besides, at least one BoD
member is running the ORSC root zone.

> o ICANN BoD maintains their existing policy that the so-called
>   "alternate" roots represent nothing more than what they 
> claim and have
>   always claimed, namely an alternate view of a global namespace,
>   perfectly reasonable in a free market.

I may be mistaken, but I thought a counter argument was recently (this
month) posted.

> There is absolutely no reason to believe that ICANN will ever change
> their position, no matter how many so-called "alternate" root
> sympathizers manage to yell and scream on the GA list or in 

I severely resent this mischaracterization. The only ones screaming and
yelling are the folks that don't want to talk about it...like you. BTW, I
consider micharacterizations, name-calling, FUD, and other misdirection
techniques the equivalent of screaming, yelling, and general temper-tantrum
behavior.

> any working
> group.  There is no logical reason to continue to discuss this matter
> which has already been beaten to death over and over and over and over
> and over and over again and again and again and again...

More screaming and yelling, I see... 

>  > The other alternative is to keep ruling it "off topic" and banning
>  > almost everybody.  I am not sure the GA would agree to impose that
>  > sort of a role on the list monitors.
> 
> It is off-topic because there is no new information to add to 
> a subject which everyone has already made up their minds on.  Every 
> single person who is calling for the discussion has a vested interest in 
> seeing one or another of the so-called "alternate" roots succeed, probably
because
> they have some monetary stake in it. 

That is a characterization, unfounded in fact. I can prove that it's false.

> Everyone else thinks that there is
> absolutely nothing to discuss because the so-called "alternate" roots
> have always been free to publicize their own private 
> namespaces and they
> have always been free to promote their views in every other forum they
> want, especially in the commercial marketplace, the only forum that
> matters.

Considering that I am one of those "Everyone", I can easily disprove you
declaration.

>  > BTW I have only included multilinguals to the extent that they are
>  > running alternative roots as I thought, with respect, should have
>  > been obvious.
> 
> Multilingual DNS is a technical issue that does not belong in a
> political forum.

Not all of us are so myopic that we can't see the policy implications of
multi-lingual DNS.

Thus far, all you have stated was your personal opinion and have tried to
claim it as everyone's opinion, sans proof. Substantial discussion can be
substantially furthered if we had less of this and more reasoned argument.
- --
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:05:22 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: China?[Re: Additional Mailing Lists]

This may be my last post today.

> From: Sotiris [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 5:58 PM
> 
> Whether China launches its own root or not, the question is: 
> will I be able to
> access the Chinese rootzone and its TLDs from a WWW cybercafe 
> in Peru, or perhaps
> in Finland?  China may have its own "root" for purposes of a 
> country-specific
> WAN, but how does it affect the global DNS if the Chinese 
> domains do not
> automatically resolve worldwide?

Access from outside of China to interior hosts;
Some of their hosts may not, intentionally. However, if they hook into their
existing zone entries then there should be no problem. Thier point is to
control acess to China. The then run a cross-over registry that is a listing
of publically available zone servers, which is a sub-set of their actual
registry fo internal chinese hosts. That they are ALSO setting up their own
COM, NET, ORG, et alia zone servers, with edited zone files, won't make any
differences, from an external view, unless one happens to be using their
zone resolvers, which gets us to ...

Access to the Internet from inside China;
Certainly, one of their reasons for doing this is to control the access, of
their own people, to the rest of the Internet. China has stated this before,
much to the consternation of many.
- --
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] "All roots" (Re:  Additional Mailing Lists)

Good explanation Roeland, but why don't we let Sotiris spend a little
effort on his own. That's really the only thing that gives people the
realization of truth in a sobering sense :)

Sotirus can begin his quest here:

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200102/05/eng20010205_61600.html

and here too:

http://www.cnnic.net.cn/e-index.shtml

or, if he prefers....

here:

http://www.cnnic.net.cn/

I'll be looking forward to hearing back from Sotirus on his fact finding
research mission.

On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> > From: Joe Kelsey [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 5:32 PM
> > 
> > Patrick Corliss writes:
> >  > Can you be specific, please, not necessarily by answering Kristy's
> >  > post but by stating why you think there are no policy implications
> >  > for alternative roots?
> >  > 
> >  > In other words, if you are saying the subject is not worthy of
> >  > discussion then why is much of this list taken up with 
> > discussing it?
> >  > As I said, it would free up the main list.
> > 
> > The subject is not worth discussing because there can never be an
> > accomodation with the so-called "alternate" roots.  The only people on
> > this list who want to talk about the subject are those who 
> > have a vested
> > interest in one so-called "alternate" root or another, in other words
> > those with a conflict of interest with ICANN.
> 
> False ... prove it.
> 
> > There is nothing to be gained by re-hashing the same old 
> > tired arguments
> > that have already been re-hashed on every single mailing list that has
> > anything remotely to do with this whole process (e.g., IAHC, white
> > paper, etc., etc., ad naseaum).  What are the possible outcomes of any
> > discussion of the so-called "alternate" roots?
> > 
> > o ICANN BoD agrees that the so-called "alternate" roots represent a
> >   legitmate claim on the namespace and grandfathers them in.
> 
> How is this going to happen if it's not discussed? Besides, at least one BoD
> member is running the ORSC root zone.
> 
> > o ICANN BoD maintains their existing policy that the so-called
> >   "alternate" roots represent nothing more than what they 
> > claim and have
> >   always claimed, namely an alternate view of a global namespace,
> >   perfectly reasonable in a free market.
> 
> I may be mistaken, but I thought a counter argument was recently (this
> month) posted.
> 
> > There is absolutely no reason to believe that ICANN will ever change
> > their position, no matter how many so-called "alternate" root
> > sympathizers manage to yell and scream on the GA list or in 
> 
> I severely resent this mischaracterization. The only ones screaming and
> yelling are the folks that don't want to talk about it...like you. BTW, I
> consider micharacterizations, name-calling, FUD, and other misdirection
> techniques the equivalent of screaming, yelling, and general temper-tantrum
> behavior.
> 
> > any working
> > group.  There is no logical reason to continue to discuss this matter
> > which has already been beaten to death over and over and over and over
> > and over and over again and again and again and again...
> 
> More screaming and yelling, I see... 
> 
> >  > The other alternative is to keep ruling it "off topic" and banning
> >  > almost everybody.  I am not sure the GA would agree to impose that
> >  > sort of a role on the list monitors.
> > 
> > It is off-topic because there is no new information to add to 
> > a subject which everyone has already made up their minds on.  Every 
> > single person who is calling for the discussion has a vested interest in 
> > seeing one or another of the so-called "alternate" roots succeed, probably
> because
> > they have some monetary stake in it. 
> 
> That is a characterization, unfounded in fact. I can prove that it's false.
> 
> > Everyone else thinks that there is
> > absolutely nothing to discuss because the so-called "alternate" roots
> > have always been free to publicize their own private 
> > namespaces and they
> > have always been free to promote their views in every other forum they
> > want, especially in the commercial marketplace, the only forum that
> > matters.
> 
> Considering that I am one of those "Everyone", I can easily disprove you
> declaration.
> 
> >  > BTW I have only included multilinguals to the extent that they are
> >  > running alternative roots as I thought, with respect, should have
> >  > been obvious.
> > 
> > Multilingual DNS is a technical issue that does not belong in a
> > political forum.
> 
> Not all of us are so myopic that we can't see the policy implications of
> multi-lingual DNS.
> 
> Thus far, all you have stated was your personal opinion and have tried to
> claim it as everyone's opinion, sans proof. Substantial discussion can be
> substantially furthered if we had less of this and more reasoned argument.
> --
> 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
> 

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.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, 23 Apr 2001 00:21:35 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "All roots" (Re:  Additional Mailing Lists)

This is beginning to sound like the Soviet Union, for heaven's sake.  
Why not simply nationalize everything, supress free speech, abandon 
the Constitution and give "special" backers of the "regime" the prize.  
To heck with individuals' rights; to heck with entrepreneurial and creative 
efforts and to heck with democracy.  Let's just go socialist and give the 
crumbs to those we suppress.

My gosh, Kent, the truth comes out finally.  If this is an example of the 
thinking behind ICANN, John Palmer is right.  It must be stopped.

If not, then let's hope for all our sakes that we can all come to the table 
and cooperate.  You are correct about one thing.  The Internet can be 
destabilized, but not by "alternate" TLDs or roots.  It will be due to 
ICANN's alienation of the rest of the world.  

Most TLDs are off-shore, Kent.  Other countries are launching their own 
TLDs and roots.  Why do you think that is?  Try demagoguery.  It 
doesn't work, especially not in the US.

You have proposed unconstitutional acts that could not be put into 
place by the FTC or Congress.  

As for personal gain, is it not for personal gain that Neulevel will operate 
a for-profit registry?  Whose dreamworld are you living in?  How many of 
the seven selected TLDs are going to be run for altruistic reasons?   
Why did they conduct market studies?  And since when are business 
models within the purview of a technical coordination body?

Let's get real, here, Kent.  Call it what it is.  ICANN is backed by the 
power hungry and greedy and you have just tried once more to turn that 
around and make a bunch of small businesses the culprits.  FUD.

As for discussions and relevancy, if it were so irrelevant to ICANN, why 
is there such controversy on this list?  It seems to me that it is very 
relevant if ICANN is so afraid that there is competition out there.  It 
makes it even more imperative that there be reasonable discussion so 
that BOTH sides can set forth their reasoning and HOPEFULLY find 
some common ground on which to work.

On 22 Apr 2001, at 17:42, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:56:52AM +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > Hi Harald
> > 
> > Many lists would consider your posting to be a breach of list rules of the "me
> > too" variety.  In this case you simply say that you do not agree without
> > stating any reasons.
> > 
> > The argument is for a working group to discuss the policy implications of
> > alternate roots.
> >
> > Can you be specific, please, not necessarily by answering Kristy's post but by
> > stating why you think there are no policy implications for alternative roots?
> 
> Alternate roots and alternate TLDs destabalize the name space, and hence
> the primary policy question is how strongly ICANN should condemn them. 
> So far ICANN has been content with letting the alternate roots (and
> alternate TLDs) self-destruct, but I think that with the appeance of
> new.net a case could be made that a stronger policy is necessary. 
> 
> That's probably worth another motion:
> 
>     I move that the GA petition the NC to ask the Board to submit a
>     formal letter to the US Federal Trade Commission calling for the
>     immediate investigation of all alternate root and alternate TLD
>     providers.  
> 
> Moreover, I think the US congress should be informed, and that, for
> those of us in the US, we should encourage our congresspersons to pass a
> law to make knowingly attaching alternate roots or TLDs to the public
> Internet a criminal offense.  In other countries I think responsible 
> people should take similar measures.
> 
> I'm not saying this to be provocative, incidentally -- I really do
> believe that attaching alternate roots or TLDs to the Internet runs the
> risk of doing serious harm.  As long as the experiments are very small
> the risks of damage are very slight, but if the number of participants
> in these experiments gets very large, I believe the possibility of
> serious damage becomes quite real. 
> 
> > In other words, if you are saying the subject is not worthy of discussion then
> > why is much of this list taken up with discussing it?
> 
> Because there are a number of people who are either living in a
> technical dream world, or are willing to damage the Internet for their
> own personal gain. 
> 
> > As I said, it would
> > free up the main list.
> 
> That's highly doubtful.
> 
> > The other alternative is to keep ruling it "off topic" and banning almost
> > everybody.
> 
> Interesting that you think that the alternate root crowd is "almost everybody".
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

Leah Gallegos
AtlanticRoot Network, Inc. http://www.biztld.net
The DotBIZ tld Registry - the REAL one.  Stop ICANN
from duplicating the .BIZ tld in their root and fracturing
the Internet! 
ALSO, visit http://www.TLDlobby.com.

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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:36:17 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "All roots" (Re:  Additional Mailing Lists)

At 17:42 22/04/01 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>
>Moreover, I think the US congress should be informed, and that, for
>those of us in the US, we should encourage our congresspersons to pass a
>law to make knowingly attaching alternate roots or TLDs to the public
>Internet a criminal offense.  In other countries I think responsible 
>people should take similar measures.
>

"And here comes the monkey out of the sleeve" as we say in Holland.

Thank you Kent, for fulfilling this particular advocacy role. (I really
mean this) 
You may be right, or you may be wrong but to me you are proving that the
dedicated mailing list is indeed overdue.
It would be absurd to think that ICANN could remain uninvolved if  such
legislation would indeed be contemplated.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://www.idno.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, 23 Apr 2001 00:20:33 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] "All roots" (Re:  Additional Mailing Lists)

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 5:43 PM
> 
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:56:52AM +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Alternate roots and alternate TLDs destabalize the name 
> space, and hence the primary policy question is how strongly ICANN should 
> condemn them. 

It's nice to hear your opinion. But, it is no surpise to hear that you hold
it. Are you going to trot out your normal FUD or are you going to present
some reasonable argument this time? Note that I don't agree, which also
shouldn't be a surprise. The current root can be destabalized without any
other root system. All it takes is incompetent management policies
(available in abundance).

> That's probably worth another motion:
> 
>     I move that the GA petition the NC to ask the Board to submit a
>     formal letter to the US Federal Trade Commission calling for the
>     immediate investigation of all alternate root and alternate TLD
>     providers.  

Oh dear me. Kent, you are back-sliding? After such a good start at
constructive motions, you pull this stinker.

> Moreover, I think the US congress should be informed, and that, for
> those of us in the US, we should encourage our congresspersons to pass a
> law to make knowingly attaching alternate roots or TLDs to the public
> Internet a criminal offense.  In other countries I think responsible 
> people should take similar measures.

Actually, members of congress have indeed been informed... just not in the
way you think.

I have always suspected you of totalitarian tendencies. You have now
confirmed it. Are you also working on "Big Brother" projects at LLNL? It is
people like you that have created the People's Republic of California.
"Criminalize everything you don't like and to hell with Civil Rights!", is
that your battle cry? Believe it or not many of us who grew up here prefer
individual freedom, believe in the US Constitution, and are willing to fight
against the socialist totalitarianism that you represent here. The heart of
the Internet is Libertarian freedom. This is why almost all of it is
de-centralized.

> I'm not saying this to be provocative, incidentally -- I really do
> believe that attaching alternate roots or TLDs to the 
> Internet runs the risk of doing serious harm. 

Plugging your toaster into the California power grid also does serious harm.
Should we then make that action illegal? Should we require all toaster
owners to do so under license? You're old enough to remember AT&T argument,
against their customers plugging their own telco equipment into the AT&T
phone network. Do you remember what Ringer Equivalence Numbers (REN) are?
... why they are still required? ... why they are absolutely meaningless?
This piece of unsubstantiated FUD is >exactly< the same tactic AT&T was
using to try and keep their monopoly on CPE (Customer Premisis Equipment).
Thank God that Congress didn't listen and we all have electronic phones now,
generally with REN values under 0.30 and features that Ma Bell would never
have implemented on its own.

- --
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, 23 Apr 2001 18:54:15 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Additional Mailing Lists

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand
|> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 11:14 PM
|> To: babybows.com
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Additional Mailing Lists
|>
|> One note - I think it natural that the rules for
|> monitoring of the new mailing lists should be the
|> same as for the GA list (decorum, chair can ask
|> for posting limit, list monitor team and suspensions).
|> I also think it natural that the lists have the same
|> monitors as the main list (although not all monitors
|> will be on all lists, one could ask for at
|> least 2 of them to be on each), but that suspensions are
|> per list, not for all the GA lists.
|>
|> But I'm biased. Other thoughts?

I agree that having the same list rules applied to all the lists makes
management a great deal easier and would mean participants would have
a consistent rule set to follow which will avoid confusion.

Not sure it would be fair to expect the limited number of List
Monitors to oversee all of the lists however.  That would be a
substantial work load.  Far better to spread the load and those
actively involved in each list to nominate their own chairs and list
monitors.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 23 Apr 2001 12:59:28 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Working Group Decision-Making Software

On 2001-04-21 10:20:09 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:

>> Memory Requirements: 64M of RAM (96M recommended) Recommended
>> Screen Resolution: 17" Screen running at 1024x768 Operating
>> System: Microsoft Windows NT4 or 98 Browser Version: 
>> Internet Explorer 4.x or 5.x only

> I have a few problems with this, for general use.

> 1) Windows-only: Many of either co-run or are exclusively on,
> some form of Unix box. The software doesn't run there (maybe,
> under WINE, someone will have to look).

If these are supposed to be client requirements, I object against
using that software.  Decision-Making here should be open to users
of any platform which reasonably supports the usual set of internet
protocols.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler			    <[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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 07:32:57 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Rules for new lists -- needed or not?

As I recall, there were no rules established for Working Group E, nor were
there really any problems with decorum.  That could probably be explained by
the fact that WG E did not involve a controversial topic, but rather one
that not a lot of people were interested in (Global Awareness and Outreach).
The experience of WG E is therefore not very useful in this discussion.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: babybows.com [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 9:12 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Rules for new lists -- needed or not?

Questions for those of you that participated in working groups A,B,C,D,E,
and Review...

Did your working groups have formal rules?  If not, were there many
instances of decorum problems?   Did you manage to get the work done without
recourse to an abuse resolution process?  We need to determine what rules,
if any, should govern these lists.  Perhaps past experience can guide us.

- --
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, 23 Apr 2001 13:00:16 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Additional Mailing Lists

Dear Patrick,
Sotiris is perfectly right. What concerns the DNSO is not what the other do,
but what the iCANN do internally and to the others.

In the immediate you can do two things:

1. keep going with the DNSO/GA management issues. Golden Rule: put 100
    people on an iCANN ML, 10 will participate and only 1 subject will interest
    them : "how to vote on our voting system and get funded for discussing it".

2. if you are somewhat interested in the real world, you might consider the
     Inclusive Name Space management by the iCANN for the iCANN TLDs
     and iCANN TLDs users (I am NOT interested in the legality of existing
     ".biz", I just know it does exist). And respond to that three questions:

     1. why do the internet community need that much a colliding ".biz"
         more than ".web" or ".coop". I never heard the slightest reason?

     2. can anyone, starting with Vint Cef, responsibly cetify to the DoC 
that the
         loading of a ".biz" not managed by Leah in the root will not 
prevent all
         the .biz bound mails to land in the user intended mailbox.

     3. if not, is the risk worth the reason? Who will take that commitment 
(i.e.
         get sued if he is wrong).

      May I remind you that the GA participates to the DNSO work. That the
      DNSO mission is to advise the BoD. Except if you can show me that
      creating Internet unstability was part of the DNSO recomendation
      concerning gTLDs, I think that all those preventing us to strongly and
      boldly impress on the BoD our technical disagreement with any act
      leading to any Internet stability for whatever reasin religious, 
technical,
      political, self interest, personnal pride, stubbon dumbness... is making
      us failing our mission and fighting against our duties. I acknowledge 
the
      right to do this to anyone of us, this is democracy. But you will not
      remove my right not to agree with them, who ever they may be.

Jefsey

On 15:24 22/04/01, Sotiris said:
>With all due respect, Patrick, I think it would be wise to leave aside the 
>topic
>of competitive roots.  This, because  the competitive roots topic is 
>really not an
>ICANN relevant topic; the ICANN intransigence on competitive roots is firmly
>entrenched and IMHO it will take a miracle to get the BoD to even comment on
>altroots.  Afetr all, competitive roots are just that: competition.  As 
>far as I
>can see, the competitive root topic is a dead end at this point, one which 
>will
>waste much time and produce absolutely nothing substantive.  We all saw 
>how that
>discussion went recently on this ML, why let it happen again?  I think we 
>should
>stick to ICANN-related matters at this juncture.
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
>
>Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, April 22, 2001 8:49 PM (AEST), Danny Younger wrote:
> > Subject: [ga] Re: Additional Mailing Lists
> >
> > > Hi Patrick,
> > >
> > > Please keep in mind my comment, "This proposed collection of lists will
> > > further be discussed by the General Assembly in the course of the 
> next few
> > > days".  The lists that I proposed are only a suggestion, and I am 
> expecting
> > > the GA to make up its own mind regarding the way forward with regard to
> > > these mailing lists.   You will note that many of the proposed lists 
> reflect
> > > the recommendations (motions) already put forward by the membership.
> >
> > Thank you, Danny.
> >
> > Perhaps the GA membership will consider whether they prefer five:
> >
> > (1)    [ga-ext]    External Relationships  (constituencies et al)
> > (2)    [ga-int]     Internal Processes  (list rules, elections etc.)
> > (3)    [ga-reg]    Registration  (whois, existing systems)
> > (4)    [ga-rts]     Competitive Roots  (alts & multilinguals)
> > (5)    [ga-tip]     Trademarks & IP  (UDRP & WIPO-2)
> >
> > eight:
> >
> > > a. Rules and Procedures of the General Assembly [rules]
> > > b. Participation, Website, Outreach and Education [outreach]
> > > c. Finance & Funding Support [funding]
> > > d. Ongoing DNSO Review [review]
> > > e. Individuals Constituency [ic]
> > > f. Alternate Roots [roots]
> > > g. UDRP & WIPO Recommendations [udrp]
> > > h. Privacy & WHOIS [whois]
> >
> > or some other model.
> >
> > As I understand it we are not just talking mailing lists but the whole 
> Working
> > Group set up including Chairs and secretarial support.
> >
> > Best 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
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #415
************************