Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #419
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, April 25 2001          Volume 01 : Number 419

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

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:51:58 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: InternetStakeholders.com

All,

I have stated the case quite simply.  To date, I have been nothing but
honest and forthright in all of my dealings on this and other
related/relevant Lists.  I consider my personal integrity important
enough to stand up for it.  If anyone has shown evidence of a vindictive
nature and predisposition, it is the Chair Mr. Danny Younger.  I offered
Joanna Lane a chance to come clean, honestly and nobly.  Instead, Mr.
Danny Younger wishes to somehow implicate me in his designs.

That said, let me add that the Chair can say what he likes, it's a free
Internet (but is he speaking or is someone else..?  kind of hard to tell
at this point).

Fact is, the web site internetstakeholders.com belongs to Joanna Lane.
I may have supported the idea of another community web site, but I did
not support the stated agenda of the Chair of this list (i.e. to have
internetstakeholders.com become the official GA website).  It seems kind
of presumptuous of the Chair to believe that ICANN would add a link to
an outside website because the GA under his Chairness ratified such a
move.  I believe the current Chair is acting on interests counter to
those of the DNSO and ICANN in general.  He has gone beyond the role of
Chair of the GA and is clearly pushing an agenda for his own reasons.  I
cannot support his initiatives.

These are my personal feelings.  I do not expect anyone else to share
them, but I am free to express them in this forum (that is, until such
time as the members of the GA are all "forced to be free" as Rousseau
put it).

Thank You,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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, 24 Apr 2001 13:33:21 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Ignore / test post

Test

- --
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, 24 Apr 2001 15:01:11 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC vote to confirm the GA Chair and Alternate

Funny thing about this post but it seems to almost be the last post I received off
the list until Mr. Fauset's test post.  I know there is no causation but sometimes
correlation is sure interesting. Especially when you combine it with the little
Problem our chair had over in the WG list with someone posting his comments under
thier name.

What ever happened with Crispin posting comments under Jeff Williams name. I don't
know who can keep track of all the different angles. Perhaps we can develope a
process that really would require disclosure and transparency.

Sincerely,

DPF wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 23:48:32 +0200 (MET DST), DNSO Sec wrote:
>
> >       b05:Ke8a3Z casted  2 votes
> >       b05:Kf6b5Z casted  2 votes
>
> > b05:Ke8a3Z:[X ] I do not accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
> > b05:Kf6b5Z:[x] I do not accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
>
> Any NC members want to step forward and elaborate?  No pressure at all
> to do so, I'm just curious what factors led one to vote against what I
> thought would be a mere rubber stamping.
>
> 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-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: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:10:36 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] problem?

I want to test this ML as well.

Several of the latest posts have not reached my Inbox although they did
get posted to the archive at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/mail21.html

Is anyone else having the same problem?

Sotiris.

Bret Fausett wrote:

> Test
>
> --
> 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, 24 Apr 2001 18:11:18 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Reposting

All,

I have stated the case quite simply.  To date, I have been nothing but
honest and forthright in all of my dealings on this and other
related/relevant Lists.  I consider my personal integrity important
enough to stand up for it.  If anyone has shown evidence of a vindictive
nature and predisposition, it is the Chair Mr. Danny Younger.  I offered
Joanna Lane a chance to come clean, honestly and nobly.  Instead, Mr.
Danny Younger wishes to somehow implicate me in his designs.

That said, let me add that the Chair can say what he likes, it's a free
Internet (but is he speaking or is someone else..?  kind of hard to tell
at this point).

Fact is, the web site internetstakeholders.com belongs to Joanna Lane.
I may have supported the idea of another community web site, but I did
not support the stated agenda of the Chair of this list (i.e. to have
internetstakeholders.com become the official GA website).  It seems kind
of presumptuous of the Chair to believe that ICANN would add a link to
an outside website because the GA under his Chairness ratified such a
move.  I believe the current Chair is acting on interests counter to
those of the DNSO and ICANN in general.  He has gone beyond the role of
Chair of the GA and is clearly pushing an agenda for his own reasons.  I
cannot support his initiatives.

These are my personal feelings.  I do not expect anyone else to share
them, but I am free to express them in this forum (that is, until such
time as the members of the GA are all "forced to be free" as Rousseau
put it).

Thank You,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
- --
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, 24 Apr 2001 15:29:16 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] problem?

Sotiris wrote:
> Is anyone else having the same problem?

Yes. I think I missed most of today's posts that show up in the archive,
which is why I sent my test message. It looks like it's fixed now.

        -- Bret

- --
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, 24 Apr 2001 18:54:33 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Repost: InternetStakeholders.com

(sorry if this is duplicated, but the original posting did not seem to
get through, and i think this warrants another look)

All,

I find it disturbing that Joanna Lane was encouraged to go ahead and
create a rogue mailing list by the current Chair of the GA, particularly
as she made use of a DNSO mailing list to sign the Members of the WG
Review up for a yahoo list which has nothing to do with the DNSO per
se.  Pease consider the following message which was originally forwarded
to Jefsey Morfin, Kendall Dawson, and myself, by Joanna on April 21
*without* any PRIVATE/OFFLIST/CONFIDENTIAL notice:

on 4/20/01 6:02 PM, babybows.com at [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Joanna,
A separate ML through InternetStakeholders.com
> strikes me as an excellent idea, as the more members of the public that are
> drawn into ICANN-related matters... so much healthier will ICANN become.
> I see an immediate role for
> InternetStakeholders.com which may well go far beyond your expectations...
> the GA needs a better-designed official website than what they currently
> have.  You and Kendall and Sotiris have the capability to create a prototype
> GA website for consideration by the whole of the GA.    If the whole of the
> GA by resolution and ratification agrees that what you have created as a GA
> prototype is appropriate to the needs of the organization, we can move
> forward to having a link placed on the ICANN site to direct traffic to the
> new GA website.  Just a thought, but lets face it... the GA portion of the
> site on www.ICANN.org really sucks.

With all due respect, Mr. Chair, what's all this about a GA website
outside ICANN?

(for those of you who were unwittingly subscribed to the yahoogroups
list entitled "DNSO Work Group Review" as listed at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wg-review ,  I urge you to compare the
message quoted above with the message apparently posted by Joanna Lane
in response to Rod Dixon's questions about whether or not the list had
been sanctioned by the NC)

Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
- --
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, 24 Apr 2001 18:02:32 -0400
From: [email-masked] (Digitel - Ken Stubbs)
Subject: Re: [ga] problem?

the same thing has happened on 3 different occasions in the last week to me
also

ken stubbs
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Sotiris" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bret Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] problem?

> I want to test this ML as well.
>
> Several of the latest posts have not reached my Inbox although they did
> get posted to the archive at:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/mail21.html
>
> Is anyone else having the same problem?
>
> Sotiris.
>
> Bret Fausett wrote:
>
> > Test
> >
> > --
> > 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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:59:25 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reposting

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Incidents like this only further the fact that the Chair and
> Alternative Chair are way too politically tied to their positions to
> be able to be impartial and fair chairs to this assembly.
>
> A petition to the Names Council for their removal is probably in order
> at this stage, if not overdue.

If this is a motion, I second it.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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, 24 Apr 2001 19:27:03 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Final comment.

Yes, I did post the following:

http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg03313.html

"Jefsey,

We have arranged to move the ML to www.internetstakeholders.com.  I do
have list of all current 121 members of the WGr.  Iam am waiting to hear
from Kendall Dawson and/or Joanna Lane as to whether the new forum is
functioning.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
           Working Chair, WG Review"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1) I did *not* distribute a copy of the ML to Joanna Lane, nor to
Kendall Dawson.  I am unaware of where they got the ML to sign people up
to yahoogroups.  I challenge anyone to prove otherwise!

2) As i've already stated, I was under the impression that the ML would
only be moved *temporarily*, and not to that the
internetstakeholders.com site was destined to be the new official GA
website (as per Danny Younger's and Joanna Lane's designs and
imaginings.)

3) There are plenty of smart people on this List who can cut through all
the smoke and see the patterns of behaviour elicited by all parties
concerned to date.  I am confident that my credibility and integrity
remain intact.

I rest my case.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:44:05 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reposting

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:59:25 -0400, you wrote:

>"William X. Walsh" wrote:
>
>> Incidents like this only further the fact that the Chair and
>> Alternative Chair are way too politically tied to their positions to
>> be able to be impartial and fair chairs to this assembly.
>>
>> A petition to the Names Council for their removal is probably in order
>> at this stage, if not overdue.
>
>If this is a motion, I second it.

Can I out my 2c in and suggest this is premature to say the least.

I do actually share some of the concerns about how much our new Chairs
will push the GA agenda rather than a personal one.  But at this stage
it is only concern and they should be given the chance to prove
themselves.  

We risk becoming rather mickey mouse if we seek to overturn election
results a few weeks after the election.  

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, 24 Apr 2001 15:58:25 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] problem?

I've only seen 9 postings today...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sotiris [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 3:11 PM
> To: Bret Fausett
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] problem?
> 
> 
> I want to test this ML as well.
> 
> Several of the latest posts have not reached my Inbox 
> although they did
> get posted to the archive at:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/mail21.html
> 
> Is anyone else having the same problem?
> 
> Sotiris.
> 
> Bret Fausett wrote:
> 
> > Test
> >
> > --
> > 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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:18:54 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NC vote to confirm the GA Chair and Alternate

> From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 12:00 AM
> 
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 23:48:32 +0200 (MET DST), DNSO Sec wrote:
> 
> >       b05:Ke8a3Z casted  2 votes
> >       b05:Kf6b5Z casted  2 votes
> 
> > b05:Ke8a3Z:[X ] I do not accept Patrick Corliss as an 
> Alternate Chair to the GA
> > b05:Kf6b5Z:[x] I do not accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
> 
> Any NC members want to step forward and elaborate?  No pressure at all
> to do so, I'm just curious what factors led one to vote against what I
> thought would be a mere rubber stamping.

That's the problem of "rubber stamp" presumptions. The official rulz state
that only the NC gets to appoint the GA chair. That the NC listens to us is
merely a revocable courtesy. This is why fighting over the voting process
was moot.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:00:01 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion - Chair and Co-Chair 

Hi Sotiris

Danny and I are two separate people.  Please distinguish us.

I really have no idea what you are talking about in relation to "outside"
mailing lists.  As you know I had nothing to do with the WG-Review.

Anything said by Danny on that subject was on his own initiative.  I have
neither agreed with it or opposed it.  In fact I know nothing about any
outside lists except what has been posted onlist by you and others.

William X. Walsh is running his own agenda for his own reasons.  I have
deliberately avoided arguing with him as he is currently suspended and
invisible to most of the list.  It would thus be a one-sided debate unless I
reposted his arguments so that I could reply to them.

Plus it would be yet another "flame war" and most counter-productive.

I also think the patience of the list members has been sorely tested by the
constant barrage of criticism which any fair-minded person on the list knows
to be quite without substance.  My private posting that triggered off this
whole campaign had ONE single comment that Mr Walsh took exception to.  That
was my suggestion in the first sentence in the last of the four paragraphs.

As any impartial observer would know, my comments were urging caution in a
obviously futile attempt to avoid adding fuel to the flame war.  I wrote
cautiously and diplomatically saying things like "personal nature" instead
of "personal attack, insults or slander" per the rules.  I said:

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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

In relation to my so-called "conflict of interest" this was debated during
the election campaign and everyone had the opportunity to submit another
vote.  It was also put to a formal vote by the Names Council, after comments
on that very issue, and ratified by them.

Since I have been Co-Chair I have said very little in support of
"alternative roots" except that I agreed with Danny that there should be a
separate mailing list.  I gave simple reasons without any emotive argument.
Danny has no conflict of interest on this subject, real or imagined.

I have also prepared an agenda that includes every issue that I could think
of that ought to be discussed including issues that I might personally
oppose.  As David Farrar wrote:

> I do actually share some of the concerns about how much our new Chairs
> will push the GA agenda rather than a personal one.  But at this stage
> it is only concern and they should be given the chance to prove
> themselves.

Thank you, David.  The word "will" clearly means it hasn't happened yet.  No
system in the world will blame somebody for something they "might" do.  My
personal agenda is to gain consensus within the GA to identify and resolve
the problems which most people can see are obvious.  They include trying to
make this body function properly and be respected.

I'd appreciate it if everybody else would try to make this forum work.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
To: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
Cc: ga <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Reposting

> "William X. Walsh" wrote:
>
> > Incidents like this only further the fact that the Chair and
> > Alternative Chair are way too politically tied to their positions to
> > be able to be impartial and fair chairs to this assembly.
> >
> > A petition to the Names Council for their removal is probably in order
> > at this stage, if not overdue.
>
> If this is a motion, I second it.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:28:49 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Repost: InternetStakeholders.com

This is my personal opinion.

Aside from flame wars and really petty differences, what bothers me 
most about what is going on here is that if certain factions do not want 
a discussion, that discussion will not take place.

I did not join the WG review as I did not have the time to devote to it 
properly.  However, even though the report was written, it is very 
apparent that the members wish to continue that topical discussion.  In 
view of the DNSO discontinuing the list, those members wish to provide 
themselves a forum to continue - in good faith - with that review.  It 
would seem to me that it is not in any way a rogue move, but an open 
and honest decision to offer that forum to those who wish to participate.

Why would members of the GA object to this if the DNSO is not going 
to provide that forum?  In addition, why would it be out of order to invite 
people from this list (as the original invitees) to join the newly provided 
forum?  It is not an abuse of the list to do so, IMO.  It is also quite 
justified, unless having the freedom to discuss issues and save the 
volume to this list is denied to individuals.  If the discussion is archived, 
it could be quite enlightening and valuable to the GA.

There has been a request for lists on several general topics.  I certainly 
hope that no single viewpoint will prevail in determining whether those 
list creations are meritous, but that if there are a number of potential 
participants on more than one side of the issues, that they will be 
created.  Lists are not difficult to create and can be retired if 
participation is lacking.  I doubt that will be the case, however.  The 
stated issues are important and on-going.

At this point I, personally, have debated further participation in a group 
that seems to be determined to accomplish nothing other than status 
quo, does not seem to wish to discuss anything they see as 
controversial or in opposition to ICANN's existing positions on those 
topics.  IOW, squelsh any opposing viewpoints whether meritous or not. 
 It is rather like throttling full speed ahead while stuck in a mud hole and 
elephants pushing the vehicle in reverse with the transmission set in 
drive.  We get nowhere and burn out the tranny in the process.

For those who do not see a need to discuss the impending chaos on 
the net, the reform of the DNSO/GA or having suggestions from the 
Chair and co-chair for possible WG lists, my feeling is there is a 
purpose behind the attempts to delay those discussions.  Oh well.  The 
delays may just have interesting results and the perception that the GA 
is doomed to a role of less importance than the non existent AL will 
prevail.

I'm pretty much disgusted with the FUD, personal attacks, inuendo wrt 
to "agendas" and the attempts to disrail any new thought or direction.

Leah

On 24 Apr 2001, at 19:11, Jeff Williams wrote:

> Sotiris, JOanna, Danny and all remaining assembly members,
> 
>   I must admit that this situation looks a little odd.  It would seem
> that such a list should have been announced on the DNSO GA
> List and the DNSO Announce list if it is an official ML for the
> DNSO GA or any Working Group (WG) for the DNSO.
> 
>   I would personally urge that the DNSO GA list Chair do so
> as soon as possible if their are no objections and a motion is
> pending for this "YAHOO WG-Review list".  If not possibly
> a motion should be introduced...  ????
> 
> Sotiris wrote:
> 
> > (sorry if this is duplicated, but the original posting did not seem to
> > get through, and i think this warrants another look)
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I find it disturbing that Joanna Lane was encouraged to go ahead and
> > create a rogue mailing list by the current Chair of the GA, particularly
> > as she made use of a DNSO mailing list to sign the Members of the WG
> > Review up for a yahoo list which has nothing to do with the DNSO per
> > se.  Pease consider the following message which was originally forwarded
> > to Jefsey Morfin, Kendall Dawson, and myself, by Joanna on April 21
> > *without* any PRIVATE/OFFLIST/CONFIDENTIAL notice:
> >
> > on 4/20/01 6:02 PM, babybows.com at [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Joanna,
> > A separate ML through InternetStakeholders.com
> > > strikes me as an excellent idea, as the more members of the public that are
> > > drawn into ICANN-related matters... so much healthier will ICANN become.
> > > I see an immediate role for
> > > InternetStakeholders.com which may well go far beyond your expectations...
> > > the GA needs a better-designed official website than what they currently
> > > have.  You and Kendall and Sotiris have the capability to create a prototype
> > > GA website for consideration by the whole of the GA.    If the whole of the
> > > GA by resolution and ratification agrees that what you have created as a GA
> > > prototype is appropriate to the needs of the organization, we can move
> > > forward to having a link placed on the ICANN site to direct traffic to the
> > > new GA website.  Just a thought, but lets face it... the GA portion of the
> > > site on www.ICANN.org really sucks.
> >
> > With all due respect, Mr. Chair, what's all this about a GA website
> > outside ICANN?
> >
> > (for those of you who were unwittingly subscribed to the yahoogroups
> > list entitled "DNSO Work Group Review" as listed at
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wg-review ,  I urge you to compare the
> > message quoted above with the message apparently posted by Joanna Lane
> > in response to Rod Dixon's questions about whether or not the list had
> > been sanctioned by the NC)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:12:12 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Repost: InternetStakeholders.com

> From: L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 4:29 PM

> I'm pretty much disgusted with the FUD, personal attacks, inuendo wrt 
> to "agendas" and the attempts to disrail any new thought or direction.

Like she said ... oh so well.

I'm waiting for announcements of the new lists <tap> <tap> <tap> <tap> <tap>
<tap> ...
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:25:54 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Alternative roots

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:07 AM
|> To: [email-masked]'; Ga
|> Subject: RE: [ga] Alternative roots
|>
|> > One thing we should keep in mind.  If you accept these
|> > alternative names spaces as being a part of the legacy root, then
|> > there may be collisions.  I consider them private name spaces and
as
|> > such, they are not going to cause collisions, they should not be
using Internet
|> > routable addressing to reach the hostnames within.  Much
|> > the same as any business which runs its own DNS and has their own
|> > private name space.  They are not a part of the legacy root and
as
|> > such, they are private name spaces.
|>
|> A few things render this premise faulty;
|> 1) Under COM, a domain is delegated name space, not private.
|> 2) They don't cause collisions because they are delegated
|> and no one else is allowed to declare names therein.
|> 3) A business under COM is indeed under the legacy root.
|> Firewalls not withstanding.

I'm afraid I do not follow your reasoning above.  If there are
sub-domains registed under a legacy root TLD, and then hostnames under
them, they are all part of the legacy name space.  That is a different
issue to having non-legacy name space TLD's with domains and hostnames
that are not part of the legacy name space.  On one of the private
name spaces I manage I have a host with a domain in the legacy name
space acting as a gateway.  That gateway allows any hosts within the
private name space to interact with the legacy name space however,
no-one in the legacy name space can see into my private name space.
As such I have provided a means to avoid any conflicts with the legacy
name space.  The IP addressing scheme used for the private name space
is the address space provided for such private networks and is not
Internet routable.

|> > These private name spaces may grow enough to overshadow the
legacy
|> > Internet name space but at present they are a totally separate
entity
|> > and do not belong within the legacy name space.  By providing
Internet
|> > routable addressing within those private name spaces they are
actually
|> > going against the accepted RFC's that govern the legacy name
space.
|> >
|> > I run a few private name spaces myself, I do follow the rules
however
|> > and they are not routable on the Internet.  However, it  would
not be
|> > difficult for me to do so.  Many others can also.  Once  you
allow some
|> > private name spaces into the Internet name space you  will be
opening
|> > the flood gates for any private name space to make claim.  Some
of the
|> > non-Internet routable name spaces have been around for years
also.
|>
|> Even if you don't allow access from the rest of the Internet, a
conflicting
|> delegation can still effect your internal operations. For example,
I have
|> the real case where I run the VPN TLD. Were someone ELSE to get a
VPN
|> delegation in the legacy root, I could never access those hosts
because it
|> would conflict with my own VPN zone. This particular collision
scenario is
|> called "masking". In some security environments, this may be done
|> intentionally, controlling access to external systems.
|> There are various sub-scenarios where the external VPN may actually
prevent
|> your access to your own VPN systems or even let one of those
external
|> systems masquerade as one of your own (violating your security).

It is up to the network administrators to ensure their network avoids
conflicts with any external interaction they may initiate with the
Internet legacy name space.  They control their own private name
spaces and have full control over how this may be linked into the
Internet.  It does not give them any rights over determining how the
Internet name space is administered however, no more than any other
participant.

I have even seen internal (private) networks using Internet routable
IP addressing schemes, that is worse than using a conflicting name
space TLD.  Not all network administrators set up their networks
appropriately.  If there are problems with either the IP addressing or
the name space used on such networks it is up the administrators to
adjust them and fit in with any other networks they are attemting to
interact with.

Personally, the solution as I see it is for the private (alternative)
name spaces to not link into the Internet name space and to actually
become what they originally began as, alternative name spaces to the
Internet legacy name space.  Either that or to conform to the
restrictions applied on the legacy name space.

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: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:10:36 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Repost: InternetStakeholders.com

At the risk of being banned for excessive posts...

L Gallegos wrote:

> This is my personal opinion.
> <snip>
> Why would members of the GA object to this if the DNSO is not going
> to provide that forum?  In addition, why would it be out of order to invite
> people from this list (as the original invitees) to join the newly provided
> forum?  It is not an abuse of the list to do so, IMO.  <snip>

Leah,

If the original members were *invited*, no problem... but they were *not* invited.
They were signed up to a yahoogroup without their knowledge or approval.  This is
technically a breach of privacy, and that is why it's out of order.

regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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, 24 Apr 2001 21:07:17 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] All New

This place is a rudderless ship.  It is a radical talk show without a
Host.  The guys making 100s of thousands of dollars a year on our backs
have killed the At-Large and now the GA is debunked.  Oh, members this
has not been an accident it is obsoletion by design.

Corliss only weighs in to defend himself and Danny does not weigh in and
has admittedly stated he cannot keep up. Our alt-chair just made an
emphatic statement that he does not stand by the chair.

Here is the quiz: Where does bottoms up and the internetstakeholders
opinion creep into this picture, what is the group that represents them,
where are they represented?

Not quite 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #419
************************