Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #421
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, April 26 2001           Volume 01 : Number 421

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

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:47:02 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status Report -- Mailing Lists

On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 11:19:47AM -0400, babybows.com wrote:
> As the Names Council has recently (17 March & 18 April) decommissioned five
> mailing lists (Famous Trade - Marks working group B, new gTLDs working group
> C, Business Plan and Internal Procedures working group D, Global Awareness
> and Outreach working group E, and the Review Working Group), it is
> reasonable to assume that the six new mailing lists of the General assembly
> will not impose any new financial burden upon the NC,

No, it is not reasonable to suppose that.  The lists in question had
almost all been totally idle, and there is no burden involved with idle
lists.  These new lists, if formed, are presumed to be active, and the
burden posed by a list is, roughly speaking, proportional to the
activity on the lists.  Moreover, setting up the archives and so on are
all new activities, and involve some work. 

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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:49:22 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Appeals and disruption

To All,

Many have prevailed upon me privately and on lists, that the GA is our
best hope of obtaining bottoms-up Stakeholder representation on the
policy issues concerning the internet. Many have said that I am causing
more harm than good. I do not know.  But I do know that nothing was
going to change until the status quo was challenged and challenged
hard.  I am assured that it is changing and that this latest go at it is
sincere and will result in real action.

I apologize to the list and each member, especially Mr. Corliss and Mr.
Younger, for any disruption I may have caused.  At this time both these
fine men have my full endorsement and support. I offer the same to the
NC and all members thereof.  I believe that the GA is making positive
moves toward ligitimizing all of ICANN.  With the continued support of
the members we will do things right and better in the future.

I hereby formally drop all appeals and requests or demands made
heretofor, and I thank all for their time and diligent attention to
them.  As the effected party I state that I am satisfied with all of the
outcomes and the processes used to arrive at them.

I have had no contact with any official of this assembly except on these
public lists. My about face is based on reason and not cooption.  My
agendas remain and I only modify my method of pursuing them.

Thank you to all of you for the priviledge of being a member.

Sincerely,

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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:25:04 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status Report -- Mailing Lists

Kent Crispin wrote:

> These new lists, if formed, are presumed to be active, and the
> burden posed by a list is, roughly speaking, proportional to the
> activity on the lists.  Moreover, setting up the archives and so on are
> all new activities, and involve some work.

I think the key word is "some"... but not much.  Kent, you're making it sound like
the digging of a Suez canal is being proposed here.  As for "burdens", since when
is a discussion list a burden?  does it not provide further evidence of
legitimacy?  I fail to see the difficulty in setting the lists up.  If need be, I
will volunteer my services (and I'm sure many of the others would as well).

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 12:33:55 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status Report -- Mailing Lists

On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:25:04PM -0400, Sotiris wrote:
> 
> 
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > These new lists, if formed, are presumed to be active, and the
> > burden posed by a list is, roughly speaking, proportional to the
> > activity on the lists.  Moreover, setting up the archives and so on are
> > all new activities, and involve some work.
> 
> I think the key word is "some"... but not much.  Kent, you're making it sound like
> the digging of a Suez canal is being proposed here.  As for "burdens", since when
> is a discussion list a burden?

For any significant list, the answer to that question is "always". 

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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:32:59 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Appeals and disruption

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.  Let's stay friends....:)

/Bruce
"Let us reason together."

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Babybows.com" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 12:49
Subject: [ga] Appeals and disruption

To All,

Many have prevailed upon me privately and on lists, that the GA is our
best hope of obtaining bottoms-up Stakeholder representation on the
policy issues concerning the internet. Many have said that I am causing
more harm than good. I do not know.  But I do know that nothing was
going to change until the status quo was challenged and challenged
hard.  I am assured that it is changing and that this latest go at it is
sincere and will result in real action.

I apologize to the list and each member, especially Mr. Corliss and Mr.
Younger, for any disruption I may have caused.  At this time both these
fine men have my full endorsement and support. I offer the same to the
NC and all members thereof.  I believe that the GA is making positive
moves toward ligitimizing all of ICANN.  With the continued support of
the members we will do things right and better in the future.

I hereby formally drop all appeals and requests or demands made
heretofor, and I thank all for their time and diligent attention to
them.  As the effected party I state that I am satisfied with all of the
outcomes and the processes used to arrive at them.

I have had no contact with any official of this assembly except on these
public lists. My about face is based on reason and not cooption.  My
agendas remain and I only modify my method of pursuing them.

Thank you to all of you for the priviledge of being a member.

Sincerely,

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:19:34 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status Report -- Mailing Lists

Sotiris,

You wrote:
>
>Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > These new lists, if formed, are presumed to be active, and the
> > burden posed by a list is, roughly speaking, proportional to the
> > activity on the lists.  Moreover, setting up the archives and so on are
> > all new activities, and involve some work.
>
>I think the key word is "some"... but not much.  Kent, you're making it 
>sound like
>the digging of a Suez canal is being proposed here.  As for "burdens", 
>since when
>is a discussion list a burden?  does it not provide further evidence of
>legitimacy?  I fail to see the difficulty in setting the lists up.  If need 
>be, I
>will volunteer my services (and I'm sure many of the others would as well).
>

My understanding of Kent's post is not that he opposes the creation of the 
lists on the basis of financial considerations, but he only points out that 
this does not come out for free.
Which, BTW, also explains why the request has not been executed 
*immediately* but has taken/will take some time.

OTOH, personally, I think that this is the way we should go. Even if it does 
take some effort and/or money.
The alternative is doing nothing, which will come for free, and will also be 
the best guarantee of not making any mistakes.

I tried without success to start dedicated mailing lists last year, and am 
therefore well placed to appreciate the work of the new Chairman, that is 
getting us there. Keep up the good work.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:34:15 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status Report -- Mailing Lists

May I obtain a true cost breakdown and send it to foundations and the like for
funding?  I believe there is near unanymous consensus that these lists are a
great Idea and the best hope for helping ICANN reach objectives for outreach and
stakeholder representation. Where ICANN has been denied funding for general
financial concerns I believe we will not be for such a worthwhile specific
endeavor.

This method also helps correct the imbalance of Qualified donations versus fees.

We wouldn't be here if this wasn't important and if you esteemed members believe
this is important then so will others.

Sincerely,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Sotiris,

> My understanding of Kent's post is not that he opposes the creation of the
> lists on the basis of financial considerations, but he only points out that
> this does not come out for free.
> Which, BTW, also explains why the request has not been executed
> *immediately* but has taken/will take some time.
>
> OTOH, personally, I think that this is the way we should go. Even if it does
> take some effort and/or money.
> The alternative is doing nothing, which will come for free, and will also be
> the best guarantee of not making any mistakes.
>
> I tried without success to start dedicated mailing lists last year, and am
> therefore well placed to appreciate the work of the new Chairman, that is
> getting us there. Keep up the good work.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> __

- --
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 22:38:26 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reposting

David,

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

It looks to me rather like Donald Duck.

Moreover there is no chance that, first of all, a motion gets the majority 
in the GA, and secondly even less than zero chance that the NC will overturn 
*its* vote.
One can really wonder what is the *real* purpose of that proposal...

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:47:26 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign Contracts

I vote that the USDOC tell Versign and ICANN to go back and give three
months of open and transparent work on this matter.  Not to go to the
public and ask for comments on a contract but to negotiate in public.
(California's Brown Act proves this is doable)  Also I do not think it
out of line, and in fact consistent with normal process -APA- to ask for
competitive RFPs.

Sincerely,

The United States Department of Commerce is promising the ICANN it will
decide by May 14, 2001 whether to ratify controversial new contracts
that
would, among other things, allow domain name giant Verisign to retain
its
powers over .com for at least 6 more years. However, ICANN's decision
and
request for approval may yet be countermanded as several ranking U.S.
politicians seek a formal investigation of ICANN's procedures.

Also see
http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/#highlights

- --
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 22:49:10 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alternative roots

Kristy,

>
>1)  We do not want to introduce new TLDs into the USG Root that are already
>in use by other Roots.
>
>.....
>
>2)  We do want the USG Root service to create a process for communicating
>and collaborating with the other Root services.
>

I guess the key question is *who* is "we".
There is no evidence, so far, that "we" can mean "the GA" at this point in 
time.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:12:47 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status Report -- Mailing Lists

Considering that most mailer-list software is openb-source, the majority of
the cost is the tinker-factor to put it up and the bandwidth for the
messaging. Initial setup cost, if you don't already have Majordomo
installed, is a few days, including ironing out the wrinkles. It's a bit
longer to add archiving and web interfaces.I run Majordomo under Caldera
OpenLinux, with Webmin. Once majordomo is configured (about 45 min) it takes
about 5 min for each mailing list. This does not include web interface and
archives.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 3:34 PM
> To: Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Status Report -- Mailing Lists
> 
> 
> May I obtain a true cost breakdown and send it to foundations 
> and the like for
> funding?  I believe there is near unanymous consensus that 
> these lists are a
> great Idea and the best hope for helping ICANN reach 
> objectives for outreach and
> stakeholder representation. Where ICANN has been denied 
> funding for general
> financial concerns I believe we will not be for such a 
> worthwhile specific
> endeavor.
> 
> This method also helps correct the imbalance of Qualified 
> donations versus fees.
> 
> We wouldn't be here if this wasn't important and if you 
> esteemed members believe
> this is important then so will others.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> > Sotiris,
> 
> > My understanding of Kent's post is not that he opposes the 
> creation of the
> > lists on the basis of financial considerations, but he only 
> points out that
> > this does not come out for free.
> > Which, BTW, also explains why the request has not been executed
> > *immediately* but has taken/will take some time.
> >
> > OTOH, personally, I think that this is the way we should 
> go. Even if it does
> > take some effort and/or money.
> > The alternative is doing nothing, which will come for free, 
> and will also be
> > the best guarantee of not making any mistakes.
> >
> > I tried without success to start dedicated mailing lists 
> last year, and am
> > therefore well placed to appreciate the work of the new 
> Chairman, that is
> > getting us there. Keep up the good work.
> >
> > Regards
> > Roberto
> >
> > __
> 
> --
> 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: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:13:51 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reposting

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> David,
>
> >
> >We risk becoming rather mickey mouse if we seek to overturn election
> >results a few weeks after the election.
> >
>
> It looks to me rather like Donald Duck.
>
> Moreover there is no chance that, first of all, a motion gets the majority
> in the GA, and secondly even less than zero chance that the NC will overturn
> *its* vote.
> One can really wonder what is the *real* purpose of that proposal...

Or, one can really wonder what is the *real* purpose of your rehashing of *real*
purposes is, Roberto...

I know everyone would prefer to let sleeping dogs lie... so why don't you?

WXW is being penalized.  Why would it seem odd that he's against the tenure of
those who penalized him?  what's the big mystery here?

Geez! Just when things were about to calm down...  Nice one Roberto.

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 19:28:54 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] U.S. Gov't sets date for ICANN-Verisign power deal approval

All,

The United States Department of Commerce is promising the ICANN it will
decide by May 14, 2001 whether to ratify controversial new contracts
that would, among other things, allow domain name giant Verisign to
retain its powers over .com for at least 6 more years. However, ICANN's
decision and request for approval may yet be countermanded as several
ranking U.S. politicians seek a formal investigation of ICANN's
procedures.

Also see
http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/#highlights
- --
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 21:44:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status Report -- Mailing Lists

I'm puzzled.  Why does it cost anything to have a mailing list?  There are
many organizations that would surely donate the use of one of their
systems?  Why not ask for, and accept, such donations in kind?

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Sotiris,
> 
> You wrote:
> >
> >Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > > These new lists, if formed, are presumed to be active, and the
> > > burden posed by a list is, roughly speaking, proportional to the
> > > activity on the lists.  Moreover, setting up the archives and so on are
> > > all new activities, and involve some work.
> >
> >I think the key word is "some"... but not much.  Kent, you're making it 
> >sound like
> >the digging of a Suez canal is being proposed here.  As for "burdens", 
> >since when
> >is a discussion list a burden?  does it not provide further evidence of
> >legitimacy?  I fail to see the difficulty in setting the lists up.  If need 
> >be, I
> >will volunteer my services (and I'm sure many of the others would as well).
> >
> 
> My understanding of Kent's post is not that he opposes the creation of the 
> lists on the basis of financial considerations, but he only points out that 
> this does not come out for free.
> Which, BTW, also explains why the request has not been executed 
> *immediately* but has taken/will take some time.
> 
> OTOH, personally, I think that this is the way we should go. Even if it does 
> take some effort and/or money.
> The alternative is doing nothing, which will come for free, and will also be 
> the best guarantee of not making any mistakes.
> 
> I tried without success to start dedicated mailing lists last year, and am 
> therefore well placed to appreciate the work of the new Chairman, that is 
> getting us there. Keep up the good work.
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's hot here.<--

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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:15:51 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Letter from Alden Abbott, U.S. Departmant of Commerce, to M. Stuart Lynn

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0CDD5.49890AE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Letter from Alden Abbott, U.S. Department of Commerce, to M. Stuart Lynn,
ICANN

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/doc-to-icann-24apr01.htm

/Bruce
"Let us reason together."

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0CDD5.49890AE0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2462.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D5>Letter from Alden Abbott, U.S. Department of =
Commerce, to M.=20
Stuart Lynn, ICANN</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/correspondence/doc-to-icann-24apr01.htm">htt=
p://www.icann.org/correspondence/doc-to-icann-24apr01.htm</A></FONT></STR=
ONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>/Bruce<BR>"Let us reason =
together."=20
<BR></FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana=20
size=3D2>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT></STRONG></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0CDD5.49890AE0--

- --
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: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 00:08:35 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] U.S. Gov't sets date for ICANN-Verisign power deal approval

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:28:54 -0400, you wrote:

>All,
>
>The United States Department of Commerce is promising the ICANN it will
>decide by May 14, 2001 whether to ratify controversial new contracts
>that would, among other things, allow domain name giant Verisign to
>retain its powers over .com for at least 6 more years. However, ICANN's
>decision and request for approval may yet be countermanded as several
>ranking U.S. politicians seek a formal investigation of ICANN's
>procedures.
>
>Also see
>http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/#highlights

The US Govt has also asked NSI for an extension to the existing
agreements - something we were told here was impossible and would
never be agreed to.  Who wants a bet that NSI and ICANN agree to such
an extension?

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: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:59:38 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] U.S. Gov't sets date for ICANN-Verisign power deal appro val

David,

Because May 14th falls after the May 10th deadline that is in the current
agreements, an extension is essential.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 8:09 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] U.S. Gov't sets date for ICANN-Verisign power deal
approval

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:28:54 -0400, you wrote:

>All,
>
>The United States Department of Commerce is promising the ICANN it will
>decide by May 14, 2001 whether to ratify controversial new contracts
>that would, among other things, allow domain name giant Verisign to
>retain its powers over .com for at least 6 more years. However, ICANN's
>decision and request for approval may yet be countermanded as several
>ranking U.S. politicians seek a formal investigation of ICANN's
>procedures.
>
>Also see
>http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/#highlights

The US Govt has also asked NSI for an extension to the existing
agreements - something we were told here was impossible and would
never be agreed to.  Who wants a bet that NSI and ICANN agree to such
an extension?

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
- --
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: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 03:57:49 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] domain name owner's bill of rights

On Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:50 AM (AEST)
Srikanth Narra <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: [ga] domain name owner's bill of rights

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

Hi Srikanth

Did anyone ever get back to you on this question?  The Chair is setting up
several working groups and this is the sort of issue that may be referred to
one of them to be considered.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #421
************************