Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #447
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Friday, May 11 2001             Volume 01 : Number 447

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

Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 09:58:53 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders'   constituency (IC)

Joe, I apologize for the following message, that I sent to you in the public
forum. It got my pique, but I should have sent it in private. Please chalk
it up to excessive Reply-All usage.

I also apologize to the list for this error. It is a good example of the
very behavior I am against myself. This message does not forward the best GA
list behavior or decorum. There is no defense, I simply apologize. Such
public behavior is unseemly.

- -- 
ROELAND M.J. MEYER
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
TEL: +001 925 373 3954
FAX: +001 925 373 9781
http://www.mhsc.com
mailto: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 4:40 PM
> To: 'Joe Kelsey'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an 
> IDN holders'
> constituency (IC)
> 
> 
> > From: Joe Kelsey [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 3:34 PM
> > 
> > Joop Teernstra writes:
> >  > On 15:50 7/05/01 -0700, Joe Kelsey said:
> >  > >I am opposed to any Individual's Constituency which has 
> > anything at all
> >  > >to do with the non-legitimate so-called IDNO.  Please remove all
> >  > >references to this organization.
> >  > >
> >  > 
> >  > The Name is not important for the Resolution of the GA. 
> >  > This is why I speak of an IC.
> > 
> > I cannot support any motion that makes mention of the 
> so-called IDNO.
> 
> Joe, we already know that you, and your elitist buddies, do not want
> individuals to have any say, in any part of the Internet. I 
> bet you and Kent
> still think "blue laws" are also appropriate and human-rights 
> is a figment
> ... Yes, we are [through your repetitive ranting] 
> disgustingly well aware of
> your views.
> --
> 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: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:33:27 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Steam

Good move, Roeland.  Lesson learned, and don't we all, every day.
The consequences of such lapses (absent a recognition of the event
such as your email here) can perhaps best be illustrated by the Joop
- - WXW battle.  Joop indicated that there were (some number) of
adherents to the IDNO who favored formation of a constituency for
individual domain name holders; William referred to (some number) of
people who opposed the IDNO but yet also favored formation of a
constituency for individual domain name holders -- so what's the
chance of these two groups of people getting together here in the
friently confines of this ga and joining in a common effort to form
such a constituency?  Not much, so long as these acerbic exchanges
continue.

I had once expressed a wish to find out what this dreadful "IDNO
history" was, but I have since changed my mind: in the present
context some things are better not known.  Several people have
expressed the wish never to have the subject come up again, and I
must say I agree, except to the extent that that episode ought also to
serve as a lesson learned.  If either of the parties want to indicate
that there was more to their hassle than that, I, for one, don't want
to hear about it.  I don't filter anybody (well, there IS this one guy),
but my delete button works pretty good.

There's always steam to be let off, but I learned in physics that if one
directs steam properly to a confined piston, there will be done actual
work.

Bill Lovell

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Joe, I apologize for the following message, that I sent to you in the public
> forum. It got my pique, but I should have sent it in private. Please chalk
> it up to excessive Reply-All usage.
>
> I also apologize to the list for this error. It is a good example of the
> very behavior I am against myself. This message does not forward the best GA
> list behavior or decorum. There is no defense, I simply apologize. Such
> public behavior is unseemly.
>
> --
> ROELAND M.J. MEYER
> Managing Director
> Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
> TEL: +001 925 373 3954
> FAX: +001 925 373 9781
> http://www.mhsc.com
> mailto: [email-masked]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 4:40 PM
> > To: 'Joe Kelsey'; [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an
> > IDN holders'
> > constituency (IC)
> >
> >
> > > From: Joe Kelsey [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 3:34 PM
> > >
> > > Joop Teernstra writes:
> > >  > On 15:50 7/05/01 -0700, Joe Kelsey said:
> > >  > >I am opposed to any Individual's Constituency which has
> > > anything at all
> > >  > >to do with the non-legitimate so-called IDNO.  Please remove all
> > >  > >references to this organization.
> > >  > >
> > >  >
> > >  > The Name is not important for the Resolution of the GA.
> > >  > This is why I speak of an IC.
> > >
> > > I cannot support any motion that makes mention of the
> > so-called IDNO.
> >
> > Joe, we already know that you, and your elitist buddies, do not want
> > individuals to have any say, in any part of the Internet. I
> > bet you and Kent
> > still think "blue laws" are also appropriate and human-rights
> > is a figment
> > ... Yes, we are [through your repetitive ranting]
> > disgustingly well aware of
> > your views.
> > --
> > 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: Thu, 10 May 2001 14:05:03 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga-ext] Re: [ga] The IC constituency building results so far [was: stuff]

Hello NameCritic,

Thursday, May 10, 2001, 12:48:39 PM, NameCritic wrote:

> Why? I see a lot of people saying it is all for Joop's personal glory. I
> hear you say the IDNO has a terrible history. I hear you say it would be a
> bad choice. Tell me why. I want to know. Obviously a lot of work has gone
> into this. Is there another organization you think would be better? Do you
> think we should form a brand new one from scratch? Again, why if much of the
> work has already been done? Is the reason many want to start a new one due
> to ego? Is it because your names aren't on the list of Founders?

> I'm not a member of the IDNO, but you all want to shoot it down citing vague
> reasons, without ever stating the actual reasons. Educate me.

Chris, the reasons are available to you.  You can easily find them
yourself.

The entire reason I issued the warning I did in that message is
because it also doesn't serve the best interests of getting a domain
holders constituency to rehash that history on a public list at this
point, provided that the entire IDNO issue remains where it belongs,
in the past.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

- --
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, 10 May 2001 14:07:01 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Steam

Hello William,

Thursday, May 10, 2001, 10:33:27 AM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> individual domain name holders; William referred to (some number) of
> people who opposed the IDNO but yet also favored formation of a
> constituency for individual domain name holders -- so what's the
> chance of these two groups of people getting together here in the
> friently confines of this ga and joining in a common effort to form
> such a constituency?  Not much, so long as these acerbic exchanges
> continue.

Provided the IDNO is left in the past where it belongs, there is no
problem.  Under the wording of his second proposal, where he removed
the IDNO references, I thought Joop was doing that.  It is regretful
he saw fit to do otherwise in a later message.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

- --
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, 10 May 2001 17:19:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Froomkin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [icann-eu] RE: [ga] DNSO funding and the NCDNHC

Glad to hear it.  What concrete action plan can you propose to head off
the removal of the NCDNHC since it seems highly unlikely it could meet the
outrageous levy imposed by the NC?  (And it shouldn't have to.)

- -- 
		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.<--

On Tue, 1 May 2001, Cochetti, Roger wrote:

> Milton-
> 
> Your comment about my goals or motives is so far off base as to be almost
> humorous.
> 
> I happen to be a strong supporter of the continued active participation in
> the Names Council and the DNSO of the non-commercial constituency and (in
> previous incarnations when ICANN was being formed) was one of those who
> strongly advocated (and still advocates) a constituency group for the
> non-profit sector.
> 
> Moreover, I happen to be an active participant in and supporter of quite a
> few non-commercial organizations; all of whom I think should be free to
> participate in the work of the DNSO if they choose to do so.  In fact, I
> think I've done as much as anyone to help the non-profit sector take
> advantage of the Internet and participate in the work of ICANN.
> 
> Roger  
> 
> 
> 
> 

- --
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, 10 May 2001 15:55:00 -0700
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders'   constituency (IC)

Roeland,

Thank you for your apology.

I also acted in a fit of pique and I apologize for my own remarks.

I hope we can keep the discussion civil in the future.

/Joe

Roeland Meyer writes:
 > Joe, I apologize for the following message, that I sent to you in the public
 > forum. It got my pique, but I should have sent it in private. Please chalk
 > it up to excessive Reply-All usage.
 > 
 > I also apologize to the list for this error. It is a good example of the
 > very behavior I am against myself. This message does not forward the best GA
 > list behavior or decorum. There is no defense, I simply apologize. Such
 > public behavior is unseemly.
 > 
 > -- 
 > ROELAND M.J. MEYER
 > Managing Director
 > Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
 > TEL: +001 925 373 3954
 > FAX: +001 925 373 9781
 > http://www.mhsc.com
 > mailto: [email-masked]
 > 
 > 
 > > -----Original Message-----
 > > From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
 > > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 4:40 PM
 > > To: 'Joe Kelsey'; [email-masked]
 > > Subject: RE: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an 
 > > IDN holders'
 > > constituency (IC)
 > > 
 > > 
 > > > From: Joe Kelsey [mailto:[email-masked]]
 > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 3:34 PM
 > > > 
 > > > Joop Teernstra writes:
 > > >  > On 15:50 7/05/01 -0700, Joe Kelsey said:
 > > >  > >I am opposed to any Individual's Constituency which has 
 > > > anything at all
 > > >  > >to do with the non-legitimate so-called IDNO.  Please remove all
 > > >  > >references to this organization.
 > > >  > >
 > > >  > 
 > > >  > The Name is not important for the Resolution of the GA. 
 > > >  > This is why I speak of an IC.
 > > > 
 > > > I cannot support any motion that makes mention of the 
 > > so-called IDNO.
 > > 
 > > Joe, we already know that you, and your elitist buddies, do not want
 > > individuals to have any say, in any part of the Internet. I 
 > > bet you and Kent
 > > still think "blue laws" are also appropriate and human-rights 
 > > is a figment
 > > ... Yes, we are [through your repetitive ranting] 
 > > disgustingly well aware of
 > > your views.
 > > --
 > > 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: Thu, 10 May 2001 22:08:25 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed"  ???

I suppose I have to change ISP: they probably try to keep me below 5 posts 
a day .... I though I was the first one to have seconded Joop's motion... 
at least I did it in the minute I received it...
I noted then that I seconded it to have a debate (I did like neither its 
complexity not its use of the IDNO reference) . I note that that motion has 
still not been yet acknowledged by the Chair but that the alt-Chair is 
already conducting a debate on it (at least to move it to one of these 
artifical lists of him).
Jefsey

On 04:55 09/05/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>Hi William
>
>Thank you William.  I agree with you here and suggest that we all tone down
>personal attitudes as these will destroy any opportunity for consensus.
>
>I also note your own personal support of a constituency for individual
>domain name holders.  Joe Kelsey is also with you on this one.  Many others
>are also.  Those that have said so specifically seem to me to include:
>
>In favour:
>Joop Ternstra
>William X. Walsh
>Roeland Meyer
>Joe Kelsey
>Marc Schneiders
>Patrick Corliss
>Leah Gallegos
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>Andrew McMeikan
>Chris McElroy (aka NameCritic)
>Eric Dierker
>Jeff Williams
>
>Opposed:
>nobody
>
>
>Have I missed anybody?  Can I ask for a count before we consider putting it
>to a vote?
>
>Please advise IN FAVOUR or OPPOSED.
>
>Regards
>Patrick Corliss
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
>To: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
>Cc: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:36 AM
>Subject: Re[2]: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders'
>constituency (IC)
>
>
> > Hello Joop,
> >
> > Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 4:21:05 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > If you can't even bear reading the IDNO in the considerans, then perhaps
> > > the motion is better off without your "support".
> >
> > I hope this doesn't mean what I think it means, that you are in it
> > more for the personal glory than for the concept of getting a real
> > individual's constituency created in the DNSO.
> >
> > If you truly want to see an individual's constituency adopted, with
> > as broad support as would be needed to get this controversial issue
> > push forward, then you would well do to set your personal issues
> > aside, and remove the IDNO from any considerations.
> >
> > I'd hate to see the IDNO issue become a subject of debate again,
> > especially at this very important moment.
> >
> > But there are enough people who share the concerns with regard to the
> > IDNO itself that any effort to make the IDNO even a small focus of
> > this movement will meet with solid and loud opposition.
> >
> > Is it really worth it for this little personal glory, Joop?
> >
> > I think deep down you are a bigger person than that.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > William X Walsh
>
>
>--
>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, 11 May 2001 01:40:51 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf

Dear Kent,
I am sure your didn't realize it, but you jut make here the worst
turn made so far to Vint Cerf (I obviously hope that you speak
on behalf of Vint, so he might at least claim he has responded).

I rose two questions:

- - what is so particular about ".biz" that the Internet needs it more
   than ".web", or ".kids", etc... and significant concept that .info
   do not permit to prove.
- - who is going to be responsible for the consequences of the
   technical/political decisions advised by the iCANN to the DoC,
   without a full description of the incurred risks?

These were obviously not questions for a debate. They were
questions for the records. They are now on the record as not
responded or responded through you.

The records show now:

1) Vint did not respond (unless you did awkwardly on his behalf).
     Responding would have been normal, not responding will be
     recorded as surprising: these two questions are pertinent,
     new; of concern to everyone. They will probably be risen again
     and again in the coming months.

     Your response only underlines that Vint did not respond; or
     that you responded on his behalf if he does not contradict
     you (none would belive this exchange went unnoticed from
     him with you being involved).

2) my questions were asked before a decision by the board
     was taken. They were copied to the whole board. You had
     time to comment them. This makes less credible that the
     12 voting "yes" members of the board did not know them.

    You clearly establish in your response that you agree with
    me that there is a serious technical risk. You document
    where that risk is documented by the IEFT. So you fully
    acknowledged that my question is well made, that my
    concerns are pertinent and that the IEFT shares these
    concerns to he extent of having produced an RFC (that
    Dr. Vint Cerf cannot ignore: may be was him a co-writer).

    So the responsibility of the BoD Members is established:
    - they known there was a real risk. First responsibility.
    - they decided not to warn the DoC bout it. Second one.

3) your concern is not the user problem, but the iCANN
     rights. You do not want a technical solution but a
     legal sanction. As if Leah Gallagos was a sacrilege
     rather than a technical/legal/commercial problem.

     You did not even considered the DNS in its current
     versions and try to find a technical solution. You only
     considered supposed ledal rights (that current DNS
     evolutions render obsolete anyway).

     I rose a relevant technical point (you do not contest
     it) but you respond a childish "it is not me, it is she".

     I also note that you do not even think to remember
     the USG exists and you contradict public interests,
     putting the DoC in front of a "fait accompli".

4) your own professional position leads to think that
     the only reason why iCANN chose ".biz" was to use
     NewLevel as a straw (paying) man against the
     Inclusive Roots.

     It is really interesting to see that you are used by
     the iCANN to serve their monopolistic views (or
     duopolistic if Plan B is accepted).

You must realize that the feeling you convey for the
records, the DoC, the DNSO, the GA Member, the
Tauzin Committee, the press and the market is that
there was no other need for the iCANN to delegate
a colliding .biz than to politically use NewLevel and
its money to ascertain its grip on the Internet and
its independence from the DoC.

I am not so sure it is the message that Dr. Vint
Cerf wanted to convey. For the time being this is
the one you put on the records.

On 22:26 08/05/01, Kent Crispin said:

>Jefsey, I'm sure you didn't realize it, but you have made the strongest
>case I have seen so far for my proposal that there should be legal
>sanctions against the connection of alternate root system to the global
>Internet.  And of course, I don't speak for Dr Cerf in this matter.
>But you have posted these comments far and wide, and indicate yourself
>that you expect public response.
>
>Comments below:
>
>On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 07:56:26PM +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > Dear Mr. Chairman,
> >
>[...]
>
> > I have two questions. The first one is strategic to the Internet and the
> > second is technical and legal. Both of them concern the decision of
> > introducing a "bis.biz" TLD colliding with the existing ".biz" TLD.
> >
> > 1. the strategic question is the following.
> >
> > You cannot ignore that the possible support by the iCANN of a second .biz
> > is opposed and is not therefore based upon consensus. This means that the
> > iCANN is here going beyond its Charter which is to manage the Consensus.
> > Some may argue that iCANN opponents are not representative and give 
> fuel to
> > an interesting theory of Consensus by exclusion. Others will respond - and
> > I suppose you are among them - that bylaws give the iCANN the right to act
> > without consensus should the motive or the urgency be good enough.
>
>Both are clearly true.

I thank you Kent to accept that "consensus by exclusion" is also an iCANN 
practice.

> > In all the ".biz" controversy we have heard many con and pros. There is
> > however a pro we never heard until now and that we are eager to hear from
> > you: what is that so important to the Internet about the ".biz" TLD? And
> > what made you vote to take it away from Leah Gallagos?
>
>Nothing is being taken away from her.  She chose to use an alternate
>root system that was very unwisely connected to the global internet, and
>she can continue to do so.  However, her actions were irresponsible in
>that they ignored a very large scale process that has been going on for
>years, and she must take the consequences.

I do not understand anything there. Let keep ot simple. Leah uses a non 
excluding approach of the root conforming with the White paper. She would 
be happy to use the iCANN root if - in total opposition with its bylaws - 
the iCANN did not discriminate against her, competing against most of the 
SME Internet stakeholders.

> > 2. The second question is both technical and legal. I will handle it
> > through a case study.
> >
> >      Background
> >
> > DNS timers, machine failures, mail service overloads, etc. do not 
> permit to
> > know which machine  an e-mail will travel through. The iCANN excludes the
> > augmented roots from its own root. The augmented roots include the whole
> > inclusive name space, i.e. every non colliding TLD including iCANN's TLDs.
> > It is not possible to foresee the root used by every machine on an 
> e-mail path.
> >
> > In case of collision (the same TLD being used on different roots) this
> > means that a mail bound to a given host under one root, may land on 
> another
> > host under another root.
> >
> > This is different from an error or of the hacking of the mail service. 
> Here
> > the mail service works perfectly: the final error is the result of the
> > network misconfiguration which is the TLD collision.
> >
> >      Description of the case (the use of IBM name is just for better
> > understanding)
> >
> > 1) let suppose my name is Ian B. Martinez and I own ibm.biz on existing
> > ".biz" service.
> > 2) let suppose the DoC authorizes the iCANN to proceed with your own 
> ".biz"
> > TLD, named here after "bis.biz" for better understanding.
> >
> >      Questions:
> >
> > 3) I send a mail to [email-masked]. Can you certify that that mail 
> will
> > always reach my own "accounting" mailbox on my own ibm.biz host (and not
> > one under "bis.biz")?
> >
> > 4) the IBM Tax Advisor sends a mail to the IBM, Accounting VP at
> > [email-masked] (i.e. bis.biz). Can you certify that his mail will 
> never
> > reach my own ibm.biz host?
> >
> > 5) can you certify the iCANN and the DoC are not legally responsible for a
> > possible wrong delivery while they decided to create this misconfiguration?
>
>The misconfiguration is in creation of a .biz in an alternate root
>system, and connecting that to the global Internet -- an action which
>exposes one to all kinds of problems, not just the one you outline.

I thank you say that
- - the addition of one .biz to another .biz is a misconfiguraion
- - connecting a new .biz to the global Internet is creating all kind of problems
- - I only documented a few of them (the BoD has not even warned the DoC)

> > 6) I assume that I am the legitimate owner of the data I receive in my
> > mailbox and I may freely disclose it to the press (BTW could be sent to me
> > on purpose). Can you certify that the iCANN and the DoC will not be held
> > responsible for the harm which might result to IBM?
>
>actually, the entity that needs to worry about being held responsible
>is the party who created an alternate TLD and advertised it.

IMHO, the ones who need to worry are those who are advising the USG to run 
into all these problems and do not document them, not even warning about them.

> > 7) if a mail of mine was received by another party and disclosed due to 
> the
> > collision iCANN would have advised to the DoC, who would you advise me to
> > sue?
>
>The operator of the .biz that is operating in an alternate root.  Such
>operation is in direct contradiction to the best technical advice
>available (RFC 2826), and it is clearly irresponsible to operate in
>contradiction to such authoritative advice.  I am not a lawyer, but in a
>US court, at least, willfully ignoring such important and widely known
>information would be extremely damaging -- worse than mere negligence.

You are obviously not a lawyer. The question is not to know who is right.

The question is under the circumstances what are the reasons for taking 
such a risk and who is taking responsibility not to document that risk to 
the USG.

>If I were Ms Gellagos, I would be thinking very hard about this.

Mrs. Gallagos and many others are not understanding why the BoD hides the 
involved risks for the Network stability and attempts a "fait accompli" 
policy at the DoC and GAC Members. Do they really believe they already 
govern the world?

This really looks like if Dr. Vint Cerf wanted to tell the world that the 
registrants of .biz will serve as a living shield for the iCANN policy. 
Interesting: e-Machiavell.

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 22:58:20 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Funding

As underlined in a mail to Peter de Blanc comenting one
of his positions, this approach of the ICANN and of the
DNSO funding is purely based upon the US tax culture
and is actually and definitly hurting to most of the people
not belonging to that culture.

As far as I understand the US tax culture considers
that non-profit actions are sponsored in proportion to
the good they bring to the society and therfore evaluates
the seriousness of an action by the amount of money
it may collect from sponsors. It has therefore no problem
in having them paying regular rates. This is a "Charity
business" conception.

The rest of the word evaluates the seriousness of a
non-profit organization by its targets and achievements
(in most of the cases without money). And from this
decides if it should be helped. "Charity is not a business".

As Chair for Charity and Cultural non profit associations,
as active against the International Digital Divide but also
as a business owner, a shareholder, a Member of several
business BoDs, Therefore - I hope :-) - a reasonably stable,
measured and seasoned business and human person, but
of no US tax culture - I really think in the deep of my heart
that an organization leading to such a post is absolutely
no worth existing and is totaly out of the economic,
relational, human, international reality.

I weight my words, here. I am really ashamed of this.

I know that my US friends will not fully understand my
position. But I submit this is one of the reason why the
iCANN was nicknamed the "US Joke": they make the
poors paying them and find it "OK".

1) As a temporary fix, I propose that only US tax
    exempt non-profit organizations are taxed by the
    DNSO.

2) I propose that the DNSO is incorporated as a
     European non-profit association sponsored by
     the iCANN at a level of 5 cents on every DNs.

     May be when they pay it they will pay attention
     to it.

3) a nice gesture by some ccTLDs  would be to pay
     the NonCom fee deducting it from their "donation"
     to the iCANN.

Jefsey

On 04:07 10/05/01, babybows.com said:
>This message regarding funding has just been circulated to the NCDDHC
>membership.  This funding issue affects all of us.  Proposed solutions or
>resolutions might be in order.  Thoughts?
>
>
>Dear NCDNHC members:
>
>The Fundraising Committee of the NCDNHC is soliciting voluntary membership
>contributions. The DNSO Names Council has decided that every constituency
>must pay an equal share of the DNSO's operating costs.* We need to raise
>$29,500 by December 2001 to keep our voting rights in the DNSO Names
>Council.
>
>We expect to discuss contributions and their relationship to membership at
>the Stockholm ICANN meeting. For the time being, however, we are suggesting
>the following minimum contribution levels:
>
>Large organizations: $300  Small organizations: $50
>
>These are the suggested levels. We will accept contributions larger or
>smaller than the suggested amount. Some large organizations are pledging
>several thousand dollars. Many small organizations have paid $100 in the
>past.
>
>If you are concerned about bank fees or currency exchange fees, and you plan
>to attend the constituency meeting in Stockholm, please consider making your
>contribution in cash at the meeting. We will be issuing receipts. Also,
>ICANN is implementing a capability for credit card payment. That may be
>ready by Stockholm, or shortly after.
>
>You can "pledge" a specific contribution by email. Address your pledges to
>[email-masked]. Put the following text in the subject:
>
>Voluntary Contribution
>
>And in the body of the message please include:
>
>Name of Contributor:
>Mailing Address (to send invoice):
>E-mail address of responsible party (to be contacted later for details):
>Amount of the contribution in US$:
>
>*The operating costs of the DNSO includes:
>Hosting of Internet Services by AFNIC (including web and mailing lists for
>General Assembly and Names Council); Secretariat of Names Council and
>General Assembly (including all support for Internet Services, and
>organizational tasks at all Names Council and General Assembly physical
>meetings and Names Council teleconference), perfomed by AFNIC, Webcasting of
>General Assembly and Names Council meeting performed by Harvard Berkman
>Center.
>
>Regards,
>NCDNHC Fundraising Committee (Adam Peake, Nilda Vany Martinez, Milton
>Mueller, Dany Vandromme)
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>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: Thu, 10 May 2001 20:15:52 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Austerity measures

Please be advised that in yesterday's NC teleconference, concerns over
funding and man-hours spent by the DNSO Secretariat in list management
resulted in the NC recommendation to close the GA-full list.

- --
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, 10 May 2001 20:39:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Froomkin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

this is a joke, right?  how much time does it take to run a mailing list?

- -- 
		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.<--

On Thu, 10 May 2001, babybows.com wrote:

> Please be advised that in yesterday's NC teleconference, concerns over
> funding and man-hours spent by the DNSO Secretariat in list management
> resulted in the NC recommendation to close the GA-full list.
> 
> --
> 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: Thu, 10 May 2001 18:11:08 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Austerity measures

I share the incredulity... the answer is ... not much. Especially
considering that the ga-full is not moderated. It was the compromise that
enabled moderation on the GA list. I'm not sure that I would buy an argument
that they forgot about that puny detail. Maybe, they thought that we did?

This is getting better all the time...

> From: Michael Froomkin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 5:39 PM
> 
> this is a joke, right?  how much time does it take to run a 
> mailing list?
>
> On Thu, 10 May 2001, babybows.com wrote:
> 
> > Please be advised that in yesterday's NC teleconference, 
> concerns over
> > funding and man-hours spent by the DNSO Secretariat in list 
> management
> > resulted in the NC recommendation to close the GA-full list.

- --
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 #447
************************