Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #466
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 16 2001           Volume 01 : Number 466

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:29:32 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Intense individual constituency activity

- --------------4DF4CCCC2FD47D98179D7735
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 18:16 15/05/01 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> >Take a look at http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm.
> >Last updated June 1999.
> >
>
> Bill, it is only thanks to great persistence on our part that we appear on
> the ICANN website at all.

Joop: On that issue, truer words were never spoken.

> Your subject line is misleading and a tad unfair.

If anyone took my sarcastic heading to suggest that your efforts were not
persistent, that would have been a misleading.  Although your material
appears there, the management of that page and what is going on is not
your doing -- it is a DNSO thing that was last updated in June, 1999.
If my wording were ambiguous enough to suggest you were in any way
lax, I certainly apologize and will re-express, in plain English (!), what I
intended to say (or ask): "How come nothing seems to have happened
on the "Additional Constituency Proposals" since June, 1999?"

("That page" being http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm.)

Bill Lovell

- --------------4DF4CCCC2FD47D98179D7735
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<br>Joop Teernstra wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>At 18:16 15/05/01 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
<br>>Take a look at <a href="http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm">http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm</a>.
<br>>Last updated June 1999.
<br>>
<p>Bill, it is only thanks to great persistence on our part that we appear
on
<br>the ICANN website at all.</blockquote>
Joop: On that issue, truer words were never spoken.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Your subject line is misleading and a tad unfair.</blockquote>
If anyone took my sarcastic heading to suggest that <i>your</i> efforts
were not
<br>persistent, that would have been a misleading.&nbsp; Although your
material
<br>appears there, the management of that page and what is going on is
not
<br>your doing -- it is a DNSO thing that was last updated in June, 1999.
<br>If my wording were ambiguous enough to suggest you were in any way
<br>lax, I certainly apologize and will re-express, in plain English (!),
what I
<br>intended to say (or ask): "How come nothing seems to have happened
<br>on the "Additional Constituency Proposals" since June, 1999?"
<p>("That page" being <A HREF="http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm">http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm</A>.)
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------4DF4CCCC2FD47D98179D7735--

- --
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, 16 May 2001 12:09:28 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN

This is from the ICANN homepage:

"The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a
technical coordination body for the Internet. Created in October 1998 by
a broad coalition of the Internet's business, technical, academic, and
user communities, ICANN is assuming responsibility for a set of
technical functions previously performed under U.S. government contract
by IANA and other groups."

I'm curious... which "user communities" specifically were part of the
"broad coalition" that created ICANN?

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, 16 May 2001 12:11:50 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Evidence

William et al.,

It would probably be a good idea to keep the "evidence" offlist and
private.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> Anyone who is aware of official ICANN documents
> that demonstrate an alleged failure of ICANN to act
> for the "public benefit," as it seems California law
> requires, is welcome to send me relevant URLs, etc.
> Nothing of the "now I think," "I'm against," "I'm for,"
> etc. variety, but rather actual evidence of what has
> been done, and any explanations from on up in the
> ICANN hierarchy as to why this or that was or was
> not and/or will not be done.
>
> Bill Lovell

- --
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, 16 May 2001 09:27:42 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Intense individual constituency activity

- --------------10FCFA68298E0583219BFC9C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I would agree with everything Eric says, and putting this up was a very
good piece
of work. For possible use at Stockholm, what I would be doing (in my
current state
of just working my way into this whole thing) if I were going, since we
seem to have
a Resolution from the Board regarding an Individuals Constituency, and
evidently some
action (i.e., form a Working Group) expected out of the Names Council, I
would
search the archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html, under the NC,
and maybe
there we'll find out what's going on.  (I'll be doing that search
myself, but I also have
to make a living with this computer thingee here in front of me!) I hope
to find stuff,
but if nothing is there, the above link reference will go into my
EVIDENCE folder.

(My thanks to the Secretariat for re-directing me to that site -- I'd
had it once but
lost it.  But a dumb question: why is the NC mailing list not public?
How does that
square with the Bylaws "open as possible" -- or words to that effect?)

(Um, "black ops" are not fictional.)

Eric, your best line is this one: "Whether your ultimate goal was
reached or not the
wonderful side effect has been to keep indviduals involved and
passionate" -- Joop's
work certainly helped me get going!

Bill Lovell

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Joop,
>
> You and I will never agree on many issues but that is the nature of
> us.
> But, no one can ever doubt your hard work and comittment to the
> cause.  Of all of the people that have kept ICANN from going
> completely into black ops it is you. (black ops are "fictional"
> operations of a clandestine nature that are not recorded or paid for
> officially). Wether your ultimate goal was reached or not the
> wonderful side effect has been to keep indviduals involved and
> passionate.
>
> Now with that platitude aside and with all your wisdom would you
> please lay out the steps "I" would need to do at the Open board
> meeting, in Stockholm, to present a document and an argument to have
> this constituency NOW. As I think I have already confessed I amoung
> others would make lousy Chairs but we can fight for and "die" for a
> good cause.  Some of us may even be trained a little in the arts of
> persuasion.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
>
>>
>> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>
>> > At 18:16 15/05/01 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>> > >Take a look at http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm.
>> > >Last updated June 1999.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Bill, it is only thanks to great persistence on our part that we
>> > appear on
>> > the ICANN website at all.
>>
>> Joop: On that issue, truer words were never spoken.
>>
>> > Your subject line is misleading and a tad unfair.
>>
>> If anyone took my sarcastic heading to suggest that your efforts
>> were not
>> persistent, that would have been a misleading.  Although your
>> material
>> appears there, the management of that page and what is going on is
>> not
>> your doing -- it is a DNSO thing that was last updated in June,
>> 1999.
>> If my wording were ambiguous enough to suggest you were in any way
>> lax, I certainly apologize and will re-express, in plain English
>> (!), what I
>> intended to say (or ask): "How come nothing seems to have happened
>> on the "Additional Constituency Proposals" since June, 1999?"
>>
>> ("That page" being http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm.)
>>
>> Bill Lovell
>>
>>
>

- --------------10FCFA68298E0583219BFC9C
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I would agree with everything Eric says, and putting this up was a very
good piece
<br>of work. For possible use at Stockholm, what I would be doing (in my
current state
<br>of just working my way into this whole thing) if I were going, since
we seem to have
<br>a Resolution from the Board regarding an Individuals Constituency,
and evidently some
<br>action (i.e., form a Working Group) expected out of the Names Council,
I would
<br>search the archives at <A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</A>, under the
NC, and maybe
<br><i>there</i> we'll find out what's going on.&nbsp; (I'll be doing that
search myself, but I also have
<br>to make a living with this computer thingee here in front of me!) I
hope to find stuff,
<br>but if nothing is there, the above link reference will go into my EVIDENCE
folder.
<p>(My thanks to the Secretariat for re-directing me to that site -- I'd
had it once but
<br>lost it.&nbsp; But a dumb question: why is the NC mailing list not
public?&nbsp; How does that
<br>square with the Bylaws "open as possible" -- or words to that effect?)
<p>(Um, "black ops" are not fictional.)
<p>Eric, your best line is this one: "Whether your ultimate goal was reached
or not the
<br>wonderful side effect has been to keep indviduals involved and passionate"
- -- Joop's
<br>work certainly helped <i>me</i> get going!
<p>Bill Lovell
<p>Eric Dierker wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Joop,
<p>You and I will never agree on many issues but that is the nature of
us.
<br>But, no one can ever doubt your hard work and comittment to the cause.&nbsp;
Of all of the people that have kept ICANN from going completely into black
ops it is you. (black ops are "fictional" operations of a clandestine nature
that are not recorded or paid for officially). Wether your ultimate goal
was reached or not the wonderful side effect has been to keep indviduals
involved and passionate.
<p>Now with that platitude aside and with all your wisdom would you please
lay out the steps "I" would need to do at the Open board meeting, in Stockholm,
to present a document and an argument to have this constituency NOW. As
I think I have already confessed I amoung others would make lousy Chairs
but we can fight for and "die" for a good cause.&nbsp; Some of us may even
be trained a little in the arts of persuasion.
<p>Sincerely,
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<p>"William S. Lovell" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>Joop Teernstra wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>At 18:16 15/05/01 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
<br>>Take a look at <a href="http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm">http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm</a>.
<br>>Last updated June 1999.
<br>>
<p>Bill, it is only thanks to great persistence on our part that we appear
on
<br>the ICANN website at all.</blockquote>
Joop: On that issue, truer words were never spoken.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Your subject line is misleading and a tad unfair.</blockquote>
If anyone took my sarcastic heading to suggest that <i>your</i> efforts
were not
<br>persistent, that would have been a misleading.&nbsp; Although your
material
<br>appears there, the management of that page and what is going on is
not
<br>your doing -- it is a DNSO thing that was last updated in June, 1999.
<br>If my wording were ambiguous enough to suggest you were in any way
<br>lax, I certainly apologize and will re-express, in plain English (!),
what I
<br>intended to say (or ask): "How come nothing seems to have happened
<br>on the "Additional Constituency Proposals" since June, 1999?"
<p>("That page" being <a href="http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm">http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm</a>.)
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</html>

- --------------10FCFA68298E0583219BFC9C--

- --
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, 16 May 2001 09:30:52 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Intense individual constituency activity

Bill,

It's a work thing. News items and changing web-sites are a PITA to maintain.
Especially if one insists on editing it with a tool (Adobe PageMill) more
designed for integrated page layout then content production. As you add
content atoms, over time, the content management becomes more and more
unwieldy for a single individual. The problem with the tools being used is
that they don't allow collaborative effort. It is also a problem that news
is dispersed over the entire site, in drips and drabs. Not only does it make
it difficult to find things, but maintenance is also an issue.

There exist systems wherein content atoms are tracked and managed, aging
reports are available and stale content is flagged for attention. These
systems are not cheap (www.knowledgetrack.com).

- -----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 8:30 AM
To: Joop Teernstra
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Intense individual constituency activity

  
Joop Teernstra wrote: 
At 18:16 15/05/01 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote: 
>Take a look at http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm. 
>Last updated June 1999. 
> 
Bill, it is only thanks to great persistence on our part that we appear on 
the ICANN website at all.
Joop: On that issue, truer words were never spoken. 
Your subject line is misleading and a tad unfair.
If anyone took my sarcastic heading to suggest that your efforts were not 
persistent, that would have been a misleading.  Although your material 
appears there, the management of that page and what is going on is not 
your doing -- it is a DNSO thing that was last updated in June, 1999. 
If my wording were ambiguous enough to suggest you were in any way 
lax, I certainly apologize and will re-express, in plain English (!), what I

intended to say (or ask): "How come nothing seems to have happened 
on the "Additional Constituency Proposals" since June, 1999?" 
("That page" being http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm.) 
Bill Lovell 

- --
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, 16 May 2001 09:31:33 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN

You just now noticed this?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 9:09 AM
> To: ga
> Subject: [ga] ICANN
> 
> 
> This is from the ICANN homepage:
> 
> "The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a
> technical coordination body for the Internet. Created in 
> October 1998 by
> a broad coalition of the Internet's business, technical, academic, and
> user communities, ICANN is assuming responsibility for a set of
> technical functions previously performed under U.S. 
> government contract
> by IANA and other groups."
> 
> I'm curious... which "user communities" specifically were part of the
> "broad coalition" that created ICANN?
> 
> 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
> 
- --
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, 16 May 2001 09:43:10 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

- --------------AAF22446CCAA8C34B32DA4B4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Well, let's hope so.  To begin with, paper work "separation" between
registry and registrar
functions has always been a gross fiction -- it never works and should
never have been
contemplated. What do you think happens when the registry type says to
the registrar type,
"Let's do lunch?" I never deal directly with NSI (Verisign) in
registering a domain name,
but only when the necessary paper work trickles out of my registration
application to some
other registrar.

Even so, I guess that makes me a "customer" of Verisign and gives them a
crack in the law
that allows them to send me their SPAM. That's one reason why there's an
incompatibility
between registry and registrar functions -- registries should twiddle
bits, and that's all --
a registry should be hawking nothing. (For our nonUSA people to whom the
slang term
"hawking" is not familiar, it just means aggressive marketing and that
sort of thing.)

(Once our current more important issues get resolved, SPAM, privacy,
security, etc., will
be my next projects.)

(The concession in par. 2 below solves nothing as to the problem in par.
1.)

Bill Lovell

Bruce James wrote:

> ""The major sticking point arose from a letter that the Justice
> Department sent to the Department of Commerce warning that the deal
> would harm competition in the nascent business of registering Internet
> names, people familiar with the negotiations said. The letter opposed
> the so-called vertical integration of VeriSign's managing of the
> ".com" database and registering new names in the database, sources
> said.""
>
> ""Commerce officials were said to be asking for more concessions from
> VeriSign, such as giving up control of the ".net" domain sooner than
> 2005.""
>
>
>
> /Bruce
>
>      ----- Original Message -----
>      From: Bruce James
>      To: GA
>      Sent: May 16, 2001 07:46
>      Subject: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal
>       VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal
>      By Aaron Pressman
>      May 15 2001 04:57 PM PDT
>
>      The Commerce Department's review of the agreement that
>      extends the computer security firm's control of the '.com'
>      domain has the company thinking twice, sources say.
>
>      MORE at:
>
>      http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,24500,00.html
>
>
>
>      /Bruce
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

- --------------AAF22446CCAA8C34B32DA4B4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Well, let's hope so.&nbsp; To begin with, paper work "separation" between
registry and registrar
<br>functions has always been a gross fiction -- it never works and should
never have been
<br>contemplated. What do you think happens when the registry type says
to the registrar type,
<br>"Let's do lunch?" I never deal directly with NSI (Verisign) in registering
a domain name,
<br>but only when the necessary paper work trickles out of my registration
application to some
<br>other registrar.
<p>Even so, I guess that makes me a "customer" of Verisign and gives them
a crack in the law
<br>that allows them to send me their SPAM. That's one reason why there's
an incompatibility
<br>between registry and registrar functions -- registries should twiddle
bits, and that's all --
<br>a registry should be hawking <i>nothing</i>. (For our nonUSA people
to whom the slang term
<br>"hawking" is not familiar, it just means aggressive marketing and that
sort of thing.)
<p>(Once our current more important issues get resolved, SPAM, privacy,
security, etc., will
<br>be my next projects.)
<p>(The concession in par. 2 below solves nothing as to the problem in
par. 1.)
<p>Bill Lovell
<p>Bruce James wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><style></style>
<b><font size=-1>""The major sticking
point arose from a letter that the Justice Department sent to the Department
of Commerce warning that the deal would harm competition in the nascent
business of registering Internet names, people familiar with the negotiations
said. The letter opposed the so-called vertical integration of VeriSign's
managing of the ".com" database and registering new names in the database,
sources said.""</font></b>
<p><b><font size=-1>""Commerce officials were said to be asking for more
concessions from VeriSign, such as giving up control of the ".net" domain
sooner than 2005.""</font></b>
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<p><b><font size=-1>/Bruce</font></b>
<blockquote dir=ltr 
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----</div>

<div 
  style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:[email-masked]" title="[email-masked]">Bruce James</a></div>

<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:[email-masked]" title="[email-masked]">GA</a></div>

<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> May 16, 2001 07:46</div>

<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain
Deal</div>
&nbsp;<span class=ph><b><font size=+2>VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal</font></b></span>
<br><span class=byline><b><i><font size=-1>By Aaron Pressman</font></i></b></span>
<br><span class=time><b><font color="#666666"><font size=-1>May 15 2001
04:57 PM PDT</font></font></b></span>
<p><span class=bbt2><b><font size=-1>The Commerce Department's review of
the agreement that extends the computer security firm's control of the
'.com' domain has the company thinking twice, sources say.</font></b></span>
<p><b><font size=-1>MORE at:</font></b>
<p><b><font size=-1><a href="http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,24500,00.html">http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,24500,00.html</a></font></b>
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<p><b><font size=-1>/Bruce</font></b>
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
</blockquote>

</body>
</html>

- --------------AAF22446CCAA8C34B32DA4B4--

- --
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, 17 May 2001 02:45:40 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Names Council Members

Hi Bill

> why is the NC mailing list not public?
> How does that
> square with the Bylaws "open as possible" -- or words to that effect?)

http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: William S. Lovell <[email-masked]>
To: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Cc: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 2:27 AM (AEST)
Subject: Re: [ga] Intense individual constituency activity

> I would agree with everything Eric says, and putting this up was a very
> good piece
> of work. For possible use at Stockholm, what I would be doing (in my
> current state
> of just working my way into this whole thing) if I were going, since we
> seem to have
> a Resolution from the Board regarding an Individuals Constituency, and
> evidently some
> action (i.e., form a Working Group) expected out of the Names Council, I
> would
> search the archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html, under the NC,
> and maybe
> there we'll find out what's going on.  (I'll be doing that search
> myself, but I also have
> to make a living with this computer thingee here in front of me!) I hope
> to find stuff,
> but if nothing is there, the above link reference will go into my
> EVIDENCE folder.
> 
> (My thanks to the Secretariat for re-directing me to that site -- I'd
> had it once but
> lost it.  But a dumb question: why is the NC mailing list not public?
> How does that
> square with the Bylaws "open as possible" -- or words to that effect?)
> 
> (Um, "black ops" are not fictional.)
> 
> Eric, your best line is this one: "Whether your ultimate goal was
> reached or not the
> wonderful side effect has been to keep indviduals involved and
> passionate" -- Joop's
> work certainly helped me get going!
> 
> Bill Lovell

- --
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, 16 May 2001 15:20:09 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

William S. Lovell wrote:

<<That's one reason why there's an incompatibility 
between registry and registrar functions -- registries should twiddle bits, and that's all -- 
a registry should be hawking nothing. (For our nonUSA people to whom the slang term 
"hawking" is not familiar, it just means aggressive marketing and that sort of thing.)>>

Fine.  But the first round TLD expansion process saw Icann place the burden of marketing and market penetration upon the Registry and they were not bashful about $ expectations.  At the same time, Icann also artificially restrained Registry unit pricing.  Something has to give here or Icann refrain from artificial practices in their decision-making process.

Ray Fassett

- --
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, 17 May 2001 07:26:16 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

On Mon, 14 May 2001 18:04:56 +0000 (UTC), you wrote:

>Hi Michael:
>
>I am agree with you.  I cannot believe the figures shown by Elizabeth.
>I also administrate Linux server with several services including mailing
>lists and to me only takes 5 minutes to one mailing list and maybe two
>hours per week for maintenance but not two hourse per day.  It is
>exagerate.

I can only agree with this.  I administer almost 100 mailing lists
with the largest having over 10,000 subscribers on it.

Each list setup is maybe 15 minutes, never more than 30 minutes and
four hours per list is unimaginable.

Maintenance can vary depending on size of lists and whether one has to
approve manually subscriptions but 10 hours a week for six lists is
again far too high.  

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, 17 May 2001 07:29:08 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

On Tue, 15 May 2001 17:03:52 +0200, you wrote:

>If it is not the will of the ga to reduce administrative time/costs by
>removal of the most under-utilised list, is it possible to consider any
>other of the ga's 9 lists ?
>Philip

As a compromise I would be happy to administer the lists for free.  It
should be fairly simple to give me a password which would give me
access to the GA lists but not the NC and other lists.

DPF
(Interim unofficial unpaid volunteer proposed GA secretariat)
- --
[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: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:12:11 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] STATEMENT OF THE DNSO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0DE12.32E6AD90
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

STATEMENT OF THE DNSO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY
On Approval of the ICANN-Neulevel Registry Agreement re .BIZ

        http://ipc.songbird.com/dot_biz_statement.html

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0DE12.32E6AD90
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><STRONG>STATEMENT OF THE DNSO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY =
CONSTITUENCY<BR>On=20
Approval of the ICANN-Neulevel Registry Agreement re .BIZ</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <A=20
href=3D"http://ipc.songbird.com/dot_biz_statement.html">http://ipc.songbi=
rd.com/dot_biz_statement.html</A></FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>/Bruce</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0DE12.32E6AD90--

- --
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, 16 May 2001 13:11:27 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Austerity measures

Careful David, someone might take you up on that. In fact, I second this
idea.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 12:29 PM
> To: Philip Sheppard
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures
> 
> 
> On Tue, 15 May 2001 17:03:52 +0200, you wrote:
> 
> >If it is not the will of the ga to reduce administrative 
> time/costs by
> >removal of the most under-utilised list, is it possible to 
> consider any
> >other of the ga's 9 lists ?
> >Philip
> 
> As a compromise I would be happy to administer the lists for free.  It
> should be fairly simple to give me a password which would give me
> access to the GA lists but not the NC and other lists.
> 
> DPF
> (Interim unofficial unpaid volunteer proposed GA secretariat)
> --
> [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: Wed, 16 May 2001 22:35:58 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alternate Root Memo sent to Names Council

- --=====================_33494464==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear Jeff,
this document of yours is not without interest. It mainly shows
how weak is your position and how tough it will be for you to
play your part in the iCANN manipulation of yours you have
provoqued?

1) you first play only on the word authoritative in a totally wrong
     way as the authoritative is the one who tells the IP address.

     But let assume this new meaning, it is quite dangerous as I
     will respond "the authoritative root for *my* machine is he
     one *I* chose".

     Otherwise I will sue you and the iCANN for hacking. i.e.
     imposing data in my machine that I do not want. In a
     very similar way to a cookie.

     BTW this word is poor for you: if the root is authoritative
     it is on other roots. These other roots are therefore known
     accepted and cared about. They belong to the DNS system

2) then you say you don't take away the ".biz" business of
     ARNI. This might be true should you be able to produce
     two evidences;

     -  that you give your head to cut that the DNS will never
        be modified in the centuries to come.
     -  that you give your head to cut that the real network as
        it is built by thousands of ISPs will *never* permit that,
        all its components working well, a mail sent to a
        host under your bis.biz will *never* reach a host under
        the same domain name under .biz. (and you put that
        as a notice on your site).

     I asked Vint why he decided not to warn the DoC about
     that risk. He chose not to reply. I think this is your best
     protection when collision problem will arise. Tell that Vint
     said there will never be. And quote your today letter as a
     testimony you believed in his word today.

3) You come through the lengthy iCANN process to chose
     you. You forget that this process was to be a "proof of
     concept" and that your proposition - cf. other iCANN docs,
     multiple authorized comments and lack of claim in your
     own documents - has no new concept, except one.

     This is that you chose to apply for an existing TLD
     in real operation (actually one of the most active). You
     though that iCANN could be interested in using you against
     the alternative roots. And the iCANN took it. Bravo!

     But how long. You are going to invest on disputed grounds.
     You are just a market test for the iCANN and a tool. You
     probably foresaw that in your business plan, hiring more
     lawyers than techies. You also want to fight the DNSO/IPC
     people (good luck). This will make the head lines. Good
     advertizing you think. Fighting on several fronts together,
     so you may hide your loss on one behind a victory on
     another. May be a good plan, but please do not speak
     about stability :-)

4) Another weakness of your document is that you base
     most of your argumentation on the iCANN. Authoritative
     root (I love that new word to define the root authoritative
     on my PC !). Authoritative in choosing new TLDs: poor
     iCANN which will not be able to pick .usa if they wish?

     -  dangerous as you do not know what will be the iCANN
        one year from now.
     -  you will provide no defense to iCANN against non
        iCANN yet legacy TLDs (I suggest you read RFCs
        carefully). Louis Touton will be sorry for that....
     -  how will you relate with Chinese people?

5) There is nowever a very interesting development for
     which we should all thank you. This is the very good
     compendium on the fact that a TLD cannot be protected.
     Very good indeed.

     If I read you correctly: .web could not pretend that
     another .web had no right to use .web. Because the
     Judge said: "who gave you the right you claim?"

     All you document says: "I have that right because the
     iCANN gave it to me (or the DoC)!" Great. But who
     gave the right to them first?

     Since no right can be established on a TLD.... Since
     you demonstrate it.

6) you have a set of minor points of lesser interest:
     you make a salad mix of them. Some might be
     of interest to discuss for fun. Endless disputes..

Frankly two three years from now, I am afraid this
piece of hard work will be used as an example of the
2001 iCANN philosophy oddities.

Why not just to make a deal with Leah ("the first biz
in .biz"). You would then be quoted as the cute one
who tricked the iCANN. You lend he trap, they took
the bait, and you got the day. You would be the first
alternative/legacy TLD. (BTW this may be what you
call authoritative.... ! :-) )

Cheers.

Jefsey

On 15:02 15/05/01, Neuman, Jeff said:
>All,
>
>Enclosed is a memorandum that we sent to the Names Council on the issue of
>Alternate Roots, specifically with regards to the Atlantic Root.
>
>Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
>  <<Alternate Roots[1].doc>>
>
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> > Director, Policy and Intellectual Property
> > NeuLevel, Inc.
> > p: (202) 533-2733
> > f: (202) 533-2970
> > e-mail: [email-masked]
> >

- --=====================_33494464==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Dear Jeff,<br>
this document of yours is not without interest. It mainly shows<br>
how weak is your position and how tough it will be for you to <br>
play your part in the iCANN manipulation of yours you have<br>
provoqued?<br>
<br>
1) you first play only on the word authoritative in a totally wrong<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; way as the authoritative is the one who tells the IP
address.<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; But let assume this new meaning, it is quite dangerous
as I<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; will respond &quot;the authoritative root for *my*
machine is he <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; one *I* chose&quot;.<br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Otherwise I will sue you and the iCANN for hacking.
i.e. <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; imposing data in my machine that I do not want. In a
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; very similar way to a cookie. <br>
<br>
<i>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; BTW this word is poor for you: if the root is
authoritative <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; it is on other roots. These other roots are therefore
known<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; accepted and cared about. They belong to the DNS
system<br>
<br>
</i>2) then you say you don't take away the &quot;.biz&quot; business
of<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ARNI. This might be true should you be able to
produce<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; two evidences;<br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -&nbsp; that you give your head to cut that the DNS
will never<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; be modified in the centuries to
come. <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -&nbsp; that you give your head to cut that the real
network as<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; it is built by thousands of ISPs
will *never* permit that,<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; all its components working well, a
mail sent to a<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; host under your bis.biz will *never*
reach a host under <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the same domain name under .biz.
(and you put that <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; as a notice on your site).<br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I asked Vint why he decided not to warn the DoC about
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that risk. He chose not to reply. I think this is your
best<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; protection when collision problem will arise. Tell
that Vint<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; said there will never be. And quote your today letter
as a<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; testimony you believed in his word today.<br>
<br>
3) You come through the lengthy iCANN process to chose<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; you. You forget that this process was to be a
&quot;proof of<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; concept&quot; and that your proposition - cf. other
iCANN docs,<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; multiple authorized comments and lack of claim in
your<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; own documents - has no new concept, except one.<br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This is that you chose to apply for an existing
TLD<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; in real operation (actually one of the most active).
You<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; though that iCANN could be interested in using you
against<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the alternative roots. And the iCANN took it.
Bravo!<br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; But how long. You are going to invest on disputed
grounds.<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; You are just a market test for the iCANN and a tool.
You <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; probably foresaw that in your business plan, hiring
more <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; lawyers than techies. You also want to fight the
DNSO/IPC <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; people (good luck). This will make the head lines.
Good<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; advertizing you think. Fighting on several fronts
together,<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; so you may hide your loss on one behind a victory on
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; another. May be a good plan, but please do not speak
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; about stability :-)<br>
<br>
4) Another weakness of your document is that you base <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; most of your argumentation on the iCANN.
Authoritative<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; root (I love that new word to define the root
authoritative<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; on my PC !). Authoritative in choosing new TLDs:
poor<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; iCANN which will not be able to pick .usa if they
wish?<br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -&nbsp; dangerous as you do not know what will be the
iCANN<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; one year from now.<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -&nbsp; you will provide no defense to iCANN against
non <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; iCANN yet legacy TLDs (I suggest you
read RFCs <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; carefully). Louis Touton will be
sorry for that....<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -&nbsp; how will you relate with Chinese people? 
<br>
<br>
5) There is nowever a very interesting development for<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; which we should all thank you. This is the very
good<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; compendium on the fact that a TLD cannot be protected.
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Very good indeed.<br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If I read you correctly: .web could not pretend that
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; another .web had no right to use .web. Because the
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Judge said: &quot;who gave you the right you
claim?&quot; <br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; All you document says: &quot;I have that right because
the<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; iCANN gave it to me (or the DoC)!&quot; Great. But who
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; gave the right to them first?&nbsp; <br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Since no right can be established on a TLD.... Since
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; you demonstrate it. <br>
<br>
<br>
6) you have a set of minor points of lesser interest:<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; you make a salad mix of them. Some might be <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of interest to discuss for fun. Endless
disputes..<br>
<br>
Frankly two three years from now, I am afraid this<br>
piece of hard work will be used as an example of the<br>
2001 iCANN philosophy oddities. <br>
<br>
Why not just to make a deal with Leah (&quot;the first biz <br>
in .biz&quot;). You would then be quoted as the cute one <br>
who tricked the iCANN. You lend he trap, they took <br>
the bait, and you got the day. You would be the first <br>
alternative/legacy TLD. (BTW this may be what you <br>
call authoritative.... ! :-) ) <br>
<br>
Cheers.<br>
<br>
Jefsey<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 15:02 15/05/01, Neuman, Jeff said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>All,<br>
<br>
Enclosed is a memorandum that we sent to the Names Council on the issue
of<br>
Alternate Roots, specifically with regards to the Atlantic Root.<br>
<br>
Please let me know if you have any questions.<br>
<br>
&nbsp;&lt;&lt;Alternate Roots[1].doc&gt;&gt; <br>
<br>
&gt; Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.<br>
&gt; Director, Policy and Intellectual Property<br>
&gt; NeuLevel, Inc.<br>
&gt; p: (202) 533-2733<br>
&gt; f: (202) 533-2970<br>
&gt; e-mail: [email-masked]<br>
&gt; </blockquote></html>

- --=====================_33494464==_.ALT--

- --
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 #466
************************