Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #485
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Thursday, May 24 2001            Volume 01 : Number 485

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

Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 08:12:41 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Defining the General Assembly's Agenda

I agree with Mr. Williams procedural problems with the method by which the list
and the whole WG process was handled. I am not entirely certain but believe that
Mr. Younger was less than pleased when he learned the list was closed for no sound
reason, and probably very bad reasons.
I want to remind you that at the time that the WG was being so poorly treated as
to make any report therefrom questionable, those of us within that group adopted
the position that the report would stand on it's own by way of simply being a good
report. And the one submitted by the group was a good report.  But I do not have
to remind this group what Karl's comments regarding the report the BoD got were,
something to the effect that it was not the report he had seen from the WG.
But as Mr. Williams and Mr. Younger have clearly pointed out all of these concepts
must be addressed by the NC if they are to do their job.  As is pointed out we
have been trying to get along and work with the NC, but if the current situation
continues at some point we will need to start fighting against the NC, and/or
route around them.  Many now silent participants have given up and merely wait
until that occurs.

Sincerely,

Jeff Williams wrote:

>
>
>   The DNSO Review was a private and closed ML that should have not been
> so, as you well know Danny.  As such I can see at least one reason why the NC
> decided as they did.  Until or unless ALL or ANY Working Groups established
> by, or at the request of, the GA members is completely open, such Working
> Groups cannot, and should not be considered legitimate.
>
> >  The Names
> > Council appears to be threatened by the possibility that a Working Group
> > will reach consensus on how to restructure the DNSO (more specifically, they
> > are threatened by the majority opinion within the Review Working Group that
> > called for the dissolution of the Names Council constituency structure).  In
> > my view this explains why, in spite of a call from the ICANN Board to have
> > the Names Council and "other sources" put forward proposals regarding a
> > possible restructuring of the DNSO (Resolution 01.28), not one substantive
> > proposal has come forth from the NC regarding the restructuring of our
> > Supporting Organization - some of our constituency representatives doubtless
> > seek to remain entrenched in their positions of power, fearing the
> > consequences of a re-organization.
>
>   I agree with this evaluation, as do most of our [INEGroup] members, but this
> in no way makes any thus far created WG ML legitimate.
>
> >
> >
> > As an agenda item, I would see the General Assembly, one of the "other
> > sources" referred to by the Board, begin work on the restructuring proposals
> > that the Board has requested and that the Names Council has chosen to
> > ignore.
>
>   Agreed if and only if such a WG is open to ANY and ALL interested
> parties or GA members.
>
> >
> >
> > At the heart of this issue is proper representation.  At a time when the
> > Names Council has decided that those that cannot pay cannot vote, I stand in
> > favor of ousting such a callous administration.  Domain name policy issues
> > must be voted upon by a body that is fully representative of the Internet
> > community.  Any group that advances a proposal that threatens that precept
> > must be shown the door.
>
>   Also agreed.  We the stakeholders have already paid.
>
> >
> >
> > This leads me to my next concern, the future of our At-Large Directors.  The
> > very existence of ICANN was predicated on a membership model that called for
> > a great many more At-Large Directors than we now have.  The privatization of
> > the Internet moved forward because promises were made at the outset with
> > respect to full representation of the public in the ICANN structure.
>
>   Also agreed here.  But many of us have now recognized that the ICANN BoD
> has no intention of stakeholder representation in any serious way.
>
> >  As I
> > review the questions posed by the "clean-sheet" study of the ALSC, I
> > conclude that this committee has re-opened questions that were already
> > firmly decided in 1998.
>
>   Yes.  And this is why it is an unnecessarily redundant "Study".
>
> >  Coupled with a Budget Proposal for 2001-2002 that
> > has set aside no funds for the At-Large electoral process, I see an agenda
> > at work that seeks to further disenfranchise the public.
>
>   Yes that that budget for elections for @large directors is exactly -0-.
> That is unexceptable and outrageous.  It further proves the point that
> the ICANN BoD is not interested in Interested parties/Stakeholders
> participation and therefore disregards the White Paper and the MoU.
> Therefore I can only reasonably conclude that ICANN is in abeyance
> of it's contract with DOC.
>
> >
> >
> > As an agenda item for the GA, I would like to have the membership of this
> > Assembly engaged in the "research" permitted to us under the By-Laws, that
> > will allow us to submit our own "study" to the ALSC.
> >
> > This General Assembly faces a choice - we can either work in harmony with
> > those that would deny rights and representation to others, or we can fight
> > for an ICANN in which representation is guaranteed to all.
>
>   There is of course a third and forth choice.  I am sure I don't need to
> spell our what those choices are...
>
> >

- --
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, 25 May 2001 01:35:57 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: List deactivation

Well that was remarkably sudden.
No discussion, no goodbyes, no "see you on another list".

Just ":bang".  That's all folks !!

For those who don't know what I mean, Verisign has just closed down the
Domain Policy mailing list.  And the archives appear to be gone too !!!

A truly amazing lack of consideration for the subscribers.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Newell <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 1:09 AM
Subject: List deactivation

> This list will be closed effective immediately.  When
> we started the list many years ago, there were no lists
> specifically focusing on domain policy issues.  Today
> there are a wide range of public lists that address
> this topic.
>
> Thank you very much for your participation.
>
> Please refer all queries to Brian O'Shaughnessy, of
> VeriSign's Corporate Communications department at
> [email-masked].
>
>
> --Tom
>

- --
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, 24 May 2001 08:45:06 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell, PhD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw:      We Are Mad As Hell And Doing Something!

This got posted on the NETSOLS list early this morning and was swiftly
followed by the entire list being closed by VeriSign - for good. Anyone have
any insight as to what is going on here?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "flip levin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 5:27 AM
Subject: We Are Mad As Hell And Doing Something!

> NOTE: NSI is refusing to post this email message for over 10 hours. This
is
> a disgrace and an attempt to supress information from the readers of the
> Domain Policy list. This same message has been posted on www.ICANNWATCH
and
> www.ICANN Public Forum. So, as well,I am sending it directly to you and
> others frequently on that list who can post to the Domain Policy List.
>
>
>
> Committee For Fair Play From ICANN And DOC
>
> Greetings:
>
> I am a real person and I sent the Mike Johnson information because
everybody
> should know what is going on with Verisign and its buddies at National
> Telecommunications Information Agency, the Department of Commerce and
ICANN.
>   We don't want or intend to politicize this forum.
>
> However, none of us can remain in the dark to the harm that is being done
in
> the name of competition and improvement for our industry and the Internet.
> We understand why NSI dumped us off the posting last night and now want
> everyone to know that we are taking steps to be everywhere so we will be
> heard on this.
>
> We are not asking anyone for anything in our effort to obtain a fair
chance
> for everyone who chooses to compete against Verisign, and for ICANN and
the
> Department of Commerce to do the right thing in fully investigating every
> instance of abuse by the dominant Verisign.  There are documents available
> now that prove Verisign has cheated and is abusing its position of
> dominance. This information will be turned over to the Department of
Justice
> this week with a request for a formal antitrust investigation.
>
> We have asked Congresspersons to insist that a fair investigation be
> undertaken to determine how ICANN and the Department of Commerce can be
fair
> and independent for this industry, and remain a dependent of Verisign.
The
> potential for conflicts of interest and interrelated personnel offers
> pregnant possibilities that wrongful conduct might never be fully and
fairly
> investigated by these bodies from here on.
>
> Some of us are lawyers and former NSI employees with friends inside
Verisign
> who were outraged after learning of the details in the Mike Johnson
> litigation.  We spoke to Mike Johnson today and learned that  he has been
> provided assistance in preparing his recent filing, and   despite
Verisign's
> executives and employees being told yesterday not to render such
assistance
> to him, access to information needed to support his Complaint is assured.
> Copies of the Johnson lawsuit was placed on the internal Verisign
computers
> and printed and distributed to its employees even after Stratton yanked
off
> the posted materials from both the external and internal server.  The
truth
> won't be quietly and easily silenced by Verisign because of its despicable
> conduct described in the recent lawsuit.
>
> There is no question that Verisign still is violating laws, and this is
not
> a simple personnel matter as claimed by someone willing to remain blind to
> the realities we face living in this society.  Having this lucrative
> government contract carries with it the responsibility to obey the laws
> designed to protect minorities and to give them a fair chance for
promotion
> and retained employment security free of discrimination.
>
> Since this grievous conduct is obviously not deemed to be an important
> matter for Verisign and its buddies at ICANN and the Department of
Commerce,
> we are announcing our support to make sure every newspaper and
publication,
> and each relevant organization we can find, knows of this litigation
against
> Verisign, and to organize whatever support we can to force ICANN and the
> Department of Commerce, the White House, and Congress to investigate and
> explain why there is no investigation to these horrendous facts and
proofs.
> We can't let ICANN BOD and DOC ignore its respoinsibilities to call them
as
> they are and take the appropriate actions to even replace Verisign with
> another entity more willing to comply with all laws.
>
> There can be no serious reason advanced why Verisign's behavior disclosed
to
> ICANN and the Department of Commerce before the final negotiations were
> signed off last Friday was not disclosed to all Members of this House
> Commerce Committee before they voted approving this new transaction.  The
> odor from this silence must be quickly investigated to reassure everyone
> that ICANN's independent role is still viable.  We will be asking
> Congressmen Dingel and Markey to continue asking questions, as they voice
> the same concerns as others in the Senate who are now beginning to look at
> this situation. More than a whiff of fresh air is needed.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Flip Leven
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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: Thu, 24 May 2001 08:46:03 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell, PhD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw:      List deactivation

And this was the message that followed announcing the closure of the NETSOLS
domain policy list.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Newell" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 8:09 AM
Subject: List deactivation

> This list will be closed effective immediately.  When
> we started the list many years ago, there were no lists
> specifically focusing on domain policy issues.  Today
> there are a wide range of public lists that address
> this topic.
>
> Thank you very much for your participation.
>
> Please refer all queries to Brian O'Shaughnessy, of
> VeriSign's Corporate Communications department at
> [email-masked].
>
>
> --Tom
>
>

- --
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, 24 May 2001 09:12:36 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: List deactivation

Personally, I find this very disappointing. The Domain-Policy list has
always been noisy, but it's also been great place to get information on the
arcane issues of domain name administration. This is an area that's becoming
increasingly complex with the addition of new registrars and new TLDs. I've
always viewed it as a credit to NSI, Verisign and all of its employees that
it both sponsored the list and actively participated in it. Years before the
Cluetrain left the station, NSI was already on board, actively engaging its
customers in an online dialogue with knowledgeable, senior managers, not
clueless customer service reps. In spite of new competition in the domain
name registration market, I've kept my domain name registrations with NSI
for one reason: because I knew I could turn to the NSI employees I had met
on the Domain-Policy list if something went wrong.

It's also hard not to view the crude way in which the list was terminated
(no notice, no opportunity for list members to organize a new list or
download the archives) against the U.S. Department of Commerce's approval of
the revised registry contracts last week. Now secure in its position as the
dominant registry and dominant registrar, Verisign takes years of important
archives off-line and abruptly ends an ongoing dialogue with some of its
best customers. Let's hope this is not a sign of what is to come.

       -- Bret

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

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

Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:15:27 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw:      We Are Mad As Hell And Doing Something!

At 8:45 am -0700 5/24/01, Tim Langdell, PhD wrote:
>This got posted on the NETSOLS list early this morning and was swiftly
>followed by the entire list being closed by VeriSign - for good. Anyone have
>any insight as to what is going on here?

How does "guilty as charged" sound?

Interestingly, the domain policy list was something Verisign inherited from
its predecessor.

Since it now seems to not want to provide such functions, perhaps it should
give back its licence for the use of the Internic TM as well?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 03:03:43 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Restoration of Domain Policy Archives

Dear Brian

Verisign's decision to close down the Domain Policy list was both sudden and
unexpected.  Personally I think it was inappropriate.  Whatever the reasons
it is clearly a matter for your own corporate interests.

However the Domain Policy archives are a valuable resource which need to be
retained for historical reference and research.  My feeling is that most
subscribers would take the view that the lists belong to them.  Certainly
I'd believe that in relation to my own postings over the past year.

At the very least, someone should have been given the opportunity to pick up
the archives and subscriber lists.  Historical DNS archives are spotty
enough without erasing entire volumes from the encyclopaedic set.

I'd therefore ask that Verisign re-consider its decision to remove these
archives from the public record.  An alternative solution would be for
Verisign to make these records available to be hosted elsewhere.  I am
certain that I could make alternative arrangements for such support.

I look forward to your kind response.

Yours faithfully,
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

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

Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 10:17:28 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: Domain-Policy?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:10 AM
> To: 'David Howe'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Domain-Policy?
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd been following some of the responses there ...
> It was an ex-employee making allegations wrt a legal matter, 
> in process,
> between them and NSI. Rather than leave it with the courts, 
> that ex started
> spamming the DP list with their version of events. This 
> created a legal
> problem for NSI. Caught between a rock and a hard place, the 
> DP list got
> squashed. I would have done the same thing.
> 
> The first time I saw flip's note, combined with some stuff on 
> the DNSO/GA
> list, I started building a mail server, on a spare amdK6-233 
> Linux box, to
> run under DNSO.NET. Frankly, I could use some help with that effort
> (Postfix/MailMan/INN). I was not expecting this to happen for at least
> another week.
> 
> The DP list was the only impartial list around. Everything 
> else is under
> ICANN/DNSO control.
> 
> -- 
> 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: David Howe [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 9:00 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Domain-Policy?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Got two emails in reasonably close order (this follows an 
> > argument about
> > Netsol selectively deleting emails from the DP archive)
> > 
> > -------------------------------- first
> > message 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> > Subject:      We Are Mad As Hell And Doing Something!
> > 
> > NOTE: NSI is refusing to post this email message for over 10 
> > hours. This is
> 
> > -------------------------------- end of first
> > message ---------------------------
> > -------------------------------second
> > message --------------------------------
> > From: Tom Newell <[email-masked]>
> > Subject:      List deactivation
> > To: [email-masked]
> > 
> > This list will be closed effective immediately.  When
> 
> > --Tom
> > -------------------------------- end of first
> > message ---------------------------
> > 
> > 
> > and Domain-Policy is **gone** - gone from the website 
> > (archive and all),
> > email to the list bounces, resub requests to the majordomo fail.
> > 
> > any ideas what is going on here (other than the obvious 
> > impression that the
> > easiest way to stop the argument is to delete the forum)
> 
> 
- --
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, 24 May 2001 10:19:20 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Fw:      We Are Mad As Hell And Doing Something!

They stopped using the internic addr some time ago.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Gardner [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 9:15 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: We Are Mad As Hell And Doing Something!
> 
> 
> At 8:45 am -0700 5/24/01, Tim Langdell, PhD wrote:
> >This got posted on the NETSOLS list early this morning and 
> was swiftly
> >followed by the entire list being closed by VeriSign - for 
> good. Anyone have
> >any insight as to what is going on here?
> 
> How does "guilty as charged" sound?
> 
> Interestingly, the domain policy list was something Verisign 
> inherited from
> its predecessor.
> 
> Since it now seems to not want to provide such functions, 
> perhaps it should
> give back its licence for the use of the Internic TM as well?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform 
> about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
- --
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, 24 May 2001 10:25:25 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Restoration of Domain Policy Archives

Will the very smart historians who copied all of the archives please step
forward, so that the entities stepping forward to host the new site can
incorporate the archives into the site.

Next, would one of you smart IP type lawyer people please venture a preliminary
sketch on the proprietary rights of posters to the closed list.  Has this been
litigated before? How does the control of the list factor we use in determining
liability for the host factor into control of the information?  It would seem to
stand to reason if they excercise this type of control that they would be liable
for defamatory comments contained therein.

Now that one of the places I used to go to get answers to these type of
questions is closed some redundancy may occur in matters already well laid out.

Sincerely,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Dear Brian
>
> Verisign's decision to close down the Domain Policy list was both sudden and
> unexpected.  Personally I think it was inappropriate.  Whatever the reasons
> it is clearly a matter for your own corporate interests.
>
> However the Domain Policy archives are a valuable resource which need to be
> retained for historical reference and research.  My feeling is that most
> subscribers would take the view that the lists belong to them.  Certainly
> I'd believe that in relation to my own postings over the past year.
>
> At the very least, someone should have been given the opportunity to pick up
> the archives and subscriber lists.  Historical DNS archives are spotty
> enough without erasing entire volumes from the encyclopaedic set.
>
> I'd therefore ask that Verisign re-consider its decision to remove these
> archives from the public record.  An alternative solution would be for
> Verisign to make these records available to be hosted elsewhere.  I am
> certain that I could make alternative arrangements for such support.
>
> I look forward to your kind response.
>
> Yours faithfully,
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> 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, 24 May 2001 12:30:37 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Fw:      We Are Mad As Hell And Doing Something!

At 10:19 am -0700 5/24/01, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>They stopped using the internic addr some time ago.

I know. And wiped out the previous archives that were linked to from
multiple web pages.

I said the "Internic TM" not "Internic addr". ICANN/DOC has licenced the
Internic TM to them. Correct me if I'm wrong.

What I'm saying is if they're allowed to licence the TM, they should be
made to host the legacy Internic DOMAIN-POLICY list. If they don't want to
host it, take their Internic TM license away.

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andy Gardner [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 9:15 AM
>> To: [email-masked]
>> Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: We Are Mad As Hell And Doing Something!
>>
>>
>> At 8:45 am -0700 5/24/01, Tim Langdell, PhD wrote:
>> >This got posted on the NETSOLS list early this morning and
>> was swiftly
>> >followed by the entire list being closed by VeriSign - for
>> good. Anyone have
>> >any insight as to what is going on here?
>>
>> How does "guilty as charged" sound?
>>
>> Interestingly, the domain policy list was something Verisign
>> inherited from
>> its predecessor.
>>
>> Since it now seems to not want to provide such functions,
>> perhaps it should
>> give back its licence for the use of the Internic TM as well?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andrew P. Gardner
>> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform
>> about the UDRP?
>> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
>> Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
>> --
>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>>

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 03:40:23 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Domain-Policy?

Hi Roeland

> The DP list was the only impartial list around. Everything else is under
> ICANN/DNSO control.

I'm not sure what you mean by this in relation to the GA list.  Are you
suggesting that ICANN could pull the plug on this one, too?

Regards
Patrick

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer@m...>
To: <nanog@m...>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 6:09 PM
Subject: RE: Domain-Policy?

> If you'd been following some of the responses there ...
> It was an ex-employee making allegations wrt a legal matter, in process,
> between them and NSI. Rather than leave it with the courts, that ex
started
> spamming the DP list with their version of events. This created a legal
> problem for NSI. Caught between a rock and a hard place, the DP list got
> squashed. I would have done the same thing.
>
> The first time I saw flip's note, combined with some stuff on the DNSO/GA
> list, I started building a mail server, on a spare amdK6-233 Linux box, to
> run under DNSO.NET. Frankly, I could use some help with that effort
> (Postfix/MailMan/INN). I was not expecting this to happen for at least
> another week.
>
> The DP list was the only impartial list around. Everything else is under
> ICANN/DNSO control.
>
> --
> 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: rmeyer@m...

- --
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, 24 May 2001 11:03:36 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Domain-Policy?

> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:40 AM

> I'm not sure what you mean by this in relation to the GA 
> list.  Are you
> suggesting that ICANN could pull the plug on this one, too?

Sure, why not? They did it to WG-Review. They only have to claim "budget
issues". Besides, there were a lot of folk, on the NSI list, that refused to
be part of ICANN. We need their input too. I'm building a box, under
DNSO.NET, to do this stuff now. It will also be feeding newsgroups under
INN. I just landed a couple of nice contracts for the rest of this year, so
I can consider being more active again.
- --
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, 24 May 2001 13:11:09 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Domain-Policy?

At 11:03 am -0700 5/24/01, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:40 AM
>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by this in relation to the GA
>> list.  Are you
>> suggesting that ICANN could pull the plug on this one, too?
>
>Sure, why not? They did it to WG-Review. They only have to claim "budget
>issues".

Exactly.

>Besides, there were a lot of folk, on the NSI list, that refused to
>be part of ICANN. We need their input too. I'm building a box, under
>DNSO.NET, to do this stuff now. It will also be feeding newsgroups under
>INN. I just landed a couple of nice contracts for the rest of this year, so
>I can consider being more active again.

Thanks Roeland.

I look forward to the appearance of [email-masked].

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 20:13:32 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain-Policy?

Patrick Corliss wrote:
> Hi Roeland
> 
> > The DP list was the only impartial list around. Everything else is under
> > ICANN/DNSO control.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by this in relation to the GA list.  Are you
> suggesting that ICANN could pull the plug on this one, too?
> 

I do not think so.

Elisabeth Porteneuve
AFNIC
Immeuble International
2, rue Stephenson
Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines
78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France

- --
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, 24 May 2001 11:22:27 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: List deactivation

Hello Patrick,

Thursday, May 24, 2001, 8:35:57 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Well that was remarkably sudden.
> No discussion, no goodbyes, no "see you on another list".

> Just ":bang".  That's all folks !!

> For those who don't know what I mean, Verisign has just closed down the
> Domain Policy mailing list.  And the archives appear to be gone too !!!

> A truly amazing lack of consideration for the subscribers.

OpenSRS prepared for this eventuality over a year ago.

They have a public domain-policy mailing list that can be used to
replace this one if anyone is interested.

I can't believe how absolutely irresponsible Verisign has made
themselves appear with this abrupt action.

- -- 
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: Fri, 25 May 2001 06:36:57 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: List deactivation

On Thu, 24 May 2001 11:22:27 -0700, you wrote:

>Hello Patrick,
>
>Thursday, May 24, 2001, 8:35:57 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
>> Well that was remarkably sudden.
>> No discussion, no goodbyes, no "see you on another list".
>
>> Just ":bang".  That's all folks !!
>
>> For those who don't know what I mean, Verisign has just closed down the
>> Domain Policy mailing list.  And the archives appear to be gone too !!!
>
>> A truly amazing lack of consideration for the subscribers.
>
>OpenSRS prepared for this eventuality over a year ago.
>
>They have a public domain-policy mailing list that can be used to
>replace this one if anyone is interested.
>
>I can't believe how absolutely irresponsible Verisign has made
>themselves appear with this abrupt action.

So what a bit of extra bad press.  They now have *.com effectively for
ever so no need to play nice anymore.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #485
************************