Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #495
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Monday, May 28 2001             Volume 01 : Number 495

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

Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 02:29:40 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Tower of Babble

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> Anything that depends upon the presence or absence of a "working lunch"
> in even the slightest way would not be worth 1/1000th of the cost of a
> ticket to Stockholm.

Who's paying your way Bill?

> If the ducks haven't been lined up well before now,
> nothing will come of them.  This whole "mike time" bit is a charade -- is
> not useless babble here enough;  must it also be endured in Stockholm?

Depends on what you classify as useless babble.  I am understanding you better now.

> Useful effort is called planning and preparation, not the latest flash of
> electrons across the cerebellum of someone seeking public exposure,
> fame, and glory. And a vote? With a few minutes worth of thought, at
> best?

Try a few *thousand* minutes.  Anybody who would be interested in being present and
voting on any motion or issue raised, has quite probably been around long enough to know
the lay of the land, Bill.  You yourself have commented on the small, incestuous nature
of the GA.  So what are you really saying?

> A more effective prescription for disaster could hardly be imagined.

Where have we heard this before, I wonder?    Sounds like the rallying cry of the
oligarchs in old Athens.

> And I would ascribe what lack of a clear program of work there is to
> the babble, not the other way around.

Did you vote in the election of the Chair and alt-Chair, Bill?

> I believe the Chair and Alternate
> Chair to have earned high congratulations to get two resolutions on board
> -- I hadn't thought they could do it -- against such a background of noise.

I have been listening myself Bill...  You've been adding to the babble though Bill.  Come
on, be honest (I've been reading your largely irrelevant, and unsubstantial postings, we
all have.).  ;-)

> The questioning of credibility comes from the incessant racket of a
> very few, only some of whom I shall name: Jeff Williams, Jefsey, and
> last, but not least, Sotiris.

Please compare my posting history over the past month to your own.  Then, let's talk
about racket.  Bill, you and I both know, just because you talk a lot it doesn't mean
you're saying anything.  <shrug> BTW, your naming of people in this post can be
considered an abuse.

> There are others whose ability to resist
> emulating great literature can get quite wearing, but sometimes within
> all that twaddle they actually say things worth hearing.

{The next round's on me Bill.}
Then there are those self-important empty types who think they're fooling others.  But we
wouldn't know anything about that, huh Bill?

> There is also a
> "Terminator" in the crowd here, but he often seeks to terminate just what
> so needs to be, not incessantly.

Actually Bill, I could characterize your posting as an element of the incessant noise and
vituperation.  It's actually quite amusing.

> It's just the knee-jerk negativists whom
> I have named, and some others, so I say that instead of staring breathlessly
> out into the ring as the toreador steps forth and the bull starts to charge,
> with the crowd screaming for failure so as to watch the blood flow, let's
> just all shut up and let those who have the job, do it.

Do what exactly?  What job do they have?  The last time I checked, the Chair was supposed
to be nothing other than a moderator of discussion, and NOT the keynote speaker.  Think
about this point, Bill, the Lawyer... before you have another wrist-jerk reaction and
decide to respond before reflecting.

> The foregoing is not
> meant to emulate great literature, especially not Hemingway, but sometimes
> images are better than literal words, and it is precisely that image that what
> Sotiris proposes brings to my mind.

Wrong image Bill.  BTW, I never liked Hemingway... I found him droll and devoid of
substance, much like your posting Bill.

Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

>
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> > Dear Company,
> >
> > The GA has disintegrated into babble, pure and simple.  I ascribe this, in large
> > part, to no clear program of work.  The coming meeting in Stockholm may only serve
> > to emphasize this point.  How can the GA expect to be taken seriously, when its own
> > members no longer take it seriously, and even question its credibility?
> >
> > Mssrs. Chair, and Alt-Chair, outcome reflects on leadership.  Don't get carried
> > away with the party-favours and other mementos of the occasion...   I will be be
> > watching the webcast closely, as will many others.  Perhaps we will add our voices
> > in the public participation.  But, we're going to need a commitment from our
> > colleagues who are at the meeting, to ensure that all voices will be given a fair
> > chance.  It will also be interesting to see how the time will be allotted for the
> > various discussions.   If necessary, will the meeting run over/through
> > lunch/dinner/breakfast and even overtime?  Or will it be the ersatz performance yet
> > again?  (Considering the gravity of the matters to be discussed, I think a working
> > lunch is not too much to be expected, surely?  I remember Esther Dyson herself
> > deigning to dine and do... that is, if memory serves me correctly.)  I would even
> > like to see a motion or two with real and virtual participation in a vote!
> > (`wishful thinking', I know)  Is this GA really going to happen gentlemen?  Let us
> > see your resolve, will, and character over the next two weeks.
> >
> > 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
>
> --
>          Bill Lovell
>
> http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm

- --
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: Mon, 28 May 2001 02:42:38 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Sinking The Titanic

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> I find Bill Lovell to be interesting and responsive.  Perhaps he would like
> to assist with one of the working groups?  I'd therefore nominate him to
> guide the GA-ICANN working group.

Surely you jest!

> Of course, others may not agree and may wish to nominate someone else.  As
> well, I am sure that those who don't like imposed authority will object to a
> title like "sub-Chair".

"Imposed authority"?  From a "sub-Chair" whatever?  Is there something we're all
missing here Patrick?  Who died and made you king (or earl, or duke, or pearl)?
What exactly do you mean?

> What about "guide" ?  Or "co-ordinator" ?  Or the French word "chef" ?

How about "buffoon"?  Of course, some people are more naturally suited that
others for this distinction, right Patrick?

> I welcome any constructive suggestions ;-)

How's that for a change?!

Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

>
>
> Regards
> 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: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:00:52 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 305 Voters

Ladi wrote:

> My personal general feeling is that technical issues simply cannot exist
> in isolation from policy issues. Trying to divide them cleanly is
> useless as one side will always need to understand the other at least on
> a basic level, unless we just want to degenerate into two groups
> pointing fingers at each other and never getting anything done. I point
> to the current email as a file transfer method issue occupying NANOG as
> my most recent example.
>
> By the same token, are "non-ICANN issues" really that far from "ICANN
> issues"? Not to start a new debate, but perhaps a form of the digital
> divide is why some people can effectively put up a fight against UDRP
> and others don't even bother.

Ladi:

That is absolutely true, from my experience. They "don't bother" fighting
reverse domain name hijacking because they don't have the money.
Veronica's parents succeeded by other clever means; they mounted such
a public relations blitz on the net that made Archie Comics look so bad
that, last I heard, Archie folded on the basic bit (maybe bought the name,
I don't know). But the UDRP is a domain name issue, into which ICANN
has stuck its nose, and we're now stuck with it. It truly has both technical

and "social" aspects, and when I (and others) say that ICANN should
stick to technical matters I think that should be read to mean "should
have."
That horse is already out of the barn, and DNSO/GA-ICANN has to
deal with it one way or the other. My point of view has been and will be
to get ICANN out of the UDRP fiasco.

> Perhaps a more unified approach is in
> order...

Not exactly following here.

> And as a history major, I need to plug my own discipline (and my
> thesis): past models are also worth examining. Without thinking too
> hard, I would hazard a guess that the creation and professionalization
> of the scientific community is worth a look.

Speaking as a scientist for the moment, how could I say other than,
"why, of course?" :-)

Bill

>
> ~Ladi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 1:48 PM
> To: 'William S. Lovell'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] 305 Voters
>
> I've been thinking that some of what "we" want to talk about really
> doesn't belong at ICANN at all, but that there a lots of interesting,
> bright, and involved people who are interested in ICANN, but really want
> to also debate, or socialize ideas bout non-ICANN areas.... digital
> divide; privacy on the net in general, security of
> applications/communications, etc.
>
> I think, like William, that there may be some models which we could look
> at. I am not holding up any examples, since I am searching. Your ASCAP
> and BMI examples are interesting ones. Some might suggest ISOC; others
> might suggest some of the other more technically oriented ... groups...
> but the point is that we should see if we can learn from any of them ,
> and from the other SOs about what might work...
>
> Thanks, William, I enjoyed reading your post, and it made me think
> more...
>
> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 1:43 PM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] 305 Voters
>
> "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
>
> > William, might it also be that many users of the Internet think that
> > it
> just
> > works, and they are busy running their personal lives, and their
> businesses,
> > and they want to take Internet operations for granted?
>
> Marilyn:
>
> That's really it in a nutshell. Also, the GA attempts to do stuff in the
> wrong place. The problem is that the GA is supposed to be a technical
> advisory body on domain name issues, where technical expertise is indeed
> necessary, but the GA more often falls into the process of carrying out
> what the "at-large" group would do, if there were such a thing. The
> attempts by Younger and Corliss to get things focussed on the actual
> "charter" of the GA by way of the mailing lists, instead of being a
> place to vent every gripe known (along with beating up the other guy,
> etc.), creates yet another thing to gripe about, and the real business
> gets lost.
>
> > For instance, I often speak to busienesses through trade associations
> about
> > ICANN. Most of the executives and managers whom I brief usually say:
> > glad you are paying attention; think that our association staff
> > should. Now, I have to get back to work. Give an update in about 3-4
> > months, won't you?
> >
> > I'm struggling to think about other organizations and how they have
> > developed "representative democracy".  I think it deserves some more
> > thoughtfulness.
>
> I gave the examples some time back of two organizations that are run
> quite professionally and serve their own special public very well. One
> of these is the National Writers Union (free lance writers) and ASCAP
> (songwriters)
> -- for which there is another one -- BMI.
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> 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

- --
         Bill Lovell

http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm

- --
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: Mon, 28 May 2001 03:11:53 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-icann] On Bill's post about ICANN

misbegotten?  Try incredibly flawed and dishonest.

On 27 May 2001, at 21:46, William S. Lovell wrote:

> Indeed correct, Leah.  Technical things are what ICANN is set up to do, and
> it is especially when ICANN starts cutting business deals and sticks its
> nose into the market that it dirties its face the most, especially since it
> is not really possible for this juggernaut (like NSI/Verisign) to sneeze
> without having adverse, anti-competitive effects on other would-be
> competitors. "Stability of the Internet" does NOT mean that "all our
> buddies get the fat stuff" so as to eliminate all the riffraff "who might
> unsettle our way of doing things," and the "marketability, potential
> conflicts in recognition from a non-technical standpoint, usability, and
> end-user satisfaction" comprise what us scientific types call the "rubber
> slide rule" -- argument could be made to find instability in any of them.
> If  X meets specific, pre-defined technical qualifications, then X is in. 
> And what are "conflicts in recognition from a non-technical standpoint?" 
> Trademarks? Gimme a break! That's an issue for the courts, not ICANN, in
> spite of its misbegotten UDRP.
> 
> Bill Lovell
> 
> L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > On 27 May 2001, at 17:15, NameCritic wrote:
> >
> > > Hypothetical situation apllying to the approval of new TLDs.
> > >
> > > An organization such as the DNSO or the GA or another organization that
> > > does not yet exist would first handle new TLD applications to decide
> > > their marketability, potential conflicts in recognition from a
> > > non-technical standpoint, usability, and end-user satisfaction, among
> > > other criteria. Once approv ed by this body, it would then go to ICANN
> > > and it's SOs to review the technical aspects of the introduction of the
> > > new TLD.
> >
> > Marketability, mnemonics and other non-technical areas should not be
> > factors for inclusion  in the root.  That is a market/business model
> > issue and from a global standpoint is a huge red herring.  ICANN should
> > not enter into anything having to do with "market."  End user
> > satisfaction is also a market/business model issue.  Why should any part
> > of ICANN determine who can be in business or operate a TLD from a non-
> > technical standpoint?
> >
> > >
> > > ICANN could not refuse an approved TLD unless it would definitely
> > > threaten the stability of the Internet or create some other technical
> > > problem such as length, characters it contains, or other problems.
> > >
> > > I see this as viable. Anyone else?
> > >
> > > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> 

- --
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: Mon, 28 May 2001 03:19:29 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Tower of Babble

Bill and all assembly members,

William S. Lovell wrote:

> Anything that depends upon the presence or absence of a "working lunch"
> in even the slightest way would not be worth 1/1000th of the cost of a
> ticket to Stockholm.

  Well good, glad you think so Bill.  I suppose that this means that
you would be willing to fund Patrick's ticked and expenses to
Stockholm than?  I sure he will be very appreciative of such a gesture
on your part.  >;)

>  If the ducks haven't been lined up well before now,
> nothing will come of them.  This whole "mike time" bit is a charade -- is
> not useless babble here enough;  must it also be endured in Stockholm?

  Maybe it is, Bill.  You can always step out during those "Mike Time"
talks if you like than you will not have to endure.  Some of us however
may feel differently and would endeavor to persevere!  >;)  I hope that
won't offend you to much, will it?

>
> Useful effort is called planning and preparation, not the latest flash of
> electrons across the cerebellum of someone seeking public exposure,
> fame, and glory. And a vote? With a few minutes worth of thought, at
> best?  A more effective prescription for disaster could hardly be imagined.

  Agreed.  And that is where the current Chair and Alt-Chair have contributed
to the lack of preparation in particular by trying to push their agenda's off
on the GA members, instead of listening.  As a lawyer, you know that
listening is a very important skill.  The same skill or expertise is required
or at least highly desired by a Chair or Alt Chair of and assembly
such as this one.  The DNSO GA has been lacking that listening
skill rather acutely, I would say...

>
>
> And I would ascribe what lack of a clear program of work there is to
> the babble, not the other way around.  I believe the Chair and Alternate
> Chair to have earned high congratulations to get two resolutions on board
> -- I hadn't thought they could do it -- against such a background of noise.

  A number of other resolutions were put forward or proposed Bill.  Why
did not the Chair acknowledge them and deny one of them, pray tell, instead
of putting them forward to the secretariat for a vote?  The membership
can decide quite well for themselves if ANY resolution is one that is
worthy of passage, don't you think?  Or is it that the Chair and Alt Chair
are in some other fashion, concerned with some if not all of those
other resolutions passing?

>
> The questioning of credibility comes from the incessant racket of a
> very few, only some of whom I shall name: Jeff Williams, Jefsey, and
> last, but not least, Sotiris.

  Well this seems to vary greatly from the post you sent to me earlier
yesterday Bill.  Why is that I wonder?

> There are others whose ability to resist
> emulating great literature can get quite wearing, but sometimes within
> all that twaddle they actually say things worth hearing.  There is also a
> "Terminator" in the crowd here, but he often seeks to terminate just what
> so needs to be, not incessantly. It's just the knee-jerk negativists whom
> I have named, and some others, so I say that instead of staring breathlessly
> out into the ring as the toreador steps forth and the bull starts to charge,
> with the crowd screaming for failure so as to watch the blood flow, let's
> just all shut up and let those who have the job, do it.

  IF we all "Shut Up" as you put it than we all have no voice, and the issues
that are important to US will never be known.  Is that wise, do you think?
I don't.  And it is unfortunate that I don't seems to bother you or irritate
you so much as you seem to state in this post!

> The foregoing is not
> meant to emulate great literature, especially not Hemingway, but sometimes
> images are better than literal words, and it is precisely that image that what
> Sotiris proposes brings to my mind.
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> > Dear Company,
> >
> > The GA has disintegrated into babble, pure and simple.  I ascribe this, in large
> > part, to no clear program of work.  The coming meeting in Stockholm may only serve
> > to emphasize this point.  How can the GA expect to be taken seriously, when its own
> > members no longer take it seriously, and even question its credibility?
> >
> > Mssrs. Chair, and Alt-Chair, outcome reflects on leadership.  Don't get carried
> > away with the party-favours and other mementos of the occasion...   I will be be
> > watching the webcast closely, as will many others.  Perhaps we will add our voices
> > in the public participation.  But, we're going to need a commitment from our
> > colleagues who are at the meeting, to ensure that all voices will be given a fair
> > chance.  It will also be interesting to see how the time will be allotted for the
> > various discussions.   If necessary, will the meeting run over/through
> > lunch/dinner/breakfast and even overtime?  Or will it be the ersatz performance yet
> > again?  (Considering the gravity of the matters to be discussed, I think a working
> > lunch is not too much to be expected, surely?  I remember Esther Dyson herself
> > deigning to dine and do... that is, if memory serves me correctly.)  I would even
> > like to see a motion or two with real and virtual participation in a vote!
> > (`wishful thinking', I know)  Is this GA really going to happen gentlemen?  Let us
> > see your resolve, will, and character over the next two weeks.
> >
> > 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
>
> --
>          Bill Lovell
>
> http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 03:38:44 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Sinking The Titanic

Pstrick and all assembly members,

  It is interesting that your nomination of Bill Lovell should come only
6 minuets after Bills post prasing you.  (Incorrectly in my opinion).
I wonder if there is some linkage in this proposed nomination, Patrick?
Refrence see: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02149.html
for further details....  >;)

  More comments below Patricks comments below...

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Sun, 27 May 2001 19:54:57 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > WHAT Mr. Corliss is right about is that we need a leader, a greater leader
> that
> > will command our respect and bring us together and move us forward to
> achieve
> > our synergistic goals.  That person is within our sphere and we need only
> to
> > back her/him in order to make that dream I speak of a reality. Find that
> person
> > and quick!
>
> I find Bill Lovell to be interesting and responsive.  Perhaps he would like
> to assist with one of the working groups?  I'd therefore nominate him to
> guide the GA-ICANN working group.
>
> Of course, others may not agree and may wish to nominate someone else.  As
> well, I am sure that those who don't like imposed authority will object to a
> title like "sub-Chair".

  Not at all, "Sub-Chair" is a good title.  "WG-Chair" might be a
good one as well...

>
> What about "guide" ?  Or "co-ordinator" ?  Or the French word "chef" ?
>
> I welcome any constructive suggestions ;-)
  
  Chef inplies that there will be some execellent food served durring
this Working Group.  I thinkg that is unlikely, and therefore suggest
not using "Chef" as a designator.  >;)
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 18:52:27 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Sinking The Titanic

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of  Patrick Corliss
|> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 3:32 PM
|> To: Eric Dierker
|> Cc: William S. Lovell; [ga]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Sinking The Titanic
|>

<snip>
|> Of course, others may not agree and may wish to nominate
|> someone else.  As  well, I am sure that those who don't like imposed
authority
|> will object to a title like "sub-Chair".
|>
|> What about "guide" ?  Or "co-ordinator" ?  Or the French word "chef" ?
|>
|> I welcome any constructive suggestions ;-)

Perhaps if the terminology used was "Coordinator" or "Facilitator" there
would be less confusion about the role.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 10:55:29 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[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 don't understand it either.
What does it mean "impartial" in relation to a mailing list?
Does it mean that people posting are evenly distributed in relation to some 
parameter? In this case, which one?
Or does it mean that postings are show a balance of opinion? About what 
subject?
Or does it mean an interference of the list managers on the issues debated? 
And in this case, I would like to see examples.

Anyway, for your info I received the following message from Karl Peters.
It is an attempt to continue the debate on Domain-policy.

Regards
Roberto

- ---------- From: "Karl E. Peters" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: Recipient List Suppressed <[email-masked]>
Subject: One time notice of services offered...
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 01:41:59 -0400

Hello all:

This is a one time communication in response to abrupt recent
events...

Due to the deactivation of the Netsol Domain-Policy list, there is a
need
for a replacement.  We have set up [email-masked] for
that
purpose. (please note that this is not an attempt to bring people to
an existing list of other committments, but a new and fresh list
especially for this purpose...)

This list is open and not affiliated with any root, organization,
registry or
registrar and is donated with the intention to provide it to all
those
concerned with domain policy issues.  It will have public archives
and
will be unmoderated except for spam and floods.

We ask only that posters refrain from using ad hominems and personal

attacks.  In other words, try to use the Golden Rule.  Other than
that,
the list is yours.

To subscribe....

Go to http://ador-doc.org/mailman/listinfo/domain-policy , sign in
and resume talks.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 17:10:20 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Follow-up on Marilyn, Lary and Bill

Dear Marilyn,
Yours and Lari's inputs are certainly the most interesting posts of the 
day. Bill concerns show also the problem.

Basically your three main ideas are:
- -  technical ideas cannot be separted from market ideas
- -  let learn from history
- -  we want to talk of things which do not belong to the iCANN

Lari suggests the scientific community as an exampe/model to study. I think 
there is another one he would enjoy too working on. It 
is  significant/relevant and I happen to know quite well. I am certainly 
ready to help about a better common uderstanding as the only few other of 
us who had the chance of a complete vision of it.

This is the Minitel case.

As you know the Minitel is in use for 25 years by 90% of the French 
population, it was celevrated by Judge Green and Al Gore as their model to 
push for the Web. As Tymnet Inc. we ordered hundred of thousands of
Minitel for the USA in the mid-80s. We had ports in test operations in NY, 
SF, Houston, etc.. and developped a very powerfull smart proxy machine 
concept for its support. Then we reviewed our US project, changed the 
teams, priorities, business plan, aggreements with French industry and Gov. 
I gave it a last try in 1985 and killed it on marketing grounds.

There are many lessons to dig from this. The first one is what Lari says. 
In such large system involving all the population (the coverage is what the 
nets may be in five years in the USA) there is no more real difference 
between producers and consumers. As the technical part importance fades 
away: everyone takes it for granted. As everyone takes for granted the 
electricity or the telephone. The success of the provider is to disapear. 
The success of the system is when everyone master it.

- - the content is of the essence and the first content provider is from 
eveyone  through the mail system

- - the "technical/providing people" are actually the most interesting users 
because the are smart users: they identify the needs that can be solved 
before the others, due to the hysteresis of the market (habits, fashions, 
need of education on new usages).

- - there is still however a huge difference of concern between people using 
the system and people operating a service in term of preoccupations. But 
this has nothing really technical. It is financial, administrative, user 
relations, business, legal, tax, etc... But as far as the Minitel is 
concerned interests are quite the same.

- - this also means that most of the innovation come from independant users 
transformed into or already a techie (FYI there is not yet such a think as 
a Minitel Protocol and there are many compatibility problem  among 
different Minitel manufacturers).  Very much as GNU, but on a smaller market.

- - there is a senecence of the system. The Minitel is now an old 
system,because of the Internet. But we known it 20 years ago and we worked 
on it. Louis Pouzin and Cyclades is the technical cofounder of the 
nets.  Ask Elisabeth the connections she managed in 1987...  I developed a 
realtime, multiuser Minitel OS in 1987 with fax support, search engine, 
mark-up language and hyperlinks and I got public (Gov) support for AI 
addition to it. It has been in operations for 15 years (there may still be 
a few machines around). Just to say that technical community had a vision 
and support.

- - we build a sophisticated legal, structural, professional 
environement.  We created the word "Telematic" for it as we quickly 
identified issues which were not dependent from the Minitel usage, and 
which apply today to the Internet. Obviously in a French legal approach, 
both more administrative and more officially "mutually free". But the 
Internet may change name ... we will not have to review everything.

- - today the Minitel continue to develop in some areas even in front of the 
Net due to the ... digital divide. Obviously the Net has not yet the 
simplicity people need. However the evolution of the Minitel, Telephone and 
Minitel continuation in the Telephone area, are very often though  by 
professionnal bodies, Gov. as a continuation. The dialog between Gov, 
providers, users, manufacturers is constant. Ask Michel Baujard as a 
professional content association President, or Elisabth as AFNIC. Nothing 
is perfect, IMHO it is too much rigid and too mauch "only French", but we 
have worked out over 20 years a lot of structure, experience, integration 
into he social/legal life.

- - as an US network I was unable to get a simple response from France 
Telecom: has the Minitel a global positive financial return. What they 
tried to sell me were the machines, the control, (as the iCANN with TLDs). 
What we wanted was a business, an usage. Obviously the product was social 
first not for us.

- - Also we found that the real interest of the Minitel was daily proximity 
services. Geographical proximity and personnal proximity. Its avantage was 
a simple screen.  Automated simple functions. MS understood that. Netscape 
browser is too sophisticated.

- - we also developped network models. I used the T/ES model integrating the 
nets into reality (users, structures, market, education).

What conclusion? We could disuss that for years, but I would say:

1. let the iCANN give us a break. The success of the iCANN is when no one 
cares anymore about it. When it works, period. Let have the technical 
manager for the root on board andless e-legal issues. Let DNSO include IUC 
(induivudal users), IDNHC (individual DN holders), SMEC (small 
entreprises), DNSDC (DNS innovators), automate chairing and respect the 
bylaws. That will be OK.

2. give us a vision: what will be the nets 20 years from now. So we may 
aggregate to a common rewarding effort. Fridge screen is far more important 
to us all than DNS unless DNS is used as a Trojan Horse for political or 
commercial interests. Let work on IPv6 with the ones concerned: i.e. eveyone.

3. provide us a focalpoint: the French Minitel had the French Gov. involved 
a lot. On the internet the USG is to remove itself. As a  small service to 
the technical operators the iCANN is a focal  point of some sort. Let it
offer that service to all. Nothing grandiose people would resent. Just a 
hub, a central place for people/needs to   meet.

4. let stop splitting. A network is by nature a whole,  geographically, 
technically, socialy. Splitting network concerns is splitting the network. 
There are layers (SO, @large, etc..) but there should be no divides.

Sorry for being long and abscond in Frenglish (but for once it was a local 
flavor for the subject).
I hope it may help.

Jefsey

On 19:48 27/05/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
>I've been thinking that some of what "we" want to talk about really doesn't
>belong at ICANN at all, but that there a lots of interesting, bright, and
>involved people who are interested in ICANN, but really want to also debate,
>or socialize ideas bout non-ICANN areas.... digital divide; privacy on the
>net in general, security of applications/communications, etc.
>
>I think, like William, that there may be some models which we could look at.
>I am not holding up any examples, since I am searching. Your ASCAP and BMI
>examples are interesting ones. Some might suggest ISOC; others might suggest
>some of the other more technically oriented ... groups... but the point is
>that we should see if we can learn from any of them , and from the other SOs
>about what might work...
>
>Thanks, William, I enjoyed reading your post, and it made me think more...
>
>Marilyn
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 1:43 PM
>To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] 305 Voters
>
>
>
>
>"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
>
> > William, might it also be that many users of the Internet think that it
>just
> > works, and they are busy running their personal lives, and their
>businesses,
> > and they want to take Internet operations for granted?
>
>Marilyn:
>
>That's really it in a nutshell. Also, the GA attempts to do stuff in the
>wrong
>place. The problem is that the GA is supposed to be a technical advisory
>body on domain name issues, where technical expertise is indeed necessary,
>but the GA more often falls into the process of carrying out what the
>"at-large" group would do, if there were such a thing. The attempts by
>Younger and Corliss to get things focussed on the actual "charter" of the
>GA by way of the mailing lists, instead of being a place to vent every gripe
>known (along with beating up the other guy, etc.), creates yet another
>thing to gripe about, and the real business gets lost.
>
> > For instance, I often speak to busienesses through trade associations
>about
> > ICANN. Most of the executives and managers whom I brief usually say:  glad
> > you are paying attention; think that our association staff should. Now, I
> > have to get back to work. Give an update in about 3-4 months, won't you?
> >
> > I'm struggling to think about other organizations and how they have
> > developed "representative democracy".  I think it deserves some more
> > thoughtfulness.
>
>I gave the examples some time back of two organizations that are run quite
>professionally and serve their own special public very well. One of these is
>the National Writers Union (free lance writers) and ASCAP (songwriters)
>-- for which there is another one -- BMI. (ASCAP and BMI are not exact
>parallels, since they are for profit, but the structure is similar.) What
>the
>National Writers Union has is local chapters, that have meetings and the
>whole schtick. Others that are massive and to which I also belong are
>the American Chemical Society and the American Association for the
>Advancement of Science. But these, of course, are directed at specific
>subjects (more or less) which constitute the actual professions of their
>members.  Except for registrars, ISPs, etc., "the internet" is not a
>profession, but a tool, and users thereof typically don't give a rip about
>the nuts and bolts: "can I get on line and get to where I want to go and
>send an email to whoever?" is the extent of their interest. It's like
>computers:
>
>who wants to know how the inside works, as long as it does? And
>why not? These people may be dentists or bankers or truck drivers, etc.,
>with their own professional and job concerns. So the bottom line question
>is what you said: can that kind of range of people be given an incentive
>to become involved enough to join in on something that would function?
>The bones of such a thing exist in ICANN, namely, the supposed "at-
>large," but there's no meat, and instead we have the GA playing at that
>role instead of doing its own proper function.
>
>An internet issue that should be of wide interest: your ISP gets bought up
>by megacorp #1 which in turn is purchased by megacorp #2, the service
>plummets, and although you are told that "you don't have to change your
>domain name," nevertheless a couple of months later you do -- what was
>once teleport.com became some other screwball thing, and then onemain.com
>(or maybe the other way around -- who can follow?), and on date X there
>will be no teleport.com addresses whatever, either you move (to the new
>thing, preferably!) or you're toast.  And never mind that you have a lot of
>time left on your annual contract.  That kind of thing might help generate
>some interest, but this whole "root" bit and a lot of the rest of it will
>never
>capture the fancy of the general public, which is why there are 305. The
>root thing is the right thing in the right place, but not something that
>will
>draw out a crowd. The DNSO/GA is not the place to do what a lot of
>the people in the GA want to do.
>
>(And actually this bit I should have put in ga-icann -- my mouse sometimes
>takes on a life of its own.)
>
>Bill Lovell
>
> >
> > Marilyn
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 5:19 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: [ga] 305 Voters
> >
> > Interesting who one sees there and who one does not.
> > Some people post but don't vote; quite a few more
> > vote but we never see them post. 305 people speaking
> > for millions. Amazing!
> >
> > Is it possible that the purported lack of any "bottom up"
> > operation by ICANN might arise because it has almost
> > no "bottom?"
> >
> > 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
>
>--
>          Bill Lovell
>
>http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm
>
>--
>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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #495
************************