Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #505
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Thursday, May 31 2001            Volume 01 : Number 505

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

Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:43:55 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New.net Calls for Greater Reliance on Competitive Market....

Hi Bruce

Thank you very much for your post about New.Net's proposals for ICANN.  It
purports to be a paper suggesting a reconstruction of ICANN's role and, as
such, it would appear to be relevant to the GA-ICANN mailing list.

In fact it is very specifically focussed on "alternative roots".
I will repost this to the GA-ROOTS list for further discussion.

Thank you all
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
To: GA <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 3:13 AM
Subject: [ga] New.net Calls for Greater Reliance on Competitive Market....

> New.net Calls for Greater Reliance on Competitive Market
> Forces in Governing the Internet Domain Name System
>
> Policy Paper Suggests Limiting Role of ICANN to Technical Matters
> While Marketplace Would Determine
> Addition and Administration of Top-Level Domains
>
>
>
>  http://www.new.net/press_release_5.tp
>
> /Bruce
>
>
>
>
>

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

>
> --
> 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, 31 May 2001 09:56:55 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Using a "Sabot"

From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos:

> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
>
> > Why isn't all this, and others like it, in ga-roots?
>
> Perhaps because there's no cross-posting.

Hi Sotiris

I think Bill meant "why wasn't stuff posted to GA-ROOTS instead of GA?"  The
answer is that one or two people cannot open a can of soup.  Or just want to
throw a spanner in the works !!

BTW The French use a "sabot" instead of a spanner.

Best regards
Patrick

- --
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, 31 May 2001 10:03:02 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Joining the Other Lists

Dear Jeff

I would really suggest that you post to the new lists otherwise you risk
being penalised for exceeding the five posts per day limit on a single list.

Fair warning?

I can subscribe you if you are having any difficulty.

Regards
Alternate Chair

Duh !!  Why did I do that?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 1:41 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] root vs roots - the false but usefull confusion

> Darryl and all assembly members,
>
> Dassa wrote:
>
> > |> -----Original Message-----
> > |> From: [email-masked] On Behalf Of Jefsey Morfin
> > |> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:15 PM
> > |> To: [email-masked]
> > |> Subject: [ga] root vs roots - the false but usefull confusion
> >
> > <snip>
> > |> It is not the root of the iCANN: the iCANN has deliberately
> > |> chosen to have its mini-root (authoritative on its TLDs] being only a
> > part of
> > |> the full and unique root.
> > |>
> > As ICANN has the major share of the name space the above is a little
> > misleading.
> >
> > There has been a bit of discussion on ICANN using US law to control
other
> > roots, mainly in the form of making it illegal for ISP's in the US to
use
> > them.  This has been touted as not being possible.
> >
> > Has anyone given any thought to other legal means ICANN has at its
> > disposal?  I would think that ICANN would be able to swing contractual
> > arrangements to control access to the legacy root.  Whereby anyone who
uses
> > the legacy root is under a contractual obligation to acknowledge it as
the
> > authoritive unique root and to not use the legacy root simultaneously
with
> > another root.  They could also knobble the other roots use of the legacy
> > root in the same manner.  Unless there is a contact authorising access
to
> > the legacy root, access is unauthorised and illegal.
>
>   This is one method that has potential to be sure.  However such a
proposed
> contract or set of contracts would need to be very careful to not get
crosswise
>
> with other federal statutes dealing with free market enterprise issues.  I
> won't
> list them individually here, but there are a number of them...
>
> >
> >
> > ISP's would be free to use any root they choose, but to use the legacy
root
> > they would be obligated to only use it.
> >
> > To me, this would allow ICANN to give the legacy root the authority that
> > people are saying it lacks.
>
>   I am glad you now recognize that there is no such thing as the "ICANN
> Roots" as you have used that description for the USG Legacy Roots
> in the past.  Even with such a contractual arrangement that you
> suggest, it would not necessarily carry the force of contract law
> outside of the US for those root servers in the legacy root structure
> that reside physically outside or the US, and are already under
> a contractual arrangement with the USG presently.  As such,
> the contractual arrangement that you suggest here would be
> circumventable to that extent at least.
>
> >
> >
> > Just a late night thought.
>
>   Well it was a good thought, just lacked some considerations that
> late night thoughts often do.  >;)
>
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> 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
>

- --
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, 30 May 2001 17:28:04 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Re[2]: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to   respo nse to  response)

erica roberts wrote:

> At the risk of stating the obvious ....
> We seem to be in danger here of forgetting that the Internet is global but
> the constitution of the USA is not.   While the US government is pretty
> powerful, it is not a global or world government.  The rest of the world is
> not bound by the constitution of the USA or the laws of the USA.  An
> international treaty would be required to make alternate roots illegal in
> the rest of the world.

Truer words were never spoken.  I am quite familiar with the Patent
Cooperation Treaty -- that's what I do, and I gave it as an example
a while back.  Looking from our side, where on earth did a bunch
of longhairs in Geneva (um, that's WIPO) get the authority to say
that Rancher Jones in Blowfly, Texas, USA, has to give up his domain
name to some dude in Italy? Or on the other side, where would any
such panel or whatever they call themselves get the authority to say
that, for example, Jefsey, in France, has to give up his domain name
to Bill Lovell in Aloha, Oregon, USA?  (Um, no, Jefsey, I'm not after
your domain name!) And of course domain names are but one issue
that gets unlawfully handled, methinks.

There is a very large body of "international law," e.g., the "law of
the sea," etc., that does not have a basis in treaty but rather in
custom over many centuries.  Obviously, internet issues do not
fall into such a class.

An essential problem in enforcing laws internationally is, where's
the court? There is a World Court and so on, but it has its
jurisdiction because countries have granted it the same. That
is, COUNTRIES grant jurisdiction, not individual people. Somehow,
I cannot see the USG going in to the World Court to oppose the
taking of a domain name from a U.S. citizen by some foreign
panel, although by rights it should, and likewise as to the other
way.  If I "swiped" Jefsey's domain name, would France rise to
his defense? Don't think so.

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, 30 May 2001 09:26:39 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN Stockholm Meeting Topic: Monitoring and Evaluation of New TLD Program

ICANN Stockholm Meeting Topic: Monitoring and Evaluation of New TLD Program

Posted: 28 May 2001

 http://www.icann.org/stockholm/new-tld-topic.htm

/Bruce

- --
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, 30 May 2001 10:14:46 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The NGO and Academic ICANN Study

The NGO and Academic ICANN Study

 http://www.naisproject.org/

More answers about the study.

/Bruce

- --
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, 30 May 2001 17:04:46 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] VeriSign To Expand Availability of *.bz* Domain Through Customer Base of Domain Name Registrars

VeriSign To Expand Availability of *.bz* Domain Through Customer Base of
Domain Name Registrars

 http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2001/pr_20010529c.html

And so it goes.......

/Bruce

- --
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, 30 May 2001 19:49:40 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Opening a Can of Soup

So here's the proof of your entire thesis.  A while back I set out to
join all the lists and get into the thick of things. I posted something
to ga-roots and next thing you know I see it up there as having been
posted on my behalf -- me being a "non-member."  "What is this?"
I sez to myself.  It seems that while I had got all the lists nicely into my
oh-so-organized directory, in doing the actual joining I had skipped over
ga-roots.  Duh.  Some of us just can't open a can of soup.

(And yes, I did mean, "How come it's in ga and not in ga-roots.")

Bill Lovell

Alternate Chair wrote:

> Hi Bill
>
> > Why isn't all this, and others like it, in ga-roots?
> > And what on earth is a "owner-ga-full?"
>
> Well it's like this.
>
> The more intelligence, degrees and other qualifications a person has the
> less ability they have in opening a can of soup.  Add to that that anybody
> dealing with alternate roots is an independent, ornery person who doesn't
> want to follow simple guidelines like "open can at other end" and you have a
> big mess.
>
> My golden rule is that "everybody" must co-operate to make a mailing list
> succeed but just "one" person can wreck those efforts. Let me work on that:
>
>     A mailing list *might* succeed if everybody co-operates.
>     But it is certain to fail if just one person doesn't.
>
> Or something along those lines.
>
> BTW My answer to much of your question is below.  The word "owner" is a list
> management term used in bounced messages.  I must have reposted a bounced
> message of something of that nature and released that address *into the
> wild* for one list member to get confused by it.
>
> I could ask the DNSO Secretariat to bounce posts of people who use that term
> but that would certainly wreck something somewhere else e.g. some proper
> posting to that address.
>
> So I am trying a bit of user training and education.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Alternate Chair <[email-masked]>
> To: [ga-rules] <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 00:56:40 +1000
> Subject: [ga-rules] Bounced Messages & Other List Administration
>
> All
>
> The GA-ROOTS list has received more postings that any of the other special
> purpose lists.  As well the debate has been vigorous and informed.  Other
> lists are starting to pick up and become relevant.
>
> Unfortunately one or two people have posted material relating to ROOTS
> elsewhere.  One person, for example, has posted to [email-masked]
> instead of [email-masked].   I have received this mail along with bounced
> posts such as submissions by non-members.
>
> I have reposted three non-member submissions.  I thought some were
> subscribed and the cause for the error needs to be investigated.  As far as
> I can tell, there is no set procedure and I could check their subscriptions
> or write to them privately or onlist.  Any corrective action takes time and
> effort.  It is also useful to post ICANN Announcements or even posts from
> other lists.
>
> There are therefore three types of postings I might make (1) my own views on
> a subject of interest (2) reposts and corrections (3) GA announcements.
> Trying to perform these tasks could easily lead me to exceed my personal
> daily posting limit.  This would be a valid but unworthy cause for concern.
>
> Of course, I could easily just ignore mis-postings, filter bounced messages
> and not re-post ICANN Announcements or other relevant emails.  I see that as
> bowing to form rather than substance.  A better solution is to refer
> complaints of excess postings to the List Monitors who can make an impartial
> assessment.  Pity that this just adds to their already large burden.
>
> Another alternative is to make arrangements to pass this work to the DNSO
> Secretariat.
>
> Clearly, list administration is a necessary function.  Personally, I would
> prefer to spend more time on substantive issues relating to ICANN policy.
> In fact, it is easy to forget that even intelligent people disagree or just
> get things wrong.
>
> I'd therefore ask everyone to assist with the list housekeeping by (a)
> making sure you are subscribed before posting (b) using the right "to" and
> "from" addresses and (c) posting to the most relevant mailing list.  I would
> particularly suggest that you do not simply blindly follow the previous
> person -- it should be easy to tell ROOTS from RULES etc.
>
> I'd appreciate any constructive comments.  Should this be considered an
> official post.
> And if so, should it be excluded from my daily limit of five posts?
>
> Thank you for your time
> Patrick Corliss
> Alternate Chair

- --
         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: Wed, 30 May 2001 20:01:57 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Opening a Can of Soup

This is why we need you as the chair of one of the sub-lists, please accept my
nomination of you as chair of the ga-rules. This is a very important postion that
will give credibility to the GA, we need a man like you who can build alliances
and yet remain independent and guide productivity and freedom at the same time.

Sincerely,
Eric

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> So here's the proof of your entire thesis.  A while back I set out to
> join all the lists and get into the thick of things. I posted something
> to ga-roots and next thing you know I see it up there as having been
> posted on my behalf -- me being a "non-member."  "What is this?"
> I sez to myself.  It seems that while I had got all the lists nicely into my
> oh-so-organized directory, in doing the actual joining I had skipped over
> ga-roots.  Duh.  Some of us just can't open a can of soup.
>
> (And yes, I did mean, "How come it's in ga and not in ga-roots.")
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> Alternate Chair wrote:
>
> > Hi Bill
> >
> > > Why isn't all this, and others like it, in ga-roots?
> > > And what on earth is a "owner-ga-full?"
> >
> > Well it's like this.
> >
> > The more intelligence, degrees and other qualifications a person has the
> > less ability they have in opening a can of soup.  Add to that that anybody
> > dealing with alternate roots is an independent, ornery person who doesn't
> > want to follow simple guidelines like "open can at other end" and you have a
> > big mess.
> >
> > My golden rule is that "everybody" must co-operate to make a mailing list
> > succeed but just "one" person can wreck those efforts. Let me work on that:
> >
> >     A mailing list *might* succeed if everybody co-operates.
> >     But it is certain to fail if just one person doesn't.
> >
> > Or something along those lines.
> >
> > BTW My answer to much of your question is below.  The word "owner" is a list
> > management term used in bounced messages.  I must have reposted a bounced
> > message of something of that nature and released that address *into the
> > wild* for one list member to get confused by it.
> >
> > I could ask the DNSO Secretariat to bounce posts of people who use that term
> > but that would certainly wreck something somewhere else e.g. some proper
> > posting to that address.
> >
> > So I am trying a bit of user training and education.
> >
> > <sigh>
> >
> > Best regards
> > Patrick Corliss
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Alternate Chair <[email-masked]>
> > To: [ga-rules] <[email-masked]>
> > Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 00:56:40 +1000
> > Subject: [ga-rules] Bounced Messages & Other List Administration
> >
> > All
> >
> > The GA-ROOTS list has received more postings that any of the other special
> > purpose lists.  As well the debate has been vigorous and informed.  Other
> > lists are starting to pick up and become relevant.
> >
> > Unfortunately one or two people have posted material relating to ROOTS
> > elsewhere.  One person, for example, has posted to [email-masked]
> > instead of [email-masked].   I have received this mail along with bounced
> > posts such as submissions by non-members.
> >
> > I have reposted three non-member submissions.  I thought some were
> > subscribed and the cause for the error needs to be investigated.  As far as
> > I can tell, there is no set procedure and I could check their subscriptions
> > or write to them privately or onlist.  Any corrective action takes time and
> > effort.  It is also useful to post ICANN Announcements or even posts from
> > other lists.
> >
> > There are therefore three types of postings I might make (1) my own views on
> > a subject of interest (2) reposts and corrections (3) GA announcements.
> > Trying to perform these tasks could easily lead me to exceed my personal
> > daily posting limit.  This would be a valid but unworthy cause for concern.
> >
> > Of course, I could easily just ignore mis-postings, filter bounced messages
> > and not re-post ICANN Announcements or other relevant emails.  I see that as
> > bowing to form rather than substance.  A better solution is to refer
> > complaints of excess postings to the List Monitors who can make an impartial
> > assessment.  Pity that this just adds to their already large burden.
> >
> > Another alternative is to make arrangements to pass this work to the DNSO
> > Secretariat.
> >
> > Clearly, list administration is a necessary function.  Personally, I would
> > prefer to spend more time on substantive issues relating to ICANN policy.
> > In fact, it is easy to forget that even intelligent people disagree or just
> > get things wrong.
> >
> > I'd therefore ask everyone to assist with the list housekeeping by (a)
> > making sure you are subscribed before posting (b) using the right "to" and
> > "from" addresses and (c) posting to the most relevant mailing list.  I would
> > particularly suggest that you do not simply blindly follow the previous
> > person -- it should be easy to tell ROOTS from RULES etc.
> >
> > I'd appreciate any constructive comments.  Should this be considered an
> > official post.
> > And if so, should it be excluded from my daily limit of five posts?
> >
> > Thank you for your time
> > Patrick Corliss
> > Alternate Chair
>
> --
>          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-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, 31 May 2001 15:07:10 +1200
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] VeriSign To Expand Availability of *.bz* Domain Through  Customer Base of Domain Name Registrars

Bruce James did post:

> VeriSign To Expand Availability of *.bz* Domain Through Customer Base of
> Domain Name Registrars

Also see the press release at the same time on .cc and .nu (almost exact
same wording for all 3 other than the quotes from the ccTLD)

Steven Heath
Councillor, Internet Society of New Zealand (ISOCNZ)

- --
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, 30 May 2001 20:34:37 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  General Assembly Agenda -- more comments

Coincidence has its limits of veracity.  (Oops, that sounds like one
of the other guys -- I'll start again.) I cannot escape the conclusion,
based upon the level of shrillness, the volume of attack emails, and the
irrelevance and inanity of the remarks pertaining to the malfunction of
the ga lists, as these all begin to rise like an over-yeasted cake just
at critical moments prior to events such as Stockholm, that the thing
is deliberate -- indeed, a sabotage designed specifically to foster the
very thing that it decries, namely, the ga as a lower level chat room.

Bill Lovell

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Danny,
>
> Tuesday, May 29, 2001, 9:45:18 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > Hello William,
>
> > Yes, I suppose some might find it more entertaining to play the "Let's Bash
> > the Chair Game", instead of focusing on the GA's work-item agenda.  Thank
> > you for introducing this diversion.   I hope you don't mind overly much if I
> > decline to participate...
>
> It's not a diversion at all.
>
> And I might say much more fruitful than a chair who simply reposts
> things that people have already stated on the list, but isn't doing
> anything to further the discussion, debate, or consensus processes on
> any of those issues at all.
>
> I venture to say it is nothing but show, to keep the assembly occupied
> with inanities while you continue advocating your own agenda and using
> the lack of progress in the GA as your basis for spending your time
> doing that rather than being the true leader that the GA needs,
> especially right now.
>
> You've already declined to participate.  You've also declined to be
> the leader that the GA Chairman is expected to be.
>
> I'm simply hoping that you will be motivated to step up to the plate
> finally, and be our chairman.
>
> And perhaps I'm not alone in feeling that way.  So, rather than
> presume to speak for those people (like you have done when you claimed
> that certain things that had not even been discussed where concerns
> from the GA) I am floating a question for them to consider, and then
> to see if our current Chairman is living up to whatever their answer
> is.
>
> --
> 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

- --
         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: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:52:18 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RFQ--COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT OF .US TOP LEVEL DOMAIN

RFQ--COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT OF .US TOP LEVEL DOMAIN:

 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usrfp/cbd52501.txt

/Bruce

- --
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, 30 May 2001 23:11:15 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Domain Policy Search Engine

As many of you probably remember, when I had more time on my hands I
maintained a slash powered site at dnspolicy.net, which I pulled
offline when I no longer had the time to maintain it.

What I have decided to do with it is to turn it into a Domain Policy
search engine.

Currently I have it doing the initial indexing of the following
websites:

http://www.dnso.org/
http://www.icann.org/
http://www.internic.net/
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/
http://www.iana.org/
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/Tech/Domain_Names_and_Registration/
http://www.open-rsc.org/
http://www.icannwatch.org/

The DNSO index will include all of the mailing list archives as well.

If you have a domain policy oriented website you think would be
worthwhile adding to this list sites searchable by this index, please
send them to me via email offlist.

For what it is worth, I do not intend to let my personal biases enter
into my decisions to index sites, but I do prefer that the sites have
some actual content worth indexing.

I'll have the search engine online sometime early in the A.M. at
http://www.dnspolicy.com/ and http://www.dnspolicy.net/ (both point to
a domain parking page right now, so you might want to wait till
tomorrow to go there)

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 07:43:06 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 2826 Golden Rule

Dear Eric,
what do you want the USG to do with my computer, the computer of
a wizz vietnamese kid or the computer of a Sao Paulo football club?

 > On 20:22 30/05/01, Eric Dierker said:
 > I for one would rather see a USG federal court judge decide this, than
 > the Versign controlled ICANN BoD and Staff.

 > I would be well pleased if someone could correct my thinking here or
 > show me a reasonable alternative

I am authoritative on my machine, on whats goes in it and on what it
does. There are works right now to add an article to the Human Rights,
about the electronic environment of he Human Being (TV, radio,
computers, nets) wich would say that in two lines.

The USG may rule ".us" as much as they want. I am OK about the
.com, .net they have confused with .us. They decided to make .org
some kind of DN UN, so they should not care about it any more.

The rest is public international domain and the way the inclusive
root works today is just fine and line with millenary common
international practice "first taker is the owner provided common
sense is respected and abandonned tlds are understood free"
(I remind l you that it includes the iCANN since it is inclusive and
belongs to no one/everyone). I can send you a daily copy of  the
inclusive root status from the collection work of different RSCs.

If the iCANN, as any other RSC (root service center), has propositions
to make as any other one, please them to send the others a mail so
the system may improve. But first they have to stop supporting
colliders if they wan to be taken seriously.

Now to address Dassa's remarks. The iCANN only product is the
"master-root". It is a mini-root. It includes roughly 1/3rd of the
existing TLDs. The recognition by the public has nothing to do
with the size of a file. The size of a file is the number of bytes it
contains and what it permits to do. The inclusive root permits to
go everywhere the iCANN root permits and much more... The fact
that most of the additional TLDs are small or medium TLDs (what
compares with many ccTLDs) has nothing to do with it.  iCANN
"internet map" offers 260 directions (TLD), while inclusive root
counts at least 600 directions. So the iCANN has a mini-root file.

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 03:23:05 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Policy Search Engine

It's up at dnspolicy.com/net

I've added a few more sites to the index from feedback. If you know
more than would be appropriate let me know.

Feel free to use it, it's still not completely done with the initial
indexing, but it is mostly done.

The ICANN comments and DNSO mailing list (workgroups and all) are
included, as well as all the NTIA comments.

Wednesday, May 30, 2001, 11:11:15 PM, William X. Walsh wrote:

> As many of you probably remember, when I had more time on my hands I
> maintained a slash powered site at dnspolicy.net, which I pulled
> offline when I no longer had the time to maintain it.

> What I have decided to do with it is to turn it into a Domain Policy
> search engine.

> Currently I have it doing the initial indexing of the following
> websites:

> http://www.dnso.org/
> http://www.icann.org/
> http://www.internic.net/
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/
> http://www.iana.org/
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/Tech/Domain_Names_and_Registration/
> http://www.open-rsc.org/
> http://www.icannwatch.org/

> The DNSO index will include all of the mailing list archives as well.

> If you have a domain policy oriented website you think would be
> worthwhile adding to this list sites searchable by this index, please
> send them to me via email offlist.

> For what it is worth, I do not intend to let my personal biases enter
> into my decisions to index sites, but I do prefer that the sites have
> some actual content worth indexing.

> I'll have the search engine online sometime early in the A.M. at
> http://www.dnspolicy.com/ and http://www.dnspolicy.net/ (both point to
> a domain parking page right now, so you might want to wait till
> tomorrow to go there)

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 17:51:59 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA-ICANN ---- Meeting in Stockholm

Hi William

I hope you won't mind assisting in co-ordinating information coming out of
the ICANN conference in Stockholm.  I'm sure we would all appreciate your
valiant efforts.  I think we can call you WG-Chair or Co-Ordinator until we
can sort out a proper structure.  Perhaps you could help us to do that also?

Meanwhile I'd ask that everything to do with ICANN be posted on the GA-ICANN
mailing list.  Anyone have any trouble co-operating with that request:

                                ICANN on GA-ICANN.

You can subscribe by posting to [email-masked] in the text:

subscribe ga-icann

If anyone needs help, please ask me.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #505
************************