Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #510
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Sunday, June 3 2001             Volume 01 : Number 510

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

Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 07:52:04 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

The ccTLDs came into ICANN very early, and have worked within the process --
making substantive and critical contributions. From what I have seen, they
have held many meetings, organized across the ccTLDs, both regionally and in
conjunction with ICANN's meeting. 

Their issues are broader and significantly different from the gTLDs, which
is the primary work so far of the DNSO.  They have a relationship directly
to their governments (respectively), which the gTLDs don't, etc, etc.

All in all, the idea of creating an SO seems appropriate to allow them to
work within themselves, remain a part of ICANN, and coordinate as
appropriate with other SOs.  
Of course, we will take broad consultation within the BC as the concept is
developed.  

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 8:47 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: GA
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, at 19:19 [=GMT-0400], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I think the headline is a mischaracterisation.  The ccTLD move has
received
> support from the BC, ISPC, IPC, in a briefing they held today. I expect
> supporting statements to be made in the public meeting. Everyone I've
talked
> to seems to agree that they are already doing so much work on the issues
> which are different from gTLD issues -- in essence almost operating as an
> SO. 

A lot of work has been going on on the NCDNHC for years. Should they
get a couple of seats on the ICANN board too? No, the BC etc. will not
support that. What does this support mean???

Really, the ccTLds are part of the DNSO. By *definition*. 

> 
> Marilyn
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce James [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 1:30 PM
> To: GA
> Subject: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN
> 
> 
> Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN:
> 
>  http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/19395.html
> 
> /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
> 

- --
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: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 07:12:05 -0500
From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

Which of the following are so-called, "ccTLDs" ?

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

The consensus is to remove all non-performing TLDs
from the prime 2,048 IPv8 slots to allow the "best of breed" TLDs
to gain more exposure. IPv16 can accommodate 32,768 TLDs.
Any non-performing TLD can be moved away from the users who
are demanding other TLDs, such as .KIWI, .BULLS, and .BEATLES.

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-NZ.com
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 6:52 AM
To: 'Marc Schneiders'
Cc: GA
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

The ccTLDs came into ICANN very early, and have worked within the process --
making substantive and critical contributions. From what I have seen, they
have held many meetings, organized across the ccTLDs, both regionally and in
conjunction with ICANN's meeting.

Their issues are broader and significantly different from the gTLDs, which
is the primary work so far of the DNSO.  They have a relationship directly
to their governments (respectively), which the gTLDs don't, etc, etc.

All in all, the idea of creating an SO seems appropriate to allow them to
work within themselves, remain a part of ICANN, and coordinate as
appropriate with other SOs.
Of course, we will take broad consultation within the BC as the concept is
developed.

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 8:47 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: GA
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, at 19:19 [=GMT-0400], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I think the headline is a mischaracterisation.  The ccTLD move has
received
> support from the BC, ISPC, IPC, in a briefing they held today. I expect
> supporting statements to be made in the public meeting. Everyone I've
talked
> to seems to agree that they are already doing so much work on the issues
> which are different from gTLD issues -- in essence almost operating as an
> SO.

A lot of work has been going on on the NCDNHC for years. Should they
get a couple of seats on the ICANN board too? No, the BC etc. will not
support that. What does this support mean???

Really, the ccTLds are part of the DNSO. By *definition*.

>
> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce James [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 1:30 PM
> To: GA
> Subject: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN
>
>
> Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN:
>
>  http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/19395.html
>
> /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
>

- --
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-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: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 07:41:56 -0500
From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 6:52 AM

The ccTLDs came into ICANN very early, and have worked within the process --
making substantive and critical contributions.

- ------

Do the so-called "ccTLDs" meet the same contractural
and operational requirements as the other TLDs that
ICANN claims to promote (franchise?) ?

Did the ccTLDs pay a $50,000 application fee ?

Has each of the ccTLDs come before the ICANN Board and
made a case for why they should be considered to be part
of the so-called "ICANN root" ?

Do the ccTLDs operate with NEBs*-quality equipment ?

Are .TV, .AM and .FM ccTLDs ?

* NEBs - Network Equipment and Building Standards

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-NZ.com
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp

- --
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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 15:33:20 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-ROOTS - Denial, Dismissal and Dogma.

Patrick,
just a few points:

At 12:33 03.06.2001 +1000, Alternate Chair wrote:
>(1)    The Names Council is looking to save money.  That's what they say,
>anyway.  I see that as quite false.  In fact, yesterday's webcast made in
>quite clear they had a "slush fund" which they could draw on if needed.  And
>ICANN should fund them, anyway.
>
>BTW Was I mistaken or did Verisign just cough up $100,000?  What was that
>for?  And what did Verisign get in return?  Do you believe pure generosity
>of spirit !!!

The 100.000 was "matching funds" - if others coughed up their part, 
Verisign would allocate a similar amount.

>(2)    There is censorship afoot.  Purportedly because of (1) the Names
>Council wants to close down some lists.  They already suggested closing
>GA-FULL and I reckon that's just being held over until after the Sotckholm
>conference.  The one sublist that was really taking off was GA-ROOTS.  So
>naturally naysayers attacked it -- a good excuse.

There will be no NC working group on the issue. This does not mean that the 
list should be closed. Don't believe it until you see it.

>(3)    Alternate Roots !!  Probably the most critical issue to face ICANN in
>the world today.  In fact, they have the potential to completely undermine
>the whole structure.  And I really don't care if it is having *right now* --
>it certainly COULD and I think WILL.  But the argument is that the subject
>is *out of scope*.   Perhaps a standard line from ICANN staff.
>
>But it's a clever trick.  It means that the Names Council CAN and almost
>certainly WILL close down the GA-ROOTS mailing list at any time they like.

see above. My opinion is that "alternate roots" are a Bad Idea, and 
unlikely to have any big influence anyway. But I think having a GA sublist 
to have that argument on is a Good Thing.

>(4)     The ICANN CEO, Stuart Lynn came up with his own policy statement.
>This received mixed reviews but they were mostly negative.  Apart from the
>content, I think he made several mistakes in his approach.  But he's new to
>the job and doesn't quite understand all the dynamics yet.  My guess is that
>Kent Crispin wrote the statement and Stuart appended his name afterwards.
>Whatever the truth the ICANN view is quite clear.  Wrong but clear ;-)

You're wrong. Stuart wrote it himself, drawing on other sources. The points 
he got wrong are points that Kent would never have missed.
And there have been a lot of people agreeing with him.

>One more point.  It has been argued that my intention in setting up a Roots
>mailing list was to "capture" the debate.  More FUD.  Moving the debate to a
>separate list just "allowed" the debate room to breathe.  It also sheltered
>the main GA list from a lot of hostility.

I think GA-ROOTS was a Good Idea. And I think we'll keep it.

- --
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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 15:20:55 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

At 07:12 03.06.2001 -0500, JIM FLEMING wrote:
>Which of the following are so-called, "ccTLDs" ?

 From http://www.wwtld.org/whoiswho/:

Members

       The ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO is composed of ccTLD Registries.
       The roster of ccTLD Registries is maintained by ICANN in IANA ccTLD
       database http://www.iana.org/cctld.html

I believe the rest of Jim Fleming's message is irrelevant to the business 
of the DNSO General Assembly.

- --
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: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 09:10:57 -0500
From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

Do ICANN and the IETF censor the .BEATLES also ?

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg11224.html
http://beatles.cselt.it/cgi-bin/ietf_censored-filters

- -----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 8:21 AM
To: JIM FLEMING
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'Marc Schneiders'; GA
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

At 07:12 03.06.2001 -0500, JIM FLEMING wrote:
>Which of the following are so-called, "ccTLDs" ?

 From http://www.wwtld.org/whoiswho/:

Members

       The ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO is composed of ccTLD Registries.
       The roster of ccTLD Registries is maintained by ICANN in IANA ccTLD
       database http://www.iana.org/cctld.html

I believe the rest of Jim Fleming's message is irrelevant to the business 
of the DNSO General Assembly.

- --
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: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 09:12:59 -0500
From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA-ROOTS - Denial, Dismissal and Dogma.

Do ICANN and the IETF censor the .BEATLES also ?

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg11224.html
http://beatles.cselt.it/cgi-bin/ietf_censored-filters

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 8:33 AM
To: Alternate Chair
Cc: Marc Schneiders; [ga]; M. Stuart Lynn, ICANN
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-ROOTS - Denial, Dismissal and Dogma.

Patrick,
just a few points:

At 12:33 03.06.2001 +1000, Alternate Chair wrote:
>(1)    The Names Council is looking to save money.  That's what they say,
>anyway.  I see that as quite false.  In fact, yesterday's webcast made in
>quite clear they had a "slush fund" which they could draw on if needed.
And
>ICANN should fund them, anyway.
>
>BTW Was I mistaken or did Verisign just cough up $100,000?  What was that
>for?  And what did Verisign get in return?  Do you believe pure generosity
>of spirit !!!

The 100.000 was "matching funds" - if others coughed up their part,
Verisign would allocate a similar amount.

>(2)    There is censorship afoot.  Purportedly because of (1) the Names
>Council wants to close down some lists.  They already suggested closing
>GA-FULL and I reckon that's just being held over until after the Sotckholm
>conference.  The one sublist that was really taking off was GA-ROOTS.  So
>naturally naysayers attacked it -- a good excuse.

There will be no NC working group on the issue. This does not mean that the
list should be closed. Don't believe it until you see it.

>(3)    Alternate Roots !!  Probably the most critical issue to face ICANN
in
>the world today.  In fact, they have the potential to completely undermine
>the whole structure.  And I really don't care if it is having *right
now* --
>it certainly COULD and I think WILL.  But the argument is that the subject
>is *out of scope*.   Perhaps a standard line from ICANN staff.
>
>But it's a clever trick.  It means that the Names Council CAN and almost
>certainly WILL close down the GA-ROOTS mailing list at any time they like.

see above. My opinion is that "alternate roots" are a Bad Idea, and
unlikely to have any big influence anyway. But I think having a GA sublist
to have that argument on is a Good Thing.

>(4)     The ICANN CEO, Stuart Lynn came up with his own policy statement.
>This received mixed reviews but they were mostly negative.  Apart from the
>content, I think he made several mistakes in his approach.  But he's new to
>the job and doesn't quite understand all the dynamics yet.  My guess is
that
>Kent Crispin wrote the statement and Stuart appended his name afterwards.
>Whatever the truth the ICANN view is quite clear.  Wrong but clear ;-)

You're wrong. Stuart wrote it himself, drawing on other sources. The points
he got wrong are points that Kent would never have missed.
And there have been a lot of people agreeing with him.

>One more point.  It has been argued that my intention in setting up a Roots
>mailing list was to "capture" the debate.  More FUD.  Moving the debate to
a
>separate list just "allowed" the debate room to breathe.  It also sheltered
>the main GA list from a lot of hostility.

I think GA-ROOTS was a Good Idea. And I think we'll keep it.

- --
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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 07:59:19 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ccTLD-Communique

Thank you Bruce;

Sometimes the passing of a message creates a message from the messenger.

Bruce James wrote:

> Communiqué of the ccTLD Constituency
> Stockholm, 1 June 2001
>
>   http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/ccTLD-communique.html
>
> /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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 08:28:35 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Perspective

Of course Mr. Younger did a great job, that is what we pay him the big
bucks for isn't it?

Of course the ccTLDs are up in arms, but the tea party we originally
referred to was Alice's not Boston's.

Of course the companies who are in a position of power want to keep it
that way, and those without want to change things, although 3 three just
offered to give me their exclusive positions for free.

Of course Harold likes Mr. Lynn's report and ATT is playing spin doctor.

Of course I have to hurry now to go help with fixing the car, raising my
children, buying groceries and being human.  Does life reflect the GA
list, or does the GA list reflect life? Me thinks neither.

eric (unless the "names" council changed it while I was busy)

- --
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: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:48:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] With all due respect Mr. Froomkin

Since my name is invoked in the subject line, I feel I should explain
that readers wondering what on earth this is about may wish to consult
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=189

Since I didn't start this topic on this list, and don't think it belongs
here either, I don't plan to follow up further on this list.
- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's hot here.<--

- --
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, 4 Jun 2001 02:45:43 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-ROOTS - Denial, Dismissal and Dogma.

Thanks Harald.

Actually, I think it will be hard for the NC to kill off the GA-ROOTS now
after Stuart's comments that the issue needs to be debated.  Perhaps he will
support the retention of the mailing list should the NC move to stop it.
Poor Mueller seemed very disappointed that he couldn't get anywhere with
rational analysis !!

Persnally I think two years is too long.  Things will have come to the boil
long before then.  Although I do think it will take much more than two years
before the problem is solved.

In hindsight I was wrong to suggest Kent wrote the policy statement.  I
trust Stuart as both honest and professional and I apologise to him again.
It was coincidental that Kent Crispin had also written on the same issue.

I'd like, if we can, to work our way through Stuart's paper.  Like it or
not, it is the principal statement on the table and needs to be addressed
properly.

And let's all do our best to keep the GA-ROOTS as it is the only place where
the issue CAN be debated.  I am also glad that Danny mentioned its
existence.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

BTW I missed you at the microphone.  It's fun to see what people look like
!!

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
To: Alternate Chair <[email-masked]>
Cc: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>; [ga] <[email-masked]>; M. Stuart
Lynn, ICANN <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-ROOTS - Denial, Dismissal and Dogma.

> Patrick,
> just a few points:
>
> At 12:33 03.06.2001 +1000, Alternate Chair wrote:
> >(1)    The Names Council is looking to save money.  That's what they say,
> >anyway.  I see that as quite false.  In fact, yesterday's webcast made in
> >quite clear they had a "slush fund" which they could draw on if needed.
And
> >ICANN should fund them, anyway.
> >
> >BTW Was I mistaken or did Verisign just cough up $100,000?  What was that
> >for?  And what did Verisign get in return?  Do you believe pure
generosity
> >of spirit !!!
>
> The 100.000 was "matching funds" - if others coughed up their part,
> Verisign would allocate a similar amount.
>
> >(2)    There is censorship afoot.  Purportedly because of (1) the Names
> >Council wants to close down some lists.  They already suggested closing
> >GA-FULL and I reckon that's just being held over until after the
Sotckholm
> >conference.  The one sublist that was really taking off was GA-ROOTS.  So
> >naturally naysayers attacked it -- a good excuse.
>
> There will be no NC working group on the issue. This does not mean that
the
> list should be closed. Don't believe it until you see it.
>
> >(3)    Alternate Roots !!  Probably the most critical issue to face ICANN
in
> >the world today.  In fact, they have the potential to completely
undermine
> >the whole structure.  And I really don't care if it is having *right
now* --
> >it certainly COULD and I think WILL.  But the argument is that the
subject
> >is *out of scope*.   Perhaps a standard line from ICANN staff.
> >
> >But it's a clever trick.  It means that the Names Council CAN and almost
> >certainly WILL close down the GA-ROOTS mailing list at any time they
like.
>
> see above. My opinion is that "alternate roots" are a Bad Idea, and
> unlikely to have any big influence anyway. But I think having a GA sublist
> to have that argument on is a Good Thing.
>
> >(4)     The ICANN CEO, Stuart Lynn came up with his own policy statement.
> >This received mixed reviews but they were mostly negative.  Apart from
the
> >content, I think he made several mistakes in his approach.  But he's new
to
> >the job and doesn't quite understand all the dynamics yet.  My guess is
that
> >Kent Crispin wrote the statement and Stuart appended his name afterwards.
> >Whatever the truth the ICANN view is quite clear.  Wrong but clear ;-)
>
> You're wrong. Stuart wrote it himself, drawing on other sources. The
points
> he got wrong are points that Kent would never have missed.
> And there have been a lot of people agreeing with him.
>
> >One more point.  It has been argued that my intention in setting up a
Roots
> >mailing list was to "capture" the debate.  More FUD.  Moving the debate
to a
> >separate list just "allowed" the debate room to breathe.  It also
sheltered
> >the main GA list from a lot of hostility.
>
> I think GA-ROOTS was a Good Idea. And I think we'll keep it.
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 12:51:48 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

JIM FLEMING wrote:
> 
> Which of the following are so-called, "ccTLDs" ?
> 
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> 
> The consensus is to remove all non-performing TLDs
> from the prime 2,048 IPv8 slots to allow the "best of breed" TLDs
> to gain more exposure. IPv16 can accommodate 32,768 TLDs.
> Any non-performing TLD can be moved away from the users who
> are demanding other TLDs, such as .KIWI, .BULLS, and .BEATLES.
> 
> Jim Fleming

"IPv8", an allegedly technical proposal, is hopelessly out of ICANN's
topic area. I suggest you either try submitting it to the IETF Working
Groups in charge of IP design (where I would expect it to be laughed
at for the way it butchers layering, if nothing else) or shut up about
it.
- --
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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 12:41:41 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Perspective

on 6/3/01 11:28 AM, Eric Dierker at [email-masked] wrote:

> Of course Mr. Younger did a great job, that is what we pay him the big
> bucks for isn't it?

Danny Younger is not a wealthy person, has a young family and can ill afford
these trips out of his own pocket. I think we should at least invite him to
submit his account of ICANN related expenses over the past week, discuss the
issue and solicit contributions towards reimbursement.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 11:59:04 -0500
From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Microsoft Selects IPv8-style Addressing for IPv6 Meeting

Microsoft Selects IPv8-style Addressing for IPv6 Meeting

What style of addressing is being used at the ICANN Meeting ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 1:17 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPv6 @ interim meeting 

>	as a temporary measure I have configured tunnel to IIJ Palo Alto device.
>	the IPv6 prefix for the meeting room is 3ffe:507:1ff::/64.
>
>	it would be, of course, better to have ipv6 prefix from microsoft
>	research :-)

	today we've got a router operated by MS research guys, using 6to4.
	so my router have went away.
	2002:836b:2505:5::/64

itojun
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Sandy Harris
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 11:52 AM
To: GA
Subject: Re: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

JIM FLEMING wrote:
> 
> Which of the following are so-called, "ccTLDs" ?
> 
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> 
> The consensus is to remove all non-performing TLDs
> from the prime 2,048 IPv8 slots to allow the "best of breed" TLDs
> to gain more exposure. IPv16 can accommodate 32,768 TLDs.
> Any non-performing TLD can be moved away from the users who
> are demanding other TLDs, such as .KIWI, .BULLS, and .BEATLES.
> 
> Jim Fleming

"IPv8", an allegedly technical proposal, is hopelessly out of ICANN's
topic area. I suggest you either try submitting it to the IETF Working
Groups in charge of IP design (where I would expect it to be laughed
at for the way it butchers layering, if nothing else) or shut up about
it.
- --
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: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 13:20:14 -0500
From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

Are those the TLDs that have "withdrawn" from the DNSO ?

Should ALL of the so-called ccTLDs be moved from the
IPv8 list to the IPv16 list ?
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

What about .TV, .AM and .FM ?

Do people really want .TV, .AM and .FM "withdrawn" ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 8:21 AM
To: JIM FLEMING
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'Marc Schneiders'; GA
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

At 07:12 03.06.2001 -0500, JIM FLEMING wrote:
>Which of the following are so-called, "ccTLDs" ?

 From http://www.wwtld.org/whoiswho/:

Members

       The ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO is composed of ccTLD Registries.
       The roster of ccTLD Registries is maintained by ICANN in IANA ccTLD
       database http://www.iana.org/cctld.html

I believe the rest of Jim Fleming's message is irrelevant to the business 
of the DNSO General Assembly.

- --
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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 13:58:24 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN Public Meeting Archives

ICANN Public Meeting Archives:

 http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/

/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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 13:40:43 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: UPDATE: ICANN-Stockholm Public Forum Complete, Board Meeting Tomorrow

on 6/3/01 1:22 PM, Ben Edelman at [email-masked] wrote:
> Today's ICANN Public Forum is now complete, and archives of this session and
> yesterday's DNSO meetings have been posted in the online meeting archive at
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive>.  Archives include
> complete RealVideo recordings, agendas, scribe's notes, documents and
> presentations used, real-time questions received, and online discussion logs.

Ben, I am getting an Error 404 on all scribe notes.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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 #510
************************