Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #515
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, June 6 2001           Volume 01 : Number 515

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

Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 11:03:34 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the NC takes the next step

Will the ccTLDs attend?

On 02:59 05/06/01, DPF said:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:34:05 +1200, you wrote:
>
> >The Names Council just decided to form a task force to create an RFP for an
> >Individuals' Constituency and to invite the GA Chair or an elected member
> >of the GA to be part of this task force.
>
>Excellent news.

- --
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: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 11:12:06 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Perspective

Joop,

I don't think it is easy for either Markle or Salzburg Seminar to modify the 
rules: if they decided to put some money in support of the Non-Commercial 
companies, they cannot change it half way.
I assume they are also monitored and scrutinized, and cannot bend rules, 
even if a strong case is built.
Maybe we should build the case for the next year's budget.
But my preferred choice is to do some fundraising within the GA.

Regards
Roberto

>From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
>To: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [ga] Perspective
>Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 05:53:25 +1200
>
>At 12:41 3/06/01 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
>>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.
>
>I thought that is what Eric was driving at.
>Funding is a critical issue.
>Apart from individual help by members here, I find it a crying shame that
>the Markle Foundation, (through Salzburg Seminar)  that boasts to be
>funding the ICANN travel for the sake of democratic representation, closes
>its eyes when there is genuine and obvious need to help promoting 
>democracy.
>Instead it sticks to its rules that only members of organizations that
>belong to the NCDNHC are eligible for funding.
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
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: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 11:45:30 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: International Dates

Patrick, and all those who replied,

It may not be worthed continuing, and maybe out of the scope of this list, 
but the point is, IMHO, not what the most common use in which country is, 
but what is the "standard".

Indeed, ISO did not standardize just the country codes (ISO-3166): you may 
have a look at ISO 8601:1988 and ISO 8601:1997 "Representation of dates and 
times".
The document states that the dates in day+month+year format(1) should be 
indicated as "ccyy-mm-dd" (please note the presence of the century as well). 
There are also other acceptable formats, like "ccyyddd", where "ddd" is the 
day of the year "ccyy" since the first of January, or "ccyy-Www-d", where 
"ww" is the numer of the week and "d" is the day of the week.
Incidentally, the document also defines the format of time-of-day (which is, 
surprise surprise, exactly the one that Elisabeth is using for timings of 
teleconferences and other events).

I believe that we should not re-invent the wheel when an international body 
like ISO has solved the problem once and for good.

Regards
Roberto

(and yes, Ben + crew did an outstanding job, once again)

Note(1):

>From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
>To: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
>CC: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>, "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: International Dates
>Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 00:22:18 +1000
>
>Hi Roberto
>
> > When you say "6/4/01" in the subject line, you really mean "2001-06-04"
>
>In England and Australia the date is written dd-mm-yy as in 25/05/99.  I
>still find it very hard to decipher a date with low numbers like 6/4/01.  I
>think it is the 6th April rather than 4th June.  Whenever I see such a 
>date,
>I need to check other dates in the set -- if there are any -- to work out
>which format is being used.
>
>Some years ago I heard that there was an International Standard that did 
>not
>use numbers at all.  The format used was that found on most date stamps
>(over here at least).  That uses three letter months such as JAN, MAR and
>APR.
>
>So you would have a date like 25 MAY 99.  It was considered very good
>because you did not need a hyphen as a separator - the numbers were either
>side of a word.  It was even possible to squash them together (without
>spaces) as 25MAY99.
>
>I am not altogether sure how "international" this standard can be when the
>names of the months are clearly in English.  In French I suppose you would
>need MAI instead of MAY, for example.  With hyphens, it's the date format I
>prefer when working with Microsoft Excel spreadsheet eg 25-May-99 now
>25-May-1999.
>
>Of course the numeric reverse date format 2001-05-25 is the best naming
>system to use should you wish to list items in date order.  I often use 
>that
>characteristic with file naming and find it most convenient.  Either that 
>or
>forwards (as in the 25-05-2001) is more logical because the date is
>ascending or descending laterally.
>
>But you are assuming Roman notation for numerals.  You are, no doubt, aware
>that many languages such as Arabic have a different script for numerals.
>Which is perhaps anomalous since I understand ours is considered Arabic
>notation ;-)
>
>But I certainly thank Ben and the Berkman Centre for their help with 
>working
>out the time in Stockholm.  That's a particular difficulty as was noted in
>Melbourne.
>
>Best regards
>Patrick Corliss
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Cc: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 8:24 AM
>Subject: [ga] Re: UPDATE: Open Mic Period Rescheduled to 6/4/01 9AM
>
>
> > News from Ben, that there will be a chance to submit comments tomorrow
>(see
> > below).
> > My only comment, besides the compliments to Ben + the Berkman Center for 
>a
> > job well done once again (that I have seen this time from the other side
>of
> > the Web camera), is that when addressing an international audience the 
>US
> > format for dates should be avoided.
> > When you say "6/4/01" in the subject line, you really mean "2001-06-04", 
>I
> > believe ;>)
> >
> > Regards
> > Roberto
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
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: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:55:53 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Splinter groups

Dear Derek,
We are in agreement on that. And I like the word "splinter group"
since they told me that SIG was pejorative in US language.

The point is the origine, rules and nature of the the s.g. Self
creation, open management and consensual uncovering
oriented - as I stand for - or directed creation with imposed rules
to support a pre-determined position as Danny made it?

Jefsey

On 09:22 05/06/01, Derek Conant said:
>In my opinion, the best mechanism for advancing the development of
>policy and standards is one that includes many splinter groups.
>Splinter groups, may provide the best mechanism for managing the large
>quantity of comments, opinions and information contributed by
>individuals and organizations willing to participate in advancing the
>development of policy and standards.  How else is ICANN and its SO later
>going to manage large quantities of comments, opinions and information
>contributed by individuals and organizations willing to participate?
>
>An organization or group with its own constituencies and consensus is
>able to assist in the management of information and expedite the process
>of developing and contributing constructive consolidated opinion derived
>from its constituency to the decision making body (ICANN and its SOs).
>This also allows the freedom for interested parties to flow from one
>organization or group to the next which may sustain one's momentum and
>interest to participate in these processes.
>
>A splinter group that is not productive, or one that does not produce
>constructive results, simply will not have a significant impact on the
>topics or matters at issue.
>
>Derek Conant
>DNSGA President and Chairman
>
>--
>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: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 12:03:55 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Roberto: please let us seriously work together and stop psalming

Jefsey,

Since you ask for my comment, I will repeat what I already submitted to the 
ICANN Board yesterday (as comment, that has not been read), which is:

>Good morning.
>IMHO, alt-roots is a system that started as alternative to the then IANA 
>root system, and still is.
>The two systems are natural competitors, and the consumers will choose 
>which approach they like better.
>Incidentally, to be best suited to compete, ICANN has to be open to include 
>new TLDs in its root as market requires.
>I would ask ICANN to give a clear indication to business, other market 
>forces and all stakeholders on these two points:
>- ICANN will not merge its root with any other system;
>- ICANN will allow new TLDs if market requires.
>Thanks for your attention.

The rationale is that the non-IANA roots started as alternative to the IANA 
root system, and there is no reason to change this approach now. The only 
thing that is needed (as it was also obvious from the comment by Tucows) is 
that the operators in the market, and generally the stakeholders, need a 
clear indication from ICANN on what its strategy is.
Hence my recommendation to issue a statement with the two points above.

To further discuss the matter will serve no useful purpose, because neither 
ICANN nor the IETF/IAB, which provided the theoretical foundation for the 
policy position, are likely to change their minds soon, and any lack of 
clear indication will leave the stakeholders in the uncertainity (and they 
do not like uncertainity - it is the worst thing for planning).

Regards
Roberto

>From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>CC: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] Roberto: please let us seriously work together and  stop 
>psalming
>Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 12:54:41 +0200
>
>Dear Roberto,
>
>On 01:44 04/06/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>>So, I agree that ICANN's view is clear. And moreover, it did not change in
>>time.
>>Can the same be said about alt-root?
>
>The alt-root gang is a fancy of yours. There is a real world with various
>positions and understandings. I known what Pacific Root, what ORSC root is,
>what IRON, what CINICS are, etc... but I do not know any "alt.root", the
>word "alternative" being a word I personally find hurting unless applied to
>every one. There are - as everywhere - alternative commercial propositions:
>this is life and competition. By historical order - I am in this for 30
>years now - the iCANN proposition is one of the latest alternative
>proposed. And one of the most exclusive ones.
>
>The inclusive, open, etc..., any word you want to give it, is the result of
>a technical logical analysis open to all and you are more than welcome to
>share. Simon Higgs produced an IETF document of quality I object on some
>points as unclear to me and not systematic enough IMHO. Instead of psalming
>the same irrelevant things, why not to work seriously on the matter. Your
>comments and experience would be quite appreciated. Otherwise once the DNS
>Name Space theory and consequent management rules have taken full shape, do
>not come and say one did not take your point of view into consideration.
>
>I certainly accept that Danny's denial of a serious dialog on the matter
>does not help: may I recall you that I documented many reasons - and not
>only the so called alt.root which are actually external to the iCANN - for
>the GA to work through a dedicated ML on a document proposing the NC the
>creation of a formal WG on the Inclusive Name Space Management. Would we
>have followed that method we would not have today the opposition between
>CEO and NC, we would have clarified many issues and saved a lot of time in
>Stockholm due to the still ill understood the similarities of the .biz,
>New.net, IDN, ccTLDs questions. They all belong to a missing consistent
>technical, legal, political, commercial Name Space strategy by the iCANN.
>
>From then on, let propose a reshape of the RFC 1591 taking also into
>account the IP addressing plan - as any discussion concerning the Name
>Space level not taking into account the underlying Address level is of no
>interest. And let us know/maybe help where the world goes.
>
>Please document your technical objections. My pleasure to copy you my mail
>to Simon Higgs if you wish. Let become serious about this issue.
>
>Jefsey
>
>
>PS. world@wide has the DN rfc1591.org. Why not to use it to host a full
>joint review with agenda, working frame and method, documented positions
>links to support discussions, etc.... and a firm initial commitment from
>anyone participating that we work ahead not dispute back and that every
>position will be respected and investigated without arrogance and with
>logic. You know far better than me about Chairing such a work: why would
>you not take it with Harald (I cannot be more open minded)?
>
>
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
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: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:43:29 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Splinter groups

Gee!  I need real help with my Frenglish !!!

Do you folks have a word left to define a dedicated group of
any size gathering friendly or by interest on a subject aside
a main assembly. Please do not come with Center of Interest
since it does not take off or with constituency since it has a
lot of pejorative or funny possible misunderstandings in other
languages.

Jefsey

On 15:26 05/06/01, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law said:
>I think "SIG" is less pejorative than "splinter group".
>SIG may suggest "selfish" but "splinter" suggests "very very tiny
>minority, out of touch with reality and the mass, and possibly Trotskyite"
>
>
>On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > Dear Derek,
> > We are in agreement on that. And I like the word "splinter group"
> > since they told me that SIG was pejorative in US language.
> >
> > The point is the origine, rules and nature of the the s.g. Self
> > creation, open management and consensual uncovering
> > oriented - as I stand for - or directed creation with imposed rules
> > to support a pre-determined position as Danny made it?
> >
> > Jefsey
> >
> >
> >
> > On 09:22 05/06/01, Derek Conant said:
> > >In my opinion, the best mechanism for advancing the development of
> > >policy and standards is one that includes many splinter groups.
> > >Splinter groups, may provide the best mechanism for managing the large
> > >quantity of comments, opinions and information contributed by
> > >individuals and organizations willing to participate in advancing the
> > >development of policy and standards.  How else is ICANN and its SO later
> > >going to manage large quantities of comments, opinions and information
> > >contributed by individuals and organizations willing to participate?
> > >
> > >An organization or group with its own constituencies and consensus is
> > >able to assist in the management of information and expedite the process
> > >of developing and contributing constructive consolidated opinion derived
> > >from its constituency to the decision making body (ICANN and its SOs).
> > >This also allows the freedom for interested parties to flow from one
> > >organization or group to the next which may sustain one's momentum and
> > >interest to participate in these processes.
> > >
> > >A splinter group that is not productive, or one that does not produce
> > >constructive results, simply will not have a significant impact on the
> > >topics or matters at issue.
> > >
> > >Derek Conant
> > >DNSGA President and Chairman
> > >
> > >--
> > >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
> >
> >
>
>--
>                 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: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 09:14:37 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Splinter groups

Yes, gaggle or herd! Flock comes to mind and so does pod!

Association of

Organization of

Group of

Assembly of

League of

Sub-committee, sub-assembly, sub-group, spin-offs, chapter of

A rose by any other name should smell as sweet.

Sincerely,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Gee!  I need real help with my Frenglish !!!
>
> Do you folks have a word left to define a dedicated group of
> any size gathering friendly or by interest on a subject aside
> a main assembly. Please do not come with Center of Interest
> since it does not take off or with constituency since it has a
> lot of pejorative or funny possible misunderstandings in other
> languages.
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 15:26 05/06/01, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law said:
> >I think "SIG" is less pejorative than "splinter group".
> >SIG may suggest "selfish" but "splinter" suggests "very very tiny
> >minority, out of touch with reality and the mass, and possibly Trotskyite"
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Derek,
> > > We are in agreement on that. And I like the word "splinter group"
> > > since they told me that SIG was pejorative in US language.
> > >
> > > The point is the origine, rules and nature of the the s.g. Self
> > > creation, open management and consensual uncovering
> > > oriented - as I stand for - or directed creation with imposed rules
> > > to support a pre-determined position as Danny made it?
> > >
> > > Jefsey
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 09:22 05/06/01, Derek Conant said:
> > > >In my opinion, the best mechanism for advancing the development of
> > > >policy and standards is one that includes many splinter groups.
> > > >Splinter groups, may provide the best mechanism for managing the large
> > > >quantity of comments, opinions and information contributed by
> > > >individuals and organizations willing to participate in advancing the
> > > >development of policy and standards.  How else is ICANN and its SO later
> > > >going to manage large quantities of comments, opinions and information
> > > >contributed by individuals and organizations willing to participate?
> > > >
> > > >An organization or group with its own constituencies and consensus is
> > > >able to assist in the management of information and expedite the process
> > > >of developing and contributing constructive consolidated opinion derived
> > > >from its constituency to the decision making body (ICANN and its SOs).
> > > >This also allows the freedom for interested parties to flow from one
> > > >organization or group to the next which may sustain one's momentum and
> > > >interest to participate in these processes.
> > > >
> > > >A splinter group that is not productive, or one that does not produce
> > > >constructive results, simply will not have a significant impact on the
> > > >topics or matters at issue.
> > > >
> > > >Derek Conant
> > > >DNSGA President and Chairman
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >--
> >                 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-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: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:00:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Splinter groups

Working Group :>

On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Gee!  I need real help with my Frenglish !!!
> 
> Do you folks have a word left to define a dedicated group of
> any size gathering friendly or by interest on a subject aside
> a main assembly. Please do not come with Center of Interest
> since it does not take off or with constituency since it has a
> lot of pejorative or funny possible misunderstandings in other
> languages.
> 
> Jefsey
> 
> 
> On 15:26 05/06/01, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law said:
> >I think "SIG" is less pejorative than "splinter group".
> >SIG may suggest "selfish" but "splinter" suggests "very very tiny
> >minority, out of touch with reality and the mass, and possibly Trotskyite"
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Derek,
> > > We are in agreement on that. And I like the word "splinter group"
> > > since they told me that SIG was pejorative in US language.
> > >
> > > The point is the origine, rules and nature of the the s.g. Self
> > > creation, open management and consensual uncovering
> > > oriented - as I stand for - or directed creation with imposed rules
> > > to support a pre-determined position as Danny made it?
> > >
> > > Jefsey
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 09:22 05/06/01, Derek Conant said:
> > > >In my opinion, the best mechanism for advancing the development of
> > > >policy and standards is one that includes many splinter groups.
> > > >Splinter groups, may provide the best mechanism for managing the large
> > > >quantity of comments, opinions and information contributed by
> > > >individuals and organizations willing to participate in advancing the
> > > >development of policy and standards.  How else is ICANN and its SO later
> > > >going to manage large quantities of comments, opinions and information
> > > >contributed by individuals and organizations willing to participate?
> > > >
> > > >An organization or group with its own constituencies and consensus is
> > > >able to assist in the management of information and expedite the process
> > > >of developing and contributing constructive consolidated opinion derived
> > > >from its constituency to the decision making body (ICANN and its SOs).
> > > >This also allows the freedom for interested parties to flow from one
> > > >organization or group to the next which may sustain one's momentum and
> > > >interest to participate in these processes.
> > > >
> > > >A splinter group that is not productive, or one that does not produce
> > > >constructive results, simply will not have a significant impact on the
> > > >topics or matters at issue.
> > > >
> > > >Derek Conant
> > > >DNSGA President and Chairman
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >--
> >                 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		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: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 19:38:05 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Roberto: please let us seriously work together and stop psalming

Roberto and all assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Jefsey,
>
> Since you ask for my comment, I will repeat what I already submitted to the
> ICANN Board yesterday (as comment, that has not been read), which is:
>
> >Good morning.
> >IMHO, alt-roots is a system that started as alternative to the then IANA
> >root system, and still is.
> >The two systems are natural competitors, and the consumers will choose
> >which approach they like better.
> >Incidentally, to be best suited to compete, ICANN has to be open to include
> >new TLDs in its root as market requires.
> >I would ask ICANN to give a clear indication to business, other market
> >forces and all stakeholders on these two points:
> >- ICANN will not merge its root with any other system;
> >- ICANN will allow new TLDs if market requires.
> >Thanks for your attention.
>
> The rationale is that the non-IANA roots started as alternative to the IANA
> root system, and there is no reason to change this approach now.

  First there is no IANA or ICANN Root system, there is only a publicly
owned resource that is the Legacy/USG root structure.  Some of which
reside outside of the US.  Second it is obvious to even the casual observer
that the Root structure(s) are changing.  ICANN can wither recognize
this as a market force reality or deny it.  The latter would be denying market
forces at work.  That would be detrimental to stakeholders now, and more
so in the future should they/we continue to deny reality...  THe stakeholders
have, and are continuing to vote with their registrations and their usage
of other root structures as well as TLD's outside of those "Selected"
by ICANN or already in existence.

> The only
> thing that is needed (as it was also obvious from the comment by Tucows) is
> that the operators in the market, and generally the stakeholders, need a
> clear indication from ICANN on what its strategy is.

  The stakeholders in ever increasing numbers KNOW that this ICANN BoD
is not meeting their demand or otherwise market forces.

>
> Hence my recommendation to issue a statement with the two points above.
>
> To further discuss the matter will serve no useful purpose, because neither
> ICANN nor the IETF/IAB, which provided the theoretical foundation for the
> policy position, are likely to change their minds soon, and any lack of
> clear indication will leave the stakeholders in the uncertainity (and they
> do not like uncertainity - it is the worst thing for planning).

  As the market changes, so will or does planning.  Hence it is incumbent
that the ICANN BoD meet those market forces and stakeholder demand
or suffer the consequences of not doing so...

>
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> >From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
> >To: [email-masked]
> >CC: [email-masked]
> >Subject: Re: [ga] Roberto: please let us seriously work together and  stop
> >psalming
> >Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 12:54:41 +0200
> >
> >Dear Roberto,
> >
> >On 01:44 04/06/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
> >>So, I agree that ICANN's view is clear. And moreover, it did not change in
> >>time.
> >>Can the same be said about alt-root?
> >
> >The alt-root gang is a fancy of yours. There is a real world with various
> >positions and understandings. I known what Pacific Root, what ORSC root is,
> >what IRON, what CINICS are, etc... but I do not know any "alt.root", the
> >word "alternative" being a word I personally find hurting unless applied to
> >every one. There are - as everywhere - alternative commercial propositions:
> >this is life and competition. By historical order - I am in this for 30
> >years now - the iCANN proposition is one of the latest alternative
> >proposed. And one of the most exclusive ones.
> >
> >The inclusive, open, etc..., any word you want to give it, is the result of
> >a technical logical analysis open to all and you are more than welcome to
> >share. Simon Higgs produced an IETF document of quality I object on some
> >points as unclear to me and not systematic enough IMHO. Instead of psalming
> >the same irrelevant things, why not to work seriously on the matter. Your
> >comments and experience would be quite appreciated. Otherwise once the DNS
> >Name Space theory and consequent management rules have taken full shape, do
> >not come and say one did not take your point of view into consideration.
> >
> >I certainly accept that Danny's denial of a serious dialog on the matter
> >does not help: may I recall you that I documented many reasons - and not
> >only the so called alt.root which are actually external to the iCANN - for
> >the GA to work through a dedicated ML on a document proposing the NC the
> >creation of a formal WG on the Inclusive Name Space Management. Would we
> >have followed that method we would not have today the opposition between
> >CEO and NC, we would have clarified many issues and saved a lot of time in
> >Stockholm due to the still ill understood the similarities of the .biz,
> >New.net, IDN, ccTLDs questions. They all belong to a missing consistent
> >technical, legal, political, commercial Name Space strategy by the iCANN.
> >
> >From then on, let propose a reshape of the RFC 1591 taking also into
> >account the IP addressing plan - as any discussion concerning the Name
> >Space level not taking into account the underlying Address level is of no
> >interest. And let us know/maybe help where the world goes.
> >
> >Please document your technical objections. My pleasure to copy you my mail
> >to Simon Higgs if you wish. Let become serious about this issue.
> >
> >Jefsey
> >
> >
> >PS. world@wide has the DN rfc1591.org. Why not to use it to host a full
> >joint review with agenda, working frame and method, documented positions
> >links to support discussions, etc.... and a firm initial commitment from
> >anyone participating that we work ahead not dispute back and that every
> >position will be respected and investigated without arrogance and with
> >logic. You know far better than me about Chairing such a work: why would
> >you not take it with Harald (I cannot be more open minded)?
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >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
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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

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: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 13:22:23 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the NC takes the next step

At 11:03 5/06/01 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>Will the ccTLDs attend?

Since they have decided to withdraw from the DNSO , I doubt it.

But if they want to become an SO in their own right, they may well decide 
on some form of DN holder representation from within their own customer base.

It would do much for their credibility as a country-oriented "shadow DNSO".

>On 02:59 05/06/01, DPF said:
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:34:05 +1200, you wrote:
>>
>> >The Names Council just decided to form a task force to create an RFP for an
>> >Individuals' Constituency and to invite the GA Chair or an elected member
>> >of the GA to be part of this task force.
>>
>>Excellent news.
>
>-

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz

- --
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: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 19:19:18 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the NC takes the next step

You know Joop I think you are right!!
I hope they have an Individual Constituency first!
I think they can learn a lot from the mistakes of the DNSO, and I hope they do.

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 11:03 5/06/01 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >Will the ccTLDs attend?
>
> Since they have decided to withdraw from the DNSO , I doubt it.
>
> But if they want to become an SO in their own right, they may well decide
> on some form of DN holder representation from within their own customer base.
>
> It would do much for their credibility as a country-oriented "shadow DNSO".
>
> >On 02:59 05/06/01, DPF said:
> >>On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:34:05 +1200, you wrote:
> >>
> >> >The Names Council just decided to form a task force to create an RFP for an
> >> >Individuals' Constituency and to invite the GA Chair or an elected member
> >> >of the GA to be part of this task force.
> >>
> >>Excellent news.
> >
> >-
>
> --Joop--
> Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
> Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
> Developer of    The Polling Booth
> www.democracy.org.nz
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #515
************************