Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #517
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Thursday, June 7 2001            Volume 01 : Number 517

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

Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 02:11:56 +0800
From: Jim Ayson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the NC takes the next step

At 12:07 PM 6/6/01 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
>Regardless of the representation within a ccTLD country or region, do
>we or anyone outside that region have a right to interfere?
>
>In the end, if a country is at odds with a cctLD manager, it should be up
>to them to work it out and not ICANN, an SO organization or any other
>outside force.  To do anything else puts ICANN in a political policy
>position which is completely out of line.

A few questions:

But if the community and the ccTLD manager cannot work it out, who can 
arbitrate? Is there a 3rd party eligible apart from ICANN? If it's an SO 
organization, which one?

- --------------------------------
jim ayson / [email-masked]

- --
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 12:52:58 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the NC takes the next step

Leah and all assembly members,

L Gallegos wrote:

> Regardless of the representation within a ccTLD country or region, do
> we or anyone outside that region have a right to interfere?

  In a a word, Yes we do.  However the term "Interfere" might not
be the proper term to use here...  Some of us have DN's registered
in ccTLD name spaces.  As such those name spaces are international
in their use in some cases, and/or have registrants that have either
business interests in their hosts countries but do not reside in the host
country for that particular ccTLD name space or the DN's which are
registered by non-residents are registered in a unrestricted ccTLD...

>
>
> In the end, if a country is at odds with a cctLD manager, it should be up
> to them to work it out and not ICANN, an SO organization or any other
> outside force.  To do anything else puts ICANN in a political policy
> position which is completely out of line.

  You may have a good point here!

>
>
> Leah
>
> On 6 Jun 2001, at 17:25, Jim Ayson wrote:
>
> > At 01:18 AM 6/6/01 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >
> > >The argument to that is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest
> > >for the ccTLDSO to represent both themselves and their client. If the
> > >ccTLDs represent 244 countries and each has 1 vote on an issue, how many
> > >votes do registrants have? The balance of power has to be created by a
> > >separate SO for registrants, so that the ccTLDSO vote and the RegsitrantSO
> > >is commensurate, one vote each. I would like to hear from the ccTLDs on
> > >this issue.
> >
> > People might assume that all of the ccTLD manager's actions have full
> > support of the local community, which is not always the case. I agree that
> > the voice of the individuals within the ccTLD should be heard as well.
> >
> > As an example, I've come across an unconfirmed report that during the ccTLD
> > managers meeting in Stockholm. the .PH ccTLD manager proposed a change in
> > the ccTLD best practices draft so instead of it saying that the manager has
> > a duty to "consult with the community" he has proposed this be changed to
> > something like "consult with the community but not be constrained to follow
> > the community or get consensus" or something to that effect. This is quite
> > an alarming development if true, and I'd be interested to verify if this
> > was in fact raised during a discussion of ccTLD best practices. Are there
> > any minutes to the ccTLD meetings posted on line?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------
> > jim ayson / [email-masked]
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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

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 11:27:23 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ccTLDs should raise the Standard

ICANN will move too slow on the ccTLD position and as it appears
to be designed that way it is good.  Generally speaking, within certain
boundaries which have been decided, the market should drive the
Internet.

Since the creation of ccTLDs the vast majority of countries considered
the ccTLD as a national resource, we here in the U.S call it a public
resource but that means the same thing except a public is always open to

the entire public.*  I believe that this is a proper
interpretation of what the ccTLD is and was.

Next came an overwhelming majority of countries following the BE, UK, DE
and
FR models for policy regarding the use and administration.  While it is
unclear exactly when and where China adopted a similar policy which is
commonly referred to as the Old China Policy, (OCP), it carried the same

restriction regarding no usage of their ccTLD from outside the country.
I do not like the commercialized term restricted and unrestricted as it
is not entirely accurate. This logic followed in theory because it was a

national resource it should only be used by those inside the country -
this actually makes sense on a fundamental level. Of course this
dovetailed with
technology of the time, which has changed.

However it is flawed when you evaluate how this resource may best serve
the country and become a productive resource. We now have experienced
the commercialized ccTLDs and a flaw to the current method of use shows
us quite illustratively that closing the loop for usage denies the
development of the ccTLD.  In the commercialized settings warehousing
has caused the same problem as closing registration to inside the
country.  This same truth can be extrapolated to all of ICANN and the
manner in which they have have let registrars become warehousers, and
Versisigh become both a warehouser and a holder of roots. Everything on
the
Net must be used or it becomes useless.

Can the same now be said for the USG.  I think not.  The USG has a long
history of allowing enterprises to fail without regulating them into
history.  Indeed even though our regulated and yet monopolistic
megacorps are quite historic they are the exception and not the rule.
The breakups of such monopolistic allowances are often very difficult
and yet forced upon us by our government, power companies and phones
come to mind. In the end if we truly allow market forces to govern the
balance is struck between unfettered power and the peoples desire, based

upon supply and demand.

We can look at some of the words now used in the industry to see the
importance to open registration policies.  The term Information
Technology is now most generally used to describe internet usage and the

simultaneous application of computers in closed environments.
Information contained and protected from new information is old
information and almost useless in today's fast paced market and
technology.  Information is almost impossible to keep up with in a
completely unfettered environment and completely impossible to keep up
with in a restricted flow of information environment.

In order to maintain and in fact increase the value of the Internet and
ccTLDs, countries must adopt an open policy of registration and not only

allow outsiders to have registration access but develop ways in which
to encourage outside registration. If this means meaningful mnemonics
combined
with country recognition that is good but without a combination we lose
value
to the country.

The Internet ccTLD is indeed a National resource and should be treated
as such.  It must be used in order to make the greatest benefits for the

country and their people.
In emerging countries Oil is only a valuable resource when it is
developed for internal use
and indeed becomes a greatest resource when it is exported.  The same is

true of the ccTLD resource.

When determining just how to use an internet resource the government
must come up with some sort of mechanism to obtain an understanding of
the will of the local internet community.  This is minimal in a
developing internet nation and yet maximum in a developed internet
nation.

It is my belief that applying the principle of marketing is education
and education is marketing and combining it with an inside/outside and
outside/inside approach to use of the internet then countries can
benefit
greatly.

Sincerely,
Eric Dierker

* It is important to note that the U.S. cannot disturb a foreigner's
right to use a public resource based upon his being from or residing in
a foreign country, although it seems we have done it with the the
internet.

- --
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, 07 Jun 2001 07:33:01 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the NC takes the next step

On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:07:17 -0400, you wrote:

>Regardless of the representation within a ccTLD country or region, do 
>we or anyone outside that region have a right to interfere?  
>
>In the end, if a country is at odds with a cctLD manager, it should be up 
>to them to work it out and not ICANN, an SO organization or any other 
>outside force.  To do anything else puts ICANN in a political policy 
>position which is completely out of line.

Eventually if no agreement can be reached someone has to make a
decision and that is currently DOC and IANA.  There does need to be
some redelegation mechanism IMO.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 15:42:04 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the NC takes the next step

on 6/6/01 7:27 AM, DPF at [email-masked] wrote:

>> The argument to that is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest for
>> the ccTLDSO to represent both themselves and their client.

> It is worth remembering that some ccTLDs are primarily controlled by
> their customers.  ISOCNZ controls *.nz and most members are just
> ordinary users.  Not to say such control has always been there but we
> should be careful about assuming that ccTLD registries are directly
> comparable to gTLD registries.  The latter are just a business seeking
> to make money, the formers are a variety of forms.
> 
As an individual registrant, I don't need to know about (although I may be
interested in) all the ins and outs of how a particular ccTLD is structured.
What I do need to know is that I have a forum to air grievances against both
my ccTLD and my gTLD registries, in the form of an ombudsman. If that is to
be an internal procedure of each country, so be it, but that still leaves
gTLD registrant issues within ICANN.

A ccSO effectively puts all country specific issues offtopic for DNSO, so
the IDNHC proposal must now be reviewed in the light of this development.
What are the alternatives ?

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: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 00:25:43 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NCDNHC/ccTLD love affair

Here is the text I quoted:

<quote>
The NCDNHC supports formation of a body which would provide technical and 
policy assistance, such as operations, domain name disputes, etc., and 
necessary guidance in enhancing ccTLD registries in developing countries.

That the NCDNHC form a body which will help ICANN investigate violations of 
the ICP-1 and RFC-1591 ccTLD documents;

That the same body be tasked with studying whether the current ICP-1 and 
RFC 1591 documents need to be modified, supplemented, or replaced by a new 
document which will ensure that the ccTLD administrators adhere to 
community-based, community-supported, and neutral registry operations of 
the ccTLD Registries in consonance with ICANN's policy of ensuring a 
neutral gTLD registry.

The ccTLD contracts among ccTLD-ICANN-GAC should go through an appropriate, 
open, transparent and documented consultation process with Local Internet 
Community, which by nature includes various non-commercial organizations 
and its members.

Therefore, NCDNHC, would like to propose that ccTLD contract should first 
go through DNSO consultation in order to encourage local Internet community 
discussion rather than negotiation among small group of people, ccTLD admin 
contact, ICANN staff and representative from GAC.

</unquote>

I do not question anymore the vote of the ccTLDs concerning the voting 
rights of the NCDNHC!

But I am sorry Roberto did not pick on my proposition to set-up a 
WG-RFC1591-Review. This would be the best way to address all our pending 
problems. The RFC-1591 should be our [users] updated White Paper. Like the 
Constitution of the iCANN.

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: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 18:29:35 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the NC takes the next step

Joanna:

IMO, it has always been a "buyer beware" situation with any ccTLD 
since they are, in fact, country specific.  Even if the registrar is located 
in this country, its rules are born in their contract with the cctLD, and 
that is based on specific countries' laws.  The ccTLD could cancel a 
contract with a provider and there would be little or no protection for 
registrants.

I really don't feel that ICANN should interefere with how ccTLDs operate. 
 That is a business decision and it should be up to registrants to know 
what they are buying and what the guarantees are.  I also think that 
registries are responsible for setting basic terms of service and that 
registrars are then responsible for including those basic terms in their 
own contracts.  This is why it is so important to read the user 
agreements for each registry/registrar and then decide whether you 
want to do business with them.

Finally, I think that it is time to offer "privacy bureau" services so that 
domain name holders have privacy protection and not have their 
personal information plastered all over the net.

Leah

On 6 Jun 2001, at 15:42, Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 6/6/01 7:27 AM, DPF at [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> >> The argument to that is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest
> >> for the ccTLDSO to represent both themselves and their client.
> 
> > It is worth remembering that some ccTLDs are primarily controlled by
> > their customers.  ISOCNZ controls *.nz and most members are just ordinary
> > users.  Not to say such control has always been there but we should be
> > careful about assuming that ccTLD registries are directly comparable to
> > gTLD registries.  The latter are just a business seeking to make money,
> > the formers are a variety of forms.
> > 
> As an individual registrant, I don't need to know about (although I may be
> interested in) all the ins and outs of how a particular ccTLD is
> structured. What I do need to know is that I have a forum to air grievances
> against both my ccTLD and my gTLD registries, in the form of an ombudsman.
> If that is to be an internal procedure of each country, so be it, but that
> still leaves gTLD registrant issues within ICANN.
> 
> A ccSO effectively puts all country specific issues offtopic for DNSO, so
> the IDNHC proposal must now be reviewed in the light of this development.
> What are the alternatives ?
> 
> Regards,
> Joanna
> 
> --
> 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: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 18:44:30 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the NC takes the next step

On 7 Jun 2001, at 7:33, DPF wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:07:17 -0400, you wrote:
> 
> >Regardless of the representation within a ccTLD country or region, do we
> >or anyone outside that region have a right to interfere?  
> >
> >In the end, if a country is at odds with a cctLD manager, it should be up
> >to them to work it out and not ICANN, an SO organization or any other
> >outside force.  To do anything else puts ICANN in a political policy
> >position which is completely out of line.
> 
> Eventually if no agreement can be reached someone has to make a
> decision and that is currently DOC and IANA.  There does need to be
> some redelegation mechanism IMO.

If ICANN/DoC interferes with a ccTLD, it then becomes a policy body 
that supersedes sovereignty of a nation or region.  Governments and 
their citizens often have disagreements and even civil war.  By what 
right does another government or a private corporation make decisions 
concerning interaction between other governments and their citizens?

ICANN has already overstepped its authority, IMO, with the UDRP in 
determining the fate of a domain name holder in one country who is 
challenged by a corporation in another country regardless of those 
national laws.  This is going much too far for a technical coordinating 
body.

Leah

> 
> DPF
> --
> [email-masked]
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-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: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 18:12:31 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the NC takes the next step

Joanna and all assembly members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 6/6/01 7:27 AM, DPF at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >> The argument to that is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest for
> >> the ccTLDSO to represent both themselves and their client.
>
> > It is worth remembering that some ccTLDs are primarily controlled by
> > their customers.  ISOCNZ controls *.nz and most members are just
> > ordinary users.  Not to say such control has always been there but we
> > should be careful about assuming that ccTLD registries are directly
> > comparable to gTLD registries.  The latter are just a business seeking
> > to make money, the formers are a variety of forms.
> >
> As an individual registrant, I don't need to know about (although I may be
> interested in) all the ins and outs of how a particular ccTLD is structured.
> What I do need to know is that I have a forum to air grievances against both
> my ccTLD and my gTLD registries, in the form of an ombudsman. If that is to
> be an internal procedure of each country, so be it, but that still leaves
> gTLD registrant issues within ICANN.

  These have been outstanding issues even before ICANN existed.  They
remain so, and are even now more serious issues than in the past, IMHO.
Many good suggestions were made in the past as to how to deal with
these specific issues, and went ignored by the NC and therefore did
not become very important ones that needed to be addressed by the
ICANN BoD as a result.

>
>
> A ccSO effectively puts all country specific issues offtopic for DNSO, so
> the IDNHC proposal must now be reviewed in the light of this development.
> What are the alternatives ?

  Not many good alternatives are currently available.  So I do believe that
the  IDNHC proposal must be considered.  However the actual decision
should be in the hands of the stakeholders to determine, not the ICANN BoD.
All the ICANN BoD should do with policies of this nature is implement them
and enforce them when and where possible and required by the policy
itself....

>
>
> 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

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, 6 Jun 2001 19:02:46 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the NC takes the next step

If there is a civil dispute between the government of the US and a citizen 
or organization, who arbitrates?  There is a legal system within the 
country.  Regardless of how sophisticated or primitive, it is within that 
country's soveriegn rights to resolve it.  Unless the parties involved ask 
for arbitration by a third party, there should be no interference.

Leah

On 7 Jun 2001, at 2:11, Jim Ayson wrote:

> At 12:07 PM 6/6/01 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
> >Regardless of the representation within a ccTLD country or region, do we
> >or anyone outside that region have a right to interfere?
> >
> >In the end, if a country is at odds with a cctLD manager, it should be up
> >to them to work it out and not ICANN, an SO organization or any other
> >outside force.  To do anything else puts ICANN in a political policy
> >position which is completely out of line.
> 
> A few questions:
> 
> But if the community and the ccTLD manager cannot work it out, who can
> arbitrate? Is there a 3rd party eligible apart from ICANN? If it's an SO
> organization, which one?
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------
> jim ayson / [email-masked]
> 
> 

- --
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 20:07:42 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Watch out here she comes!!

Would our great leaders please give us some warning as to when they will
return in order that we may prepare a proper welcome.

I question authority and yet when it serves the people I give
accolades.  We all know your style Uncle Younger Please let us prepare
for when you drop your dramatic bombshell of revelations of what
occurred in the land of the Great Queen.

And since discussions have been going so well could we please have a
short reprieve from list admin interference.  And since things have not
deteriorated despite your absence could someone please inform whoever
that we are just fine and don't really need governance at this
rudimentary level.

And last but not least since I know you cannot possibly honor this
request would you ask whoever that when and if rules are going to be
established and applied that they do so first through the GA rules
sublist, which we believe Mr. Lovell is the Chairman of such list.

Perhaps after Stockholm at least some realize that censorship is bad and
that representativeness from us is good.

Best of luck in the new quarter!

Eric

- --
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, 6 Jun 2001 23:41:24 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] the NC takes the next step

I'm a little anxious that we don't have our own house in order but are
making requests from the ccTLDs.  ?
- -----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 1:19 AM
To: Joop Teernstra; Jefsey Morfin; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] the NC takes the next step

on 6/5/01 9:22 PM, Joop Teernstra at [email-masked] 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".
> 

The argument to that is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest for
the ccTLDSO to represent both themselves and their client. If the ccTLDs
represent 244 countries and each has 1 vote on an issue, how many votes do
registrants have? The balance of power has to be created by a separate SO
for registrants, so that the ccTLDSO vote and the RegsitrantSO is
commensurate, one vote each. I would like to hear from the ccTLDs on this
issue.

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
- --
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, 6 Jun 2001 21:56:56 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] the NC takes the next step

Hello DPF,

Wednesday, June 06, 2001, 12:33:01 PM, DPF wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:07:17 -0400, you wrote:

>>Regardless of the representation within a ccTLD country or region, do 
>>we or anyone outside that region have a right to interfere?  
>>
>>In the end, if a country is at odds with a cctLD manager, it should be up 
>>to them to work it out and not ICANN, an SO organization or any other 
>>outside force.  To do anything else puts ICANN in a political policy 
>>position which is completely out of line.

> Eventually if no agreement can be reached someone has to make a
> decision and that is currently DOC and IANA.  There does need to be
> some redelegation mechanism IMO.

Actually if memory serves me, they lock the TLD if there is a dispute,
and have even appointed a custodial operator (RIPE) in at least one
case until the parties could come to a mutual agreement.

Basically, its work it out between you, or we will lock it and neither
side will get their way.

With ICANN's changing policy and making statements that the
governments of those countries are responsible for the TLDs (a policy
statement that I disagree with, and one which I think the ccTLDs could
challenge as unlawful if they sued ICANN in a US Court, since the only
binding contract on the ccTLDs is RFC1591 AS IT WAS when the ccTLD was
delegated (not the modified version which adds the government text)
presumably ICANN would allow the government to solve the problem, but
ICANN has no policy on what type of government solution is acceptable.

Under ICANN's rules presumably a country's fish and game department
could make that decision, or any bureaucrat that either party could
get to side with them (and we all know how easily they can be bought,
even if indirectly).

- -- 
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, 07 Jun 2001 02:01:11 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Approved Proposal Organization (APO)

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Mr. Conant,
>
> Your idea here sounds very nice indeed*** Until you get to the point of
> qualifying participants.  So the republicans pass a law that says only
> knowledgeable people can vote, and they will decide who is
> knowledgeable???  BAD IDEA!

  Agreed.

>
>
> Let us look closer to home, so the BoD passes a contract that says "APNIC
> can only deal with ISPs that are knowledgeable in ICANN standards" then it
> decides that any ISP that points to a root other than "a-root" cannot
> possibly be knowledgeable.  BAD IDEA!

  Agreed here as well.  And Apnic made such an announcement which I
posted to this list as a FYI about two weeks ago.  It *WAS* on the
Apnic web site as well as the ICANN web site until a couple of days
ago, and now has disappeared from both.

>
>
> No sirree I ain't biting!!!
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> Derek Conant wrote:
>
> > DNSGA Introduces Concept for ICANN At-Large Membership Study Committee
> > that Suggests Restructuring of ICANN Supporting Organizations.
> > http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html
> >
> > This may give the DNSO GA here a perspective on its future.
> >
> > 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-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

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: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 10:42:43 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] PSO General Assembly

Good morning.

Is somebody planning to attend the PSO General Assembly in July?
See: http://www.pso.icann.org/PSO_GA_2001/PSO_GA_HOME.htm

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: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 23:42:19 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Acronyms, Guides & Directories

Hi William & All

This might help a little.  There is also an "Acronym Finder".
Please could anyone advise any errors or omissions.
I have included some references to IPv4, IPv6 etc.

GUIDES AND DIRECTORIES

Acronym Finder        http://www.acronymfinder.com/
Useful look up database for acronyms & abbreviations

BetterWHOIS        http://www.betterwhois.com/
Domain name lookups across all registrars' data.

Dictionary            http://www.dictionary.com/
Questions about words, grammar & language; dictionary & thesaurus.

Ghostwheel            http://projects.ghostwheel.com/
A dictionary of the English language and a jargon reference.

Lexical Free Net      http://www.lexfn.com/
Powerful "connected" thesaurus links terms together.

Orchy Dictionary    http://www.orchy.com/dictionary/
Biggest vewable dictionary.  However links don't work.

Webopedia             http://www.webopedia.com/
The only online dictionary and search engine for Internet technology.

Whatis.com            http://whatis.techtarget.com/
Definitions for thousands of the most current IT-related words

CISCO SYSTEMS DOCUMENTATION

Configuring the DNS Service
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/iaabu/cddm/cddm111/adguide/d
ns.htm

Internetworking Technology Overview
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ito_doc/index.htm

Internetworking Terms and Acronyms from CISCO Systems
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ita/index.htm

ACRONYMS & OTHER DNS LINKS

ACIR    Advanced Computational Infrastructure and Research
Division of Computer & Information Science & Engineering (see CISE)
http://www.cise.nsf.gov/acir/
http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/publicat/nsf0065/cise/acir.htm

ACM    Association for Computing Machinery
http://www.acm.org/

ACPA    Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
http://209.41.60.248/law/ACPA.html
http://www.gcwf.com/articles/journal/jil_march00_1.html

ADNS    AGN Domain Name Service, Inc.
http://www.adns.net/

AfterNIC    Domain Name Auctions, Research and Management
http://www.afternic.com/

ALTNIC    AlterNIC -- The Network Information Centre
http://www.alternic.org/

ANIR    Advanced Networking Infrastructure and Research
Division of Computer & Information Science & Engineering (see CISE)
http://www.cise.nsf.gov/anir/index.html
http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/publicat/nsf0065/cise/anir.htm

APNIC    Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
(Regional Registry)
http://www.apnic.net/

APTLD    Asia Pacific Top Level Domain Forum
http://www.apng.org/apcctld/

ARIN    American Registry for Internet Numbers
(Regional Registry)
http://www.arin.net/

ARPA    Advanced Research Project Agency
http://www.dei.isep.ipp.pt/docs/arpa.html

ASO    The Address Supporting Organization
http://www.aso.icann.org/

ASP    Application Service Providers Industry Consortium
http://www.aspindustry.org/
http://www.allaboutasp.org/

Atlantic    The Atlantic Root Network, Inc.
http://www.biztld.net/

auDA    Australian Domain Administration
http://www.auda.org.au/

AUNIC    Australian Network Information Centre
http://www.aunic.net/

AURSC    Australian Root Server Confederation
http://www.irsc.ah.net/

BBN    BBN Planel (Now BBN Technologies)
http://www.bbn.com/
http://www.gte.com/AboutGTE/gto/bbnt/aboutus.html

Berkman    Berkman Center for Internet & Society (of Harvard Law School)
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/

BIND    Berkeley Internet Name Domain (or Daemon)
http://www.nominum.com/    http://www.isc.org/

BIZ    dot BIZ  (see also Atlantic Root Network, Inc.)
http://www.biztld.net/

CCR    Computer-Communications Research
Division of Computer & Information Science & Engineering (see CISE)
http://www.cise.nsf.gov/ccr/index.html
http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/publicat/nsf0065/cise/ccr.htm

CDT    Centre for Democracy & Technology
http://www.cdt.org/

CERT    Carnegie Mellon - CERT Co-ordination Center
http://www.cert.org/

CIPO    Canadian Intellectual Property Office
http://cipo.gc.ca/

CIRA    Canadian Internet Registration Authority
http://www.cira.ca/

CISA    Commercial Internet Strategies Australia
http://www.cisa.net.au/index_altavista.htm

CISE    Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering
Directorate of the National Science Foundation (see NSF)
http://www.cise.nsf.gov/

CNRI    Corporation for National Research Initiatives
http://www.cnri.reston.va.us/

CORENIC    CORE -- Internet Council of Registrars
http://corenic.org/

CPSR    Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
http://www.cpsr.org/

CSIF    Civil Society Internet Forum
http://www.civilsocietyinternetforum.org/

DARPA    Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
http://www.arpa.mil/

DNH    The Domain Name Handbook
http://www.domainhandbook.com/

DNSO    Domain Name Supporting Organization
http://www.dnso.org/
http://www.dnso.icann.org/

DNSR    DNS Root
http://www.dns-root.org/

DNSRD    Domain Name System Resources Directory
http://www.dns.net/dnsrd/

DOC    United States Department of Commerce
http://www.doc.gov/

EFF    Electronic Frontier Foundation
http://www.eff.org/

EPIC    Electronic Privacy Information Center
http://epic.org/

FCC    United States Federal Communications Commission
http://www.fcc.gov/

GAO    United States General Accounting Office - ICANN Report
http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?accno=163837&rptno=OGC-00-33R
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf  (PDF Format)

GAC    Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN
http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/DNS/gac/index.htm

GOD    dot GOD
http://www.dot-god.com/

gTLD-MoU    Generic Top Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding
http://www.gtld-mou.org/

HIT    Hobbes' Internet Timeline
http://www.isoc.org/guest/zakon/Internet/History/HIT.html

IAB    Internet Architecture Board
http://www.iab.org/

IAHC    Internet International Ad Hoc Committee
http://www.iahc.org/index.html

IANA    Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
http://www.iana.org/

ICANN    The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
http://www.icann.org/

ICANN Blog          Web Log of ICANN related thoughts & events.
http://www.lextext.com/icann/index.html

ICANNWatch        ICANNWatch
http://www.icannwatch.org/

ICB    ICB Toll Free News
http://www.icbtollfreenews.com/

IDNO    The Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency
http://www.idno.org/

iDNS    Internationalized Domain Name System
http://www.i-dns.net/

IETF    The Internet Engineering Task Force
http://www.ietf.org/

ILPF    Internet Law and Policy Forum
http://www.ilpf.org/

INTA    The International Trademark Association
http://www.inta.org/

InterNIC    Internet Network Information Center
http://www.internic.net/

INWW    Internet Names Wordwide (Division of Melbourne IT)
http://www.inww.com/

IOD    Image Online Design, Inc.
https://www.webtld.com/

IOPS    Internet Operators
http://www.iops.org/

IPC    The Intellectual Property Constituency
http://ipc.songbird.com/

IPI    Internet Policy Institute
http://www.internetpolicy.org/

IPv4       Internet Protocol Verion 4 (IPv4) Address Space
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

IPv6        The Next Generation Internet
http://www.ipv6.org/
http://www.ipv6forum.com/
http://www.gcn.com/vol19_no24/news/2764-1.html

IPv8        IPv8 (Galaxy/StarGate) Reference Guide
http://ipv8.vrx.net/

IPv16       IPv16 Explanation
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Pre_Oct_1998/msg02088.html

IRSC    International Root Server Confederation
http://www.irsc.ah.net/

IRTF    Internet Research Task Force
http://www.irtf.org/

ISC    Internet Software Consortium
http://www.isc.org/

ISI    USC Information Sciences Institute
http://www.isi.edu/

ISOC    Internet Society
http://www.isoc.org/
http://www.isoc.org/internet-history/brief.html

ISOC-AU    Internet Society of Australia
http://www.isoc-au.org.au/

ISS    Internet Security Systems
http://www.iss.net/

ITAA    Information Technology Association of America
http://www.itaa.org/

ITU    International Telecommunications Union
http://www.itu.int/

LEXTEST    Bret Fausett's Internet Printing Press
http://www.lextext.com/index.html

MIT    Melbourne IT
http://www.melbourneit.com.au/

NANOG    North American Network Operators
http://www.ra.net/~nanog

NARSC    North American Root Server Confederation
http://narsc.lists.kz/

NCDHNC    Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency
http://www.ncdnhc.org/

NCSA    National Center for Supercomputing Applications
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/

NICUS    Official United States Domain Registry
http://www.nic.us/

NOIE    Australian National Office for the Information Economy
http://www.noie.gov.au/

NS    Name Space
http://name-space.com/

NSF    National Science Foundation
http://www.nsf.gov/

NSI    Network Solutions
http://networksolutions.com/

NTIA    National Telecommunications and Information Administration
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

OpenNIC    Open Network Information Centre
http://www.opennic.unrated.net/

ORSC    Open Root Server Confederation, Inc
http://www.open-rsc.org/

OpenSRS    Open Shared Registration Service
http://www.opensrs.com/

OpenXRS    Open Extensible Registry System
http://openxrs.tucows.com/

PACROOT    The Pacific Root
http://www.pacroot.com/

PCCF    Planet Communications & Computing Facility
http://www.pccf.net/
http://www.pccf.net/cgi-bin/root-servers/whereis-tld?+

PGP    PGP ("Pretty Good Privacy") Security
http://www.pgp.com/

PSO    Protocol Supporting Organization
http://www.pso.icann.org/

RFC    Request for Comments
http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html
http://www.rfc-editor.org/

RIPE    RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens) Network Coordination Centre
(Regional Registry)
http://www.ripe.net/

SAIC    Science Applications International Corporation
http://www.saic.com/

SEI    Carnegie Mellon - Software Engineering Institute
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/

SEC    United States Securities and Exchange Commission
http://www.sec.gov/

SRI    SRI International (was Stanford Research Institute)
http://www.csl.sri.com/
http://www.csl.sri.com/history/augment.shtml

SuperRoot    The SuperRoot Consortium
http://www.superroot.org/

TBTF    Tasty Bits from the Technology Front ("Roving Reporter")
http://www.tbtf.com/roving_reporter/

TINC    The Internet Namespace Cooperative
http://www.tinc-org.com/

TLD Finder    Top Level Domain Finder (see PCCF)
http://www.pccf.net/cgi-bin/root-servers/whereis-tld?+

UDRP    Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy
http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm

USPTO    United States Patent and Trademark Office
http://www.uspto.gov/

VeriSign    VeriSign, Inc.
http://www.verisign.com/

WEB    dot WEB
https://www.webtld.com/

WIPO    World Intellectual Property Organization
http://www.wipo.org/

W3C    World Wide Web Consortium
http://www.w3.org/

Thank you.
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 #517
************************