Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #520
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Friday, June 8 2001             Volume 01 : Number 520

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

Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 13:14:37 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN - The world's Internet technical coordinating body?

Deat Leah,
Jonathan Cohen obviously introduces a very interesting concept:
On 12:18 08/06/01, L Gallegos said:
>"There should be clear notice to those out there on alternate roots, if
>they choose a top-level domain because they think they can move
>faster than we, that won't prevent us from choosing it," Cohen said.
>"Otherwise  it's open season."   ...

I propose the Paris TM treaty to be changed into reading:

"There should be clear notice to those out there on competitive business, 
if they chose to register a TM because they think they can move faster than 
competition, that won't prevent the WIPO from registering that TM to the 
last registrant, otherwise it's open fair practice."

Last come first serve would most probably permit Louis Touton to get some 
sleep. And Lynn to focus on hiring a Tech Manager to update the iCANN 
translation of the single authoritative root. A lot of benefits to all.

Jefsey

PS. You know folks that Jonathan Cohen is *our* representative at the BoD? 
Amazing. Has been elected with 10% of our votes against 60% to Jamie Love 
and 30% to Peter de Blanc. Oddities of the DNSO.

- --
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: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 23:20:12 +1000
From: "List Admin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Restructuring ICANN

It would be much appreciated if members would take up any discussion
relating to restructuring ICANN to the GA-ICANN mailing list.

At the moment part is on GA and part on GA-ROOTS.

Best Regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 23:48:04 +1000
From: "List Admin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The ALSC and the DNSO

Dear Danny & Derek

Thank you for your views.  However, it would be appreciated if your could
post items relating to any proposed ICANN restructuring to GA-ICANN.

You may subscribe by sending an email to [email-masked] with the words
"subscribe ga-icann" in the text (without the quotes).

I would appreciate your courtesy.

Thank you
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
To: Danny Younger <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] The ALSC and the DNSO

> Nothing here against Joop and I can understand the Individuals'
Constituency

- --
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: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 09:49:43 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The ALSC and the DNSO

Just what the GA needs with so very little participation here is to create a
new list.  I try to submit constructive comments, however, this new list idea
does not make any sense with us 5 or 6 participants.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

List Admin wrote:

> Dear Danny & Derek
>
> Thank you for your views.  However, it would be appreciated if your could
> post items relating to any proposed ICANN restructuring to GA-ICANN.
>
> You may subscribe by sending an email to [email-masked] with the words
> "subscribe ga-icann" in the text (without the quotes).
>
> I would appreciate your courtesy.
>
> Thank you
> Patrick Corliss
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
> To: Danny Younger <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 11:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] The ALSC and the DNSO
>
> > Nothing here against Joop and I can understand the Individuals'
> Constituency

- --
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: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 00:14:42 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga]  Excluding inputs to the WG

On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 17:30:42 +1000, Alternate Chair wrote:
To: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Cc: [ga] <[email-masked]>; Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Excluding inputs to the WG

> On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 03:43:30 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> To: General Assembly of the DNSO <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>; Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>;
> [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
>
> >   FYI.  It would seem that the IETF as I had disagreed with
> > Harald on last week seems to be yet again in some turmoil
> > on procedural issues, and ones that seem to revolve around
> > DNS related issues.  Therefore I thought that sharing this
> > with the DNSO GA was of some importance and interest...
> >
> > Robert Elz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> For those who don't know him, Robert Elz is, of course, the delegate for
the
> .au country code.

On Friday, June 08, 2001 9:18 PM, Robert Elz wrote:

> More than that, is also someone who can't even begin to imagine what
> an procedural matter in the IETF (which has nothing at all to do with
> the DNS, other than that it happened to arise in the working group
> that deals with DNS protocol changes) could possibly be of any interest
> to the DNSO under any circumstances.

Hi Robert

Thank you for your inquiry.

I am not exactly why Jeff William made this comment but think that it was an
oblique reference to an official position which Harald Tveit Alverstrand
holds or has held with the IETF.

As you have commented that it is "off topic" in relation to the GA list, I
have referred the posting to the Committee of List Monitors for
adjudication.  They may also consider the implications of the reference to
Mr Alvestrand.

Please note that although both Mr Alvestrand and myself are list monitors,
we will not participate in this process.  I trust this resolves the issue
for you.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss
Alternate Chair

- --
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: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 10:21:55 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  The ALSC and the DNSO 

Derek writes:  "Just what the GA needs with so very little participation
here is to create a new list.  I try to submit constructive comments,
however, this new list idea does not make any sense with us 5 or 6
participants."

I would disagree with Derek's assessment.  Our General Assembly (not to be
confused with the DNSGA) has its cadre of regular active participants.  As
shown by our last election results, we also have five times that amount of
members that choose to vote on our motions that do not otherwise participate
on our lists, but are very much a part of the General Assembly process.

We will be expanding our efforts at outreach, especially in view of our need
for the DNSO to soon nominate a Director for the ICANN Board.  I will ask
the DNSO Secretariat to prepare a GA-Announce message to be sent to all GA
members, to members of all our constituencies, and to all former working
group participants advising that the GA will soon commence the nomination
process.  At this time, we have somewhere between 900 to 1000 individuals
that will be reached with such an announcement.

I will also recommend that our Secretariat additionally post instructions on
how to register as a member of the GA Voting Registry.

With regard to Patrick's comments on the appropriate site for discussions on
restructuring the DNSO, I will disagree with Patrick's conclusion... perhaps
he has forgotten that we have set up a list (GA-Review) to specifically deal
with an ongoing structural review of the DNSO:

GA-Review:  "Ongoing DNSO review:  To consider and recommend proposals that
improve operations of the DNSO as it is constituted today and those which
may result in changes in the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in
its functioning."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-review/Arc00/msg00001.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: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 07:47:32 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] The ALSC and the DNSO

While your point about it being offtopic for GA-Roots is most likely
on target, it is not offtopic for the main GA list, and there is no
reason discussion of it should not occur on the main GA list (which by
definition all GA related topics are open for discussion).

Unless you are creating rules on your own now?

Friday, June 08, 2001, 6:48:04 AM, List Admin wrote:

> Dear Danny & Derek

> Thank you for your views.  However, it would be appreciated if your could
> post items relating to any proposed ICANN restructuring to GA-ICANN.

> You may subscribe by sending an email to [email-masked] with the words
> "subscribe ga-icann" in the text (without the quotes).

> I would appreciate your courtesy.

> Thank you
> Patrick Corliss

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
> To: Danny Younger <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 11:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] The ALSC and the DNSO

>> Nothing here against Joop and I can understand the Individuals'
> Constituency

> --
> 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

- -- 
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: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 00:57:51 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Restructuring ICANN

Dear Derek

There most recent statistics show there are 287 people subscribed to the GA
list.  The creation of dedicated mailing lists occurred for many reasons all
of which relate to a perception that the GA list was not functioning
effecively to achieve its policy-making purposes.

The main reason for the new lists was to allow members to form working
groups to address significant issues of policy.  One list, GA-ROOTS, has
been very successful in debating isues relating to Alternate Roots.
However, some members have sandbagged the success of GA-ICANN by continuing
to post ICANN issues to the main GA list.

It is my view that there is no value in empty talk.  Restructuring ICANN is
a significant undertaking that requires the commitment of members in the
form of a working group.  It seems to me that you would welcome an
appropriate policy outcome.  I will suggest "terms of reference" be adopted
as follows:

TERMS OF REFERENCE
The DNSO General Assembly requests the GA-ICANN Working Group to evaluate
and report on whether the current structure of ICANN is appropriate to meet
the needs of the various interest groups at all level of the ICANN
hierarchy.   Should the Working Group determine that the current ICANN
structure is inappropriate, the General Assembly requests the Working Group
to further determine:

(a)    what structure might be the most convenient and appropriate, and
(b)    how might ICANN's policy be amended to implement this structure.

The preferred form of output from the Working Group would be a report
detailing its findings, conclusions and recommendations.  This report should
include an agreed motion to be put to the full General Assembly in way that
can be put to a vote of members.
END TOR

I trust this makes the position clearer.  I call for a second.

Your faithfully

Patrick Corliss
Alternate Chair

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
To: List Admin <[email-masked]>
Cc: Danny Younger <[email-masked]>; [ga] <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] The ALSC and the DNSO

> Just what the GA needs with so very little participation here is to create
a
> new list.  I try to submit constructive comments, however, this new list
idea
> does not make any sense with us 5 or 6 participants.
>
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
>
> List Admin wrote:
>
> > Dear Danny & Derek
> >
> > Thank you for your views.  However, it would be appreciated if your
could
> > post items relating to any proposed ICANN restructuring to GA-ICANN.
> >
> > You may subscribe by sending an email to [email-masked] with the
words
> > "subscribe ga-icann" in the text (without the quotes).
> >
> > I would appreciate your courtesy.
> >
> > Thank you
> > Patrick Corliss
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
> > To: Danny Younger <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 11:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] The ALSC and the DNSO
> >
> > > Nothing here against Joop and I can understand the Individuals'
> > Constituency
>

- --
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: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 01:36:34 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Restructuring ICANN

On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:45:44 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:

> Patrick writes:  "It would be much appreciated if members would take up
any
> discussion relating to restructuring ICANN to the GA-ICANN mailing list."
>
> On this occasion, I disagree with Patrick.  Knowing that structural issues
> were to soon become a major topic of debate, it was decided to set up a
> discussion list (GA-review) to continue the structural analysis first
> started in the DNSO Review Working Group.

Dear Danny

There are three things wrong with your analysis.

(1)    As I understand it the DNSO Review was set up to review the DNSO.  I
may be mistaken but that seems like a sensible deduction.  What we are
talking about now is a restructuring of ICANN itself.  I have suggested
merging the Address Supporting Organisation and the Protocol Supporting
Organisation to give the DNSO a half share (instead of a third) of the power
base.

(2)    Even if you argue that there is a genuine need for a review of the
DNSO.  This has been overtaken by events.  The issue is now ICANN itself.
It would be utterly stupid to conduct two reviews separately and
concurrently, one into ICANN and another into the DNSO.

(3)    The DNSO Review Working Group is quite dead as far as I can tell.
Certainly there are less that 20 subscribers to the GA-REVIEW mailing list
and it has generated only 8 posts since it was formed six weeks ago.
Moreover three of those were from you and two were from me.   In other words
one independent posting a fortnight.  That's so slow moving it might as well
be dead.

Actually I fail to understand why you insist on posting things to the wrong
list.  This posting, for example, has absolutely nothing to do with
GA-ROOTS.  I will post my response to the main GA.

But far worse than posting things to the wrong list yourself you are now
encouraging other people to do so.  I saw no reason to create a GA-REVIEW
mailing list.  This was your own choice.  Nobody wants it.

Do the right thing and close it down.  Subsume it into GA-ICANN.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:45:44 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga-roots] RE: Restructuring ICANN

> Patrick writes:  "It would be much appreciated if members would take up
any
> discussion relating to restructuring ICANN to the GA-ICANN mailing list."
>
> On this occasion, I disagree with Patrick.  Knowing that structural issues
> were to soon become a major topic of debate, it was decided to set up a
> discussion list (GA-review) to continue the structural analysis first
> started in the DNSO Review Working Group.
>
> "Ongoing DNSO review:  To consider and recommend proposals that improve
> operations of the DNSO as it is constituted today and those which may
result
> in changes in the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its
> functioning."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-review/Arc00/msg00001.html
>
> I invite all former members of the working group and all other interested
> parties to review a summary document (Review Working Group Report on
> Constituencies):
> http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3AA2E47100000022

- --
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: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:07:40 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Restructuring ICANN

Hello Alternate,

Friday, June 08, 2001, 7:57:51 AM, Alternate Chair wrote:

> TERMS OF REFERENCE
> The DNSO General Assembly requests the GA-ICANN Working Group

When did these mailing list forums become "Working groups" ?

There are no GA Working groups.

For what it is worth, I object to any attempt to restrict subject
matters of discussion to sublists.

- -- 
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: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 17:07:15 +0100
From: Michael Froomkin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individuals' Constituency Task Force Member

I agree with both parts of the message quoted below..

Dassa wrote:

> First I would think a call for nominations for the position would be in
> order and then a vote by the GA to select the member the assembly thinks
> would be best suited.  If the GA is agreeable to the Chair specifying the
> appointment, I have no objection but will point out it may give reason for
> others in future to state a rejection of the choice.
>
> Second, Joop, as you mention has been predominate in the attempts to
> instigate an Individuals Constituency.  He has made petition to the ICANN
> Board in his endevours.   For reasons of their own, the Board has not
> looked favourably on the submissions made by Joop and it appears that he is
> not held in favour with that forum.  This may cause his participation in
> the process to taint, in the Board's eyes, the outcomes.  I say this not to
> belittle Joops achievements or to cast aspirations against him, but to
> highlight the fact he appears to have generated some disfavour in certain
> quarters.

- --
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: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 02:26:45 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Restructuring ICANN

Hi William

> When did these mailing list forums become "Working groups" ?
> 
> There are no GA Working groups.

Zounds !!  You sure like debating terminology iinstead of substance.
 
> For what it is worth, I object to any attempt to restrict subject
> matters of discussion to sublists.

You said that three times at least.  I think I know that by now.
But I'd like to see some genuine policy outcome on this list.

What's your goal?

Regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:26:40 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Restructuring ICANN

Hello Alternate,

Friday, June 08, 2001, 9:26:45 AM, Alternate Chair wrote:

> Hi William

>> When did these mailing list forums become "Working groups" ?
>> 
>> There are no GA Working groups.

> Zounds !!  You sure like debating terminology iinstead of substance.
 
>> For what it is worth, I object to any attempt to restrict subject
>> matters of discussion to sublists.

> You said that three times at least.  I think I know that by now.
> But I'd like to see some genuine policy outcome on this list.

Restricting discussion doesn't serve that outcome.

- -- 
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: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:33:05 -0500
From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 6:224     AU   (AUSTRALIA)

http://www.icannwatch.org
"AUDA Seeks ICANN's Help to Force .au Redelegation"
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg02954.html
"procedural matter in the IETF"

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
6:224     AU   (AUSTRALIA)

Are there any IPv6 servers for .AU ?

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: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:48:43 -0500
From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:190     ORG.....confused with ORG.AU

http://www.auda.org.au/
"30 May 2001 - Delays in org.au
auDA is aware that many people have experienced significant delays in
registering a new domain name, or redelegating an existing domain name, in
the org.au 2LD.
auDA does not have responsibility for, or authority over, the org.au 2LD.
Robert Elz is the delegate for this domain. All domain name registrations
and redelgations are handled by him exclusively.
Unfortunately, at present, auDA is not in a position to improve service in
the org.au domain without the assistance of Mr Elz. We have contacted Mr Elz
several times about the delays in service, but he has not responded."
- --------

ICANN claims to promote "stability" and claims to reduce consumer confusion.
Placing .ORG under .AU confuses people.

ICANN claims to have a single unique namespace...
AUDA.ORG
AUDA.ORG.AU
...are not unique...the ccTLDs seem to be creating confusion...
Why does ICANN support this ?

If .ORG is going to be reORGanized, should this confusion be fixed ?

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-org/Arc00/msg00000.html
Dot org TLD - [email-masked] list

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
0:190     ORG

In order to ensure stability, overlap, better service, etc.
it would seem wise to start NOW to migrate the .ORG users to
servers operating in both IPv4 and IPv8 Address Spaces. It would
also seem to be common sense to use some addresses from the
0:190 IPv8 Address space, allocated via IN-ADDR.ORG.

- ---------------------------------------------------------
Registrant:
XA.NET (IN-ADDR12-DOM)
   0 Ashburton
   Cambridge, MA 02139

   Domain Name: IN-ADDR.ORG

   Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Billing Contact:
      Keyes, Bob  (BK2)  [email-masked]
      28 Essex St. #1
      Cambridge, MA 02139
      617-661-1070

   Record last updated on 09-May-2000.
   Record expires on 22-Feb-2001.
   Record created on 22-Feb-1999.
   Database last updated on 7-Jun-2001 12:51:00 EDT.

   Domain servers in listed order:

   WWW.XA.NET			205.159.169.28
   NS.SINISTER.COM		205.159.169.7
- ---------------------------------------------------------

If a company does this now, they would seem likely to become
the market leader and supporter of .ORG Registry Services
when the "toy" IPv4 Internet .ORG services are eventually phased out.
This is an example of a situation where there are not several
"proof-of-concept" systems (like .BIZ) but instead one, and
people are setting the date when it will transition to more
permanent, stable operations. It seems the sooner that happens
the better, to ensure stable operations in keeping with the
"best-of-breed" IPv8 approach.

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.quicknet.net
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: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 03:14:02 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  Restructuring ICANN

Hi Danny

On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 10:21:55 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:

> With regard to Patrick's comments on the appropriate site for discussions
> on restructuring the DNSO, I will disagree with Patrick's conclusion...
> perhaps he has forgotten that we have set up a list (GA-Review) to
> specifically deal with an ongoing structural review of the DNSO:

Perhaps you have forgotten that you set up GA-REVIEW without consulting
me or anyone else that I can tell.  Or was that a "royal" we?

Perhaps you have also forgotten that your comments to me related to the
restructuring of ICANN and not the restructuring of the DNSO.  Hard to
believe since it was only 36 minutes earlier.  These were as follows:

On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:45:44 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
Subject: [ga-roots] RE: Restructuring ICANN

> Patrick writes:  "It would be much appreciated if members would take up
> any discussion relating to restructuring ICANN to the GA-ICANN mailing
> list."
>
> On this occasion, I disagree with Patrick.  Knowing that structural issues
> were to soon become a major topic of debate, it was decided to set up a
> discussion list (GA-review) to continue the structural analysis first
> started in the DNSO Review Working Group.

Actually I am glad that you attacked me first.  That's twice now.

I note that you have made another post to GA-REVIEW.  That makes nine
postings to that list in six weeks.  Four of them were yours.  This can be
compared with GA-ROOTS which has 704 postings to date.

Please keep up the good work.  LOL.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:39:42 -0500
From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 6:224     AU   (AUSTRALIA)

http://www.icannwatch.org
"AUDA Seeks ICANN's Help to Force .au Redelegation"
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg02954.html
"procedural matter in the IETF"

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
6:224     AU   (AUSTRALIA)

Are there any IPv6 servers for .AU ?

Are these the people in charge of .AU ?

Board of auDA
The following 11 people are the elected Directors on the Board of auDA, from
the 1999 and 2000 AGMs:
Directors elected by Supply Class Members (3):
Chris Chaundy, connect.com.au - 5th December 2000
David Keegel, wattle.id.au - 7th October 1999
Michael Malone, iiNet - 5th December 2000

Directors elected by Demand Class Members (3):
Kim Davies - 7th October 1999
Patrick Corliss - 5th December 2000
David Thompson - 7th October 1999

Directors elected by Representative Association Class Members (3):
Kim Heitman, Electronic Frontiers Australia - 5th December 2000
Iain Morrison, Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee - 7th October 1999
Greg Watson, Internet Society of Australia - 5th December 2000

Directors elected by all Members together (2):
Liz Williams, Internet Industry Association - 5th December 2000
Dr Erica Roberts, Melbourne IT - 7th October 1999
In addition, on 4th September 2000, the following Directors were appointed
by the elected Directors for a one year term (ratified at the 2000 AGM) to
serve as independent Directors:

Greg Crew
Tony Staley
Six Directors retired by rotation at the 2000 AGM.

Officers of auDA
The following are the current officers of auDA:
Chair - Tony Staley and Greg Watson - [email-masked]
Deputy Chair - David Thompson - [email-masked]
Secretary - Jo Lim - [email-masked]
Staff:

Chief Executive Officer - Chris Disspain - [email-masked]
Chief Finance Officer - Craig Hand - [email-masked]
Chief Policy Officer - Jo Lim - [email-masked]
In addition, the following responsibilities are currently allocated:

Webmaster - Kim Davies - [email-masked]
Publicity Officer - Chris Disspain
Membership Officer - Chris Disspain [email-masked]
auDA also has a [email-masked] to handle change requests for mail
addresses @auda.org.au.

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.quicknet.net
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: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 13:13:51 -0500
From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 6:224     AU   (AUSTRALIA)

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
6:224     AU   (AUSTRALIA)

http://www.auda.org.au/docs/3-reports.html

Will all 30+ million .COM owners be grand-fathered under .AU ?

Are there any IPv6 servers for .AU ?

What is the status of IN-ADDR.AU ?

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #520
************************