Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #522
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, June 10 2001            Volume 01 : Number 522

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

Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 21:29:49 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-review] Proposal to Merge the Business andIntellectual  Property Constituency

Jefsey that was singularly well put.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear DPF,
> it only shows the BC is not fulfilling its mission. Not that it has no mission.
> As an SME and a sall TM owner I don't see my interests represented by
> anyt of them two. You may rememebr that Philip Shepard publicly asked
> me on this list broadcasting a mail he has sent me privafely. This makes
> two responses: I did not have even an ACK.
> My position is simple: BC and IP should at least be be populated by 50%
> real people; true TM owners and true business owner/CEOs. Not by
> lawyers and employees.
> Jefsey
> .
>
> On 23:44 08/06/01, DPF said:
> >On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:41:49 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> > >The history of the DNSO is replete with joint communiqués issued by the
> > >Business and Intellectual Property Constituency:
> > >
> > >1. BC-IPC Safeguards Precis (Sept.2000)
> > >2. Minimum safeguards for the introduction of new TLDs - a joint statement
> > >from the Business and Intellectual Property Constituencies (Sept. 2000)
> > >
> > >The Business Constituency website routinely posts remarks from the
> > >Intellectual Property Constituency such as, "IP Constituency Statement on
> > >Proposed ICANN/VeriSign Agreement".
> > >
> > >It is clear to even the most casual observer that the affinity between these
> > >two groups is such that we are essentially looking at two sides of the same
> > >coin.  A merger of these two constituencies would seem to be indicated.
> >
> >I must admit I can see almost no difference between them.  I was
> >surprised to see on the WIPO site a submission from one of the BC reps
> >on the Names Council in his role as Chair of the European Trademark
> >Association (or similar).
> >
> >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-review" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 21:54:16 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-review] Proposal to Merge the Business andIntellectual  Property Constituency

Sotiris, Jefsey and all assembly members,

  I though so as well pretty much.  However I have only one point of
possible disagreement or maybe misunderstanding.  Employees are
stakeholders too.  Their input is very important.  So if you are indicating,
Jefsey, which I don't believe you are but I am not sure, that any
constituency should not have employees as members would not be
a wise thing to require or otherwise hold out as unwanted or not
desired....

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Jefsey that was singularly well put.
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > Dear DPF,
> > it only shows the BC is not fulfilling its mission. Not that it has no mission.
> > As an SME and a sall TM owner I don't see my interests represented by
> > anyt of them two. You may rememebr that Philip Shepard publicly asked
> > me on this list broadcasting a mail he has sent me privafely. This makes
> > two responses: I did not have even an ACK.
> > My position is simple: BC and IP should at least be be populated by 50%
> > real people; true TM owners and true business owner/CEOs. Not by
> > lawyers and employees.
> > Jefsey
> > .
> >
> > On 23:44 08/06/01, DPF said:
> > >On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:41:49 -0400, you wrote:
> > >
> > > >The history of the DNSO is replete with joint communiqués issued by the
> > > >Business and Intellectual Property Constituency:
> > > >
> > > >1. BC-IPC Safeguards Precis (Sept.2000)
> > > >2. Minimum safeguards for the introduction of new TLDs - a joint statement
> > > >from the Business and Intellectual Property Constituencies (Sept. 2000)
> > > >
> > > >The Business Constituency website routinely posts remarks from the
> > > >Intellectual Property Constituency such as, "IP Constituency Statement on
> > > >Proposed ICANN/VeriSign Agreement".
> > > >
> > > >It is clear to even the most casual observer that the affinity between these
> > > >two groups is such that we are essentially looking at two sides of the same
> > > >coin.  A merger of these two constituencies would seem to be indicated.
> > >
> > >I must admit I can see almost no difference between them.  I was
> > >surprised to see on the WIPO site a submission from one of the BC reps
> > >on the Names Council in his role as Chair of the European Trademark
> > >Association (or similar).
> > >
> > >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-review" in the body of the message).
> > >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 19:04:24 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individuals' Constituency Task Force Member

At 17:07 8/06/01 +0100, Michael Froomkin wrote:
>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.
> >

I too agree with this point.

> > 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.

I have not noticed any personal resentment from any Board member at any time.
I'm afraid the above "it appears" is based on giving  credence to Mr 
Pacificroot's "done deal" with ICANN staff .

If we want to go "top down" we might as well be consistent and ask for the 
Board or the NC to appoint a GA member as part of the task force.
The GA has been able to elect its own chair. It should be able to elect its 
own delegate to an NC task force.

- --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: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 08:13:13 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] No Funds for Proper Analysis

Who knows what they are talking about here?  There needs to be a process
here that funds the development and advancement of the constructive
questions and comments being submitted by participants.

What we have here is a failure to obtain the funding necessary to
present any meaningful comprehensive analysis, compiled by experts
presenting statistical data and information concerning the subject
matter being addressed by the DNSO.
This is primarily why I expressed the necessity of ICANN Approved
Proposal Organizations (APOs) at:
http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html.

APOs can be profit and non-profit organizations that qualify to
represent their studies, constituencies and/or members.   ICANN will
need to evolve toward a structural model and system that gives
organizations the incentive to fund comprehensive analysis, compiled by
experts presenting statistical data and information concerning the
subject matter being addressed by ICANN Supporting Organizations.

The APO competition component is clearly apparent in the DNSO process
and forums.  This is clearly evident by the existence of established
groupies in the DNSO process and forums and their refusal to acknowledge
and investigate constructive comments and positions from one not in
their group.  It is also apparent that said groupies feel threatened
when constructive comments and positions are presented.  Groupies exist
in the DNSO process and forums and they appear to be preventing the
development and advancement of constructive dialog if the comment and
position contribution does not agree with, or does not come from one in
the established group.

If ICANN is going to allow the formation of groupies in its processes,
then these groupies that believe that they know what they are talking
about should step up to the plate with money to fund comprehensive
analysis, compiled by experts presenting statistical data and
information concerning the subject matter being addressed, that proves
the groupies position.

The ICANN Supporting Organizations and ICANN Board should be relying on
experts presenting statistical data and information concerning the
subject matter being addressed.  ICANN should not be developing its
policy and standards upon a process that is not funded and relies on
non-experts.

ICANN and the Internet is mature enough now to begin the process of
restructuring its Supporting Organizations and to engage the APO
concept.  The APO concept would invite organizations from around the
world to fund ICANN internationalization and the development and
advancement of international policy and standards.  The Governments of
the world would also have incentive to fund ICANN internationalization
through APO processes.

I am submitting this for constructive criticism.

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

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

Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 14:44:38 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Joop Teemstra's candidacy

Dear Joop,
I gather from your response that you would accept the work load of
a role in the IDNH support. This is good news.

However I am afraid I will NOT support you to join the NC. For several
reasons I ask everyone sharing our common interest for IDNH to be
fairly represented to study carefully.

1) it seems very uncertain that the DNSO will survive in its present
     form. To be mixed with it now is not necessarily be good.
2) the split of the ccTLDs creates an obvious positioning problem
     for the IDNHC and I doubt that this will be discussed and solved
     at DNSO level only.
3) I accept that you have proposed a long forgotten patch to Danny's
     motion, but I absolutely object to the word "IC". I am supporting
     efforts for an IUSO/IUAC (Individual/Internet User SO or Advisory
     Committee) now much discussed. Every reference to IDNHC in
     Stockholm by BoD Member was as "IDNHC". IC is a confusion
     trap to fight the IUSO project feared as decreasing DNSO weight.
4) your image is attached to a principle. You are a flag and have
     acquired in your area a figure à la Jon Postel. I would hate seeing
     it spoilt in the daily debate. Experience shown that you were
     fiercely fought (and supported) at the IDNO but once that was
     over, your adversaries were the first to tell how important you
     were to conduct this cause and asked you to wear our colors.

We are going to vote for a BoD Member. As recalled a few days
ago, last year Jonathan Cohen got 10% of the votes, Jamie 60%
and Peter de Blanc 30%. This GA is much in favor of an IDNH
ad-hoc representation. So, I suppose you would get supported by
the GA easily and that the NC owes us a compensation for last
year. Since you are from Asia, there is not geographical constraint.

I therefore think perfectly credible and advisable to nominate you
for DNSO Director at the ICANN Board, if you so agree.

The advantage would be that you could - from inside - propose
the correct positions depending on the whole iCANN structure
evolution. Without seeing your image endangered at any time.
Also, no minor point, your presence at the Quarterly meetings
would be granted as the iCANN would pay for your travels.

This being said, I fully support the nomination proposed by
WXW of DPF to the NC. This is certainly a perfect choice.
However we face the geographical distribution issue I rose
yesterday in preparation of this post.

Your entry to the BoD would not create unbalance. BoD is
more on personal and defended cause criteria. But one ANZ
more in the DNSO top set could rise objection if nothing is
made first about China and India and then Africa. We want to
represent individual domain name holders: we must clearly
show we are standing by then and by their problems. Their
most important problems today with the iCANN are its
"WASP" centered representation and the language of
contractual documents, contracts and procedures like
the UDPR they cannot even read.

To address this I would propose to select a 9 persons
representative [and active] committee among us:

- - North America
- - Latin America
- - Western Europe
- - Eastern Europe
- - Africa
- - Eastern Asia
- - Indian area
- - Middle East
- - Pacific

They would select a speaker (could be on a rotating basis).
They might also serve as a test for the 9 BoD @large seats.
They would probably not select a rotating language ;-)
but they might have their position statements translated in
different languages.

Jefsey

On 09:04 09/06/01, Joop Teernstra said:
>At 17:07 8/06/01 +0100, Michael Froomkin wrote:
>>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.
>> >
>
>I too agree with this point.
>
>> > 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.
>
>I have not noticed any personal resentment from any Board member at any time.
>I'm afraid the above "it appears" is based on giving  credence to Mr 
>Pacificroot's "done deal" with ICANN staff .
>
>If we want to go "top down" we might as well be consistent and ask for the 
>Board or the NC to appoint a GA member as part of the task force.
>The GA has been able to elect its own chair. It should be able to elect 
>its own delegate to an NC task force.
>
>
>
>
>--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

- --
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, 09 Jun 2001 15:35:07 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Funds for Proper Analysis

Dear Derek,
this post is interesting. Please do not be hurt as it is not intended
and this is basis for further analysis, but this exactly the powerfull
rolling process to construct uncessary institutions.

What is the Internet? A consensus. Billion of people agreeing the
same thing: to use TCP/IP protocols to dialog together. This is
nothing more. Question: is Internet necessary to TCP/IP? No.
Is TCP/IP necessary to the Internet? Yes. From this one can say
that the Internet is part of the TCP/IP usage. Would you make the
Internet boring, TCP/IP users would move out of the Internet. This
is whet one start hearing around: OpenNet a successor to the
Internet.

I agree with you the DNSO is a mess and the iCANN is of no other
use than allowing the USG to delegates something they do not
know what to do with, and they do not even own as it does not exist.

So why do you care about groupies - they are fun. I love calling
Kent or Dave or Harald or Robert or Joop or Patrick or Danny or
me a groupy. They enjoy time that way, disputing absurd issues
about a group of 30 people. (BoD + Staff).  Looks like a Parent
Association of 8 years old class.

iCANN is of no use:
- - if they had some use in root management they would hire a
   Technical manager
- - TLD management? .. they even mess the few the create in
   entering collider.  Two TLD  a year: creating one to 1000
   TLDs takes me 10  minutes (I automated the process :-) ).
- - they are of no use in creatig IP addresses. Too complex, too
   politictal for them. Will be taken over..
- - they have some use in alocating Proteocl numbers: you need
   to have someone rememberng were the book is.

Oh, no I am wrong. They have a use: to have peole sqwaking
about them. Look at the number of sites, documents, etc...
iCANN has nothing to do with the net, it is pure show.biz

Frankly. Why do you want me to put a penny in funding the
iCANN? Please give me a good reason to help such a
charity (?), research (?), educational (?) corporation.... I am
99% concerned in the iCANN for one single reason: to lower
the harm it can cause to me.

Now, would the iCANN stick to its bylaws and accept TLDs
as unlimited Members it could provide some good internationad
consensus secretariat. It could be of some good use. But
the $ 50.000 application fee into the "international TLD
business" killed that..... and I am afraid your propositions
are not correcting it. Or am I wrong?

Jefsey

On 17:13 09/06/01, Derek Conant said:
>Who knows what they are talking about here?  There needs to be a process
>here that funds the development and advancement of the constructive
>questions and comments being submitted by participants.
>
>What we have here is a failure to obtain the funding necessary to
>present any meaningful comprehensive analysis, compiled by experts
>presenting statistical data and information concerning the subject
>matter being addressed by the DNSO.
>This is primarily why I expressed the necessity of ICANN Approved
>Proposal Organizations (APOs) at:
>http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html.
>
>APOs can be profit and non-profit organizations that qualify to
>represent their studies, constituencies and/or members.   ICANN will
>need to evolve toward a structural model and system that gives
>organizations the incentive to fund comprehensive analysis, compiled by
>experts presenting statistical data and information concerning the
>subject matter being addressed by ICANN Supporting Organizations.
>
>The APO competition component is clearly apparent in the DNSO process
>and forums.  This is clearly evident by the existence of established
>groupies in the DNSO process and forums and their refusal to acknowledge
>and investigate constructive comments and positions from one not in
>their group.  It is also apparent that said groupies feel threatened
>when constructive comments and positions are presented.  Groupies exist
>in the DNSO process and forums and they appear to be preventing the
>development and advancement of constructive dialog if the comment and
>position contribution does not agree with, or does not come from one in
>the established group.
>
>If ICANN is going to allow the formation of groupies in its processes,
>then these groupies that believe that they know what they are talking
>about should step up to the plate with money to fund comprehensive
>analysis, compiled by experts presenting statistical data and
>information concerning the subject matter being addressed, that proves
>the groupies position.
>
>The ICANN Supporting Organizations and ICANN Board should be relying on
>experts presenting statistical data and information concerning the
>subject matter being addressed.  ICANN should not be developing its
>policy and standards upon a process that is not funded and relies on
>non-experts.
>
>ICANN and the Internet is mature enough now to begin the process of
>restructuring its Supporting Organizations and to engage the APO
>concept.  The APO concept would invite organizations from around the
>world to fund ICANN internationalization and the development and
>advancement of international policy and standards.  The Governments of
>the world would also have incentive to fund ICANN internationalization
>through APO processes.
>
>I am submitting this for constructive criticism.
>
>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: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 07:17:58 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Joop Teemstra's candidacy

Hello Jefsey,

Saturday, June 09, 2001, 5:44:38 AM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> This being said, I fully support the nomination proposed by
> WXW of DPF to the NC.

You misunderstood, Jefsey.  The nomination was as GA Representative to
a Names Council working group, NOT to the Names Council. Only the
constituency appointed people to the Names Council.

- -- 
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, 09 Jun 2001 17:08:39 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Joop Teemstra's candidacy

On 16:17 09/06/01, William X. Walsh said:
>Hello Jefsey,
>Saturday, June 09, 2001, 5:44:38 AM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > This being said, I fully support the nomination proposed by
> > WXW of DPF to the NC.
>You misunderstood, Jefsey.  The nomination was as GA Representative to
>a Names Council working group, NOT to the Names Council. Only the
>constituency appointed people to the Names Council.

YOu right: this is what I mean. Several have asked about the way such a 
representation would be carried: these are minor  procedural points that 
still may be discussed.

The main point is who will be selected. As I proposed, instead of one 
talented and experience but alone person I propose 9 Members of the GA. You 
may note that I continued considering that the NC working group would only 
welcome one representative from the GA. In selecting 9 people from the 
different geographical areas and cultures (what is a real need for 
individual users) I think we would push the NC to delegate 9 people too to 
that WG. We would then be sure to have a serious and documented final 
document agreeing to the BoD.

But this is to the NC to decide.
Jefsey

>--
>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 17:42:40 -0500
From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Whitehouse will need to step in...

People should write letters and/or call...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010601-6.html

"Next Generation Internet"

http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/0011/msg00208.html

> http://www.internetpolicy.org/board/index.html
> http://www.gip.org/about/members.asp
>
> Tuesday, November 7, 2000
> http://www.gip.org/publications/papers/draftberlinworkshop.asp
> *Attendance is by Invitation Only*
> Introduction: GIP Chairman John Patrick, Vice President for Internet
> Technology, IBM

Keynote Speakers: The Honorable Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister of Sweden

> David Farber, Chief Technologist, U.S. Federal Communications Commission,
&
> Professor of Computer Science, University of Pennsylvania.
> Moderator: Vint Cerf, Senior Vice President for Internet Architecture &
> Engineering, WorldCom.
> Panelists: Fred Baker, Fellow, Cisco Systems, and Chairman, IETF
> Keynote Speaker: Esther Dyson, chairman, EDventure (Retiring Chairman,
> ICANN)
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/News_Releases/2000/nrmc0001.html
> @@@@ http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/tr072700.txt
> CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Any other questions from the
> bench?  Hearing none, we'll move to the next panel.  Thank
> you both very much.  We really appreciate your taking the
> time to do this.  And I wanted to publicly acknowledge and
> thank Esther Dyson's work with ICANN.  That is a tremendous
> public service, not only for the country, for the world, and
> we're very appreciative of your work.
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

http://www.algore.com/internet_and_technology/www_accomp.html

"Vinton Cerf, Nicknamed the "Father of the Internet:" "I think it is very
fair
to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States
without
the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice
President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator." Cerf is
currently a
senior vice president with MCI Worldcom."
...
"Dave Farber, Professor of Telecommunications at the University of
Pennsylvania: "Without [Gore] there is a good chance it [the Internet]
would not be where it is today," said Dave Farber."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2641403,00.html

"In a widely circulated letter, Vinton Cerf and Bill Joy wrote: "As the two
people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make
the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a
congressman, senator and as vice president. No other elected official, to
our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
. . . The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting
the Internet long before most people were listening."

- -------

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.12/whitehouse_pr.html
With the Internet reaching to the far corners of the globe, the day's e-mail
brings tidings from abroad. This past February 4, a message from Swedish
Prime Minister Carl Bildt became the first e-mail correspondence from one
head of government to another:

>From @SEARN.SUNET.SE:[email-masked] Fri Feb 4 03:52:19 1994
Received: by WhiteHouse.Gov (5.65/fma/mjr-120691); id AA13582; Fri, 4 Feb 94
03:52:19 -0500
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 09:51 +0100
From: Carl Bildt <[email-masked]>
Subject: From PM Carl Bildt/Sweden to President Clinton
To: president
Dear Bill,

Apart from testing this connection on the global Internet system, I want to
congratulate you on your decision to end the trade embargo on Vietnam. I am
planning to go to Vietnam in April and will certainly use the occasion to
take up the question of the MIAs....

Sweden is - as you know - one of the leading countries in the world in the
field of telecommunications, and it is only appropriate that we should be
among the first to use the Internet also for political contacts and
communications around the globe.

Yours,
Carl
- ----------------------

- --
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 18:10:03 -0500
From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "Internet users will have 7 new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)" ???

"Internet users will have 7 new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)" ???

.firm, .store, .web, .arts, .rec, .info, .nom

will...not might

- -----Original Message-----
From: JIM FLEMING [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 6:52 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; gih@telstra. net; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; rosa.
delgado@sita. int; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Brian E
Carpenter; [email-masked]
Cc: oswindle@ftc. gov; ksmith@ntia. doc. gov; krose@ntia. doc. gov;
John_McCain@McCain. senate. gov; 'gstrawn@nsf. gov'; Eric. Menge@sba.
gov; FOIA@FTC. GOV
Subject: "Internet users will have 7 new generic Top Level Domains
(gTLDs)" ???

http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/board.shtml
Board of Trustees
July 2000 - June 2001 Name Region Term of Office Officer
Martin Burack
<[email-masked]> USA
Americas 1999 - 2002
Brian E. Carpenter*
<[email-masked]> UK
Europe 2000 - 2003 Chair
Vinton Cerf*
<[email-masked]> USA
Americas 1998 - 2001
Srisakdi Charmonman
<[email-masked]> THAILAND
Asia-Pacific 1999 - 2002
Rosa M. Delgado*
<[email-masked]> SWITZERLAND
Europe 2000 - 2003
Barbara Fraser
<[email-masked]> USA
Americas 2000 - 2003
John Gage
<[email-masked]> USA
Americas 1999 - 2002
Lynn St. Amour*
<[email-masked]> USA
Americas 2001 - President/ CEO
Christian Huitema
<[email-masked]> FRANCE
Europe 1998 - 2001
Geoff Huston*
<[email-masked]> AUSTRALIA
Asia/Pacific 1998 - 2001 Secretary
Tarek Kamel
<[email-masked]> EGYPT
Middle East/Africa 1999 - 2002
Christine Maxwell
<[email-masked]> FRANCE
Europe 2000 - 2003
Kees Neggers*
<[email-masked]> NETHERLANDS
Europe 1998 - 2001
Wawa Ngenge
<[email-masked]> CAMEROON
Middle East/Africa 2000 - 2003
Manuel Sanromà
<[email-masked]> SPAIN
Europe 1999 - 2002
George Sadowsky
<[email-masked]> USA
Americas 2000 - 2001 VP - Education
Trustees Emeriti
John Gilmore
<[email-masked]> USA
Americas 2000 - 2001
Jun Murai
<[email-masked]> JAPAN
Asia-Pacific 2000 - 2001
Jose Luis Pardos
<[email-masked]> SPAIN
Europe 2000 - 2001
Ben Segal
<[email-masked]> SWITZERLAND
Europe 2000 - 2001
- ------------------------------------

According to a 1997 ISOC Press Release:
http://www.isoc.org/whatsnew/iahcreport.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg02817.html

"Internet users will have 7 new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)"

.firm, .store, .web, .arts, .rec, .info, .nom

Where are these ?
Did the ISOC mislead the public ?

What did the ISOC do with all the money it collected from Registries ?

What happened to all the money collected from "pre-registrations" ?

BTW...as a Prodigy user, I have had to make no changes to any browser
settings, and enjoy all the new TLDs offered by http://www.New.Net and
others. They appear to offer a stable and reliable service and follow
through with their promises. I do not understand why the ISOC is not
required to follow through with their claims.

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.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: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 21:41:06 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Nomination Process

Having received a number of comments from the membership expressing a desire
to use a nomination process to select a representative from the General
Assembly to join the Names Council's Task Force that will be dealing with
the Individuals' Constituency issue, and finding no legitimate reason not to
support such a process, I am asking our DNSO Secretariat to make the
necessary arrangements.

- --
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 #522
************************