Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #543
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, June 15 2001            Volume 01 : Number 543

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

Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 02:38:47 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: privacy groups....in Stockholm

> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg03231.html
> 
> From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]> 
> 
> "many of the privacy groups to which you refer
> were participants in Stockholm, and many are actively involved within the
> non-commercial constituency"
> 
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> 
> Was the IPv6 "Privacy Problem" discussed ?
> 
> http://www.internetwk.com/columns/frezz100499.htm
> Where's All The Outrage About The IPv6 Privacy Threat?
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
> 2002:<IPv4>:0000:<IPv8> vs. 3FFE:<IPv6>
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
> http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
> http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
> 
> 

- --
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, 15 Jun 2001 09:40:09 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: [ga] Fw: [icann-announce]  ICANN Montevideo Meeting (7-10September    2001); DNSO Whois Survey

>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:23:08 -0300
>From: Ida Holz <[email-masked]>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; I)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>To: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: [icann-announce]  ICANN Montevideo Meeting 
>(7-10September
>  2001); DNSO Whois Survey
>
>
>The mail sent P.G. shows us that there are many people that doesn´t know
>not only our country, but nor our region.
>
>Uruguay is the mos stable country in the region, not only politicaly,
>but also in economy. We are a poor country, with many problems but not
>so bad as many people think.
>
>For us, this is a great opportunity to be known.
>
>Thank you for your mail. We´ll be glad to receive you in SeCIU
>
>Ida Holz
>
>
>
>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >
> > Dear Mrs. Ida Holtz,
> > I want here to apologize on behalf of this DNSO/GA for this mail. We here
> > certainly look for a productive iCANN meeting in your place in Septembre
> > (even if I carry no more illusions about the capacity of the iCANN to be
> > productive :-)  ). I long for decades to visit your country, I hope I can
> > make it and meet with all the SeCIU team.  I hope Mr. D. Connant will stop
> > in Montevideo on his way to Syndey so he may learn from the art. 3rd of
> > your Constitution what could be of real benefit to the Internet and from
> > art. 165 what might be of benefit to this GA. :-) .
> > Our real pleasure to be your guests.
> > Jefsey Morfin
> >
> > On 00:21 14/06/01, Derek Conant said:
> > >Okay, if there is a Four Seasons Resort in Uruguay I may reconsider.
> > >
> > >Derek Conant
> > >DNSGA President and Chairman
> > >
> > >Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > At 04:42 13/06/01 -0700, Derek Conant wrote:
> > > > > >ICANN just amazes me.  Who picked Uruguay?  Why Uruguay instead of
> > > some more
> > > > > >predictable or more stable country?  Like Brazil or somewhere else
> > > in South
> > > > > >America?  Maybe things have changed in Uruguay?  Maybe 
> not?  I'll have
> > > > > >friends at the CIA before considering attending this ICANN
> > > meeting.  Maybe
> > > > > >I'll go to Sydney instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Derek,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sure Rio or Buenas Aires, or even Auckland, New Zealand <g> or
> > > > > Amsterdam <vbg> will get their turn.
> > > > > With 4 meetings a year  and no end in sight ...
> > > >
> > > > Never fear, there is a near neverending supply of quality resort 
> locations
> > > > throughout the world to choose from. :-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > 
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> > > >                                Patrick Greenwell
> > > >                        Earth is a single point of failure.
> > > >
> > > 
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > >--
> > >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:00:09 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's try to see this constructively... and not over rea

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:39:24 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 03:50:14AM +0000, [email-masked] wrote:

>>> Why not use the narrative questions to include other perspectives that you
>>> think aren't included, as informational points?
>> 
>>This can certainly be done by the individuals who think of this but it still 
>>means that the quantative data would have considerably less value than could 
>>have been the case.
>
>In fact, there is very little significance that can be attached to the
>quantitiative data.  Right now people are treating the survey as a vote,
>and busy trying to stuff the ballot by getting lots of people who think
>like they do to fill out the form.  There is essentially no statistical
>validity to that as a sampling method. 

This is true for any self selecting sample.  

>> Both of the above allow each data element to be given an average score which is 
>> useful for compararative purposes.
>
>Without a rigorous sampling methodology, such finesse is useless.  A
>statement like "67% of those surveyed think that whois is essential" 
>would be misleading, at best.

One reports the results noting the sample is self selecting and also
that multiple voting is potentially possible.  However one could well
find a lot of useful information in the results.  It may also
challenge assumptions people have made about the importance of certain
aspects of whois.

>> Question 9 as written is not without value.  One can compare the % who mark 
>> essential for each data element as a rough guide and ignore how the remainder 
>> is split between desirable and valueless.
>> 
>> As with others I commend ICANN/NC for doing such a survey.
>
>While I think your emphasis on the numerical aspects is completely
>misguided, I also agree that the survey is a very positive development. 
>While there is no doubt that it is essentially useless from a quantative
>point of view, it remains true that a great deal of useful qualitative
>information will come from such a survey.

If the question responses had been less leading then the quantitative
data would have been more useful.  It would still have restrictions as
to its usefulness but if you know what those restrictions are you can
still find use for the data.

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: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 03:13:19 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for Structural Change (Resolution 1.29)

Joanna and all assembly members,

  Not bad Joanna!  Not bad at all!

  I will seek our members serious consideration on this and solicit potential
improvements (if any) from them ASAP....

Joanna Lane wrote:

> PROPOSAL TO RESTRUCTURE ICANN SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
>
> 1.0 CONSUMER SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (CSO)
> Comprising the following groups who qualify by virtue of being users
> affected by internet services, rather than providers of those services:-
>
> 1.1 Business Community/ Intellectual Property Interests (BC/IP)
> 1.2 Small Business Community (SME)
> 1.3 Individual Domain Name Registrants (IDNH)
> 1.4 End Users (currently represented by At Large)
> 1.5 Non-commercial Domain Name Registrants (NCDNH)
> 1.6 Public Interest Organizations
>
> 2.0 TECHNICAL SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (TSO)
> Comprising the following groups who qualify by virtue of being providers of
> internet services, rather than consumers of those services:-
>
> 2.1 Registrars
> 2.2 Registries
> 2.3 ISPs
> 2.4 RIRs
> 2.5 Telecom Industry
>
> 3.0 ADDRESS AND PROTOCOL SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (APSO)
> Comprising the existing APO and PSO
>
> __________________________________________________________________
>
> It is proposed that each of the three supporting organizations elect a
> number of representatives to attend a General Assembly/ Committee, where
> draft Position Papers, prepared by each of the various groups, would be
> submitted for cross-SO dialogue, and consensus to be uncovered.
>
> After differences in opinion had been hammered out, representatives would
> then return ammended Position Papers to their respective Supporting
> Organization for ratification.
>
> Once agreed, Policy Recommendations would then be forwarded to the ICANN
> Board of Directors.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> Draft 1. Prepared by Joanna Lane. 14 June 2001
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 03:24:03 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."

Danny and all assembly members,

Danny Younger wrote:

> Jeff Williams writes:  "This is fine Danny.  But what about before we move
> past the survey input phase.  Have any of the EFF listed or other privacy
> groups which Joanna listed been ask or informed about the WHOIS survey?  If
> not, why not?  After the fact isn't good enough, Danny.
> I realize that you are an employee of Register.com and this may be a touchy
> issue with you superiors and therefore some pressure could be applied to
> you.  And as such I can understand you response to Joanna, above."
>
> Jeff, with all due respect, many of the privacy groups to which you refer
> were participants in Stockholm, and many are actively involved within the
> non-commercial constituency (that keeps abreast of the issues rather well).

  Some, not many Danny...  Lets try to be honest at least, ok?  >;)
As you know than, most are not satisfied, including most of the list
that Joanna posted with and "After the Fact" survey participation
and review.  And SOME have stated so publicly such as the ACLU,
as just one example.  Another would be the COE, and you likely are aware
of as their privacy LAW and policy has been posted to this and the
ga-sys list on at least three occasions.  Hence, again my question to you...
What you provide here is NOT and answer but rather a seemingly
attempt to do some damage control.  I applaud you effort here
none the less.  Good spin..  >;)

>
> This survey was announced in Stockholm and has been posted twice as new and
> noteworthy on the www.icann.org site.  There have been discussions about
> this survey during the last three Names Council teleconferences and at the
> prior session in Melbourne.

 Yes I am very well aware of this Danny.  But thank you again for the
redundant information review anyway...  >;)

>  There are also ample comments regarding the
> work of this committee on the Names Council lists dating back to November,
> as well as comments on the Registrars list, the Business Constituency List
> and the Non-Com List.

  All true and I am aware of them very well thank you...  >;)

>  There has been an icann-announce message as well.
> The survey/comment period is open until July 31, sufficient time for you to
> assist in outreach activities.  Perhaps if you sent a note to your 118,000
> members...

  Some have.  Others look to me to speak for them as I am their spokesman.
I have posted to the ICANN BoD on a number of occasions beginning in
1998 see archives of the [email-masked] ML for further reference.

>
>
> I have no idea why you might think this to be a touchy issue for me, nor any
> idea of why my employment is a factor in these discussions.

  I didn't say that I did.  You seem to be a bit defensive here Danny.  No
need to be is there?  Hope not.  >;)  But thank you for the "Tell" anyway.  >;)

>
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 03:24:35 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for Structural Change (Resolution 1.29)

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
>
> Currently the DNSO, ASO and PSO each appoint 3 board directors, for a
> total of 9.
>
> The At Large is supposed to elect 9 board directors.
>

ICANN was carefully designed to be captured at all times by the 2/3 vote
of the PSO and ASO over the DNSO. Folks might want to check some of the
archives on the ITAG and how ICANN was structured.
http://www.google.com/search?q=ITAG+ICANN

The entire MLM - Multi-Level-Marketing structure depends on the existing
arrangement. It does not seem likely that ICANN would disrupt their
cash-flow
and structure. If anything, things could be preserved and simplified, by
simply
allowing the DNSO, ASO and PSO to absorb the At Large Directors.

If people truly want a structure based on representativeness, it seems
that the TLD could be the tribal name people rally behind. Once thoursands
of TLDs are identified as "Best-of-Breed", the TLD may be the natural
way to give people a voice, that can be accurately counted.

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

- --
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, 15 Jun 2001 10:02:55 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Secretar5iat

- --=====================_8184693==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear Erica,
thank you for the reminder: this partly addresses the point of Danny about 
the dnso.org webmaster.

I am surprised this document does not reflect the need to correct the 
current geographical unbalance of the DNSO top set I documented (12.5 % of 
the persons being from ANZ). I hope the budget alocated to the 
hired  consultant will permit him to consider candidates outside of his 
sub-area.

If Secretariat was to leave Europe, it should go to China, India or Latin 
America, may be Africa. I suppose everyone will agree with this.
Jefsey

On 03:44 15/06/01, erica said:
>I would like to draw the atention of list members to the Request for 
>Proposals for DNSO Secretariat services. This can be found at:
><http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.RFP-DNSO.html>http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.RFP-DNSO.html
>
>erica

- --=====================_8184693==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Dear Erica,<br>
thank you for the reminder: this partly addresses the point of Danny
about the dnso.org webmaster.<br>
<br>
I am surprised this document does not reflect the need to correct the
current geographical unbalance of the DNSO top set I documented (12.5 %
of the persons being from ANZ). I hope the budget alocated to the
hired&nbsp; consultant will permit him to consider candidates outside of
his sub-area. <br>
<br>
If Secretariat was to leave Europe, it should go to China, India or Latin
America, may be Africa. I suppose everyone will agree with this. <br>
Jefsey<br>
<br>
On 03:44 15/06/01, erica said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2>I would
like to draw the atention of list members to the Request for Proposals
for DNSO Secretariat services. This can be found at:</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2><a href="http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.RFP-DNSO.html">http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.RFP-DNSO.html</a></font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>erica</font></blockquote></html>

- --=====================_8184693==_.ALT--

- --
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, 15 Jun 2001 10:03:16 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Questions about the ccSO Proposal

Thank you Roberto.
This confusion as far as I understand has been introduced by Dennis 
Jennings in Singapore as a response to the desire not to give the @large 
the importance they deserve and has been translated by Joe Sims in he 
bylaws. He testified about that (it was quoted on the WG-Review) explaining 
it was a peculiarity of the DNSO and the source of its unbalance. This 
translates into the confusion between consensus/votes, netwide concerns and 
stakeholder interests, competence and representation, etc...  GA and 
Constituencies...

The problem is that the so-called "constituencies" represent specific 
"suppliers" netwide concerns too and not only "consumer" interests. 
Actually the IDNH and the IU are really missing. This comes from the fact 
we identified clearly with the Minitel that the Internet is a "social" tool 
where everyone is both consumer and supplier. The mail I send is a product 
for others to read and the way I chose the authoritative root on my machine 
participates to the management network.

Jefsey

On 20:03 14/06/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>Good evening.
>
>I am adding my comments to this interesting message by Bret Fausett, that 
>I was unable to follow up when it first appeared a week ago.
>I wonder whether, if a new SO has to be created, it would not make sense 
>to really separate "suppliers" and "consumers" (as defined by Bret below).
>
>In other words, the interests of the "consumers" are relevant in the DNSO, 
>but are nowhere present in the ASO and PSO, and it is this conflict 
>between "suppliers" and "consumers" in the DNSO that creates the major 
>problems, that managed to almost paralize the DNSO on issues like 
>introduction of new TLDs (failure to even recognize the consensus points 
>of WG-C by the NC, for instance).
>I wonder whether the key is to separate the technical part (almost 
>identical to the "supplier") from the "general purpose" (almost identical 
>to the "consumer"). What I would consider worth exploring is a "technical" 
>DNSO (Registrars, Registries [gTLDs+ccTLDs], ISPs) and a new "consumer" 
>CSO (Business, TradeMark, Non-Com, Individuals, ...).
>The rationale is that the participants to the former are to some extent 
>forced, sooner or later, to come to a situation in which they have to have 
>a contract of some sort with ICANN. Already Registrars and Registries are 
>accredited, for instance. Of course for ISPs and connectivity providers 
>the situation is different, but still more similar to Registrars and 
>Registries than to the "consumers" of Internet services.
>
>Of course at this point the latter SO will oversee all the problems from 
>the "users" POV, including aspects related to addressing and protocols, 
>and be treated as advisory body on consumer issues by ICANN.
>This will re-focus the DNSO on technical issues (and issues related to 
>contractual and service agreements with ICANN) that is the real source of 
>the problem with the ccTLDs.
>
>Regards
>Roberto
>
>
>
>>------------ Original post by Bret
>>
>>After reading the ccTLD communique and hearing more about the proposal over
>>the remote participation feed, I have a few thoughts and questions.
>>
>>* The current DNSO is reasonably balanced between "suppliers" of DNS
>>services (gTLD registries, ccTLD registries, Registrars, and ISPs) and
>>"consumers" of DNS services (B&C, NCDNHC, IPC, and perhaps one day,
>>Individuals). It's not clear from the ccTLD proposal whether a proposed ccSO
>>would have any representation for the "consumer" side interests now
>>represented within the DNSO.
>>
>>Registrants, of course, have the same interests in the policies of the
>>ccTLDs as they do with gTLDs. These interests include domain name rights,
>>intellectual property rights, access to market issues, and whois access and
>>data privacy concerns. A reasonable ccSO structure would ensure that ccSO
>>consensus policies were not simply the consensus of the TLD managers, but a
>>consensus of the larger community having reasonable interests in the ccTLDs,
>>including the "consumer" interests now present in the DNSO.
>>
>>Depending on the issue, a "consensus policy" coming from a group of
>>like-minded ccTLD managers would not really be a consensus of the impacted
>>community, as ccTLD policies affect a wider group than the companies who
>>manage the ccTLD registries. Building a new structure for representation of
>>other stakeholders within the ccSO, however, might well prove redundant to
>>the existing facilities within the DNSO.
>>
>>The ccTLD communique indicates that it has begun an outreach effort to some
>>of the existing DNSO constituencies, for which the ccTLDs should be
>>commended. Those discussions need to continue, and I'll be interested to
>>hear how the ccTLDs propose to address this representation/consensus issue.
>>
>>* Under the current ICANN bylaws, each Supporting Organization effectively
>>has "veto power" over policy initiatives originating within other Supporting
>>Organizations. ("...the Board shall accept the recommendations of a
>>Supporting Organization if the Board finds that the recommended policy
>>...(4) is not reasonably opposed by any other Supporting Organization."
>>Article III, Section 2(e)).
>>
>>So to create a ccSO would be to give the ccTLD registries veto power over
>>DNSO proposals that they "reasonably opposed."
>>
>>A growing number of ccTLDs count themselves as competitors to gTLDs, and
>>this veto power potentially could be used for anti-competitive purposes.
>>
>>* Another obvious question about any new SO is where do the new Board seats
>>come from?
>>
>>At present, there's a balance between the At Large representatives (even
>>though four remain non-elected), and the SO representatives. This is a
>>balance that's important to retain, at least through the end of the ALSC
>>process.
>>
>>If a ccSO proposal is accepted, one reasonable proposal might be to give
>>each of the four SOs *two* Boards seats, with one Board seat elected by the
>>councils of *all four* SOs.
>>
>>* Finally, it's not clear what issues the ccTLDs have with their current
>>relationship with ICANN and the DNSO that are made better by the creation of
>>a separate constituency and guaranteed seats on the Board. The current
>>contract negotiations with ccTLDs, for example, will be handled by Staff as
>>"implementation issues" under existing policy. So guaranteed *Board seats*
>>don't solve any immediate ccTLD issues. While the budget has an obvious
>>impact on the ccTLDs, they appear to be adequately represented on ICANN's
>>budget committee.
>>
>>If the proposed move is primarily due to the concern of "taxation without
>>representation," then the same case could be made for the gTLDs and the
>>Registrars, depending on future DNSO election outcomes. In fact, the
>>registrant community itself, which pays service fees to the registries and
>>registrars also could reasonably claim that it supports ICANN financially
>>too, albeit indirectly. How far will ICANN allow the creation of new SOs out
>>of existing SOs go?
>>
>>Speaking as someone who participated in the DNSO's creation and who has
>>followed it closely since that time, I'm also not aware of any significant
>>ccTLD initiatives that were presented to the Names Council and the larger
>>DNSO community and which were voted down or otherwise rebuffed. While many
>>issues occupying the DNSO's agenda are focused on non-ccTLD issues, this
>>doesn't mean that ccTLD issues are or will be ignored.
>>
>>If there have been problems having ccTLD issues addressed within the current
>>structure, I'd be interesting in hearing more details.
>>
>>This is obviously an issue that warrants significant discussion, and I look
>>forward to seeing some of these questions addressed.
>>
>>     -- Bret
>>
>>--
>>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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, 15 Jun 2001 10:21:39 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] The NC Vote

Dear Jeff,
the problem is first that people are not talking about the same thing.
Most are fighting Wind Mills (happily enough so the real world may
develop without caring about their chating blows).
"Multiple roots" is is none of the DNSO business. Multiple RSCs are.
Jefsey

On 10:14 15/06/01, Jeff Williams said:
>Danny and all,
>
>   Ok.  Thanks.  Why is this not posted on the DNSO site? Don't you think
>it should be?  Just a thought.
>
>   Should we consider voting on this issue from within the GA?  Is
>a motion needed?  Please advise.
>
>Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > Jeff Williams asks:  "has there been a registered vote by the NC on this
> > issue, and have the stakeholders had the opportunity to vote on this 
> issue?"
> >
> > >From the scribes notes of the Names Council's Stockholm plenary session:
> > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/scribe-nc-060201.html
> > I.   Kane: Proposed motion: The Names Council considers that multiple roots
> > are outside the scope of the ICANN DNSO. (Make null and void the prior
> > motion).
> >    A.   de Blanc: Need to discuss it?
> >    B.   Sheppard: Discussed it already. Vote. In favor, 12.
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-roots" 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-roots" 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, 15 Jun 2001 10:38:06 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

On 12:00 15/06/01, Jeff Williams said:
> >    We can only hope that new.net isn't the first such case.
>It hasn't been.  Where would you get this idea?  New.net is
>really a late comer...

and is not by far not the most important and the most technically developed 
and the most successfull to be to come....

>Next is "Competitive and Inclusive" IP registries....

This is the real issue.

The real problem is IP addressing. The social/industry/politcal importance 
of the problem is such that the current DNS blundering by the iCANN makes 
unconceivable it will not be taken over by the ITU/T.

The easiest way will be the ITU/T to devise the Universal Numeric Adressing 
Plan to be offered for consistency to the different network and application 
systems, including the Internet (as for the ccTLD two letters code, 
telephone number, raido and TV frequencie etc...).

The current IPv4 will then interface and be progresively replaced by the UNAP.

There could have been a lot of positive and exciting things for the iCANN 
to do would have them not asked $ 50.000 for a $ 20 task...

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: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 04:58:55 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

Jefsey and all assembly members,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 12:00 15/06/01, Jeff Williams said:
> > >    We can only hope that new.net isn't the first such case.
> >It hasn't been.  Where would you get this idea?  New.net is
> >really a late comer...
>
> and is not by far not the most important and the most technically developed
> and the most successfull to be to come....

  Very true.  In fact, New.net is not the "Best of Bread" of Competitive
and Inclusive Root and registry structures, not to mention neither is
SRS or RRp respective to registration systems and Registry DB's
either.  Some existing now, although not well funded yet, are far
better, and more stable that what New.Net has offered thus far.
New.net has just done a much better job of marketing and
gathering alliances than other existing Competitive and Inclusive
Root and registry structures.

  Yes, and better are yet to come.  Some have been very quiet
waiting for the proper time to announce and offer their
services.  These will be coming soon I would imagine...
The challenge to the so far ICANN closed Root structure
philosophy has yet to really begin.  But as long as the
ICANN BoD (Stewart Lynn and company) and the NC
keep their collective heads in the sand, they will again be
unprepared and unpleasantly surprised.  That to us
seems to be a negative and unproductive long term strategy
to take.

>
>
> >Next is "Competitive and Inclusive" IP registries....
>
> This is the real issue.

  Yes it is.  But I only mention it in passing really as fair warning....

>
>
> The real problem is IP addressing. The social/industry/politcal importance
> of the problem is such that the current DNS blundering by the iCANN makes
> unconceivable it will not be taken over by the ITU/T.

  I am sure the ITU would be more than happy to take over this
function in conjunction with the IETF for closed guidance.
This would be a political and economical mistake of
course.  But it is possible.

>
>
> The easiest way will be the ITU/T to devise the Universal Numeric Adressing
> Plan to be offered for consistency to the different network and application
> systems, including the Internet (as for the ccTLD two letters code,
> telephone number, raido and TV frequencie etc...).

  Yes, this would seem to be the direction that would be logical.

>
>
> The current IPv4 will then interface and be progresively replaced by the UNAP.
>
> There could have been a lot of positive and exciting things for the iCANN
> to do would have them not asked $ 50.000 for a $ 20 task...

  Well economics of scale doesn't seem to be and ICANN BoD
strong suit...

>
>
> 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

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: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 06:18:23 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO GA Chair Employed by Register.com?

Danny,

I have come across a recent GA post that states that you are an employee
of Register.com.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg03228.html

You indicated to me in Stockholm that you do not have any business
association, whatsoever, with any Internet business.  You indicated to
me that you own a company that produces bows for babies (baby bows).
You indicated to me that you are a family man with limited financial
resources and that you funded your trip to Stockholm.  You indicated to
me that you are not funded for you efforts at ICANN and that your only
interest in participating in the ICANN process is for a noble effort.

Is it true that you are employed by Register.com?

If you are employed by Register.com, then I can only guess that a deal
must have been cut with you after your representations to me at
Stockholm.  If you are employed by Register.com, I question your motives
with the representations you made to me in Stockholm.

I am an owner in domain name registration businesses and several ISP
companies.

I won't know what to think if you are in fact working for Register.com.

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: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:39:21 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-udrp] the UDRP

Dear Ross,
This would certainly be of real interest, as the rights/risks of the IDNHs 
have not been worked in cooperation with a Registrar and there is room for 
an insurance solution against errors/bugs as the one quoted or similars (on 
the Registrar as well as on the Holder side).
Jefsey

On 12:19 15/06/01, Ross Wm. Rader said:

> > That would be registrars can decide what ever they want.  I cannot
> > figure who you protect by not publishing the full name.  There is only
> > one reasonable explanation for this type of situation.
>
>I can't speak for all other registrars, but Tucows leeway on matters like
>this are very limited and certainly not the equivalent of "whatever we
>want".
>
>If anyone is interested in facts, I can probably get Karen to work up a list
>of exactly what our leeway is.
>
>Let me know.
>
>-rwr
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga-udrp" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #543
************************