Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #547
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, June 17 2001            Volume 01 : Number 547

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

Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:46:24 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Uruguay-Infomation

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0F662.5A5965D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Uruguay - Consular Information Sheet

 http://travel.state.gov/uruguay.html

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0F662.5A5965D0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2462.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><FONT size=3D3>Uruguay - Consular Information=20
Sheet<BR><BR><BR>&nbsp;</FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://travel.state.gov/uruguay.html"><FONT=20
size=3D3>http://travel.state.gov/uruguay.html</FONT></A><BR><BR><FONT=20
size=3D3>/Bruce</FONT><BR><BR><BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0F662.5A5965D0--

- --
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, 16 Jun 2001 14:36:05 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ASO + PSO = TSO  Technical Supporting Organisation

Erica and all assembly members,

erica wrote:

> Hello William,
>
> I agree your suggestion that the IETF does not fit either supply or demand
> side - as I understand it, they are more a technical standards setting
> organisation.
>
> However, my comment was made in the context of a discussion on DNSO review -
> or at least that is what I thought.  In this context, I would view technical
> input as a relatively minor part of the supply side (tho  something of
> particular concern to the Registry and Registrar constituencies).

  Indeed the IETF does little with respect to the supply side, which is a
particular problem at present.  And indeed also, the IETF is not
coming close to meeting the Demand side with respect to perceived
demand for stakeholders.  A very particular and increasingly intense
problem the IETF is not facing due to the IETF culture.

>
>
> erica
>
> > Hello erica,
> >
> > Friday, June 15, 2001, 8:13:00 PM, erica wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > > Patrick said:
> > >  > I much prefer a three-way split between supply, demand and technical
> > >> > infrastructure (such as ISPs and telcos).  That's natural and works
> > > pretty
> > >> > well in Australia.
> >
> > > I'm not sure where this works in Australia, but in my experience the
> > > technical is generally seen as part of the supply side.  Demand side
> > > identifies the outcomes required or needed, but the ways and means of
> > > achieving  outcomes are the responsibility of supply side.
> >
> > Perhaps in most instances, but in this case, the technical are
> > distinctly different and have a different set of concerns and issues.
> > The IETF for instance doesn't really fit the profile of a supplier or
> > a consumer, nor would it share the same set of concerns as either of
> > those.
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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, 16 Jun 2001 20:40:02 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."

It's pretty clear that the survey is for anyone willing to complete it. And
I believe it's distribution should be as broad as possible.

It is not a vote, as I understand it, but data and opinion gathering, and
should be treated as such. As I read the materials. 

Regards, Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 11:01 PM
To: Danny Younger; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."

on 6/14/01 10:34 PM, Danny Younger at [email-masked] wrote:

> Joanna Lane writes:  "Danny, as you are on the Whois Committee, perhaps
you
> could confirm that efforts will be made to contact some of these. Here's a
> short list from the EPIC Online Guide to Privacy Resources:
> http://www.epic.org/privacy/privacy_resources_faq.html
> 
> Dear Joanna,
> 
> About two months ago, I forwarded a number of the epic.org URLS to Paul
> Kane, Chair of the WHOIS committee.  I can confirm that as we move past
the
> survey input phase, additional outreach activities will be pursued.
> 
> Best regards,
> Danny

Excellent work! We have a communication problem Huston. Does that mean that
the Whois survey is intended ONLY for members of the DNSO and that members
of the public, privacy organizations, newsgroups etc. including those listed
in my previous post, should NOT fill in the survey (because they will be
consulted in a different fashion at a later date), or what is the Whois
Committee plan exactly?

Regards,
Joanna 

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:28:19 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting Rules of the General Assembly of the DNSO

Hello Bruce,

Not to get into a big debate on that, but to be technical, the
precedent set is that it is 5 posts per calendar day from midnight to
midnight your local time.

Not necessarily per 24 hour period (which could be abused by list
monitors claiming 10 posts between, say 5pm to 5pm, when in fact that
was 5 posts per calendar day and no other posts were made on either
calendar day by that person.

I know it may seem minor to you, but we have seen the list rules
misapplied in the past simply because a list monitor didn't like the
subject being discussed, and the less clear and concise the rules are,
including when they are brought up by those like yourself who have
been appointed list monitors, the more opportunity there is for those
rules to be misapplied.

Saturday, June 16, 2001, 5:56:16 AM, Bruce James wrote:

> Rules of order for the mailing lists of the General Assembly of the DNSO:

> Please be advised, there is a *FIVE* (5) post limit,  per list,  per
> *Twenty-Four* (24) hours.  The time is based on your local time. The *other*
> rules are listed here:

> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html

>        The List Monitor Team
> General Assembly of the DNSO

> /Bruce-LM

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 16 Jun 2001 13:23:46 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "whois" survey

An example of the bias from the survey introductory text:

"Names are also are registered by individuals who are holding names to 
resell, or possibly use in the future. It is the disclosure of data about 
individuals' registrations that has raised privacy issues."

No mention is made of  the common occurrence of registration for actual 
personal use in the present.

Example of the restriction in choice:

What was the general purpose of your registration:
a.commercial
b.governmental
c.personal
d.noncommercial organization
e.other

There is no possibility to tick more than one choice, while DNames could 
have been registered for any or all of these purposes.

Perhaps the survey can be adapted to correct these obvious shortcomings?

- --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: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:58:51 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Geographical representation (was:Re: [ga] DNSO Secretariat) 

At 15:22 15/06/01 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>>Of the DNSO Secretariat is 100% French !!!!
>
>I do not understand that remark.
>- as you may note I suggest China, India or Africa as alternatives. Are 
>you opposed?
>- France, as Korea, is represented by one person. Australia by 3. ANZ by 
>4. China and India by 0.
>- I nominated Joop (ANZ) for the BoD.

And I have not yet responded. For the moment I'll be speechless..

Jefsey, I hope you realize that the "geographical representation" need is 
only there to block certain candidates when such would be needed. <g>

On the net the only boundaries are cultural and this does not always 
co-incide with geographical regions.  ANZ is an entity that you just 
created, (it's the trademarked name of a Bank <g>), un esprit . It exists 
under the name ANZAC
But culturally AU NZ is still  largely Europe. The English part.
What is it that needs representing on the Board most? Europe? In all it's 
diversity?
Asia, in all it's diversity? Are they not represented as such already?
How big a Board is optimal?

It is good to think about these questions. They are going to be relevant to 
ICANN.

We are talking here about DNS stakeholders, regulation and political 
philosophy.
It's quite a contrast than between AU and NZ.
.NZ  essentially democratic, although higly imperfect,  "owned" by a 
society of volunteers.
.AU is still autocratic.
(and both's  ccTLD interests are represented)
"Representing ANZ" on the Names Council or on the Board, would  have to be 
a hard act when it comes to explaining policies.<g>

- --Joop

- --
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: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:49:19 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Clarification] DNSO GA Chair Employed by Register.com?

At 21:15 15/06/01 +0900, YJ Park wrote:
>Derek,
>
>I have known him since WG-Review process.

Same.

>We once held a teleconference on January 23 or so.
>When we were waiting more people to join the teleconference,
>he told attendees he was working at Register.com especially at night.
>
> > I have posted several messages in support of Danny following my meeting
>him
> > in Stockholm because I believed his participation in the ICANN process was
>a
> > nobel effort.  I don't know what to think about the GA Chair now or his
> > motives.
>
>Whose effort is noble and whose not?

Hear, hear!

I would trust YJ to sit as our elected representative on the ICANN Board.

- --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: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:20:23 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting Rules of the General Assembly of the DNSO

If there are going to be rules limiting the number of posts, it should be based
upon the Central European time zone as established be the GA Archive system
itself, not one's local time.

Are the list monitors trying to confuse people here, or what?

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Bruce,
>
> Not to get into a big debate on that, but to be technical, the
> precedent set is that it is 5 posts per calendar day from midnight to
> midnight your local time.
>
> Not necessarily per 24 hour period (which could be abused by list
> monitors claiming 10 posts between, say 5pm to 5pm, when in fact that
> was 5 posts per calendar day and no other posts were made on either
> calendar day by that person.
>
> I know it may seem minor to you, but we have seen the list rules
> misapplied in the past simply because a list monitor didn't like the
> subject being discussed, and the less clear and concise the rules are,
> including when they are brought up by those like yourself who have
> been appointed list monitors, the more opportunity there is for those
> rules to be misapplied.
>
> Saturday, June 16, 2001, 5:56:16 AM, Bruce James wrote:
>
> > Rules of order for the mailing lists of the General Assembly of the DNSO:
>
> > Please be advised, there is a *FIVE* (5) post limit,  per list,  per
> > *Twenty-Four* (24) hours.  The time is based on your local time. The *other*
> > rules are listed here:
>
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html
>
> >        The List Monitor Team
> > General Assembly of the DNSO
>
> > /Bruce-LM
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
> --
> 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, 16 Jun 2001 21:28:14 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Posting Rules of the General Assembly of the DNSO

Hello Derek,

Sunday, June 17, 2001, 12:20:23 AM, Derek Conant wrote:

> If there are going to be rules limiting the number of posts, it should be based
> upon the Central European time zone as established be the GA Archive system
> itself, not one's local time.

Maybe that is your opinion.  To be honest, it is much easier for the
individuals as well as the list monitors to do it this way.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:40:24 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting Rules of the General Assembly of the DNSO

I thought I would comment on your post since you acted in the capacity as a list
monitor against me a couple of days ago.

My position is that I am in Hawaii today, 6 hours ahead of my local time, or
whatever.  I will be in France next week.  It appears to me that it would be easier
for everyone (especially for those who wanna-bee the police) to use the Central
European time zone as established by the GA Archive system.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Derek,
>
> Sunday, June 17, 2001, 12:20:23 AM, Derek Conant wrote:
>
> > If there are going to be rules limiting the number of posts, it should be based
> > upon the Central European time zone as established be the GA Archive system
> > itself, not one's local time.
>
> Maybe that is your opinion.  To be honest, it is much easier for the
> individuals as well as the list monitors to do it this way.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 16 Jun 2001 21:53:54 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Posting Rules of the General Assembly of the DNSO

Hello Derek,

Sunday, June 17, 2001, 12:40:24 AM, Derek Conant wrote:

> I thought I would comment on your post since you acted in the capacity as a list
> monitor against me a couple of days ago.

I did no such thing.  I am not a list monitor.

As a list member, when another member violates those rules, I am free,
as you are, to bring it to their attention.

> My position is that I am in Hawaii today, 6 hours ahead of my local time, or
> whatever.  I will be in France next week.  It appears to me that it would be easier
> for everyone (especially for those who wanna-bee the police) to use the Central
> European time zone as established by the GA Archive system.

It may seem that way.  But it does only seem that way.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:21:14 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Re[2]: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] On Behalf Of Stefan Probst
|> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 11:12 AM
|> To: William X. Walsh
|> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re[2]: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

<snip>
|> But Afilias didn't threat to start another root, if they don't get the
requested TLD.
|> ICANN was hesitating to give out that particular TLD, but now TUCOWS
puts
|> the gun at ICANN's head (to use the recently mentioned image).

I think it was more like TUCOWS pointing out the economic realities of the
situation.  If ICANN recognises any of the so called alt.root TLD's then
there will be one all mighty rush by everyone to establish root servers and
new TLD's.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:04:21 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Both of you are right but in your brutality you are both wrong.  Joanna I am a
> proud US citizen yet my views on privacy make yours pale in comparison. You chose
> to make this an American versus UK issue you will lose.  Please do not smack my
> conutrymen in order to gain points.  You do not represent a position against me as
> I and every representative of my country is the US position.

I "represent" this country (the U.S.), as you put it, but most certainly do not
subscribe to the market model of William X. Walsh, but on this point will
adopt the EU view. In very broad strokes, I see nothing wrong with Joanna's
generalization as to a "UK" and a "US" view, so long as it is understood ("as
any fool can plainly see," as the saying goes) that there are similarly no doubt
many UK (or EU) citizens that would favor the "US view."

Point is, though, that this discussion has no point. No one is lobbing shots
across "the pond" here at all, but simply using a useable shorthand.

(Very excitable people in this place, methinks!)

Bill Lovell

> I am not offended but
> I will be shortly!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >
> > > As a British citizen, I find myself advocating an EU position, pitted
> > > against the US position, represented by William Walsh. This has certainly
> > > increased my understanding about how US citizens have become conditioned to
> > > accept intrusion into their private lives, something that is not accepted so
> > > readily by the rest of the world.
> >
> > Joanne, with all due respect, I don't believe it is fair to generalize the
> > position of an entire country based on the opinions of one individual.
> >
> > Further, Britian has enacted some of the most intrusive legislation
> > related to the Internet that exists, the Regulation of Investigatory
> > Powers, which among other things gives British authorities the right
> > to intercept ALL Internet traffic as well as force individuals to turn
> > over encryption keys WITHOUT a warrant. I'd hardly call Britain a model of
> > privacy....
> >
> > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> >                                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-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

- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm

- --
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: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 03:35:12 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Re[2]: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

Dassa, do you have any idea how many roots and TLDs there are 
right now?  Do you know how many online registration systems are 
in place and how many of the TLDs are represented in them?  
There will be a rush?  The rush is on - big time. 

On 17 Jun 2001, at 15:21, Dassa wrote:

> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: [email-masked] On Behalf Of Stefan Probst
> |> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 11:12 AM
> |> To: William X. Walsh
> |> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> |> Subject: Re[2]: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version
> 
> <snip>
> |> But Afilias didn't threat to start another root, if they don't get the
> requested TLD.
> |> ICANN was hesitating to give out that particular TLD, but now TUCOWS
> puts
> |> the gun at ICANN's head (to use the recently mentioned image).
> 
> I think it was more like TUCOWS pointing out the economic realities of the
> situation.  If ICANN recognises any of the so called alt.root TLD's then
> there will be one all mighty rush by everyone to establish root servers and
> new TLD's.
> 
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
> 
> --
> 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
> 

~ Leah G ~
- --
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: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 03:45:05 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Bill and all assembly members,

  I would have to agree that there are a disproportionate number of
"Excitable" participants on this forum.  However that is to be expected
and understood as what we are all are witnessing is something of
great interest to many.  And as such, many are seeing the terrible
inequities and inconsistencies of the "ICANN Experiment" that
are draining the life blood from the internet.  That is likely to be
disturbing and create excitement....

William S. Lovell wrote:

> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Both of you are right but in your brutality you are both wrong.  Joanna I am a
> > proud US citizen yet my views on privacy make yours pale in comparison. You chose
> > to make this an American versus UK issue you will lose.  Please do not smack my
> > conutrymen in order to gain points.  You do not represent a position against me as
> > I and every representative of my country is the US position.
>
> I "represent" this country (the U.S.), as you put it, but most certainly do not
> subscribe to the market model of William X. Walsh, but on this point will
> adopt the EU view. In very broad strokes, I see nothing wrong with Joanna's
> generalization as to a "UK" and a "US" view, so long as it is understood ("as
> any fool can plainly see," as the saying goes) that there are similarly no doubt
> many UK (or EU) citizens that would favor the "US view."
>
> Point is, though, that this discussion has no point. No one is lobbing shots
> across "the pond" here at all, but simply using a useable shorthand.
>
> (Very excitable people in this place, methinks!)
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> > I am not offended but
> > I will be shortly!
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Joanna Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > > As a British citizen, I find myself advocating an EU position, pitted
> > > > against the US position, represented by William Walsh. This has certainly
> > > > increased my understanding about how US citizens have become conditioned to
> > > > accept intrusion into their private lives, something that is not accepted so
> > > > readily by the rest of the world.
> > >
> > > Joanne, with all due respect, I don't believe it is fair to generalize the
> > > position of an entire country based on the opinions of one individual.
> > >
> > > Further, Britian has enacted some of the most intrusive legislation
> > > related to the Internet that exists, the Regulation of Investigatory
> > > Powers, which among other things gives British authorities the right
> > > to intercept ALL Internet traffic as well as force individuals to turn
> > > over encryption keys WITHOUT a warrant. I'd hardly call Britain a model of
> > > privacy....
> > >
> > > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> > >                                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-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
>
> --
> Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
> to the reader may possibly be explained at:
> "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:29:28 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Posting Rules - Call for a VOTE 

Hi Derek

> If there are going to be rules limiting the number of posts, it should be
based
> upon the Central European time zone as established be the GA Archive
system
> itself, not one's local time.
>
> Are the list monitors trying to confuse people here, or what?

Everybody in the world knows their own local time so it is naturally easier
for them to abide by it.  As well their posts are invariably time stamped
and dated with their own local time.  Should there be any complaints later,
it is a simple matter for that person to sort or extract postings in date
order.  The person posting can easily see their own emails in their own
time.

The use of a set time zone, such as you suggest, would be most burdensome.
Every person posting would then have to manually calculate times in time
zone other than their own.

However, the list monitors are not particularly fussy what time zone you
live in.  If you wish you can probably set your own PC to Central European
time, make that your local time, and use it on your travels wherever you go.
Australia, Sweden Uruguay, etc.

The fact that your emails will be time stamped in a zone different from
where you ae located is something that you, personally, will have to deal
with.

The fact is that it is very easy to resolve such queries by writing to me
directly.  Or indeed the Chair or any of the List Monitors.  What surprises
me most is that (a) people so like to argue and (b) when they argue they
want the greatest audience possible.  At least 300 people.

It should be obvious to any member with the slightest common sense that the
[ga-rules] mailing list was set up to discuss mailing list rules and
protocols.  Including time zones.  It was thought this would free up the
main [ga] list for substantive rather than procedural issues.

However, asking people to use the appropriate list is a no-no.  People post
whatever they like to whatever list they like without any complaint being
possible.  I am certainly surprised that intelligent people allow their atte
ntion to be diverted in this way !!!

MOTION

That the use of the [ga-rules] mailing list be determined by the members as
follows:

(a)    The [ga-rules] mailing list was set up to provide a forum for the
discussion of list rules, protocols and procedural issues and should be used
for that purpose.
(b)    The [ga-rules] mailing list is not needed.  All issues relating to
list rules, protocols and procedural issues should be discussed on the main
[ga] mailing list.
(c)    Don't know, don't care or don't think it makes any difference.

Note.  People who are fed up with GA discussion about lists should vote (a).

Could I ask members to indicate their preference for (a), (b) or (c)?

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: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 04:56:25 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The failure of ICANN thus far...

All assembly members and stakeholders,

  I have changed the Subject line of this post from the
GA-ICANN list to better discribe and coenside with the
subject matter in the body of this exchange...

============Copied from the GA-ICANN ML starts here ============

Darryl and all,

Dassa wrote:

> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: [email-masked] On Behalf Of William S. Lovell
> |> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 6:03 PM
> |> To: [email-masked]
> |> Cc: ga - icann
> |> Subject: Re: [ga-roots] was: Re[2]: [ga-icann] interesting California
> |> law to consider
> |>
> |>
> |> The fundamental problem here seems to be the aura that is given
> |> to the term "legacy," as though that meant writ by the hand of God
> |> on stone tablets held by Moses (at least among Christians). That's
> |> merely what turned out to be a historic opener, and holds no sacred
> |> position whatever. (ICANN, of course, would have it be sacred.)
> |> (On the substance, copying is copying, whether done by ICANN or
> |> "Mom and Pop."  ICANN is after .biz, which happens already to
> |> be taken.)
>
> If we were to look at it in that way, "." was developed with the legacy
> root and it has been copied by the alt.roots.

  I think you mean "Competitive and Inclusive" Root structures and
registries...

>
>
> The thing is, anyone can set up an alt.root and there are no > restrictions on what TLD's they operate under it.

  True there are no technical restrictions with respect to additional
TLD's that is actually known.  However thus far, none of the 
"Competitive and Inclusive" Root structures and registries 
has duplicated any existing working TLD's to my knowledge.  
Yet the ICANN BoD has edicted two such TLD's, .BIZ and .INFO...

>  The whole point of this argument is
> the fact the alt.root community wants to muscle in on the users of the
> legacy root.

  The  "Competitive and Inclusive" Root structures and registries are in
no way trying to "muscle in on the users" as you put it, but rather
meeting a demand or perceived demand that there are stakeholders/users
that want choices and they want them now.  Ao you mischaracterisation
here is unwarranted and inflammatory in the extreme.  Please discontinue
such behavior as it is unseemly and grossly inaccurate.  "Competitive
and Inclusive" Root structures have been around for 5+ years now,
which is long before ICANN even existed...

>  In other words they are attempting to profit by the client
> base the legacy root has without putting in the hard yards to gain that
> client base.

  Demand is so high for new TLD's and name space registries that
the rush on almost any easily usable registry system that does just
a modicum of advertising, gains a fairly significant stakeholder
base.  New.net amongst others have shown this clearly, as have
some ccTLD's that have been re-introduced in the past year or so.
The DNS and the Internet has evolved to the point where demand
is now quickly and easily outstripping supply.

>  ICANN may have inherited it by default and didn't earn it as
> such but they are the ones with it and are working to make it suitable > for the users.

And thus far the ICANN BoD and staff have failed miserably in this
endeavor.

Yet organizations such as New.net, ORSC, UDNS, Ultranet, ect, ect, have
been working hard a furiously to meet the demand.  It seems obvious
that now with more than 20m users/stakeholders/registrants that have
registered Domain Names in other than ICANN edicted TLD's shows this
fairly clearly...

>  I see no reason why they should have to "give" anything away to
> anybody else to make a profit from.

  It is not a "Give" type situation.  The stakeholders want and demand
new TLD's that are not overly restricted and regulated.  They will
get them from wherever or whomever will supply them in a manner
that is usable to them.  If ICANN can and will do this in a consensus
based manner, than that's just fine with the stakeholders.  If not, and
thus far the ICANN BoD and staff have not done so, than the
stakeholders/users/domain Name registrants will go else 
where as we are seeing in droves....

This is the thus far failure of the ICANN BoD and staff to evaluate
the stakeholders/potential registrant market.

>
>
> The criteria for selecting which TLD's get released and who operates > them may be onerous to the majority of people.

  Interesting hyperbole as Dave Crocker is so fond of saying here
Derryl.

>  However, I suggest the best way
> to gain a market share is to actually participate and if necessary 
> for change in the criteria, not attempting to circumvent it.

  As Henry Ford once muttered, "Build a better mouse trap, and the world
will beat a path to your door".  Such is as it is with "Competitive and
Inclusive" Root structures today...

>
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
> --
> 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 x1920 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #547
************************