Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #553
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, June 20 2001           Volume 01 : Number 553

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 04:19:10 +0900
From: "YJ Park" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Secretariat

Roberto and all,

> If we don't take geographical difference into account, at least to a
minimum
> extent, we will found ourselves with a logistic infrastructure for ICANN
and
> its SOs that will be more and more concentrated in certain areas rather
than
> others. And this will deepen the digital divide even more.
>
> Anyway, I don't have a practical solution. I just hope that people like
> Cabase, that have the technical competence, an efficient/effective
approach,
> the willingness to support the process, *and* are located in an area of
the
> world (LAC) that does not contribute to the ICANN logistic infrastructure
> (if I am not mistaken), will consider applying for the bid.
> (Or any other applicant outside NorthAmerica, where already too many
things
> are located, or Europe, that just had its turn)
> In hope for this, I put my friend (and your NC colleague) Antonio Harris
in
> copy.

I support Roberto's comment on "substantial gepgraphical diversity"
which has been abused in the ICANN process.

Thank you,
YJ

- --
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: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:30:58 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Ken and all assembly members,

  I am sorry you feel this way Ken.  However I am not surprised.  It seems
that you are thus far the ONLY participant on this forum that does agree
with the suspension of Eric, and found the postings listed as ample
justification
for such a very questionable decision.

  Censorship in ANY of it's forms is wrong!!!

Ken Stubbs wrote:

> i fully support the suspension..
> there are already too many distractions and unnecessary bickering on this
> list and unnecessary rancor and sarcasm only diminishes the list
> creditability and the related "noise"drives away potential new
> member-subscribers
>
> ken stubbs
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jefsey Morfin" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 7:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker
>
> > Dear Interim Chair,
> > We have a been certain number here rereading the incriminated Eric's
> mails.
> > I really fail to see what was hurting in the first mail ending with the
> > author's best loves, and I accept - as the author says it - the second is
> > lyric, but I must say that at that time I found it to be one of he master
> > pieces of iCANN literature. Would our monitor censor Shakespeare? the
> > English lyrics has full of "asses" ... Would Richard III Saint something
> > (old reminiscences: you know better) battle's story pass muster?
> >
> > I know you have removed yourself from the case as you are quoted in these
> > mails. I think you should now involve yourself as I appeal onto you as
> > Chair of this GA to cancel that decision.
> >
> > I wish the best to Danny to restore his business and his very nice
> > babybows.com site. I wish this GA to see peace and efficiency restored.
> And
> > to us all to have Eric continuing to be our brilliant dotcommer.
> >
> > Jefsey
> >
> >
> >
> > On 09:20 18/06/01, Alexander Svensson said:
> >
> > >The list monitors have decided to suspend Eric Dierker's
> > >posting rights for four weeks, beginning today (Monday,
> > >18 June) until Monday, 16 July.
> > >
> > >We have received several complaints about postings by
> > >Eric Dierker; our decision is based on the personal attacks
> > >and insults in
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02563.html and
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02077.html as well
> > >as the breach of the posting limit on two successive days:
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02551.html
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02552.html
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02556.html
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02563.html
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02571.html
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02574.html
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02577.html
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02580.html
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02588.html
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02589.html
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02604.html
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02605.html
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02622.html
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02623.html
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02625.html
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02626.html
> > >
> > >The GA posting rules are laid down in
> > >http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html:
> > >
> > >- The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
> > >- The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
> > >   - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
> > >   - Not using offensive language
> > >- If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the number
> > >   of posts per person per day, this must be respected
> > >- The size of messages should be kept reasonable (there should be
> > >   a VERY good reason to send a message of more than 10 Kbytes).
> > >
> > >The time of the suspension has been doubled since Eric
> > >Dierker has already received a two week suspension in May.
> > >This decision may be appealed to the GA Chair.
> > >
> > >Best regards,
> > >/// Alexander (for the list monitors)
> > >--
> > >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

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: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 21:34:20 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Delay

GA Members,

To continue to ensure the services to the DNSO GA, to be able to
grant it to you, the Secretariat needs resources, needs to estimate
their cost and provide some detailed information to the NC.
Please do not misunderstand - the purpose of quoted URL is not 
to state that things have cost and therefore cut it. Quite opposite 
- - to show the resposibilities behind, to pay salaries to the
staff under contract, and to provide good quality service.
Started two years ago, the DNSO web site tree includes today
approximately 600 pages, plus more than 3400 pages in public
mailing list archives. Organizing things within such a huge site
is not trivial.

I do believe that the GA shall have a correct means to function,
and I have been fighting for that for more than two years now,
spending all my spare time on the DNSO services, developping 
pieces of software, taking care of technical staff and hight quality 
services. It was and is very difficult, but sometimes so rewarding.

The DNSO GA is the only place within ICANN process where
anybody may join and actively participate, where users can meet,
it is very precious. We have been observing here so many arguments,
but also so many ideas and challenges. Last not the least, the GA
did succeed to establish rules of its electronic life, which
is far from trivial.

Coming back to the particular request for nomination of a GA 
representative to the NC's Review Task Force - this service 
will be provided by the Secretariat. We plan to start the
nomination by the end of this week.

Elisabeth Porteneuve
- --

> From [email-masked] Tue Jun 19 03:08 MET 2001
> From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: [ga] Delay
> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:05:05 -0400
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> 
> Dear members,
> 
> Please be advised that we have encountered an unexpected delay regarding the
> nomination of a GA representative to the NC's Review Task Force.
> 
> The explanation for such delay may be found at
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00473.html
> 
> I would appreciate any comments, thoughts, suggestions on this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:59:25 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Secretariat

Not to complicate matters further, and if you have in mind the needs
of some developing or undeveloped countries, I bring to your attention
the fact that the Patent Cooperation Treaty has provisions wherein
residents of countries so qualifying (based on national per capita annual
income) pay half fees for their patent filings.  Not an exact parallel, of
course, but it does suggest ways of meeting this international "digital
divide."

Bill Lovell

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Erica,
>
> I have a problem in taking your approach literally.
>
> You wrote:
> >In this context it is important to recognise that the role of the
> >Secretariat is not to represent any particular region, but to serve the
> >DNSO and ensure the efficient and effective delivery of information and
> >technical support services.
>
> In principle, nobody could disagree: everybody likes efficiency and
> effectiveness (I never send a report to my bosses without stressing that
> whatever I propose is for the purpose of enhancing efficiency and
> effectiveness).
>
> The problem comes when efficiency and effectiveness are more likely to
> happen in some areas of the world than in others. And this not because some
> people are more "naturally" efficint or not, but because, for instance, the
> cost of telecom (a key issue in this case) is different in different parts
> of the world.
>
> If we don't take geographical difference into account, at least to a minimum
> extent, we will found ourselves with a logistic infrastructure for ICANN and
> its SOs that will be more and more concentrated in certain areas rather than
> others. And this will deepen the digital divide even more.
>
> Anyway, I don't have a practical solution. I just hope that people like
> Cabase, that have the technical competence, an efficient/effective approach,
> the willingness to support the process, *and* are located in an area of the
> world (LAC) that does not contribute to the ICANN logistic infrastructure
> (if I am not mistaken), will consider applying for the bid.
> (Or any other applicant outside NorthAmerica, where already too many things
> are located, or Europe, that just had its turn)
>
> In hope for this, I put my friend (and your NC colleague) Antonio Harris in
> copy.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 16:50:28 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

I can also agree.  That the GA lacks the ability to move substance forward is
what I have been saying all along.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> I agree. This is one of the major reason why suspension policies are bad.
>
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Peter de Blanc wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > We are getting more concerned with the form and rules here, and less
> > concerned with the substance of the work we are supposed to be doing.
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                        -->It's hot here.<--
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:17:38 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI. Summary of Administration Documents of the NC

The Secretariat put together the set of URLs to the Administration
Documents of the NC, with the purpose to facilitate an access to it.
If you find anything missing here, please drop me a note.

DNSO Secretariat
- --

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/ncindex.html ]

ICANN/DNSO
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Administration Documents of the Names Council of the DNSO

Names Council Chairs and Meetings:

   * 27 Feb 2001, Dates for Names Council meetings in 2001
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-calendar.html
   * 30 Jun 2001, Names Council Chairs over time
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010630.NCchairs-over-time.html

Names Council Members:

   * 21 Members of the Names Council
     http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html

Names Council Procedures:

   * 26 Feb 2001, Rules of Procedure for the DNSO Names Council
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010220.NCprocedures-v2.0.html

Names Council Business Plan:

   * 17 Jul 2000, NC Workplan between Yokohama and Los Angeles meetings
     (mid-July to mid-November 2000)
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000Q2.NC-workplan.html
   * 8 Jan 2001, Request to the NC members to consult with their
     Constituencies on the Business Plan for 2001-2002
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001-02.NCcoverletter-businessplan.html
   * 20 Feb 2001, NC Business Plan for 2001-2002, adopted in March 2001
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001-02.NCbusinessplan.html

Names Council Finances:

   * 11 Mar 2001, Status of Constituencies Contributions to the DNSO for
     1999 and 2000. Budget for 2001.
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010311.ICANN-DNSO-budget.html
   * 9 Apr 2001, NC Budget Committee report to the Names Council
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010409.NCbudget-report.html
   * 1 Jun 2001, ICANN Procedures for Handling DNSO Funds, received from
     contributors designating those funds as intended to support the DNSO
     and its activities.
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010409.NCbudget-report.html

Names Council Votes by e-mail:

   * b01: July 1999, Vote on the WG-A report
     http://www.dnso.org/votes/vote01/Archives/maillist.html
   * b02: September - October 1999, Election of three ICANN Board Directors
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/NCelection-results.html
     Backup of the DNSO main page during vote
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/1999.DNSO-ICANNelection.html
   * b03: December 1999, Election of Chair and Alternate Chair to the
     General Assembly, http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/1999.DNSO-GAchair.html
   * b04: August - September 2000, Election of one ICANN Board Director
     http://www.dnso.org/elections/2000.DNSO-ICANN-election-result.html
   * b05: March-April 2001, Confirmation vote for Chair and Alternate Chair
     to the General Assembly
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html

Names Council Mailing Lists:

   * 30 Apr 2001, Names Council Mailing Lists over time
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010430.NClists-over-time.html

Names Council Documents:

   * 28 Mar 2001, DNSO Input on Proposed ICANN-VeriSign Agreement Revisions
     http://www.icann.org/melbourne/dnso-input-verisign-revisions-28mar01.htm

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

- --
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: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 16:27:27 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Delay

Elisabeth and all assembly members,

Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> GA Members,
>
> To continue to ensure the services to the DNSO GA, to be able to
> grant it to you, the Secretariat needs resources, needs to estimate
> their cost and provide some detailed information to the NC.
> Please do not misunderstand - the purpose of quoted URL is not
> to state that things have cost and therefore cut it. Quite opposite
> - to show the resposibilities behind, to pay salaries to the
> staff under contract, and to provide good quality service.
> Started two years ago, the DNSO web site tree includes today
> approximately 600 pages, plus more than 3400 pages in public
> mailing list archives. Organizing things within such a huge site
> is not trivial.

  It is understood that the DNSO Secretariat function needs funding to
continue to provide quality services.  This is however the responsibility
of the ICANN BoD to provide the primary funding for these services.
I have also shared with others here in saying that the DNSO GA should
also help provide SOME of it's funding and other resource needs on
a paying basis.  Thus far however, not much has been done to
address this.

>
>
> I do believe that the GA shall have a correct means to function,
> and I have been fighting for that for more than two years now,
> spending all my spare time on the DNSO services, developping
> pieces of software, taking care of technical staff and hight quality
> services. It was and is very difficult, but sometimes so rewarding.
>
> The DNSO GA is the only place within ICANN process where
> anybody may join and actively participate, where users can meet,
> it is very precious.

  Well unfortunately the DNSO GA is not open to anyone as you state
here Elisabeth.  Many have been thwarted form joining or permanently
banned for participating that one did participate.  This should be
corrected forthwith.

> We have been observing here so many arguments,
> but also so many ideas and challenges. Last not the least, the GA
> did succeed to establish rules of its electronic life, which
> is far from trivial.

  The rules that are being imposed upon the DNSO GA members
are, and have been illegitimate from the start or their imposition.
We have all recently, and yet again witnessed Eric being suspended
from posting for reasons that are seemingly both unclear and unwarranted.
The practice of CENSORSHIP is wrong and should NEVER be
tolerated in any form.

>
>
> Coming back to the particular request for nomination of a GA
> representative to the NC's Review Task Force - this service
> will be provided by the Secretariat. We plan to start the
> nomination by the end of this week.

  This is good news!  >;)

>
>
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> --
>
> > From [email-masked] Tue Jun 19 03:08 MET 2001
> > From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: [ga] Delay
> > Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:05:05 -0400
> > Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> >
> > Dear members,
> >
> > Please be advised that we have encountered an unexpected delay regarding the
> > nomination of a GA representative to the NC's Review Task Force.
> >
> > The explanation for such delay may be found at
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00473.html
> >
> > I would appreciate any comments, thoughts, suggestions on this topic.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:19:28 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Administration Documents of the GA

The Secretariat put together the set of URLs to the Administration
Documents of the GA, with the purpose to facilitate an access to it.
If you find anything missing here, please drop me a note.

DNSO Secretariat
- --

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html ]

ICANN/DNSO
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Administration Documents of the General Assembly of the DNSO

General Assembly Chairs and Meetings:

   * 24 apr 2001, General Assembly Chairs over time
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010424.GAchairs-over-time.html

General Assembly Voting Registry:

   * June 2000: Rules for registering to vote
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html
   * Members of the DNSO GA Voting Registry
     http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html

General Assembly Procedures:

   * June 2000: Voting rules (adopted in voting startup)
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html
   * November 2000: Mailling list rules
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
   * March 2001: Chair Election Rules for the DNSO GA
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules.html

General Assembly Votes:

   * b01:26 June 2000, Voting startup for the General Assembly of the DNSO
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-startup.html
   * b02: 6-17 November 2000, DNSO GA Vote for Rules of Order for the
     Mailing List http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-roo-vote.html
   * b03: 16-23 March 2001, DNSO GA Vote for Election Rules
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-vote.html
   * b04: 31 March - 7 April 2001, DNSO GA Ranking of Candidates for Chair
     and Alternate Chair
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-ranking.html
   * b05: 21-28 May 2001, DNSO GA Vote on 2 motions, "Individuals'
     Constituency" and "to fund the DNSO and all other ICANN Supporting
     Organizations"
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-2motions-IndConstituency-DNSOfund-vote.html

General Assembly Mailing Lists:

   * 7 Jun 2001, General Assembly Mailing Lists over time
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010607.GAlists-over-time.html

Implementation procedures for the DNSO Mailing Lists:

   * April 2001: No Cross Posting rules implementation on the DNSO
     http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.SECno-cross-posting-rules.html
   * May 2001: Procedures for handling bounced e-mail messages
     http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.SECbounces-handling.html

General Assembly Documents:

   * March 2001: DNSO Input on Proposed ICANN-VeriSign Agreement Revisions
     http://www.icann.org/melbourne/dnso-input-verisign-revisions-28mar01.htm

Other Information Documents:

   * April 2001: Information about Rules for seats at the Names Council with
     regard to companies representation and geographic diversity
     http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.SECrules-for-seats-NC.html
   * June 2001: Acronyms, Guides & Directories
     http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02460.html

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

                   Information from:  © DNSO Secretariat

- --
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: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:56:24 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Analysis of Atlantic Root .BIZ Registrations to Date

On 2001-06-19 20:50:18 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>- your publishing of the nominative biz list is in contravention 
>with privacy laws of many countries and as such a real argument 
>against iCANN supporters.

Distraction tactics, Jefsey.

The crucial findings from Ben's report are these:

- - The largest portion of the registrations happened AFTER the MdR 
   decisions.

- - At the point of time of that decision, there were only FIVE 
   distinct domain name holders, that is, Leah's .biz was hardly more 
   than a toy.

- - The oldest SLD was registered on October 23, 2000, three weeks 
   before the MdR meeting.
   
   It's instructive to look at ICANN document publication dates at 
   <http://www.icann.org/announcements/>:
   
    October 23, 2000
    TLD Application Review Update
    
    October 13, 2000
    TLD Application Review Update
    
    October 5, 2000
    TLD Application Review Update

   The October 5 document has a link to a list of the domains for 
   which ICANN had received applications.  This list included .biz.

Thus, Leah's claim that ICANN is creating a collider is NOT backed 
up by facts.

>- the increase you show demonstrates that ARNI is here to stay and 
>that many people now think using it is a reasonable move, either 
>because it will survive NeuLevel which has far higher operating 
>costs due to the iCANN constraints and will not be able to cope 
>with a long stale period after the first collisions hit the press. 
>So either .biz DNs by ARNI will be the winers or NewLevel will 
>have to compromise and to buy them. ANyway it is good business to 
>buy from Leah. I understand many are understanding that right 
>now..

Get real.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:18:29 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Dear GA members,

the purpose of the list rules is to enable focused debate to
take place; if a list monitors decision captures much of the
attention, it's not a good sign. As I have received several
questions about the list monitor decision process, I would
like to answer them, but this will be my last contribution
about this case. (This is my personal posting, and not in the
name of the list monitors.)

We receive complaints about certain posts, and we only decide
upon posts about which we receive complaints. Peter de Blanc
states that there are "other postings by other people which
did NOT result in suspensions" to which he apparently objects
more than to Eric's, and I agree. But again: We stick to posts
about which we receive complaints; we cannot both complain
and judge. If you feel that postings by other people violate
the list rules and should result in suspensions, complain
about them.

If you subscribe to GA with rules (instead of subscribing to
GA-full, with or without a personal e-mail filter), you agree
to the list rules. So far, most of those who have commented
on the topic have argued that the list monitors have
misapplied the rules, not that the list rules itself should
be scrapped. Strangely enough, I find this encouraging.

As to the postings themselves, I think that we should probably
have made it clear to which portions of the postings the
list monitors objected, in order to avoid the numerous
"I couldn't find anything" replies (and I fully accept the
blame for this). But I stand by the judgement that the
language of the posts is insulting and offensive ("go stuff
it", "you bad ass intellectuals", "you are pissing me and
my dot commoner friends off"). Deciding on what level of
personal attack is over the limit and which isn't is
particularly hard. But I also stand by the judgement that
the attacks on Kent ("go stuff it") and Patrick ("lied
about his intentions and is glorified") clearly cross that
line. This is the kind of explanation which in my personal
opinion should probably have been included in the list
monitors message; as said, I take the blame for this.

The concerns have been voiced; I have at least tried to
submit the missing bits of information; it is now up to Eric
if he wants to ask the Chair to overturn the suspension
(which has been done before). If there is still further
need for discussion, it might be better to move it to
GA-rules (or, if you like, drop me a private mail), so
that work on the GA list can go on.

Best regards,
/// Alexander
- --
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: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:33:11 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Analysis of Atlantic Root .BIZ Registrations to Date

Hello Thomas,

on 6/19/01 5:56 PM, Thomas Roessler at [email-masked] wrote:

> On 2001-06-19 20:50:18 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> 
>> - your publishing of the nominative biz list is in contravention
>> with privacy laws of many countries and as such a real argument
>> against iCANN supporters.
> 
> Distraction tactics, Jefsey.

Tactics don't change the facts. I suggest that best practices would be to
aggragate the information and cite the source, rather than publish details
that disclose physical identities, for which prior knowledge and consent of
each of those persons has to be obtained.

If Ben does not do this, he is inviting trouble that he doesn't need, and
that really will distract from issues he is addressing.

Regards,
Joanna

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

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

Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:17:39 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Analysis of Atlantic Root .BIZ Registrations to Date

I posted a response on their web board.
http://bcis.law.harvard.edu/webboard/wbpx.dll/read?262,45

The "research" is misleading due to their assumption that the 
registry did not exist prior to the formal launch of the automated 
registration system.  Oh well.  No one contacted us to obtain 
facts.  No surprise.

Leah

On 19 Jun 2001, at 20:50, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Ben,
> I started reading your posted document 
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/dotbiz>. I am blocked at
> the first phrase which is wrong by ommission.
> 
> You say
> "As part of its obligations under itsMemorandum of Understanding with
> the U.S. Department of Commerce, ICANN coordinates policies for
> determing the addition of new top-level domains to the Internet's DNS
> root system".
> 
> This is inexact. What is true is:
> "As part of its obligations under itsMemorandum of Understanding with
> the U.S. Department of Commerce, ICANN coordinates policies for
> determing the addition of new top-level domains to the USG Internet's
> DNS root system".
> 
> You cannot donate or delegate something you do not have. The DNS
> system is a set of different programs by different producers - mostly
> under GNU licences - used by millions of people throughout the world,
> many of who never heard and will never hear about the iCANN and the
> DoC. It uses a part of the humanity name space (the DNS name space the
> GAC, the law of several countries declared to be own by no one and non
> trade markable at TLD level - its roots). It only helps them setting
> up who is authoritative on heir own machine. You may push Eric out of
> this list, no one will oblige him to use the iCANN root if he says no.
> 
> The internet belongs to no one. If the USA have been a leading land,
> the historic investors have been many universities of different
> countries, IBM, MCI, public services and agencies from scores of
> countries. ARPANet was certainly be part of it, as Cyclades, Euronet
> and others. Technically, ask old timers who did what between Roberts
> and Westler in the USA, Pouzin in France ...  The web has been
> developped at the European Nuclear Center (CERN) by an English.
> Deployment has been shared and paid by many individuals and pioneers.
> This mailing list is currently sponsored bythe AFNIC, etc... etc...
> Show me the USG contract for the Bind system.
> 
> The rest of your text is historical. Just five remarks.
> 
> - The number of DNs is not related to the importance of the usership.
> One the most used TLD is ".us".
> 
> - The routing conflicts are not constested by anyone serious. What is
> surprising is that the BoD has decided not to warn officialy the DoC.
> Bearing full legal and financial resposnibility.
> 
> - your publishing of the nominative biz list is in contravention with
> privacy laws of many countries and as such a real argument against
> iCANN supporters.
> 
> - the number of demonstrated DNs is far higher than many ccTLDs
> enjoying full respect from he iCANN.
> 
> - the increase you show demonstrates that ARNI is here to stay and
> that many people now think using it is a reasonable move, either
> because it will survive NeuLevel which has far higher operating costs
> due to the iCANN constraints and will not be able to cope with a long
> stale period after the first collisions hit the press. So either .biz
> DNs by ARNI will be the winers or NewLevel will have to compromise and
> to buy them. ANyway it is good business to buy from Leah. I understand
> many are understanding that right now..
> 
> Jefsey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 19:51 19/06/01, Ben Edelman said:
> >I've heard discussion -- on this list, at ICANN meetings, and
> >elsewhere -- on the subject of a possible conflict in the DNS root
> >between the NeuLevel .BIZ (which the ICANN Board of Directors
> >selected in its November 16, 2000 Board Meeting; see
> ><http://www.neulevel.com>) and an existing .BIZ TLD operated by the
> >Atlantic Root Network (<http://www.biztld.net>).
> >
> >I've heard much discussion about the possible and theoretical
> >problems raised by such conflicts, but there seemed to me significant
> >empirical questions here.  For example, I wondered: Just how many
> >registrations are in the Atlantic Root Network's .BIZ?  When were
> >those registrations made?
> >
> >Accordingly, I have set out to answer these questions and others
> >using data freely available over the Internet.  My work in progress
> >is posted at <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/dotbiz>.  I
> >look forward to feedback from others interested in these questions,
> >and to continued discussion on the subject.
> >
> >
> >
> >Ben Edelman
> >Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> >Harvard Law School
> >
> >--
> >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
> 

~ 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #553
************************