Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #554
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, June 20 2001           Volume 01 : Number 554

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

Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:51:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

The rules should be scrapped.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> 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.

- -- 
		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

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

Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:56:32 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Edelman's report on BIZ

Ben:

It's good to have a fact-based discussion of the .biz problem.

The picture of the ARNI registrations is a very valuable
contribution to our understanding of the issue. It provides some
basis for discussing the relationship between the ICANN process
and the claims established outside of it.

Your treatment of the facts, however, is incomplete 
and borders on the selective in certain respects.

To begin with, you start your history with the ICANN TLD process.
It is well known that the .BIZ top-level domain was first proposed,
and operated, by Karl Denninger some time in 1996.
No accurate treatment of this problem can ignore the historical
context from which the debate over alternate roots emerged.

There is a record, I believe, of a transaction between Leah Gallegos
and Denniger to take over rights to .Biz. Your report makes it seem
as if Neulevel invented the proposed TLD and that it was first
broached in the ICANN TLD process. This gives the impression
that Gallegos simply skimmed ICANN proposals and imitated 
the Neulevel proposal. 

I have already seen one message that has jumped to that conclusion.

I don't think that's true. At any rate, your hypothesis (insinuation?) would 
be decisively strengthened or refuted if your report includes the facts 
about when Gallegos concluded her deal with Denniger. Did it 
happen before or after the ICANN proposals were posted in
October?

Another point you need to clarify is that in October Gallegos 
did not know, and could not have known (unless the ICANN process is 
even more messed up than some of us think) that the .biz application 
was going to be successful.

A final, perhaps most important question. Your data show that the vast
majority of the biz registrations came AFTER ICANN had assigned 
BIZ in its root to Neulevel, and that the concentration among a few 
holders decreased. 

I wonder how you explain that! 

If Gallegos got all of her registrations right BEFORE ICANN had made 
a decision, one could make a case that her property claim is just 
speculative piggybacking on the icann process in a way that might be 
described as deceptive and parasitical. 

But if the registrations were made afterwards, in full knowledge of 
the fact that they will not be in the ICANN root and may even conflict
with a much more powerful and global business, I am wondering what
conclusion to draw. 

I look forward to seeing your report improved and revised along
these lines.

Oh and a final point. What is the point of organizing a completely
separate discussion forum, that requires that we register with you?
I would encourage you to put all this discussion on the ga-roots 
email list, where it will be publicly archived and accessible to those
making policy in this area.

- --MM

- --
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 17:26:55 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Analysis of Atlantic Root .BIZ Registrations to Date

Wrong.  The dates reflected in the POSSR registration system are 
stamped via that system.  There were registrations manually 
entered before the automated system (during the early summer) 
and re-entered after lauch of the online system.  As I posted to the 
web board at Berkman, the research is flawed.  .BIZ was never a 
toy and I completely resent that.  The fact that registrations picked 
up after the formal launch of an online system only proves that it 
had more visibility and was therefore more inviting.  It would not 
have mattered if there were 10 or 10,000 registrations.  FYI:  The 
oldest registration was shortly after we took over management.

I suggest you read my reponse to the reasearch on the Berkman 
web board.  It's really a shame that we were not consulted 
regarding the mining of the whois and publication of personal 
identifying information on a website.  It is also a shame that we 
were not consulted for facts either.

Mischaracterizations are not facts.

Leah

On 19 Jun 2001, at 23:56, Thomas Roessler 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.
> 
> 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-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: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 16:17:14 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Which seems to me to be a self-contradictory proposition. It is precisely
because of  'flame wars' that the GA is inhibited from moving substance
forward (among other reasons). Those with a penchant for engaging in
the same disrupt that process, and really need to be removed to a climate
more attuned to their tastes.  ("First Amendment" -- yeah, yeah, yeah.
Even were this bunch subject to that, there is nowhere any requirement
that any specific group of people is required to read that which they
don't want to see -- the principle cuts both ways.)

Bill Lovell

Derek Conant wrote:

> 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

- --
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 16:27:12 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

As an attorney, Mr. Froomkin should appreciate the fact that
rules and procedures are essential to the practice of law in the
courtroom -- the language on which the suspension was based
would likely lead to a contempt charge if uttered in court, and
rightly so.  GA is far from being a court room, but the same
principles apply -- do not disrupt the process -- and the use
of such rules is well justified in order to help facilitate action
on legitimate GA purposes.

Bill Lovell

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

> The rules should be scrapped.
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> --
>                 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

- --
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 16:11:31 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

For what it's worth, I believe that (a) the standards with
respect to forbidden language (no one wants to read, let
alone have directed at oneself, the language quoted below)
and (b) the new thought to cite the specific language on
which the suspension is based (out of simple fairness, due
process, and notice for future reference) are both excellent
decisions. I say again, take that sort of thing to ga-full, where
there are no rules, and leave ga to those who are willing to
abide by a really minimal standard of conduct so that the
work can  proceed. I'll also say again that it is precisely for
such purpose that ga-full was established -- as a place to
carry out the 'back alley' fights for those who cannnot resist
doing so, and with any kind of advancing maturity in the
ga correspondents the ga-full list will be silent -- but by that
fact alone serving its intended purpose.

Bill Lovell

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> 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

- --
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: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 11:56:50 +1200
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

> 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.

The initial post about Eric being suspended listed the URL of the rules as a
reminder.

This was listed as http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html

The above statement contradicts the rules as stated:

"Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have the task

of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules."

This states that the monitor should review ALL posts to ensure they do not
break the rules and not just investigate when a complaint is received. No
where in the rules do I see a process to contact the monitor about what I
might feel is a breach of these rules.

Now, perhaps the rules are out of date, if that is so they need to be
updated prior to them being used as the grounds of a suspension. 

I dislike overt monitoring of a list but lets all agree to the ground rules
and not enforce them as we feel like it. I do not know Eric but I find it
curious that the process appears to differ from the rules that are in place.

Also at this point of time I would like to point out that the posts were
made on May 25th and June 10th. Does it really take 3 weeks to rule on a
post or does it take 3 weeks to get enough 'body of evidence' to make an
overall ruling?

Steven Heath
- --
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 18:11:32 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Oh, come off it, Eric. I'll match you on "out of the dirt" background any
day of the week.  (I'll not bore this group with the details.) I managed
to get up out of a family of 6 living on $250/mo military pension at the end
of the Depression, and achieve what I have achieved.  Based upon what
I've been posting, I doubt anyone else would support your "barristers
private club" theory.  This post of yours by itself, even without foul
language, expresses quite well why you end up getting suspended all
the time -- the mouth (or in this case the fingers) gets running before the
brain is engaged, spouting groundless generalities in some kind of
mindless, cathartic explosion.

And my client, who hosted data on the Rocky Horror Picture Show
and helped put on live performances thereof, just as a means of getting
the street kids into some kind of more productive lives, did not lose
his domain name, and on a case a good part of which I paid for out
of my own pocket.  He has it right now (even though the big bucks
corporation is presently appealing that decision). I'll not ask for any
apology for your gross and libelous inaccuracies, but don't try it again.

The shame of all this is that you have a good brain, if you'd only learn
how to use it properly.

Bill Lovell

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Mr. Lovell,
>
> I may well be overly passionate and have a tongue which matches my
> history of work such as roughnecking, riverguiding and ministering to
> those which speak that way as a culture.  I am quite certain that your
> barristers private club would have me ousted by my mere appearance and
> vulgarity. And you are quite right to hold me in disdain as someone below
> your class.
>
> Does not any of this bigotry bother you?  I have equal bias against you.
> (I am sorry) You look down on us dotcommoners and do not want to
> associate with us. I understand for we are a crass group without your
> sophistication.  We are like your clients who lost domain names just
> because they did not have the money sophistication or power. But I
> suppose you are right ICANN is no place to protect our rights it is a
> club for the well healed educated and eloquent speakers such as yourself.
>
> Boy-oh-Boyo if this is accurate it really sucks, and on behalf of my
> dotcommoner friends worldwide I am going to do something about it.
>
> With heart fealt Sincerity,
> Eric
>
> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
>
> > As an attorney, Mr. Froomkin should appreciate the fact that
> > rules and procedures are essential to the practice of law in the
> > courtroom -- the language on which the suspension was based
> > would likely lead to a contempt charge if uttered in court, and
> > rightly so.  GA is far from being a court room, but the same
> > principles apply -- do not disrupt the process -- and the use
> > of such rules is well justified in order to help facilitate action
> > on legitimate GA purposes.
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
> > "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
> >
> > > The rules should be scrapped.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > --
> > >                 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
> >
> > --
> > 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-full" 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: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 02:42:03 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Delay

On 01:27 20/06/01, Jeff Williams said:
>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.

Thank for rising the issue. I think that this effort we carried may have
some positive result. Obvsiouly nothing is settled yet, but some GA
members could probably share into a very serious solution. We still
have to work on it and gather supports. But a few things do happen.

Jefsey

PS. This is why I am quite concerned about the suitability of the NC
choice to he best of the DNSO policy and interest: otherwise we may
lose some sponsors.

- --
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 20:39:09 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Edelman's report on BIZ

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
> 
> But if the registrations were made afterwards, in full knowledge of 
> the fact that they will not be in the ICANN root and may even conflict
> with a much more powerful and global business, I am wondering what
> conclusion to draw. 
> 

It might be helpful to have some understanding of how DNS works.
It is unfortunate that URL forwarding and domain name parking have
removed users from the details. In the past, users were more familiar
that an SLD.TLD registration meant that they supplied 2 (two) nameservers
to be handle that zone. Ultimately, the goal is to have DNS queries
for names under SLD.TLD to be routed to those 2 nameservers.

Does it matter how the 2 SLD.TLD nameservers are located ?
Are TLD Clusters required ?....to locate the 2 SLD.TLD nameservers ?
If one asks one TLD Cluster and gets the same answer as another
TLD Cluster, does it matter ?

One conclusion could be that users are willing to register in TWO
TLD Clusters to make sure their 2 SLD.TLD nameservers are located.
This could result in TWO Registry operations, two fees, etc. Some
may see this redundant TLD Cluster as more reliable, if properly
operated.

The Dual-TLD-Cluster proof-of-concept work is on-going.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
"Proof of Concept TLD Development...and Multiple TLD Clusters"

It would seem in the .BIZ case that TWO TLD Clusters could be
operated and all SLD.BIZ owners would be encouraged to register
with both. In order to do that, they both have to be operational.
People can not register with a Registry that does not exist.

Where are the operational IPv4 .BIZ Registries ?
How many are there ?
Which are the "best-of-breed" ?

Is the U.S. Government publishing the SLD.BIZ names from its
proof-of-concept IP Claims trials on a daily basis ?
Should those names then feed into the .BIZ Registries ?
...to make SLD.BIZ names work...

Are people focused on making SLD.BIZ names work ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-NZ.com
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World

- --
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 15:40:19 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] Edelman's report on BIZ

On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 06:58:14PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> Ben:
> 
> It's good to have a fact-based discussion of the .biz problem.
> 
> The picture of the ARNI registrations is a very valuable
> contribution to our understanding of the issue. It provides some
> basis for discussing the relationship between the ICANN process
> and the claims established outside of it.
> 
> Your treatment of the facts, however, is incomplete 
> and borders on the selective in certain respects.
> 
> To begin with, you start your history with the ICANN TLD process.
> It is well known that the .BIZ top-level domain was first proposed,
> and operated, by Karl Denninger some time in 1996.
> No accurate treatment of this problem can ignore the historical
> context from which the debate over alternate roots emerged.
> 
> There is a record, I believe, of a transaction between Leah Gallegos
> and Denniger to take over rights to .Biz.

I doubt that very much:

    "Denninger said he expanded the concept to allow automated dot-biz
    domain name registrations in 1995, and his company, Macro Computer
    Systems, was sold in 1998 to Winstar Communications. 

    He says ORSC changed from pointing to Winstar's list of dot-biz
    names to Alantic Root Network's in the last year.  "The problem is
    that (Gallegos') claim to this is no more legitimate than JV Team's. 
    I would argue that neither of them has a legitimate claim,"
    Denninger says. 

    from http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,40301,00.html

> Your report makes it seem
> as if Neulevel invented the proposed TLD and that it was first
> broached in the ICANN TLD process. This gives the impression
> that Gallegos simply skimmed ICANN proposals and imitated 
> the Neulevel proposal. 

Yes, it sure looks that way.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 22:46:41 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Hello Michael,

Tuesday, June 19, 2001, 3:51:24 PM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> The rules should be scrapped.

I don't agree.  The rules are necessary.

The problem is that those charged with interpreting them are taking a
broader interpretation of the rules than the list members are.

Perhaps a new appeal mechanism should exist where xx members of the
list can overturn a moderator action.

- -- 
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: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:27:35 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Michael,
>
> Tuesday, June 19, 2001, 3:51:24 PM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>
> > The rules should be scrapped.
>
> I don't agree.  The rules are necessary.
>
> The problem is that those charged with interpreting them are taking a
> broader interpretation of the rules than the list members are.
>
> Perhaps a new appeal mechanism should exist where xx members of the
> list can overturn a moderator action.

Oh, great.  Then instead of about 1/3 of the traffic being devoted to the
earth shaking issue of postperson decorum, we shall have 2/3, and will
be even further from ever getting anything done in this screwball place.

Bill Lovell

>
>
> --
> 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

- --
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: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 02:21:16 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:212 - BIZ World

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg03362.html
[ga] Analysis of Atlantic Root .BIZ Registrations to Date
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Analysis of Atlantic Root .BIZ Registrations to Date
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:51:20 -0400
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
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>).
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------

How do you define "an existing .BIZ TLD" ?

You use the word "existing" in one case above but not the other.
Does this mean there is only one "existing" .BIZ ?

November 16, 2000 is a long time ago in Internet-time. How many
months or years should people be expected to wait, before a TLD
registry materializes ?

In the U.S. Government-run, "Proof-of-Concept" .BIZ, are people and
companies being given the .BIZ IP Registrants on a daily basis under the
Freedom of Information Act ?

What is the best way for companies to ensure that they get the .BIZ
name that they want ? How much does that cost ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-NZ.com
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World

- --
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 10:49:15 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Analysis of Atlantic Root .BIZ Registrations to Date

L Gallegos wrote on 19.06.01, 17:17:39:
> I posted a response on their web board.
> http://bcis.law.harvard.edu/webboard/wbpx.dll/read?262,45

I believe the correct URL is
http://bcis.law.harvard.edu/webboard/wbpx.dll/~dotbiz/read?262,45

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: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 04:03:40 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

WXW and all assembly members,

  I agree with Michael.  The illegitimate rules should be scrapped simply
because they don't work.  And they don't work primarily because they
are improperly applied, are not well understood, some are cryptic,
and are to often used as a personal vendetta mechanism or a mechanism
for "Shutting up" some participants because they do not agree
with others.  Erick Dierker's case is just one recent example.  There
have been a number of others in the recent past as well.  It has also
now become terribly obvious.

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Michael,
>
> Tuesday, June 19, 2001, 3:51:24 PM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>
> > The rules should be scrapped.
>
> I don't agree.  The rules are necessary.
>
> The problem is that those charged with interpreting them are taking a
> broader interpretation of the rules than the list members are.
>
> Perhaps a new appeal mechanism should exist where xx members of the
> list can overturn a moderator action.
>
> --
> 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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #554
************************