Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #558
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, June 24 2001            Volume 01 : Number 558

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:34:43 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Organizing Committee

Further to Bill's public resignation from the Organizing Committee, I thank 
the Chair to accept my onw resignation. Jefsey

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

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:07:48 -0700
From: "Cindy Merry" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Democracy vs. Public Input - What is the process?

Roberto raises some interesting points.  Cindy

On Thursday, June 21, 2001 10:38 AM Roberto Gaetano wrote in part:

<deleted portion relating to suspensions>

About the general issue on transparency and public discussions on complaint
process, raised by Earl and others, I would like to ask a question: "What
is
the core business of the GA?"

IMHO, the GA is not about an experiment of democracy in cyberspace, but
about a way to provide public input to ICANN on Domain Name issues.

To get some public input in a less than perfect fashion will be to achieve
some of the purpose. To achieve perfect cyberdemocracy but provide little
or
no input would mean that we have failed miserably.

In practical terms, the more time we dedicate to sociological and
pseudo-political argumentation, the more the decisions on Domain Names
issues will be taken without our input. Is this our goal? If yes, fine,
let's continue, we are on the right track!

Regards
Roberto

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

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:49:11 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Democracy vs. Public Input - What is the process?

Dear all,

I think the UDRP and Privacy issues are germain to Damain Names and their
registration.

I think that many do not like to have to deal with social and political issues,
just as many do not like to deal with sophisticated technical issues.

But I am having trouble here understanding your postion, how do we address the
ccTLDs being an SO and or WIPO's overbearing approach to IP if we do not
include social and political concerns.

I could be wrong but as understand the terms policy and governance they require
these types of concerns.  Certainly the idea of consensus is sociological at
it's finest.

It would seem that this comment is really meant for the other SOs.  I await
your enlightenment because I know your premise is well founded.

Eric

>
> In practical terms, the more time we dedicate to sociological and
> pseudo-political argumentation, the more the decisions on Domain Names
> issues will be taken without our input. Is this our goal? If yes, fine,
> let's continue, we are on the right track!
>
> Regards
> Roberto

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

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:44:23 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:212 - BIZ - "The .biz domain has begun its pre-registration process."

 .BIZ seems to have a lot of interest...
> 
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/app-index.htm
> .biz, etc. Application by Abacus America, Inc. 
> .biz, etc. Application by Affinity Internet, Inc. 
> .biz, etc. Application by iDomains, Inc. 
> .biz Application by JVTeam, LLC 
> .biz, etc. Application by KDD Internet Solutions Co., Ltd. 
> ---------------

http://www.inww.com
"New Domain Names are Go !"

http://www.xtrabusiness.co.nz/domain/newdomain.html
"The .biz domain has begun its pre-registration process."

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
"Proof of Concept TLD Development...and Multiple TLD Clusters"

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: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:14:04 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Democracy vs. Public Input - What is the process?

If ICANN did not delve into the social and political aspects of the 
domain name issues, then those issues would be beyond the 
scope of the GA.  However, ICANN has not only delved into these 
areas, they have become a focus.  Therefore, it is very much within 
the scope of the DNSO GA to discuss and recommend to ICANN 
on them.  Policy regarding the consequences of duplicating TLDs 
in the USG root, the effects of the UDRP on domain name holders, 
and any other policies that effect stakeholders are very much the 
reason for the existence of the DNSO.  If the GA is to ignore these 
issues and stay within the mandate of the technical aspects, then 
ICANN must do the same, as ICANN is the parent of this 
organization.  

Bottom-up anyone?

leah

On 22 Jun 2001, at 9:49, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> I think the UDRP and Privacy issues are germain to Damain Names and their
> registration.
> 
> I think that many do not like to have to deal with social and political issues,
> just as many do not like to deal with sophisticated technical issues.
> 
> But I am having trouble here understanding your postion, how do we address the
> ccTLDs being an SO and or WIPO's overbearing approach to IP if we do not
> include social and political concerns.
> 
> I could be wrong but as understand the terms policy and governance they require
> these types of concerns.  Certainly the idea of consensus is sociological at
> it's finest.
> 
> It would seem that this comment is really meant for the other SOs.  I await
> your enlightenment because I know your premise is well founded.
> 
> Eric
> 
> >
> > In practical terms, the more time we dedicate to sociological and
> > pseudo-political argumentation, the more the decisions on Domain Names
> > issues will be taken without our input. Is this our goal? If yes, fine,
> > let's continue, we are on the right track!
> >
> > Regards
> > Roberto
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:33:54 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Democracy vs. Public Input - What is the process?

Leah and all assembly members,

L Gallegos wrote:

> If ICANN did not delve into the social and political aspects of the
> domain name issues, then those issues would be beyond the
> scope of the GA.

  I agree entirely with this argument or statement.  I don't however believe
that the ICANN BOD and Staff should have delved into these issues
from a policy point of view in most if not all instances.  ICANN's mandate
is a technical one not one that should be delving into social engineering
considerations.  Yet is seems plainly evident that the social aspects
are the ICANN BoD's and staff primary issues of interest, and that
they are not capable yet of handling the technical issues very well.

>  However, ICANN has not only delved into these
> areas, they have become a focus.

  Yes, and this is a terrible mistake.  The ICANN BoD and staff are ill
equipped nor were they well prepared to focus on these areas as we
are all having to suffer the results of.

>  Therefore, it is very much within
> the scope of the DNSO GA to discuss and recommend to ICANN
> on them.

Unfortunately this is not only true, but a must do situation.

> Policy regarding the consequences of duplicating TLDs
> in the USG root, the effects of the UDRP on domain name holders,
> and any other policies that effect stakeholders are very much the
> reason for the existence of the DNSO.  If the GA is to ignore these
> issues and stay within the mandate of the technical aspects, then
> ICANN must do the same, as ICANN is the parent of this
> organization.

  Agreed.  But it is now too late for going backwards form a ICANN
perspective.  It's sink or swim...

>
>
> Bottom-up anyone?
>
> leah
>
> On 22 Jun 2001, at 9:49, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I think the UDRP and Privacy issues are germain to Damain Names and their
> > registration.
> >
> > I think that many do not like to have to deal with social and political issues,
> > just as many do not like to deal with sophisticated technical issues.
> >
> > But I am having trouble here understanding your postion, how do we address the
> > ccTLDs being an SO and or WIPO's overbearing approach to IP if we do not
> > include social and political concerns.
> >
> > I could be wrong but as understand the terms policy and governance they require
> > these types of concerns.  Certainly the idea of consensus is sociological at
> > it's finest.
> >
> > It would seem that this comment is really meant for the other SOs.  I await
> > your enlightenment because I know your premise is well founded.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > >
> > > In practical terms, the more time we dedicate to sociological and
> > > pseudo-political argumentation, the more the decisions on Domain Names
> > > issues will be taken without our input. Is this our goal? If yes, fine,
> > > let's continue, we are on the right track!
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Roberto
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 20:08:02 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] This is important to read and not noise

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg01503.html

This is interesting your GA internal workings are very interesting.

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

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 21:23:45 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Sorry for the questions

I would like to post directly to the ga-full but cannot find a way
without unsubscribing to the ga-list.  I personally have learned that
there is a basic pg13 requirement on this list and sometimes I want to
talk in a more R-rated manner.  How can I switch back and forth.  The
general world calls that adult talk versus appropriate for children but
here I have come to accept it means something entirely different.  Hey
thats cool I just want directions to the neighborhood watering hole
without inviting my mother-in-law to come.

Also I believe that the sub-lists should resolve to the GA-Full so folks
can pick up the subtopics and discuss them in a more "adult" forum.

Sincerely,
Eric

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

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 22:28:02 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Sorry for the questions

Hello Eric,

GA-Full does not work that way.    The posting address is always
[email-masked]

The GA-Full is just a distribution list that receives ALL [email-masked]
posts, regardless of whether the person has been denied posting rights
or if the poster is even subscribed to the list (i.e. lots of spam).

The only way to have your posts distributed only to the GA-Full list
is to ask the moderators to ban you from the GA list permanently.

I'm sure they would entertain such a request with all haste.

Friday, June 22, 2001, 9:23:45 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> I would like to post directly to the ga-full but cannot find a way
> without unsubscribing to the ga-list.  I personally have learned that
> there is a basic pg13 requirement on this list and sometimes I want to
> talk in a more R-rated manner.  How can I switch back and forth.  The
> general world calls that adult talk versus appropriate for children but
> here I have come to accept it means something entirely different.  Hey
> thats cool I just want directions to the neighborhood watering hole
> without inviting my mother-in-law to come.

> Also I believe that the sub-lists should resolve to the GA-Full so folks
> can pick up the subtopics and discuss them in a more "adult" forum.

> Sincerely,
> Eric

> --
> 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

- -- 
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, 23 Jun 2001 16:02:46 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Democracy vs. Public Input - What is the process?

when you consider it, the iCANN is a technical Internet start-up. But a 
strange one: they did not pick the techies as operators and put the lawyers 
on the board, they use the lawyers as operators and techies on the board. 
Franckly I do not see any VC buying such business plan.

Obviously the lawyers only know legal operations. To please the the Board 
they contain themselves into  technical cases but they have a low knowledge 
of the technical operations market, while they have a good command of the 
legal market. In techical operations you try to make the user happy because 
he pays you while in legal operations you try to protect the rights of the 
big guy who makes small users unhappy because he is the one who pays. 
(Techies discusses cons/pros with Leah, lawyers only say "she has not 
enough money").

It is very surprising how their Internet is not user oriented.

No one gave a definition of the DN yet. But we can roughly said it is a 
cyber-geographic name used instead of its IP coodinates as a geographic 
name is used instead of its NS coordinates. It helps users to go more 
easily where they want to go. London is a better menmonic than 00.10:46.12 
and Barcelona.com a better one than 192.17.21.216.

Now let consider the UDRP. This is not something to better help the users 
but to help the confuser.

If we were in a normal world. Some says barcelona.com is for business about 
Barcelona(s) and the other says it is a right of one of the Barcelona 
cities to be parked. What a lawyer says: let ask a judge. What a techie 
(and a normal person) say: what do the users think the best?

An UDRP should be a very simple automated system: the plaintif explains on 
line why the current use is confusing (the concern is confusion, not 
ownership, both for TM and DNs). He could present his own vision of the 
site with a link to hisown project. The defendant should be able to 
respond. Then a jury of randomly selected users around the world and under 
NDA (let say 1000 people, paid 1$ each per vote by the plaintif) would 
vote: "what is the one best corresponding to your undestanding of the DN?".

If the plaintif get  2/3 of the votes he is redelegated the DN. No more 
cybersquatting.

Jefsey

On 22:14 22/06/01, L Gallegos said:
>If ICANN did not delve into the social and political aspects of the
>domain name issues, then those issues would be beyond the
>scope of the GA.  However, ICANN has not only delved into these
>areas, they have become a focus.  Therefore, it is very much within
>the scope of the DNSO GA to discuss and recommend to ICANN
>on them.  Policy regarding the consequences of duplicating TLDs
>in the USG root, the effects of the UDRP on domain name holders,
>and any other policies that effect stakeholders are very much the
>reason for the existence of the DNSO.  If the GA is to ignore these
>issues and stay within the mandate of the technical aspects, then
>ICANN must do the same, as ICANN is the parent of this
>organization.
>
>Bottom-up anyone?
>
>leah
>
>On 22 Jun 2001, at 9:49, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I think the UDRP and Privacy issues are germain to Damain Names and their
> > registration.
> >
> > I think that many do not like to have to deal with social and political 
> issues,
> > just as many do not like to deal with sophisticated technical issues.
> >
> > But I am having trouble here understanding your postion, how do we 
> address the
> > ccTLDs being an SO and or WIPO's overbearing approach to IP if we do not
> > include social and political concerns.
> >
> > I could be wrong but as understand the terms policy and governance they 
> require
> > these types of concerns.  Certainly the idea of consensus is 
> sociological at
> > it's finest.
> >
> > It would seem that this comment is really meant for the other SOs.  I await
> > your enlightenment because I know your premise is well founded.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > >
> > > In practical terms, the more time we dedicate to sociological and
> > > pseudo-political argumentation, the more the decisions on Domain Names
> > > issues will be taken without our input. Is this our goal? If yes, fine,
> > > let's continue, we are on the right track!
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Roberto
> >
> > --
> > 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

- --
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, 23 Jun 2001 21:38:58 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] bringing the rules into the 21st century

GA-Rules sublists had my proposal several days ago and there has been
not direct opposition to it.  The proposal suggests amending our rules
to formally acknowledge the sub lists.  It also modifies the powers of
the monitors and shifts responsibility for banning to the chair.

We have also had very constructive dialogue regarding a Buddy system
which appears to have support as an informal concept but not as set
rules.

I have proposed a compromise that we blend the buddies with the monitors
and create a situation where instead of banning we have violators serve
some community service by helping the monitors mentor.

Please take this up here so that a formal motion can be made to bring
our rules up to date with the evolution of the GA.

I will be moving to bring other motions to the front through the other
sublists where they can be thrashed about on topic.

Thank you all,

Eric,

- --
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 #558
************************