Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #591
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Thursday, July 5 2001            Volume 01 : Number 591

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

Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 11:10:17 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Independance Day

Danny Younger wrote:

>
>Today in the United States we celebrate Independance Day.  This is a
>particularly apt moment to reflect upon grievances, upon lack of
>representation in the decision-making process, upon the lack of the right 
>to
>elect our own officials, and upon an organizational structure that 
>continues
>to disenfranchise the rights of individuals.

Good.
From my part, I am looking forward to an Independence Day for Netizens 
outside the United States to celebrate an Internet Governance that is not 
taken hostage by US Governemnt and US Congress.

Since you mention further below the taxation issue, I would remind that the 
taxes paid to ICANN are coming, for the time being, mostly from ccTLDs, and 
that those ccTLDs are located for the most part outside the US.
Therefore the rest of the world is financing the structure that is used by 
US Government to control the Internet.

I would not like to get into detailed discussion on the points you raise: 
people in the GA know that I don't like to declare wars, in particular when 
I don't have a large army to back up statements.
I think that, while the NC has without any doubt its own problems of 
performance, the GA cannot be taken as a shiny example of productivity.
In particular about the Individuals Constituency, since you make this 
example, we were unable to do anything more than repropose the same old 
things over and over. Maybe we should concentrate in getting more support, 
or a different proposal, or at least a charter for the new Constituency, 
before blaming somebody outside.

I am not saying that your analysis does not mark some good point, I am just 
saying that before asking for independence we have to demonstrate maturity. 
And maybe the efforts of members and officials of the GA should be directed, 
for the time being, in this direction.

Regards
Roberto

>
>The Non-commercial constituency and others are threatened by the potential
>loss of voting rights if they fail to pay for representation on the 
>Council.
>The ccTLD community has already inaugurated efforts to create a separate
>Supporting Organization, arguing that the DNSO is not sufficiently 
>attentive
>to its needs.  This is indeed a time to consider whether the DNSO is
>sufficiently attentive to the needs of the General Assembly.
>
>One of the issues facing our forefathers here in the United States was the
>question of taxation without representation.  They were being asked to 
>supply
>the fruits of their labour without the benefit of a voting voice in the
>legislative process.  We too are being asked to supply the fruits of our
>labour through contributions to a forum in order to confer legitimacy upon
>the ICANN process, and in like fashion we too have been denied not only the
>right to vote in the decision-making body of the DNSO, but we are now being
>denied the right to fully participate as top-down Task Forces have come to
>replace bottom-up Working Groups.
>
>This is tyranny.  When the Review Working Group was callously terminated by
>the leadership of the Council, we were promised the following:
>
>"The Names Council will be reviewing both the input from the final WG D
>report and from the Review process to develop a new process to implement 
>the
>recommendations of the Review process. Full participation in this
>implementation phase is envisaged. It is understood that the structure of
>participation will be an improvement on the present structure of DNSO
>working groups!"  
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00840.html
>
>Lies.  There is no full participation, there has been no improvement, only
>less participation, endless delays, and continued procrastination.  The NC
>Task Force report was issued on 17 February.  What progress has been 
>made?!!
>Do we have any published Terms-of-Reference yet?  No.  Has the new Review
>Task Force made any attempt to work in an open and transparent manner?  No.
>Do they have a publicly-archived mailing list where terms-of-reference have
>been discussed?  No.  What has been done?  According the last 
>teleconference,
>there has been some "drafting going on".  More backroom dealings.  Nothing
>out in the open.   At this rate, will there ever be an Individuals'
>Constituency?  Don't bet on it.
>
>The Council determined its need to silence the voices in the Review Working
>Group because we were engaged in serious discussions on structural changes
>that called for a complete re-organization of the DNSO.  We were not alone 
>in
>our conclusions... even the ICANN Board recognized the need for change and
>issued a resolution to address the issue:
>
>[Resolution 01.28] The Board asks the Names Council and other sources to
>separate their proposals into those that improve operations of the DNSO as 
>it
>is constituted today and those which may result in changes in the structure
>of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.
>
>Where is the Council's proposal to change the structure of the DNSO?   
>There
>is no proposal, nor will there be one.  They will continue to defy the 
>Board
>and will continue to ignore the voices calling for change.  Change must be
>thrust upon the NC.  They will not reform themselves nor the DNSO.  In the
>interim, we all suffer from the consequences of their lassitude and their
>ex-parte deal-making.
>
>Why are there no more working groups?  It does not accord with the
>self-interest of the entrenched participants to allow for the opposing
>consensus view of the majority to be articulated.    They fear the prospect
>of 120 voices raised in discussion on a topic because the results may not 
>be
>to their liking.   We cannot have a working group on collisions in 
>namespace
>because we might conclude that ICANN is responsible and accountable for
>creating such collisions.  We cannot have a working group on the UDRP 
>because
>we might take a collective stance to decry the excessive influence of the
>intellectual property interests, and might actually shift the balance in
>favor of the individual against corporate interests.  We cannot have a 
>Review
>working group because we might challenge an abusive power structure.  We
>cannot have a working group on .org because only the Council has the wisdom
>to make the appropriate choices.  This is unmitigated elitism.
>
>There is not one single issue that should pass out of the DNSO without the
>full involvement of the General Assembly.
>Token participation in Task Forces is no more than a sop to keep us quiet.
>
>The issue boils down to this -- what course of action should the General
>Assembly take?
>
>Personally, I am in favor of following the lead of the ccTLDs and moving
>forward to a discussion of withdrawing from the DNSO in favor of a 
>Supporting
>Organization that would better guard the interests of individuals.  I look
>forward to your comments.  Happy Independance Day!
>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

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

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

Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 11:53:55 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Parties

Thanks Danny and Thomas,
for that piece of apparent incoherence (may I remind the letter of Esther 
to Ralph Nader about the extremely limited role of her organization).  I do 
not see any reason why a small technical secretariat like the USCANN would 
extend to such an extraordinary "effective system".
Would anyone from a "USCANNer" party want to provide a "coherent 
explanation" about such an idea which would be "a lot better" than people. 
We start understanding why Joop stand no chance, and why we have to send 
him at the BoD.
Jefsey

/On 03:51 05/07/01, [email-masked] said:
>Excerpted from "Challenges for Domain Managers", by Esther Dyson
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/05/27/B
>
>U171918.DTL&type=printable
>(Thanks to Alexander Svensson and Thomas Roessler for providing this citation
>on the @Large forum).
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Right now, there is some lively discussion of all these issues. But it is
>still difficult for points of view, rather than specific people or
>nationalities, to get votes. People outside the United States and Europe
>often feel marginalized in ICANN's English-only deliberations. Those who lack
>Web access, and communicate primarily by e-mail, can't use its current
>Web-centric facilities.
>
>What ICANN needs ultimately is the equivalent of political parties. Perhaps a
>No New TLDs party, or a Free-IP Rights party (which would support a totally
>free market in domain names), or the Alternative-Root party, which would
>support alternatives to the domain-name system.
>
>Each of these parties would then have to provide coherent explanations of how
>its policies would work, and to win adherents. These parties should not be
>organized by ICANN (unlike its three supporting organizations, which
>represent specific interests and already elect half of ICANN's board).
>
>Would this approach work? It would still be an experiment. Proper voting
>policies would need to make sure a party didn't simply buy votes. But a
>marketplace for ideas is a lot better than one for people.
>
>In the end, ICANN as an effective system, not just an organization, depends
>on input from the public in addition to a set of formal rules governing how
>board members can vote on ICANN's policies.
>
>That is, it depends on independent action by self-appointed, self- organizing
>stakeholders around the world. That means you.
>
>--
>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: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 13:46:47 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] citizen invovement - Europe/USA

Maintenant que le Conseil des Ministres Européen a décidé la création
de ".eu", les Membres des différents pays de l'Union Européenne peuvent
exprimer leurs opinions (pour ou contre, pétitions) ainsi que leur proposition
concernant la défense des interêts européens auprés de leurs députés
européens et de leurs représentants nationaux et locaux.

Pour contacter les Membres du Parlement Européen:
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep5/owa/p_meps2.repartition?ilg=FR&iorig=home

Now that the European Council has decided the creation of ".eu", the
Members of the different countries of the European Union may wish to express
their opinions on this topic and on the best support of the European interests
to their European representatives (con or pro, petitions) .

For intormation on how to contact your local European representatives
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep5/owa/p_meps2.repartition?ilg=EN&iorig=home

On 04:13 05/07/01, [email-masked] said:
>Now that U.S. legislators have introduced a bill regarding the establishment
>of a .kids domain, U.S. citizens may wish to express their opinions on this
>topic to their local legislators (pro or con).  For information on how to
>write to your local representatives:
>
>http://www.house.gov/writerep/

- --
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: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 21:57:16 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Wanton Refusal of Names Council

Hi Roberto

> Can't these issues be solved among Chairpeople+Secretariat without needing
> public proclaims on a public list? What is the real purpose of this post?

The *real* purpose of the post is exactly what it says.  Just read Philip's
posts to get a flavour of the attitude of the Names Council.  Hardly a
client relationship.

> Moreover, it seems to me that everything is being originated by a
> misunderstanding, as the request is to still let the message through
> [ga-abuse], but block it on [ga], which should not have additional policy
> decisions by the GA. Hence a polite private exchange could solve it.

I have written to Elisabeth and Philip on many occasions to no effect.

> Incidentally, we created specialized lists to limit the general traffic on
> the GA main list. To increase the traffic on the main list with messages
> that should stay private is going in the opposite direction.

True.  I made a very similar comment myself.

> (P.S.: what on earth means "Wanton"?)

Dictionary.com has some interesting explanations at:
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=wanton&db=*

There are several meanings most of which relate, in some way, to the
behaviour of a spoilt child.  The one I was using was capricious or unjust
as in "wanton destruction".  It could also be perverse, difficult,
malicious, rebellious or unprovoked.

There are several connotations which indicate casual sex or unrestrained
morality.  I was clearly not using that particular meaning in my reference
to "wanton refusal".

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 22:09:53 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Dealing with bounced and returned mail

Hi Philip

On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:46:43 +0200, you wrote:

> you clearly have an issue over bounced and returned e-mails and ga abuse.
> You perceive a simple technical solution, others may perceive such a
> solution as interference.

There are a lot of things that people MIGHT perceive.  Some might perceive
your response as interference also.  Some might perceive an elected Alt
Chair as having some right to represent the GA members.    I could go on but
it's an empty argument.

> The DNSO secretariat will take instruction from the GA as a body on the
> way GA mail lists are set up, the nature of their filters etc.

Not true. The GA-ORG mailing list was established without a vote of
the General Assembly.  I really can't believe you want to spread such
disinformation.

Are you sure you aren't on the ICANN Board ?

> If you seek
> change persuade the GA you are right and together with the GA chair as
> spokesmen for the GA make a request to the DNSO secretariat.

My point, which Ken Stubbs denies, is proved over and over.  The NC refuses
to co-operate.  If we have to submit every request to the General Assembly
for a vote then the Chair and Alt Chair are just empty figureheads.

And the NC, which is elected to serve, can make any decision at whim.
Who, exactly, are YOU accountable to?  The constituencies?

Since when do YOU put YOUR decisions, such as just now, to a vote?

> Philip Sheppard
> NC Chair

Exactly.  The NC Chair.  Just like Danny is the GA Chair.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 22:28:55 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Responsible use of e-mail 

Hi Philip

On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 10:05:42 +0200, you wrote:

> it is not helpful when you copy me and the Names Council list on
> irrelevant stuff (see below).

So you are saying it is alright for the Chair and the Alt Chair of the GA
to get all this "irrelevant stuff" but not for the high-and-mighty Names
Council to get it.

I provided you with a sample so you might understand the problem.

Believe me, that is a mere sample of the stuff that I get in my intray every
day.  Which you have refused to help us with.

> Communicate with us when we can help.

I have been doing so for a month.  But you have REFUSED to help.  That's why
we are not agreeing.  Here it is again.  Can you just tell Elizabeth to do
it, please?

On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 07:59:27 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> To give both you and Elisabeth the benefit of failing to understand my
> communication, please ask Elisabeth to set the filters so that it rejects
> the OTHER post.  That would be within you so-called *policy* restrictions
> as it would not reject the [ga-abuse] post.

If YOU do not co-operate YOU force a showdown.

Elisabeth refused to co-operate so I appealed to you.  You refused to
co-operate so I appealed to the Names Council.  Several of them have refused
to co-operate so I appeal to Stuart Lynn.   Next the ICANN Board as a whole.

All over a simple issue of list management.

Don't you get it?   Sheesh !!

Regards
Patrick Corliss

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Rothnie, Warwick" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Names Council" <[email-masked]>; "DNSO Secretariat"
> <[email-masked]>; "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>;
> "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: 04 July 2001 00:55
> Subject: Re: Non-member submission from ["Rothnie, Warwick"
> <[email-masked]>]

<SNIP IRRELEVANT STUFF>

- --
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: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 22:33:59 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the World

On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 07:59:27 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> I cannot understand why the DNSO Secretariate shouldn't treat us like the
> CLIENT with some sort of service level agreement for mailing lists and
> websites.

On Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:50:36 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Finally, the NC has spent considerable time to start a recruitment and
> fund raising process in order to improve DNSO secretariat support. The
> GA like the NC will be a beneficiary of this.

Tell me you're kidding.  Do we get to select the service provider?

Independently of Names Council control?

Regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 13:58:52 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .kids domain

Dear Leah,
the main point is I would certainly enjoy chating with US Congress/Senate 
people as long as they do not enjoy more power on my own interests and day 
to day life than my own French and European representatives.

I note that I gave you two precise, prepared and positive ways to address 
both European représentatives and national European representatives and 
European business markets: you did decline. I suppose you though it was no 
worth. I am interested in undestanding if it was because you felt they were 
too far away or because you though they had less powers over the "USCANN" 
(iCANN).

Jefsey

On 05:27 05/07/01, L Gallegos said:
>Alexander,
>
>I would not hesitate to write to the author of the bill regardless of
>where you live.  It may serve to put our legislature on notice that
>they need to pay attention to the global community and not just
>the US.  This may be an opportune time to make that statement.
>
>This proposed legislation does make a point, though, doesn't it?
>How can ICANN claim to be a multinational organization and the
>root a global entity when it is owned and controlled by the US
>government?  Isn't it, then, a US root with a huge market share,
>managed by a private US corporation?  With ICANN not having to
>answer to anyone but the state AG and DoC and with DoC simply
>rubber stamping anything that ICANN decides per their stated
>policy, we seem to have just what was said at the February
>hearing:
>
>...ICANN answers to no one but maybe God and perhaps not even
>to Him...
>
>Also from the hearing:
>
>["Mr. Pickering:  This is the dilemma for us and has been for the
>very beginning.  The reason we have ICANN is to avoid the APA,
>the Adiminstrative Procedures Act, as much as any reason.  We
>didn't want the APA to apply to ICANN."]
>
>Open, transparent, bottom-up?
>
>Leah
>
>
>On 5 Jul 2001, at 5:03, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> >
> > Now that U.S. legislators have introduced a bill regarding the
> > establishment of a .kids domain, *non*-U.S. citizens may *also* wish
> > to express their opinions on this topic to the U.S. legislators, but
> > have no avenue.
> >
> > Meanwhile, they may enjoy the U.S. Capitol Virtual Tour.
> > http://www.senate.gov/vtour/
> >
> > Cynically yours,
> > /// Alexander
> >
> > (This message is not aimed at Danny, the messenger in this case.)
> >
> > > Now that U.S. legislators have introduced a bill regarding the
> > > establishment of a .kids domain, U.S. citizens may wish to express
> > > their opinions on this topic to their local legislators (pro or
> > > con).  For information on how to write to your local
> > > representatives:
> > >
> > > http://www.house.gov/writerep/
> > > --
> > > 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-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: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 09:13:43 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] question

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> <snip>

> Let's take another example: postage stamps.
> They are the proof of payment for a service that allows (physical) mail to
> be routed via the snail-mail system.
> This definition will not take into account the exceptional value that some
> stamps might have for philatelists. But still, this is not the point.
> If to send a parcel you need stamps for a value of 20 pounds, you cannot use
> the world famous "Penny Black" (face value 1 penny) with the justification
> that its value on the philatelic market is more than 20 pounds: the Royal
> Mail will refuse the parcel (as would the US Mail, I suppose).

Just one simple question:

If I purchase one or hundreds of postage stamps from my post office, go home
and
put them in my drawer, and you come over and take one or many of them without
my
permission, is that theft or not?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotirpoulos
- --
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: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:32:59 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Inappropriate behaviour of GA alt.chair.

(CC list trimmed.)

On 2001-07-05 22:28:55 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:

>Elisabeth refused to co-operate so I appealed to you.  You refused 
>to co-operate so I appealed to the Names Council.  Several of them 
>have refused to co-operate so I appeal to Stuart Lynn.  Next the 
>ICANN Board as a whole.

>All over a simple issue of list management.

I suppose it would be far easier to get this right if you wouldn't 
hide technical issues in lengthy flames you distribute all over the 
place. So, please stop this.  

You are damaging the remaining credibility the GA and its chairs' 
may still have.

If you believe that this kind of behaviour is part of your job as 
the GA's alternate chair, please consider stepping down voluntarily.

- -- 
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: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 00:10:44 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Inappropriate behaviour of GA critics

Hi Thomas

On Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:32:59 +0200, you wrote:

> On 2001-07-05 22:28:55 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> >All over a simple issue of list management.
>
> I suppose it would be far easier to get this right if you wouldn't
> hide technical issues in lengthy flames you distribute all over the
> place.

I don't understand your meaning here.  The technical issues are not the
point.  I have asked the DNSO Secretariat to perform several simple tasks
and she has refused.

> So, please stop this.

What rights should the GA should have under the Names Council?

> You are damaging the remaining credibility the GA and its chairs'
> may still have.

Thomas, if you really meant that you would write to me privately.  In fact,
all I am doing is showing that the General Assembly is dysfunctional.

As I understand it, you control the [icann-europe] mailing list.  If you
want to suspend somebody, you just do it.  And you control the filters
yourself.  Isn't that so?

> If you believe that this kind of behaviour is part of your job as
> the GA's alternate chair, please consider stepping down voluntarily.

Not at all.  Why don't you take over as a new list monitor?

Then you will soon see what the problems are.  Perhaps you can even solve
them for us.  You know I've asked you privately for input.

Best Regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:52:25 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the Worl d

Let me see if I understand this.  The constituencies pay for the services,
but the GA wants to call the shots?

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 8:34 AM
To: Philip Sheppard
Cc: M. Stuart Lynn, ICANN; Names Council; [ga]
Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the
World

On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 07:59:27 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> I cannot understand why the DNSO Secretariate shouldn't treat us like the
> CLIENT with some sort of service level agreement for mailing lists and
> websites.

On Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:50:36 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Finally, the NC has spent considerable time to start a recruitment and
> fund raising process in order to improve DNSO secretariat support. The
> GA like the NC will be a beneficiary of this.

Tell me you're kidding.  Do we get to select the service provider?

Independently of Names Council control?

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
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: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 08:22:32 -0700
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the Worl d

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Let me see if I understand this.  The constituencies pay for the services,
> but the GA wants to call the shots?

The GA is _supposed to be_ an umbrella organization encompassing all the
constituencies, so the idea that resources could be allocated to it without
charging those who participate in it a separate fee isn't that hard to
accept. I hope the current problem of this being a de facto place for
unaffiliated DNSO participants will be cured when an individual domain name
owners constituency is finally chartered and operational.

      -- Bret

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

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:40:32 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Independance Day

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
> Good.
> From my part, I am looking forward to an Independence Day for Netizens
> outside the United States to celebrate an Internet Governance that is not
> taken hostage by US Governemnt and US Congress.
>

If you are looking for that on the IPv4 Internet, you might wait a long
time.
You have to look at the Address Space Allocations to understand what is
under (or behind) what you are using. Here  is a sample, of who "owns"
the cyberspace you are walking on.....

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
Address Block Registry - Purpose   Date
- --------------- --------------------------------------- ------
000/8  IANA - Reserved    Sep 81
001/8  IANA - Reserved    Sep 81
002/8  IANA - Reserved    Sep 81
003/8  General Electric Company  May 94
004/8  Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.  Dec 92
005/8  IANA - Reserved    Jul 95
006/8  Army Information Systems Center  Feb 94
007/8  IANA - Reserved    Apr 95
008/8  Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.  Dec 92
009/8  IBM     Aug 92
010/8  IANA - Private Use   Jun 95
011/8  DoD Intel Information Systems  May 93
012/8  AT&T Bell Laboratories   Jun 95
013/8  Xerox Corporation   Sep 91
014/8  IANA - Public Data Network  Jun 91
015/8  Hewlett-Packard Company   Jul 94
016/8  Digital Equipment Corporation  Nov 94
017/8  Apple Computer Inc.   Jul 92
018/8  MIT     Jan 94
019/8  Ford Motor Company   May 95
020/8  Computer Sciences Corporation  Oct 94
021/8  DDN-RVN     Jul 91
022/8  Defense Information Systems Agency May 93
023/8  IANA - Reserved    Jul 95
024/8  ARIN - Cable Block   May 01
                (Formerly IANA - Jul 95)
025/8  Royal Signals and Radar Establishment Jan 95
026/8  Defense Information Systems Agency May 95
027/8  IANA - Reserved    Apr 95
028/8  DSI-North    Jul 92
029/8  Defense Information Systems Agency Jul 91
030/8  Defense Information Systems Agency Jul 91
- -------

If each of the above were an acre of land and there are only 200 acres,
one might wonder why/how this small group of people and/or companies
came to own the land.....

Who will own the land on Next Generation Internets ?

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12574.html
RFC-2001-07-01-000 IPv8 Expansion of Proof of Concept TLD Development

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-Arizona.com
http://www.DOT.Arizona

- --
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: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:01:35 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the World

Chuck,

You may have forgotten, the "customers" pay for the services....
Customers are behind each of those $6 per year fees that go to you.
With 30 million of them, that is $180,000,000 per year to run a cluster
of nameservers ?.....and some database servers for the Registrars...???

....that operation should largely be untouched by human hands, if it is not,
there must be a reason....if it costs more than say $10,000,000 per year
to run that operation....there must be a reason....where does the other
$170,000,000 per year go ?....certainly not back to the customers...
...or the Registrars....

Please explain where the $170,000,000 goes....

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12574.html
RFC-2001-07-01-000 IPv8 Expansion of Proof of Concept TLD Development

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-Arizona.com
http://www.DOT.Arizona

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Patrick Corliss'" <[email-masked]>; "Philip Sheppard"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "M. Stuart Lynn, ICANN" <[email-masked]>; "Names Council"
<[email-masked]>; "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 9:52 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the World

> Let me see if I understand this.  The constituencies pay for the services,
> but the GA wants to call the shots?
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 8:34 AM
> To: Philip Sheppard
> Cc: M. Stuart Lynn, ICANN; Names Council; [ga]
> Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the
> World
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 07:59:27 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > I cannot understand why the DNSO Secretariate shouldn't treat us like
the
> > CLIENT with some sort of service level agreement for mailing lists and
> > websites.
>
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:50:36 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>
> > Finally, the NC has spent considerable time to start a recruitment and
> > fund raising process in order to improve DNSO secretariat support. The
> > GA like the NC will be a beneficiary of this.
>
> Tell me you're kidding.  Do we get to select the service provider?
>
> Independently of Names Council control?
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #591
************************