Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #597
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Saturday, July 7 2001            Volume 01 : Number 597

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 18:03:38 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Fw: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kids domain

Hello Rick,

Friday, July 06, 2001, 5:00:03 PM, Rick H Wesson wrote:

> Karl,

> aparently .info, biz, and all the rest of the new gltds are labels for
> content; and since certain new tlds have restrictions it seems .kids
> content censoring is in-line with the rest of icann's previous work.

I don't see content restrictions.

As a matter of fact, info has NO restrictions.

The others do not have "content" restrictions, just entity
restrictions on who can qualify to register, not on the content of
anything they do at that domain.

A .kids domain as proposed by this outrageous Congressional
suggestion, would in effect have to limit itself to a domain for
websites only, and have some form of content policing.

This would be tantamount to censorship, practically forcing anyone who
has content which is suitable for under-18 crowds to register a .kids
domain, and duplicate the "under-18 suitable" content, or be at great
risk of those individuals not being able to access their sites.

This is not, and should not be, the role of the DNS, to be a tool for
censorship and self styled content police.

Of course, this bill needs to be put into perspective.  None of these
two congressmen's previous "anti-ICANN" efforts have met with the
approval of their fellow committee members.  Further, the
overwhelming and vast majority of bills, particularly special interest
bills such as this one is, die in committee, never reaching the house
floor.

In committee, the congressmen and congresswomen would be educated on
why this plan of theirs is a bad idea, and why they should not ever
consider creating TLDs by congressional fiat, and the real harm to the
international scope of ICANN if they try and force it.

This bill is not meant to get a .kids TLD, it is meant to harm the
credibility of ICANN, by forcing ICANN to do something at the US
Congress' bidding, and thus cause further harm to the international
feelings about ICANN.

- -- 
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: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 18:15:46 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Fw: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kids domain

Hello Karl,

Friday, July 06, 2001, 5:42:19 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> Right.  And I find it very troubling that ICANN has undertaken what, to my
> mind, amounts to a vague, and probably unenforceable, promise to the
> internet community that .info and the ICANN approved version of .biz will
> be used in particular ways.

Please show where they promised anything for .info except that it was
an open unrestricted gTLD?

But that said, I completely agree with you on this:

> Is "using" a domain name to be measured by web services, by e-mail
> services, by chat or messaging services, ... ?  And what is ICANN going to
> do if somebody deep down in the ICANN approved .biz should be hosting an
> instant-message-based "escort" business?

> That kind of thing simply is not part of "technical" coordination of the
> DNS - that's the kind of thing that is better suited for a legislature to
> handle.

> As a general matter, it's my feeling that ICANN ought to be absolutely
> blind to any purported semantics of a domain name.  There are plenty of
> laws on the books already to handle defamation, trademark infringement,
> misappropriation of identity, misrepresentation, etc.  We don't need to
> overlay that system with a lex-ICANNia.

Agreed. 101%

- -- 
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: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 20:46:12 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kids domain

Karl,

Since everything ICANN is doing is a "proof-of-concept"
on the "toy" IPv4 Internet, I am not sure it matters in the long-term.
If you look around any of the other major name space expansion
movements, I think you will see that people have moved well-beyond
the level of the ICANN experiments.

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.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>
To: "Rick H Wesson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>; "GA" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kids
domain

>
>
> > > Content labelling by use of domain name names is a very naive, and
> > > bludgeoning, way to make use Internet technology as a tool of
government.
>
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Rick H Wesson wrote:
>
> > aparently .info, biz, and all the rest of the new gltds are labels for
> > content; and since certain new tlds have restrictions it seems .kids
> > content censoring is in-line with the rest of icann's previous work.
>
> Right.  And I find it very troubling that ICANN has undertaken what, to my
> mind, amounts to a vague, and probably unenforceable, promise to the
> internet community that .info and the ICANN approved version of .biz will
> be used in particular ways.
>
> Is "using" a domain name to be measured by web services, by e-mail
> services, by chat or messaging services, ... ?  And what is ICANN going to
> do if somebody deep down in the ICANN approved .biz should be hosting an
> instant-message-based "escort" business?
>
> That kind of thing simply is not part of "technical" coordination of the
> DNS - that's the kind of thing that is better suited for a legislature to
> handle.
>
> As a general matter, it's my feeling that ICANN ought to be absolutely
> blind to any purported semantics of a domain name.  There are plenty of
> laws on the books already to handle defamation, trademark infringement,
> misappropriation of identity, misrepresentation, etc.  We don't need to
> overlay that system with a lex-ICANNia.
>
> --karl--
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 21:33:33 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kids domain

Rick and all assembly members,

  Yes, unfortunately it seems that CENSORSHIP is one of the hallmarks
of the ICANN BOD and staff.  And a shame that it is!

Rick H Wesson wrote:

> Karl,
>
> aparently .info, biz, and all the rest of the new gltds are labels for
> content; and since certain new tlds have restrictions it seems .kids
> content censoring is in-line with the rest of icann's previous work.
>
> -rick
>
> > Content labelling by use of domain name names is a very naive, and
> > bludgeoning, way to make use Internet technology as a tool of government.
> >
> > --karl--
>
> --
> 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, 6 Jul 2001 19:36:35 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Fw: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kids domain

Hello Jim,

Friday, July 06, 2001, 6:46:12 PM, Jim Fleming wrote:

> Karl,

> Since everything ICANN is doing is a "proof-of-concept"
> on the "toy" IPv4 Internet, I am not sure it matters in the long-term.
> If you look around any of the other major name space expansion
> movements,

"Major" assumes that they are in wide use.

It's more like "minor" name space expansion movements.

- -- 
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: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 23:40:28 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Removal of Patrick Corliss as List Monitor

Dear General Assembly Members:

I have noted the following message posted by Patrick Corliss to the Council 
List:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00582.html

It is my view that the statement put forth constitutes malfeasance.  
Defamatory remarks have been made by an official of the Assembly that 
sufficiently malign some of our members on a publicly archived list.  As 
Chair, I cannot accept such commentary from an individual designated as a 
List Monitor for this Assembly.   I am therefore terminating Patrick's role 
as List Monitor immediately.

"Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have the task 
of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules.  These are 
selected by the GA Chair for a given period of time, but may be removed from 
the role by the GA Chair or at their own request at any time."  
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.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, 6 Jul 2001 22:43:28 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Fw: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kids domain

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
> 
> > Since everything ICANN is doing is a "proof-of-concept"
> > on the "toy" IPv4 Internet, I am not sure it matters in the long-term.
> > If you look around any of the other major name space expansion
> > movements,
> 
> "Major" assumes that they are in wide use.
> 
> It's more like "minor" name space expansion movements.
> 

For many people, the size is relative to the population of people
they prefer to communicate with. As you might see in the New.Net
community, the people there are more than happy to communicate
with ONLY the people in that community. In their view, they have
100% coverage of the market. They are actively encouraging web
designers to only use hosting companies from their community. The
ISPs that participate benefit. I doubt anyone there would shed a tear
if the ICANN site dried up and was swept into the bit bucket.

Also...

How are you able to measure the size of movements when you
claim not to participate in those movements ?

Have you ever created or received a packet on an IPv6 network ?

Have you ever created or received a packet on an IPv8 network ?

Have you ever created or received a packet on an IPv16 network ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.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, 06 Jul 2001 21:56:34 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Removal of Patrick Corliss as List Monitor

Very interesting and very important.  I see a de facto end to monitors.  And yes
I decline such a post. I think we should thank our colleagues who brought this
about.

Eric,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear General Assembly Members:
>
> I have noted the following message posted by Patrick Corliss to the Council
> List:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00582.html
>
> It is my view that the statement put forth constitutes malfeasance.
> Defamatory remarks have been made by an official of the Assembly that
> sufficiently malign some of our members on a publicly archived list.  As
> Chair, I cannot accept such commentary from an individual designated as a
> List Monitor for this Assembly.   I am therefore terminating Patrick's role
> as List Monitor immediately.
>
> "Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have the task
> of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules.  These are
> selected by the GA Chair for a given period of time, but may be removed from
> the role by the GA Chair or at their own request at any time."
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.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: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 21:59:36 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kids  domain

Head in the sand?  How apt for this post!

Wake up.

Eric

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Rick,
>
> Friday, July 06, 2001, 5:00:03 PM, Rick H Wesson wrote:
>
> > Karl,
>
> > aparently .info, biz, and all the rest of the new gltds are labels for
> > content; and since certain new tlds have restrictions it seems .kids
> > content censoring is in-line with the rest of icann's previous work.
>
> I don't see content restrictions.
>
> As a matter of fact, info has NO restrictions.
>
> The others do not have "content" restrictions, just entity
> restrictions on who can qualify to register, not on the content of
> anything they do at that domain.
>
> A .kids domain as proposed by this outrageous Congressional
> suggestion, would in effect have to limit itself to a domain for
> websites only, and have some form of content policing.
>
> This would be tantamount to censorship, practically forcing anyone who
> has content which is suitable for under-18 crowds to register a .kids
> domain, and duplicate the "under-18 suitable" content, or be at great
> risk of those individuals not being able to access their sites.
>
> This is not, and should not be, the role of the DNS, to be a tool for
> censorship and self styled content police.
>
> Of course, this bill needs to be put into perspective.  None of these
> two congressmen's previous "anti-ICANN" efforts have met with the
> approval of their fellow committee members.  Further, the
> overwhelming and vast majority of bills, particularly special interest
> bills such as this one is, die in committee, never reaching the house
> floor.
>
> In committee, the congressmen and congresswomen would be educated on
> why this plan of theirs is a bad idea, and why they should not ever
> consider creating TLDs by congressional fiat, and the real harm to the
> international scope of ICANN if they try and force it.
>
> This bill is not meant to get a .kids TLD, it is meant to harm the
> credibility of ICANN, by forcing ICANN to do something at the US
> Congress' bidding, and thus cause further harm to the international
> feelings about ICANN.
>
> --
> 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-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, 06 Jul 2001 22:02:37 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kids  domain

No WXW,

You are so blinded by hatred and who knows what else you miss the point and
perhaps that is good for all of us.

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Jim,
>
> Friday, July 06, 2001, 6:46:12 PM, Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> > Karl,
>
> > Since everything ICANN is doing is a "proof-of-concept"
> > on the "toy" IPv4 Internet, I am not sure it matters in the long-term.
> > If you look around any of the other major name space expansion
> > movements,
>
> "Major" assumes that they are in wide use.
>
> It's more like "minor" name space expansion movements.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 22:09:19 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kidsdomain

What worth does this have?  We have men that do not hold a candle to the GA
spirit representing us. It is a sad truth that we must take a lead by following
suit to this.

Sincerely,

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Rick and all assembly members,
>
>   Yes, unfortunately it seems that CENSORSHIP is one of the hallmarks
> of the ICANN BOD and staff.  And a shame that it is!
>
> Rick H Wesson wrote:
>
> > Karl,
> >
> > aparently .info, biz, and all the rest of the new gltds are labels for
> > content; and since certain new tlds have restrictions it seems .kids
> > content censoring is in-line with the rest of icann's previous work.
> >
> > -rick
> >
> > > Content labelling by use of domain name names is a very naive, and
> > > bludgeoning, way to make use Internet technology as a tool of government.
> > >
> > > --karl--
> >
> > --
> > 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

- --
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, 07 Jul 2001 00:29:33 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Removal of Patrick Corliss as List Monitor

Danny and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear General Assembly Members:
>
> I have noted the following message posted by Patrick Corliss to the Council
> List:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00582.html
>
> It is my view that the statement put forth constitutes malfeasance.
> Defamatory remarks have been made by an official of the Assembly that
> sufficiently malign some of our members on a publicly archived list.  As
> Chair, I cannot accept such commentary from an individual designated as a
> List Monitor for this Assembly.   I am therefore terminating Patrick's role
> as List Monitor immediately.

  After carefully reading the referenced post regarding the Atl-Chair, I
am compelled to agree with your decision in this regard.  I do however
wonder if you have the authority to make such a decision as the Chair?

>
>
> "Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have the task
> of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules.  These are
> selected by the GA Chair for a given period of time, but may be removed from
> the role by the GA Chair or at their own request at any time."
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.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, 06 Jul 2001 21:30:24 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kids domain

Bruce and all assembly members,

Bruce James wrote:

>     Very interesting email from Karl Auerbach:
>
> /Bruce
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Declan McCullagh" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 17:18
> Subject: FC: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kids domain
>
> Previous messages:
>
> "ICANN replies to Politech post about House bill and .kids"
> http://www.politechbot.com/p-02227.html

  I had to laugh out loud literally when I read the comments, if that is
how one would characterize them, that Joe Sims made in his response
to Delcan McCullagh.  The are as follows, including headers:
"Subject: Re: FC: U.S. House bill would force ICANN to approve .kids domain
To: [email-masked]
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:55:25 -0400

Declan, I'm surprised that a Washington expert like you would fall into the
(usually non-US) trap of thinking that two members of Congress equate to
the US Government.  I have no idea what the sponsors of this legislation
actually have in mind, or whether they think it could possibly be effective
if passed, but whatever their personal views, assuming that they represent
a majority of the Congress or (an even greater leap of logic) the views of
the Bush Administration seems quite a leap.  If and when this legislation
is ever seriously considered, and people actually have to state official
views on it, will be time enough to wonder about whether and how it could
be effective if it received majority support in the House, and there was
companion legislation in the Senate, and a conference committee came up
with a compromise that got majority support in both houses, and the
President signed the legislation.  As this little summary points out, that
is a very long and windy road indeed.  In the meantime, this bill should be
considered what it is -- one of hundreds of bills introduced in every
Congress for any number of reasons which may or may not ever go beyond
where it is right now.  If this is what you view as "government
regulation," I can live with it.  You are welcome to post this if you like.

Joe Sims
Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
51 Louisiana Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963

*********"
============  End of quoted Joe Sims E-Mail comments =====

  It seems obvious that even being right there in Washington D.C.
that Mr. Sims is a bit out of touch.

>
>
> "U.S. House bill would force ICANN to approve .kids domain"
> http://www.politechbot.com/p-02216.html
>
> ---
>
> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 12:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
> To: Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: FC: ICANN replies to Politech post about House bill and .kids
> In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
>
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
>  > [Perhaps I have done ICANN a disservice by suggesting that it is
> "becoming
>  > just another regulated federal agency."
>  > .... See below for a note from
>  > Joe Sims on behalf of ICANN. --Declan]
>
> Joe Sims does not speak for ICANN.
>
> As for my own point of view as a member of the Board of Directors of
> ICANN:
>
> Yes, there are thousands, probably tens of thousands, of bills submitted
> every year into the hoppers of legislatures and administrative agencies
> around the world.  And a lot of those do not become law.
>
> But many do.
>
> Any time members of the legislative body of the United States go so far as
> to submit a draft bill that not only affects ICANN, but indeed directly
> names ICANN and mandates ICANN behaviour, then as a Director I have to sit
> up and take notice.
>
> It simply would not be prudent to stick my Director's head in the sand
> and pretend to see nothing.
>
> I do not consider it appropriate management to bluster, as Sims does,
> against a situation and pretend that it has gone away.
>
> Unlike Sims, I am Director of ICANN and I am accountable for ICANN's
> actions.  I am not free to live in a fantasy world in which the United
> States Congress is of no more import than a small cloud in an otherwise
> clear sky.
>
> Personally, I think that the bill has some troublesome aspects - for
> instance, given that the US Government, not ICANN, controls the root zone
> via a contract with Verisign, the bill could simply take the form of a
> mandate to the Dept of Commerce to take the appropriate steps without any
> involvement from ICANN at all.
>
> But I find a lack of wisdom in any top-down imposition of "chartered" or
> limited purpose top level domains, particularly one in which the subject
> matter is as subjective and personal as "appropriate" content for
> children.  (One has to wonder at the amount of the content that would be
> considered appropriate by both the parents of a five year old Pakistani
> Islamic girl and the parents of a fifteen year old Danish boy.)
>
> I am perfectly happy to let private companies try to find their way
> through such a maze.  But it seems rather an inappropriate role for a
> national government, particularly given the extraterritorial impacts.
>
> The bill also falls victim to the commonplace belief that the domain name
> system is the only naming system for the Internet, and that the Internet
> is merely the world wide web.
>
> Content labelling by use of domain name names is a very naive, and
> bludgeoning, way to make use Internet technology as a tool of government.
>
> --karl--
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 03:40:42 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kidsdomain

The freedom to exclude is an important freedom.  If ICANN can open the
door, at a minimum, to non dictionary TLDs, and really expand the root,
eliminating the artificial scarcity rents, people would not complain
about someone running a restricted TLD, any more than they complain
about a restricted listserve, or a seal that is only available to people
who meet the requirements of the seal (such as truste).   What we don't
need is ICANN managing the content side of this, and we should leave
that up to the registries and registrars, in a competitive and non
monopolistic environment.  If ICANN has any role in terms of deciding
who is best to run a registry, it would be for dictionary words, where
IMO, at least some strings lend themselves to non-market allocations
(museum, coop, union), or should be reserved for trade associations,
professional organizations or industry groups with greater moral claims
on the sting that they are likely to be using (the film industry for
names like .movie, .film, .cinema, etc).   And even here, I would think
that ICANN should just award the TLD to a good candidate, and get out of
the way.

Jamie

- -- 
James Love
Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org
1.202.380.3080 fax 1.202.234.5176
mailto:[email-masked]
- --
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, 7 Jul 2001 01:44:39 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Fw: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kidsdomain

Hello James,

Saturday, July 07, 2001, 12:40:42 AM, James Love wrote:
> monopolistic environment.  If ICANN has any role in terms of deciding
> who is best to run a registry, it would be for dictionary words, where
> IMO, at least some strings lend themselves to non-market allocations
> (museum, coop, union), or should be reserved for trade associations,
> professional organizations or industry groups with greater moral claims

I don't agree.  I believe that the market should decide if the strings
have any meaning, and that the meaning of the strings is up to each
individual registrant.

Under the .museum rules, what qualifies an organization as a museum?

Does an associate who collects and displays archaic computers at his
shop, in a section called the Machine Museum, qualify?  Probably not
if you delegate it to some museum organization, but by what right is
he excluded?

words/strings are not like logos/seals, which are CREATED by an
association to identify it's members.  They exist outside of that
scope, and their meaning is subjective.

Union doesn't have to mean an organized labor organization, either.

There is no "moral claim" to these terms that exist outside the DNS,
and they absolutely should not exist inside the DNS.

It cannot be emphasized enough that the DNS is NOT a directory
service.   If you want a directory, there are numerous ones out there,
including Dmoz.org, and Yahoo.com.  There are specialized directories
as well.  That is not the role of the DNS.

ICANN should stay completely out of deciding any meanings or
restrictions on TLDs at all.  The standards for creating a restricted
TLD should be EXTREMELY high, with a major justification for why those
entities should be segregated, and why the string is the appropriate
on to segregate them with.

Should .union exist? Certainly, but what a waste of the namespace to
restrict it to labor organizations only.

- -- 
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, 7 Jul 2001 21:19:47 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Removal of Patrick Corliss as List Monitor

Hi Danny

> I have noted the following message posted by Patrick Corliss to the
> Council List:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00582.html
>
> It is my view that the statement put forth constitutes malfeasance.

Effectively you are saying that the Alternate Chair cannot report serious
concerns in a private communication to members of the Names Council.

Interesting hypothesis !!

It's also interesting that you have now disseminated my correspondence
to every member of the General Assembly.  All 300 of them.  Nice move.

> Defamatory remarks have been made by an official of the Assembly that
> sufficiently malign some of our members on a publicly archived list.

In relation to you I said:

*  Danny and I are not communicating.
*  Danny's proposed Organizing Committee has never got off the ground.

Both true and fair comment.  So who are you defending?

> As Chair, I cannot accept such commentary from an individual designated
> as a List Monitor for this Assembly.   I am therefore terminating
> Patrick's role as List Monitor immediately.

So now we are down to two.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #597
************************