Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #628
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, July 25 2001           Volume 01 : Number 628

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 19:03:17 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Letter from New.net to ICANN Board

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/schecter-letter-to-icann-16jul01.htm

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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 19:04:24 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/levee-letter-to-schecter-23jul01.htm

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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:14:30 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NSI registrar slamming complaint a smokescreen?

And which amuses me no end.  NSI, the champion of the
Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act, in fact encourages the
practice (and has its own "warehouse," of course), so seeing
them get caught short in such a deal helps to "make my day."
(Apologies to Clint Eastwood.)

Bill Lovell

Andy Gardner wrote:

> NSI's slamming complaint is probably just an attempt to divert shareholder
> attention from the fact that they recently deleted over 100,000 domain
> names in the 500xxxxx.com 1500xxxxx.com and 1-500xxxxx.com patterns.
>
> No doubt the person who registered these 100,000+ names two years ago never
> paid NSI a bean for them, and NSI wants to sweep the $7,000,000 bad debt
> under the carpet while the shareholders are applauding them for protecting
> the stock value via the slamming charges.
>
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 19:26:50 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Letter from ICANN to New.net

Jeffrey A. LeVee wrote in his response to Daniel Schecter:

"My client encourages New.net to continue participating in the public debate
rather than attempting to thwart open discussion by sending threatening
letters to non-profit policy coordination entities such as ICANN."

I find it interesting that ICANN is no longer a technical coordination entity.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:34:09 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

Some relevant questions concerning this letter:

On what basis is ICANN claiming "consensus?"

What is the basis for the statement "the concept
of multiple roots clearly leads to the potential for
conflicting top level domains and consequent
Internet instability," and if that is true, why is
it establishing a .biz TLD, when there already is
one of those, which could bring about the
very collision it decries?

Can ICANN still assert that it is a "non-profit
policy coordination entit(y)?"

Bill Lovell

[email-masked] wrote:

> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/levee-letter-to-schecter-23jul01.htm
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found 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: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 07:35:32 +0800
From: Jim Ayson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Solemn public question to Peter de Blanc

At 02:31 PM 7/21/2001 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>Today the new ".pe" ccTLD Manager is ... the Constitutional President of 
>the Peruvian Republic and the ".pe" registry the Peruvian TM and IP 
>Administration. To my knowledge this is - with Andorra - the second 
>country in the world to decide that the color of the sky is green.

What happened to the original ccTLD manager?

- --------------------------------
jim ayson / [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: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 18:52:10 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

Chewy; but not tasty.

I appreciate them publicly releasing the information and the thoughtfulness 
with which they wrote their response; in addition, I prefer the ICANN walk 
that talk as I am tired of reading meaningful word combinations from them 
that without action simply appear to be a defence mechanism of rhetoric.

~k

For every ten people who are clipping at the branches of evil, you're lucky 
to  find one who's hacking at the roots.

           -  -  -  -  -  -  Henry David Thoreau  (1817-1862) American 
philosopher

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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 20:00:58 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] The first New.net Name Appraisal at Afternic

http://www.afternic.com/index.cfm?a=rs&listid=2020446
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:46:43 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Letter from ICANN to New.net

Thank you, Sotiris!  In  my comment, I missed the switch
from "technical coordination" to "policy coordination" --
a fiction having no lawful authority behind it that by
communications such as these ICANN is trying to turn
into fact.

Bill Lovell

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Jeffrey A. LeVee wrote in his response to Daniel Schecter:
>
> "My client encourages New.net to continue participating in the public debate
> rather than attempting to thwart open discussion by sending threatening
> letters to non-profit policy coordination entities such as ICANN."
>
> I find it interesting that ICANN is no longer a technical coordination entity.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 20:40:38 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to Stuart Lynn"

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00040.doc
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:43:05 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to Stuart Lynn"

At 20:40 24/07/01 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00040.doc

quote
The Constituency is clearly concerned that certain registrars are employing 
new and onerous transfer policies that create confusion and registrant 
burdens and dissatisfaction. We fear that this is to preserve their 
customer base under the guise of consumer protection.
unquote

Two self-serving transfer policies, both promoted under the guise of 
registrant "protection".
When can the registrants themselves have their say in how they would like 
to be "protected"?

- -joop

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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:32:21 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

On 18:52 24/07/01 -0700, Kristy McKee said:
>Chewy; but not tasty.
>
>I appreciate them publicly releasing the information and the 
>thoughtfulness with which they wrote their response; in addition, I prefer 
>the ICANN walk that talk as I am tired of reading meaningful word 
>combinations from them that without action simply appear to be a defence 
>mechanism of rhetoric.

Agree with Kristy!
Now ICANN has climbed the moral high ground, it's time for action to prove 
that it's all for real.

- -joop

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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 23:50:40 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Upcoming ALSC Meeting

Next ALSC session:

The meeting details are:-

DATE: Monday, August 13
TIME: 16:00 - 20:00
PLACE: 487 East Middlefield Road, Mountain View, CA 94043 (VeriSign
conference room)

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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 21:07:34 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Upcoming ALSC Meeting

- --------------F7D9A33212FBC8E40573C3B1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

[email-masked] wrote:

> Next ALSC session:
>
> The meeting details are:-
>
> DATE: Monday, August 13
> TIME: 16:00 - 20:00
> PLACE: 487 East Middlefield Road, Mountain View, CA 94043 (VeriSign
> conference room)

Oh, for heaven's sake! Whose idea was that ("that" meaning holding
the meeting in the Verisign conference room)?  Will dissidents, anti-
ICANN agitators and NSI/Verisign critics be hog-tied, white-washed,
perfumed and gagged as they come in the door? While the NSI/Verisign
stalwarts are wreathed with garlands, with red carpets and the sound of
trumpets?  A more pathetically inept (or "ept," depending on what side
of the fence you are on) strategic move I could scarcely imagine.

To quote the venerable President Reagan, "I paid for this microphone!"

Bill Lovell.

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

- --
Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --------------F7D9A33212FBC8E40573C3B1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>[email-masked] wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Next ALSC session:
<p>The meeting details are:-
<p>DATE: Monday, August 13
<br>TIME: 16:00 - 20:00
<br>PLACE: 487 East Middlefield Road, Mountain View, CA 94043 (VeriSign
<br>conference room)</blockquote>
Oh, for heaven's sake! Whose idea was <i>that </i>("that" meaning holding
<br>the meeting in the Verisign conference room)?&nbsp; Will dissidents,
anti-
<br>ICANN agitators and NSI/Verisign critics be hog-tied, white-washed,
<br>perfumed and gagged as they come in the door? While the NSI/Verisign
<br>stalwarts are wreathed with garlands, with red carpets and the sound
of
<br>trumpets?&nbsp; A more pathetically inept (or "ept," depending on what
side
<br>of the fence you are on) strategic move I could scarcely imagine.
<p>To quote the venerable President Reagan, "I paid for this microphone!"
<p>Bill Lovell.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>

<p>--
<br>Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
<br>possibly be explained at:
<br>"WHAT IS": <A HREF="http://whatis.techtarget.com/">http://whatis.techtarget.com/</A>
<br>GLOSSARY: <A HREF="http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm">http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm</A>
<br>Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
<br>mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</A>
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------F7D9A33212FBC8E40573C3B1--

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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:59:16 +0800
From: "erica" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency  to Stuart Lynn"

Joop says:
> When can the registrants themselves have their say in how they would like
> to be "protected"?
>
I agree that this is an important issue and I know that many registrars
would be interested in developing a code of conduct incorporating a
'customer bill of rights' or something of the sort.  We already have
protection for customer IP rights but this is just one aspect of the
consumer protection issue.  Others aspects include name portability
(otherwise known as transfers), change of registrant, and billing.
One way of moving the issue forward would be for the NC to put together a
cross constituency WG to identify consumer protection principles to be
incorporated into ICANN policy.  Alternatively, the GA or any constituency
is free to draft a set of principles, and refer them to the NC for
consideration and endorsement by the DNSO.

erica

At any event, it is up to the DNSO to prgress the issue.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to
Stuart Lynn"

> At 20:40 24/07/01 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00040.doc
>
> quote
> The Constituency is clearly concerned that certain registrars are
employing
> new and onerous transfer policies that create confusion and registrant
> burdens and dissatisfaction. We fear that this is to preserve their
> customer base under the guise of consumer protection.
> unquote
>
> Two self-serving transfer policies, both promoted under the guise of
> registrant "protection".
>
>
> -joop
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:03:52 +0800
From: "erica" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to Stuart Lynn"

Be aware that this issue is being closely followed by the GA - many of whose
members have a real interest inthe issue.
see below.
erica
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 8:40 AM
Subject: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to Stuart
Lynn"

> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00040.doc
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 22:41:59 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency  to Stuart  Lynn"

- --------------0BAF30D3AD84AA41B704A3C1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

erica wrote:

> Joop says:
> > When can the registrants themselves have their say in how they would like
> > to be "protected"?
> >
> I agree that this is an important issue and I know that many registrars
> would be interested in developing a code of conduct incorporating a
> 'customer bill of rights' or something of the sort.  We already have
> protection for customer IP rights but this is just one aspect of the
> consumer protection issue.  Others aspects include name portability
> (otherwise known as transfers), change of registrant, and billing.
> One way of moving the issue forward would be for the NC to put together a
> cross constituency WG to identify consumer protection principles to be
> incorporated into ICANN policy.  Alternatively, the GA or any constituency
> is free to draft a set of principles, and refer them to the NC for
> consideration and endorsement by the DNSO.

Which comments are precisely in accord with what the Best Practices
describes.  The ISSUE having been identified, here we have two
SUGGESTIONS on how that ISSUE might be addressed. This is
what is meant when it is said that the Best Practices is not a set of
rules, but rather a tool that can be used in reaching viable decisions.
In the ordinary course of events, vigorous DISCUSSION  of these
SUGGESTIONS should now follow, out of which someone might
say, "well, let's pick one of these to pursue." So in that case there might
be a POLL -- not in every case, but maybe in this one. Whichever way
that fell, one or the other (or maybe both) of the sets of principles noted
above, assuming that a BASIS had been provided therefor (any work
product of a WG or an identified constituency would inherently have a
BASIS) would then gain RECOGNITION as a PROPOSAL, which
might then be subjected not to mere DISCUSSION, but to more rigorous
DEBATE, and ultimately there would develop a MOTION that would
itself gain the necessary RECOGNITION, etc., etc., and ultimately a
VOTE would be carried out. These are all natural courses of events,
and have been given these names mostly so that people can track what
is going on, what has gone before, and what is yet to come in order to
be able to participate knowledgeably and thus reach some final result
that would be worthy of being identified as the will of the General Assembly.

The developing description of the Best Practices can be followed on
ga-rules, for those who would like to know more about it, or indeed
participate in its development.

Bill Lovell

>
>
> erica
>
> At any event, it is up to the DNSO to prgress the issue.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to
> Stuart Lynn"
>
> > At 20:40 24/07/01 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00040.doc
> >
> > quote
> > The Constituency is clearly concerned that certain registrars are
> employing
> > new and onerous transfer policies that create confusion and registrant
> > burdens and dissatisfaction. We fear that this is to preserve their
> > customer base under the guise of consumer protection.
> > unquote
> >
> > Two self-serving transfer policies, both promoted under the guise of
> > registrant "protection".
> >
> >
> > -joop
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.

- --
Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --------------0BAF30D3AD84AA41B704A3C1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<br>erica wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Joop says:
<br>> When can the registrants themselves have their say in how they would
like
<br>> to be "protected"?
<br>>
<br>I agree that this is an important issue and I know that many registrars
<br>would be interested in developing a code of conduct incorporating a
<br>'customer bill of rights' or something of the sort.&nbsp; We already
have
<br>protection for customer IP rights but this is just one aspect of the
<br>consumer protection issue.&nbsp; Others aspects include name portability
<br>(otherwise known as transfers), change of registrant, and billing.
<br>One way of moving the issue forward would be for the NC to put together
a
<br>cross constituency WG to identify consumer protection principles to
be
<br>incorporated into ICANN policy.&nbsp; Alternatively, the GA or any
constituency
<br>is free to draft a set of principles, and refer them to the NC for
<br>consideration and endorsement by the DNSO.</blockquote>
Which comments are precisely in accord with what the Best Practices
<br>describes.&nbsp; The ISSUE having been identified, here we have two
<br>SUGGESTIONS on how that ISSUE might be addressed. This is
<br>what is meant when it is said that the Best Practices is not a set
of
<br>rules, but rather a tool that can be used in reaching viable decisions.
<br>In the ordinary course of events, vigorous DISCUSSION&nbsp; of these
<br>SUGGESTIONS should now follow, out of which someone might
<br>say, "well, let's pick one of these to pursue." So in that case there
might
<br>be a POLL -- not in every case, but maybe in this one. Whichever way
<br>that fell, one or the other (or maybe both) of the sets of principles
noted
<br>above, assuming that a BASIS had been provided therefor (any work
<br>product of a WG or an identified constituency would inherently <i>have</i>
a
<br>BASIS) would then gain RECOGNITION as a PROPOSAL, which
<br>might then be subjected not to mere DISCUSSION, but to more rigorous
<br>DEBATE, and ultimately there would develop a MOTION that would
<br>itself gain the necessary RECOGNITION, etc., etc., and ultimately a
<br>VOTE would be carried out. These are all natural courses of events,
<br>and have been given these names mostly so that people can track what
<br>is going on, what has gone before, and what is yet to come in order
to
<br>be able to participate knowledgeably and thus reach some final result
<br>that would be worthy of being identified as the will of the General
Assembly.
<p>The developing description of the Best Practices can be followed on
<br>ga-rules, for those who would like to know more about it, or indeed
<br>participate in its development.
<p>Bill Lovell
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<p>erica
<p>At any event, it is up to the DNSO to prgress the issue.
<br>----- Original Message -----
<br>From: "Joop Teernstra" &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>To: &lt;[email-masked]>; &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:43 AM
<br>Subject: Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency
to
<br>Stuart Lynn"
<p>> At 20:40 24/07/01 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
<br>> ><a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00040.doc">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00040.doc</a>
<br>>
<br>> quote
<br>> The Constituency is clearly concerned that certain registrars are
<br>employing
<br>> new and onerous transfer policies that create confusion and registrant
<br>> burdens and dissatisfaction. We fear that this is to preserve their
<br>> customer base under the guise of consumer protection.
<br>> unquote
<br>>
<br>> Two self-serving transfer policies, both promoted under the guise
of
<br>> registrant "protection".
<br>>
<br>>
<br>> -joop
<br>>
<br>> --
<br>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.</blockquote>
- --
<br>Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
<br>possibly be explained at:
<br>"WHAT IS": <A HREF="http://whatis.techtarget.com/">http://whatis.techtarget.com/</A>
<br>GLOSSARY: <A HREF="http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm">http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm</A>
<br>Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
<br>mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</A>
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------0BAF30D3AD84AA41B704A3C1--

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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:00:53 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] letter to Joe Sims

- --=====================_15693967==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear Mr. Joe Sims,
The response from Mr. Levee to New.net calls for two responses. One 
negative to the letter itself. One as an invitation to progress further 
together.

Commenting Mr. Levee's letter

The letter says:
"
Lawyers' demands are not likely to be appealing to the Internet community, 
which prides itself on free and open debate on issues of significant public 
importance.
Because ICANN believes in full public discussion of important issues, we 
will post your letter, and this response, on ICANN's website.
"
Out of its context that response would be sensible. In response to a demand 
for a minimum courtesy I feel it extremely arrogant.

But the leading sentence:
"
As the consensus-based entity formed by the Internet community to 
coordinate the operation of the Internet's authoritative Domain Name System 
(DNS) in the public interest,
"
is quite surprising. The  AmerICANN had certainly been formed by an 
Internet community: I suppose I do not belong to that community since such 
a consensus does not reflect - by far - my concepts of the nets. So that 
community was not the Global Internet Community - of which I suppose I am a 
Member  for some time.

Then I discover that it was created to "coordinate the operations", in an 
other document it will be to "coordinate the policy" (very interesting how 
a lawyer does understand service support), of the "authoritative" Domain 
Name System (DNS). Now the whole DNS becomes authoritative. Great!  You are 
not authoritative about Internet and DNS but you are about using great 
words with authority....

I suggest you use "the authoritative Internet coordinator" for a  while, 
then the "the Authoritative Coordinator" and eventually "the Great 
Authoritative Coordinator" or GAC. It sounds more professional than "Big 
Brother".

The most offending part is actually "in the public interest". Let suppose 
the Internet community was the Global Internet Community (the GIC not the 
GIP - http://gip.org ), naming its Members - i.e. all of us, the community 
- - the "public" ... I resent that. Mr. Levee, Mr. Sims the Internet is for 
you a source of revenues. For many of us and for 25 years it is a source of 
expenses and of intellectual and hard work given to the community or 
invested for a legitimate return. Certainly far more than the "less than $ 
10.000" the AmerICANN purchased the IANA functions.  For several years now 
- - with a brilliant professionalism, and this is the most worrying problem 
for the Community - you have lead a fossilization of the Internet and made 
all of us wasting our money, time, expected returns and most of all 
delaying technical accomplishments for the whole world.

There is no more real innovation on the Internet. Your legal "coordination" 
has blocked the momentum. Hence the users' progressive disinterest and the 
economical impact on the whole planet. There is no dispute about it, and I 
suppose you will accept it: Joe Sims is the key person behind Louis Touton 
and the Staff.  We may disagree with New.net, but they are innovative, you 
are not.

"it is not technically feasible for there to be more than one root in the 
public DNS." Is it not a nice and cute response to a person who is actually 
operating another root? This reminds me once I called Air France because my 
daughter (8 years old) had disappeared from an Air France flight and after 
six hours no one was able to tell where she was. They rebuked me and were 
keeping responding "we never lost a kid" while I was saying "you lost mine: 
what are you going to do about it". I must say that whenever I read such 
inept responses by AMerICANN's Staff, I remember my anger of that day...

My opinion being "truthful, accurate, and honestly held", I hope you will 
not object to it: this kind of dumb response does not serve at all the 
interests of the Global Internet Community.

"
Lawyers' demands are not likely to be appealing to the Internet community, 
which prides itself on free and open debate on issues of significant public 
importance.
"
Your lawyer's demand is not appealing on me and on many others of the 
Global Internet Community as we pride ourselves on free and open debate on 
issues of significant importance.

You will tell me you share your opinion with the AmerICANN Staff. Will you 
tell me too that my opinion is no part of the consensus? Actually, we may 
disagree on important issues, but I suppose that most of us agree on mutual 
respect and politeness. There  is also a difference: you are paid to 
express yours and I am not, and that we are the ones who pay you.

Someone quoted President Reagan "I paid for that microphone". I am afraid 
that the microphone we paid for does not work.

Now let progress together

Gentlemen from New.net, we may disagree with you. Be sure we will stay 
courteous and you are welcome here at the GA.

But I would wish you to be more innovative so Joe Sims might agree with you.

This is the challenge. For years and years we have fueled a dispute between 
bottom-uppers and top-downers. Let try a new concept all of us know but the 
Net makes possible: "me/we". The family, the community, the subsidiarity 
concept: my authority respecting others' ones.

We are bound to live together and to share the same resources. Instead of 
saying "I am the single authoritative root" which technically means you are 
God or nothing, or "be polite, please", let try to understand how the nets 
really works and to figure out the progresses that each of us may propose 
towards a consensus.

First thing we must dig into (and improve) a few basic concepts.

The DNS is a conceptual plan like the geographical or the postal addressing 
plan. The authority - in term of decision - is me on my machine. The 
authority - in term of reference - is who ever I entrusted my information 
to. A domain name is a domain name: when I name my 1265 12street-W house 
"little nest" I give it a domain name.

The Bind system is a way to use the DNS system. There are different systems 
doing that. What they have in common is not to be a data base. The 
complexity of the DNS and Bind to new comers is that it is described as a 
"hierarchical database", so they try to understand it as that. A complex 
task since it is a "progressive filter". But to understand that you must 
forget about the DNS religious war and the top-down and bottom-up dispute.

There is no users, providers, etc... as such. The Internet is a consensus 
of the participating parties to use the TCP/IP protocol set and the IP 
addressing plan associated to the DNS. There are only Internet Consensus 
Participants. Every of them are users, content providers, ... when I send a 
mail I add to the content. The Participants as a whole are by nature the 
Global Internet Community. Participants are authoritative so there is a TLD 
when one Participant says there is one. There is a TLD Manager when someone 
one says "I will assume the Job!". Does that mean that the TLD Manager is 
serious and must be accepted at face value? No! But the participant, yes! 
Remember how it worked in the pre-Joe Sims days.

So there is a real work ahead to make simple things like that accepted by 
everyone. And turned into documentation. In a best general interest 
protection scheme (please not the "public interest"). This may contradict a 
long philosophy of Joe Sims. I do not know; but better to hurt someone's 
position than to un into the major problems ahead.

TLD squatting is a reality. The AmerICANN disinterest is from lack of 
power. It should be replaced by a positive policy. I am a developing root 
administrator: not to compete with the AmerICANN, but because Mike Roberts 
forced me to take that long and costly path to obtain the service I need. 
In blocking the necessary innovation and then in blocking the proposition 
to foster that innovation. Let agree together about a policy regarding TLD 
squatting. We did it among several open roots, why not with the ICANN and 
New.net? We are all concerned and the trustees of the future true TLD Managers.

Most of all, the network needs innovation. AmerICANN blocks it. Let have it 
to foster innovation. First let have you devise an IP protection scheme (I 
think it is your field) making an innovation presented to the AmerICANN or 
another similar forum protected like by a patent or at least a common non 
circumvention obligation. So we may [be] propose[d] new ideas and new 
concepts. Let have Jones Day offering a very good deal: if they work for 
the legal field of an innovation, they will get it as a customer. Most of 
the network changes will call for a lot of e-legal internet and AmerICANN 
paper-work. Let not have this blocking improvements of interest to the 
entire world.

Faithfully yours.

Jefsey Morfin

- --=====================_15693967==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Dear Mr. Joe Sims,<br>
The response from Mr. Levee to New.net calls for two responses. One
negative to the letter itself. One as an invitation to progress further
together.<br>
<br>
<br>
<b><u>Commenting Mr. Levee's letter</b> <br>
<br>
</u>The letter says:<br>
&quot;<br>
Lawyers' demands are not likely to be appealing to the Internet
community, which prides itself on free and open debate on issues of
significant public importance. <br>
Because ICANN believes in full public discussion of important issues, we
will post your letter, and this response, on ICANN's website.<br>
&quot;<br>
Out of its context that response would be sensible. In response to a
demand for a minimum courtesy I feel it extremely arrogant. <br>
<br>
<br>
But the leading sentence:<br>
&quot;<br>
As the consensus-based entity formed by the Internet community to
coordinate the operation of the Internet's authoritative Domain Name
System (DNS) in the public interest, <br>
&quot;<br>
is quite surprising. The&nbsp; AmerICANN had certainly been formed by an
Internet community: I suppose I do not belong to that community since
such a consensus does not reflect - by far - my concepts of the nets. So
that community was not the Global Internet Community - of which I suppose
I am a Member&nbsp; for some time.<br>
<br>
Then I discover that it was created to &quot;coordinate the
operations&quot;, in an other document it will be to &quot;coordinate the
policy&quot; (very interesting how a lawyer does understand service
support), of the &quot;authoritative&quot; Domain Name System (DNS). Now
the whole DNS becomes authoritative. Great!&nbsp; You are not
authoritative about Internet and DNS but you are about using great words
with authority....&nbsp; <br>
<br>
I suggest you use &quot;the authoritative Internet coordinator&quot; for
a&nbsp; while, then the &quot;the Authoritative Coordinator&quot; and
eventually &quot;the Great Authoritative Coordinator&quot; or GAC. It
sounds more professional than &quot;Big Brother&quot;.<br>
<br>
<br>
The most offending part is actually &quot;in the public interest&quot;.
Let suppose the Internet community was the Global Internet Community (the
GIC not the GIP - http://gip.org ), naming its Members - i.e. all of us,
the community - the &quot;public&quot; ... I resent that.  Mr. Levee, Mr.
Sims the Internet is for you a source of revenues. For many of us and for
25 years it is a source of expenses and of intellectual and hard work
given to the community or invested for a legitimate return. Certainly far
more than the &quot;less than $ 10.000&quot; the AmerICANN purchased the
IANA functions.&nbsp; For several years now - with a brilliant
professionalism, and this is the most worrying problem for the Community
- - you have lead a fossilization of the Internet and made all of us
wasting our money, time, expected returns and most of all delaying
technical accomplishments for the whole world. <br>
<br>
There is no more real innovation on the Internet. Your legal
&quot;coordination&quot; has blocked the momentum. Hence the users'
progressive disinterest and the economical impact on the whole planet.
There is no dispute about it, and I suppose you will accept it: Joe Sims
is the key person behind Louis Touton and the Staff.&nbsp; We may
disagree with New.net, but they are innovative, you are not.<br>
<br>
<br>
&quot;it is not technically feasible for there to be more than one root
in the public DNS.&quot; Is it not a nice and cute response to a person
who is actually operating another root? This reminds me once I called Air
France because my daughter (8 years old) had disappeared from an Air
France flight and after six hours no one was able to tell where she was.
They rebuked me and were keeping responding &quot;we never lost a
kid&quot; while I was saying &quot;you lost mine: what are you going to
do about it&quot;. I must say that whenever I read such inept responses
by AMerICANN's Staff, I remember my anger of that day...<br>
<br>
My opinion being &quot;truthful, accurate, and honestly held&quot;, I
hope you will not object to it: this kind of dumb response does not serve
at all the interests of the Global Internet Community.<br>
<br>
<br>
&quot;<br>
Lawyers' demands are not likely to be appealing to the Internet
community, which prides itself on free and open debate on issues of
significant public importance. <br>
&quot;<br>
Your lawyer's demand is not appealing on me and on many others of the
Global Internet Community as we pride ourselves on free and open debate
on issues of significant importance. <br>
<br>
You will tell me you share your opinion with the AmerICANN Staff. Will
you tell me too that my opinion is no part of the consensus? Actually, we
may disagree on important issues, but I suppose that most of us agree on
mutual respect and politeness. There&nbsp; is also a difference: you are
paid to express yours and I am not, and that we are the ones who pay
you.<br>
<br>
Someone quoted President Reagan &quot;I paid for that microphone&quot;. I
am afraid that the microphone we paid for does not work. <br>
<br>
<br>
<b><u>Now let progress together<br>
<br>
</u></b>Gentlemen from New.net, we may disagree with you. Be sure we will
stay courteous and you are welcome here at the GA. <br>
<br>
But I would wish you to be more innovative so Joe Sims might agree with
you.<br>
<br>
This is the challenge. For years and years we have fueled a dispute
between bottom-uppers and top-downers. Let try a new concept all of us
know but the Net makes possible: &quot;me/we&quot;. The family, the
community, the subsidiarity concept: my authority respecting others'
ones.<br>
<br>
We are bound to live together and to share the same resources. Instead of
saying &quot;I am the single authoritative root&quot; which technically
means you are God or nothing, or &quot;be polite, please&quot;, let try
to understand how the nets really works and to figure out the progresses
that each of us may propose towards a consensus.<br>
<br>
First thing we must dig into (and improve) a few basic concepts. <br>
<br>
The DNS is a conceptual plan like the geographical or the postal
addressing plan. The authority - in term of decision - is me on my
machine. The authority - in term of reference - is who ever I entrusted
my information to. A domain name is a domain name: when I name my 1265
12street-W house &quot;little nest&quot; I give it a domain name. <br>
<br>
The Bind system is a way to use the DNS system. There are different
systems doing that. What they have in common is not to be a data base.
The complexity of the DNS and Bind to new comers is that it is described
as a &quot;hierarchical database&quot;, so they try to understand it as
that. A complex task since it is a &quot;progressive filter&quot;. But to
understand that you must forget about the DNS religious war and the
top-down and bottom-up dispute.<br>
<br>
There is no users, providers, etc... as such. The Internet is a consensus
of the participating parties to use the TCP/IP protocol set and the IP
addressing plan associated to the DNS. There are only Internet Consensus
Participants. Every of them are users, content providers, ... when I send
a mail I add to the content. The Participants as a whole are by nature
the Global Internet Community. Participants are authoritative so there is
a TLD when one Participant says there is one. There is a TLD Manager when
someone one says &quot;I will assume the Job!&quot;. Does that mean that
the TLD Manager is serious and must be accepted at face value? No! But
the participant, yes! Remember how it worked in the pre-Joe Sims
days.<br>
<br>
So there is a real work ahead to make simple things like that accepted by
everyone. And turned into documentation. In a best general interest
protection scheme (please not the &quot;public interest&quot;). This may
contradict a long philosophy of Joe Sims. I do not know; but better to
hurt someone's position than to un into the major problems ahead.<br>
<br>
TLD squatting is a reality. The AmerICANN disinterest is from lack of
power. It should be replaced by a positive policy. I am a developing root
administrator: not to compete with the AmerICANN, but because Mike
Roberts forced me to take that long and costly path to obtain the service
I need. In blocking the necessary innovation and then in blocking the
proposition to foster that innovation. Let agree together about a policy
regarding TLD squatting. We did it among several open roots, why not with
the ICANN and New.net? We are all concerned and the trustees of the
future true TLD Managers.<br>
<br>
Most of all, the network needs innovation. AmerICANN blocks it. Let have
it to foster innovation. First let have you devise an IP protection
scheme (I think it is your field) making an innovation presented to the
AmerICANN or another similar forum protected like by a patent or at least
a common non circumvention obligation. So we may [be] propose[d] new
ideas and new concepts. Let have Jones Day offering a very good deal: if
they work for the legal field of an innovation, they will get it as a
customer. Most of the network changes will call for a lot of e-legal
internet and AmerICANN paper-work. Let not have this blocking
improvements of interest to the entire world.<br>
<br>
Faithfully yours.<br>
<br>
Jefsey Morfin<br>
</html>

- --=====================_15693967==_.ALT--

- --
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 #628
************************