Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #633
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, July 27 2001            Volume 01 : Number 633

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 20:30:32 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

On 26 Jul 2001, at 14:12, William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Eric,
> 
> This is like asking if Life was found Pluto what would you do.
> 
> Life can't exist on Pluto.  No need to have discussion.

You mean life forms familiar to us cannot live on Pluto.  To say that 
there could be no life forms on Pluto... Well, that's sort of like 
saying no one could travel in outer space.  After all, only the 
"lunatics" claimed that possiblity just a few decades ago.  

> 
> Thursday, July 26, 2001, 2:10:57 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
> 
> > William,
> 
> > We are narrowing the topic quite well and I appreciate your patience
> > with me and my sordid views.
> 
> > Let us take your position to be true today.  Now let us assume that
> > next year this is the scenario;
> 
> > ccTLDs are operating outside of ICANN and your authoritative root.
> > EU is operating outside of ICANN and your authoritative root. The
> > "class action" is ready to go to trial. New.net is operating under
> > the Amazon.com model has plenty of cash and still does not need to
> > turn a profit. Your best friend Mr. Flemming is fully funded. China
> > spends 1 billion on intranet infrastructure and APEC and ASEAN+3
> > buys into it.
> 
> > (there is no need to take issue with any particular it is simply the
> > scenario that there are market forces working for parameters outside
> > of the authoritative root as exists today)
> 
> > If this were the case would you be agreeable to try and work out a
> > cooperation agreement?
> 
> > Sincerely,
> > Eric
> 
> > "William X. Walsh" wrote:
> 
> >> Hello Eric,
> >>
> >> Thursday, July 26, 2001, 12:43:49 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >>
> >> > William,
> >>
> >> > Do you really think you can stop the market forces?  I think not.
> >>
> >> I Wouldn't call the alt.root the "market forces."
> >>
> >> Far far from it.
> >>
> >> It's amusing to even see someone make such a statement seriously,
> >> so I will assume that was "tongue in cheek."
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards,
> >> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 20:31:43 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 07:43:37PM -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 02:12:22PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >
> > > > In it, New.net does not argue for multiple roots systems,
> > >
> > > What they argue really isn't very important -- they are so full of hype
> > > you can't tell what they are talking about anyway.  What matters is what
> > > they *do*, and they have *done* is create an alternate root.
> >
> > Actually, it's more of an enhancement to the existing root... like an
> > amplification, if you will.
>
> You are just parroting hype.  The fact is that new.net has conflicting
> TLDs already.

Kent, I was under the impression that you were of the opinion that there's no such
thing as a conflicting TLDs...  Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you not state
that in the past Kent?  In any case, I am not "parroting hype"... you're engaging
in petty slurs.  But that's your style (or lack thereof) and we love you for it
Kent. :-)

>
>
> >  The simple brute fact is that ICANN and the USG
> > had not foreseen the inventive approach employed by new.net
>
> Sorry, once again I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about.
> There is nothing at all new in what new.net is doing.

Sure there is Kent... they're doing it. :-)  Oh, and what's so novel about what
the ICANN and the USG are doing, hmm?

>
>
> > to circumvent
> > the cartel-like conditions that were becoming increasingly evident through a
> > growing number of blatant abuses of a *non-existent power...
>
> "blatant abuse of a non-existent power"?

Well, according to Esther Dyson under ICANN letterhead:

"ICANN is Not a *Regulator* As this history establishes, and its bylaws make
clear, ICANN is a creation of the Internet community itself; perhaps the best
analogy, although not perfect, is a private standards-setting body. It has no
statutory authority, and never will; its influence derives solely from the
willingness of the various participants in the Internet -- both governmental and
non-governmental -- to participate in the development of its policies and abide by
the results of that consensus-development process. The global Internet is a
voluntary network of (mostly private) networks, and it works in large part because
the participants choose to work together to make it work."

Nonetheless, ICANN is certainly playing the regulator here and now, aren't they
Kent?

Regards,

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: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 18:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Kent Crispin wrote:

> > In it, New.net does not argue for multiple roots systems,
>
> What they argue really isn't very important -- they are so full of hype
> you can't tell what they are talking about anyway.  What matters is what
> they *do*, and they have *done* is create an alternate root.

Kent,

It is unfortunate that you refuse to discuss the issues rationally and
calmly and instead choose to engage in ad homeim attacks. I can only
hope that over time the folly of such an attitude will become apparent to
you if you desire that people pay attention to what you say and take you
seriously.

In the mean time, I certainly hope and urge others, whatever their
views to resist the urge to continue to enage in zero-sum politicking
that has marred this process from the very beginning and instead begin
a productive dialogue on these issues. They won't go away by vilifying
"the other side."

It would seem to me to be the best way to accomplish meaningful consensus.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 18:07:52 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Fwd: Virus Alert]

I've actually got three of these virus attacks today,
all from [email-masked].  Different
subjects. Should we commence emailing that
address? Don't think so -- in fact don't do it!

Bill Lovell

L Gallegos wrote:

> I've been receiving email with this virus for days.  It is increasing in
> volume hourly.  It's a particularly nasty virus, so I agree with you
> that everyone needs to watch for it, especially those who use
> Windows Outlook and Outlook express.
>
> Leah
>
> On 26 Jul 2001, at 14:03, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > FYI:
> >
> > I received the message noted below and immediately forwarded it
> > to the [email-masked], where I routinely forward spam, and a few
> > minutes later received this back from the FTC. So all of you watch
> > your mailboxes with care.
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >

- --
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: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 21:06:26 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

on 7/26/01 7:43 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos at [email-masked] wrote:

> Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 02:12:22PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> 
>>> In it, New.net does not argue for multiple roots systems,
>> 
>> What they argue really isn't very important -- they are so full of hype
>> you can't tell what they are talking about anyway.  What matters is what
>> they *do*, and they have *done* is create an alternate root.
> 
> Actually, it's more of an enhancement to the existing root... like an
> amplification, if you will.  The simple brute fact is that ICANN and the USG
> had not foreseen the inventive approach employed by new.net to circumvent the
> cartel-like conditions that were becoming increasingly evident through a
> growing number of blatant abuses of a *non-existent power...
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos

ICANN knows, as any business knows, that things change, that it is almost
impossible to guard against the unforeseen. What is so galling is that once
the unforeseen presents itself, ICANN not only denies its very existence, it
engages in duplicitous business practice by pretending it had a policy all
along for such an eventuality, and furthermore, when questioned on its
authority for making such a policy statement, then declares consensus on the
basis of ill-formed processes that have not been ratified by the public
whose interest it purports to represent. These are fascist practices.

If we give everybody the vote, we may not like what they vote for, but at
least they cannot claim ICANN is a dictatorship of special interest groups.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 18:48:42 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

A telling presumption exhibited here: if the "protocol community"
doesn't like something, ICANN should dump it.  However, the
Internet does not exist for the benefit of the "protocol community"
or ICANN; those two entities exist for the benefit of Internet
users.  It is those users who have the right and obligation to decide
what kind of Internet that will be, the single, "authoritative" (I just
love that audacious presumption!) root or multiple roots.

And most of my questions were not answered at all.

Bill Lovell

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Bill Lovell wrote:
> >
> >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?
>
> The basis for this statement is the position of the IETF, as summarised by
> the IAB.
> This item has also been debated at the PSO General Assembly some 10 days
> ago, and there has not been one single voice in favour of multiple roots.
> Incidentally, I have been one among others who spoke in favour of
> IAB/ICANN's position, but of course made it clear that I was speaking only
> as "a member of the DNSO/GA".
>
> I don't want to underestimate the importance of the different political POVs
> on the multiple roots, but since this issue has negligible support (if any
> at all) in the Protocol community, and specifically at the IETF, ICANN
> should not do anything else than dismiss it.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

- --
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: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 18:53:01 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

(See below.)

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> > From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 9:14 AM
> >
> > Bill Lovell wrote:
> > >
> > >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?
> >
> >
> > The basis for this statement is the position of the IETF, as
> > summarised by the IAB.
>
> As has been noted before, there is no technical basis for the IAB report. In
> fact, there was no technical content in that IAB report, whatsoever. It was
> purely a policy statement, decorated with FUD, pretending to technical
> legitimacy. I might add that, it wasn't worthy of the IAB, IMHO.
>
> > This item has also been debated at the PSO General Assembly
> > some 10 days ago, and there has not been one single voice in favour of
> > multiple roots.
>
> That is because those holding that position are not allowed to speak there
> or are actively attacked, with ad hominems, when they do.
>
> > I don't want to underestimate the importance of the different
> > political POVs on the multiple roots, but since this issue has negligible
> > support (if any at all) in the Protocol community, and specifically at the
>
> > IETF, ICANN should not do anything else than dismiss it.
>
> Let's see; Hold a meeting on a subject, beat off opposing views with clubs,
> lock the doors, then declare that there are no opposing views...nice and
> open. This is typical IETF procedure and what you report here appears no
> different. Multiple root concepts have been actively suppressed,
> politically, almost since the very start of the IETF.

That sounds just like my image of the ALSC meeting in the Verisign
conference room.

Bill Lovell

- --
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: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 04:12:41 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [centr-legal] Domain Council at .AT - facts

Hello Michael!

Michael Haberler wrote on 26.07.01, 22:12:57:
> The article on www.heise.de does reflect the journalists preconceptions,
> but not necessarily the facts, as I have commented there (in german, though).

<explanations snipped>
Thanks very much for the clarifications!

> While these members are not democratically legitimized by
> some election or consultation process or a 'LIC travelling circus' :-) they
> represent a large part of the LIC constituency, and also have the
> undeniable advantage of being competent in their field and have a clue what
> the Domain Name System is about. Take that: there are members which can
> actually edit a zone file. Now that's innovative.

:) Indeed. Just to clarify on my part: I did not intend
to criticize the Austrian approach, my emphasis was
mainly on the way the user community was integrated in
the Domain Name Council. It would be very easy to say:
"But are the VIBE people really representative of the
Austrian Internet user community?" It's undeniable that
it's harder to forge an user association than a group
of registrar companies -- but that's not a valid excuse
to exclude individual user interests, and I appreciate
that it has been attempted here.

> Judge yourself where you find a 'co-regulatory approach' here.

I admit that I took that phrase from the Heise.de article
and found it a bit harsh (even though there is quite a
difference between the Austrian model and the GAC -- the
Austrian Domain Name Council decisions seem to be binding
if not completely nonsensical).

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 22:05:27 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

on 7/26/01 9:53 PM, William S. Lovell at [email-masked] wrote:

>> Let's see; Hold a meeting on a subject, beat off opposing views with clubs,
>> lock the doors, then declare that there are no opposing views...nice and
>> open. This is typical IETF procedure and what you report here appears no
>> different. Multiple root concepts have been actively suppressed,
>> politically, almost since the very start of the IETF.
> 
> That sounds just like my image of the ALSC meeting in the Verisign
> conference room.
> 
> Bill Lovell

I have a few "I'm not working for VeriSign" badges for the ALSC meeting if
anybody wants one.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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, 27 Jul 2001 04:21:02 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, at 16:52 [=GMT-0700], Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 07:43:37PM -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > Kent Crispin wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 02:12:22PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > 
> > > > In it, New.net does not argue for multiple roots systems,
> > >
> > > What they argue really isn't very important -- they are so full of hype
> > > you can't tell what they are talking about anyway.  What matters is what
> > > they *do*, and they have *done* is create an alternate root.
> > 
> > Actually, it's more of an enhancement to the existing root... like an
> > amplification, if you will.
> 
> You are just parroting hype.  The fact is that new.net has conflicting 
> TLDs already.

Conflicting TLDs? New.net? With whom? With your ICANN? Sure with some
'toyroots'. But they don't matter according to you, do they? Why are
you disturbed then? ICANN will create the conflicting TLDs. See .biz.
More to follow? 

- -- 
[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: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 05:34:30 +0200
From: Robin Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Fwd: Virus Alert] 

Hi Bill,

SirCam has been bothering a lot of us that have websites with mailto links in
the past days. Virus/worm scans the cache for recently visited websites and
contains its own smtp server to spam itself out hidden in a random document
selected from the harddrive (usually the recycle bin). Its a particularly nasty
virus, makes me think a spammer must have programmed it. A friend of mine's
mail server on a high traffic site went totally down from this bug, and his
system wasn't infected with it - the server was clogged from emails generated
by site visitors that were infected with the virus.

You might want to email the woman that sent you the virus and inform her that
she's infected. She might not know.

If any of you think you might have been infected, here's the removal tool to
get rid of the sucker. 

http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/[email-masked]

take care, Robin
- --
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, 27 Jul 2001 12:33:58 +0800
From: "erica" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to Stuart Lynn"

Roberto said:
>
 Specifically, and that was probably Joop's point, what is sorely missing is
> a vehicle to transmit the instances of the Individuals.
>
> Would the Registrars favour such Constituency, with the rationale that
> consumers could be partners in building fair rules of conduct, or would
they
> oppose it, maybe because they think that consumers and Registrars have
> opposing financial interest?

While the Registrars constituency has no formal position on the creation of
an individuals constituency, several  Registrars have already indicated
their willingness to work with demand-side interests to build a consumer
protection policy framework - or Code of Conduct.  The difficulty, as you
rightly note, is that there is no single body which can claim to represent
either demand-side interests as a whole or  the interests of individual
registrants in particular.  The IP, Non-Commercial, Business and ISP
constituencies each represent elements of demand- side interests and the
Registrars Constituency has already demonstrated a willingness to work
constructively with them on issues of mutual concern - such as IP
protection.  The problem here lies not with the Registrars Constituency, but
with the lack of  a credible consumer voice..    The At  Large review is one
attempt to look at this issue but I'm not sure that they can suggest any
real solution.

At the risk of drawing  flack and flame mail, my own view is that it would
be worth considering the creation of a Consumer/Registrant  Protection
Constituency -  rather than an individuals constituency.  While, in a sense
this is just a change of name, it also provides a much needed point of
focus - with the result that attention is shifted from the constituency
membership to to purpose of the constituency.  By emphasising the purpose,
it would be much easier to seek the funding required to support such a
constituency from potential donors (such as industry, government or other
public interest or consumer protection organisations)  and clarify
membership benefits.

erica.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to
Stuart Lynn"

> Erica Roberts 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.
> >
>
>
> The protection of IP rights has not been ensured via a cross-constituency
> WG, or a proposal to NC, but building a specific constituency.
> I would assume that similarly, while the options you outline are
reasonable
> second-best choice, the ideal solution would be to let the consumers (as a
> whole, not just subsets like Business, IP, NonCom) to be able to get
> organized in a Constituency.
> Specifically, and that was probably Joop's point, what is sorely missing
is
> a vehicle to transmit the instances of the Individuals.
>
> Would the Registrars favour such Constituency, with the rationale that
> consumers could be partners in building fair rules of conduct, or would
they
> oppose it, maybe because they think that consumers and Registrars have
> opposing financial interest?
> IMHO, the text at the origin of the thread is a clear example of a policy
> issue where an Individual DNH Constituency, would it have existed, could
> have supported the POV of the Registrars Constituency.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
> --
> 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, 26 Jul 2001 22:54:07 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Fwd: Virus Alert]

At 5:34 am +0200 7/27/01, Robin Miller wrote:
>Hi Bill,
>
>SirCam has been bothering a lot of us that have websites with mailto links in
>the past days. Virus/worm scans the cache for recently visited websites and
>contains its own smtp server to spam itself out hidden in a random document
>selected from the harddrive (usually the recycle bin). Its a particularly
>nasty
>virus, makes me think a spammer must have programmed it.

What?

I think the person just wanted to highlight the fact that Microsoft is run
by a pack of idiots.

>You might want to email the woman that sent you the virus and inform her that
>she's infected. She might not know.

Don't forget to tell her the best way to protect herself from viruses is to
either install Linux on her PC or buy a Mac.

- -- 
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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 21:12:42 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Virus warnings on the GA list

Oh, can it, would you! The livelihood of people whose computers
might get crashed by a virus is a hell of a lot more important than
your rules. If you can't understand that, you've no business in this
business.

Bill Lovell

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Dear Bill,
>
> even if virus warnings such as the one by you in
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00070.html
> are posted with the best intentions, we would like to
> ask you to refrain from sending them in the future --
> they are irrelevant to the business of the GA and
> tend to divert attention. We have received a complaint
> about your message.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander (for the list monitors)

- --
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: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 00:15:06 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to Stuart  Lynn"

erica wrote:

> At the risk of drawing  flack and flame mail, my own view is that it would
> be worth considering the creation of a Consumer/Registrant  Protection
> Constituency -  rather than an individuals constituency.  While, in a sense
> this is just a change of name, it also provides a much needed point of
> focus - with the result that attention is shifted from the constituency
> membership to to purpose of the constituency.  By emphasising the purpose,
> it would be much easier to seek the funding required to support such a
> constituency from potential donors (such as industry, government or other
> public interest or consumer protection organisations)  and clarify
> membership benefits.

Erica,

This idea has possibilities.  Methinks there are some merits to this
proposition.  Perhaps we can develop this in more detail?   As there would need
to be a definition of the position of consumers/regitrants, which your proposed
CRPC would be advocating, would it not be wise to finally include a discussion
on the definition of domain names in the new weltanschauung?

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: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 21:15:45 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Fwd: Virus warnings on the GA list]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------B52E14622BA0F47A327B3D69
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- --------------B52E14622BA0F47A327B3D69
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 21:12:42 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Organization: Cerebalaw
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>,
 	"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Virus warnings on the GA list
References: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Oh, can it, would you! The livelihood of people whose computers
might get crashed by a virus is a hell of a lot more important than
your rules. If you can't understand that, you've no business in this
business.

Bill Lovell

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Dear Bill,
>
> even if virus warnings such as the one by you in
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00070.html
> are posted with the best intentions, we would like to
> ask you to refrain from sending them in the future --
> they are irrelevant to the business of the GA and
> tend to divert attention. We have received a complaint
> about your message.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander (for the list monitors)

- --
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

- --------------B52E14622BA0F47A327B3D69--

- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 21:39:41 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Virus warnings on the GA list

- --------------2D6F34CA55E7CA448DEDF770
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Moreover, let's have this sleazy little weasel who is hiding
behind a cloak of anonymity with his complaint come
forward and face up to me and to the rest of the GA,
many of whom have invested great sums of money in
trying to stay in business in the face of viruses and the
like, with the grounds for his/her complaint.

"Irrelevant to the business of the GA?"  With enough
worm viruses running through the various lists, and the
many mailing lists that each of us have of others, there
would be no GA!

I've seen some asinine things in my life, but this takes
the cake.

Bill Lovell

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Dear Bill,
>
> even if virus warnings such as the one by you in
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00070.html
> are posted with the best intentions, we would like to
> ask you to refrain from sending them in the future --
> they are irrelevant to the business of the GA and
> tend to divert attention. We have received a complaint
> about your message.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander (for the list monitors)

- --------------2D6F34CA55E7CA448DEDF770
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Moreover, let's have this sleazy little weasel who is hiding
<br>behind a cloak of anonymity with his complaint come
<br>forward and face up to me and to the rest of the GA,
<br>many of whom have invested great sums of money in
<br>trying to stay in business in the face of viruses and the
<br>like, with the grounds for his/her complaint.
<p>"Irrelevant to the business of the GA?"&nbsp; With enough
<br>worm viruses running through the various lists, and the
<br>many mailing lists that each of us have of others, there
<br>would <i>be</i> no GA!
<p>I've seen some asinine things in my life, but this takes
<br>the cake.
<p>Bill Lovell
<p>Alexander Svensson wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Dear Bill,
<p>even if virus warnings such as the one by you in
<br><a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00070.html">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00070.html</a>
<br>are posted with the best intentions, we would like to
<br>ask you to refrain from sending them in the future --
<br>they are irrelevant to the business of the GA and
<br>tend to divert attention. We have received a complaint
<br>about your message.
<p>Best regards,
<br>/// Alexander (for the list monitors)</blockquote>
</html>

- --------------2D6F34CA55E7CA448DEDF770--

- --
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 #633
************************