Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #642
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, July 31 2001            Volume 01 : Number 642

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

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 23:29:04 -0400
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Registrars Selling Dropped Domain Name Lists

There is a rumor that some Registrars are engaged in selling their
dropped domain names or expired domain names.

Are there any examples or real evidence concerning Registrars engaged in
selling their dropped domain names or expired domain name lists?  Are
there any examples or real evidence in the industry concerning
Registrars participating in buying or selling expired domain names that
were originally registered with the Registrar?

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

- --
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, 31 Jul 2001 05:47:25 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed

On 04:13 31/07/01, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
>"The domain name is more than a mere address: like trademarks, second-level
>domain names communicate information as to source."

No more than:

Meryll Lynch, One Meryll Lynch Plazza.
Alliance, 1 place de l'Alliance
CocaCola, CocaCola Tower

Obtained for exactly the same reasons.
Once again, do not confuse the general reality and a temporary situation 
due to the limitations imposed by the AmerICANN. I know you guies are 
hampered by your common law thinking, but Sotiris you are versed enough 
into Socrates, Aristoteles and Plato not to fall into that trap.
Jefsey

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

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

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 05:40:53 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  gTLD Constituency Memo 

On 03:38 31/07/01, Steven Heath said:
>I would welcome an exact % of names and funding if someone is interested in
>doing the leg work.

Dear Steven,
this is a very good idea to boost the ccTLDs. You should ask Secretariat to 
translate all the votes into number of DNs, GNP and number of inhabitants, 
contribution to the AmerICANN. This would put some real scale to the 
debate. Also a real motivation to the small countries. It would only be a 
small addition to their PHP program for may be a big result.
Jefsey

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

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

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 00:35:25 -0400
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars Selling Dropped Domain Name Lists

The DNSGA is compiling information on the subject matter which may be helpful
to the DNSO GA and everyone later.  It would be appreciated if you could
direct me to specific instances where this matter was discussed or to
information that shows Registrars and/or Registrar Resellers engaged in this
activity.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Yes,
>
> posted on this very list were names being listed as owned by expired names
> and at the same time listed for sale by resellers which I understood to be
> owned by registrars.
>
> It may be wrong in that I did not persue the matter first hand.
>
> Eric,
>
> Derek Conant wrote:
>
> > There is a rumor that some Registrars are engaged in selling their
> > dropped domain names or expired domain names.
> >
> > Are there any examples or real evidence concerning Registrars engaged in
> > selling their dropped domain names or expired domain name lists?  Are
> > there any examples or real evidence in the industry concerning
> > Registrars participating in buying or selling expired domain names that
> > were originally registered with the Registrar?
> >
> > Derek Conant
> > DNSGA President and Chairman
> >
> > --
> > 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: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 23:32:16 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

I've seen you and Jefsey and Steven Heath (I think) and
others wrestling over the name of the constituency, and
again I see the alphabet soup a'cookin' on the stove.  Why
not KISS and just call it "Registrants?"  That avoids the
"consumers" problem, the question of whether a registrant
is an owner or a holder, and a lot of others, methinks. :-)

(I'd even leave off  "Domain Name" -- we're not involved
with motor vehicles or anything else registrable in this DNSO.)

Bill

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 12:06 29/07/2001 +0800, erica wrote:
>
> >NAME:
> >If there is general agreement that we need a constituency whose job is to
> >ensure that the interests of consumers of domain names (Registrants)
> >interests are protected, then its a good idea to ensure that's reflected in
> >the name:  ie. Lets call the proposed new constituency the
> >Consumer/Registrants Protection Constituency (C/RPC)
>
> Dear Erica,
> Whilst I agree with some of your observations, I I have a problem  seeing
> Domain Name Registrants as consumers.
> An Individual Registrant  does not register a Domain Name to consume it.
> One registers it to own it (or to hold it, if you wish), and to build it up
> as an asset or an Internet presence.
> Or perhaps to otherwise exercise rights normally associated with the
> ownership of an asset.
>
> There is much more involved than simply protecting consumers against being
> ripped-off.
> ICANN is being set up as the wielder of power over Internet presence or
> non-presence.
>
> In order to make the constituency really representative in ICANN , one
> wants a constituency of the Holders/Owners themselves, as Individual Human
> beings (who as content providers have concerns way beyond those of mere
> consumers), not  as a constituency of "protectors" or organizations that
> purport to protect.
> These, if truly non-commercial, should be represented in the NCDNHC.
>
> For the IDNH, the challenge is the construction of membership driven
> institutions, that can truly scale.
>
> --
> 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, 31 Jul 2001 18:51:13 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

At 23:32 30/07/2001 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>I've seen you and Jefsey and Steven Heath (I think) and
>others wrestling over the name of the constituency, and
>again I see the alphabet soup a'cookin' on the stove.  Why
>not KISS and just call it "Registrants?"

*Individual* Registrants then.

To distinguish us from the Business Registrants (now the Biz Constituency)
and the Non-commercial Registrants (now the NCDNHC).

Or do you like to revisit my WG proposal to bring all Registrants together 
in one super-constituency?

- --
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, 31 Jul 2001 00:36:03 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

> Or do you like to revisit my WG proposal to bring all 
> Registrants together 
> in one super-constituency?

Since we're all in the same stew-pot ... why not?
- --
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, 31 Jul 2001 22:38:48 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 23:32:16 -0700, "William S. Lovell"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>I've seen you and Jefsey and Steven Heath (I think) and
>others wrestling over the name of the constituency, and
>again I see the alphabet soup a'cookin' on the stove.  Why
>not KISS and just call it "Registrants?"  That avoids the
>"consumers" problem, the question of whether a registrant
>is an owner or a holder, and a lot of others, methinks. :-)

I quite like this idea - solves a lot of problems.

As Joop said we could call it "Individual Registrants" or we could
just call it "Registrants" and specify in the fine print individuals
only.  

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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, 31 Jul 2001 22:33:39 +0800
From: "erica" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

>
> I quite like this idea - solves a lot of problems.
>
> As Joop said we could call it "Individual Registrants" or we could
> just call it "Registrants" and specify in the fine print individuals
> only.
>
Lets go with this then -
As I understand it, it would then be necessary to specify that membership is
open to 'natural persons' who are domain name registrants.

Can we move on to discuss the broad objectives of the proposed constituency
and funding issues?

erica
> DPF
> --
> [email-masked]
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> 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, 31 Jul 2001 22:37:36 +0800
From: "erica" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

Subject: RE: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

>
> > Or do you like to revisit my WG proposal to bring all
> > Registrants together
> > in one super-constituency?
>
> Since we're all in the same stew-pot ... why not?

The best reason 'why not' is that, as far as I know, there is no support for
this from either the business or non-commercial constituency.  The only way
this could succeed, is with their support.

erica
> --
> 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, 31 Jul 2001 15:27:03 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

Dear Bill,
In another mail, I said my full support to you and to Joop's response which 
reshapes the DNSO plans.
But this does not address the "Consumer" word in the @large environment.

1. Registrant

On 08:32 31/07/01, William S. Lovell said:
>I've seen you and Jefsey and Steven Heath (I think) and
>others wrestling over the name of the constituency, and
>again I see the alphabet soup a'cookin' on the stove.  Why
>not KISS and just call it "Registrants?"  That avoids the
>"consumers" problem, the question of whether a registrant
>is an owner or a holder, and a lot of others, methinks. :-)

Registring is to get the name of his domain in a TLD registry. As when you 
come and settle in a new city you go and register yourself in different 
offices (Post Office, Sheriff; Ambassy, Church, Town Hall, Taxes, Schools, 
etc...)

>(I'd even leave off  "Domain Name" -- we're not involved
>with motor vehicles or anything else registrable in this DNSO.)

We may come back to that later (many other things are registered of no use 
to the DNS : your name, address, accountant, techie, fax, tel, etc...)

2. Consumer

Registring makes you a Registered one (usually on behalf of your familly), 
not a Consumer. Every  member of your familly will become a consumer by his 
own when he buys goods in your new city.

Now, we see the confusion when calling us Users "Consumers", for three main 
reasons :

- -  when you come in a city, you become a Local Community Member. And you 
are interested in many other things than buying. The word "Consumer" use 
here would lock the Internet into a commercial system (what some would 
love). I agree the WIPO has its say for .com, but I prefer churches to have 
their say for .church and Museum Associations for .museum.

- - the internet is not build by someone to do something. It is a consensus 
by participants to relate together in using TCP/IP protocol set and the IP 
addressing intefaced by the DNS. Every participant is both a user and a 
content/service supplier. This is a social general relation support like a 
language. We all TCP/IP as we use the roman characters.  We are consumer on 
the net and outside the net. On the net we spcifically are "Participants". 
And we share in many decisions. "me/we"model.

- - the third reason is that "consumer representation" is a structured 
"industry" with organizations to represent the consumers' rights. If we 
leave the confusion develop we will be excluded as participants by 
organizations defending us as consumers. My proposition is to have a CAC 
(Consomation Advisory Committe) created to interface Consumer Organizations 
with the Internet world. They would be our ally and (as consomation is 
subect to national rules) would probably organize with @large participants 
in national Chapters with the NICs.  This would provide a true open ICANN a 
tremendous legitimacy.

To sum up:

1. Registrant Constituency in the DNSO
2. @large are the Internet Participants
3. Consumers rights should be represented by a Consomation Advisory 
Committee (CAC)

Jefsey

>Bill
>
>Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > At 12:06 29/07/2001 +0800, erica wrote:
> >
> > >NAME:
> > >If there is general agreement that we need a constituency whose job is to
> > >ensure that the interests of consumers of domain names (Registrants)
> > >interests are protected, then its a good idea to ensure that's 
> reflected in
> > >the name:  ie. Lets call the proposed new constituency the
> > >Consumer/Registrants Protection Constituency (C/RPC)
> >
> > Dear Erica,
> > Whilst I agree with some of your observations, I I have a problem  seeing
> > Domain Name Registrants as consumers.
> > An Individual Registrant  does not register a Domain Name to consume it.
> > One registers it to own it (or to hold it, if you wish), and to build it up
> > as an asset or an Internet presence.
> > Or perhaps to otherwise exercise rights normally associated with the
> > ownership of an asset.
> >
> > There is much more involved than simply protecting consumers against being
> > ripped-off.
> > ICANN is being set up as the wielder of power over Internet presence or
> > non-presence.
> >
> > In order to make the constituency really representative in ICANN , one
> > wants a constituency of the Holders/Owners themselves, as Individual Human
> > beings (who as content providers have concerns way beyond those of mere
> > consumers), not  as a constituency of "protectors" or organizations that
> > purport to protect.
> > These, if truly non-commercial, should be represented in the NCDNHC.
> >
> > For the IDNH, the challenge is the construction of membership driven
> > institutions, that can truly scale.
> >
> > --
> > 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

- --
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, 31 Jul 2001 14:41:47 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

IMHO, Erica, Bill, DPF, Roeland and Joop, naming the things by their name 
is the easiest way to be understood. I am very glad  (my assistant asked me 
why I shouted "Great!") of Joop's response. For a long we have supported 
the DNH/O wording not to "betray" Joop effort. But obviously the word 
Registrant is the correct one.

Now, also the reason of my shout is that Registrants is

- - no more individual (so we may have the support of amazon.com) yet we may 
additionally qualify them by type of problem (example: when you register a 
single DN you relate through a graphic interface, when you register 
thousands you relate through a message template).

- - a clear reponse. The DNSO *must* include:
   - Registrants
   - ccTLD
   - gTLD
   - Registrars

- - in having Joop adopting a function related approach we separate the 
problem of registration and the problem of holdership by a small/individual 
organization. Hence we may propose both:

   - Registrant Constituancy with (as the BC) an SME and propably an 
Individual committee (DNSO/RC/I)
   - the Individual Constituency in the @large SO

I am very gral that eventually we may reach what should be a consensus 
among IDNHers.
Jefsey

On 12:38 31/07/01, DPF said:
>On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 23:32:16 -0700, "William S. Lovell"
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >I've seen you and Jefsey and Steven Heath (I think) and
> >others wrestling over the name of the constituency, and
> >again I see the alphabet soup a'cookin' on the stove.  Why
> >not KISS and just call it "Registrants?"  That avoids the
> >"consumers" problem, the question of whether a registrant
> >is an owner or a holder, and a lot of others, methinks. :-)
>
>I quite like this idea - solves a lot of problems.
>
>As Joop said we could call it "Individual Registrants" or we could
>just call it "Registrants" and specify in the fine print individuals
>only.
>
>DPF
>--
>[email-masked]
>ICQ 29964527
>--
>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, 31 Jul 2001 09:43:44 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

erica wrote:

> Can we move on to discuss the broad objectives of the proposed constituency
> and funding issues?

A rough blanket statement of the broad objectives of the Individual Registrants
Constituency (IRC) might be as follows:

"Mission:  To effect and ensure the recognition, representation, and input of
Individual Registrants of Domain Names as bona fide stakeholders in the Domain
Name System (DNS), through an established and direct voice in all ICANN policy
formulation bodies and functions."

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, 31 Jul 2001 09:51:12 -0400
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Protection from what? - Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection  Consitituency

Where is there evidence that Consumer/Registrants need protection?  Protection
when?  Protection from what?  Protection from whom?  A consumer and registrant
can be both commercial and private.  This Consumer/Registrants issue appears to
be an At-Large constituency matter.  Is this group proposing a constituency just
to propose one?  Or, what?

In an earlier post, I requested information concerning Registrars engaged in
buying or selling expired domain names and other matters.  There are rumors that
Consumer/Registrants need protection, however, this concept appears to be
motivated only by speculation and paranoia that have no merit.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

erica wrote:

> Subject: RE: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency
>
> >
> > > Or do you like to revisit my WG proposal to bring all
> > > Registrants together
> > > in one super-constituency?
> >
> > Since we're all in the same stew-pot ... why not?
>
> The best reason 'why not' is that, as far as I know, there is no support for
> this from either the business or non-commercial constituency.  The only way
> this could succeed, is with their support.
>
> erica
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:57:53 -0400
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

Hi Erica and Joop:

I like a lot you aproaches.

I sum to the call of Erica to begin discussion on this.

Best Regards
Vany

erica wrote:

> >
> > I quite like this idea - solves a lot of problems.
> >
> > As Joop said we could call it "Individual Registrants" or we could
> > just call it "Registrants" and specify in the fine print individuals
> > only.
> >
> Lets go with this then -
> As I understand it, it would then be necessary to specify that membership is
> open to 'natural persons' who are domain name registrants.
>
> Can we move on to discuss the broad objectives of the proposed constituency
> and funding issues?
>
> erica
> > DPF
> > --
> > [email-masked]
> > ICQ 29964527
> > --
> > 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

- --
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
e-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa

- --
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, 31 Jul 2001 10:47:52 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Registrars' Letter to Lynn & more...

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00921.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, 31 Jul 2001 11:15:33 -0400
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALSC's Structural Options

- --------------306EB3207F19D1A9097F249F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

It does not appear appropriate for the Chair of the GA to be directing
DNSO participants to his commercial Web site
(http://www.icannworld.org).

The Chair does not appear to have any legal or entity protection,
whatsoever, concerning the Chair's representations made at his Web site
regarding ICANN, the DNSO, the DNSO GA, the ALSC or others.

This concerns me because in my opinion the Chair does not appear correct
and I expect that he should appear more responsible in that he should
not be engaged in activity that appears designed to redirect DNSO
participants away from the DNSO to his own commercial Web site.

The Chair's Web site appears to me to be more than merely informational.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

[email-masked] wrote:

> I have taken the liberty of creating visual representations of the
> restructuring proposals put forth by the ALSC (their Options A,B,C).
> These have been published at http://www.icannworld.org/options.htm
>
>
>
>

- --------------306EB3207F19D1A9097F249F
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
It does not appear appropriate for the Chair of the GA to be directing
DNSO participants to his commercial Web site (<font size=+0><A HREF="http://www.icannworld.org">http://www.icannworld.org</A>).</font><font size=+0></font>
<p><font size=+0>The Chair does not appear to have any legal or entity
protection, whatsoever, concerning the Chair's representations made at
his Web site regarding ICANN, the DNSO, the DNSO GA, the ALSC or others.</font><font size=+0></font>
<p><font size=+0>This concerns me because in my opinion the Chair does
not appear correct and I expect that he should appear more responsible
in that he should not be engaged in activity that appears designed to redirect
DNSO participants away from the DNSO to his own commercial Web site.</font><font size=+0></font>
<p><font size=+0>The Chair's Web site appears to me to be more than merely
informational.</font><font size=+0></font>
<p><font size=+0>Derek Conant</font>
<br><font size=+0>DNSGA President and Chairman</font>
<p>[email-masked] wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>I have
taken the liberty of creating visual representations of the</font></font>
<br><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>restructuring proposals
put forth by the ALSC (their Options A,B,C).</font></font>
<br><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>These have been published
at <A HREF="http://www.icannworld.org/options.htm">http://www.icannworld.org/options.htm</A></font></font>
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
</html>

- --------------306EB3207F19D1A9097F249F--

- --
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, 31 Jul 2001 12:03:39 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed

on 7/30/01 9:11 PM, Per Koelle at [email-masked] wrote:
> Dear Joanna,

> Who says that a domainname MUST resolve to a web-site ???
> I can think of at least 3+ other ways to have a domainname "active"....
> In fact, I really dont know how to interpret the term "In use", or how to
> check
> it. Is it 1 byte per second transmitted over that name, or ..... ????
> 
> And that is why, we (under .dk) say, that all it takes, is active nameservice,
> to make a specific domainname appear as "in use" or being "active".
> And (as you know) it is all right to have an "empty" zone, and in this case,
> the
> domainname will resolve to "nothing", but still be considered as "active".
> 
> Regards
> Per Koelle
> .DK

Dear Peter,

Thank you. We could use this to define sub-categories for the status of
various Domain Names, along the lines of:-

An Active (or Registered) Domain Name would be one with active nameservice.
An Inactive (or Unregistered) Domain Name would be one without active
nameservice, also known as a String.

An Active Domain Name also has sub-categories, for those that resolve to
websites (zones in use), and those that do not resolve (empty zones).

If the list becomes unmanageable, we want to develop a Flow Chart.

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: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 18:47:40 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALSC's Structural Options

Hello Derek,

> It does not appear appropriate for the Chair of the GA to be directing
> DNSO participants to his commercial Web site
> (http://www.icannworld.org).

would you care to explain briefly why you see this
Web site as commercial?

> The Chair does not appear to have any legal or entity protection,
> whatsoever, concerning the Chair's representations made at his Web site
> regarding ICANN, the DNSO, the DNSO GA, the ALSC or others.

Why should Danny Younger need legal or entity protection
for his web site?

> This concerns me because in my opinion the Chair does not appear correct
> and I expect that he should appear more responsible in that he should
> not be engaged in activity that appears designed to redirect DNSO
> participants away from the DNSO to his own commercial Web site.
>
> The Chair's Web site appears to me to be more than merely informational.

I don't think the web forums are a good idea, but it
seems that they are not used anyway. But I find Danny's
options diagram a helpful tool for visualization, and
he has as much a right to set up a site as anyone.
Thankfully, his site does not create the impression to
be the official Domain Name Supporting Organization General
Assembly (DNSO-GA) site.

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: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 13:46:51 -0400
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALSC's Structural Options

I posted a similar email message reply in the ALSC forum.

The Chair does formally represent the DNSO and his Web site appears to have a
commercial theme.  The Chair's Web site appears to me to be the beginning of a
competitive commercial theme against the very DNSO GA constituency consensus
process he represents, and against others.

The Chair's Web site, which DNSO participants are being directed to by the
Chair, contains email forums and other mechanisms that appear to be solely for
the purpose of establishing outside opinion and outside positions against the
ICANN,
the DNSO, the DNSO GA, the ALSC and the other consensus processes.

The direction the Chair appears to be heading with his Web site does not
appear correct to me and my concern is with undue influence in that the Chair
should not use his position within the ICANN/DNSO as leverage to promote his
commercial
concepts and agenda that may be contrary to the ICANN/DNSO constituency
consensus process he formally represents.

I can agree that the Web page the Chair directed DNSO participants to did not
include commercial advertising which could be considered offensive.  However,
I can see that the Chair's Web site appears to be geared toward being
commercial and not merely informational, in direct competition with the
ICANN/DNSO constituency consensus process the Chair represents.

I am not against constructive and productive processes.  Furthermore, I do not
formally represent ICANN/DNSO, whereas, the Chair does formally represent
ICANN/DNSO and I believe this proposes a problem.  I am against undue
influence
and unethical activity.  I am proposing an ethical question here that may have
a significant impact if it goes unchecked.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Hello Derek,
>
> > It does not appear appropriate for the Chair of the GA to be directing
> > DNSO participants to his commercial Web site
> > (http://www.icannworld.org).
>
> would you care to explain briefly why you see this
> Web site as commercial?
>
> > The Chair does not appear to have any legal or entity protection,
> > whatsoever, concerning the Chair's representations made at his Web site
> > regarding ICANN, the DNSO, the DNSO GA, the ALSC or others.
>
> Why should Danny Younger need legal or entity protection
> for his web site?
>
> > This concerns me because in my opinion the Chair does not appear correct
> > and I expect that he should appear more responsible in that he should
> > not be engaged in activity that appears designed to redirect DNSO
> > participants away from the DNSO to his own commercial Web site.
> >
> > The Chair's Web site appears to me to be more than merely informational.
>
> I don't think the web forums are a good idea, but it
> seems that they are not used anyway. But I find Danny's
> options diagram a helpful tool for visualization, and
> he has as much a right to set up a site as anyone.
> Thankfully, his site does not create the impression to
> be the official Domain Name Supporting Organization General
> Assembly (DNSO-GA) site.
>
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #642
************************