Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #649
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, August 7 2001           Volume 01 : Number 649

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

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 01:31:52 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: [ga] .info whois is open

It looks like most of the good .info domains are already gone.  A
combination of the .info loophole
http://www.domainsillustrated.com/knowledge/articles/010801.asp, mistaken
registrations where users signed up for Sunrise in error, and outright
fraud.  All kinds of generic trademarks are listed for Albania and Bahrain.

Blow is a letter I just sent to du Pont about science.info.

See for yourself at http://www.afilias.info

Russ Smith
http://TheNic.com

==

 Dear Ms. Galbrith:

This message is to follow-up the telephone message.

I am the director of Consumer.net and the owner the Science.net.  I am
contacting you concerning your registration of the domain name SCIENCE.info
which was registered during the Sunrise Period for trademark holders.

In the application you submitted the trademark number is "0" and the date of
trademark is "0200-01-03."  This information is clearly invalid.  I also
searched the www.USPTO.gov trademark database and I was unable to find a
trademark for "SCIENCE" registered to the du Pont Company.

Please identify the trademark used to register SCIENCE.info during the .info
Sunrise period.

Thank You,

Russ Smith

====

You searched for:
"science.info"

Domain Name:  SCIENCE.INFO
Created On:  2001-AUG-02 18:22:06.0 UTC
Expiration Date:  2006-AUG-02 18:22:06.0 UTC
Trademark Name:  SCIENCE
Trademark Date:  0200-01-03
Trademark Country:  US
Trademark Number:  00000000
Sponsoring Registrar:  5035-CD
Status:  NEW
Status:  LOCKED
Status:  OK
Registrant ID:  C109666-LRMS
Registrant Name:  Karen Galbraith
Registrant Organization:  E I du Pont de Nemours and Company
Registrant Street1:  Barley Mill Road, Suite P40-202a
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:  Wilmington
Registrant State/Province:  Delaware
Registrant Postal Code:  19808
Registrant Country:  US
Registrant Phone:  +1.3029922941
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Email:  [email-masked]
Admin ID:  C109667-LRMS
Admin Name:  Karen Galbraith
Admin Organization:  DUPONT DOW ELASTOMERS L.L.C.
Admin Street1:  Barley Mill Road, Suite P40-202a
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:  New York
Admin State/Province:
Admin Postal Code:  19808
Admin Country:  US
Admin Phone:  +1.3029922941
Admin Email:  [email-masked]
Billing ID:  C109667-LRMS
Billing Name:  Karen Galbraith
Billing Organization:  DUPONT DOW ELASTOMERS L.L.C.
Billing Street1:  Barley Mill Road, Suite P40-202a
Billing Street2:
Billing Street3:
Billing City:  New York
Billing State/Province:
Billing Postal Code:  19808
Billing Country:  US
Billing Phone:  +1.3029922941
Billing Email:  [email-masked]
Tech ID:  C109667-LRMS
Tech Name:  Karen Galbraith
Tech Organization:  DUPONT DOW ELASTOMERS L.L.C.
Tech Street1:  Barley Mill Road, Suite P40-202a
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:  New York
Tech State/Province:
Tech Postal Code:  19808
Tech Country:  US
Tech Phone:  +1.3029922941
Tech Email:  [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, 7 Aug 2001 01:34:38 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: [ga] Registrar problem reports

 http://www.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi

It says:

"ICANN does not resolve individual customer complaints. ICANN is a
technical-coordination body. Its primary objective is to coordinate the
Internet's system of assigned names and numbers to promote stable
operation."

Why doesn't ICANN resolve individual complaints?  If they don't then who
does?  Don't they manage the registrar contracts?  If so, then why don't
they handle individual complaints?

Russ Smith
http://TheNic.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: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 16:54:55 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "to represent the unrepresented"

Some of you may get this twice, but I did not get this posting back from 
the list after 24 hours, so I post again.

At 09:38 6/08/01 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:

>Please send me one document based on previous GA discussion which outlines 
>the rationale for an Individuals constituency together with information on 
>the level of support and dissent for the proposal. On receipt I will table 
>this for discussion with the task force.

The rationale for the Constituency was presented to the GA in Santiago in 
the form of a presentation.

I will list the catchphrases, which made up the core of the presentation, 
for the Chair's benefit.

Rationale for  the Individuals' Constituency:  To represent the unrepresented.
Domain Name Regulation is proposed without the voting participation of the 
regulated.

We are needed in the DNDSO to provide balance.
The Internet *is* about Individuals.
The current DNSO, without the (already then) proposed Individual Domain 
Name Holders' Constituency, is the result of the Singapore compromise to 
accommodate the IP lobby. This was wrong.

Individual Domain Name Holders are stakeholders: they have a personal stake.
They make up a large percentage of the total Registrants.

Our participation in the GA and the workgroups is useless, if we do not 
have a representative to vote for us on the Names Council.

The level of support and opposion to an Individuals' Constituency is best 
illustrated by the Yokohama GA vote on the issue: 65 (corrected) FOR and 3 
AGAINST.

- --
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, 6 Aug 2001 23:41:11 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports

They do handle individual complaints. It is just that they out-source it to
WIPO. It's called UDRP.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 10:35 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Registrar problem reports
> 
> 
>  http://www.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi
> 
> It says:
> 
> "ICANN does not resolve individual customer complaints. ICANN is a
> technical-coordination body. Its primary objective is to 
> coordinate the
> Internet's system of assigned names and numbers to promote stable
> operation."
> 
> Why doesn't ICANN resolve individual complaints?  If they 
> don't then who
> does?  Don't they manage the registrar contracts?  If so, 
> then why don't
> they handle individual complaints?
> 
> Russ Smith
> http://TheNic.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
> 
- --
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, 7 Aug 2001 02:46:49 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports

The complaints I meant was concerning registrars not following the
agreement.  specifically as it relates to registrar transfers.

I have more than 100 complaints filed so far against Verisign, register.com
and Names4 ever.  Even the verisign Registry is getting into the act and is
locking domains.

Dan Halloran does nothing and does not answer questions about what actions
have been taken.

Russ Smith

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 2:41 AM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports

They do handle individual complaints. It is just that they out-source it to
WIPO. It's called UDRP.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 10:35 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Registrar problem reports
>
>
>  http://www.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi
>
> It says:
>
> "ICANN does not resolve individual customer complaints. ICANN is a
> technical-coordination body. Its primary objective is to
> coordinate the
> Internet's system of assigned names and numbers to promote stable
> operation."
>
> Why doesn't ICANN resolve individual complaints?  If they
> don't then who
> does?  Don't they manage the registrar contracts?  If so,
> then why don't
> they handle individual complaints?
>
> Russ Smith
> http://TheNic.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
>

- --
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, 7 Aug 2001 10:21:08 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Documentation request

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_013F_01C11F2A.AC8B91C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Danny,=20
thank you for your reply to my request for a document summarising the =
rationale and level of support for an individual's constituency. I can =
understand your temptation in continuing to copy in the entire NC but =
would urge you to stop unless those individuals actively ask to be kept =
directly informed. A copy to nc-review would seem more appropriate.

You cited general references to the CONCEPT in the report of WG review =
with which I am familiar. You also cite a proposal on the CONCEPT made =
by Karl Auerbach. Did this ever get to a vote? You also cite various =
votes to questions of CONCEPT in each case with votes cast numbering =
from around 20 to 90 persons.

What would be useful is to know if there has been a SUBSTANTIVE proposal =
addressing the key issue of representation, and if so what level of =
support that proposal received.

Philip

- ------=_NextPart_000_013F_01C11F2A.AC8B91C0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Danny, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>thank you for&nbsp;your reply&nbsp;to my request for =
a=20
document summarising the rationale and level of support for an =
individual's=20
constituency. I can understand your temptation in continuing to copy in =
the=20
entire NC but would urge you to stop unless those individuals actively =
ask to be=20
kept directly informed. A copy to nc-review would seem more=20
appropriate.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>You cited general references to the&nbsp;CONCEPT in =
the report=20
of WG review with which&nbsp;I am familiar. </FONT><FONT size=3D2>You =
also cite a=20
proposal on the CONCEPT made by Karl Auerbach. Did this&nbsp;ever =
get&nbsp;to a=20
vote? You also cite various votes to questions of CONCEPT in each =
case&nbsp;with=20
votes cast numbering from&nbsp;around 20 to 90 persons.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>What would be useful is to know if there has been a=20
SUBSTANTIVE proposal addressing the key issue of representation, and if =
so what=20
level of support that proposal received.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_013F_01C11F2A.AC8B91C0--

- --
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, 07 Aug 2001 11:28:01 +0200
From: "france@large" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrar problem reports

Dear Russ,
the question is to know if you individual complaints may be construed as 
one global complaint worth a reconsideration by the Board.

It seems here that the contracts worked out and signed by iCANN are not 
protecting your rights. As the whole claim for legitimacy by the iCANN is 
the need for such contracts to protect your rights, the need for a review 
or even a reconsideration by the BoD seems to be clear.

May I remind you that you have 30 days to make a reconsideration request 
after you experimented the problem. You will find the necessary information 
at the following page:
http://www.icann.org/general/reconsideration.htm

Jefsey

On 07:34 07/08/01, admin said:
>  http://www.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi
>
>It says:
>
>"ICANN does not resolve individual customer complaints. ICANN is a
>technical-coordination body. Its primary objective is to coordinate the
>Internet's system of assigned names and numbers to promote stable
>operation."
>
>Why doesn't ICANN resolve individual complaints?  If they don't then who
>does?  Don't they manage the registrar contracts?  If so, then why don't
>they handle individual complaints?
>
>Russ Smith
>http://TheNic.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

- --
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, 7 Aug 2001 07:04:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Models for reasonable pricing

As far as I understand, at present, .com, .org and .net are currently
under price controls by the US government, at least in terms of the fees
charged by the registry, but I don't believe ICANN has done anything
about this with respect to the new TLDs.  What are the models for
protecting consumers from being ripped off for using their own domain
names, particularly as the lock-in problem grows as people built content
and brands around particular domain names?

  Jamie

- --------------------------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology, http://www.cptech.org
[email-masked], v. 1.202.387.8030, f 1.202.234.5176

- --
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, 7 Aug 2001 07:39:08 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports

>May I remind you that you have 30 days to make a reconsideration request
>after you experimented the problem. You will find the necessary information
>at the following page:
>http://www.icann.org/general/reconsideration.htm

I have filed these in the past.  In some cases the answers were not
responsive to the complaints.  In other cases ICANN refused to answer or
post the submission.  I resubmitted some but they refuse to acknowledge or
answer the submission.

The reconsideration system is a complete sham.

Russ Smith

- --
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, 7 Aug 2001 08:43:24 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports

Correction: as has been previously pointed out, the VeriSign Registry is not
locking domains as suggested below.

Chuck Gomes

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 2:47 AM
To: Roeland Meyer; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports

The complaints I meant was concerning registrars not following the
agreement.  specifically as it relates to registrar transfers.

I have more than 100 complaints filed so far against Verisign, register.com
and Names4 ever.  Even the verisign Registry is getting into the act and is
locking domains.

Dan Halloran does nothing and does not answer questions about what actions
have been taken.

Russ Smith

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 2:41 AM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports

They do handle individual complaints. It is just that they out-source it to
WIPO. It's called UDRP.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 10:35 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Registrar problem reports
>
>
>  http://www.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi
>
> It says:
>
> "ICANN does not resolve individual customer complaints. ICANN is a
> technical-coordination body. Its primary objective is to
> coordinate the
> Internet's system of assigned names and numbers to promote stable
> operation."
>
> Why doesn't ICANN resolve individual complaints?  If they
> don't then who
> does?  Don't they manage the registrar contracts?  If so,
> then why don't
> they handle individual complaints?
>
> Russ Smith
> http://TheNic.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
>

- --
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, 7 Aug 2001 09:05:09 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports

I don't know what was pointed out here but the Verisgn registry has locked
several of my customer's domains for severa months.  Notices sent out by
Verisign have indicated that these domains would be locked for several weeks
(with no explanation why they are locked for so long) and indicated they may
or may not be able to make manual changes in a timely manner.

This locking of domains byVerisign coincided with the Verisign registrar
claims of "slamming"
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cochetti-to-lynn-16jul01.htm.
Meanwhile, the Verisgn registrar continues to lock domains without valid
justifaction.  Many customers have to put their orders in 3 or 4 times
before Verisign will release them.

Verisign is disrupting the operations of competing registrars on several
fronts.

Below is the message I received from Tucows about the domains the Verisign
registry has locked.  Gomes refuses to explain why these domain are being
locked for so long:

==

In June, VeriSign Registry accidentally auto-renewed several domains
twice.  As a result, to prevent further problems, these domains have
been placed on Registry-Lock.  The domain will function properly, but
no transfers or renewals are allowed.  The expected time until they
fix this is August 27th (at the earliest).

Unfortunately, the only action we are allowed to perform on these
domains is a nameserver change.  Following is a list of affected
domains.  If you have a client that is getting the following error
when attempting to change their nameserver:

Unable to add nameserver: Registry error, domain's nameservers not
updated [Domain status does not allow for operation]

Then it is likely that they are affected by this problem.  Until these
domains are fixed by VeriSign, you can email [email-masked].  Be
sure to include the domain name in question, and the nameservers you
would like this domain to be updated with.

===

- -----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 8:43 AM
To: [email-masked]'; Roeland Meyer; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports

Correction: as has been previously pointed out, the VeriSign Registry is not
locking domains as suggested below.

Chuck Gomes

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 2:47 AM
To: Roeland Meyer; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports

The complaints I meant was concerning registrars not following the
agreement.  specifically as it relates to registrar transfers.

I have more than 100 complaints filed so far against Verisign, register.com
and Names4 ever.  Even the verisign Registry is getting into the act and is
locking domains.

Dan Halloran does nothing and does not answer questions about what actions
have been taken.

Russ Smith

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 2:41 AM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports

They do handle individual complaints. It is just that they out-source it to
WIPO. It's called UDRP.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 10:35 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Registrar problem reports
>
>
>  http://www.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi
>
> It says:
>
> "ICANN does not resolve individual customer complaints. ICANN is a
> technical-coordination body. Its primary objective is to
> coordinate the
> Internet's system of assigned names and numbers to promote stable
> operation."
>
> Why doesn't ICANN resolve individual complaints?  If they
> don't then who
> does?  Don't they manage the registrar contracts?  If so,
> then why don't
> they handle individual complaints?
>
> Russ Smith
> http://TheNic.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
>

- --
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, 7 Aug 2001 15:09:58 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived

Joanna Lane wrote on 06.08.01, 17:12:34:
>> 3. GA Chair  Lead Philip
>> I propose that the present system for selecting the GA chair (GA nominations,
>> 10 endorsements, approval by the NC should be kept and added to the NC rules
>> of procedure.
>> I have not heard any objection to this. Roberto - please give your view.
>> Deadline August 15. ACTION all.
>
> Roberto. A resounding No. First, point me to the rule that says GA
> nominations require 10 endorsements, thoe are NC procedures, not the GA's,
> and the fact that they are is a figment of Philip's imagination I'm afraid.
> Second, a Motion to change the Bylaws to allow the GA to elect its own Chair
> was formally presented to both WG-Review and the GA under the Chairmanship
> of Greg Burton, which the NC supported by its own policies during the last
> Election. A formal motion was drafted (by me as it happens) seconded and
> voted on, receiving unanimous support from all GA members, with the possible
> exception of yourself (if memory serves me correctly). With the greatest
> respect, you cannot now chose to go completely against valid consensus
> building procedures that were undertaken within only recently during the
> last few months simply because it is not the result you seek.

From the Scribe's Notes, DNSO NC, L.A. 14-Nov-2000:
 IV. Report from GA Chair Gaetano 
 B.  Discussed election of new GA chair. Motion for 
 direct election by GA of its own chair. Would require 
 change to ICANN bylaws. Overwhelming majority in favor 
 of this change. 
(http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-111400-2.html)

I am absolutely certain that Roberto will again remind 
the Task Force and the NC of the motion, and if you look
at the archives, Roberto has been in favour of the
GA's right of electing its own chair, as are most all
of us. 

I hope this is just some kind of misunderstanding on
the part of the NC. 

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, 7 Aug 2001 09:19:20 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C11F22.0ADE1440
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Greetings:
 
Please refer to Article 3, and section 3 (d) of the ICANN bylaws at
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI
 
The (proposed) new constituency must self-organize, probably produce a
document containing at least a statement of purpose, or mission
statement, and some basic bylaws defining membership.
 
Once the (proposed) new constituency has self-organized, it may petition
the Board for recognition.
 
My question is, has such self-organization, and production of documents
taken place?
 
Peter de Blanc
 
(Please note that I support the idea of some kind of individual domain
name holder's constituency)

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Philip
Sheppard
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 4:21 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: Documentation request

Danny, 
thank you for your reply to my request for a document summarising the
rationale and level of support for an individual's constituency. I can
understand your temptation in continuing to copy in the entire NC but
would urge you to stop unless those individuals actively ask to be kept
directly informed. A copy to nc-review would seem more appropriate.
 
You cited general references to the CONCEPT in the report of WG review
with which I am familiar. You also cite a proposal on the CONCEPT made
by Karl Auerbach. Did this ever get to a vote? You also cite various
votes to questions of CONCEPT in each case with votes cast numbering
from around 20 to 90 persons.
 
What would be useful is to know if there has been a SUBSTANTIVE proposal
addressing the key issue of representation, and if so what level of
support that proposal received.
 
Philip

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C11F22.0ADE1440
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>

<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Greetings:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Please=20
refer to Article 3, and section 3 (d) of the ICANN bylaws =
at</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI">http://www.icann.org/=
general/bylaws.htm#VI</A></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>The=20
(proposed) new constituency must self-organize, probably produce a =
document=20
containing at least a statement of purpose, or mission statement, and =
some basic=20
bylaws defining membership.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Once=20
the (proposed) new constituency has self-organized, it may petition the =
Board=20
for recognition.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>My=20
question is, has such self-organization, and production of documents =
taken=20
place?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Peter=20
de Blanc</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>(Please note that I support the idea of some kind of individual =
domain=20
name holder's constituency)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV></DIV>
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr =
align=3Dleft><FONT=20
  face=3DTahoma size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20
  [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] <B>On Behalf Of =
</B>Philip=20
  Sheppard<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, August 07, 2001 4:21 =
AM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  [email-masked]; [email-masked]<BR><B>Cc:</B> [email-masked]; =
[email-masked];=20
  [email-masked]; [email-masked]; =
[email-masked];=20
  [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];=20
  [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];=20
  [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];=20
  [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];=20
  [email-masked]; [email-masked];=20
  [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> [ga] Re: Documentation=20
  request<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Danny, </FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2>thank you for&nbsp;your reply&nbsp;to my request =
for a=20
  document summarising the rationale and level of support for an =
individual's=20
  constituency. I can understand your temptation in continuing to copy =
in the=20
  entire NC but would urge you to stop unless those individuals actively =
ask to=20
  be kept directly informed. A copy to nc-review would seem more=20
  appropriate.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2>You cited general references to the&nbsp;CONCEPT =
in the=20
  report of WG review with which&nbsp;I am familiar. </FONT><FONT =
size=3D2>You=20
  also cite a proposal on the CONCEPT made by Karl Auerbach. Did =
this&nbsp;ever=20
  get&nbsp;to a vote? You also cite various votes to questions of =
CONCEPT in=20
  each case&nbsp;with votes cast numbering from&nbsp;around 20 to 90=20
  persons.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2>What would be useful is to know if there has been =
a=20
  SUBSTANTIVE proposal addressing the key issue of representation, and =
if so=20
  what level of support that proposal received.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C11F22.0ADE1440--

- --
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 #649
************************