Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #657
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, August 10 2001           Volume 01 : Number 657

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

Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 22:21:03 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Lynn & VeriSign in Washington

- --part1_29.18f7eb0a.28a49f0f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

A reminder  to our members -- August 15th,10:00am to 12:00 Noon at the 
Chamber of Commerce, 1615 H St., N.W. Washington, DC., Verisign will be 
discussing the future of their WHOIS database research and development 
project.

Shortly after this meeting concludes, our president Mr. Lynn will appear in 
the Gold Room of the Rayburn House Office Building to discuss "The Challenge 
of Borderlessness and a Billion Connected People: Pondering the Future of the 
Internet." 

I look forward to seeing some of you there.

 

    

- --part1_29.18f7eb0a.28a49f0f_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>A reminder &nbsp;to our members -- August 15th,10:00am to 12:00 Noon at the 
<BR>Chamber of Commerce, 1615 H St., N.W. Washington, DC., Verisign will be 
<BR>discussing the future of their WHOIS database research and development 
<BR>project.
<BR>
<BR>Shortly after this meeting concludes, our president Mr. Lynn will appear in 
<BR>the Gold Room of the Rayburn House Office Building to discuss "The Challenge 
<BR>of Borderlessness and a Billion Connected People: Pondering the Future of the 
<BR>Internet." 
<BR>
<BR>I look forward to seeing some of you there.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR> 
<BR>
<BR>    
<BR>    
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_29.18f7eb0a.28a49f0f_boundary--
- --
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, 9 Aug 2001 22:31:55 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS REJECT ICANN'S ONE ROOT 'POLICY'

>A Watchdog Committee has been formed to police the nomination process to
help detect and cure
> any instances of fraudulent activity in connection with the nomination
process.

>     The members to the Watchdog Committee in 2001 election are:
>          Roberto Gaetano
>         Harald Alvestrand
>          Kent Crispin
>          Dany Vandromme
>          Alexander Svensson
>          Izumi Aizu

So where do report fraud in the chossing of the watchdog  committee???

Hey, i think I will go drive around the beltway a few times as it is more
constructive than this BS.

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: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 23:23:31 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates

- --part1_107.3de74f8.28a4adb3_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

It's time that we started hearing from our Board candidates.   If they intend 
to represent the DNSO, they should, at the very least, be responsive to the 
GA.  We have already submitted four questions to our Board candidates; here 
are some more... let's hope we get a few more replies...

1.   What are your thoughts regarding the decision of the ccTLD Constituency 
to withdraw from the DNSO?

2.   Board Resolution 01.28 asked for proposals that may result in changes in 
the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.  What 
proposals would you put forth?

3.   What is your position on current registrar transfer policies?

4.   What changes would you propose with respect to the UDRP?

5.   Do you support suspending the voting rights of financially delinquent 
constituencies?

6.   Small Business Owners account for perhaps 70% of all domain 
registrations yet this set of stakeholders does not appear to be 
well-represented in the ICANN process; how would you address this issue?

7.   The At-Large Study Committee was given a budget of $450,000 in order to 
accomplish outreach and generate recommendations; the DNSO is similarly an 
internal working committee of ICANN that engages in outreach and generates 
recommendations, but it has never been given any financial support by ICANN.  
Do you believe that the DNSO should continue to be self-funding?

8.   How would you evaluate the current TLD rollout?

9.   What comments would you make regarding ICP-3?

10.  It is now going on nine months since the new TLDs were selected and yet 
several registry contracts still remain to be signed; in view of the public's 
growing demand for new TLDs, how would you address this issue?

11.  As new TLDs are launched, the prospect of collisions in namespace grows; 
how do you propose to solve this problem?

12.  What is your position with respect to the future of .org?

13.  What is your position regarding the sale of Bulk WHOIS data?

14.  Is seven days sufficient time to review a registry contract?

15.  When would you begin the next round of TLD selections?

- --part1_107.3de74f8.28a4adb3_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>It's time that we started hearing from our Board candidates. &nbsp;&nbsp;If they intend 
<BR>to represent the DNSO, they should, at the very least, be responsive to the 
<BR>GA. &nbsp;We have already submitted four questions to our Board candidates; here 
<BR>are some more... let's hope we get a few more replies...
<BR>
<BR>1. &nbsp;&nbsp;What are your thoughts regarding the decision of the ccTLD Constituency 
<BR>to withdraw from the DNSO?
<BR>
<BR>2. &nbsp;&nbsp;Board Resolution 01.28 asked for proposals that may result in changes in 
<BR>the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning. &nbsp;What 
<BR>proposals would you put forth?
<BR>
<BR>3. &nbsp;&nbsp;What is your position on current registrar transfer policies?
<BR>
<BR>4. &nbsp;&nbsp;What changes would you propose with respect to the UDRP?
<BR>
<BR>5. &nbsp;&nbsp;Do you support suspending the voting rights of financially delinquent 
<BR>constituencies?
<BR>
<BR>6. &nbsp;&nbsp;Small Business Owners account for perhaps 70% of all domain 
<BR>registrations yet this set of stakeholders does not appear to be 
<BR>well-represented in the ICANN process; how would you address this issue?
<BR>
<BR>7. &nbsp;&nbsp;The At-Large Study Committee was given a budget of $450,000 in order to 
<BR>accomplish outreach and generate recommendations; the DNSO is similarly an 
<BR>internal working committee of ICANN that engages in outreach and generates 
<BR>recommendations, but it has never been given any financial support by ICANN. &nbsp;
<BR>Do you believe that the DNSO should continue to be self-funding?
<BR>
<BR>8. &nbsp;&nbsp;How would you evaluate the current TLD rollout?
<BR>
<BR>9. &nbsp;&nbsp;What comments would you make regarding ICP-3?
<BR>
<BR>10. &nbsp;It is now going on nine months since the new TLDs were selected and yet 
<BR>several registry contracts still remain to be signed; in view of the public's 
<BR>growing demand for new TLDs, how would you address this issue?
<BR>
<BR>11. &nbsp;As new TLDs are launched, the prospect of collisions in namespace grows; 
<BR>how do you propose to solve this problem?
<BR>
<BR>12. &nbsp;What is your position with respect to the future of .org?
<BR>
<BR>13. &nbsp;What is your position regarding the sale of Bulk WHOIS data?
<BR>
<BR>14. &nbsp;Is seven days sufficient time to review a registry contract?
<BR>
<BR>15. &nbsp;When would you begin the next round of TLD selections?</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><B>
<BR>
<BR></B></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_107.3de74f8.28a4adb3_boundary--
- --
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, 9 Aug 2001 23:57:08 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C12150.BA469E18
Content-Type: text/plain

Danny, could I ask that we slow down just a bit and allow the endorsement
period to get started before demanding responses. I am sure that the
candidates will be responsive to an organized approach to consult with the
constituencies and GA.
 
However, I note that the nomination phase just closed, and we are now in
endorsement phase. Perhaps we could let that play out a few days since that
will be a useful exercise in and of itself. 
 
I understand that some may feel that they need to ask questions before
endorsing, of course, so I am merely suggesting that we, the  GA, give it a
few days before appearing to set deadlines, or appear critical of the
candidates for not responding immediately.
 
Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:24 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates

It's time that we started hearing from our Board candidates.   If they
intend 
to represent the DNSO, they should, at the very least, be responsive to the 
GA.  We have already submitted four questions to our Board candidates; here 
are some more... let's hope we get a few more replies... 

1.   What are your thoughts regarding the decision of the ccTLD Constituency

to withdraw from the DNSO? 

2.   Board Resolution 01.28 asked for proposals that may result in changes
in 
the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.  What 
proposals would you put forth? 

3.   What is your position on current registrar transfer policies? 

4.   What changes would you propose with respect to the UDRP? 

5.   Do you support suspending the voting rights of financially delinquent 
constituencies? 

6.   Small Business Owners account for perhaps 70% of all domain 
registrations yet this set of stakeholders does not appear to be 
well-represented in the ICANN process; how would you address this issue? 

7.   The At-Large Study Committee was given a budget of $450,000 in order to

accomplish outreach and generate recommendations; the DNSO is similarly an 
internal working committee of ICANN that engages in outreach and generates 
recommendations, but it has never been given any financial support by ICANN.

Do you believe that the DNSO should continue to be self-funding? 

8.   How would you evaluate the current TLD rollout? 

9.   What comments would you make regarding ICP-3? 

10.  It is now going on nine months since the new TLDs were selected and yet

several registry contracts still remain to be signed; in view of the
public's 
growing demand for new TLDs, how would you address this issue? 

11.  As new TLDs are launched, the prospect of collisions in namespace
grows; 
how do you propose to solve this problem? 

12.  What is your position with respect to the future of .org? 

13.  What is your position regarding the sale of Bulk WHOIS data? 

14.  Is seven days sufficient time to review a registry contract? 

15.  When would you begin the next round of TLD selections? 

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C12150.BA469E18
Content-Type: text/html

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">

<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=502225303-10082001>Danny, 
could I ask that we slow down just a bit and allow the endorsement period to get 
started before demanding responses. I am sure that the candidates will be 
responsive to an organized approach to consult with the constituencies and 
GA.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=502225303-10082001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=502225303-10082001>However, I note that the nomination phase just closed, 
and we are now in endorsement phase. Perhaps we could let that play out a few 
days since that will be a useful exercise in and of itself. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=502225303-10082001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=502225303-10082001>I 
understand that some may feel that they need to ask questions before endorsing, 
of course, so I am merely suggesting that we, the&nbsp; GA, give it a few days 
before appearing to set deadlines, or appear critical of the candidates for not 
responding immediately.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=502225303-10082001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=502225303-10082001>Marilyn</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> [email-masked] 
  [mailto:[email-masked]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:24 
  PM<BR><B>To:</B> [email-masked]<BR><B>Cc:</B> [email-masked]; 
  [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
  [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> [ga] Additional Questions for our 
  Board Candidates<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT 
  size=3>It's time that we started hearing from our Board candidates. 
  &nbsp;&nbsp;If they intend <BR>to represent the DNSO, they should, at the very 
  least, be responsive to the <BR>GA. &nbsp;We have already submitted four 
  questions to our Board candidates; here <BR>are some more... let's hope we get 
  a few more replies... <BR><BR>1. &nbsp;&nbsp;What are your thoughts regarding 
  the decision of the ccTLD Constituency <BR>to withdraw from the DNSO? 
  <BR><BR>2. &nbsp;&nbsp;Board Resolution 01.28 asked for proposals that may 
  result in changes in <BR>the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its 
  functioning. &nbsp;What <BR>proposals would you put forth? <BR><BR>3. 
  &nbsp;&nbsp;What is your position on current registrar transfer policies? 
  <BR><BR>4. &nbsp;&nbsp;What changes would you propose with respect to the 
  UDRP? <BR><BR>5. &nbsp;&nbsp;Do you support suspending the voting rights of 
  financially delinquent <BR>constituencies? <BR><BR>6. &nbsp;&nbsp;Small 
  Business Owners account for perhaps 70% of all domain <BR>registrations yet 
  this set of stakeholders does not appear to be <BR>well-represented in the 
  ICANN process; how would you address this issue? <BR><BR>7. &nbsp;&nbsp;The 
  At-Large Study Committee was given a budget of $450,000 in order to 
  <BR>accomplish outreach and generate recommendations; the DNSO is similarly an 
  <BR>internal working committee of ICANN that engages in outreach and generates 
  <BR>recommendations, but it has never been given any financial support by 
  ICANN. &nbsp; <BR>Do you believe that the DNSO should continue to be 
  self-funding? <BR><BR>8. &nbsp;&nbsp;How would you evaluate the current TLD 
  rollout? <BR><BR>9. &nbsp;&nbsp;What comments would you make regarding ICP-3? 
  <BR><BR>10. &nbsp;It is now going on nine months since the new TLDs were 
  selected and yet <BR>several registry contracts still remain to be signed; in 
  view of the public's <BR>growing demand for new TLDs, how would you address 
  this issue? <BR><BR>11. &nbsp;As new TLDs are launched, the prospect of 
  collisions in namespace grows; <BR>how do you propose to solve this problem? 
  <BR><BR>12. &nbsp;What is your position with respect to the future of .org? 
  <BR><BR>13. &nbsp;What is your position regarding the sale of Bulk WHOIS data? 
  <BR><BR>14. &nbsp;Is seven days sufficient time to review a registry contract? 
  <BR><BR>15. &nbsp;When would you begin the next round of TLD 
  selections?</FONT><FONT lang=0 face=Arial color=#000000 size=2 
  FAMILY="SANSSERIF"><B> <BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></B></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C12150.BA469E18--
- --
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, 09 Aug 2001 22:38:09 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Endorsement of Joanna Lane for the Board of Directors

I wish to announce my endorsement of the candidacy of Joanna Lane for a
position
on the Board of Directors.  It should come as news to no one that she
has been among
the most active of General Assembly participants for quite some time --
her web site
internetstakeholders.com has long provided a useful, informative
service, besides
expressing her commendable perception of whom she would regard her
"constituency"
to be.  I have been privileged not only to observe her working
assiduously on ICANN
affairs for many months, but also to work with her in the development of
the Best
Practices system, and I've not seen anyone work harder for the benefit
of the Internet
as a whole -- work which, I might add, exhibits a perception and an
image of the Internet
as it really ought to be, while at the same time recognizing the
limitations that are imposed
by the present ICANN structure.  I wholeheartedly recommend her
election.

Sincerely,

William S. Lovell

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

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

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:44:04 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Endorsement of Joanna Lane for the Board of Directors

Dear Bill,

just a reminder about endorsements: If you want your
endorsement to *count*, you have to send it to
[email-masked]. Endorsements made *only*
on the GA list do not count towards the number of
10 endorsements needed.

This is the template for the endorsement mail:
   3a. Full name of the endorser:
   3b. E-mail address of the endorser:
   3c. Full name of the accepted nominee
       you wish to endorse:
       (specific statements of endorsements
       may also be submitted and are encouraged)

The endorsements are archived here:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/icann-endorsements/Arc01/

The endorsements are listed by candidates here:
http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-nominees.html

Endorsing candidates is also a way of showing that the
GA cares about the elections.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

William S. Lovell wrote on 09.08.01, 22:38:09:
> I wish to announce my endorsement of the candidacy of Joanna Lane for a
> position
> on the Board of Directors.  It should come as news to no one that she
> has been among
> the most active of General Assembly participants for quite some time --
> her web site
> internetstakeholders.com has long provided a useful, informative
> service, besides
> expressing her commendable perception of whom she would regard her
> "constituency"
> to be.  I have been privileged not only to observe her working
> assiduously on ICANN
> affairs for many months, but also to work with her in the development of
> the Best
> Practices system, and I've not seen anyone work harder for the benefit
> of the Internet
> as a whole -- work which, I might add, exhibits a perception and an
> image of the Internet
> as it really ought to be, while at the same time recognizing the
> limitations that are imposed
> by the present ICANN structure.  I wholeheartedly recommend her
> election.

> Sincerely,

> William S. Lovell

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

- --
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, 10 Aug 2001 11:25:20 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Additional Questions for our Board Candidates

Dear Danny,
your questions are most welcome. I happen to be the only one - unless I am 
mistaken - to have responded you first shoot. This went so unnoticed that 
you do not even mention it.

I would therefore suggest that - since you are very good at that - you 
would keep a comparative table of all the received responses with links to 
the sites of the candidates. We could repeat the link to that page in our 
mails.

IMHO the election period is not only a time where you select one person, 
but where you can find sparing partners to debate of common interest 
subject. My personal aim - whatever the result of this selection - is that 
several issues may progress, such as:

- - Internet Users Constituency,
- - Individual and Corporate Constituency
- - DNS Futures Constituency
- - analysis of the "me/we" model implications for ICANN and DNSO management
- - a Community Management System specifications
- - respect of the RFC 920 moTLD

This is why I lobby for the vote of the NC to be taken after Montevideo. 
This way Montevideo will be an opportunity for the candidates not known by 
NC Members (Joana, Eric and me) to meet them f2f in calm since the 
endorsement period will be finished. This would also prevent divisions in 
the DNSO representation over the decision when we need to be united, and 
the same would avoid the all the possible embarrassments and loss of future 
authority that a monkey Director would be exposed to in such a public meeting.

I will address your today questions in another post.
Regards.
Jefsey

On 05:23 10/08/01, [email-masked] said:
>It's time that we started hearing from our Board candidates.   If they intend
>to represent the DNSO, they should, at the very least, be responsive to the
>GA.  We have already submitted four questions to our Board candidates; here
>are some more... let's hope we get a few more replies...

<snip>

- --
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, 10 Aug 2001 11:48:47 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates

- --=====================_5033036==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear Marilyn,
I full agree with you there: we should have a break ! :-)

The election schedule is oddly made since there is no debate before 
decisions. There is no delay between the nomination and endorsement period 
and no clearly defined delay between endorsment period and election date.

You are right, there should be a one or two week delay between the end of 
the acceptance period  and the begining of the endorsments, for people to 
get familiar with every candidate. If I observe this election: three 
candidates have only posted once or twice on the GA this year. Three others 
are unknown face to face to quite every NC Members.

We will probably agree on studying the two solutions:

- - a delay between the end of a phase and the begining of the next phase as 
you suggest.

- - the endorsment period is to end as this year before a quarterly meeting 
and the NC vote to be taken after that meeting. This to give an opportunity 
for the NC Members to equally meet or better know every candidate, to avoid 
any election/result related diversion during the meeting and to take a 
serene vote after each Member had time to quietely consider his options 
during his flight back.

Thank you for this pragmatic and common sense suggestion.
Jefsey

On 05:57 10/08/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
>Danny, could I ask that we slow down just a bit and allow the endorsement 
>period to get started before demanding responses. I am sure that the 
>candidates will be responsive to an organized approach to consult with the 
>constituencies and GA.
>
>However, I note that the nomination phase just closed, and we are now in 
>endorsement phase. Perhaps we could let that play out a few days since 
>that will be a useful exercise in and of itself.
>
>I understand that some may feel that they need to ask questions before 
>endorsing, of course, so I am merely suggesting that we, the  GA, give it 
>a few days before appearing to set deadlines, or appear critical of the 
>candidates for not responding immediately.
>
>Marilyn
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:24 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
>[email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates
>
>It's time that we started hearing from our Board candidates.   If they intend
>to represent the DNSO, they should, at the very least, be responsive to the
>GA.  We have already submitted four questions to our Board candidates; here
>are some more... let's hope we get a few more replies...
>
>1.   What are your thoughts regarding the decision of the ccTLD Constituency
>to withdraw from the DNSO?
>
>2.   Board Resolution 01.28 asked for proposals that may result in changes in
>the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.  What
>proposals would you put forth?
>
>3.   What is your position on current registrar transfer policies?
>
>4.   What changes would you propose with respect to the UDRP?
>
>5.   Do you support suspending the voting rights of financially delinquent
>constituencies?
>
>6.   Small Business Owners account for perhaps 70% of all domain
>registrations yet this set of stakeholders does not appear to be
>well-represented in the ICANN process; how would you address this issue?
>
>7.   The At-Large Study Committee was given a budget of $450,000 in order to
>accomplish outreach and generate recommendations; the DNSO is similarly an
>internal working committee of ICANN that engages in outreach and generates
>recommendations, but it has never been given any financial support by 
>ICANN.
>Do you believe that the DNSO should continue to be self-funding?
>
>8.   How would you evaluate the current TLD rollout?
>
>9.   What comments would you make regarding ICP-3?
>
>10.  It is now going on nine months since the new TLDs were selected and yet
>several registry contracts still remain to be signed; in view of the public's
>growing demand for new TLDs, how would you address this issue?
>
>11.  As new TLDs are launched, the prospect of collisions in namespace grows;
>how do you propose to solve this problem?
>
>12.  What is your position with respect to the future of .org?
>
>13.  What is your position regarding the sale of Bulk WHOIS data?
>
>14.  Is seven days sufficient time to review a registry contract?
>
>15.  When would you begin the next round of TLD selections?

- --=====================_5033036==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Dear Marilyn,<br>
I full agree with you there: we should have a break ! :-) <br>
<br>
The election schedule is oddly made since there is no debate before
decisions. There is no delay between the nomination and endorsement
period and no clearly defined delay between endorsment period and
election date. <br>
<br>
You are right, there should be a one or two week delay between the end of
the acceptance period&nbsp; and the begining of the endorsments, for
people to get familiar with every candidate. If I observe this election:
three candidates have only posted once or twice on the GA this year.
Three others are unknown face to face to quite every NC Members.<br>
<br>
We will probably agree on studying the two solutions:<br>
<br>
- - a delay between the end of a phase and the begining of the next phase
as you suggest.<br>
<br>
- - the endorsment period is to end as this year before a quarterly meeting
and the NC vote to be taken after that meeting. This to give an
opportunity for the NC Members to equally meet or better know every
candidate, to avoid any election/result related diversion during the
meeting and to take a serene vote after each Member had time to quietely
consider his options during his flight back.<br>
<br>
Thank you for this pragmatic and common sense suggestion.<br>
Jefsey<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 05:57 10/08/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">Danny,
could I ask that we slow down just a bit and allow the endorsement period
to get started before demanding responses. I am sure that the candidates
will be responsive to an organized approach to consult with the
constituencies and GA.</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">However, I note that the
nomination phase just closed, and we are now in endorsement phase.
Perhaps we could let that play out a few days since that will be a useful
exercise in and of itself. </font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">I understand that some may feel
that they need to ask questions before endorsing, of course, so I am
merely suggesting that we, the&nbsp; GA, give it a few days before
appearing to set deadlines, or appear critical of the candidates for not
responding immediately.</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">Marilyn</font> 
<dl><font face="tahoma" size=2>
<dd>-----Original Message----- 
<dd>From: [email-masked]
[<a href="mailto:[email-masked]" eudora="autourl">mailto:[email-masked]</a>] 
<dd>Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:24 PM 
<dd>To: [email-masked] 
<dd>Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked] 
<dd>Subject: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates<br>
<br>
</font><font face="arial">
<dd>It's time that we started hearing from our Board
candidates.&nbsp;&nbsp; If they intend 
<dd>to represent the DNSO, they should, at the very least, be responsive
to the 
<dd>GA.&nbsp; We have already submitted four questions to our Board
candidates; here 
<dd>are some more... let's hope we get a few more replies... <br>
<br>

<dd>1.&nbsp;&nbsp; What are your thoughts regarding the decision of the
ccTLD Constituency 
<dd>to withdraw from the DNSO? <br>
<br>

<dd>2.&nbsp;&nbsp; Board Resolution 01.28 asked for proposals that may
result in changes in 
<dd>the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its
functioning.&nbsp; What 
<dd>proposals would you put forth? <br>
<br>

<dd>3.&nbsp;&nbsp; What is your position on current registrar transfer
policies? <br>
<br>

<dd>4.&nbsp;&nbsp; What changes would you propose with respect to the
UDRP? <br>
<br>

<dd>5.&nbsp;&nbsp; Do you support suspending the voting rights of
financially delinquent 
<dd>constituencies? <br>
<br>

<dd>6.&nbsp;&nbsp; Small Business Owners account for perhaps 70% of all
domain 
<dd>registrations yet this set of stakeholders does not appear to be 
<dd>well-represented in the ICANN process; how would you address this
issue? <br>
<br>

<dd>7.&nbsp;&nbsp; The At-Large Study Committee was given a budget of
$450,000 in order to 
<dd>accomplish outreach and generate recommendations; the DNSO is
similarly an 
<dd>internal working committee of ICANN that engages in outreach and
generates 
<dd>recommendations, but it has never been given any financial support by
ICANN.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
<dd>Do you believe that the DNSO should continue to be self-funding?
<br>
<br>

<dd>8.&nbsp;&nbsp; How would you evaluate the current TLD rollout? <br>
<br>

<dd>9.&nbsp;&nbsp; What comments would you make regarding ICP-3? <br>
<br>

<dd>10.&nbsp; It is now going on nine months since the new TLDs were
selected and yet 
<dd>several registry contracts still remain to be signed; in view of the
public's 
<dd>growing demand for new TLDs, how would you address this issue? <br>
<br>

<dd>11.&nbsp; As new TLDs are launched, the prospect of collisions in
namespace grows; 
<dd>how do you propose to solve this problem? <br>
<br>

<dd>12.&nbsp; What is your position with respect to the future of .org?
<br>
<br>

<dd>13.&nbsp; What is your position regarding the sale of Bulk WHOIS
data? <br>
<br>

<dd>14.&nbsp; Is seven days sufficient time to review a registry
contract? <br>
<br>

<dd>15.&nbsp; When would you begin the next round of TLD
selections?</font><font face="arial" size=2> </font>
</dl></blockquote></html>

- --=====================_5033036==_.ALT--

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

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

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 03:09:39 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Additional Questions for our Board Candidates

Jefsey,

You are right on this matter and your *election* through the GA should be a fact.

If the others do not campaign here they must be doing it elsewhere that is not
open and transparent.  Perhaps the members of the Watchdog committee have their
own candidate in mind?  I will remain open but only on the list, if response to
this is not forthcoming by the other candidates then we cannot trust them.  I am
very saddened by these nefarious actions.

Sincerely,
Eric

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Danny,
> your questions are most welcome. I happen to be the only one - unless I am
> mistaken - to have responded you first shoot. This went so unnoticed that
> you do not even mention it.
>
> I would therefore suggest that - since you are very good at that - you
> would keep a comparative table of all the received responses with links to
> the sites of the candidates. We could repeat the link to that page in our
> mails.
>
> IMHO the election period is not only a time where you select one person,
> but where you can find sparing partners to debate of common interest
> subject. My personal aim - whatever the result of this selection - is that
> several issues may progress, such as:
>
> - Internet Users Constituency,
> - Individual and Corporate Constituency
> - DNS Futures Constituency
> - analysis of the "me/we" model implications for ICANN and DNSO management
> - a Community Management System specifications
> - respect of the RFC 920 moTLD
>
> This is why I lobby for the vote of the NC to be taken after Montevideo.
> This way Montevideo will be an opportunity for the candidates not known by
> NC Members (Joana, Eric and me) to meet them f2f in calm since the
> endorsement period will be finished. This would also prevent divisions in
> the DNSO representation over the decision when we need to be united, and
> the same would avoid the all the possible embarrassments and loss of future
> authority that a monkey Director would be exposed to in such a public meeting.
>
> I will address your today questions in another post.
> Regards.
> Jefsey
>
> On 05:23 10/08/01, [email-masked] said:
> >It's time that we started hearing from our Board candidates.   If they intend
> >to represent the DNSO, they should, at the very least, be responsive to the
> >GA.  We have already submitted four questions to our Board candidates; here
> >are some more... let's hope we get a few more replies...
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 06:48:48 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS REJECT ICANN'S ONE ROOT 'POLICY' 

I don't interpret it that way at all.  

To me (and I stress this is a personal opinion) it means that those who operate on the alternate root should not be prevented from applying to be in the authoritative root.  

Put yet even another way, in the event that an alternate root would like to become part of the authoritative root and live by all of the rules that the authoritative root TLDs live by, it should not be prevented from doing so (i.e., subject to consensus policies, SLAs, Sanctions, Escrow, mandatory financial commitments, UDRP, etc.).  

It is NOT an endorsement by Congress of the alternate roots, nor is it any enorsement that ICANN should avoid collisions and be constrained the alternate roots that are already operated.

Thus, it is my personal opinion that ICP-3 and the Congressional statement do not contradict each other. 
- --
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, 10 Aug 2001 07:25:30 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1218F.3894E3EA
Content-Type: text/plain

Jefsey, 
 
You misterpreted my email as  you wished to. Read it again. :-) It suggested
a few days into the endorsement period before pressuring the candiates for
statement.  I did not suggest what you interpreted... into my statement.
Happy to clarify it here, again.
 
The Endorsement period is for the candidates to build an endorsement list
which is useful to those who don't know the candidate. 
 
I'm studying each of the posted statements as I am sure that GA members are
doing as well.  Giving a few days from the start of the endorsement period
before expecting to see statements seems a useful approach. 
 
I see no need for a further extended period as you describe. 

 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 5:49 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates

Dear Marilyn,
I full agree with you there: we should have a break ! :-) 

The election schedule is oddly made since there is no debate before
decisions. There is no delay between the nomination and endorsement period
and no clearly defined delay between endorsment period and election date. 

You are right, there should be a one or two week delay between the end of
the acceptance period  and the begining of the endorsments, for people to
get familiar with every candidate. If I observe this election: three
candidates have only posted once or twice on the GA this year. Three others
are unknown face to face to quite every NC Members.

We will probably agree on studying the two solutions:

- - a delay between the end of a phase and the begining of the next phase as
you suggest.

- - the endorsment period is to end as this year before a quarterly meeting
and the NC vote to be taken after that meeting. This to give an opportunity
for the NC Members to equally meet or better know every candidate, to avoid
any election/result related diversion during the meeting and to take a
serene vote after each Member had time to quietely consider his options
during his flight back.

Thank you for this pragmatic and common sense suggestion.
Jefsey

On 05:57 10/08/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:

Danny, could I ask that we slow down just a bit and allow the endorsement
period to get started before demanding responses. I am sure that the
candidates will be responsive to an organized approach to consult with the
constituencies and GA.
 
However, I note that the nomination phase just closed, and we are now in
endorsement phase. Perhaps we could let that play out a few days since that
will be a useful exercise in and of itself. 
 
I understand that some may feel that they need to ask questions before
endorsing, of course, so I am merely suggesting that we, the  GA, give it a
few days before appearing to set deadlines, or appear critical of the
candidates for not responding immediately.
 
Marilyn 

- -----Original Message----- 

From: [email-masked] [ mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ] 

Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:24 PM 

To: [email-masked] 

Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked] 

Subject: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates

It's time that we started hearing from our Board candidates.   If they
intend 

to represent the DNSO, they should, at the very least, be responsive to the 

GA.  We have already submitted four questions to our Board candidates; here 

are some more... let's hope we get a few more replies... 

1.   What are your thoughts regarding the decision of the ccTLD Constituency

to withdraw from the DNSO? 

2.   Board Resolution 01.28 asked for proposals that may result in changes
in 

the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.  What 

proposals would you put forth? 

3.   What is your position on current registrar transfer policies? 

4.   What changes would you propose with respect to the UDRP? 

5.   Do you support suspending the voting rights of financially delinquent 

constituencies? 

6.   Small Business Owners account for perhaps 70% of all domain 

registrations yet this set of stakeholders does not appear to be 

well-represented in the ICANN process; how would you address this issue? 

7.   The At-Large Study Committee was given a budget of $450,000 in order to

accomplish outreach and generate recommendations; the DNSO is similarly an 

internal working committee of ICANN that engages in outreach and generates 

recommendations, but it has never been given any financial support by ICANN.

Do you believe that the DNSO should continue to be self-funding? 

8.   How would you evaluate the current TLD rollout? 

9.   What comments would you make regarding ICP-3? 

10.  It is now going on nine months since the new TLDs were selected and yet

several registry contracts still remain to be signed; in view of the
public's 

growing demand for new TLDs, how would you address this issue? 

11.  As new TLDs are launched, the prospect of collisions in namespace
grows; 

how do you propose to solve this problem? 

12.  What is your position with respect to the future of .org? 

13.  What is your position regarding the sale of Bulk WHOIS data? 

14.  Is seven days sufficient time to review a registry contract? 

15.  When would you begin the next round of TLD selections? 

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1218F.3894E3EA
Content-Type: text/html

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

<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=652271811-10082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Jefsey, </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=652271811-10082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=652271811-10082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>You 
misterpreted my email as&nbsp; you wished to. Read it again. :-) It suggested a 
few days into the endorsement period before pressuring the candiates 
for&nbsp;statement.&nbsp; I did not suggest what you interpreted...&nbsp;into my 
statement. Happy to clarify it here, again.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=652271811-10082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=652271811-10082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>The 
Endorsement period is for the candidates to build an endorsement list which is 
useful to those who don't know the candidate. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=652271811-10082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=652271811-10082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I'm 
studying each of the posted statements as I am sure that GA members are doing as 
well.&nbsp; Giving a few days from the start of the endorsement period before 
expecting to see statements seems a useful approach. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=652271811-10082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=652271811-10082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I see 
no need for a further extended period as you describe. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=652271811-10082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=652271811-10082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=652271811-10082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=652271811-10082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Jefsey Morfin 
  [mailto:[email-masked]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, August 10, 2001 5:49 
  AM<BR><B>To:</B> [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [ga] Additional Questions 
  for our Board Candidates<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>Dear Marilyn,<BR>I full agree 
  with you there: we should have a break ! :-) <BR><BR>The election schedule is 
  oddly made since there is no debate before decisions. There is no delay 
  between the nomination and endorsement period and no clearly defined delay 
  between endorsment period and election date. <BR><BR>You are right, there 
  should be a one or two week delay between the end of the acceptance 
  period&nbsp; and the begining of the endorsments, for people to get familiar 
  with every candidate. If I observe this election: three candidates have only 
  posted once or twice on the GA this year. Three others are unknown face to 
  face to quite every NC Members.<BR><BR>We will probably agree on studying the 
  two solutions:<BR><BR>- a delay between the end of a phase and the begining of 
  the next phase as you suggest.<BR><BR>- the endorsment period is to end as 
  this year before a quarterly meeting and the NC vote to be taken after that 
  meeting. This to give an opportunity for the NC Members to equally meet or 
  better know every candidate, to avoid any election/result related diversion 
  during the meeting and to take a serene vote after each Member had time to 
  quietely consider his options during his flight back.<BR><BR>Thank you for 
  this pragmatic and common sense suggestion.<BR>Jefsey<BR><BR><BR><BR>On 05:57 
  10/08/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:<BR>
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite type="cite"><FONT face=arial color=#0000ff 
    size=2>Danny, could I ask that we slow down just a bit and allow the 
    endorsement period to get started before demanding responses. I am sure that 
    the candidates will be responsive to an organized approach to consult with 
    the constituencies and GA.</FONT><BR>&nbsp;<BR><FONT face=arial 
    color=#0000ff size=2>However, I note that the nomination phase just closed, 
    and we are now in endorsement phase. Perhaps we could let that play out a 
    few days since that will be a useful exercise in and of itself. 
    </FONT><BR>&nbsp;<BR><FONT face=arial color=#0000ff size=2>I understand that 
    some may feel that they need to ask questions before endorsing, of course, 
    so I am merely suggesting that we, the&nbsp; GA, give it a few days before 
    appearing to set deadlines, or appear critical of the candidates for not 
    responding immediately.</FONT><BR>&nbsp;<BR><FONT face=arial color=#0000ff 
    size=2>Marilyn</FONT> 
    <DL><FONT face=tahoma size=2>
      <DD>-----Original Message----- 
      <DD>From: [email-masked] [<A href="mailto:[email-masked]" 
      eudora="autourl">mailto:[email-masked]</A>] 
      <DD>Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:24 PM 
      <DD>To: [email-masked] 
      <DD>Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
      [email-masked]; [email-masked] 
      <DD>Subject: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board 
      Candidates<BR><BR></FONT><FONT face=arial>
      <DD>It's time that we started hearing from our Board 
      candidates.&nbsp;&nbsp; If they intend 
      <DD>to represent the DNSO, they should, at the very least, be responsive 
      to the 
      <DD>GA.&nbsp; We have already submitted four questions to our Board 
      candidates; here 
      <DD>are some more... let's hope we get a few more replies... <BR><BR>
      <DD>1.&nbsp;&nbsp; What are your thoughts regarding the decision of the 
      ccTLD Constituency 
      <DD>to withdraw from the DNSO? <BR><BR>
      <DD>2.&nbsp;&nbsp; Board Resolution 01.28 asked for proposals that may 
      result in changes in 
      <DD>the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its 
      functioning.&nbsp; What 
      <DD>proposals would you put forth? <BR><BR>
      <DD>3.&nbsp;&nbsp; What is your position on current registrar transfer 
      policies? <BR><BR>
      <DD>4.&nbsp;&nbsp; What changes would you propose with respect to the 
      UDRP? <BR><BR>
      <DD>5.&nbsp;&nbsp; Do you support suspending the voting rights of 
      financially delinquent 
      <DD>constituencies? <BR><BR>
      <DD>6.&nbsp;&nbsp; Small Business Owners account for perhaps 70% of all 
      domain 
      <DD>registrations yet this set of stakeholders does not appear to be 
      <DD>well-represented in the ICANN process; how would you address this 
      issue? <BR><BR>
      <DD>7.&nbsp;&nbsp; The At-Large Study Committee was given a budget of 
      $450,000 in order to 
      <DD>accomplish outreach and generate recommendations; the DNSO is 
      similarly an 
      <DD>internal working committee of ICANN that engages in outreach and 
      generates 
      <DD>recommendations, but it has never been given any financial support by 
      ICANN.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
      <DD>Do you believe that the DNSO should continue to be self-funding? 
      <BR><BR>
      <DD>8.&nbsp;&nbsp; How would you evaluate the current TLD rollout? 
<BR><BR>
      <DD>9.&nbsp;&nbsp; What comments would you make regarding ICP-3? <BR><BR>
      <DD>10.&nbsp; It is now going on nine months since the new TLDs were 
      selected and yet 
      <DD>several registry contracts still remain to be signed; in view of the 
      public's 
      <DD>growing demand for new TLDs, how would you address this issue? 
<BR><BR>
      <DD>11.&nbsp; As new TLDs are launched, the prospect of collisions in 
      namespace grows; 
      <DD>how do you propose to solve this problem? <BR><BR>
      <DD>12.&nbsp; What is your position with respect to the future of .org? 
      <BR><BR>
      <DD>13.&nbsp; What is your position regarding the sale of Bulk WHOIS data? 
      <BR><BR>
      <DD>14.&nbsp; Is seven days sufficient time to review a registry contract? 
      <BR><BR>
      <DD>15.&nbsp; When would you begin the next round of TLD 
      selections?</FONT><FONT face=arial size=2> 
</FONT></DD></DL></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1218F.3894E3EA--
- --
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 #657
************************