Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #717
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, September 2 2001          Volume 01 : Number 717

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

Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 14:06:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

I meant 'turn it into a separate, free-standing, body' (but the phrase was
perhaps ambiguous, as it might have implied continuing ICANN control,
sorry).

I am coming to think this is also the answer for IP # function which
should be separate from the DNS function and from IANA.

On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> What does "hive it off" mean ??
> 
> Peter de Blanc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Michael
> Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 4:45 AM
> To: Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
> 
> 
> Since those aspects of ccTLD managment are handled by 'IANA', and 'IANA'
> seems to be exempt from all ICANN transparency rules, why not just hive
> it off?
> 
> (Readers wanting to know about the IANA/ICANN separation fiction are
> invited to read a series of articles on ccTLD issues that have appeared
> on www.icannwatch.org in the last few months...)
> 
> 
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> > Leah,
> > 
> > >
> > >Actually, you have a serious point.  I have long wondered why ccTLDs 
> > >should not simply be included in the root and let it go at that.
> > 
> > 
> > With which mechanism?
> > I mean, who decides if a "thing" is a ccTLD or not, and if the 
> > operator is
> > authoritative?
> > Somebody must have the responsibility for inclusion of a new TLD,
> things do 
> > not just happen by themselves.
> > 
> > >
> > >On 30 Aug 2001, at 20:08, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Actually, I kind of wonder
> > > > 1. why icann should have ANY say over ccTLDs?
> > 
> > Because ccTLDs have no other possibility to be included in the root. 
> > The situation is not static, countries appear and disappear, and new 
> > records shall be created/removed. You may consider it unfortunate, but
> 
> > ICANN has this authority, even if it acts only under adult supervision
> 
> > by USG (by USG has made it clear since the Ira Magaziner times that it
> 
> > wants to operate behind the curtain, delegating the front role to an 
> > entity acting under agreement with USG). In other words, if it is not 
> > ICANN, it must be somebody else, since the real owner
> > (USG) considers politically unwise to act directly.
> > 
> > 
> > > > 2. why ccTLDs should have ANY say over ICANN?
> > > >
> > 
> > If they don't want to, they should be free not to.
> > But if I were a ccTLD Registry, I would consider myself a stakeholder,
> 
> > and
> > would like to have a say in what is going on. Just like Registrants
> are 
> > trying to do.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Roberto
> > 
> > P.S.: Just curious, why these questions? What is the alternative 
> > scenario
> > that you envisage for entry/exit from the root?
> > - ccTLDs "self-manage";
> > - USG acting directly;
> > - a third entity different from ICANN does it (VeriSign?)
> > 
> > 
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 
> > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                 -->It's very hot and humid here.<--

- --
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: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 11:28:36 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> I believe that
>
> 1. icann should interact with  ccTLDs.
> 2. ccTLDs should inteact with ICANN.
>
> The Internet is truly global. Both technicasl coordination and model
> policy should be as consistent as possible.
>
> This does not mean that "ICANN rules".
>
> Here's an example, ICANN has UDRP, ccTLDs have, or will have "Local
> DRP". Interaction will assure that each TLD has SOME kind of dispute
> resolution policy,

And this is supposed to be a "good?"  As a "technical coordination entity"
(hah!), ICANN never had any business poking its nose into who gets what
domain name.  Its only concern should be that the domain name works, and
let the parties go do battle somewhere else. I don't see where ICANN was
ever given any "model policy" agenda, and those who fall into the trap of
mindlessly adopting such jargon are only assisting in their own burial under

ICANN (and WIPO, etc.) red tape and what the law (in the U.S.) calls
"officious intermeddling."
]\
Bill Lovell

> and that such policy is applied fairly.
>
> Also, interaction and consultation between various constituencies and
> Sos facilitates the security and stability of the global Internet
>
> Peter de Blanc
>

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 11:30:57 -0800
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

I agree with Bill's comment.

Certainly .US is useful. Local and state agencies, schools, police and
fire departments, etc, may all make goo use of  the system.

I'd like to see a mechanism whereby the organization managing .US
operates on a cost recovery basis, with perhaps a 20% of gross domain
name fee  "holdback" for reserves and development.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of William
S. Lovell
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 9:08 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

L Gallegos wrote:

> It is interesting, indeed, that the gTLDs want autonomy and wish to be

> compared to the ccTLDs when they are different animals.  .US is the 
> ccTLD and it, too, should have autonomy as the other ccTLDs should.  
> As a ccTLD, .US is almost worthless as it stands right now.  It is 
> being handled badly, IMO, and will be tired up in bureaucratic red 
> tape for who knows how long. Whether it will become useful for the US 
> public remains to be seen.
>
> Leah

It is quite useful. When wearing my attorney hat, I often have to search
out data on legal, administrative, organizational, etc., matters in
various states, and so far as I have seen, every U. S. state has web
sites under the .us ccTLD and, at least in Oregon, a lot of business
that used to have to be carried out with hard copies and snail mail can
now be done on line.  There's also a lot of Federal stuff, although many
agencies, such as the Patent Office, have their own .gov sites.  Credit
should be given to the .us domain operators, and to those making good
use of that ccTLD.

Bill Lovell

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader, available
for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 13:08:40 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Redefining the Box

Please read the following comments from some real smart folks;

Peter de Blanc wrote:

The ccTLDs need to maintain close contact with the other constituencies.
Perhaps the idea of ccTLD holding seats on the Names Council for policy
development would work. Assuming the ccTLDs had a SO, the ccTLD reps on
the NC would NOT participate in voting for NC-elected ICANN board
directors.

Peter de Blanc

Karl wrote:

It may have been hashed and rehashed, in private, by those who somehow
think that ICANN, a California Corporation, can declare itself immune from
the laws of the state in which ICANN chose to incorporate itself.

ICANN could also declare, with equally null effect, that its employees are
exempt from taxation and traffic laws ... or that pigs can fly.

Simply stated, the Board of Directors of ICANN has no power to nullify a
law duly passed by the legislature of its voluntarily chosen home,
California, and signed into law by the Governor of the state.

I posted my analysis quite some time ago:
http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/platform.htm#full-members

Mr. Lovell wrote:

And this is supposed to be a "good?"  As a "technical coordination entity"
(hah!), ICANN never had any business poking its nose into who gets what
domain name.  Its only concern should be that the domain name works, and
let the parties go do battle somewhere else. I don't see where ICANN was
ever given any "model policy" agenda, and those who fall into the trap of
mindlessly adopting such jargon are only assisting in their own burial under

ICANN (and WIPO, etc.) red tape and what the law (in the U.S.) calls
"officious intermeddling."
]\
Bill Lovell

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> I meant 'turn it into a separate, free-standing, body' (but the phrase was
> perhaps ambiguous, as it might have implied continuing ICANN control,
> sorry).
>
> I am coming to think this is also the answer for IP # function which
> should be separate from the DNS function and from IANA.

Obviously we are arriving at a consensus that mixing this technical
coordination body with a policy developing and implementation body is not
optimum.  Since we are looking so carefully at a new ccTLD org. and so
concerned with geographic diversity and since we need a wholly independent
body to keep an eye on registrars and registries there is a possibility to
arrange our SO structure to create a new body just for DN issues and public
policy matters.  We cannot just fake it and pretend ICANN is not making public
policy decisions so we had better deal with it.

Sincerely,
Eric

- --
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: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 18:51:50 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 1 Sep 2001, at 9:54, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> I believe that 
> 
> 1. icann should interact with  ccTLDs.
> 2. ccTLDs should inteact with ICANN.
> 
Yes, interaction is always good.  That means meaningful dialog.

In that vein, ICANN should interact with ALL viable TLDs.

> The Internet is truly global. Both technicasl coordination and model
> policy should be as consistent as possible.

Some consistency is good, but it is still important to maintain 
autonomy and not be "ruled" by an organization that may have no 
understanding or even interest in those you are serving.  When the 
focus of the organization is clearly motivated by corporate interests 
and special interests, the registries are ruled by those concerns 
and not those affected by them.

When you say "model policy" you cover a huge area.  Models can 
be as diverse as the globe.  

> 
> This does not mean that "ICANN rules".
> 

Exactly.  

> Here's an example, ICANN has UDRP, ccTLDs have, or will have "Local
> DRP". Interaction will assure that each TLD has SOME kind of dispute
> resolution policy, and that such policy is applied fairly.

According to applicable national and local laws, yes, but not to 
supersede laws as the current UDRP allows.  TLDs should be free 
to adopt whatever policies they see fit, keeping in mind at all times 
those who use their services.

> 
> Also, interaction and consultation between various constituencies and
> Sos facilitates the security and stability of the global Internet

I would agree.  That is why it is so important to not exclude any 
facet of the global internet.  Exclusion means conflict.  We have 
that now.

> 
> Peter de Blanc

Leah

> 

- --
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: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 18:54:46 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 1 Sep 2001, at 10:07, William S. Lovell wrote:

> 
> It is quite useful. When wearing my attorney hat, I often have to
> search out data on legal, administrative, organizational, etc.,
> matters in various states, and so far as I have seen, every U. S.
> state has web sites under the .us ccTLD and, at least in Oregon, a lot
> of business that used to have to be carried out with hard copies and
> snail mail can now be done on line.  There's also a lot of Federal
> stuff, although many agencies, such as the Patent Office, have their
> own .gov sites.  Credit should be given to the .us domain operators,
> and to those making good use of that ccTLD.
> 

There is no quarrel with those domain operators who are doing a 
good job.  The problem lies with those who are not.  Try to obtain a 
.us domain and tell me how you fare.

Leah

- --
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, 2 Sep 2001 00:58:29 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Marc Schneiders elected for dot org TF, Danny Younger elected for International DN TF

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

Saturday 1 September 2001, 24:00 Paris time.

Re: b08

Vote by the GA to designate its representative to the Names Council
International DN and dot org Task Forces
cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GA-IDN-dotorgTF.html 

The vote was conducted by the DNSO Secretariat.

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

The time for the vote was:

       Begins: Friday 24 August 2001, 16:00 UTC, 18:00 CET (Paris), 
       Ends: Friday 31 August 2001, 16:00 UTC, 18:00 CET (Paris) 

A. The final result:

       Marc Schneiders is elected for dot org TF 

       Danny Younger is elected for International DN TF 

B. Information about ballots received:

    1. Electorate of 440 persons.

    2. Number of ballots received: 89 (20 percent)

    3. Besides ballots we received eight (8) Delivery-Reports:

            1. b08:Kc8baZ:
            2. b08:Kac9eZ:
            3. b08:K5b7fZ:
            4. b08:K590cZ:
            5. b08:KcffaZ:
            6. b08:K78bdZ:
            7. b08:Kc7eaZ:
            8. b08:K102cZ:

    4. Two (2) voters sent multiple ballots, the last overrides the others:

            1. b08:K288cZ:
            2. b08:K9296Z:

C. Full public record:

   Published in http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b08fullrecord.html

DNSO Secretariat
- -- 
- --
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: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 21:01:08 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] The North American UDRP 

As an organization, we talk a lot about the importance of geographic 
diversity... but do we practice it?  There is a debate under way in the Names 
Council regarding the geographical composition of the UDRP Task Force.  In 
her message to the Council, Elisabeth Porteneuve has noted:

the simple arithmetics is:
   16 - NA, 14 NA plus two Chairs
    3 - EU
    1 - LAC
    1 - AF
    1 - AP

In a later message she states:  "I maintain my objection to the composition 
of UDRP TF - this group
is not international."   Subsequently, Elisabeth introduced the following 
motion:  

"the geographic diversity of TF must be granted, no one geographic region may 
be represented by more than one third of members in any TF"

As could be predicted, Philip Sheppard does not concur and states:  "Please 
consider the TF as valid and start its work directly."  Fortunately, other NC 
members are siding with Elisabeth, and hopefully the debate will continue for 
a while longer yet.  

This is but one of the many problems that occurs when the NC chooses to use a 
small closed Task Force rather than a large open Working Group.  

It has been noted in the recent "Report of the Internationalized Domain Names 
Internal Working Group of the ICANN Board of Directors" that "the deployment 
of IDNs will increase the opportunity for cybersquatting. Survey participants 
recommended a variety of measures, particularly increased use of UDRP 
arbitrators familiar with non-Latin scripts, to combat this problem."  A UDRP 
Task Force that does not contain a sufficient number of members familiar with 
codes of Law other than North American/European or language sets other than 
Latin-character-based is destined to perform poorly.

We are in a global environment.  I encourage the NC to add additional members 
to its Task Force to better represent the rest of the world Internet 
community.

As consensus in this Task Force is decided by a simple majority vote, the 
current member composition guarantees that the North American point of view 
will necessarily prevail.   This is not consensus; it is capture.

- --
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: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 22:10:34 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Whonami Releases First World-Wide Real-Time Domain ... 

In the news...

GREENBELT, Md., Aug 27, 2001 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Whonami, Ltd. announces the 
public release of its Global Internet Name Search (GINS), the world's first 
independent, natural-language, multi-lingual global domain name search and 
registration resource.

Whonami GINS enables users to conduct domain name searches in nearly 500 
top-level domains around the world with a single query. Users may register 
available names in over 200 unrestricted domains through Whonami's affiliate 
relationships with such prominent registrars as AllDomains, Register.Com 
(RCOM), 1GlobalPlace, and VeriSign (VRSN).

Unlike many other global name searches, Whonami GINS is free to all Internet 
users, operates in seconds - not minutes or days - and avoids the archaic, 
inflexible user experience offered by other services.

In addition, Whonami GINS provides Internet Protocol address lookups via the 
ARIN IP address database and facilitates international domain name searches 
and/or registrations by offering English language translations of search 
phrases.

The service also offers international users the ability to cut-and-paste 
search requests from users' native alphabets, including Arabic, Simple 
Chinese, Cyrillic, and Kanji, among others.

Users of Whonami's centralized domain search services include new Internet 
customers searching for a desirable domain name and organizations wishing to 
develop a list of all domain names they may own throughout the world.

Whonami GINS is particularly useful for identifying potential trademark 
infringement or the misuse of corporate marks, and is a valuable tool for 
network administrators searching for contact information when investigating 
network problems.

"It's essential that a centralized and useful domain name information 
resource be made available to the entire Internet community and not 
exclusively to those that can afford it," notes Whonami President Bill 
Feinbloom. "It's equally important for such a resource to remain independent 
of conflicting business models, industry politics, and adapt easily as the 
Internet evolves and grows."

Future plans include support for new ICANN top-level domain names (such as 
.aero, .info, and .name) and the growing number of publicly-accepted 
'alternate' top-level domains (such as .mp3 and .xxx, among others.)

Whonami is committed to Internet privacy and does not archive or exploit its 
server logs of customer queries or activities.

Whonami GINS is found at http://www.whonami.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: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 23:13:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The North American UDRP 

Task Forces are bad.  They are an excuse not to have working groups.  The
solution to this very real issue is to ban TF's and demand WG's.

On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> As an organization, we talk a lot about the importance of geographic 
> diversity... but do we practice it?  There is a debate under way in the Names 
> Council regarding the geographical composition of the UDRP Task Force.  In 
> her message to the Council, Elisabeth Porteneuve has noted:
> 
> the simple arithmetics is:
>    16 - NA, 14 NA plus two Chairs
>     3 - EU
>     1 - LAC
>     1 - AF
>     1 - AP
> 
> In a later message she states:  "I maintain my objection to the composition 
> of UDRP TF - this group
> is not international."   Subsequently, Elisabeth introduced the following 
> motion:  
> 
> "the geographic diversity of TF must be granted, no one geographic region may 
> be represented by more than one third of members in any TF"
> 
> As could be predicted, Philip Sheppard does not concur and states:  "Please 
> consider the TF as valid and start its work directly."  Fortunately, other NC 
> members are siding with Elisabeth, and hopefully the debate will continue for 
> a while longer yet.  
> 
> This is but one of the many problems that occurs when the NC chooses to use a 
> small closed Task Force rather than a large open Working Group.  
> 
> It has been noted in the recent "Report of the Internationalized Domain Names 
> Internal Working Group of the ICANN Board of Directors" that "the deployment 
> of IDNs will increase the opportunity for cybersquatting. Survey participants 
> recommended a variety of measures, particularly increased use of UDRP 
> arbitrators familiar with non-Latin scripts, to combat this problem."  A UDRP 
> Task Force that does not contain a sufficient number of members familiar with 
> codes of Law other than North American/European or language sets other than 
> Latin-character-based is destined to perform poorly.
> 
> We are in a global environment.  I encourage the NC to add additional members 
> to its Task Force to better represent the rest of the world Internet 
> community.
> 
> As consensus in this Task Force is decided by a simple majority vote, the 
> current member composition guarantees that the North American point of view 
> will necessarily prevail.   This is not consensus; it is capture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                 -->It's very hot and humid here.<--

- --
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: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 21:40:08 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

L Gallegos wrote:

> On 1 Sep 2001, at 10:07, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> >
> > It is quite useful. When wearing my attorney hat, I often have to
> > search out data on legal, administrative, organizational, etc.,
> > matters in various states, and so far as I have seen, every U. S.
> > state has web sites under the .us ccTLD and, at least in Oregon, a lot
> > of business that used to have to be carried out with hard copies and
> > snail mail can now be done on line.  There's also a lot of Federal
> > stuff, although many agencies, such as the Patent Office, have their
> > own .gov sites.  Credit should be given to the .us domain operators,
> > and to those making good use of that ccTLD.
> >
>
> There is no quarrel with those domain operators who are doing a
> good job.  The problem lies with those who are not.  Try to obtain a
> .us domain and tell me how you fare.

Dunno, Leah.  Maybe one has to be a government agency of some
kind, since that's what the .us is for, as I understand it. The intended
value to the public is not as a TLD at which to get a domain, but
rather a TLD at which one can find useful sites.

Bill

>
>
> Leah

- --

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 01:08:59 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 1 Sep 2001, at 21:40, William S. Lovell wrote:

> 
> 
> L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > On 1 Sep 2001, at 10:07, William S. Lovell wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It is quite useful. When wearing my attorney hat, I often have to
> > > search out data on legal, administrative, organizational, etc.,
> > > matters in various states, and so far as I have seen, every U. S.
> > > state has web sites under the .us ccTLD and, at least in Oregon, a
> > > lot of business that used to have to be carried out with hard
> > > copies and snail mail can now be done on line.  There's also a lot
> > > of Federal stuff, although many agencies, such as the Patent
> > > Office, have their own .gov sites.  Credit should be given to the
> > > .us domain operators, and to those making good use of that ccTLD.
> > >
> >
> > There is no quarrel with those domain operators who are doing a good
> > job.  The problem lies with those who are not.  Try to obtain a .us
> > domain and tell me how you fare.
> 
> Dunno, Leah.  Maybe one has to be a government agency of some
> kind, since that's what the .us is for, as I understand it. The
> intended value to the public is not as a TLD at which to get a domain,
> but rather a TLD at which one can find useful sites.

Actaully, anyone can get a .us domain.  It's the heirarchy that is 
the key.  It's just that some of the domain administrators are not 
doing such a wonderful job and many have applied and waited 
months with no reply.  That's what I was referring to.

Leah

> 
> Bill
> 
> >
> >
> > Leah
> 
> --
> 
> 
> The URLs for Best Practices:
> DNSO Citation:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
> (Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
> Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
> page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
> Part I:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
> Part II:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
> (Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
> available for free down load at
> http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
> Part III:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 23:22:49 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nine Geographical Zones

Battle not over regions of power but battle hard over classes my friends.
This whole region thing is a capture and you gents are acting colonial.

Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Hartmut and all assembly members,
>
>   Of course!  And also of course there is the Midel East....
>
> Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote:
>
> > Dear Jefsey and GA,
> >
> > And Central-America and Caribean?
> >
> > rgds
> >
> > Hartmut Glaser
> >
> > =================================
> > At 13:29 31/08/01 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > >Dear Danny,
> > >As you know I support three projects here:
> > >
> > >1. nine geographical balanced areas:
> > >     The mapping project I support is the following:
> > >
> > >      - North-America
> > >      - South-America (and CENTRAL AMERICA AND CARIBEAN)
> > >      - Western-Europe
> > >      - Eastern-Europe
> > >      - Western-Asia
> > >      - Eastern-Asia
> > >      - Pacific
> > >      - Africa
> > >      - Oceans
> > >
> > >      Up to each country to decide which local area they wants to be in.
> > >
> > >      I underline the need of an Ocean area for all the territories with
> > > specific concerns in term of network infrastructure, e-commerce off-shore
> > > propositions, and the shipping.
> > >
> > >2. I propose that every ccTLD maintains 243 addresses made of the other
> > >ccTLDs. This addresses should be free as per old restrictions. This would
> > >allow bi-lateral international concerns to be addressed. Let say that as a
> > >French I want to know everything on franco-canadian relations, business,
> > >tourisme, administrative rules, tourisme, etc... I would go straight to
> > >http://ca.fr  Hotels information would be at http://hotel.ca.fr . think
> > >this might help a lot to strength the relations between ccTLDs and lead
> > >them into more stable a rewarding activities. This is part of the
> > >DNServices concept I support. A regional cooperation would be helped a lot
> > >through these more local 9 areas.
> > >
> > >3. I lobby for avery proposition and decision to include a part decribing
> > >how it may help reducing the lingual, the digital and the financial divides.
> > >
> > >I suppose that no one has to be detailed how these three propositions
> > >might help in the long task of reducing the lingual, the digital and the
> > >financial divides.
> > >
> > >Jefsey
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On 01:27 31/08/01, [email-masked] said:
> > >>If we seek to thwart the effort to have the At-Large Board Directors reduced
> > >>from nine to six, we need to organize a counter proposal.
> > >>
> > >>I wish to re-propose the creation of nine geographical zones, thereby
> > >>honoring the White Paper committment to geographical diversity while creating
> > >>a means by which we can readily elect our At-large Directors.
> > >>
> > >>Those that wish to participate in this "mapping" project are requested to
> > >>post their preliminary recommendations to our GA-ICANN list.  As we move
> > >>closer to a consensus, we can bring the dialogue back onto the main GA list.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>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
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #717
************************