Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #718
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, September 2 2001          Volume 01 : Number 718

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

Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 23:38:05 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The North American UDRP

Saturday, Saturday, September 01, 2001, 6:01:08 PM, [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:

Geographical diversity is important, for sure, but it most certainly
doesn't apply to every little thing that gets done.

If this had been the IDN task force, I might have agreed with you, but
not every task force or group will benefit from mandatory geographical
diversity, but instead by selecting the best people to represent the
broad spectrum of positions and skills necessary to bring true
diversity to the group.

But of course, this will be unpopular with the dismantlists who will
look for any reason, however invalid, to be critical of the process,
and to justify their agenda, rather than looking for real solutions.

Personally, I think our chair should spend more time showing
leadership in the GA, than on things like this.  For example, the
chair has still not responded to the motion regarding fixing the
moderator system.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

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

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

Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 00:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Whonami Releases First World-Wide Real-Time Domain ... 

Danny,

thanks for the resource pointers, and I've checked whonami out.

Although the multi-lingual aspect seems to be something that will really
help out a bit in the coming months, whonami sorely lacks access to as
many TLDs as they report, based upon our research.

Might I suggest that people use instead the services of the whois root
which is located at http://www.whoisroot.com, or xwhois which is located
at http://www.xwhois.com

These services are much faster and can perform lookups on many more TLDs
than whonami, which we would be happy to work with if they contact us at
http://www.PacificRoot.com

for examples, please compare the responses to queries such as 

warren.family
tmh.ind
biz.biz
duvin.wine
atlantic.ocean
computers.biz

All of the aboe domains have associated websites as well and when it
comes to just the domains themselves there are many thousands more which
whonami isn't capable of returning results for.

If anyone would like to enlighten them as to their shortcomings we'll be
happy to lend a hand improving their services so that the whole Internet
community might find them to be a useful resource - like Xwhois and the
WhoisRoot have been for a very long time.

Even with regards to the alternative root, operated by the deprecated
ICANN legacy system folk, the whonami site demonstrates it is incomplete.
when a simple query on 'nic.biz' is entered. It not only fails to return
a correct response for ARNI as the legitimate registrant, but it also
doesn't return anything for the unauthorized colliding version of .BIZ
that ICANN is promoting.

With a little help from us I suspect that they could be truly operational
and ready for the Internet community at large to use. Right now it's not a
matter of their returned results being inaccurate, but rather, woefully
incomplete.

Kindest Regards,

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot / Joint Technologies, Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com

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

> 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
> 

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.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: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 00:41:33 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Whonami Releases First World-Wide Real-Time Domain ...

Sunday, Sunday, September 02, 2001, 12:24:26 AM, PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:
> With a little help from us I suspect that they could be truly operational
> and ready for the Internet community at large to use. Right now it's not a
> matter of their returned results being inaccurate, but rather, woefully
> incomplete.

Considering that the portion of the internet that can see the
"missing" domains you mention is less than a fraction of a percent,
I'd say the word "woefully" is a bit overdone  :)

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

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

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

Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 00:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Joker.com filing "common law" .info claims

Yes this is a key point that many people miss. In fact it is part of the
ICANN schemata that everyone, including Trademark holders actively engage
in cybersquatting..., er... Can't use that term anymore now that it has an
incorrect legislated meaning.... so.... hm... domainsquatting, flattening
out the domain space until all short, meaningful domain names no longer
exist.

But of course hoarding domain names in the hopes of extorting money from
others who have a real need to develop content there is wrong, but being
coerced by a government's naivity or a maverick virus like ICANN into
registering everything abc (abc.com/net/co.uk/cx/aq/bz/af/ly/iq/ir/ao
etc..) is just plain comedy.

Fortunately, registrants of domain names under TLDs held by The
PacificRoot are not subject to arbitrary theft by the insidious ICANN
UDRP. It's going to stay that way too.

On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> John,
> 
> It is a common misconception that registrars are somehow prohibited from
> stockpiling. There are no such restrictions in any ICANN/Registry agreement
> that I am aware of.
> 
> -rwr
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>; "[GA]" <[email-masked]>; "Dan Halloran"
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 11:56 AM
> Subject: [ga] Re: Joker.com filing "common law" .info claims
> 
> 
> > Russ,
> >
> > What I don't understand about this is that the registrars' operating
> > agreement with ICANN is supposed to prohibit them from stockpiling domains
> > for their own benefit.
> >
> > I realize that ICANN has its hands full, busily maintaining Internet
> > stability all day, but does anyone there monitor registrar compliance with
> > the accreditation agreement?  Or care?
> >
> > There would not appear to be any incentive on ICANN's part to do anything
> > about, though.  ICANN is not an aggrieved party to registrar accreditation
> > violations, and it will be a cold day in a hot place if any registrar were
> > ever to get its ticket yanked.  Won't happen.  It is one of those jobs
> like
> > monitoring dispute resoluton service provider compliance - nice idea, but
> > where's the incentive to actually do it?
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> 

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.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: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 00:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Whonami Releases First World-Wide Real-Time Domain ...

On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, William X Walsh wrote:

> Sunday, Sunday, September 02, 2001, 12:24:26 AM, PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:
> > With a little help from us I suspect that they could be truly operational
> > and ready for the Internet community at large to use. Right now it's not a
> > matter of their returned results being inaccurate, but rather, woefully
> > incomplete.
> 
> I'd say the word "woefully" is a bit overdone  :)
> 

Perhaps not woefully ;)

> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.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: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 00:58:07 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Joker.com filing "common law" .info claims

Sunday, Sunday, September 02, 2001, 12:48:12 AM, PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:

> But of course hoarding domain names in the hopes of extorting money from
> others who have a real need to develop content there is wrong, but being

Yes, use it or lose it should apply in all parts of our lives then.  A
neighbor has a great classic car, that he never drives.

Therefore he shouldn't own it, since he is not using it the way the
makers intended and is therefore depriving me of its use.

There is nothing wrong with purchasing domain names on a speculative
basis, or anything else for that matter.

It drives the free market economy.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

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

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

Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 01:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Joker.com filing "common law" .info claims

But bying up all of the Crown Victoria's in the world would leave the cops
no choice but to ride horses and tricycles. :)

On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, William X Walsh wrote:

> Sunday, Sunday, September 02, 2001, 12:48:12 AM, PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:
> 
> > But of course hoarding domain names in the hopes of extorting money from
> > others who have a real need to develop content there is wrong, but being
> 
> Yes, use it or lose it should apply in all parts of our lives then.  A
> neighbor has a great classic car, that he never drives.
> 
> Therefore he shouldn't own it, since he is not using it the way the
> makers intended and is therefore depriving me of its use.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with purchasing domain names on a speculative
> basis, or anything else for that matter.
> 
> It drives the free market economy.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
> 

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.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: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 01:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Joker.com filing "common law" .info claims

On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, William X Walsh wrote:

> Sunday, Sunday, September 02, 2001, 12:48:12 AM, PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:
>
> > But of course hoarding domain names in the hopes of extorting money from
> > others who have a real need to develop content there is wrong, but being
>
> Yes, use it or lose it should apply in all parts of our lives then.  A
> neighbor has a great classic car, that he never drives.
>
> Therefore he shouldn't own it, since he is not using it the way the
> makers intended and is therefore depriving me of its use.
>
> There is nothing wrong with purchasing domain names on a speculative
> basis, or anything else for that matter.
>
> It drives the free market economy.

William,

It appears that the poster you were responding to was referring to the
UDRP as a means of deprivation of names, and

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 01:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Joker.com filing "common law" .info claims

Seriously though,

We're in the business of providing registration services to people, be it
.com or .food, and I've always found myself torn between what I have felt
is an acceptable reason for registering a domain and a questionable one. I
harken back to the days when domains were free if you had two nameservers
answering auth or $200.00 to instead reserve a name.

While I myself have currently registered a few dozen domain names (Yes, in
the legacy system as well) That are not yet in use, I purchased those
registrations with the intent of developing content, not for speculative
reasons - I guess I'm just personally not comfortable with that kind of
opportunistic goal, although you are completely correct that there is
nothing wrong with it, I suppose ;)

Case in point, about six months ago, when one of our registrants had put
together a deal to sell two .BIZ domain registrations to a large
corporation for $10,000.00 a piece, I abrubtly left work early. Along the
way home I couldn't help but think that somehow we had failed to properly
market our registry, given the notion that this corporation could
have paid $12.00 for those domains instead of twenty thousand if we had
just been able to reach out better.

Now it may be a drop in the bucket to the company that wanted those names,
but still, I just can't figure it all - it's just a string of characters.
But I suppose for a kid that works at isi.edu that money could go a long
way ;)

No one should think that as a business we don't do our best to accommodate
ALL of our registrants, with quality tech support via our Hostmaster Team
and even over the phone - even those who proudly speculate, engaging in
bulk purchases.

Not that the thought of purchasing BofA.com and Nike.com didn't cross my
mind more than once back when they were available, it just wasn't for me.

On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:

> But bying up all of the Crown Victoria's in the world would leave the cops
> no choice but to ride horses and tricycles. :)
> 
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, William X Walsh wrote:
> 
> > Sunday, Sunday, September 02, 2001, 12:48:12 AM, PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:
> > 
> > > But of course hoarding domain names in the hopes of extorting money from
> > > others who have a real need to develop content there is wrong, but being
> > 
> > Yes, use it or lose it should apply in all parts of our lives then.  A
> > neighbor has a great classic car, that he never drives.
> > 
> > Therefore he shouldn't own it, since he is not using it the way the
> > makers intended and is therefore depriving me of its use.
> > 
> > There is nothing wrong with purchasing domain names on a speculative
> > basis, or anything else for that matter.
> > 
> > It drives the free market economy.
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Best regards,
> > William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> > Userfriendly.com Domains
> > The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> > DNS Services from $1.65/mo
> > 
> 
> Bradley D. Thornton
> Chief Technology Officer
> The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
> http://www.PacificRoot.com
> http://www.JointTech.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
> 

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.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: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 01:51:27 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Re: Joker.com filing "common law" .info claims

Sunday, Sunday, September 02, 2001, 1:41:31 AM, PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:
> Not that the thought of purchasing BofA.com and Nike.com didn't cross my
> mind more than once back when they were available, it just wasn't for me.

There is a vast difference between registering a generic or non-famous
trademark related name and intentionally registering a trademarked
name with the intent of extorting money, though  :)

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

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

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

Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 09:40:50 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Probably over one third of the ccTLDs are really not very different from the
gTLDs.  Also, sTLDs (one subset of gTLDs) are similar to many of the
restricted ccTLDs in that they both have organizations implementing policy
over TLD registrations.

I understand that it is convenient at this point in time for those wanting a
separate ccSO to argue that they are different, and some may really be quite
different at this point in time, but even that could change in the future.
If they want to play in the global Internet, I contend that they are more
like gTLDs than different.  If they want to set up their own private network
within their region of control, then they would not need access to the
global Internet and then it could be justified that they are very different.

Chuck     

- -----Original Message-----
From: L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 12:29 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 31 Aug 2001, at 19:01, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> gTLDs would like autonomy also.
> 

Sure they do, Chuck, but they are "owned" by the USG.  Their autonomy is 
there - under the control of the TLD holder - DoC.  The others signed away 
their autonomy by allowing themselves to be granted a contract to operate 
the TLDs for a fixed number of years.  The ccTLDs have not done that to my 
knowlege, at least not yet.  In addition, on the IANA website it states that

country code domains were created to be used by each individual country as 
they deemed necessary, although this is a bit misleading because they were 
assigned to individuals or entities within those countries and not to the 
countries themselves.

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

> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 4:00 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Roberto Gaetano
> Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 31 Aug 2001, at 16:50, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> > Leah,
> > 
> > >
> > >It seems that the ccTLDs are forming their own organizations that
> > >would actually be in a much better position to determine what is a
> > >valid ccTLD.  Things do not happen by themselves, but it just
> > 
> > Do you *really* think that the ccTLDs would want to get into the
> > trouble of doing this? For instance, the trouble of deciding if
> > there should be a .ps, and who manages it. Don't you think that some
> > of the ccTLDs may take a position that will reflect the interest of
> > their respective governments, and that what should be a
> > technical/professional coordination among ccTLDs may turn out in a
> > mini-GAC?
> > 
> 
> As I said, I don't know what the ccTLDs would want.  My 
> comments are simply suppositions and the recognition that their 
> policies may be and very likely are different from ICANN's and 
> many areas.  Being friendly to ICANN and supportive in some 
> areas is a liklihood, I would think.  I also believe that autonomy is
> most important for them.
> 
> > We might ask some of the ccTLD managers what they think. Peter?
> 
> Precisely.  Isn't that the idea behind their SO activity?
> 
> > 
> > Anyway, by proposing to create an SO they have implicitely answered.
> > Were they thinking to phase out from ICANN, they would have left
> > instead of looking for a solution that will give them more influence
> > on ICANN.
> 
> I believe they have left that as a possibility, but not the preferred
> action.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > >seems logical that cc's should take care of themselves in this
> > >manner.  Entry of a new ccTLD should be up to those organizations
> > >as opposed to ICANN, IMO.  ICANN should simply perform the clerical
> > >entry of the information provided by the ccTLD organizations.  IOW,
> > >cooperate with them.  Let ICANN handle the TLDs they now control
> > >and let the ccTLDs remain autonomous.  I see no need for ICANN to
> > >micromanage them or force them to comply with policies that could
> > >very well go against their cultures and laws.
> > >
> > >Leah
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> > 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
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 10:34:59 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Public Forum?

Philip,

I note that the Council's agenda for Montevideo again does not allow for any 
public forum.   Doesn't the Council feel any responsibility to answer the 
questions that might be posed to it by its constituents?   

As our host committee has allocated sufficient time to the Council so that it 
may complete its many myriad tasks (Ballroom  - 13.30 to 18.00 - Name 
Council), there is no excuse for having an unduly short 3 hour session (14:00 
- - 17:00) that does not include a Public comment period.

A public session of the Names Council should allow for public comments.  If 
the ICANN Board can have a Public Forum, why can't the NC?  Is a closed 
session in front of an audience what the Council considers to be "procedures 
designed to ensure fairness"?  Or perhaps the Bylaws don't mean that much to 
the Council?

Also, at the last Names Council teleconference, you (as Chair of the Review 
Task Force) indicated that the Guidelines for Working Groups would be 
released prior to Montevideo by the Review Task Force.   Will this be issued 
on schedule, or will we have another interminable delay of the type that has 
characterized all your dysfunctional Task Forces thus far?

- --
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 12:35:43 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] More BC Shenanigans

The newly posted draft of the revised Business Constituency Charter  
http://www.bizconst.org/bccharter.htm conveniently eliminates the sectoral 
diversity requirement for NC reps, thereby assuring the Telcom sector 
continued domination in the Names Council.

I guess that if they couldn't manage to get Marilyn Cade elected under the 
terms of their current Charter, it became necessary to revise their Charter 
accordingly.    One has to wonder who drafted this new gerrymandered version? 

We still haven't had an answer to the question of whether Marilyn is legally 
entitled to vote in this upcoming DNSO Board election.  Somehow, that doesn't 
surprise me...

- --
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 19:24:09 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

The ccTLDs represent Local Internet Communities, and contrary to the
gTLD Registries, ccTLD Registries do not operate under the US law
and jurisdiction, but under national law and jurisdiction.

This is the main and most important reason.

The ccTLD form the genuine global worldwide network, using all languages, 
implemented in all countries, operating a large spectra of business models.

Note that ccTLD has been very positive to ICANN creation, sending
money and expecting the real international body for all Registries.
Since two years the ccTLD has been contributing 35% of ICANN budget,
1.5 million US dollars, all from foreign countries !
During the same two years ICANN Staff spent all their time on contracts 
with gTLD registries and registrars.

I agree with you Chuck: the ccTLD are certainly not really very 
different from gTLD, they demand equal considerations within ICANN.

The real stability of global Internet depends on all components,
not only 3+7=10 gTLD, but also 242 ccTLD.

Elisabeth
- --

- -----Original Message-----
>From [email-masked] Sun Sep  2 15:52 MET 2001
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 09:40:50 -0400 

Probably over one third of the ccTLDs are really not very different from the
gTLDs.  Also, sTLDs (one subset of gTLDs) are similar to many of the
restricted ccTLDs in that they both have organizations implementing policy
over TLD registrations.

I understand that it is convenient at this point in time for those wanting a
separate ccSO to argue that they are different, and some may really be quite
different at this point in time, but even that could change in the future.
If they want to play in the global Internet, I contend that they are more
like gTLDs than different.  If they want to set up their own private network
within their region of control, then they would not need access to the
global Internet and then it could be justified that they are very different.

Chuck     

- -----Original Message-----
From: L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 12:29 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 31 Aug 2001, at 19:01, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> gTLDs would like autonomy also.
> 

Sure they do, Chuck, but they are "owned" by the USG.  Their autonomy is 
there - under the control of the TLD holder - DoC.  The others signed away 
their autonomy by allowing themselves to be granted a contract to operate 
the TLDs for a fixed number of years.  The ccTLDs have not done that to my 
knowlege, at least not yet.  In addition, on the IANA website it states that

country code domains were created to be used by each individual country as 
they deemed necessary, although this is a bit misleading because they were 
assigned to individuals or entities within those countries and not to the 
countries themselves.

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

> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 4:00 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Roberto Gaetano
> Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 31 Aug 2001, at 16:50, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> > Leah,
> > 
> > >
> > >It seems that the ccTLDs are forming their own organizations that
> > >would actually be in a much better position to determine what is a
> > >valid ccTLD.  Things do not happen by themselves, but it just
> > 
> > Do you *really* think that the ccTLDs would want to get into the
> > trouble of doing this? For instance, the trouble of deciding if
> > there should be a .ps, and who manages it. Don't you think that some
> > of the ccTLDs may take a position that will reflect the interest of
> > their respective governments, and that what should be a
> > technical/professional coordination among ccTLDs may turn out in a
> > mini-GAC?
> > 
> 
> As I said, I don't know what the ccTLDs would want.  My 
> comments are simply suppositions and the recognition that their 
> policies may be and very likely are different from ICANN's and 
> many areas.  Being friendly to ICANN and supportive in some 
> areas is a liklihood, I would think.  I also believe that autonomy is
> most important for them.
> 
> > We might ask some of the ccTLD managers what they think. Peter?
> 
> Precisely.  Isn't that the idea behind their SO activity?
> 
> > 
> > Anyway, by proposing to create an SO they have implicitely answered.
> > Were they thinking to phase out from ICANN, they would have left
> > instead of looking for a solution that will give them more influence
> > on ICANN.
> 
> I believe they have left that as a possibility, but not the preferred
> action.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > >seems logical that cc's should take care of themselves in this
> > >manner.  Entry of a new ccTLD should be up to those organizations
> > >as opposed to ICANN, IMO.  ICANN should simply perform the clerical
> > >entry of the information provided by the ccTLD organizations.  IOW,
> > >cooperate with them.  Let ICANN handle the TLDs they now control
> > >and let the ccTLDs remain autonomous.  I see no need for ICANN to
> > >micromanage them or force them to comply with policies that could
> > >very well go against their cultures and laws.
> > >
> > >Leah
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> > 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #718
************************