Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #725
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, September 6 2001         Volume 01 : Number 725

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

Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 02:48:00 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ORG TF

Thank you.
The only thing at the present stage I suggest you focus on are:
- - no ties between the TLD Manager and NSI, ICANN or Microsoft.
- - no charter redefinition: organizations are defined in RFC 920 as nothings 
special but a group of domains. A perfect case is "dhs.org" by Dassa.
Jefsey

On 23:47 04/09/01, Marc Schneiders said:
>Thanks to all the ga members who voted for me as GA rep in the ORG
>task force. I have now posted some messages to the special list of the
>task force commenting on the proposed policy statement. For those who
>are interested, they are archived at:
>
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-org/Arc00/
>
>Don't miss the second page :-)
>
>I will try to keep the readers of this list informed about more major
>decisions etc.
>
>Anyone having comments, suggestions etc., please, feel free to email
>me personally.
>--
>[email-masked]
>
>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 11:22:22 +0800 
From: "McMeikan, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  GA/DNSO Funding

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

While on the topic of funding.

I would like to remind everyone that an e-gold fund exists for an
Individuals Constituency.
Account #313216 still sitting at 2grams

For a short time I can also collect funds by ACH transfer, please
contact me for details.

Donations can also be done via PayPal to [email-masked] but
please ensure that they detail in the memo what the donation is for.

If any other funds for general donations need to be set up let me
know.  (takes about 30 seconds, no obligation to use)

I think that voluntary contributions are very important.

Also please only trust emails from me that are PGP signed as someone
is sending out spam trying to impersonate me.
Here are my main keys.
http://www.keyserver.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x77794361
http://www.keyserver.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6B957C17
http://www.keyserver.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x523A125A

	cya,	Andrew...

- - -----Original Message-----
From:	Jeff Williams [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Wednesday, August 29, 2001 9:18 AM
To:	Jefsey Morfin
Cc:	[email-masked]; icann board address; Mike Roberts
Subject:	Re: [ga] Re:  GA/DNSO Funding

Jefsey and all assembly members,

  Thank you Jefsey for your considerations on this thread as well
as much of the content contained within in your comments (See Below).
As the elected representative of our organization, I have a few
comments to your comments.  (See more below)

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Mike,
> you respond on budget, i.e. expenses. Here we are interested in
> economy. The revenues, where they come from, why, decided upon
> which long term stability considerations? The consequence on the
> type of expenses and on the mission creep. A general audit is
> necessary before stabilizing operations.  

  Our members would like to see a "Detailed" audit done, as well as
an
active participant in the budgeting process and decisions on what is
spent where and how those funds are to be collected.  This seems to
be the area that is of greatest importance to many stakeholders which
I have received a huge number of inquiries about.

>
>
> For example, is it acceptable that a leading international industry
> rely on donations: in most of the cultures this is understood as
> organized bribery.  

  As long as the international entity (Industry member) is a
non-profit or
tax exempt entity, it must under US law derive most of it's budget
from
donations.  These donations should nt be considered a form of
bribery as you seem to be concerned about here Jefsey.

>
> The image of the whole thing obviously suffers from this and the
> economy is hesitant about relying on "sponsoring" as everyone knows
> that it descreases in time/

  Not all "Sponsoring" activities decrease over time.  Many well
known ones
have consistently increased.

<snip>

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBO5UqXEAhpS53eUNhEQKyhQCfWgchGer7pHbfxpaWpa2+PEghCq8AnA08
jmZ38lYFcTf6IR46hNqOclOj
=kONu
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
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: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 02:09:57 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Outreach

http://www.icann.org/participate/

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

P.S. Who can say anything?
- --
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: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 13:03:34 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Approval of ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement with auDA (.au)

Approval of ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement with auDA (.au)
(http://www.icann.org/montevideo/au-agreement-topic.htm)

 ICANN management and the .au Domain Administration (auDA) have
 negotiated a ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement for auDA's administration
 of the .au country-code top-level domain (ccTLD). At its meeting
 on 10 September 2001 in Montevideo, Uruguay, the ICANN Board will
 be asked to consider approving ICANN's entry into this agreement.

 On 31 August 2001, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority issued
 a report finding that the .au top-level domain should be redelegated
 to auDA upon conclusion of a mutually satisfactory agreement
 between ICANN and auDA concerning auDA's sponsorship of the .au
 ccTLD. The Australian Government has given assurance of its ability
 and willingness to cooperate in the "framework of accountabily" to
 .au's local Internet community, as envisioned in the Governmental
 Advisory Committee Principles. auDA has indicated it, too, wishes
 to participate in a triangular relationship with the Australian
 Government and ICANN to promote to interests of the Australian and
 global Internet communities. (For a more detailed explanation of
 this "triangular situation," see the "Update on ccTLD Agreements"
 topic paper.) To implement this triangular relationship, the
 Australian Government and auDA have entered into a communication
 as envisioned by clause 9 of the GAC Principles and ICANN
 management and auDA have negotiated the proposed agreement,
 which covers the points envisioned by clause 10 of the GAC
 Principles.

 Entry of this agreement will benefit the Australian Internet
 community by providing for a more formally accountable structure
 for management of the .au ccTLD in the interest of that community.
 The global Internet community will receive, through ICANN, auDA's
 assurances that the .au ccTLD will be operated in a stable and
 interoperable manner. The entry of this agreement will be another
 step in the gradual transition of the Internet's technical
 coordination to private-sector management through ICANN's auspices.

Proposed ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement between auDA and ICANN
http://www.icann.org/cctlds/au-proposed-sponsorship-agmt-04sep01.htm

Model ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement - Triangular Situation
http://www.icann.org/cctlds/model-tscsa-02sep01.htm

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

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

Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 16:41:37 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Approval of ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement with auDA (.au)

This document shows several things:
- - its inconstitency as based on request and reports to and by the IANA. The 
IANA is not defined in this document and is no part to the agreement. 
Again: what is the IANA? what is its legal status? who is the responsible? 
who it is accountable to?
- - the word "authoritative" seems to have replaced in the "ICANN" jargon the 
"legacy" word as suggested by NewLevel's lawyer. From the clauses about the 
root update procedure and incredible delays it is fully demonstrated that 
the ICANN is the single team of authoritative file failure (staff) of the 
Internet

Jefsey

in 13:03 05/09/01, Alexander Svensson said:

>Approval of ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement with auDA (.au)
>(http://www.icann.org/montevideo/au-agreement-topic.htm)
>
>  ICANN management and the .au Domain Administration (auDA) have
>  negotiated a ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement for auDA's administration
>  of the .au country-code top-level domain (ccTLD). At its meeting
>  on 10 September 2001 in Montevideo, Uruguay, the ICANN Board will
>  be asked to consider approving ICANN's entry into this agreement.
>
>  On 31 August 2001, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority issued
>  a report finding that the .au top-level domain should be redelegated
>  to auDA upon conclusion of a mutually satisfactory agreement
>  between ICANN and auDA concerning auDA's sponsorship of the .au
>  ccTLD. The Australian Government has given assurance of its ability
>  and willingness to cooperate in the "framework of accountabily" to
>  .au's local Internet community, as envisioned in the Governmental
>  Advisory Committee Principles. auDA has indicated it, too, wishes
>  to participate in a triangular relationship with the Australian
>  Government and ICANN to promote to interests of the Australian and
>  global Internet communities. (For a more detailed explanation of
>  this "triangular situation," see the "Update on ccTLD Agreements"
>  topic paper.) To implement this triangular relationship, the
>  Australian Government and auDA have entered into a communication
>  as envisioned by clause 9 of the GAC Principles and ICANN
>  management and auDA have negotiated the proposed agreement,
>  which covers the points envisioned by clause 10 of the GAC
>  Principles.
>
>  Entry of this agreement will benefit the Australian Internet
>  community by providing for a more formally accountable structure
>  for management of the .au ccTLD in the interest of that community.
>  The global Internet community will receive, through ICANN, auDA's
>  assurances that the .au ccTLD will be operated in a stable and
>  interoperable manner. The entry of this agreement will be another
>  step in the gradual transition of the Internet's technical
>  coordination to private-sector management through ICANN's auspices.
>
>Proposed ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement between auDA and ICANN
>http://www.icann.org/cctlds/au-proposed-sponsorship-agmt-04sep01.htm
>
>Model ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement - Triangular Situation
>http://www.icann.org/cctlds/model-tscsa-02sep01.htm
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 12:21:16 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Approval of ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement with auDA (.au)

Wednesday, Wednesday, September 05, 2001, 4:03:34 AM, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>  Entry of this agreement will benefit the Australian Internet
>  community by providing for a more formally accountable structure
>  for management of the .au ccTLD in the interest of that community.
>  The global Internet community will receive, through ICANN, auDA's
>  assurances that the .au ccTLD will be operated in a stable and
>  interoperable manner. The entry of this agreement will be another
>  step in the gradual transition of the Internet's technical
>  coordination to private-sector management through ICANN's auspices.

I trust Robert Elz much more than I would trust the Australian
Government to look out for the interests of the Australian internet
community.  This is the government that has passed some of the most
onerous laws regarding the internet even when compared to the policies
of traditionally oppressive governments.

- -- 
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: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:32:08 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Approval of ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement with  auDA (.au)

On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, at 16:41 [=GMT+0200], Jefsey Morfin wrote:

[...]

> >  The entry of this agreement will be another
> >  step in the gradual transition of the Internet's technical
> >  coordination to private-sector management through ICANN's auspices.

Right. The "public trust" (your [anti-]root paper)  is just a phrase,
Dr Lynn, isn't it?

- -- 
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:54:51 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Approval of ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement with auDA (.au)

On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, at 12:21 [=GMT-0700], William X Walsh wrote:

> Wednesday, Wednesday, September 05, 2001, 4:03:34 AM, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> 
> >  Entry of this agreement will benefit the Australian Internet
> >  community by providing for a more formally accountable structure
> >  for management of the .au ccTLD in the interest of that community.
> >  The global Internet community will receive, through ICANN, auDA's
> >  assurances that the .au ccTLD will be operated in a stable and
> >  interoperable manner. The entry of this agreement will be another
> >  step in the gradual transition of the Internet's technical
> >  coordination to private-sector management through ICANN's auspices.
> 
> I trust Robert Elz much more than I would trust the Australian
> Government to look out for the interests of the Australian internet
> community.  This is the government that has passed some of the most
> onerous laws regarding the internet even when compared to the policies
> of traditionally oppressive governments.

May be that I missed it: But why could they not at leat _thank_ Robert
Elz for his work? Sarcasm VERY MUCH intended.

- -- 
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 23:07:03 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Personal poll: Results

Dear all,

39 GA members have responded to my little poll
(thanks to all participating and commenting!):

  36 (92.3%) are domain name holders in a generic TLD
  14 (35.9%) are domain name holders in a country code TLD
   8 (20.5%) are domain name holders in a non-ICANN TLD
   2 ( 5.1%) are not domain name holders

According to your responses...

  37 (94.9%) are gTLD *or* ccTLD domain name holders
  13 (33.3%) are both gTLD *and* ccTLD domain name holders
   8 (20.5%) are both gTLD *and* non-ICANN TLD domain name holders
   5 (12.8%) are gTLD, ccTLD *and* non-ICANN TLD domain name holders
   1 ( 2.6%) are ccTLD holders but *not* gTLD domain name holders
   0 ( 0.0%) are non-ICANN TLD holders but *neither* gTLD *nor*
             ccTLD domain name holders

(Percentage sums over 100 because of multiple applicable answers)

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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 23:26:50 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: .pro and .coop change plans, .museum and .aero proceed

ICANN Montevideo Meeting Topic: New TLD Agreements
Posted: 5 September 2001
http://www.icann.org/montevideo/new-tld-topic.htm

Excerpts:
 Sponsored TLDs. A basic form of sTLD agreement has been developed
 and all three sTLDs have indicated they find it acceptable. This
 agreement has 23 attachments to allow customization.

 Discussions with one of the sponsors (MuseDoma of .museum) have
 been nearly completed since about 20-22 August, when the basic
 agreement and the key attachments were posted. As of 5 September,
 five attachments still must be completed (requiring XML schema
 verification, etc.), but it is expected these will be completed
 by the time of the 9 September 2001 ICANN Public Forum, so that
 final comment on this agreement may be received and the Board may
 be asked to consider approval at its 10 September 2001 meeting.
 The agreement with MuseDoma is in accord with the proposal it
 made that led to its selection and ICANN management recommends
 that it be approved.

 Discussions with a second sponsor (SITA of .aero) have also been
 proceeding toward completion. There are still a few significant
 attachments to be completed (notably the start-up plan). In major
 progress on one issue, SITA has obtained a ruling from the ISO
 3166 Maintenance Agency that the Maintenance Agency does not
 object to use of two-character airline designator codes as
 second-level domains within .aero, in view of the low
 likelihood of confusion with two-letter country codes based on
 the longstanding (over 50 years) IATA standard creating that
 coding system for airlines. Completion of the .aero agreement
 with SITA in accord with its proposal that was selected in
 November 2000 should be attainable inthe next few weeks.
 ICANN management recommends that the 7-day notice procedure
 adopted in Melbourne for the the uTLD agreements be extended
 to .aero.

 Way Forward for .pro and .coop

 In the course of negotiations, the proponents of the .pro
 (unsponsored) and .coop (sponsored) TLDs have indicated that
 they wish to make significant changes to the plans of
 operation of their TLDs that they included in their proposals
 last year. In the case of .pro, the selected operator (Registry
 Pro) has indicated that it wishes to revise its plans to
 reduce the level of financial commitments it will make to
 launch the .pro TLD. In the case of .coop, the selected
 operator (NCBA) has requested to change from the competitive
 models it proposed at the registrar level (through use of
 competitive registrars after a six-month start-up period) and
 registry levels (through rebidding after start up to replace
 the inital registry operator) to long-term sole-source models
 at both levels. In view of continuing discussions regarding
 these proposed changes for .pro and .coop, it does not appear
 appropriate for the Board to act on these agreements at this
 time. Instead, discussions should go forward between ICANN and
 both RegistryPro and NCBA regarding measures that might be
 taken to fashion appropriate adjustments that are consistent
 with the spirit of their proposals. Additional time is needed
 for discussions that might develop concrete proposals, which
 can then be presented.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

PS: I hope most of you don't mind the FYI mails? Actually,
I'd prefer a more active icann-announce list, but since this
doesn't happen, I try to send excerpts from recent
announcements if they haven't been discussed on the GA list
before. This makes it somewhat easier to discuss them.
- --
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: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 14:54:55 -0700
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: .pro and .coop change plans, .museum and .aero proceed

What the Board voted on last year were specific applications proposing
specific models for registry operations. To the extent that some of those
selected are unprepared to go forward on the business and technical plan
_they themselves proposed_, ICANN might consider allowing some of the
"runners-up" to take their place in the testbed. I know of at least one
applicant who is ready, willing and able to execute on its proposal if
allowed to enter the testbed in place of .pro or .coop.

The time for preparing an application that you could execute on was last
year, prior to the submission deadline. It would be demonstrably unfair to
those not selected for the testbed to allow successful applicants to promise
one thing for the application and then seek to make "significant changes"
when the time came for implementation. If these two companies are not ready
to go forward, let's give the opportunity to two new ones that are.

     -- Bret

> In the course of negotiations, the proponents of the .pro (unsponsored) and
> .coop (sponsored) TLDs have indicated that they wish to make significant
> changes to the plans of operation of their TLDs that they included in their
> proposals last year..... Additional time is needed for discussions that might
> develop concrete proposals, which can then be presented.

- --
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, 06 Sep 2001 00:15:45 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Personal poll: Results

Interesting:
20 % are on the Open Internet.
7% cannot be an @large member.
Jefsey

On 23:07 05/09/01, Alexander Svensson said:

>Dear all,
>
>39 GA members have responded to my little poll
>(thanks to all participating and commenting!):
>
>   36 (92.3%) are domain name holders in a generic TLD
>   14 (35.9%) are domain name holders in a country code TLD
>    8 (20.5%) are domain name holders in a non-ICANN TLD
>    2 ( 5.1%) are not domain name holders
>
>According to your responses...
>
>   37 (94.9%) are gTLD *or* ccTLD domain name holders
>   13 (33.3%) are both gTLD *and* ccTLD domain name holders
>    8 (20.5%) are both gTLD *and* non-ICANN TLD domain name holders
>    5 (12.8%) are gTLD, ccTLD *and* non-ICANN TLD domain name holders
>    1 ( 2.6%) are ccTLD holders but *not* gTLD domain name holders
>    0 ( 0.0%) are non-ICANN TLD holders but *neither* gTLD *nor*
>              ccTLD domain name holders
>
>(Percentage sums over 100 because of multiple applicable answers)
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 13:27:55 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nine Geographical Zones

At 07:23 1/09/01, you wrote:
>[email-masked] wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>Do we? Or do we just need to argue that there must be /at least/ as many
>openly elected At Large board members as there are representatives of various
>special interests?

With all respect for Danny and his boundless energy, this is a good 
question to ask and one necessary to deal with first before we get 
sidetracked with the most contentious issue of them all: drawing lines 
across  a globe.
I can see where you are coming from Danny, and it should be a good 
*additional* argument to have more specific regions represented.
My own instinct would be  to let the @large members themselves determine 
(by way of a referendum) if and how they want to be carved up. By all 
means, we can propose the blocs, but @large members  everywhere should be 
free to vote for whoever they think will do best for them, inside or 
outside their regional bloc.
They have to find a way to judge their candidates on something more and 
other than his "regionality".

This is where the Individuals' constituency in the DNSO comes in: as a way 
for the @large members to judge and compare their future Board candidates.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 13:49:32 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

At 06:44 2/09/01, Peter de Blanc wrote:

>The ccTLDs need to maintain close contact with the other constituencies.
>Perhaps the idea of ccTLD holding seates 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.

Good constructive thinking.  The same could also be applied to 
representatives of the IC (individuals' constituency) if Individual DN 
holders would end up being the sole @large voters.
This way no "double bite from the cherry" .

- --Joop

- --
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: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 20:23:08 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Re:  GA/DNSO Funding

Wednesday, Wednesday, September 05, 2001, 8:12:41 PM, NameCritic wrote:

> I also asked to be corrected if I am wrong. I don't remember asking to be
> chastised and didn't follow anyone's leads. The questions were my own and
> some were from the news media.

Your website doesn't qualify you as "news media" Chris.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #725
************************