Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #727
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, September 8 2001         Volume 01 : Number 727

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

Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 12:19:05 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Chuck,

>
>I would assume that the primary way of implementing policy with ccTLDs 
>would
>be via contracts with ICANN, just like with gTLDs.

In a perfect world, you would be right.
In this imperfect world, ICANN is subject to USG authority, while the ccTLDs 
are designed to be subject to their country´s authority (even if some then 
decide, without opposition from their respective countries, to be 
commercially open worldwide).
What if ICANN´s policies would be contrary to the policies wanted by the 
country?

Look at it the other way around.
The ccTLDs have the constraint of the policies, rules, and law of their home 
country. To be subject to ICANN´s restrictions on top of that would be 
unfair.

Of course, the situation would be different if ICANN would not be submitted 
to the authority of USG, but to international jurisdiction. But, as we say 
in Italy, you don´t make history with "if"s.

Regards
Roberto

>
>My question was really oriented toward whether or not people thought that
>the competitive marketplace should be relatively level for all competitors
>in the same market (e.g., open TLDs).  Some apparently think that that is
>not necessary; in other words, some think it is okay to apply different
>standards to some registries than to others, thereby putting some at a
>possible disadvantage.  With the possible exception of policies relating to
>local laws and customs, I tend to think that the competitive playing field
>should be as level as possible.  And I think it is important to realize 
>that
>this is not just a .com issue.  Should the new registries have more rigid
>restrictions in operating their businesses than ccTLD registries with whom
>they are competing?
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Svensson [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 9:11 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
>
>
>On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> >Should ccTLDs then be able to freely compete with gTLDs without having 
>the
> >same controls that are imposed on gTLDs?
>
>Chuck,
>
>If they do so with the (implied or expressed) support of the
>government of the country or territory designated by the ccTLD,
>how would you plan to stop them ?
>
>	/Paul
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 08:50:15 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Time change (Fwd) [ga] Announcement: Invitation to remote participation in

Per Vany, the meeting is now scheduled for 10:00 am local time 
(UTC -3).

Leah

- ------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent:      	5 Sep 2001 10:39:13 -0700
To:             	[email-masked], [email-masked]
From:           	[email-masked]
Subject:        	[ga] Announcement: Invitation to remote participation in
   	Non-Commercial Domain Names Holders Constituency in Montevideo

The NCDNHC invites to all interested not able to attend our 
meeting in
Montevideo to join us online.

The meeting will be held on September 7 from 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 
p.m
local time (UTC -3).

Details on remote participation are as follow:

1.  Remote participation will be done through the VRVS system.  
To
access it please browse  http://www.vrvs.org 2.  The 
Videoconference
will take place in the Virtual Room Neptune, accesible from the 
World
Wide Virtual Rooms. 3.  To download the necessary software please
access the DOWNLOAD sections at http://www.vrvs.org/ftp/ftp.html.  All
software is free of use 4.  To learn more about how to use the VRVS
tools, please access the DOC section at
http://www.vrvs.org/Doc/doc.html 5.  Don't forget to register your
machine in the VRVS before use any tool installed.

Connectivity requisites:
1.  A public fixed IP address 
2.  A LAN must not be behing a NAT (Network Address Translation)
3.  Machines should be properly registered in the DNS system.    If
you don't know what is this, please contact your network
administrator. 4.  Dialup users also can use VRVS (it is suppoused
that your ISP have their DNS correctely setted-up) 5.  H323 clients as
Netmeeting, Polycom, and others works also with VRVS.  Please read the
documentation for more details.

IMPORTANT:  Try the VRVS software several days before the meeting to
make sure that everything works properly.  For this purpose, Vany
Martinez will be in a test virtual room named CAFE, accessible from
World Wide virtual rooms on September 6 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
local time (UTC -3). 

For any futher inquiry, please address them directly to Vany Martinez
at [email-masked]

- --
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
e-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa

Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
http://www.sdnp.org.pa 
e-mail: [email-masked]
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Tel:  (507) 230-3455
Fax: (507) 230-3646
__________________________________________
Get your free domain name and domain-based
e-mail from Namezero.com
New! Namezero Plus domains now available.
Find out more at: http://www.namezero.com

- --
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

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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:55:59 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

At 11:55 PM +1200 7/9/01, DPF wrote:
>.nz is an open TLD.  Anyone can register in it.  However it is not
>marketed in competition with gTLDs, it is not operated to make
>profits, it is operated to serve the local internet community.
>
>It would be repugnant to have policies like the UDRP imposed on ccTLDs
>with nor regard to local law or just as importantly what serves the
>local community best.

But watch for it to be slipped into the next round of "trade talks" between
USA and Asia/Pacific countries.

They'll get the UDRP in the back door, like they did with Latin America.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 09:53:31 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 10:55:59AM -0500, Andy Gardner wrote:
> At 11:55 PM +1200 7/9/01, DPF wrote:
> >.nz is an open TLD.  Anyone can register in it.  However it is not
> >marketed in competition with gTLDs, it is not operated to make
> >profits, it is operated to serve the local internet community.
> >
> >It would be repugnant to have policies like the UDRP imposed on ccTLDs
> >with nor regard to local law or just as importantly what serves the
> >local community best.
> 
> But watch for it to be slipped into the next round of "trade talks" between
> USA and Asia/Pacific countries.
> 
> They'll get the UDRP in the back door, like they did with Latin America.

Yes, that is almost certainly true.  

The DNS name space interacts with the TM name space.  The UDRP is there
because there is a need for it; in the long run it (or something very
much like it) is going to become a standard feature of all domain name
registries.  And to the extent that an alternate TLD becomes mainstream
enough to matter, it will be forced to adopt a standard DRP as well. 

Reality is sometimes hard to bear, but the only alternative is insanity. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 19:12:05 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-announce] Announcement: Invitation to remote participation  inNon-Commercial Domain Names Holders Constituency in Montevideo

As a Board Candidate, why was I not told directly and in a timely fashion
that this meeting was taking place? How can you expect a Board Candidate to
keep informed of developments if they are not even advised properly about
the meetings where a constituency addresses its specific concerns?

Understandably, I am more than a little annoyed.  This is exactly the kind
of problem that causes those who seek to participate to be unwittingly
disenfranchised - lack of organization and communication.

Although one would expect postings to the ga list to be received in
chronological order, as it happened, this particular notice presented itself
well out of order, with less than 24 hours notice for me to pick it up from
the general list by chance, and at a time when there is a wealth of related
material being published elsewhere that also merits attention. You may also
be interested to know that subsequent postings related to the change of time
did not post in my inbox until after the meeting had concluded.

Perhaps somebody from the NCDNHC would be kind enough to update me, and
point me to the recording, if there is one.

Thanks a lot. 

Regards,
Joanna

on 9/5/01 3:28 PM, Dany Vandromme at [email-masked] wrote:

> The NCDNHC website was updated accordingly to include this info about
> remote attendance.
> Regards
> Dany
> 
> 
> 
> [email-masked] wrote:
>> 
>> The NCDNHC invites to all interested not able to attend our meeting in
>> Montevideo to join us online.
>> 
>> The meeting will be held on September 7 from 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m local
>> time (UTC -3).
>> 
>> Details on remote participation are as follow:
>> 
>> 1.  Remote participation will be done through the VRVS system.  To
>> access it please browse  http://www.vrvs.org
>> 2.  The Videoconference will take place in the Virtual Room Neptune,
>> accesible from the World Wide Virtual Rooms.
>> 3.  To download the necessary software please access the
>> DOWNLOAD sections at http://www.vrvs.org/ftp/ftp.html.  All software is
>> free of use
>> 4.  To learn more about how to use the VRVS tools, please access the DOC
>> section at http://www.vrvs.org/Doc/doc.html
>> 5.  Don't forget to register your machine in the VRVS before use any
>> tool installed.
>> 
>> Connectivity requisites:
>> 1.  A public fixed IP address
>> 2.  A LAN must not be behing a NAT (Network Address Translation)
>> 3.  Machines should be properly registered in the DNS system.    If you
>> don't know what is this, please contact your network administrator.
>> 4.  Dialup users also can use VRVS (it is suppoused that your ISP have
>> their DNS correctely setted-up)
>> 5.  H323 clients as Netmeeting, Polycom, and others works also with
>> VRVS.  Please read the documentation for more details.
>> 
>> IMPORTANT:  Try the VRVS software several days before the meeting to
>> make sure that everything works properly.  For this purpose, Vany
>> Martinez will be in a test virtual room named CAFE, accessible from
>> World Wide virtual rooms on September 6 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. local
>> time (UTC -3).
>> 
>> For any futher inquiry, please address them directly to Vany Martinez at
>> [email-masked]
>> 
>> --
>> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
>> Information Technology Specialist
>> Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
>> e-mail: [email-masked]
>> http://www.sdnp.org.pa
>> 
>> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
>> Information Technology Specialist
>> Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
>> http://www.sdnp.org.pa
>> e-mail: [email-masked]
>> Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
>> Tel:  (507) 230-3455
>> Fax: (507) 230-3646
>> __________________________________________
>> Get your free domain name and domain-based
>> e-mail from Namezero.com
>> New! Namezero Plus domains now available.
>> Find out more at: http://www.namezero.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Announce mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/announce

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

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

Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 19:27:30 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

FYI - Allow me to present to the world a copy of an email sent to Board
Candidates some 2 hours prior to the ccTLD meeting in Montevideo, during
which meeting, I understand the ccTLDs were to deliberate and vote on the
selection. 

Be advised that this email presented itself in my inbox less with less than
4 minutes to spare prior to the meeting. I am outraged.

Regards,

Joanna

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")
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 installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)

- ----------
From: "Abhisak Chulya" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:23:03 -0300
To: <[email-masked]>, "Paul M. Kane" <[email-masked]>,
<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Subject: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

Dear candidates:

The ccTLD Constituency have made up a list of questions to ask the
candidates of the Board Election here at the Montevideo meeting.  These
questions are put in writing and we are giving you an equal opportunity to
respond and share with us your views.  If you mail your views to us we will
be put them up as the meeting is going on.  You would need to apply within
15:30 Sep. 7 2001 Montevideo time.  Please sent your view or answers back to
[email-masked].

Thank you and Best Regards,
Abhisak Chulya
ccTLD Secretariat

Here are the questions:

1. To what level do you support the formation of a Country Code TLD
Supporting Organization and please state your full

2. What are your views on ICANN reorganization in general.

3. What level of Board Representation do you think is appropriate for ccTLDs
6,5, 4 or less?

4. Taking into account the special position of ccTLDs, how do you see the
role of ICANN in relation to ccTLDs
a) a lightweight, technical co-ordination body
b) a global oversight body and regulator
c) Something between

5. What is your background with ccTLDs.

6. How do you foresee working with ccTLDs in the future. For the existing
Director seeking re-election, please also comment about your track record
during your time on the ICANN board.

7. What conflicts of interest do you have and how do you deal with 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: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 01:38:42 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 18:53 07/09/01, Kent Crispin said:
>And to the extent that an alternate TLD becomes mainstream
>enough to matter, it will be forced to adopt a standard DRP as well

Actually, I am interested. I have contacted the WIPO - probably at a wrong 
place - several times. I would be glad if you could point someone to me. 
The TLDs I am to talk about do fall into the "mainstream" category.

The problem is what do you call a standard DRP?

The main UDRP problem is that it is a substitute to an US procedure. Should 
NSI move to Paris,  London or Tokyo, the UDRP would probably become 
meaningless because it addresses a problem that the local law would 
probably not consider in the same way. You find this problem with the ccTLDs.

Jefsey

- --
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, 8 Sep 2001 02:04:53 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] History (IFWP.ORG)

For those who are into internet history: ifwp.org is in the air
again. The mailing list archive can be accessed via

http://list.ifwp.org/

Richard Sexton has kept it for us. And still serves it.

May it serve the future.

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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 20:15:39 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Candidate participation - was Re: [ALSC-Forum] Evaluation of NAIS and ALSC Reports

I attempted to attend the NCDNHC meeting but did not succeed 
due to a DNS problem.  However, I did manage to get into the chat 
service.  Not much was said there as it was meant to assist those 
trying to recieve audio/video.

However, I did express my distaste for the fact that only two 
candidates were able to present themselves and that there was no 
phone link or other method afforded to the other candidates.  Their 
reason for not providing a phone link was financial.  Okay.  What is 
the reason for lack of notification and another opportunity for 
participation?  Not everyone has the technical advantage for 
access to the VRVS system, which was evident when I tried.  
Even a moderated chat where candidates could participate would 
have been something.  Last minute notice does not suffice when 
resolutions regarding candidate support are being voted upon.

There was a question posed at the NCDNHC meeting to Paul 
Kane, asking why they should choose him over Amadau.  Had the 
other candidates been allowed an opportunity to answer that 
question at the meeting, there might be some equity.  There is 
none.  They had a vote on the resolution.  I do not no the result.  
Wanna bet it was not the candidates who were not there or 
represented?

IMO, those resolutions are to be taken rather lightly as a result.  It 
seems like a done deal to me.

The same is true for the ALSC outreach meeting.  I attempted to 
call and join that meeting and the link was dropped - technical 
difficulties.  By the time I was able to get in the meeting was 
concluded.

This selection of a board director from the DNSO is a sham, as is 
the ALSC, IMO.  If candidates are not all given equal time for all 
conferences, allowing those in attendance to dialog with all of 
them, it is unfairly imbalanced.

Any SO or constituency that does not afford equal opportunity to 
candidates in every forum and then votes makes that vote as 
illegitimate as the current board configuration.

Leah

On 7 Sep 2001, at 19:41, Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 9/7/01 7:13 PM, L Gallegos at [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Well stated, Sandy.  Now, how do we, the majority, get the
> > minority (ICANN board) to do it.  All signs are that they will do as
> > they have always done - ignore the bylaws or change them to reflect
> > what the special interests want.  How do we change that when we are
> > NOT represented and ICANN answers to no one? DoC will do whatever
> > ICANN wants.
> > 
> > It is this illegitmacy and imbalance that is the problem - the core
> > problem.
> > 
> > Leah
> 
> In the first place, you might want to look at the legitimacy of the
> future proposed ICANN Board. Apparently the ccTLD Constituency feels
> that sending questions to Board Candidates by email less than 4
> minutes prior to the commencement of the meeting in which they are to
> deliberate on their selection, and in the circumstances that two
> candidates are able to present themselves in person, and two are not,
> is nevertheless, giving all candidates an equal opportunity.
> 
> Regards,
> Joanna
> 
> ----------
> From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 19:27:30 -0400
> To: ga ml <[email-masked]>
> Subject: FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates
> 
> FYI - Allow me to present to the world a copy of an email sent to
> Board Candidates some 2 hours prior to the ccTLD meeting in
> Montevideo, during which meeting, I understand the ccTLDs were to
> deliberate and vote on the selection. 
> 
> Be advised that this email presented itself in my inbox less with less
> than 4 minutes to spare prior to the meeting. I am outraged.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Joanna
> 
> 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")
> 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 installing the Adobe Acrobat
> Reader, which is available for free down load at
> http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> From: "Abhisak Chulya" <[email-masked]>
> Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:23:03 -0300
> To: <[email-masked]>, "Paul M. Kane" <[email-masked]>,
> <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]> Subject: Urgent: questions for
> ICANN Board Candidates
> 
> Dear candidates:
> 
> The ccTLD Constituency have made up a list of questions to ask the
> candidates of the Board Election here at the Montevideo meeting. 
> These questions are put in writing and we are giving you an equal
> opportunity to respond and share with us your views.  If you mail your
> views to us we will be put them up as the meeting is going on.  You
> would need to apply within 15:30 Sep. 7 2001 Montevideo time.  Please
> sent your view or answers back to [email-masked].
> 
> Thank you and Best Regards,
> Abhisak Chulya
> ccTLD Secretariat
> 
> Here are the questions:
> 
> 1. To what level do you support the formation of a Country Code TLD
> Supporting Organization and please state your full
> 
> 2. What are your views on ICANN reorganization in general.
> 
> 3. What level of Board Representation do you think is appropriate for
> ccTLDs 6,5, 4 or less?
> 
> 4. Taking into account the special position of ccTLDs, how do you see
> the role of ICANN in relation to ccTLDs a) a lightweight, technical
> co-ordination body b) a global oversight body and regulator c)
> Something between
> 
> 5. What is your background with ccTLDs.
> 
> 6. How do you foresee working with ccTLDs in the future. For the
> existing Director seeking re-election, please also comment about your
> track record during your time on the ICANN board.
> 
> 7. What conflicts of interest do you have and how do you deal with
> 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: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:44:19 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

Friday, Friday, September 07, 2001, 4:27:30 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
> 3. What level of Board Representation do you think is appropriate for ccTLDs
> 6,5, 4 or less?

How arrogant to suggest that the ccTLDs should have anywhere NEAR so
many board seats allocated to them.

That is just plain ludicrous, even if they were deserving of an SO
status, which the most certainly are not.

The more arrogance I see from the ccTLD community as this debate goes
on, the more I think that ICANN should simply present the ccTLDs with
contracts, and give them 90 days to work out reasonable negotiations,
and then they must sign and comply with the contracts, or face a
freeze of their TLD, transfer to a custodial operator, such as APNIC
or RIPE, and eventual redelegation.

- -- 
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: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:48:25 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] History (IFWP.ORG)

Friday, Friday, September 07, 2001, 5:04:12 PM, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> For those who are into internet history: ifwp.org is in the air
> again. The mailing list archive can be accessed via

> http://list.ifwp.org/

> Richard Sexton has kept it for us. And still serves it.

> May it serve the future.

God no, may it fade into oblivion.  With the anarchist way that Sexton
runs his lists, it is pretty much as useless as the NSI domain policy
was for anything substantive.

I see nothing in the archives to indicate that it is serving any
purpose lately, and the participants don't seem too keen on it serving
a purpose.

It looks to me like just another gathering place for anarchy namespace
advocates.

- -- 
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: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 01:57:30 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

William,

>
>The more arrogance I see from the ccTLD community as this debate goes
>on, the more I think that ICANN should simply present the ccTLDs with
>contracts, and give them 90 days to work out reasonable negotiations,
>and then they must sign and comply with the contracts, or face a
>freeze of their TLD, transfer to a custodial operator, such as APNIC
>or RIPE, and eventual redelegation.
>

That attitude from ICANN would show that they are really against arrogance.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 23:55:51 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] challenge to legality of UDRP goes to court

From Michael Geist's newsletter.  
One can only hope.

BANCOCHILE.COM UDRP DECISION LEADS TO LAWSUIT Eric 
Bord, a Washington, D.C.-area immigration lawyer who lost a 
UDRP decision at WIPO has asked a federal court to let him keep 
the address and to quash the UDRP process.  Two of the three 
panel members had ruled that Bord had no rights over the 
BancoChile.com domain name and ordered him to hand over the 
name to a Chilean bank.  Bord is claiming under his lawsuit, 
however, that ICANN"s UDRP fails to provide due process.  
Interestingly, the Chilean bank was represented at the UDRP by 
Marino Porzio, who also sometimes serves as a WIPO arbitrator. 
He is best known for his own UDRP decision a year ago in which 
he said the municipal government in Barcelona, Spain, deserved to 
hold the Barcelona.com address being used by a operator of a 
Web portal for that city.  
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/169824.html

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: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 21:16:21 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] challenge to legality of UDRP goes to court

Friday, Friday, September 07, 2001, 8:55:51 PM, L Gallegos wrote:

>>From Michael Geist's newsletter.  
> One can only hope.

> BANCOCHILE.COM UDRP DECISION LEADS TO LAWSUIT Eric 
> Bord, a Washington, D.C.-area immigration lawyer who lost a 
> UDRP decision at WIPO has asked a federal court to let him keep 
> the address and to quash the UDRP process.  Two of the three 
> panel members had ruled that Bord had no rights over the 
> BancoChile.com domain name and ordered him to hand over the 
> name to a Chilean bank.  Bord is claiming under his lawsuit, 
> however, that ICANN"s UDRP fails to provide due process.  
> Interestingly, the Chilean bank was represented at the UDRP by 
> Marino Porzio, who also sometimes serves as a WIPO arbitrator. 
> He is best known for his own UDRP decision a year ago in which 
> he said the municipal government in Barcelona, Spain, deserved to 
> hold the Barcelona.com address being used by a operator of a 
> Web portal for that city.  
> http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/169824.html

Now there is a case I'd donate to a legal defense fund to help.

- -- 
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: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 17:08:10 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:44:19 -0700, William X Walsh
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Friday, Friday, September 07, 2001, 4:27:30 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
>> 3. What level of Board Representation do you think is appropriate for ccTLDs
>> 6,5, 4 or less?
>
>How arrogant to suggest that the ccTLDs should have anywhere NEAR so
>many board seats allocated to them.
>
>That is just plain ludicrous, even if they were deserving of an SO
>status, which the most certainly are not.
>
>The more arrogance I see from the ccTLD community as this debate goes
>on, the more I think that ICANN should simply present the ccTLDs with
>contracts, and give them 90 days to work out reasonable negotiations,
>and then they must sign and comply with the contracts, or face a
>freeze of their TLD, transfer to a custodial operator, such as APNIC
>or RIPE, and eventual redelegation.

William - get real.  ICANN if it tried to do that would split the root
within weeks.  Most ccTLDs have the full support of their Governments
(well certainly the ones which account for 90% of ccTLD registrations)
and if ICANN tries to force the ccTLDs then they will quite simply set
up their own root server and ICANN would have to point to it.  

Also the US Government would get so battered by every other Govt that
they would probably take Root Server A well away from ICANN.  There is
not a chance in hell DOC would ever agree to redelegate a ccTLD away
from a registry supported by the local Govt.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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, 08 Sep 2001 17:10:15 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

On Sat, 08 Sep 2001 01:57:30 +0000, "Roberto Gaetano"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>William,
>
>>
>>The more arrogance I see from the ccTLD community as this debate goes
>>on, the more I think that ICANN should simply present the ccTLDs with
>>contracts, and give them 90 days to work out reasonable negotiations,
>>and then they must sign and comply with the contracts, or face a
>>freeze of their TLD, transfer to a custodial operator, such as APNIC
>>or RIPE, and eventual redelegation.
>
>That attitude from ICANN would show that they are really against arrogance.

Actually to some degree the above is what ICANN tried at first.  They
tried unilateral contracts and bills for services.  The ccTLDs said
naff off and ICANN realised that in a fight between ICANN and several
dozen ccTLDs backed by their sovereign governments ICANN would not
even come a close second but would lose so badly it would probably
never be given policy control of Root Server A.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 22:19:41 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

Friday, Friday, September 07, 2001, 10:08:10 PM, DPF wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:44:19 -0700, William X Walsh
> <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>Friday, Friday, September 07, 2001, 4:27:30 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
>>> 3. What level of Board Representation do you think is appropriate for ccTLDs
>>> 6,5, 4 or less?
>>
>>How arrogant to suggest that the ccTLDs should have anywhere NEAR so
>>many board seats allocated to them.
>>
>>That is just plain ludicrous, even if they were deserving of an SO
>>status, which the most certainly are not.
>>
>>The more arrogance I see from the ccTLD community as this debate goes
>>on, the more I think that ICANN should simply present the ccTLDs with
>>contracts, and give them 90 days to work out reasonable negotiations,
>>and then they must sign and comply with the contracts, or face a
>>freeze of their TLD, transfer to a custodial operator, such as APNIC
>>or RIPE, and eventual redelegation.

> William - get real.  ICANN if it tried to do that would split the root
> within weeks.

Never happen.

> Most ccTLDs have the full support of their Governments
> (well certainly the ones which account for 90% of ccTLD registrations)

Most of those Governments simple do not OPPOSE their delegations.
What do you think the GAC is all about?  The governments feels they
don't have ENOUGH control over their ccTLDs, and what to see ICANN
give the more control.

The governments of the largest countries have fully supported ICANN.

> and if ICANN tries to force the ccTLDs then they will quite simply set
> up their own root server and ICANN would have to point to it.  

Never happen.  It would take a LOT more than this to get people to use
a different root server network.  The ccTLDs cannot enforce a change
in people's root server usage in their country.  The control does not
emanate from them.

> Also the US Government would get so battered by every other Govt that
> they would probably take Root Server A well away from ICANN.  There is
> not a chance in hell DOC would ever agree to redelegate a ccTLD away
> from a registry supported by the local Govt.

Very VERY few of the ccTLDs involve the government in any way.  And
most of the ones that do have involvement support a strong ICANN, such
as UK, Germany, Argentina, and Australia (to name just a few).

The ccTLD registries have an overinflated sense of their importance.
They think they can operate independent of ICANN?  I say let them try.
And have ICANN remove them from the roots and redelegate their
registries in the ICANN controlled roots to those who will abide the
contracts, which you can bet will be heavy with control to the
governments.

Don't equate a few ccTLD registries being disgruntled with ICANN as
meaning their countries' governments feel the same.

- -- 
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 #727
************************