Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #731
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, September 10 2001          Volume 01 : Number 731

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

Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 21:58:57 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

- --=====================_7914189==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear Paul,
I was joking as there is a funny middle case possible for the ICANN as far 
as uk/gb is concerned.

IMHO most of all, if ICANN engaged such a move the result would be ... such 
that I would really want them to try....  liberty sometimes calls for an 
indepedence war.  Seems WXW challenges you in some kind of tea party 
against the ICANN Dominance...

Jefsey

On 14:32 09/09/01, Paul Cotton said:
>It seems both Jefsey and Kent misunderstood that I was referring to the 
>commercial impact and not as to whether it was possible via technical 
>measures or policy.
>
>Whilst it may well be possible to implement .gb via existing policy, it 
>would still be seen as just another non ".uk" tld aimed at the uk 
>market.  Now that .uk has reached nearly 3 million registrations, it is 
>firmly ingrained in the minds of the UK domestic market (thanks to 
>collective weight of advertising by companies who use a .uk domain) - in 
>much the same way that .com is within the US.
>
>The notion that if there were a redelegation of .uk that offered free 
>mirroring upon request also fails to take into account that .uk is heavily 
>used by small businesses targetting their domestic market.  The "if it 
>aint broke don't fix it" mentality prevails heavily in that sector.  As 
>such, if the government did anything that caused confusion or additional 
>administration for no material gain to the users themselves, then it would 
>meet with very vocal opposition.
>The UK government is committed to increasing the speed of online take-up 
>and usage to help boost the flagging economy and so for them to do 
>anything that would impede that process (which a redelegation would 
>certainly do) is simply not going to happen.
>
>It is worth remembering that Nominet is a non profit organization which is 
>steered by its members, meaning their policies reflect what the ISP's want 
>- so the ISP's would most likely be the ones to lose control if .uk was 
>redelegated which again is not something that would make sense for the UK 
>government (or ICANN for that matter).
>
>Regards
>
>Paul Cotton

- --=====================_7914189==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Dear Paul,<br>
I was joking as there is a funny middle case possible for the ICANN as
far as uk/gb is concerned. <br>
<br>
IMHO most of all, if ICANN engaged such a move the result would be ...
such that I would really want them to try....&nbsp; liberty sometimes
calls for an indepedence war.&nbsp; Seems WXW challenges you in some kind
of tea party against the ICANN Dominance...<br>
<br>
Jefsey<br>
<br>
On 14:32 09/09/01, Paul Cotton said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2>It seems
both Jefsey and Kent misunderstood that I was referring to the commercial
impact and not as to whether it was possible via technical measures or
policy.</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>Whilst it may well be possible to implement .gb
via existing policy, it would still be seen as just another non
&quot;.uk&quot; tld aimed at the uk market.&nbsp; Now that .uk has
reached nearly 3 million registrations, it is firmly ingrained in the
minds of the UK domestic market (thanks to collective weight of
advertising by companies who use a .uk domain) - in much the same way
that .com is within the US.</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>The notion that if there were a redelegation of
.uk that offered free mirroring upon request also fails to take into
account that .uk is heavily used by small businesses targetting their
domestic market.&nbsp; The &quot;if it aint broke don't fix it&quot;
mentality prevails heavily in that sector.&nbsp; As such, if the
government did anything that caused confusion or additional
administration for no material gain to the users themselves, then it
would meet with very vocal opposition.</font> <br>
<font face="arial" size=2>The UK government is committed to increasing
the speed of online take-up and usage to help boost the flagging economy
and so for them to do anything that would impede that process (which a
redelegation would certainly do) is simply not going to
happen.</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>It is worth remembering that Nominet is a non
profit organization which is steered by its members, meaning their
policies reflect what the ISP's want - so the ISP's would most likely be
the ones to lose control if .uk was redelegated which again is not
something that would make sense for the UK government (or ICANN for that
matter).</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>Regards</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>Paul Cotton</font></blockquote></html>

- --=====================_7914189==_.ALT--

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

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

Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 22:43:52 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Comments from JPNIC and JPRS

Dear Sirs,
This position calls for respect.

This was exactly the essence of my candidacy to the BoD. I note that this 
is also the position of the European Roots adopted with the RT/BP (Root and 
RLD Best Practices) available for example at http://www.boroon.net .

I proposed Vint Cerf and Stuart Lynn several times to dialog on this 
matter. Unfortunately the dialog has not come far enough.

In my opinion there are four problems to address:
- - the criteria for a TLD Manager to be accepted by the roots, to prevent 
TLD squatting
- - the pre-existence of the TLD (".JP" existed before JPNIC) and therefore 
the rights of the Registrants as pre-existing to those of the TLD Managers.
- - there will necessarily be value-added roots: this means that a root 
equalized financing system is necessary.
- - the TLD bootstrap. The RFC 920 describes it referring to the NIC. As the 
ICANN currently does not fulfill this part of its mission we have adopted a 
TLD public declaration procedure. IMHO both approaches are very similar. 
Collision resolution is the issue: I say "a TLD is a public good used by 
the Registrants and served by the TLD Manager. Being protected the rights 
of the TLD Manager for his work, decisions comes to Registrants".

I renew my proposition to this GA to set-up of an independent working group 
on the name space management by the ICANN. So called alternative roots are 
only a part of this policy and I think only a consistent global response 
may permit a stable and lasting approach forstering innovation. I add that 
my proposition is that such a group writes a documented letter to explain 
the NC and the BoD why a WG should be established and proposes the matters 
to be considered.

Sincerely yours,
Jefsey Morfin

At 18:36 09/09/01, [email-masked] wrote:
>One day prior, but ...
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                                          Sep. 10, 2001
>Dear ICANN Board,
>
>After ICANN issued the two documents on "A Unique, Authoritative Root
>for the DNS": discussion draft published on May 28th and the finalized
>version on July 9th, Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC) and Japan
>Registry Service Co., Ltd. (JPRS), who are administering JP domain
>names, reviewed them and have expressed their views as the JP registry
>in the following comments.
>
>The comments have been published today via JPNIC's website for the local
>and global Internet community.
>
>We sincerely hope ICANN would take in consider these comments for future
>policy development and its management.
>
>Yours Sincerely,
>
>Jun Murai
>President
>Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                       Comments on Alternate Roots
>
>It is vital that the name space be unique, as Internet users rely on
>domain names to identify sites and other users. Therefore, competition of
>name spaces should be avoided. In this context, there is a clear need
>for some sort of central organization or coordination body. ICANN is
>one such organization.
>
>However, ICANN's recent introduction of the new gTLDs was less than swift,
>and cost no little expense. This is one of the main reasons to stimulate
>alternate roots activities. ICANN should accept the criticisms it is
>receiving from outside the organization and reflect them on its activities.
>
>Whatever the faults of the current ICANN, a central organization or
>coordination body of some sort is needed. If we push ahead along the
>path of reconciling ICANN and alternate roots, we will later strike the
>recurring problem of needing a higher level ICANN-like organization or
>coordination body. We will then have to tackle yet again the type of
>difficulties that we have experienced in building ICANN, and this could
>result in delays in the continued healthy growth of the Internet. We
>feel a situation of this sort would be a major obstacle in ensuring
>the stability of the Internet and its continued development.
>
>In light of this, we propose the following:
>
>(1) There should be a mechanism to ensure the uniqueness of name space
>     for all Internet users. Currently, the root servers managed by
>     ICANN/IANA are the best available mechanism for ensuring the name
>     space uniqueness. Measures to counter any practice that could
>     hinder the operation of this mechanism should be urgently
>     researched and implemented.
>
>(2) ICANN should work to speed up all procedures, including decision
>     making and the implementation of those decisions.
>
>(3) ICANN should swiftly review the new gTLDs, not limiting this to
>     an evaluation of the introduced gTLDs, but also including an
>     evaluation of the entire gTLD introduction process.
>
>(4) ICANN should devote more energy to educational programs. Greater
>     effort should be made to publicize the current advantages and
>     drawbacks of the Internet and to promote an accurate understanding
>     of such among Internet users.
>
>
>Jun Murai
>President
>Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
>
>Koki Higashida
>President
>Japan Registry Service Co., Ltd. (JPRS)

- --
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, 9 Sep 2001 18:49:08 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Montevideo Public Forum Day 1 Complete, Board Meeting Tomorrow

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 6:48 PM
To: ICANN-Montevideo Remote Participants and Remote Preregistrants
Subject: UPDATE: ICANN-Montevideo Public Forum Day 1 Complete, Board Meeting
Tomorrow

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because you registered to attend ICANN's
public meetings in Montevideo, Uruguay (September 7-10) via webcast.

Today's ICANN Public Forum is now complete, and archives of this session
and yesterday's DNSO meetings have been posted in the online meeting
archive at <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive>.
Archives include complete RealVideo recordings, agendas, scribe's notes,
documents and presentations used, real-time questions received, and
online discussion logs.

Meetings resume tomorrow at 8:30AM local time with the continuation of the
ICANN Public Forum followed by the ICANN Board Meeting.  To join the
webcast, go to <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo>.
During and just before webcasts, a prominent link on this page will allow
you to enter the remote participation area.  Please be sure to join us
online at the proper time, being aware of time zone differences.  Links
from <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo> can help you convert
Montevideo time to local time in your area.

In preparation for the meetings, you may want to review the meeting agenda,
as posted at <http://www.icann.org/montevideo/#agenda>.  From that page,
you'll also find public comment spaces on major agenda items.

If you miss some or all of the Board Meeting or if you wish to review
content
generated during today's Public Forum, be advised that complete archives are
posted to <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive> at the
conclusion of each session.

Access to the remote participation system requires a 28.8kbps or faster
modem,
with best access over 56k or faster connections.  Access to the live audio
and video feeds requires the RealPlayer, version 5.0 or later (G2 or later
strongly recommended), available for free from
<http://www.real.com/products/player>, or the Windows Media Player (v6.4 or
later), available for free from <http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmedia>.
Access to the real-time discussion and dynamically-updated scribe's notes
areas requires a JAVA-capable browser (IE or Netscape version 3 or later)
or a dedicated IRC client.

Finally, if you're not already subscribed to ICANN's announcements list,
you may find it helpful to join in order to receive important future
announcements from ICANN.  See <http://www.icann.org/announcements> for
instructions.

We look forward to seeing you online during the meetings!

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu>

- --
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, 09 Sep 2001 23:35:30 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

Dear Patrick,
It seems that the way you set-up my mailing list to get access to your 
sub-list has removed my from the ga-full. I observe that the last mail I 
received from Jeff Williams is of August 28th.
Could you please help that corrected.

Dear Leah,
I don't really understand why you dispute the peole supporting you. That 
ICANN does not respect the RFC is not a point agsint the RFC but against 
the ICANN. The policy of the ICANN is established in the ICP-1 document. 
This document is fully based upon the RFCs and does not bring anything new.

Jefsey

On 05:16 09/09/01, L Gallegos said:

>On 8 Sep 2001, at 21:43, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Leah and all assembly members,
> >
> > L Gallegos wrote:
> >
> > > On 9 Sep 2001, at 1:37, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 23:45 08/09/01, William X Walsh said:
> > > > >In my opinion, no registry should ever cease to exist.
> > > >
> > > > ICANN decided otherwise. .biz registry from ARNI should have been
> > > > included in the NeuLevel registry. The current practice of the
> > > > ICANN is in violation of RFC 920/1591. Jefsey
> > > >
> > >
> > > The original .BIZ has not ceased to exist, Jefsey.  It has simply
> > > been duplicated with a collider that will result in dupliate domain
> > > names.  But you are correct, it is in violation of the RFC's if you
> > > wish to use informiational RFC's as law.
> >
> >   RFC's are not law, nor are they standards.  One would be pressed to
> > say that RFC's represent a "Beat Practices" documents either. Yet the
> > ICANN BoD and staff have publicly stated that the IETF and the RFC's
> > of which they are in part responsible for, are to be followed.  It
> > seems obvious than that the ICANN BoD and staff seem ot only wish to
> > follow those RFC's in a very selective manner.  We find that practice
> > to be both inconsistent, as well as disingenuous.
> >
> > >
>
>I guess my point is, Jeff, that if an organization adopts an RFC or
>set of them as policy, then they should follow them. ICANN doesn't
>even follow its own bylaws or MOU.  Even at that, practices over
>the last several years have pretty much made many areas of those
>RFCs obsolete.  They simply change them to suit their desires.
>How many bylaws changes have occurred since July?  Nine?
>
>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

- --
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, 10 Sep 2001 00:00:59 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Amadeu Abril i Abril elected for a 3 year term to the ICANN Board

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

9 September 2001, Montevideo

The Names Council noted and confirmed the election of
Amadeu Abril i Abril from Spain, European region,
as the ICANN Board member to serve for three year term.

The full results including individual ballots will be made public
at the end of the election process.

The following URLs are related to the ICANN Board Director election
by the DNSO in 2001:
   A. Main document: Description of the election process in 2001
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-election.html
   B. Procedure for nominations, acceptances and endorsements by the GA,
      and calendar for 2001:
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-nomination-proc.html
   C. A list of nominations, acceptances and their endorsements:
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-nominees.html
   D. The NC voting procedure:
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-voting-proc.html

The NC members verified that the votes cast had been correctly counted.

Elisabeth Porteneuve and Glen de Saint Gery
DNSO Secretariat

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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 02:35:25 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Having been a candidate to the BoD

I sent a mail to Amadeu congratulating him. Participating to this election 
was a rewarding experience as it permitted a complete personal review of 
the ICANN and of its various interests.
But the result of the experience is rather sad.

The ICANN is obviously engaged in an incredibly petty, sufficient and 
incompetent attempt at dominance where network and sometimes honnesty has 
nothing to do and ill managed small money and big business interests 
everything (I must say that I support most of what Joana said. 
http://internetstakeholders.com/ )

This is what surprised me most. The system is absurd, that I known - you 
only have to read the texts, the press and try to get domain names. That 
the business, money lobbying are every where, we see it. But I was still 
under the impression that the people in charge were biased yet dedicated 
and competent.

I am quite dismayed to have discovered that "in charge", "dedicated" and 
"competent" were nbot necessarily going together, biased or not. And that 
most of the "competence" was sufficiency or a pretext for sufficiency.... 
down to the absurd.

This and this alone would make me applaud to the over messy - they gave us 
4 minutes to send them a mail responding to their questions ... - yet 
genuine ccSO. And to people in here.

Thank you to Roberto, Harald, Danny, Joana, Bill, Sotiris, Jeff, Eric, 
Peter, Elisabeth, Kristie, etc... sorry for all those dod not quote.. not 
to be sufficient, nor dishonnest.

The chance of the Internet is there.

As the IALNA develop I do hope it can be involved both with the ICANN and 
the WWAccTLD until the WWccTLD takes the ICANN over. My prayer for the 
world is that they never sign anything "a la Jones Days" ....

The good news for the Internet today came from Tokyo.
Thank you Jun!

Jefsey

On 00:00 10/09/01, DNSO Secretariat said:

>[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]
>[ To: [email-masked]]
>
>
>9 September 2001, Montevideo
>
>
>The Names Council noted and confirmed the election of
>Amadeu Abril i Abril from Spain, European region,
>as the ICANN Board member to serve for three year term.
>
>The full results including individual ballots will be made public
>at the end of the election process.
>
>The following URLs are related to the ICANN Board Director election
>by the DNSO in 2001:
>    A. Main document: Description of the election process in 2001
>       http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-election.html
>    B. Procedure for nominations, acceptances and endorsements by the GA,
>       and calendar for 2001:
>       http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-nomination-proc.html
>    C. A list of nominations, acceptances and their endorsements:
>       http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-nominees.html
>    D. The NC voting procedure:
>       http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-voting-proc.html
>
>The NC members verified that the votes cast had been correctly counted.
>
>Elisabeth Porteneuve and Glen de Saint Gery
>DNSO Secretariat
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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, 10 Sep 2001 01:12:20 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Amadeu Abril i Abril elected for a 3 year term to the ICANN Board

At 12:00 AM +0200 10/9/01, DNSO Secretariat wrote:
>[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]
>[ To: [email-masked]]
>
>
>9 September 2001, Montevideo
>
>
>The Names Council noted and confirmed the election of
>Amadeu Abril i Abril from Spain, European region,
>as the ICANN Board member to serve for three year term.
>

Oh well, might as well disband the GA, it's basically toothless for 3 years
now.

Abril will vote the same way Stubbs does - whatever's best for CORE.

What a farce.

- -- 
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: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 08:41:42 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: REMINDER: ICANN-Montevideo Board Meeting Webcast About to Begin

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 8:38 AM
To: ICANN-Montevideo Remote Participants and Remote Preregistrants
Subject: REMINDER: ICANN-Montevideo Board Meeting Webcast About to Begin

Just a quick reminder that today's meeting of the ICANN Board, open to
public
observation, is about to begin.  Note that today's meeting also includes
additional presentations in continuation of yesterday's Public Forum.

The session starts at 8:30AM local time -- which is 7:30AM US Eastern time,
11:30AM UTC.

Join the webcast via <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo>.  Full
archives will be posted at the conclusion of the meeting.

For more information about the meetings, see
<http://www.icann.org/montevideo>.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu>

- --
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, 10 Sep 2001 16:50:21 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Amadeu Abril i Abril elected for a 3 year term to the ICANN Board

Dear Andy,
the problem I think is that I got 32 support and Joana 22. Not much for an 
active assembly wanting to have its say, all the more than Joana and I did 
not oppose and I endorsed Joana and called my endorser to endorse here too 
(I think she did the same but I do not want to speak for her).

I think three ideas should emerge from our campaigns:

- - intellectual and financial honnesty requirement as Joana requested in a 
very well put presentation.
- - the internet is OUR consensus to interconnect OUR machines and the 
management of this consensus of OURS is by OUR governance what ever the 
ICANN attempted dominance may try.
- - your concern about the GA. Next time who ever is a candidate Members 
should be more deducated and open to endorse them. We agreed with Joana 
that we should have broadcasted endorsement models on the GA so people 
could have just send them instead of having to fish thelm in an hidden 
place on the never used dnso.org site.

Jefsey

On 08:12 10/09/01, Andy Gardner said:
>At 12:00 AM +0200 10/9/01, DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> >[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]
> >[ To: [email-masked]]
> >
> >
> >9 September 2001, Montevideo
> >
> >
> >The Names Council noted and confirmed the election of
> >Amadeu Abril i Abril from Spain, European region,
> >as the ICANN Board member to serve for three year term.
> >
>
>Oh well, might as well disband the GA, it's basically toothless for 3 years
>now.
>
>Abril will vote the same way Stubbs does - whatever's best for CORE.
>
>What a farce.
>
>--
>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

- --
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, 10 Sep 2001 13:57:21 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Montevideo Meetings Complete, Archive Now Available

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 1:53 PM
To: ICANN-Montevideo Remote Participants and Remote Preregistrants
Subject: UPDATE: ICANN-Montevideo Meetings Complete, Archive Now Available

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because you attended or registered to attend
ICANN's public meetings in Montevideo, Uruguay (September 7-10) in person or
via webcast.

Today's ICANN Board Meeting is now complete, and archives of this session,
yesterday's Public Forum, and Saturday's DNSO meetings have been posted in
the online meeting archive at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive>.  Archives include
agendas, RealVideo recordings, scribe's notes, documents and presentations
discussed, real-time questions received, and online discussion logs.

Finally, if you're not already subscribed to ICANN's announcements list,
you may find it helpful to join in order to receive important future
announcements from ICANN.  See <http://www.icann.org/announcements> for
instructions.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu>

- --
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, 10 Sep 2001 12:28:14 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Governments only have rights to their countries's name?

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010910/wr/tech_domains_info_dc_1.html

This is ludicrous in my opinion, it presupposes that the governments
of those countries have some higher right to a domain name containing
their country name than they have or should have.

But it just goes to show that ICANN is bending over backwards to keep
on the good sides of the 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: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 20:07:43 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [none]

Folks,
Please have a look at the presentation on ENUM delivered today at the Board 
(http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/enum.html).
I think that this raises matters to be debated in the DNSO, like:
- - the use of the DNS for a different purpose
- - the implication on policy of the possible implementation (is the service 
optional? What about the impact on privacy? Who will manage it (guidelines 
for cost?), and so on)
Personally, I commented in the public forum that on one hand we experience 
delays over delays in the introduction of a handful of "normal" TLDs, with 
concerns about the stability of the Internet, and on the other hand the 
Board seems to accept without discussion an use of the DNS that is not what 
it was intended for (with a potential of hundreds of millions entries below 
e164.arpa, and a nesting level of some 15).
What do you think?
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: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 22:38:37 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: your mail

On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 20:07 [=GMT-0000], Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Folks,
> Please have a look at the presentation on ENUM delivered today at the Board 
> (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/pres/enum.html).
> I think that this raises matters to be debated in the DNSO, like:
> - the use of the DNS for a different purpose
> - the implication on policy of the possible implementation (is the service 
> optional? What about the impact on privacy? Who will manage it (guidelines 
> for cost?), and so on)
> Personally, I commented in the public forum that on one hand we experience 
> delays over delays in the introduction of a handful of "normal" TLDs, with 
> concerns about the stability of the Internet, and on the other hand the 
> Board seems to accept without discussion an use of the DNS that is not what 
> it was intended for (with a potential of hundreds of millions entries below 
> e164.arpa, and a nesting level of some 15).
> What do you think?

Although I think the questions you raise are very serious, I am not
worried. Enum will not fly. Who wants to remember numbers? ibm.com is
not more trouble to key into most mobiles than 8392846392.

- -- 
[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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #731
************************