Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #737
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, September 15 2001         Volume 01 : Number 737

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

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 07:14:17 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Roberto,

My apologies for taking so long to respond to this but up until yesterday my
connectivity was extremely slow.

I personally believe that there will be policies that may need to be locally
controlled and others that should be globally controlled.  I also think that
over time it will not be that hard to differentiate the two different
categories.  In cases where the ICANN community might propose policies
contrary to country or territory interests, some work between affected
parties will need to happen.  Where there may be impact beyond the local
jurisdiction, I think that it may be necessary to implement a global policy
instead of a local policy.  Otherwise, the chances of confusion will be
increased.  These situations will have to be dealt with on a case by case
basis because of the variance of local laws, customs and practices, but
ultimately I do not believe that the global implications should be ignored
just because a country or region is involved.  That I think is the nature of
the Internet.  Any country or territory can establish their own private
network and set their own policies for it.  When they want to play in the
global arena, it becomes a different game.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 8:19 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [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, 14 Sep 2001 09:09:45 -0400
From: "David G. Post" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] America and a prayer

Sri
         Thank you for sending this -- suddenly, all the talk over the 
past years about the 'global community' and all the rest has taken on a 
deeper meaning for all of us.  This was an attack on you, too, though 
you are 10,000 miles away from ground zero.  Sadly, all I can do is 
pray for the safety of your friends and colleagues -- I hope that will 
be enough.
David

At 09:36 PM 9/13/01 -0700, Srikanth Narra wrote:
>America is more than a patch of land, a bunch of people and two towers 
>of world trade center.
>
>Its also an ideal, a dream and heritage of entire humanity.
>
>The sorrow, pain and suffering from the tragic event is all of ours - 
>irrespective of our religion, nationality, ethinicity - to bear and cope.
>
>My condolences to the victims and their families.
>
>While the authorities apprehend pertetrators and protect the land and 
>people. I pray and hope all of us safeguard and hold high the ideal 
>and dream that's America - in its entire purity. The America 
>that  Benjiman Franklin dreamed of.
>
>For those of you who have been in and around world trade center on the 
>tragic day - pls. if you can drop me a email. I have pictures of four 
>collegues who are missing from the 97th floor in tower one -  I would 
>like to forward. Their parents and families in India are going through 
>hell and anguish - awaiting their status and where abouts - its been 3 
>days now. Its not exactly an easy exercise for them to reach 
>authorities to find status. For now internet is the only hope.
>
>Sri
>
>
>--
>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: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:20:55 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Dear Chuck,
I am lost here. How an ICANN policy could conflict with any local law?
ICANN policy only consists in saying everyone "This is the way "I" do the 
protocol, the IP block address and the master root registry management".

What you mean is mission creep or dishonnesty conflicting with local laws. 
And you want the world trade power to rule the nations? But nations are not 
only dollars and TMs.

What we have just lived and unfortunately what we will live in the coming 
days, weeks, months and, may be, years will show us that you are right here:

At 13:14 14/09/01, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>In cases where the ICANN community might propose policies
>contrary to country or territory interests, some work between affected
>parties will need to happen.  Where there may be impact beyond the local
>jurisdiction, I think that it may be necessary to implement a global policy
>instead of a local policy.  Otherwise, the chances of confusion will be
>increased.

Confusion is here.
BTW why the ICANN community would be not the World Internet Community?

>These situations will have to be dealt with on a case by case
>basis because of the variance of local laws, customs and practices, but
>ultimately I do not believe that the global implications should be ignored
>just because a country or region is involved.

And we are living a global implication right now.

>That I think is the nature of
>the Internet.  Any country or territory can establish their own private
>network and set their own policies for it.  When they want to play in the
>global arena, it becomes a different game.

There is no global arena per se: a global area is always someone's globality.
"Global" is not "universal" nor "World", nor "total"...
The change Bush says we are about to face will precisely be for many to 
understand that.

What is frustrating is that the Internet as both as an image and as agent 
of the social change of the world should permit the ICANNers to be among 
the first having understood this and to help peace and development through 
an "open inter" image and possibilities, instead of "locked net" for the 
sake of the ICANN's account at Jones Days and NSI's share value.

Sorry if I am upset. I target no one ...
But some times too much is too much.
Jefsey

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 8:19 AM
>To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [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

- --
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, 14 Sep 2001 13:11:34 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

From: "Jefsey Morfin" <[email-masked]>
> How an ICANN policy could conflict with any local law?

Simple.

Take, for example, the embargo against Iraq.  Apart from the UN Security
Council, the US government also forbids dealing with the Iraqi government.

However, Register.com is accredited by ICANN to deal with anyone.  Hence,
Register.com derives income from registration of the domain name uruklink.net
, which is used by the Iraqi government for communications.

Similarly, Network Solutions maintains taleban.com, on behalf of an Afghan
fugitive in the United States who formerly operated the now-closed Taleban
Mission to the U.N.

Register.com and Network Solutions derive their authority to do these things
from ICANN, and they appear to conflict with U.S. law.

- --
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, 14 Sep 2001 12:38:52 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Chuck and all assembly members,

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Roberto,
>
> My apologies for taking so long to respond to this but up until yesterday my
> connectivity was extremely slow.
>
> I personally believe that there will be policies that may need to be locally
> controlled and others that should be globally controlled.

  It has very recently again become evident with the events in New York, Wash.
DC and now other places around the world, that local control of communications
must meet a minimum standard commensurate with democratic standards.

>  I also think that
> over time it will not be that hard to differentiate the two different
> categories.

  It already is not.

>  In cases where the ICANN community might propose policies
> contrary to country or territory interests, some work between affected
> parties will need to happen.

  Indeed this is quite true.

>  Where there may be impact beyond the local
> jurisdiction, I think that it may be necessary to implement a global policy
> instead of a local policy.

  Also quite correct.  However many of us have understood this naturally
for many many years.  It seems though, however, that the ICANN BoD
and staff have not.

>  Otherwise, the chances of confusion will be
> increased.  These situations will have to be dealt with on a case by case
> basis because of the variance of local laws, customs and practices, but
> ultimately I do not believe that the global implications should be ignored
> just because a country or region is involved.

  Very true.

> That I think is the nature of
> the Internet.  Any country or territory can establish their own private
> network and set their own policies for it.  When they want to play in the
> global arena, it becomes a different game.

  There is no "Game" here or there should not be.  Rather there is a
endeavor.

>
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 8:19 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [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
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 20:05:26 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Hi! John,
Sorry, but you are confusing authority and authority :-)

Your Afghan fugitive is authoritative ( = decision maker ) about 
taleban.com: he chose the name, decided the TLD, decides of its IP address, 
load the content he wants, permit access through FTP or not, distributes 
the e-mails etc....

The DNS system is authoritative ( = knowledgeable ) about what the Afghani 
authoritatively delegated (gave the IP info) to it about its Internet 
domain address.

NSI is authoritative ( = decision maker ) on the .com zone (they say 
"commercial owner").
The ICANN (IANA) is authoritative ( = knowledgeable ) on the .com name 
server location because NSI  delegated (gave the IP info) to it about their 
zone server locations.

I know that Joe Sims discovered it would be great for Jones Days to build 
another Internet, made of contractual links rather than of network links. 
This is big mission creep and traffic does not flow very well. Now you 
document that it may be illegal. I do hope that according this reading of 
yours the FBI will quickly take Louis Touton and Joe Sims in custody and 
free the world.

Your remark is like saying CNN are illegal when they show Saddam. Would you 
claim CNN have authority on Saddam? BTW who knows, he may be on contract 
with them?
Jefsey.

On 19:11 14/09/01, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. said:
>From: "Jefsey Morfin" <[email-masked]>
> > How an ICANN policy could conflict with any local law?
>
>Simple.
>
>Take, for example, the embargo against Iraq.  Apart from the UN Security
>Council, the US government also forbids dealing with the Iraqi government.
>
>However, Register.com is accredited by ICANN to deal with anyone.  Hence,
>Register.com derives income from registration of the domain name uruklink.net
>, which is used by the Iraqi government for communications.
>
>Similarly, Network Solutions maintains taleban.com, on behalf of an Afghan
>fugitive in the United States who formerly operated the now-closed Taleban
>Mission to the U.N.
>
>Register.com and Network Solutions derive their authority to do these things
>from ICANN, and they appear to conflict with U.S. law.

- --
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, 14 Sep 2001 15:11:05 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

> Your remark is like saying CNN are illegal when they show Saddam.

I can be persuaded I'm wrong, but the analogy fails here in that Saddam does
not pay CNN to put him on.  That would be a much different situation than
reporting the news.  For example, I doubt Saddam could buy advertising time
on CNN.

However, a U.S. company is paid for domain name registration services for the
official website of the Presidency of Iraq.

- --
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, 14 Sep 2001 22:36:10 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 21:11 14/09/01, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. said:
> > Your remark is like saying CNN are illegal when they show Saddam.
>
>I can be persuaded I'm wrong, but the analogy fails here in that Saddam does
>not pay CNN to put him on.  That would be a much different situation than
>reporting the news.  For example, I doubt Saddam could buy advertising time
>on CNN.

Right, but is CNN only paid by direct advertising? Suppose Saddam gives an 
interview to CNN? CNN gets audience and Saddam free advertising. News 
services are a complex issue.

>However, a U.S. company is paid for domain name registration services for the
>official website of the Presidency of Iraq.

That is bad business. This should have been carried by a foreign company so 
Iraq could have claimed censorship existed in the USA. But the ICANN has 
nothing to do in this.

Where the problem is, is that Alani Corp is hosted by InfoCom Corp. in the 
USA to operate ".iq". Due to the US legislation the Alani Corp cannot 
perform its duties to the Internet Community of Iraq and should be 
redelagated by the IANA. Otherwise there is an ICANN law for Australia and 
one for Iraq. This is in violation to the ByLaws.

Is such a violation of importance?  You may want to have a look at the 
bottom of the welcome page at http://www.infocomcorp.com/ . Obviously an 
omen no more. But it shows how the things are on the intertwinet.

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: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:24:39 -0400
From: "Antony Van Couvering" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Disaster help - Request for Afilias to extend its deadlines

Dear ICANN people,

I need to write to you to help convince Afilias to extend their deadline
for Round One of their Landrush for at least a week.  To be honest, it's
not the first thing on my mind, given the horrific destruction that
everyone here witnessed from close quarters on Tuesday.  But for our
staff, and for our customers, many of whom have offices in lower
Manhattan, I must ask for your support in this matter.  I believe that
my request would be echoed by at least one other registrar from New
York.

NameEngine has been severely affected by the World Trade Center
disaster.  Our offices are below Canal Street in New York and so we are
prevented from entering our building until rescue efforts have
progressed further.  Today I was able to convince the police to let me
past their cordon in order to examine the state of our facilities.  Our
power is up, and luckily we have some backup connectivity that allows us
(slowly) to communicate via the Internet.  Phones work intermittently.

So, just before the Afilias deadline for Round 1 of the Landrush, none
of our staff have been able to get to work, not that anyone here is able
to concentrate very well, since several of us have friends who have been
injured or are missing.  

NameEngine will have great difficulty in meeting the current Afilias
deadline, even if we are allowed into our offices over the weekend.
Baseball, football, even the stock markets have closed out of respect
for those injured and killed and because of the tremendous logistical
challenges -- such as not being allowed in our office -- that the World
Trade Center bombing has caused.

We have petitioned Afilias directly to extend their deadline past
Tuesday, and although they have been sympathetic, to date they have not
directly responded to our request.   

I ask the Registrars Constituency and ICANN please to lend your voice to
our request to Afilias to extend the Round One deadline.  What harm can
this cause?

With thanks,

Antony Van Couvering
CEO, NameEngine
- --
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, 14 Sep 2001 18:38:50 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Disaster help - Request for Afilias to extend its deadlines

Please add my name to the list of your supporters for this cause.

Even the US Inland Revenue Service has granted a 6 month automatic extension
for anybody in NYC and the five boroughs facing a deadline between now and
October 15th, (including those outside the area who are represented by a NY
firm).

Afilias should have put a similar extension into effect without having to be
appealed. The alternative adds to the destructive ability of those
rsponsible for recent events, which is exactly the result sought.

Regards,
Joanna

on 9/14/01 6:24 PM, Antony Van Couvering at [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear ICANN people,
> 
> I need to write to you to help convince Afilias to extend their deadline
> for Round One of their Landrush for at least a week.  To be honest, it's
> not the first thing on my mind, given the horrific destruction that
> everyone here witnessed from close quarters on Tuesday.  But for our
> staff, and for our customers, many of whom have offices in lower
> Manhattan, I must ask for your support in this matter.  I believe that
> my request would be echoed by at least one other registrar from New
> York.
> 
> NameEngine has been severely affected by the World Trade Center
> disaster.  Our offices are below Canal Street in New York and so we are
> prevented from entering our building until rescue efforts have
> progressed further.  Today I was able to convince the police to let me
> past their cordon in order to examine the state of our facilities.  Our
> power is up, and luckily we have some backup connectivity that allows us
> (slowly) to communicate via the Internet.  Phones work intermittently.
> 
> So, just before the Afilias deadline for Round 1 of the Landrush, none
> of our staff have been able to get to work, not that anyone here is able
> to concentrate very well, since several of us have friends who have been
> injured or are missing.
> 
> NameEngine will have great difficulty in meeting the current Afilias
> deadline, even if we are allowed into our offices over the weekend.
> Baseball, football, even the stock markets have closed out of respect
> for those injured and killed and because of the tremendous logistical
> challenges -- such as not being allowed in our office -- that the World
> Trade Center bombing has caused.
> 
> We have petitioned Afilias directly to extend their deadline past
> Tuesday, and although they have been sympathetic, to date they have not
> directly responded to our request.
> 
> I ask the Registrars Constituency and ICANN please to lend your voice to
> our request to Afilias to extend the Round One deadline.  What harm can
> this cause?
> 
> With thanks,
> 
> Antony Van Couvering
> CEO, NameEngine
> --
> 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: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:03:38 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Registrant:
                         Afghan Taleban Mission to the  U.N. (TALEBAN-DOM)
                            5516 Main Street suite #1d
                            Flushing, NY 11355
                            US

                            Domain Name: TALEBAN.COM

                            Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
                               Mujahib, Abdul Hackeem  (AHM19)  [email-masked]

                               Afhgan Taleban Mission
                               55-16 Main Street Suite #1d
                               Flushing, NY 11355
                               718-359-0457
                            Technical Contact:
                               Support, Tech  (TS6330)  [email-masked]
                               Interland, Inc.
                               101 Marietta Street
                               Atlanta, GA 30303
                               800-589-5060 (FAX) 404-586-0001

                            Record last updated on 14-Dec-2000.
                            Record expires on 12-Oct-2001.
                            Record created on 11-Oct-1997.
                            Database last updated on 14-Sep-2001 09:33:00 EDT.

                            Domain servers in listed order:

                            DNS1.INTERLAND.NET           64.224.20.132
                            DNS2.INTERLAND.NET           64.224.20.133
                            DNS3.INTERLAND.NET           64.224.20.134
Bill Lovell

"John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." wrote:

> From: "Jefsey Morfin" <[email-masked]>
> > How an ICANN policy could conflict with any local law?
>
> Simple.
>
> Take, for example, the embargo against Iraq.  Apart from the UN Security
> Council, the US government also forbids dealing with the Iraqi government.
>
> However, Register.com is accredited by ICANN to deal with anyone.  Hence,
> Register.com derives income from registration of the domain name uruklink.net
> , which is used by the Iraqi government for communications.
>
> Similarly, Network Solutions maintains taleban.com, on behalf of an Afghan
> fugitive in the United States who formerly operated the now-closed Taleban
> Mission to the U.N.
>
> Register.com and Network Solutions derive their authority to do these things
> from ICANN, and they appear to conflict with U.S. law.
>
> --
> 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

- --

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:07:28 -0700
From: Josh Elliott <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Disaster help - Request for Afilias to extend its deadlines

Antony,

I am in full support of you on this.  I am shocked that .INFO actually
launched on Tuesday, despite the horrific tragedy, and I hope Afilias and
ICANN will postpone the previously set dates to accomodate all of those
directly affected in NY.

If there is anything we can do to assist you in this great time of need,
please let me know.

God Bless,

Josh

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Antony
Van Couvering
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 3:25 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Stuart Lynn (E-mail); Vint Cerf (E-mail); Louis Touton (E-mail);
[email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Disaster help - Request for Afilias to extend its
deadlines

Dear ICANN people,

I need to write to you to help convince Afilias to extend their deadline
for Round One of their Landrush for at least a week.  To be honest, it's
not the first thing on my mind, given the horrific destruction that
everyone here witnessed from close quarters on Tuesday.  But for our
staff, and for our customers, many of whom have offices in lower
Manhattan, I must ask for your support in this matter.  I believe that
my request would be echoed by at least one other registrar from New
York.

NameEngine has been severely affected by the World Trade Center
disaster.  Our offices are below Canal Street in New York and so we are
prevented from entering our building until rescue efforts have
progressed further.  Today I was able to convince the police to let me
past their cordon in order to examine the state of our facilities.  Our
power is up, and luckily we have some backup connectivity that allows us
(slowly) to communicate via the Internet.  Phones work intermittently.

So, just before the Afilias deadline for Round 1 of the Landrush, none
of our staff have been able to get to work, not that anyone here is able
to concentrate very well, since several of us have friends who have been
injured or are missing.

NameEngine will have great difficulty in meeting the current Afilias
deadline, even if we are allowed into our offices over the weekend.
Baseball, football, even the stock markets have closed out of respect
for those injured and killed and because of the tremendous logistical
challenges -- such as not being allowed in our office -- that the World
Trade Center bombing has caused.

We have petitioned Afilias directly to extend their deadline past
Tuesday, and although they have been sympathetic, to date they have not
directly responded to our request.

I ask the Registrars Constituency and ICANN please to lend your voice to
our request to Afilias to extend the Round One deadline.  What harm can
this cause?

With thanks,

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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #737
************************