Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #759
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, September 28 2001          Volume 01 : Number 759

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:28:57 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] projectliberty.org

Joanna and all assembly members,

  I would strongly suggest everyone having interest review closely
this organizations privacy policy before becoming involved.
See: http://www.projectliberty.org/privacy.html

Joanna Lane wrote:

> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010926/sfw065_2.html
>
> "Industry Leaders to Form Network Identity
> Alliance-Liberty Alliance Project
>
> Representing Over a Billion Names, ActivCard,
> American Airlines, the Apache Software Foundation,
> Bank of America, Bell Canada Enterprises, Cingular
> Wireless, Cisco Systems, CollabNet, Dun and
> Bradstreet, eBay, Entrust, Fidelity Investments,
> Gemplus, GM, Global Crossing, i2, Intuit, Liberate
> Technologies, Nokia, NTT DoCoMo, O'Reilly and
> Associates, Openwave, RealNetworks, RSA Security,
> Sabre, Schlumberger, Sony Corporation, Sprint, Sun
> Microsystems, Travelocity, United Airlines, Verisign,
> Vodafone and More Create Multi-Industry Business
> Alliance
>
> ProjectLiberty.org Goes Live; All Interested Parties
> Invited to Drive Specification and Development
> Process"
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:16:10 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] We can't be against it?

Yesterday ICANN announced (see www.icann.org) that the next meeting
in MdR (LA) will be different and mainly devoted to security issues
following the September 11 tragedies. Other topics on the agenda will
probably be postponed. 

I am amazed not seeing any comment on this, here or elsewhere. Am I
the only one who gets the funny feeling that there is something wrong
here? Not that I am against the stability of the internet. But I would
think that if there is one subject that is not really suited to deal
with in an open transparent and bottom up process it is security
measures. And nobody is against getting some root-servers.net out of
Virginia into other parts of the world anyway. 

Now, I know, I may be in a very bad mood, because of Autumn, or
something else, but I have this funny feeling, that this is an attempt
to postpone some other serious issues, mainly the At Large, perhaps
.ORG, because certain people are uncomfortable with them.

Please, tell me why I am mistaken! 

- -- 
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:15:51 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: ICANN wants to get into the security business

The guys that can't run an election just announced this.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Sean Donelan [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 3:07 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: ICANN wants to get into the security business
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> I guess it shouldn't be too surprising.  After doing such a
|> great job with domain names, ICANN wants to get involved with
|> Internet security.
|> 
|> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-26sep01.htm
|> 
|> Since I don't have any other plans, I may drop by to watch
|> the fireworks.
|> 
|> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 18:16:45 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
> But I would
> think that if there is one subject that is not really suited to deal
> with in an open transparent and bottom up process it is security
> measures.

Quite the contrary, actually.  Which is the reason why, for example, the
recent Nimda worm exploited proprietary software, and not open source
software.

It is the worst-kept secret on the internet that the greatest threat to
stability of the domain name system lies in the fact that ICANN has done
practically nothing along the lines of their required job of escrowing domain
registrant data in the event of registrar failure.  Naturally, this important
and neglected job only inures to the benefit of domain name registrants, by
protecting the integrity of domain name registrations against financial or
other disruption in registrar operation.  Domain name registrants are, of
course, not a constituency of this domain name regulation authority, so
security of registrations is simply not a priority.

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 17:47:11 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

Marc and all assembly members,

  If you will check the ALSC forum list you will see that Esther Dyson
has made some comments about this.
 http://atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg00873.shtml

  We at INEGroup by in large, agree with Esther's thoughts and comments
that she provided to this issue...

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Yesterday ICANN announced (see www.icann.org) that the next meeting
> in MdR (LA) will be different and mainly devoted to security issues
> following the September 11 tragedies. Other topics on the agenda will
> probably be postponed.
>
> I am amazed not seeing any comment on this, here or elsewhere. Am I
> the only one who gets the funny feeling that there is something wrong
> here? Not that I am against the stability of the internet. But I would
> think that if there is one subject that is not really suited to deal
> with in an open transparent and bottom up process it is security
> measures. And nobody is against getting some root-servers.net out of
> Virginia into other parts of the world anyway.
>
> Now, I know, I may be in a very bad mood, because of Autumn, or
> something else, but I have this funny feeling, that this is an attempt
> to postpone some other serious issues, mainly the At Large, perhaps
> .ORG, because certain people are uncomfortable with them.
>
> Please, tell me why I am mistaken!
>
> --
> [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

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, 28 Sep 2001 10:14:23 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

At 23:16 27/09/01 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>Yesterday ICANN announced (see www.icann.org) that the next meeting
>in MdR (LA) will be different and mainly devoted to security issues
>following the September 11 tragedies. Other topics on the agenda will
>probably be postponed.

The lack of comment is probably caused by cynicism about the real intent of 
the statement.
Or else: people are just dumbstruck.

Many of us have wasted their time with fruitless ICANN meetings before.
This time ICANN staff is kind enough to give us advance notice:
Don't bother with MdR unless you are interested in "security issues"

Perhaps it is better to spend solid time to come more prepared for the next 
meeting.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:04:08 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] projectliberty.org

At 14:09 27/09/01 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:

>http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010926/sfw065_2.html
>
>"Industry Leaders to Form Network Identity
>Alliance-Liberty Alliance Project
>
>Representing Over a Billion Names, ActivCard,
>American Airlines........

While I have nothing yet to say about the merits of the project, the use of 
the word "representing" in the press release makes me uncomfortable.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 19:21:54 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: ICANN wants to get into the security business

The same guys that have a control room door that can only be opened from the
inside and plain clothes marshalls in every public area. Follow the
money...government subsidies for security precautions.

Regards,
Joanna

on 9/27/01 6:15 PM, Roeland Meyer at [email-masked] wrote:

> The guys that can't run an election just announced this.
> 
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: Sean Donelan [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 3:07 PM
> |> To: [email-masked]
> |> Subject: ICANN wants to get into the security business
> |> 
> |> 
> |> 
> |> 
> |> I guess it shouldn't be too surprising.  After doing such a
> |> great job with domain names, ICANN wants to get involved with
> |> Internet security.
> |> 
> |> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-26sep01.htm
> |> 
> |> Since I don't have any other plans, I may drop by to watch
> |> the fireworks.
> |> 
> |> 
> --
> 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: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 18:53:27 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

Marc, John and all assembly members,

  Of course you are right right here John.  And as many times as I
amongst others here have harped on the ICANN BOD to stick to their
knitting so to speak, especially where the security and stability of the
DNS is concerned, their emphasis has been on more political issues
that have little or nor relevance to their primary mandate set forth
in the White Paper and the MoU.  Rather this ICANN BoD and staff,
with two possible exceptions, Karl and Andy, have seen fit that preference
to their clique of "Buddies" is much more important...  I personally find
this appalling and potentially playing into the hands of the Internet
terrorism that is occurring and will increase in it's severity if not addressed
very soon.

  My other question along these lines is, where in the hell is DOC/NTIA, the
FCC, and DOJ been on this?  I am quite sure their answer will be long
winded and of course politically correct in every respect...  <Sic>

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

> From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
> > But I would
> > think that if there is one subject that is not really suited to deal
> > with in an open transparent and bottom up process it is security
> > measures.
>
> Quite the contrary, actually.  Which is the reason why, for example, the
> recent Nimda worm exploited proprietary software, and not open source
> software.
>
> It is the worst-kept secret on the internet that the greatest threat to
> stability of the domain name system lies in the fact that ICANN has done
> practically nothing along the lines of their required job of escrowing domain
> registrant data in the event of registrar failure.  Naturally, this important
> and neglected job only inures to the benefit of domain name registrants, by
> protecting the integrity of domain name registrations against financial or
> other disruption in registrar operation.  Domain name registrants are, of
> course, not a constituency of this domain name regulation authority, so
> security of registrations is simply not a priority.
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 19:00:55 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Nuelevels .BIZ in the news and courts again...

All assembly members,

  FYI, See:http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7323763.html?tag=mn_hd

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: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 20:17:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

"Exploiting a National Tragedy"
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=388

On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Yesterday ICANN announced (see www.icann.org) that the next meeting
> in MdR (LA) will be different and mainly devoted to security issues
> following the September 11 tragedies. Other topics on the agenda will
> probably be postponed. 
> 
> I am amazed not seeing any comment on this, here or elsewhere. Am I
> the only one who gets the funny feeling that there is something wrong
> here? Not that I am against the stability of the internet. But I would
> think that if there is one subject that is not really suited to deal
> with in an open transparent and bottom up process it is security
> measures. And nobody is against getting some root-servers.net out of
> Virginia into other parts of the world anyway. 
> 
> Now, I know, I may be in a very bad mood, because of Autumn, or
> something else, but I have this funny feeling, that this is an attempt
> to postpone some other serious issues, mainly the At Large, perhaps
> ..ORG, because certain people are uncomfortable with them.
> 
> Please, tell me why I am mistaken! 
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                 -->It's very hot and humid here.<--

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 18:57:44 -0700
From: "Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nuelevels .BIZ in the news and courts again...

Dear All

Well, so far our experience in dealing with .biz for the past several weeks
lead us to believe that they are fraud or probably not doing things
ethically. They issued us a user id and password to login and claim our
trade marks, however, we could not log in at all time and get a bogus answer
of

"Login not valid
Please try again"

and when I personally contacted them I got the following message (see below)
and a support number than does not get you any responses at any time " US,
1-877-4DOTBIZ, or from outside the US, 1-571-434-5757. "

As far as I am concerned, the judge should investigate .biz thoroughly and
to expand it to a class action suit for IP infingment or violations of trade
mark laws.

We at ICANN should question the .biz management and investigate what is
really going on at their operations in our upcoming Marina Del Rey meeting
and ask them to prove honesty and ethics. Who knows how many times they will
be served with lawsuit during Nov 13-15?

Best Regards,

Asaad Y. Alnajjar, P.E.
CEO Millennium Inc.
Los Angeles, CA, USA

 >----- Original Message -----
 >From: "Support" <[email-masked]>
 >To: "Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc." <[email-masked]>
 >Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 6:31 AM
 >Subject: RE: {NeuLevel#012-943}Notification of .BIZ Intellectual
 >Property Claim Conflict
 >
 >> Greetings,
 >>
 >> Thank-you for contacting NeuLevel.
 >>
 >> Unfortunately, the problems that you have encountered when trying to
 >confirm your domain name application are due to high volume levels on
 >our web server.  Because of this issue, you may have experienced one or
more
 >of the following errors because of this high load.
 >>
 >> -The link
 >>
 >>

>https://extranet.neulevel.com/services/registrant/private/ConflictedDomainN
ame.jsp
 >>
 >> does not connect or show a web page.
 >>

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: "General Assembly of the DNSO" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 7:00 PM
Subject: [ga] Nuelevels .BIZ in the news and courts again...

> All assembly members,
>
>   FYI, See:http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7323763.html?tag=mn_hd
>
> 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
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 19:10:57 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

The sad tragedy about this is our inability to form a constructive and
cohesive entity against this type of behavior.  Here I lay the blame
directly at those who could fund a group and yet lay ignorantly helpless to
do so.  Oh they fund an NAIS group but they do not fund the GA so that it
could rally.  {I think we call that a cottage industry only interested in
self preservation}  A group could be founded and organized to politically
and humanistically and popularly stop this types of effort but the funders
keep following the same old destructive mode.

Of course I will vigilantly attack the aberration but first I had wont to
chastise those who can afford to but do not.

Eric

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> "Exploiting a National Tragedy"
> http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=388
>
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> > Yesterday ICANN announced (see www.icann.org) that the next meeting
> > in MdR (LA) will be different and mainly devoted to security issues
> > following the September 11 tragedies. Other topics on the agenda will
> > probably be postponed.
> >
> > I am amazed not seeing any comment on this, here or elsewhere. Am I
> > the only one who gets the funny feeling that there is something wrong
> > here? Not that I am against the stability of the internet. But I would
> > think that if there is one subject that is not really suited to deal
> > with in an open transparent and bottom up process it is security
> > measures. And nobody is against getting some root-servers.net out of
> > Virginia into other parts of the world anyway.
> >
> > Now, I know, I may be in a very bad mood, because of Autumn, or
> > something else, but I have this funny feeling, that this is an attempt
> > to postpone some other serious issues, mainly the At Large, perhaps
> > ..ORG, because certain people are uncomfortable with them.
> >
> > Please, tell me why I am mistaken!
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                  -->It's very hot and humid here.<--
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 19:23:44 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Nuelevels .BIZ in the news and courts again...

Thursday, Thursday, September 27, 2001, 6:57:44 PM, Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc. wrote:

> As far as I am concerned, the judge should investigate .biz thoroughly and
> to expand it to a class action suit for IP infingment or violations of trade
> mark laws.

Trademarks do not entitle you to any domain names under the law.  A
violation only occurs in the USE of the domain name, and the use must
specifically violate the rights of the trademark holder.  Under
California law, precedent already exists which holds the registry free
and clear from claims of contributory infringement, as well.

Trademark regulation does not belong at the registry, and the entire
preregistration fiasco we have seen with the new gTLDs in the last few
months are glaring illustrations of why.  Trademark regulation belongs
in the legal system, and not in the registry systems.

- -- 
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: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 22:37:05 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Nuelevels .BIZ in the news and courts again...

- --part1_132.242a5cd.28e53c51_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"It was a money-loser just to build the whole system," NeuLevel's Neuman 
said. 
    
funny thing that it wasn't quite put this way in their application....

Ray

- --part1_132.242a5cd.28e53c51_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2>
<BR>"It was a money-loser just to build the whole system," NeuLevel's Neuman said. 
<BR>    
<BR>funny thing that it wasn't quite put this way in their application....
<BR>
<BR>Ray</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_132.242a5cd.28e53c51_boundary--
- --
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, 28 Sep 2001 04:48:40 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

Dear Marc,
let face it: the ICANN is the Internet Dominance. For some mysterious 
reasons the real policy is not discussed but carried. Some may think that 
some objectives are:

- - use the 11 Sept. to push for DNS security - i.e. to declare inclusive 
roots terrorist - to repatriate  root machines on US soil - to develop a 
secondary DNS management system by SAIC under a new directory system and 
White House control. VeriSign has M$ 200 planned for that and wants to make 
believe it is of common interest - but when proposed to get the result 
under GNU licence ... Chuck responded "what is GNU?" :-)

- - use the security issue to delay the @large and the .org issue until it is 
necessary to decide it in ten days. You may remember that Vint committed to 
me on this list that appropriate changes will be made to the ByLaws for the 
current @large Directors to stay seated until replaced. So don't be afraid 
that the 2002 general meeting could decide of the end of the @large and of 
the take over of the .org by an ICANN non-profit, no-member, Louis Touton 
chaired and Joe Sims advised affiliate.

- - use the whole disputes this may lead as a way to delay many things until 
the huge ".com" and ".info" gTLDs make the small ".net" a nice compensation 
for poor Microsoft waiting for so long to get a TLD when Verisign is to 
release it according to Plan B. Microsoft having in the meanwhile 
contributed to the free world security effort in banning free root access 
from XP.

I am certainly biased. I just looked at the http://www.projectliberty.org 
site. I do not know about it yet and if they will accept non-profit 
organizations. I just have the feeling that the "people for the people" is 
somewhat outdated right now. But I have the strange feeling too that the 
people may  also occasionally the "market" and that all these "money 
makers" tend to forget about it?

Jefsey

On 23:16 27/09/01, Marc Schneiders said:
>Yesterday ICANN announced (see www.icann.org) that the next meeting
>in MdR (LA) will be different and mainly devoted to security issues
>following the September 11 tragedies. Other topics on the agenda will
>probably be postponed.
>
>I am amazed not seeing any comment on this, here or elsewhere. Am I
>the only one who gets the funny feeling that there is something wrong
>here? Not that I am against the stability of the internet. But I would
>think that if there is one subject that is not really suited to deal
>with in an open transparent and bottom up process it is security
>measures. And nobody is against getting some root-servers.net out of
>Virginia into other parts of the world anyway.
>
>Now, I know, I may be in a very bad mood, because of Autumn, or
>something else, but I have this funny feeling, that this is an attempt
>to postpone some other serious issues, mainly the At Large, perhaps
>.ORG, because certain people are uncomfortable with them.
>
>Please, tell me why I am mistaken!
>
>--
>[email-masked]
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 04:59:49 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [icann-announce] ICANN Meeting in Marina del Rey (13-15 November 2001)

On 09:17 27/09/01, [email-masked] said:
>There will be further
>announcements next week, following additional consultations with members
>of the community.

<snip>

>This will require
>patience on the part of those who may experience delays in matters of
>importance to them so that the ICANN community can bear down on the
>issue at hand.

Again and again, the wording now is the "ICANN community" ..... not anymore 
the "Global Internet community". ccTLD should be cautious as they claim 
their legitimacy being from the Local Internet Community. Already it is no 
more generci TLDs but global TLDs. ccTLD DNs are not taken into account for 
@large double paying membership...

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 20:22:37 -0700
From: "Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Nuelevels .BIZ in the news and courts again...

The bottom line is  .biz  is more of a fraud operation rather than a
legitimate operation.

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 20:24:10 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Nuelevels .BIZ in the news and courts again...

Thursday, Thursday, September 27, 2001, 8:22:37 PM, Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc. wrote:

> The bottom line is  .biz  is more of a fraud operation rather than a
> legitimate operation.

Ever heard of libel?  I'd be careful, unless you have something to
back it up.  Nothing I've seen does that.

- -- 
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: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 20:45:19 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

In a moment of cynicism last May, I reserved the domain name
peopleworldwide.net as a starting point for a truly international,
democratic, representative, progressive and functional entity
that would be dedicated to the survival, recapture for those
"people world wide," and ultimate improvement of the Internet,
in that order.  If anyone wants to fund and/or help advance such
an entity in other ways, let me know.

Bill Lovell

Eric Dierker wrote:

> The sad tragedy about this is our inability to form a constructive and
> cohesive entity against this type of behavior.  Here I lay the blame
> directly at those who could fund a group and yet lay ignorantly helpless to
> do so.  Oh they fund an NAIS group but they do not fund the GA so that it
> could rally.  {I think we call that a cottage industry only interested in
> self preservation}  A group could be founded and organized to politically
> and humanistically and popularly stop this types of effort but the funders
> keep following the same old destructive mode.
>
> Of course I will vigilantly attack the aberration but first I had wont to
> chastise those who can afford to but do not.
>
> Eric
>
> "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
>
> > "Exploiting a National Tragedy"
> > http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=388
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >
> > > Yesterday ICANN announced (see www.icann.org) that the next meeting
> > > in MdR (LA) will be different and mainly devoted to security issues
> > > following the September 11 tragedies. Other topics on the agenda will
> > > probably be postponed.
> > >
> > > I am amazed not seeing any comment on this, here or elsewhere. Am I
> > > the only one who gets the funny feeling that there is something wrong
> > > here? Not that I am against the stability of the internet. But I would
> > > think that if there is one subject that is not really suited to deal
> > > with in an open transparent and bottom up process it is security
> > > measures. And nobody is against getting some root-servers.net out of
> > > Virginia into other parts of the world anyway.
> > >
> > > Now, I know, I may be in a very bad mood, because of Autumn, or
> > > something else, but I have this funny feeling, that this is an attempt
> > > to postpone some other serious issues, mainly the At Large, perhaps
> > > ..ORG, because certain people are uncomfortable with them.
> > >
> > > Please, tell me why I am mistaken!
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
> >                  -->It's very hot and humid here.<--
> >

- --
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 #759
************************