Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #798
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, October 18 2001          Volume 01 : Number 798

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

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:36:23 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision

David,

On a point of order, I notice that you have not submitted this as an Agenda
item to the NC Intake Committee at [email-masked]. They are the body
responsible for proposing the agenda for NC meetings. Items are not included
simply by submitting requests to individual Council members. Please note
there are various deadlines and procedures for submission of an item agenda
item, and for subsequent supporting documentation you may wish to include.

Only recently, I noted that a single submission by one member of the GA was
sufficient reason for the NC Chair to place the item on its Agenda, so I
would say this is definitely something that should not be overlooked by
anybody who feels strongly about a matter and wants it brought before the
NC.

Regards,
Joanna

FYI http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010711.NCprocedures-v3.0.html

The Intake Committee (IC) is responsible for proposing the agenda for NC
meetings.

4.2 Composition

The IC should be selected only from members of the Names Council. It should
be small and flexible to facilitate meetings and discussion. It should be
comprised of an odd number of NC members not greater than five. Members
should be rotated from time to time.

4.3 Agenda proposals for NC meetings

Any of the following persons can make proposals for NC agenda items by
e-mail to [email-masked] :

*    members of the Names Council

*    the Names Council secretariat

*    the ICANN Board

*    members of the ICANN Board

*    the ICANN officers and staff

*    the GA Chair

*    members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to the
[email-masked], [email-masked] or the GA voting register.

*    subscribers to an active DNSO ad hoc working group

There will be a limit of one posting per entity per day and the IC shall
have sole discretion to deal with abusive activity. Intake suggestion
e-mails for any meeting will be publicly archived after the end of the
meeting in question.

- --
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, 18 Oct 2001 05:03:08 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision

Dear Joanna,
this comment of yours is most welcome. The BC situation is mainly that an 
election is going on. Mikes reaction shows that the issue is important to 
his understanding of the ICANN..After 15 months of patient and totally 
unrewarding Membership - now detrimental to me and to some fellow Members - 
I though advisable to escalate before that vote so we still could talk, 
rather than after so we would split.
Jefsey

On 03:36 18/10/01, Joanna Lane said:
>David,
>
>On a point of order, I notice that you have not submitted this as an Agenda
>item to the NC Intake Committee at [email-masked]. They are the body
>responsible for proposing the agenda for NC meetings. Items are not included
>simply by submitting requests to individual Council members. Please note
>there are various deadlines and procedures for submission of an item agenda
>item, and for subsequent supporting documentation you may wish to include.
>
>Only recently, I noted that a single submission by one member of the GA was
>sufficient reason for the NC Chair to place the item on its Agenda, so I
>would say this is definitely something that should not be overlooked by
>anybody who feels strongly about a matter and wants it brought before the
>NC.
>
>Regards,
>Joanna
>
>FYI http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010711.NCprocedures-v3.0.html
>
>The Intake Committee (IC) is responsible for proposing the agenda for NC
>meetings.
>
>
>4.2 Composition
>
>The IC should be selected only from members of the Names Council. It should
>be small and flexible to facilitate meetings and discussion. It should be
>comprised of an odd number of NC members not greater than five. Members
>should be rotated from time to time.
>
>
>4.3 Agenda proposals for NC meetings
>
>Any of the following persons can make proposals for NC agenda items by
>e-mail to [email-masked] :
>
>*    members of the Names Council
>
>
>*    the Names Council secretariat
>
>
>*    the ICANN Board
>
>
>
>*    members of the ICANN Board
>
>
>*    the ICANN officers and staff
>
>
>*    the GA Chair
>
>
>*    members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to the
>[email-masked], [email-masked] or the GA voting register.
>
>
>*    subscribers to an active DNSO ad hoc working group
>
>
>
>
>
>There will be a limit of one posting per entity per day and the IC shall
>have sole discretion to deal with abusive activity. Intake suggestion
>e-mails for any meeting will be publicly archived after the end of the
>meeting in question.
>
>--
>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, 18 Oct 2001 00:50:04 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Deletes: Update from a different angle

Pursuant to the message that I sent out Tuesday night, the fine folks @
ICANNWatch requested that I write up a more detailed (and understandable)
summary of the events thus far. The article can be found at
http://www.icannwatch.com/article.php?sid=416&mode=flat&order=0 if you are
so inclined.

Excerpts:
"Briefly? Verisign Registry is attempting to leverage their failure to
provide adequate registry services under their contract to ICANN into a
price increase for dotCOM names. The whole story? Read on..."

"...Sadly, in complete defiance of all recommendations made by the affected
stakeholders, VGRS has endorsed [11] this last proposal with the following
language;

"I would be willing to recommend that VGRS consider implementing the [...]
Parallel Registry [...] as a new optional service to all registrars with a
separate pricing structure."

The fourth and last proposal on this subject was issued earlier this month
[12] as a response to the astounding analysis made by VGRS;

  1.. Eliminate the "batch pool" methodology and infrastructure currently in
place as an "interim" measure.
  2.. Reinstate the previous "first-come, first-served" re-registration
processes.
  3.. Require that all registrars immediately cease "batch-delete"
processes.
  4.. Require that all registrars adhere to the 45-day post-expiry
registered name deletion requirements of the Verisign Registrar/Registry
agreements.
  5.. Police denial of service and other abusive practices by registrars as
required by the Verisign/ICANN registry services agreement.

In its commentary, this new proposal specifically states that "[VGRS] enjoys
substantial revenues from the operation of the services contemplated by the
VGRS/ICANN Registry Services Agreement. In return for these revenues,
Registrars are entitled to demand the services they pay for." In other
words, if they can't fix their problems at the current price, perhaps it is
time for a rebid of this contract that has so obviously become a burden to
VGRS."

Thanks,
- -rwr

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 23:02:54 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Deletes: Update from a different angle

At 12:50 AM -0400 18/10/01, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

(quoting someone else)
>In return for these revenues,
>Registrars are entitled to demand the services they pay for.

Are the other Registrars doing anything about register.com's nasty habit of
charging customers credit cards automatically for all expiring domains,
then when the charge fails, transfering the domain into register.com
ownership?

It appears register.com no longer deletes names?

Desperation?

I guess they're fast running out of money. They've been mentioned at
fuckedcompany.com today, so the writing is on the wall.

- -- 
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: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 22:15:22 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Deletes: Update from a different angle

Wednesday, Wednesday, October 17, 2001, 10:02:54 PM, Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 12:50 AM -0400 18/10/01, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> (quoting someone else)
>>In return for these revenues,
>>Registrars are entitled to demand the services they pay for.

> Are the other Registrars doing anything about register.com's nasty habit of
> charging customers credit cards automatically for all expiring domains,
> then when the charge fails, transfering the domain into register.com
> ownership?

Yes, by gladly accepting transfers of customer domains from
Register.com  :)

- -- 
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, 18 Oct 2001 00:59:33 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Deletes: Update from a different angle

Ross and all assembly members,

  Thank you Ross for making us aware of this article and again
reminding many stakeholders of this concern/issue that as you
rightly indicate is festering badly.

  As you know, our members have for some time have supported
long before there were other registrars, that the introduction of
additional Registries before Registrars was a better and more
competition enhancing solution to the Verisign/NSI monopoly
in .com, .net, .org gTLD's.  In addition the problem you outline
here would have also been solved from the beginning had
this been done and multiple registries for .Com, .net, .org
been created and allowed.  However in the ICANN BoD's
lack of wisdom, we are now yet again faced with another
messy diaper to clean up that the ICANN BoD and staff
have left.  Now the odor is also spreading rapidly as well.

  Had multiple Registries been implemented, RRP secured,
SRS designed properly or other registry engines been
implemented, the solutions that this article you provided
could have all been used depending on preference.
Instead the poly-wonks have messed in their
political shorts/panties.  And as a result the registrants
have to suffer the stench.

  It has been passed on to me via private correspondence
that this amongst  several other problems that the ICANN
BoD and staff have created is why the public internet
will no longer suffice for government internet communications
as recently announced by Mr. Clark.

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> Pursuant to the message that I sent out Tuesday night, the fine folks @
> ICANNWatch requested that I write up a more detailed (and understandable)
> summary of the events thus far. The article can be found at
> http://www.icannwatch.com/article.php?sid=416&mode=flat&order=0 if you are
> so inclined.
>
> Excerpts:
> "Briefly? Verisign Registry is attempting to leverage their failure to
> provide adequate registry services under their contract to ICANN into a
> price increase for dotCOM names. The whole story? Read on..."
>
> "...Sadly, in complete defiance of all recommendations made by the affected
> stakeholders, VGRS has endorsed [11] this last proposal with the following
> language;
>
> "I would be willing to recommend that VGRS consider implementing the [...]
> Parallel Registry [...] as a new optional service to all registrars with a
> separate pricing structure."
>
> The fourth and last proposal on this subject was issued earlier this month
> [12] as a response to the astounding analysis made by VGRS;
>
>   1.. Eliminate the "batch pool" methodology and infrastructure currently in
> place as an "interim" measure.
>   2.. Reinstate the previous "first-come, first-served" re-registration
> processes.
>   3.. Require that all registrars immediately cease "batch-delete"
> processes.
>   4.. Require that all registrars adhere to the 45-day post-expiry
> registered name deletion requirements of the Verisign Registrar/Registry
> agreements.
>   5.. Police denial of service and other abusive practices by registrars as
> required by the Verisign/ICANN registry services agreement.
>
> In its commentary, this new proposal specifically states that "[VGRS] enjoys
> substantial revenues from the operation of the services contemplated by the
> VGRS/ICANN Registry Services Agreement. In return for these revenues,
> Registrars are entitled to demand the services they pay for." In other
> words, if they can't fix their problems at the current price, perhaps it is
> time for a rebid of this contract that has so obviously become a burden to
> VGRS."
>
> Thanks,
> -rwr
>
> --
> 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, 18 Oct 2001 01:02:04 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision

Joanna and all assembly members,

  What you seem to be suggesting although indirectly to David,
is a good one.  However as you know, the likelihood of this
getting on the agenda officially is near nil.  However it would
still be worth the exercise I suppose.

Joanna Lane wrote:

> David,
>
> On a point of order, I notice that you have not submitted this as an Agenda
> item to the NC Intake Committee at [email-masked]. They are the body
> responsible for proposing the agenda for NC meetings. Items are not included
> simply by submitting requests to individual Council members. Please note
> there are various deadlines and procedures for submission of an item agenda
> item, and for subsequent supporting documentation you may wish to include.
>
> Only recently, I noted that a single submission by one member of the GA was
> sufficient reason for the NC Chair to place the item on its Agenda, so I
> would say this is definitely something that should not be overlooked by
> anybody who feels strongly about a matter and wants it brought before the
> NC.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> FYI http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010711.NCprocedures-v3.0.html
>
> The Intake Committee (IC) is responsible for proposing the agenda for NC
> meetings.
>
> 4.2 Composition
>
> The IC should be selected only from members of the Names Council. It should
> be small and flexible to facilitate meetings and discussion. It should be
> comprised of an odd number of NC members not greater than five. Members
> should be rotated from time to time.
>
> 4.3 Agenda proposals for NC meetings
>
> Any of the following persons can make proposals for NC agenda items by
> e-mail to [email-masked] :
>
> *    members of the Names Council
>
> *    the Names Council secretariat
>
> *    the ICANN Board
>
> *    members of the ICANN Board
>
> *    the ICANN officers and staff
>
> *    the GA Chair
>
> *    members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to the
> [email-masked], [email-masked] or the GA voting register.
>
> *    subscribers to an active DNSO ad hoc working group
>
> There will be a limit of one posting per entity per day and the IC shall
> have sole discretion to deal with abusive activity. Intake suggestion
> e-mails for any meeting will be publicly archived after the end of the
> meeting in question.
>
> --
> 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, 18 Oct 2001 03:35:58 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Peace on Earth, NC and BC, please

Hello Mike,

Let me make this simpler for you.

Whereas, the Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc. is a Delaware registered
corporation and qualifies as a small business, under US SBA guidelines (see:
http://www.mhsc.com/legal.htm), since 1997.

Whereas, MHSC is a common law trademark and brand of the Morgan Hill
Software Company, Inc.

Whereas, MHSC registers names in the non-ICANN TLDs of MHSC and VPN. Ergo,
MHSC is a DNS SLD registry.

Whereas, MHSC also carries TLDs, such as AtlanticRoot's BIZ, MHSC is also a
TLD registry.

Whereas, MHSC operates a non-ICANN controlled zone server network, including
root authority.

Whereas, MHSC distributes and publishes the MHSC root zone file via said
zone server network and has sole authority over that network and its
contents.

Whereas, MHSC is restricted from joining the DNSO/BC specifically because
MHSC is a registry.

Whereas, MHSC is restricted from joining the DNSO/RC specifically because
MHSC is a non-ICANN registry.

Whereas, MHSC finds common cause with David Hernand, of New.Net 

Whereas, MHSC has its own dispute resolution mechanism and has no need of
the UDRP.

Whereas, MHSC has been such a registry for far longer than ICANN has even
existed and doesn't plan to cease operation anytime soon.

Whereas, MHSC supports Jefesy Morfin's efforts to bring about constructive
change in the DNSO/BC but, considers those efforts to have a very low
probability of success.

Whereas, MHSC finds that ICANN is in violation of inclusiveness
requirements, given by DOC MoU, signed in 1998.

Whereas, MHSC finds that the DNSO/GA is the only all inclusive body for all
ICANN domain name holders.

Whereas, the ICANN BoD has previously established authority over the
structure of the DNSO by creating the constituencies of the DNSO and that
authority has never been recinded.

MHSC demands that;
1: The ICANN BoD instruct the DNSO/BC to stop excluding potential members
that are legally registered and constituted businesses for any reason. That
such practices have already caused irrepairable harm and minimum
compensatory action shall be to grant such membership, of previously
excluded members, at no charge, for a period equal to the time that such
exclusionary practices have been in effect (at least 3 years).

2: The ICANN place the DNSO/GA on equal footing with the current DNSO names
council, creating a bicameral DNSO. That the ICANN provide funding and
support for a secure voting mechanism that the GA can use for its consensus
building efforts. That the ICANN provide budget and staffing for the DNSO/GA
to perform its functions. That the DNSO/GA be given ICANN BoD seats, to be
filled by a representitive voting the recorded consensus of the DNSO/GA.
That  such funding be derived from a $1US surcharge, per domain name, per
year, from ICANN all registered domain names. That the GA shall have both an
Advocate and a Consensus Leader, both elected positions of the DNSO/GA with
budgetary control and responsibility for all DNSO/GA staff.

- --
R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
http://www.mhsc.com

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Mike Roberts [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:05 PM
|> 
|> Jefsey - Both this message and its distribution are entirely out of 
|> order.  I hope that you will immediately retract it.
|> 
|> As an SME member of the BC, the Darwin Group strongly objects to the 
|> positions advocated in your note.  I suspect that the chances of it 
|> receiving consensus support from other BC SME's, much less the full 
|> membership, are near zero.
|> 
|> If you wish to promote your individual views of various courses of 
|> action, there are numerous avenues within the ICANN 
|> structure, all of 
|> which you seem to be intimately familiar with, through which to 
|> advocate them.
|> 
|> - Michael M. Roberts
|> Managing Director, The Darwin Group, Inc.
|> DNSO/BC member
|> 
|> -----Original Message-----
|> At 8:52 PM +0200 10/17/01, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
|> >Ladies and Gentlemen from the NC,
|> >Fellow Members from the DNSO/BC,
|> >
|> >whereas a letter from David Hernand from New.net has been sent to 
|> >the Members of the NC to escalate the denial of the DNSO/BC to 
|> >accept New.net as a Member while the logic of the given  reasons 
|> >seriously question the rights to Membership of a 
|> significant part of 
|> >the DNSO/BC Members and of two of its current NC representatives,
|> >
|> >whereas a mail form Danny Younger, Chair of the DNSO/GA, rises a 
|> >similar question on the right to DNSO/BC Membership of the third 
|> >DNSO/BC representative to the NC and the current NC Chair,
|> >
|> >whereas I have a reconsideration procedure known to many under way 
|> >due to the disrespect of the DNSO/BC "issue management 
|> rules". The a 
|> >document on root management which is supposed to bind and harm my 
|> >business has been published in spite of my formal opposition and my 
|> >call on rules. This call was denied any value and I was told it 
|> >could only be considered shold I betray the BC Members who would 
|> >vote against that text.
|> >
|> >whereas the DNSO/BC charter says  "secretariat [that] will be 
|> >elected by and among its members for a period of two years at a 
|> >time. The secretariat will assure that all procedures are followed, 
|> >that all necessary means to conduct the business of the 
|> constituency 
|> >are available and that independent elections take place in due time 
|> >for the secretariat as well as for other officers. Its functions 
|> >will include:
|> >(i) Reviewing applications for membership in the Business 
|> >Constituency and, where appropriate, referring these to the 
|> >Credentials Committee.
|> >(ii) Carrying out the administrative functions associated with the 
|> >operations of the Business Constituency, including the arrangement 
|> >of meetings, preparation and publication of minutes, maintenance of 
|> >an appropriate mechanism suitable for facilitating contact and 
|> >dissemination of information among all members of the Business 
|> >Constituency and other secretariat functions required for the 
|> >adequate functioning of the Business Constituency.
|> >(iii) Facilitating and, where appropriate, formulating membership 
|> >consensus on policy issues for the purpose of advising the Business 
|> >Constituency representatives on the Names Council."
|> >
|> >whereas this secretariat has never been elected while it 
|> recently changed.
|> >
|> >whereas the DNSO/BC charter says: "With the exception of the 
|> >election of the first secretariat, which will be elected by the end 
|> >of September 1999, candidates for election as secretariat will be 
|> >nominated at the same time as the candidates for the Names Council, 
|> >and also voted at the same time and according to the same procedure 
|> >where relevant. The largest number of votes will elect the 
|> >secretariat.
|> >2. The secretariat will be a member of the Constituency, 
|> and not a person.
|> >3. Business constituency members may put themselves forward as 
|> >candidates to assume secretariat functions either as individual 
|> >entities to assume all secretariat functions as set out 
|> hereinafter, 
|> >or jointly with other members with a view to allocating such 
|> >functions among them. Nominations for secretariat must include a 
|> >budget for running the secretariat."
|> >
|> >whereas the DNSO/BC charter says
|> >"The secretariat shall use their best efforts to give small and 
|> >medium-sized enterprises an adequate voice in all Business 
|> >Constituency work processes. These efforts may include, but not be 
|> >limited to, the organization of democratic elections for 
|> >representatives of organizations of small and medium sized 
|> >businesses (SMEs) to sit on an SME Consultative Committee whose 
|> >advice shall be solicited on substantive policy work items"
|> >
|> >whereas I have asked several times, receiving response neither from 
|> >the Secretariat nor from the NC representatives, that such an SME a 
|> >committee be set-up and a Chair elected,
|> >
|> >whereas I have polled end of 2000 the other SME Members, created a 
|> >informal committee which  approved me as a temporary Chair, 
|> reported 
|> >this to the Secretariat and maintained sustained relations with the 
|> >SME I know of.
|> >
|> >whereas the charter is published with the mention "a revised 
|> >Business Constituency Charter is currently under discussion",
|> >
|> >whereas no debate is under on the matter I am aware of,
|> >
|> >whereas the DNSO/BC is entered in a voting period and only called 
|> >for NC Representative nominations and not for Secretariat nor fpr 
|> >SME Committee Chair.
|> >
|> >
|> >
|> >1. I consider I am entitled to speak for the SMEs and 
|> entitled to be 
|> >heard as per the BC Charter.
|> >
|> >2. the DNSO/BC tansparency is currently not by the standard of an 
|> >ICANN Constituency.
|> >
|> >3. The Credential Commitee was not to consider New.net as it is a 
|> >business of good standing operating for more than one year. 
|> The true 
|> >reason known to all for the denial is the opposition of New.net to 
|> >ICP-3 and to the controverted BC position document on the matter.
|> >
|> >4. The current elections underway call for urgent stability: three 
|> >NC current representatives and 20% of the Members are 
|> questioned, so 
|> >are questionned the legitimacy of the NC and the recent election of 
|> >a DNSO Director obtained by one vote.
|> >
|> >5. the whole DNSO/BC image and credibility are endangered what all 
|> >of the BC paying Members would suffer from if this is not quickly 
|> >and fairly attended.
|> >
|> >
|> >I propose that we all agree on the common sense following points:
|> >
|> >a) the current Secretariat will be confirmed through the coming 
|> >vote. I nominate it as per the charter.
|> >
|> >b) by the same token the SME Committee (the SME paying 
|> Members) will 
|> >elect their Chair.
|> >
|> >c) the DNSO/BC Mailing list will be set-up to permit the Members to 
|> >relate together
|> >
|> >d) the letter and the spirit of the charter will apply to the NC 
|> >representatives election:
|> >
|> >   - not two representatives form the same geographical area
|> >   - one representatives being an SME
|> >   - not two prepresentatives from the same business trade
|> >
|> >e) for trade definition
|> >
|> >     -  Telcos will be accepted as one trade,
|> >     -  business and IP protection organizations will be 
|> accepted as one trade
|> >     -  the main trade of the Member will be considered
|> >
|> >f)  New.net will be accepted as an SME Member
|> >
|> >e) a working group will be set-up to quickly present a revised 
|> >charter to the Members and to the BoD.
|> >
|> >f) that revised charter will establish a DNSO/BC Chair as approved 
|> >in Melbourne. His first missions will be to restore 
|> internal harmony 
|> >and to develop outreach.
|> >
|> >Jefsey Morfin
|> >DNSO/BC/SME Member
- --
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, 18 Oct 2001 15:55:59 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Register.COM (Re: [ga] Deletes: Update from a different angle)

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, at 23:02 [=GMT-0600], Andy Gardner wrote:
> At 12:50 AM -0400 18/10/01, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

[...]
> It appears register.com no longer deletes names?

You mean after 40-45 days in the registry, I guess. I am surprised
that expired domains registered with register.com, are still
resolving after 3 weeks. (An example loonopzand.org, I have many
more...) These should be deactivated in the com/net/org zones. Have
they ceased operation already?

> Desperation?
> 
> I guess they're fast running out of money. They've been mentioned at
> fuckedcompany.com today, so the writing is on the wall.

- -- 
[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, 18 Oct 2001 09:54:41 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding

Excellent work Roeland! It seems you have captured the GA consensus position
in wording that would be perfect for a Motion or Motions by the GA on these
issues. Since a formal Ballot is not possible at this time, I move that this
wording be Recognized by the Chair for a Poll (the next best thing) and that
a clean copy be re-submitted to this list, together with a notice to members
of a set period of time for members to vote on their agreement or
disagreement with the demands being made, and using a Time-Line that allows
for the Results to be Reported by the GA to the NC-intake committee,
together with a request for these items to be included in the Agenda as
pressing issues for consideration. The vote Intake Committee list closes 21
days prior to the next meeting. Supporting documentation may also be
attached.

Regards,
Joanna 

 
ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION BY NC INTAKE COMMITTEE FOR INCLUSION IN AGENDA
NOVEMBER 2001 NC MEETING:

Members of the DNSO GA are demanding that:

1: The ICANN BoD instruct the DNSO/BC to stop excluding potential members
> that are legally registered and constituted businesses for any reason. That
> such practices have already caused irrepairable harm and minimum
> compensatory action shall be to grant such membership, of previously
> excluded members, at no charge, for a period equal to the time that such
> exclusionary practices have been in effect (at least 3 years).
> 
> 2: The ICANN place the DNSO/GA on equal footing with the current DNSO names
> council, creating a bicameral DNSO. That the ICANN provide funding and
> support for a secure voting mechanism that the GA can use for its consensus
> building efforts. That the ICANN provide budget and staffing for the DNSO/GA
> to perform its functions. That the DNSO/GA be given ICANN BoD seats, to be
> filled by a representitive voting the recorded consensus of the DNSO/GA.
> That  such funding be derived from a $1US surcharge, per domain name, per
> year, from ICANN all registered domain names. That the GA shall have both an
> Advocate and a Consensus Leader, both elected positions of the DNSO/GA with
> budgetary control and responsibility for all DNSO/GA staff.
> 
> --
> R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
> Managing Director
> Morgan Hill Software Company
> http://www.mhsc.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: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 07:30:49 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding

> May we reach a consensus on these matters?  I think we may need to discuss
> something close but maybe a little less in order to gather a consensus. I think
> we could move forward if we just view this as "in principal".

In that fora I support the demand.

OTOH let us hear some suggestions.

{i think that in this situation a sublist would be helpful, those of us
who really care about this particular issue could go into the side room
and without general list restrictions pound out a really perfect demand
and then bring it back to the GA for it's consideration.}
>
>
>
> ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION BY NC INTAKE COMMITTEE FOR INCLUSION IN AGENDA
> NOVEMBER 2001 NC MEETING:
>
> Members of the DNSO GA are demanding that:
>
> 1: The ICANN BoD instruct the DNSO/BC to stop excluding potential members
> > that are legally registered and constituted businesses for any reason. That
> > such practices have already caused irrepairable harm and minimum
> > compensatory action shall be to grant such membership, of previously
> > excluded members, at no charge, for a period equal to the time that such
> > exclusionary practices have been in effect (at least 3 years).
> >
> > 2: The ICANN place the DNSO/GA on equal footing with the current DNSO names
> > council, creating a bicameral DNSO. That the ICANN provide funding and
> > support for a secure voting mechanism that the GA can use for its consensus
> > building efforts. That the ICANN provide budget and staffing for the DNSO/GA
> > to perform its functions. That the DNSO/GA be given ICANN BoD seats, to be
> > filled by a representitive voting the recorded consensus of the DNSO/GA.
> > That  such funding be derived from a $1US surcharge, per domain name, per
> > year, from ICANN all registered domain names. That the GA shall have both an
> > Advocate and a Consensus Leader, both elected positions of the DNSO/GA with
> > budgetary control and responsibility for all DNSO/GA staff.
> >
> > --
- --
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, 18 Oct 2001 08:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sanjeev Goyal <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fwd: Noble Cause

- --- Arbitrator Online <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:52:28 +0530
> From: Arbitrator Online <[email-masked]>
> Reply-to: Arbitrator Online <[email-masked]>
> Organization: Arbitrator Online
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Noble Cause
> 
> Hello Sanjeev,
> 
> We are offering free service to all Sunrise Challengers for any
> Indian Trademark search. We will pay all expenses regarding the
> search performed at TM office in India. It will be a free service to
> all of you. And you will get email response in Two working days.
> 
> This is a small gesture we can show to all those who want to
> challenge the bogus and fraudulent Registrant in .info.
> 
> And we also expect the similiar response, If anybody can provide from
> their country to all of us where the online TM checking is not
> possible. 
> 
> You can avail this facility at :
> 
> http://www.arbitratoronline.org
> 
> or email us with your TM to be checked details at:
> 
> [email-masked]
> 
> Waiting for your response.
> 
> Your Friend in India.
> 
> Arbitrator Online. 
>   
> 
>                        mailto:[email-masked]
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #798
************************