Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #818
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, October 27 2001          Volume 01 : Number 818

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

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:50:32 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 0:212 BIZ Update

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 10:10 AM
|> 
|> Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 8:13:31 AM, Jim Fleming wrote:
|> 
|> > There are 107 TLDs with dual or triplicate registries.
|> > .BIZ is one of them.
|> > http://root-dns.org/ZoneExchange/AIS.txt
|> > ; biz. = 2
|> 
|> I rest my case.

Which case? You have many.
- --
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, 26 Oct 2001 13:28:42 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212 BIZ Update

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212 BIZ Update

> Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 8:13:31 AM, Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> > There are 107 TLDs with dual or triplicate registries.
> > .BIZ is one of them.
> > http://root-dns.org/ZoneExchange/AIS.txt
> > ; biz. = 2
>
> I rest my case.
>

Mr. William X. Walsh:

It is widely reported that you develop the software for the .BIZ
registry operating in the State of California. http://www.BIZTLD.net
Is that true ?

If so, can you comment on the robustness of that software ?

Was it developed for Early Experimental work or the current Proof-of-Concept
tests ?

Jim Fleming
Why Gamble on a .BIZ Lottery? Start a Real .BIZ Today !
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World

- --
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, 26 Oct 2001 11:22:38 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] 0:212 BIZ Update

<yawn>

Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 11:28:42 AM, Jim Fleming wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 12:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212 BIZ Update

>> Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 8:13:31 AM, Jim Fleming wrote:
>>
>> > There are 107 TLDs with dual or triplicate registries.
>> > .BIZ is one of them.
>> > http://root-dns.org/ZoneExchange/AIS.txt
>> > ; biz. = 2
>>
>> I rest my case.
>>

> Mr. William X. Walsh:

> It is widely reported that you develop the software for the .BIZ
> registry operating in the State of California. http://www.BIZTLD.net
> Is that true ?

> If so, can you comment on the robustness of that software ?

> Was it developed for Early Experimental work or the current Proof-of-Concept
> tests ?

> Jim Fleming
> Why Gamble on a .BIZ Lottery? Start a Real .BIZ Today !
> http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
> 0:212 - BIZ World

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

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:15:33 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Ambiguous resolutions

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_000_01C15E52.960A9A80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Aside from this being the strangest product launch that I have ever
witnessed, it highlights a serious point; ICANN has said, by its actions,
that data integrity on the internet isn't important.

About one year ago, before the New.Net launch, I made the argument that
ICANN's action, of deliberately causing collisions between existing
registries, would lead to massive potential confusion that technology might
not be able to rescue us from. Shortly after that, New.Net was launched with
yet more colliders at the TLD level. Since MHSC doesn't use any part of
New.Net in its zone files, I cannot say exactly where those collision are.
However, the fact that New.Net felt encouraged to do so, by reason of the
ICANN's lack of care in TLD delegation, is both the point and the problem.
Had ICANN re-enforced the concept of avoiding TLD collisions, in their
lottery at the last MdR meeting, I doubt very much that we would be at this
impass. It is likely that New.Net would have avoided the conflict, due to a
lack of willingness to be the first one to break the implied policy.
However, the ICANN was the first to break that ice and New.Net simply
followed the ICANN lead. Ergo, that policy is now effectively voided and we
are now reaping the early results, with more confusion yet to follow.

With INFO going live MHSC has to, for the very first time, filter the import
of certain entries from the DOC root zone, because they conflict with these;

db.root.2001092700.zone:INFO. 172800 IN NS TLD1.NOMINUM.COM.
db.root.2001092700.zone:INFO. 172800 IN NS TLD2.NOMINUM.COM.

Since INFO and BIZ are the two entries that the ICANN deliberately endowed,
for the explicit purpose of creating this conflict, MHSC has chozen to honor
the existing entries, rather than the new entries in the legacy DOC
root-zone files. This action carries forward to all recipients of the MHSC
zone-file, including those that modify that zone-file for their specific
use.

The only problem we have currently is with this list. One of the members has
chosen to use their INFO address in their ReplyTo and that address does not
resolve from MHSC mail servers, for the reasons that I have just stated. I
might point out that Richard Sexton caught absolute hell for doing the same
thing a few years ago. 

MHSC has long advocated a First-Come-First-Served (FCFS) policy and has
implemented that policy, in its root registry. We have yet to hear
alternative policies that are fair, consistent, and don't involve massive
litigation costs. MHSC would rather not have to settle liability claims or
otherwise become distracted with litigatious issues that do not further MHSC
business plans. I have never countinenced revenue-by-litigation business
models.

As a direct result of FCFS, MHSC will continue to filter those TLDs that
fail to meet that policy and all of their progeny as well. While MHSC
supports the PacificRoot, MHSC continues to reference the ORSC root as a
base-line, until otherwise stated. The referenced plug-in, while
interesting, circumvents FCFS. It enhances the confusion-factor for the
end-users. MHSC feels that it is unfortunate that the ICANN has condoned
this circumstance, by their actions. Therefore, MHSC cannot condemn this
evolution of events. However, we believe this this goes in the direction of
chaos. Chaos is bad for business, as it leads to uncertainty. I might add
that this course was predicted over two years ago.

Should this plug-in gain wide acceptance then all providers have a serious
problem, MHSC included.

ICANN has let the horses out of the barn AND started a fire. I am unclear
how we can corral the horses and prevent the barn from burning down. Time is
not on our side. The choice is to either corral the horses or save the barn.
But, a barn without the horses is an empty shell, useless to all. I don't
think that doing both is within the realm of possibility. IMHO, that is the
optimistic view.

|> From: PacificRoot Hostmaster [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 7:24 AM
|> 
|> Yes, We're trying to accommodate non-colliding SLD.TLDs at 
|> this time where
|> possible.
|> 
|> For tech support issues, or general questions, it's best to 
|> direct queries
|> to our Hostmaster Team, [email-masked], as we 
|> don't monitor
|> this list very often for anything other than political follies :) 
|> 
|> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 [email-masked] wrote:
|> 
|> > I use pacificroot DNS, not your plug-in.
|> > Could you please explain me why I get Afilias .info 
|> domains and domainisland .info names.
|> > www.info takes me to domainisland
|> > nic.info takes me to afilias
|> > 
|> > Thanks!
|> > 
|> > 
|> > I was asked to put the download link for the plug-in near 
|> the top so
|> > everyone wouldn't have to read the whole document, so here it is ;)
|> > 
|> > http://www.PacificRoot.com/updatedns.shtml 
|> > 
|> > (and select automatic upgrade, and either save to disk or 
|> install from
|> > d/l - yes you can uninstall it too from control panel=>add/remove
|> > programs). Yes it works with newnet domains too ;)
|> > 
|> > the best part is, it makes a great stocking stuffer for 
|> friends and family
|> > around Christmas time.
|> > 
|> > Now you truly have two .BIZs :)
|> > 
|> 
|> Bradley D. Thornton
|> Chief Technology Officer
|> The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
|> http://www.PacificRoot.com
|> http://www.JointTech.com

- ------_=_NextPart_000_01C15E52.960A9A80
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Description: [ORSC.DOMAIN-POLICY] Browser Plug-in for Windoze has been relased...

Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
From: "Bradley D. Thornton" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ORSC.DOMAIN-POLICY] Browser Plug-in for Windoze has been relased
	...
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 02:35:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Okay the browser plug-in for win32 systems has been released.

You can get it at http://www.PacificRoot.com/updatedns.shtml

Just click on automatic update and the rest is only a couple of clicks away.

It works with all versions of Win32 operating systems, it does IE, Netscape,
etc.., and when you enter an URL where a colliding SLD.TLD exists if gives
you the choice of which one you want to see.

It works around problems like proxies, AOL, Kinkos copy center,  and College
computer systems too ;)

It has a live update-like feature that upgrades itself too when we make any
changes to the rootzone.

ICANN wanted two .BIZs and now they've got it. So now, does everybody else.
So tell two friends and they'll tell two friends etc.. and so on and so
on... :)

Enjoy.

_______________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe please see http://lists.open-rsc.org

- ------_=_NextPart_000_01C15E52.960A9A80--
- --
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, 26 Oct 2001 12:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .BIZ .biz and not spec of cereal...

Hi everyone, it looks like the BC's in for a rocky ride, due to their
exlusionary policies under the approval of the ICANN board.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/22482.html

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.com

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:51:45 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] 0:212 BIZ Update

http://www.google.com/search?q=possr
....
Welcome to The "Inclusive Name Space"
... Registrar please see our registry home page which is located at
http://www.POSSR.com.
The software is free and you can be up and providing registration ...
www.possr.com/aboutpossr.shtml

The Dot BIZ/ONLINE/ETC TLD Registry
... to see that you have assumed that registrations began with the formal
launch
of the automated registration system (POSSR) developed by The PacificRoot.
...
www.biztld.net/edelman.html

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 1:22 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] 0:212 BIZ Update

>
> <yawn>
>
>
> Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 11:28:42 AM, Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 12:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212 BIZ Update
>
>
> >> Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 8:13:31 AM, Jim Fleming wrote:
> >>
> >> > There are 107 TLDs with dual or triplicate registries.
> >> > .BIZ is one of them.
> >> > http://root-dns.org/ZoneExchange/AIS.txt
> >> > ; biz. = 2
> >>
> >> I rest my case.
> >>
>
> > Mr. William X. Walsh:
>
> > It is widely reported that you develop the software for the .BIZ
> > registry operating in the State of California. http://www.BIZTLD.net
> > Is that true ?
>
> > If so, can you comment on the robustness of that software ?
>
> > Was it developed for Early Experimental work or the current
Proof-of-Concept
> > tests ?
>
>
> > Jim Fleming
> > Why Gamble on a .BIZ Lottery? Start a Real .BIZ Today !
> > http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
> > 0:212 - BIZ World
>
>
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ambiguous resolutions

Thanks Roeland, for your very objective observation :)

And you may not realize it, but you do paint a metaphor below as to why
IRAQ invaded KUWAIT When a US diplomat said we had "no interest' there.

As far as how to corral the horses? Well, I certainly cannot speak for
ARNI, but I suspect that they would be willing to pay a dollar or two for
ICANN's .biz ;), with the fate of the unfortunate souls that participated
in ICANN's illegal Lottery in those 'pre'registrations subject to
negotiations. Then everyone could think about going home happy.

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Aside from this being the strangest product launch that I have ever
> witnessed, it highlights a serious point; ICANN has said, by its actions,
> that data integrity on the internet isn't important.
> 
> About one year ago, before the New.Net launch, I made the argument that
> ICANN's action, of deliberately causing collisions between existing
> registries, would lead to massive potential confusion that technology might
> not be able to rescue us from. Shortly after that, New.Net was launched with
> yet more colliders at the TLD level. Since MHSC doesn't use any part of
> New.Net in its zone files, I cannot say exactly where those collision are.
> However, the fact that New.Net felt encouraged to do so, by reason of the
> ICANN's lack of care in TLD delegation, is both the point and the problem.
> Had ICANN re-enforced the concept of avoiding TLD collisions, in their
> lottery at the last MdR meeting, I doubt very much that we would be at this
> impass. It is likely that New.Net would have avoided the conflict, due to a
> lack of willingness to be the first one to break the implied policy.
> However, the ICANN was the first to break that ice and New.Net simply
> followed the ICANN lead. Ergo, that policy is now effectively voided and we
> are now reaping the early results, with more confusion yet to follow.
> 
> With INFO going live MHSC has to, for the very first time, filter the import
> of certain entries from the DOC root zone, because they conflict with these;
> 
> db.root.2001092700.zone:INFO. 172800 IN NS TLD1.NOMINUM.COM.
> db.root.2001092700.zone:INFO. 172800 IN NS TLD2.NOMINUM.COM.
> 
> Since INFO and BIZ are the two entries that the ICANN deliberately endowed,
> for the explicit purpose of creating this conflict, MHSC has chozen to honor
> the existing entries, rather than the new entries in the legacy DOC
> root-zone files. This action carries forward to all recipients of the MHSC
> zone-file, including those that modify that zone-file for their specific
> use.
> 
> The only problem we have currently is with this list. One of the members has
> chosen to use their INFO address in their ReplyTo and that address does not
> resolve from MHSC mail servers, for the reasons that I have just stated. I
> might point out that Richard Sexton caught absolute hell for doing the same
> thing a few years ago. 
> 
> MHSC has long advocated a First-Come-First-Served (FCFS) policy and has
> implemented that policy, in its root registry. We have yet to hear
> alternative policies that are fair, consistent, and don't involve massive
> litigation costs. MHSC would rather not have to settle liability claims or
> otherwise become distracted with litigatious issues that do not further MHSC
> business plans. I have never countinenced revenue-by-litigation business
> models.
> 
> As a direct result of FCFS, MHSC will continue to filter those TLDs that
> fail to meet that policy and all of their progeny as well. While MHSC
> supports the PacificRoot, MHSC continues to reference the ORSC root as a
> base-line, until otherwise stated. The referenced plug-in, while
> interesting, circumvents FCFS. It enhances the confusion-factor for the
> end-users. MHSC feels that it is unfortunate that the ICANN has condoned
> this circumstance, by their actions. Therefore, MHSC cannot condemn this
> evolution of events. However, we believe this this goes in the direction of
> chaos. Chaos is bad for business, as it leads to uncertainty. I might add
> that this course was predicted over two years ago.
> 
> Should this plug-in gain wide acceptance then all providers have a serious
> problem, MHSC included.
> 
> ICANN has let the horses out of the barn AND started a fire. I am unclear
> how we can corral the horses and prevent the barn from burning down. Time is
> not on our side. The choice is to either corral the horses or save the barn.
> But, a barn without the horses is an empty shell, useless to all. I don't
> think that doing both is within the realm of possibility. IMHO, that is the
> optimistic view.
> 
> |> From: PacificRoot Hostmaster [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 7:24 AM
> |> 
> |> Yes, We're trying to accommodate non-colliding SLD.TLDs at 
> |> this time where
> |> possible.
> |> 
> |> For tech support issues, or general questions, it's best to 
> |> direct queries
> |> to our Hostmaster Team, [email-masked], as we 
> |> don't monitor
> |> this list very often for anything other than political follies :) 
> |> 
> |> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 [email-masked] wrote:
> |> 
> |> > I use pacificroot DNS, not your plug-in.
> |> > Could you please explain me why I get Afilias .info 
> |> domains and domainisland .info names.
> |> > www.info takes me to domainisland
> |> > nic.info takes me to afilias
> |> > 
> |> > Thanks!
> |> > 
> |> > 
> |> > I was asked to put the download link for the plug-in near 
> |> the top so
> |> > everyone wouldn't have to read the whole document, so here it is ;)
> |> > 
> |> > http://www.PacificRoot.com/updatedns.shtml 
> |> > 
> |> > (and select automatic upgrade, and either save to disk or 
> |> install from
> |> > d/l - yes you can uninstall it too from control panel=>add/remove
> |> > programs). Yes it works with newnet domains too ;)
> |> > 
> |> > the best part is, it makes a great stocking stuffer for 
> |> friends and family
> |> > around Christmas time.
> |> > 
> |> > Now you truly have two .BIZs :)
> |> > 
> |> 
> |> Bradley D. Thornton
> |> Chief Technology Officer
> |> The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
> |> http://www.PacificRoot.com
> |> http://www.JointTech.com
> 
> 

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.com

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:50:44 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212 BIZ Update

Jim Fleming wrote:

> ... the "toy", experimental, proof-of-concept, IPv4-based Internet.

That is, the real current Internet, the one we are using to send and
receive these messages.

Please go away. Your "ipv8" nonsense achieves nothing, except perhaps
to confuse those who do not recognise it as nonsense.
- --
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, 26 Oct 2001 13:19:49 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ambiguous resolutions

<tail clipped>

Dear Roeland,

That info on the dotinfo is good info. So I have dropped all my info regarding the
info on dotinfo.

How I will handle the dotinfo in the future I do not know, perhaps I should get
both infos and handle the responses on our servers.

Does anyone own, on either dotinfo, info.info so that they can have [email-masked]
?

Does any one Know of a non English word info, and if so please send info on what
info means.

Merriam-Webster says info is a word and it means information since 1907.

This is way to much info for me - TMI.info.

Best to you,

Eric

- --
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, 26 Oct 2001 15:15:28 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: [ga] Fwd: Important (message from NewRegistryDomains.com)

>To: [email-masked]
>From: NewRegistryDomains.com <[email-masked]>
>X-Mailer: 489FDE42.738DF3A6.6b86e60009b9dc58818d8fa0729ab0d3
>Subject: Important
>Organization:
>
>Dear sir/madam,
>
>The Dot Com era may be over, but an exciting new era on the Internet has 
>just quietly begun, as the stock markets and technology sector begin 
>turning around. On October 01, 2001 a new top-level domain name extension 
>called Dot Info was officially launched. As a member of the Internet 
>community, you should secure your Dot Info domain name as soon as possible 
>to avoid disappointment as there will be tremendous rush from the general 
>public once the word gets out.
>
>NewRegistryDomains.com has now begun accepting registrations for the .INFO 
>and other upcoming new domain extensions. This means that you can now 
>register an attractive new domain name of your choice that is short and 
>easy to remember. If you missed out on .COM, here is your chance with 
>.INFO. If do not act as soon as possible, you may unfortunately miss out 
>on the biggest cyberspace land grab in the history of the Internet. The 
>time to act is now. Visit: http://www.NewRegistryDomains.com to register now.
>
>Over 400,000 .INFO names have already been registered by savvy consumers; 
>however, there are a lot more good names available. Just try a search and 
>see for yourself. Over 3 million domain names are expected to be 
>registered over the next two months. An exciting new era is about to 
>unfold on the Internet. Go to http://www.NewRegistryDomains.com to 
>register now.
>
>***************************************************************************
>We strongly oppose the continued sending of unsolicited email and do not 
>want to send email to anyone who does not wish to receive our special 
>mailings. As a result, we have retained the services of an independent 3rd 
>party to administer our list management and removal services 
>(http://www.autoemailremoval.com/cgi-local/remove.pl?email=[email-masked]). 
>This is not unsolicited email. If you do not wish to receive further 
>mailings, please click this link and your removal request will be 
>honoured. The removal administrator can then preclude your email address 
>from future mailings. 
>http://www.autoemailremoval.com/cgi-local/remove.pl?email=[email-masked] Auto 
>Email Removal Company. Ref# 011005
>***************************************************************************

What's funny that this is spam and that the remove links do not work.

;)

What jerks.

~k
  Kristy McKee 612.823.3958
  .W I D G I T A L.Espware.

- --
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, 26 Oct 2001 13:46:13 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Fwd: Important (message from NewRegistryDomains.com)

I've been getting these for the past two weeks. It's not funny, it's a PITA.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 3:15 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] Fwd: Important (message from NewRegistryDomains.com)
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> >To: [email-masked]
|> >From: NewRegistryDomains.com <[email-masked]>
|> >X-Mailer: 489FDE42.738DF3A6.6b86e60009b9dc58818d8fa0729ab0d3
|> >Subject: Important
|> >Organization:
|> >
|> >Dear sir/madam,
|> >
|> >The Dot Com era may be over, but an exciting new era on the 
|> Internet has 
|> >just quietly begun, as the stock markets and technology 
|> sector begin 
|> >turning around. On October 01, 2001 a new top-level domain 
|> name extension 
|> >called Dot Info was officially launched. As a member of the 
|> Internet 
|> >community, you should secure your Dot Info domain name as 
|> soon as possible 
|> >to avoid disappointment as there will be tremendous rush 
|> from the general 
|> >public once the word gets out.
|> >
|> >NewRegistryDomains.com has now begun accepting 
|> registrations for the .INFO 
|> >and other upcoming new domain extensions. This means that 
|> you can now 
|> >register an attractive new domain name of your choice that 
|> is short and 
|> >easy to remember. If you missed out on .COM, here is your 
|> chance with 
|> >.INFO. If do not act as soon as possible, you may 
|> unfortunately miss out 
|> >on the biggest cyberspace land grab in the history of the 
|> Internet. The 
|> >time to act is now. Visit: 
http://www.NewRegistryDomains.com to register now.
>
>Over 400,000 .INFO names have already been registered by savvy consumers; 
>however, there are a lot more good names available. Just try a search and 
>see for yourself. Over 3 million domain names are expected to be 
>registered over the next two months. An exciting new era is about to 
>unfold on the Internet. Go to http://www.NewRegistryDomains.com to 
>register now.
>
>***************************************************************************
>We strongly oppose the continued sending of unsolicited email and do not 
>want to send email to anyone who does not wish to receive our special 
>mailings. As a result, we have retained the services of an independent 3rd 
>party to administer our list management and removal services 
>(http://www.autoemailremoval.com/cgi-local/remove.pl?email=[email-masked]). 
>This is not unsolicited email. If you do not wish to receive further 
>mailings, please click this link and your removal request will be 
>honoured. The removal administrator can then preclude your email address 
>from future mailings. 
>http://www.autoemailremoval.com/cgi-local/remove.pl?email=[email-masked] Auto 
>Email Removal Company. Ref# 011005
>***************************************************************************

What's funny that this is spam and that the remove links do not work.

;)

What jerks.

~k
  Kristy McKee 612.823.3958
  .W I D G I T A L.Espware.

- --
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, 26 Oct 2001 17:51:14 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Songbird in the BC?

Jefsey and all assembly members,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Jeff,
> Kent is perfectly eligible to share in the NCDNHC as a represenative for
> the non-profit yachclub he is a member. Members of the BC or of the DNHC
> are not the individuals but the organizations. Can be Members of the BC:

  I have not argument or contention with your point here.  Perhaps
you misread my previous post.  ????

>
>
> - every business organizations except those representing ISP, registry,
> registrars and IP firms so BC does not compete with the other constituencies.

  Whether one competes with another constituency is really not the point
Jefsey.  It is if one is able to be a member of one constituency as
a for-profit and as another as a non-profit under the same company,
AND why another, in this case New.net cannot as a IP and a for profit
company be a member or the BC.

>
> - every business of more than one year of age and is not predominantly a
> Registry, a Registrar or an ISP. Others may become observers.
>
> What counts in the BC is not what someone does, but what is the business
> area of who pays him/her and the tearly fee.

  I think you mean "Yearly Fee", but none the less I understood this clearly.

>
>
> I note that New.net has perfectly the right to become a BC Member if being
> in business for more than one year, otherwise the BC would acknowledge they
> are a Registry (i.e. that their TLDs are valid TLDs for them).

  Yes this is ONE of the problems.  But only one.

> They
> obviously are but this contradicts the BC position on ICP-3.

  Yes, I understood that instinctually, Jefsey.  But thank you for
again pointing this out none the less...  >;)

>
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 23:43 25/10/01, Jeff Williams said:
> >James and all assembly members,
> >
> >   No you can belong to more than one constituency, but can only
> >vote as a member of one constituency.  But this really isn't what
> >is in question with respect to Kent Crispin's Songbird.com.  The
> >concern is that how can Kent be a member of both the BC
> >and the NCDNHC constituencies when his enterprise is obviously
> >a FOR PROFIT organization?  It would seem in that Songbird.com
> >is NOT a non-profit organization and therefore should not be a
> >member of the NCDNHC or if it is registered as a non-profit
> >than he should not be a member of the BC under the songbird.com
> >organization...
> >
> >   However this does not preclude Kent from belonging to two
> >constituencies per se.  But he seems to have done so improperly,
> >and I think he knows this as does the BC principals.  Hence it
> >would seem inconsistent that this should be allowed and the
> >ICANN BoD in it's oversight capacity should instruct
> >the BC to clarify why Kent under songbird.com is a member
> >and in what status, or instruct the BC principals to take action
> >to correct this problem forthwith.
> >
> >   My guess is that the ICANN BoD had no idea that this situation
> >existed, but it should have, and that it has no intention of addressing
> >this problem in it's oversight capacity in the near term, if at all....
> >
> >   BTW, we have discussed this concern when the formation of
> >the Constituency's were under way and that this was commonly
> >considered one method that could be used to "Stack the Deck"
> >so to speak so as to allow for certain participants or types of
> >participants to have an unfair advantage over others for the
> >purposes of policy decision making and consensus determination.
> >
> >James Love wrote:
> >
> > > How many constituencies can you belong to?  I thought it was just one.
> > > Jamie
> > >
> > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
> > >
> > > > The following is one of the finest examples of elitist crap one can
> > find.  I can
> > > > just see this - Old chap smoking a fancy pipe while directing his boy
> > to clean
> > > > his eight iron,  "but of course anyone can join the club old
> > boyo,  Oh and by
> > > > the way here is a statement regards ISPs my barrister drew up for
> > your ignorant
> > > > understanding"
> > > >
> > > > Get a grip Crispin your elitist days are numbered.  Tell us about the
> > Yacht Club
> > > > deal.  Tell us about your consultancy with ICANN - how about a financial
> > > > disclosure?
> > > >
> > > > Better yet disclose your relationship with the executive committee of
> > our BoD.
> > > > Is there a stipend that the GA could use associated with such
> > services.  While
> > > > Roberts tells us that ICANN cannot support a GA or an AL tell us how
> > much they
> > > > afford on your services.  And you are a member of two Constituencies?
> > > >
> > > > Come clean or drop your comments Mr. lonely bird.  I used to think
> > that what you
> > > > do is your business but now I see that you take money that could allow
> > > > individual users a voice on the Internet.  I hope you sleep well.
> > > >
> > > > Quite Sincerely,
> > > > Eric
> > > >
> > > > Kent Crispin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 09:34:38PM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> > > > > > Jefsey, you indicated that Songbird recently became a member of the
> > > > > > business constituency.  The Songbird website
> > > > > > http://songbird.com/songbird/index.html seems to indicate that the
> > > > > > company is primarily an ISP.
> > > > >
> > > > > ISP's, by the definition used in the ISP and BC constituency,
> > > > > fundamentally provide internet connectivity to end users.  Songbird
> > does
> > > > > not provide internet connectivity to anyone.  Instead, Songbird's
> > > > > services are limited to website hosting, design, development, and
> > > > > consulting.  Entities that provide these services are sometimes loosely
> > > > > referred to as ISPs, because the term "ISP" is used differently by
> > > > > different people.  But as it is used in ICANN, Songbird is not an ISP.
> > > > > (There is another term common in the business, "Internet Presence
> > > > > Provider").
> > > > >
> > > > > > How then can it be a full member of the BC
> > > > > > instead of merely an admitted observer?
> > > > >
> > > > > You could have figured this out yourself, but of course that would not
> > > > > serve your purpose.
> > > > >
> > > > > > BC Charter:  "Legally recognized for-profit business enterprises
> > that have
> > > > > > been in business for less than one year and companies whose
> > predominant
> > > > > > business is to be a registry, a registrar or an ISP cannot have full
> > > > > > membership status, but may become observers."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I seems that Kent has developed the knack of being in a number of
> > > > > > constituencies simultaneously while the rest of us remain
> > unrepresented.
> > > > > > Interesting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, it is interesting.  It proves that the claims that you and others
> > > > > make about being unrepresented are simply bogus noise.  Anyone who
> > > > > seriously wants to participate can do so.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> > > > > [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> > > > > --
> > > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > > > ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > --------------------------
> > > James Love, Consumer Project on Technology, http://www.cptech.org
> > > [email-masked], v. 1.202.387.8030, f 1.202.234.5176
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #818
************************