Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #854
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, November 16 2001          Volume 01 : Number 854

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

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:43:15 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Joop and all assembly members,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> On 17:06 15/11/01 -0500, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. said:
>
> >One of the reasons it is not analogous is that domain name registration
> >services provided by a US company cannot even be remotely argued to be
> >necessary to use the internet.
>
> On a practical note, the lists of banned organizations and Individuals is
> changing all the time. How could a registrar keep an eye on it and obey it
> without incurring cost for us all?

  That's easy Joop.  Automate the process.  There are a number
of software web based software programs that provide for keeping
track of this stuff.

>
>
> --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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 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, 16 Nov 2001 02:47:13 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Roeland and all assembly members,

  Well it looks that we have another one that drank the coolaid...

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> |> From: Joseph [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 7:36 PM
>
> |> Roeland Meyer:
> |> --------------
> |> > 1) ICANN is a registered California, USA corp.
> |> > 2) ICANN gets it's "authority" from the US
> |> >    Department of Commerce.
> |> > 3) ICANN corporate offices are located in Marina
> |> >    Del Rey, California, USA.
> |> > 4) ICANN is only immune, from various US
> |> >    anti-trust statutes, because of the MoU it
> |> >    has signed with the US DOC. This is the same
> |> >    document that enables item 2. The ICANN is
> |> >    protected under a "US contractor" umbrella,
> |> >    just like NSI.
> |>
> |> You are correct for all of the above and neither am I
> |> arguing that it is untrue.
> |>
> |> > <snip> ... Where does this not make ICANN subject
> |> > to US State Department authority? Alternatively,
> |> > how is ICANN immune from US law?
> |> >
> |> > Now, can we drop the "ICANN is an international body"
> |> > fable? It clearly isn't one. Those who maintain
> |> > otherwise are seriously mistaken.
> |>
> |> *** ICANN is not immune to US Law. Neither is it bound to
> |> the laws of other nations.
>
> Actually, it isn't bound unless it wants to be. The ICANN doesn't actually
> have any real authority. ICANN only makes recommendations to the US DOC, as
> per the MoU. Ergo, there is nothing to bind. Note that I am using "bind" in
> its legal definition. Likewise, foreign laws are not binding on the ICANN
> because ICANN isn't operating on their soil. How is some entity (US or
> otherwise) going to object to a recommendation made from a US corp to a US
> regulator, under a US contract? Ergo, your second statement is false. The
> only way even a US entity stands a chance is in Appellate Court. A non-US
> entity may have insufficient legal standing there.
>
> |> I am saying that ICANN, being an important part of the
> |> internet community has a much wider scope of
> |> responsibilities than only to the US.
> |> Afterall the internet is a "borderless world".
>
> That's not even loosely true. The internet is in the physical world and the
> physical world has borders (thank, God). Also, the role of the ICANN appears
> to be diminishing. Operators on the Internet are subject to local LEOs and
> judges can make rulings effecting their behavior. There is lots of law that
> pertains to behavior, regardless of the medium in which one chooses to
> express that behavior. It has only been a delusion, that existing law does
> not apply to the Internet. I am sorry that you still suffer from it.
>
> |> ICANN/DNSO has a lot of power (directly and indirectly)
> |> and has the power to push down consensous to ccTLD.
>
> Actually, that's not true either. Each country can setup their own Internet
> and connect it to ours. You seem to have missed the point that those are
> sovreign nations. Some of them run their own ccTLD directly.
>
> |> Due to this reason alone, the concensous it pushes must
> |> take into consideration the well-being of all nations.
> |> It a fact that ICANN is NOT an international body but
> |> ICANN do have global responsibilities (internet is
> |> borderless).  With this, it has to be
> |> "internationally-aware and sensitive".
>
> That is nothing more than a sound marketing position. However, it is not
> mandatory. The US DOC doesn't have to listen to the ICANN and sometimes it
> doesn't. However, the US DOC always listens to the US Congress and the
> Secretary of Commerce is a Cabinet posting.
>
> |> You are right to say that ICANN IS currently governed by the
> |> law of USA.  I am saying that it SHOULD not be. It would be
> |> nice that ICANN be a component of an international body
> |> (UN) --just like UNESCO, WWF, IPPF, etc, etc because it is
> |> dealing with international issues. I know this is wishful
> |> thinking.
>
> That was tried. The US Congress objected and that's why we have ICANN. The
> Internet, as it works today, is a weird mix of US gov and private US
> business. Everyone else is welcome to come and play, but at the end of the
> day, we know whose sand-box everyone is playing in. What makes me wonder is
> that other governments haven't decided to build their own sand boxen.
>
> |> > It is not an issue of censorship. It is an issue of
> |> > compliance with US law. Censorship issues can be taken
> |> > up with your representitive to the US Government,
> |> > whatever that may entail.
> |>
> |> I indicated in my post that this is related to the
> |> compliance of law. Both yourself and John Barryhill are
> |> correct in this count.
> |>
> |> The reason I use the word censorship is because I lack a
> |> better word for "disallowing the registration of a domain name
> |> due to political reasons". Our disagreement is on "whose law".
>
> Instead of "censorship", use "policy restriction".
>
> |> Your argument would then be that ICANN is in fact incorporated
> |> in USA which I fully agree.  But is it "correct" to allow one
> |> nation to control a global resource?
>
> Anyone is freely capable of building their own internet. In fact, many of us
> have done so already. There are no laws prohibiting one from doing that. The
> way the technology works, they'd only look foolish for trying. Fortunately,
> they seem to be aware of that.
>
> |> A extreme example (I mention extreme):
> |> If USA is at war with Libya, can the government of Libya,
> |> through the Department of Environment (which in turn outsourced
> |> the regulation of cleanair to a 3rd party), disallow the
> |> consumption of air by American journalists there? (yes, this is
> |> extreme and I know I'll be shot for this).
>
> Shall I LART you with the invalid/weak analogy speech or will you be LART'd
> later? Be precise, don't hide behind analogous bushes, and don't patronize
> your betters.
> --
> 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 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 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, 16 Nov 2001 03:03:21 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Joop and all assembly members,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 18:17 15/11/01 -0800, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> >I cannot believe what I read in Jefsey's post -- he seems to be
> >quite out of touch with the new post-Sept. 11 reality.
>
> Jefsey's point , i think, is the reliability of the DNS/Internet.
> Individual countries can be at war and implement local martial law
> legislation.
> Today it is the US, tomorrow it can be China.
> Should this result in large scale yanking of domains from the DNS?

  What "Large Scale"?  Me thinks you are reaching a bit here...

  In times of strife where the conditions present themselves that
are sufficient to make or take drastic measures, governments,
such as the US, need, indeed must take those actions unless
or until those conditions that exist or existed cease to be
extant.

>
> Just because ICANN was incorporated in California?

  Yes, California is a state in the US.  Hence in some circumstances
it must comply with the federal authority unless it chooses to
seek sassed from the Union.  Some states in the 1860's did
so for a time.  A war ensued.  They lost miserably.  The union
was preserved.  All was then well with the union and the wounds
of that civil strife began to heal....  And so it goes...

  Now it the time to choose.  Are you for the terrorists or
are you against them.  If you are against them, such as Libya,
then you should understand clearly.  If not, than we will
deal with you in due course.

>
>
> --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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 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, 16 Nov 2001 03:45:07 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Joseph and all assembly members,

Joseph wrote:

> Hi Roeland,
>         If I get your points correctly, you are implicating that this ML and the GA
> (ICANN/DNSO) is effectively for Americans only and that members from other
> nations are welcomed but actually has no position here?  This is not an
> accusation, I mean to ask this question in good faith as I would like to
> know if I've made a mistake in joing this list (I am not an American) and I
> have only joined recently.

  I don't think this is what Roeland meant or was trying to convey..  But
perhaps Roeland can better articulate his meaning better for you.

>
>
> General Assembly Members,
>         Would appreciate if you can agree/disagree the statement above. I would not
> want to meddle in areas where I have no place

  You belong here as much as any of us do.  Stick around!  >;)
The learning curve is not all that long...

>
>
> regards,
> - Joseph
> ================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 3:01 PM
> To: 'Joseph'; [ga]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign
>
> |> From: Joseph [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 7:36 PM
>
> |> Roeland Meyer:
> |> --------------
> |> > 1) ICANN is a registered California, USA corp.
> |> > 2) ICANN gets it's "authority" from the US
> |> >    Department of Commerce.
> |> > 3) ICANN corporate offices are located in Marina
> |> >    Del Rey, California, USA.
> |> > 4) ICANN is only immune, from various US
> |> >    anti-trust statutes, because of the MoU it
> |> >    has signed with the US DOC. This is the same
> |> >    document that enables item 2. The ICANN is
> |> >    protected under a "US contractor" umbrella,
> |> >    just like NSI.
> |>
> |> You are correct for all of the above and neither am I
> |> arguing that it is untrue.
> |>
> |> > <snip> ... Where does this not make ICANN subject
> |> > to US State Department authority? Alternatively,
> |> > how is ICANN immune from US law?
> |> >
> |> > Now, can we drop the "ICANN is an international body"
> |> > fable? It clearly isn't one. Those who maintain
> |> > otherwise are seriously mistaken.
> |>
> |> *** ICANN is not immune to US Law. Neither is it bound to
> |> the laws of other nations.
>
> Actually, it isn't bound unless it wants to be. The ICANN doesn't actually
> have any real authority. ICANN only makes recommendations to the US DOC, as
> per the MoU. Ergo, there is nothing to bind. Note that I am using "bind" in
> its legal definition. Likewise, foreign laws are not binding on the ICANN
> because ICANN isn't operating on their soil. How is some entity (US or
> otherwise) going to object to a recommendation made from a US corp to a US
> regulator, under a US contract? Ergo, your second statement is false. The
> only way even a US entity stands a chance is in Appellate Court. A non-US
> entity may have insufficient legal standing there.
>
> |> I am saying that ICANN, being an important part of the
> |> internet community has a much wider scope of
> |> responsibilities than only to the US.
> |> Afterall the internet is a "borderless world".
>
> That's not even loosely true. The internet is in the physical world and the
> physical world has borders (thank, God). Also, the role of the ICANN appears
> to be diminishing. Operators on the Internet are subject to local LEOs and
> judges can make rulings effecting their behavior. There is lots of law that
> pertains to behavior, regardless of the medium in which one chooses to
> express that behavior. It has only been a delusion, that existing law does
> not apply to the Internet. I am sorry that you still suffer from it.
>
> |> ICANN/DNSO has a lot of power (directly and indirectly)
> |> and has the power to push down consensous to ccTLD.
>
> Actually, that's not true either. Each country can setup their own Internet
> and connect it to ours. You seem to have missed the point that those are
> sovreign nations. Some of them run their own ccTLD directly.
>
> |> Due to this reason alone, the concensous it pushes must
> |> take into consideration the well-being of all nations.
> |> It a fact that ICANN is NOT an international body but
> |> ICANN do have global responsibilities (internet is
> |> borderless).  With this, it has to be
> |> "internationally-aware and sensitive".
>
> That is nothing more than a sound marketing position. However, it is not
> mandatory. The US DOC doesn't have to listen to the ICANN and sometimes it
> doesn't. However, the US DOC always listens to the US Congress and the
> Secretary of Commerce is a Cabinet posting.
>
> |> You are right to say that ICANN IS currently governed by the
> |> law of USA.  I am saying that it SHOULD not be. It would be
> |> nice that ICANN be a component of an international body
> |> (UN) --just like UNESCO, WWF, IPPF, etc, etc because it is
> |> dealing with international issues. I know this is wishful
> |> thinking.
>
> That was tried. The US Congress objected and that's why we have ICANN. The
> Internet, as it works today, is a weird mix of US gov and private US
> business. Everyone else is welcome to come and play, but at the end of the
> day, we know whose sand-box everyone is playing in. What makes me wonder is
> that other governments haven't decided to build their own sand boxen.
>
> |> > It is not an issue of censorship. It is an issue of
> |> > compliance with US law. Censorship issues can be taken
> |> > up with your representitive to the US Government,
> |> > whatever that may entail.
> |>
> |> I indicated in my post that this is related to the
> |> compliance of law. Both yourself and John Barryhill are
> |> correct in this count.
> |>
> |> The reason I use the word censorship is because I lack a
> |> better word for "disallowing the registration of a domain name
> |> due to political reasons". Our disagreement is on "whose law".
>
> Instead of "censorship", use "policy restriction".
>
> |> Your argument would then be that ICANN is in fact incorporated
> |> in USA which I fully agree.  But is it "correct" to allow one
> |> nation to control a global resource?
>
> Anyone is freely capable of building their own internet. In fact, many of us
> have done so already. There are no laws prohibiting one from doing that. The
> way the technology works, they'd only look foolish for trying. Fortunately,
> they seem to be aware of that.
>
> |> A extreme example (I mention extreme):
> |> If USA is at war with Libya, can the government of Libya,
> |> through the Department of Environment (which in turn outsourced
> |> the regulation of cleanair to a 3rd party), disallow the
> |> consumption of air by American journalists there? (yes, this is
> |> extreme and I know I'll be shot for this).
>
> Shall I LART you with the invalid/weak analogy speech or will you be LART'd
> later? Be precise, don't hide behind analogous bushes, and don't patronize
> your betters.
>
> --
> 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 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 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, 16 Nov 2001 01:40:59 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

|> From: Joseph [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:21 AM
|> To: [ga]
|> Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign
|> 
|> 
|> Hi Roeland,
|> 	If I get your points correctly, you are implicating 
|> that this ML and the GA (ICANN/DNSO) is effectively for 
|> Americans only and that members from other nations are 
|> welcomed but actually has no position here?  

Not quite. I am stating that the entire ICANN is only strictly subject to US
law. This is not to say that they don't give lip service to accomodating
others. The facts are as stated. That is all. However, at any time, the US
DOC can come in and change things, regardless of what any other apparent
stakeholders may feel about it. Please, recognize that reality.

|> This is not an accusation, I mean to ask this question 
|> in good faith as I would like to know if I've made a 
|> mistake in joing this list (I am not an American) and I
|> have only joined recently.

That is yet another issue. Many of us (self included) recognize that the
DNSO/GA is a canard. We participate here anyway, in some hope that someone
will listen. It is the only vehicle we have, since we're not allowed in any
constituency.

Take the facts that I gave you about the ICANN, in general, then add a group
within the DNSO that has no right to vote, no representitive except what the
NC assigns it, no rights to bring anything before the ICANN BoD, and
generally no political power whatsoever. This is the DNSO/GA. We are the
voice of the disenfranchised. The best that we can do is debate and
publicize egregious issues, make substantive motions that get routinely
ignored, generally cry out a lot, and hope that at least some of it makes an
impact somewhere.

|> General Assembly Members,
|> 	Would appreciate if you can agree/disagree the 
|> statement above. I would not
|> want to meddle in areas where I have no place in.

There is nothing wrong with you being here. But please, understand what you
are dealing with. The stuff that you came in the door with was first heard
over four years ago. The ideal is nice but, more than a little nieve and it
definitely does not apply to the ICANN. If you want a place to be effective
and meaningful, in your ICANN relationship, this isn't it.
- --
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, 16 Nov 2001 21:03:33 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|> Roeland Meyer
|> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 8:41 PM
|> To: 'Joseph'; [ga]
|> Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign
|>
|>
|> |> From: Joseph [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> |> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:21 AM
|> |> To: [ga]
|> |> Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign
|> |>
|> |>
|> |> Hi Roeland,
|> |> 	If I get your points correctly, you are implicating
|> |> that this ML and the GA (ICANN/DNSO) is effectively for
|> |> Americans only and that members from other nations are
|> |> welcomed but actually has no position here?
|>
|> Not quite. I am stating that the entire ICANN is only strictly
|> subject to US law.

ICANN is a US entity and restricted by US law but attempting to develop
international agreements, without government intervention.  To me this a
good thing.  It is an initiative from the US that extends out to the
international community.  If the international community wants more, they
need to provide the infrastructure and means to do so.

I'm not a fan of the US, but in this regard, at least I recognise they are
trying to do right.  It is up to us outside of the US to pick up the ball
and run with it.

What we are talking about is not a right but a something to be earned.

The recent activity on the GA list does not make me inclined to believe we
as a group have earned anything as yet.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 16 Nov 2001 06:07:08 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] are there Internet Users or Internet Participants ?

Stephen and all stakeholders or interested parties,

  Now you are a fellow that knows what he is talking about
without all the political posturing.  Well done here Stephen!
(More comments below yours Stephen)
Stephen Waters wrote:

> On Thu, 2001-11-15 at 07:25, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >
> > The Internet is the consensus of its participants to interconnect their
> > domains in using the TCP/IP protocol set under the IP addressing and naming
> > plans; the Internet governance is the common management of this consensus.
> > This is at least my reading of it.
> >
> > So there is no "Internet User": users are the users of the interconnected
> > domains and of the agreed services. Interconnected domains participate
> > (interconnect) in building the global system. This is a peer to peer
> > system. Until recently it was linking groups of physical machines (hence
> > the word "domain") and now more and more indeferently of physical machines,
> > virtual systems and people.
>
> Indeed, I often think of myself as supplying content to others (email,
> telnet access, conversation (IRC, instant messaging, etc.), website
> (complements of a free dynamic DNS service), etc.).

  Exactly!  And this is what defines a participant as a STAKEHOLDER.
It appears clear that the ALSC and long before the ALSC that the
ICAMM BoD and staff fail to comprehend this fact.

> It's wholesale
> dishonesty to imagine the Internet as push technology ala television.

  Good point.  But the technologies are merging.  Some are of the opinion
that the Internet will be used predominantly as push tech. FOR Television
CableTV, and SAT-TV or as a mass content source for same.  I don't
share that vision or opinion entirely.

>
>
> Even as labor is a product I sell to my employer, services I provide to
> others on the Net are also products that I produce. It just so happens
> that I don't think any of them are worth enough cash value to justify an
> attempt to sell them. :-)

  Also a good point.  But many small ecommerce businesses do believe
that their products and services are worth the attempt.  Many have been
proven wrong in the past two years as well.  Others have not.

>
>
> > from Telcos, IBM/DEC networks, etc...Vint, Alejandro, Karl may event no
> > really have a "meshed network" thinking due to the very old zone oriented
> > routing system.
>
> Karl knows what's up. Don't doubt him here.
>
> > Open Roots people are only more in advance, but by nature
> > they think "meshed network". The only one adapted - in part - to the
> > distributed architecture are New.net (and only in part). The problem is
> > that there is a complete cultural divide between these three thinkings:
> > star, meshed and distributed networks.
>
> Yes and no... I suspect the real problem is ISP unwillingness to drop in
> another line in their DNS configuration to use alternative roots or
> perhaps just ignorance of alternatives.

  Both are largely true.  That is of course changing as you know.  It shall
continue to change and at a more rapid rate.  The Internet is now forever
fragmented.  We had a chance in '99 with ICANN to prevent fragmentation,
and there was much discussion and debate in this regard.  However the than
seated ICANN BoD bowed it's neck.  Fragmentation began/excelerated
in earnest.  Too late to put that genie back in the box now.

> If some entrepreneuring
> alternative root convinced AOL to use their service in addition to ICANN
> and put up a few links on the homepage, other ISPs would shortly follow
> suit. After all, it's a simple way to tell your customers "hey, we just
> gave you access to another part of the Net, all for FREE!" or "we just
> made accessing all of the Net easier for you" or similar.

  Some of the "BIg Eight" ISP's have already done exactly this.  More
like AOL will follow.  Others will merge and also do the same as a
matter of survival.  Some more still, small or regional ISP's, will
have little choice but to do so.

>
>
> After google caches it, critical mass for alternative root support is
> only a matter of time.

  Exactly.  And that time is getting very close.  There have been three
new IPO's of late that are doing exactly this according to IPO.COM.
And two of them are well funded, similar to New.net.  Next will be
IP registries using IPv8 or IPv16.  And so it will go...

>
>
>
> > Domain Name :
> > s) an organized label that can be priced and resold
> > m) a service to the registrant which can be decided upon and freely rated
> > d) the name of someone's property - life long, non reellable, free, cost of
> > use charged.
> >
> > UDRP
> > s)  a centrally decided and pre-judicial promoted procedure
> > m) a complexity to avoid is possible
> > d)  the DNS users clarification of  an inappropriate mnemonic
>
> I'm not sure if I agree with your categorization here. You still have
> litigation possibilities no matter how you look at it...  but hopefully
> elimination of artificial scarcity for TLDs, SLDs, etc. would make
> litigation simply pointless except in a few specific instances.

  Agreed.

>
>
> e.g., Madonna should be able to get a name for
> http://madonna.whateverTLD, but if there are enough TLDs, it won't
> matter if Tom, Dick, and Harry all have madonna.TLD1, madonna.TLD2, etc.
> As long as the content on the site doesn't pretend to be *the* madonna
> site, it shouldn't matter. Chances are, google's pagerank is gonna pick
> out the right one anyway.
>
> but, if your domain name is a published haiku of a well-known author, I
> don't think you should be surprised if you get sued. :-)  so, best to
> change it up a bit into a parody or derivative, but original work!

  Exactly right.

>
>
> > The bylaws, the Staff system, etc are star oriented.  One has to understand
> > that no system is better than the other: they are just resulting from the
> > current social thinking and behavior and from the source code.
>
> I disagree. They each solve different problem sets based on different
> numbers of participants, different types of participants, different
> goals, etc. Thus, I think you have to use the best tool for the problem
> set. Which is, of course, the distributive model.

  Also agreed here as well.  ICANN could have accomplished this
if it had embraced this early on as we [INEGroup] suggested, and
are doing ourselves.  The again than seated ICANN BoD also
decided not to do so, and still has not despite a consensus for
them to do so.  Ergo the legitimacy problem that still hovers
over the ICANN now.

>
>
> If you disagree and want to say it's because we each view the problem
> set differently, then I would agree, but with the caveat that a
> non-distributive perspective on the Internet is not the Internet. The
> perspective simply lacks the proper data or intelligence to come to the
> proper conclusion.

  That's correct.  And until or unless the ICANN BoD and staff does
understand this very basic perspective and embraces it fully, it shall
remain illegitimate.  To accomplish this now will require the any and
all willing stakeholders/participants/users to be voting members.

>
> All in all, good work Jefsey,
> -s
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Part 1.2   Type: application/pgp-signature

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 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, 16 Nov 2001 14:48:24 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [email-masked], where are you? (Re: [ga] ncdnhc.org disappeared?)

This is a story that might be told on this list. The domain was not paid
for and therefore deactivated, like all domains, even those whose
administrative contact is [email-masked] and of which ICANN itself is
the registrant, like NCDNHC.ORG is.

For some reason [email-masked] did nothing, so I personally paid for the
domain at the Networksolutions website to avoid it being lost. Yes, anyone
can pay, even for someone else's domain, even if it belongs to ICANN...

Then the domain worked again for a while. Now it has for some reason been
deleted from the nameservers of Randy Bush's PSG.COM.

On the mailing list of the NCDNHC it has been pointed out that all this is
not the fault of the NCDNHC, but of ICANN (staff?).

It does not reflect very well on those who are supposedly stakeholders in
the DNS, and even in charge of the DNS.

Maybe this message on this list will get [email-masked] moving?

I am sure there are very many who would be delighted to do DNS for the
NCDNHC. I am. Another volunteer? Let's provide the domain with 13
nameservers for security reasons! I will send a separate message that can
then be updated when volunteers come forward.

- -- 
[email-masked]
Member of the NCDNHC for the Stichting A.G. van Hamel voor Keltische
Studies

On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:

> Dear Thomas Roessler,
>
> Now, that site has some trouble.
> Please access to  http://198.6.250.8/
>
> Regards,
>
> Chun Eung Hwi
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Chun Eung Hwi
> General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82) 2- 583-3033
> Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
> Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   [email-masked]
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > Is it just me, or has www.ncdnhc.org disappeared from the DNS?
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> > --
> > 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
>
>

- --
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, 16 Nov 2001 14:52:29 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Volunteers to do DNS for NCDNHC.ORG (Re: [ga] ncdnhc.org disappeared?)

This follows up on my earlier message about the deletion of NCDNHC.ORG
from the DNS.

More volunteers? Please, send me the details, as below.

Host		IP		OS		Bind-version

pan.bijt.net	213.196.2.97	FreeBSD		8.2.4-REL

Hopefully we can offer the NCDNHC a diversified and therefore more secure
set of nameservers, in the spirit of MdR 2001.

Thank you!
- -- 
[email-masked]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:

> Dear Thomas Roessler,
>
> Now, that site has some trouble.
> Please access to  http://198.6.250.8/
>
> Regards,
>
> Chun Eung Hwi
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Chun Eung Hwi
> General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82) 2- 583-3033
> Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
> Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   [email-masked]
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > Is it just me, or has www.ncdnhc.org disappeared from the DNS?
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> > --
> > 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
>
>

- --
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, 16 Nov 2001 07:18:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> On 17:06 15/11/01 -0500, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. said:
>
> >One of the reasons it is not analogous is that domain name registration
> >services provided by a US company cannot even be remotely argued to be
> >necessary to use the internet.
>
> On a practical note, the lists of banned organizations and Individuals is
> changing all the time. How could a registrar keep an eye on it and obey it
> without incurring cost for us all?

Laws change all the time. For better or worse that doesn't remove the
obligation of the populus to adhere to them.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
       Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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, 16 Nov 2001 07:28:31 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Many more months ago than I care to recall, I said that
the USG has no authority over the internet and domain
names and all that rot, WIPO is a pretender, and the
whole thing rests on fraud. International control of any
globe-encompassing entity can only come from international
agreement, by way of treaty, not some Executive Order
out of any White House, directions out of any D of C,
or anything like that.  When such a treaty exists, THEN
people can complain about what the U. S. does. Until
then, this mess we've created has the global internet
subject to the laws of California and the U. S.

Even then, what the U.S. and the rest of the world are
a part of through the U. N. still allows any country to
act unilaterally in its own defense, and the U.S. could
still be expected to do so, as would any other country
under the same circumstances.

(With both China and Taiwan now in the WTO, it
may be time now to commence generating such a
treaty.)

Bill Lovell

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 18:17 15/11/01 -0800, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> >I cannot believe what I read in Jefsey's post -- he seems to be
> >quite out of touch with the new post-Sept. 11 reality.
>
> Jefsey's point , i think, is the reliability of the DNS/Internet.
> Individual countries can be at war and implement local martial law
> legislation.
> Today it is the US, tomorrow it can be China.
> Should this result in large scale yanking of domains from the DNS?
> Just because ICANN was incorporated in California?
>
> --Joop

- --

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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #854
************************