Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #864
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, November 21 2001         Volume 01 : Number 864

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

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 22:21:30 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion and request for amendment

Ya you are right what right do we have to rely on Merriam Webster dictionary when we
have you.

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all assembly members,
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > > Eric and all assembly members,
> > >
> > >   What legalism are you referring to?  I mentioned none.
> > >
>
>   Ah I see.  Well that is your legalism, not mine.  In addition it
> isn't really applicable.  But it sounds good!  >;)
>
> >
> >
> > again my good friend Merriam;
> >
> >                      1 : an advocate or adherent of moral legalism
> >                      2 : one that views things from a legal standpoint; especially
> > : one that
> >                      places primary emphasis on legal principles or on the formal
> > structure
> >                      of governmental institutions
> >
> > > Eric Dierker wrote:
> > >
> > > > Legalism and a Block to moving forward.
> > > >
> > > > Jeff Williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Eric and all assembly members,
> > > > >
> > > > >   Eric, you may wish to change the wording this motion slightly.
> > > > > The "Green Paper" was superceeded by the White Paper.
> > > > > The "Green Paper" is not related to the now constituted
> > > > > ICANN as it is currently constituted.  Perhaps you meant
> > > > > to use the MoU, which is the relevant document.
> > > >
> >
> > Jeff, no your are wrong here these have never been nor will they be self
> > exclusionary writings, they are meant to build upon each other and we encompassed
> > in the original agreements with the DoC.  Please visit the beautiful Ms. Rony's
> > site.  i do mean beautiful as she was in MDR and her wisdom of the issues clearly
> > decried beauty.  I was but a fly on the wall but her grasp was available to those
> > of us within sight.  (these are the requirements of green and white papers and
> > MoUs there is no doc here that declares the sole writing by and between the
> > parties.)
> >
> > Please do not cascade and/or bootstrap legal arguments.  Keep your eye on the
> > ball.  What is and is not trying to be enforced?
> >
> > Public policy which we have barely touched is the route of US law.
> >
> > Best to you and your girls for this greatful thanksgiving.
> >
> > Sincerely
> > Eric
> >
> > > >
> > > > >   In addition the IDNO is not ready to step in for the BC presently
> > > > > and is not likely to be in the near term.  I hope it shall be however
> > > > > by Ghana.
> > > >
>
> 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-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

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

Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 18:35:53 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Jim Fleming's Elitism

Jim

> It does not look like .AU made it in the Exclusive Root

You've said that already, buster.  Please don't be a nuisance or I will put
you in the "to be deleted at the server, unseen" filter with several others.

I've made it clear that I don't know what you are talking about and that you
can't communicate.  You have said that I don't understand the DNS which
shows a very elitist mentality, on your part, I must say.

There are, it is true, many technical aspects, talked about on
<[email-masked]>, for example, that I don't understand.  Look at
the following:

> We all agree that A6 is an extension to the DNS protocol. This does not
> mean that it adds flexibility to DNS. Server-side indirection provides
> the same functions with no protocol changes

But I'd guess that Roeland Meyer probably does (or at least he can find out
easily enough which is the same thing really) and he's on the GA mailing
list.

Of course, you have never contributed jackshit to any topic under
discussion.  And I don't believe you are on the [namedroppers] mailing list
either.  Probably because you have been kicked off for spamming them.

If you want to market your IPv8, or to get people to understand the DNS, I
assure you that your methods are totally counterproductive.

Please don't write to me privately.  Thank you.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Fleming <[email-masked]>
To: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>; Philip Sheppard
<[email-masked]>
Cc: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

> It does not look like .AU made it in the Exclusive Root
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IPv8.info

<snip>

- --
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, 21 Nov 2001 16:30:08 +0800
From: Joseph <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Jim Fleming's Elitism

Hi Jim,

	Although I wouldn't put it as harsh as Patrick, I tend to agree with him on
the essence of his post. I never understood what ">It does not look like .MY
made it to the Exclusive Root?" meant either.  And the few other posts you
sent me (some output from some software?) were of little help, making me (a
non-root-technical person) feels like a moron *smile*.

	If your intention is to educate us, please do so with more words (instead
of a one liner) :-) Thanks and cheers.  I always appreciate a teacher.

regards,
- - Joseph
=================

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Patrick
Corliss
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 3:36 PM
To: Jim Fleming
Cc: [ga]; Roeland Meyer
Subject: [ga] Jim Fleming's Elitism

Jim

> It does not look like .AU made it in the Exclusive Root

You've said that already, buster.  Please don't be a nuisance or I will put
you in the "to be deleted at the server, unseen" filter with several others.

I've made it clear that I don't know what you are talking about and that you
can't communicate.  You have said that I don't understand the DNS which
shows a very elitist mentality, on your part, I must say.

There are, it is true, many technical aspects, talked about on
<[email-masked]>, for example, that I don't understand.  Look at
the following:

> We all agree that A6 is an extension to the DNS protocol. This does not
> mean that it adds flexibility to DNS. Server-side indirection provides
> the same functions with no protocol changes

But I'd guess that Roeland Meyer probably does (or at least he can find out
easily enough which is the same thing really) and he's on the GA mailing
list.

Of course, you have never contributed jackshit to any topic under
discussion.  And I don't believe you are on the [namedroppers] mailing list
either.  Probably because you have been kicked off for spamming them.

If you want to market your IPv8, or to get people to understand the DNS, I
assure you that your methods are totally counterproductive.

Please don't write to me privately.  Thank you.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Fleming <[email-masked]>
To: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>; Philip Sheppard
<[email-masked]>
Cc: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

> It does not look like .AU made it in the Exclusive Root
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IPv8.info

<snip>

- --
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: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:58:56 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Would you share into an SME Constituency?

On 01:47 21/11/01, Tim Langdell said:
>Jefsey
>Good points.
>But refresh my memory, what does SME mean?
>Tim

Small and Medium Enterprises. The current Charter is specific about:
1. the SME to constitue an SME Committtee
2. the positions of the SME to be considered for everu decision/documen
The new proopsed Charter totally abandons that.

I proposed several times an SME constituency. I think the current 
proposition is an occasion to rise the question seriously an ICANN level. 
We have to understand that the BC is mainly oriented towards Telcos and 
their equipment providers. Plus some business organizations. It even 
includes an sTLD (.aero). I am not experienced enough to know if the BC 
organization is fitting their desires. But I know it is not fitting my SME 
needs. I also see that we disagree on many things. So why to impose SMEs to 
the BC?

Would it not be easier not to "purchase" a constituency but to split it in 
equal terms with the BoD approval? I think we should have a Large Business, 
a Telco and an SME constituencies.

Time is appropriate to discuss it. We could certainly have a three parts 
charter for a three parts BC and then the BC being progressively split as 
each part staffes as per the proposed Charter.

Such a constituency would probably fit the ".biz" and the ".pro" business 
area. So we might probably get some good sponsoring there.

For those (running their own show) interested; please indicate if :
1. you be interested in joining an SME Constitutency or Internet Association
2. you would want to be on the international bootstrap, or to start a local 
national/reginal chapter.
3. you would accept it gahers business experts (consultants, investors, 
trustees, etc...) and SMEs.

I thank you for your comments/responses
Jefsey

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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:32:03 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The "mushroom treatment"....

Hi Joe

I'd really appreciate it if you would rejoin the GA mailing list so you can
explain whether Jim Fleming is making any sense.   The following is the best
explanation we have had from him to date.

You can subscribe by sending a message to [email-masked] with the words:

subscribe ga

in the text part of the message.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Fleming <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 3:05 PM
Subject: [ga] The "mushroom treatment"....

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:08 PM
Subject: [ga] Motion and request for amendment

> I Eric Dierker, being a member of the GA of ICANN, hereby make motion
> that the GA agree, reach consensus and evidence by a vote, formal or
> otherwise, that the BC (business constituency within the DNSO of ICANN)
> is currently acting in direct contravention of the Green Papers the
> White Papers, all and amended contracts with the DoC (department of
> commerce of the US gov).....

In my opinion, you might want to study the long history that lead up
to the founding of ICANN. You stated at the ICANN meeting that you
became an Internet user 18 months ago. That may make it hard to emcompass
the past 7 years of history and the years before 1995, where the small
circle of Jon Postel's cronies systematically controlled the allocation of
basic Internet resources through their combined government and educational
institution network, aided by a small group of corporate supporters who
realized they could make a lot of money, for doing very little, by
supporting
that regime. That worked as long as the general public was given the
"mushroom treatment" (i.e. kept in the dark and fed manure).

Here is a sample....
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/20/interview.lynn.idg/index.html
"...ICANN's Lynn: No new domains anytime soon..."
....
Q: If there are no technical impediments to adding top-level domains, would
that essentially obligate you to do so?
A: No. We do have other responsibilities in creating a level playing field
and a fair place for competition.
- -----------------

It all boils down to fairness.
Which list do you think is more fair ?
The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
or
The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

People are now prepared to route around ICANN. Thanks to Microsoft,
all of the technology is in people's hands (via Windows XP) to break
free from the shackles of the Postel regime and to build a larger, more
open, and more free Internet, that all of the world's people can be proud
of,
not just the small circle of insiders who have conspired for years to
control the allocation of Internet resources for their own financial gain.

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO

- --
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: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:30:20 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The "mushroom treatment"....

Dear Jim,
I certainly appreciate your mail. But please be fair with Lynn (I enough 
dispute him to be able to say that!). He also says:

<quote>
Q: Would you consider usefulness of new TLDs before adding them?
A: If there is no demanding, pressing consumer need that's perceived, then 
why risk destabilization in other areas?
</quote>

The point is that Lynn endangers most probably far more the stability and 
the security of the Internet than he thinks. Let assume he is honest (for 
discussion sake you can give me that point for a minute): how would he know 
that there is a "demanding, pressing consumer need" when he takes every 
step to kill the possibility of that demand and for him to learn about it.

In its ICP-3 he talks about "experimental" TLDs but do not give any frame 
to them as we did with the Root and TLD Best Practices ( 
http://boroon.com/pdf_e/rcdc-05-E-RTBP-RootTLDBestPractices.pdf ).

The point is that "alt(sic)root" are no solution to the TLD, security and 
stability needs. They are just a patch to the ICANN oddities. The solution 
is in a review of our /usage/ of the DNS.

DNS is three things:

- - a continuation of the international data network naming plan initiated by 
the UN in the 50s,  stabilized in its present semantic in 1978 by Tymnet 
International, US IRCs and foreign monopolies of the time. It is 
progressively managed by the IANA alone since the end of the 80s.

- - an IP address resolution system designed by Mokapertis in 1982 which can 
be used for many other things. Some see it as a data base, some as an 
information system. I see it more as a search protocol. These are the 
star/meshed/distributed network cultures we meet everywhere which make so 
many people to misunderstand while they are in agreement :-)

- - a default service proposed by many sources: USG servers, intranet 
systems, ccTLDs, alt(sic)roots and ISPs.

The naming plan is misunderstood. The program is fine. The usage is 
outdated. When Mokapertis defined the Internet restriction of the naming 
plan the Internet was an /interconnected/ network as several others (the 
first use of "com" I know of was in 1980 by Mr. Boutmy's team in Heindhoven 
for the Philips international corporate network). Today the Internet has 
become the World's /interconnecting/ system. A serious change.

Lynn is perfectly right about security, cybersquatting etc... But what he 
does not see is that he is creating the tension and leading to the break. 
No one actually needs the ICANN and the USG root on the long range, but 
having them would be better for everyone. Lynn's task should be to 
accompany and even lead the transition, so the ICANN stays the core of the 
system. In blocking a natural development and in competing withe the real 
networks forces, he leads to the clash he wants to avoid.

What will probably happen is that the NTIA people will understand the 
technical fragility of the current system. Find the obvious proper solution 
and will impose it for GovNet to Microsoft. This may be a temporary blow 
for Verisign and Microsoft (specially if we wait for a long as they 
stabilize their marketing on an outdated approach). But I am sure that 
these corporations will easily find the way to develop new strategies to 
take advantage from it - actually I hope they only work on the basis that 
ICANN is only a contingency plan, or they would be fool what they are not.

When the solution is imposed by the NTIA for security reasons in every USG 
Windows system, the whole world will ask Microsoft the security solution 
devised by the USG for GovNet. If the ICANN helped that to occur it will be 
the core of he world, Verisign will organize with MicroSoft and Sun and 
many new US and international interests.

Otherwise there will be some destabilization until the Internet stabilized 
again as cooperated from many places in the world and the US Internet 
industry is eventually stuck in an anti-trust obsolete case against 
VeriSign and ICANN (cf. Plan B DoJ positions).

Jefsey

At 05:05 21/11/01, Jim Fleming wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:08 PM
>Subject: [ga] Motion and request for amendment
>
>
> > I Eric Dierker, being a member of the GA of ICANN, hereby make motion
> > that the GA agree, reach consensus and evidence by a vote, formal or
> > otherwise, that the BC (business constituency within the DNSO of ICANN)
> > is currently acting in direct contravention of the Green Papers the
> > White Papers, all and amended contracts with the DoC (department of
> > commerce of the US gov).....
>
>In my opinion, you might want to study the long history that lead up
>to the founding of ICANN. You stated at the ICANN meeting that you
>became an Internet user 18 months ago. That may make it hard to emcompass
>the past 7 years of history and the years before 1995, where the small
>circle of Jon Postel's cronies systematically controlled the allocation of
>basic Internet resources through their combined government and educational
>institution network, aided by a small group of corporate supporters who
>realized they could make a lot of money, for doing very little, by supporting
>that regime. That worked as long as the general public was given the
>"mushroom treatment" (i.e. kept in the dark and fed manure).
>
>Here is a sample....
>http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/20/interview.lynn.idg/index.html
>"...ICANN's Lynn: No new domains anytime soon..."
>....
>Q: If there are no technical impediments to adding top-level domains, 
>would that essentially obligate you to do so?
>A: No. We do have other responsibilities in creating a level playing field 
>and a fair place for competition.
>-----------------
>
>It all boils down to fairness.
>Which list do you think is more fair ?
>The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
>http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
>or
>The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
>
>People are now prepared to route around ICANN. Thanks to Microsoft,
>all of the technology is in people's hands (via Windows XP) to break
>free from the shackles of the Postel regime and to build a larger, more
>open, and more free Internet, that all of the world's people can be proud of,
>not just the small circle of insiders who have conspired for years to
>control the allocation of Internet resources for their own financial gain.
>
>Jim Fleming
>http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
>http://www.in-addr.info
>3:219 INFO
>
>--
>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: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:15:21 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN accredited NXDOMAIN

Seems there is an ICANN accredited registrar that hasn't even got its DNS
working. See below. Yes, I tried server2.parava.net. That host does not
exist. Well, we live in interesting times.

- ---
EVIDENCE ITEM 1:

zeist:marc {108} whois naame.com

Whois Server Version 1.3

Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

   Domain Name: NAAME.COM
   Registrar: PARAVA NETWORKS INC DBA REGISTRATEYA.COM NAAME.COM
   Whois Server: whois.naame.com
   Referral URL: http://www.naame.com
   Name Server: NS1.PARAVA.NET
   Name Server: NS2.PARAVA.NET
   Name Server: NS3.PARAVA.NET
   Name Server: NS4.PARAVA.NET
   Updated Date: 05-nov-2001

>>> Last update of whois database: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 05:12:10 EST <<<

The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and
Registrars.

whois: connect(): Connection refused
- ---

EVIDENCE ITEM 2:

zeist:marc {109} dig whois.naame.com.

; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> whois.naame.com.
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 4
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUERY SECTION:
;;      whois.naame.com, type = A, class = IN

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
naame.com.              58m28s IN SOA   server2.parava.net.
administrator.parava.net. (
                                        3               ; serial
                                        15M             ; refresh
                                        10M             ; retry
                                        1D              ; expiry
                                        1H )            ; minimum

;; Total query time: 1 msec
;; FROM: zeist.bijt.net to SERVER: default -- 127.0.0.1
;; WHEN: Wed Nov 21 15:10:08 2001
;; MSG SIZE  sent: 33  rcvd: 101

- --
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, 21 Nov 2001 06:42:24 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The "mushroom treatment"....

Jefsey,

I had to read and reread your comments- no, not your english your techlish!

And now I am convinced that techlishians do not understand polywogian.

Both you and Jim either need to get a job in a sound bite studio or start puttin
matters
into a context.  Read Wittgenstein if you are confused.  Contextual analysis of
what is Justice.

Come on pulling one phrase out of context for the basis of a point is sheer Peter
Jenkinsonian.

You are both above that and us dotcommoners deserve more.

Get down and get wit us or get out and get agin us.  The point is anyone can speak
in a way to be confused and misunderstood; do you want to?

Peace
Eric

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Jim,
> I certainly appreciate your mail. But please be fair with Lynn (I enough
> dispute him to be able to say that!). He also says:
>
> <quote>
> Q: Would you consider usefulness of new TLDs before adding them?
> A: If there is no demanding, pressing consumer need that's perceived, then
> why risk destabilization in other areas?
> </quote>
>
> The point is that Lynn endangers most probably far more the stability and
> the security of the Internet than he thinks. Let assume he is honest (for
> discussion sake you can give me that point for a minute): how would he know
> that there is a "demanding, pressing consumer need" when he takes every
> step to kill the possibility of that demand and for him to learn about it.
>
> In its ICP-3 he talks about "experimental" TLDs but do not give any frame
> to them as we did with the Root and TLD Best Practices (
> http://boroon.com/pdf_e/rcdc-05-E-RTBP-RootTLDBestPractices.pdf ).
>
> The point is that "alt(sic)root" are no solution to the TLD, security and
> stability needs. They are just a patch to the ICANN oddities. The solution
> is in a review of our /usage/ of the DNS.
>
> DNS is three things:
>
> - a continuation of the international data network naming plan initiated by
> the UN in the 50s,  stabilized in its present semantic in 1978 by Tymnet
> International, US IRCs and foreign monopolies of the time. It is
> progressively managed by the IANA alone since the end of the 80s.
>
> - an IP address resolution system designed by Mokapertis in 1982 which can
> be used for many other things. Some see it as a data base, some as an
> information system. I see it more as a search protocol. These are the
> star/meshed/distributed network cultures we meet everywhere which make so
> many people to misunderstand while they are in agreement :-)
>
> - a default service proposed by many sources: USG servers, intranet
> systems, ccTLDs, alt(sic)roots and ISPs.
>
> The naming plan is misunderstood. The program is fine. The usage is
> outdated. When Mokapertis defined the Internet restriction of the naming
> plan the Internet was an /interconnected/ network as several others (the
> first use of "com" I know of was in 1980 by Mr. Boutmy's team in Heindhoven
> for the Philips international corporate network). Today the Internet has
> become the World's /interconnecting/ system. A serious change.
>
> Lynn is perfectly right about security, cybersquatting etc... But what he
> does not see is that he is creating the tension and leading to the break.
> No one actually needs the ICANN and the USG root on the long range, but
> having them would be better for everyone. Lynn's task should be to
> accompany and even lead the transition, so the ICANN stays the core of the
> system. In blocking a natural development and in competing withe the real
> networks forces, he leads to the clash he wants to avoid.
>
> What will probably happen is that the NTIA people will understand the
> technical fragility of the current system. Find the obvious proper solution
> and will impose it for GovNet to Microsoft. This may be a temporary blow
> for Verisign and Microsoft (specially if we wait for a long as they
> stabilize their marketing on an outdated approach). But I am sure that
> these corporations will easily find the way to develop new strategies to
> take advantage from it - actually I hope they only work on the basis that
> ICANN is only a contingency plan, or they would be fool what they are not.
>
> When the solution is imposed by the NTIA for security reasons in every USG
> Windows system, the whole world will ask Microsoft the security solution
> devised by the USG for GovNet. If the ICANN helped that to occur it will be
> the core of he world, Verisign will organize with MicroSoft and Sun and
> many new US and international interests.
>
> Otherwise there will be some destabilization until the Internet stabilized
> again as cooperated from many places in the world and the US Internet
> industry is eventually stuck in an anti-trust obsolete case against
> VeriSign and ICANN (cf. Plan B DoJ positions).
>
> Jefsey
>
> At 05:05 21/11/01, Jim Fleming wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
> >To: <[email-masked]>
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:08 PM
> >Subject: [ga] Motion and request for amendment
> >
> >
> > > I Eric Dierker, being a member of the GA of ICANN, hereby make motion
> > > that the GA agree, reach consensus and evidence by a vote, formal or
> > > otherwise, that the BC (business constituency within the DNSO of ICANN)
> > > is currently acting in direct contravention of the Green Papers the
> > > White Papers, all and amended contracts with the DoC (department of
> > > commerce of the US gov).....
> >
> >In my opinion, you might want to study the long history that lead up
> >to the founding of ICANN. You stated at the ICANN meeting that you
> >became an Internet user 18 months ago. That may make it hard to emcompass
> >the past 7 years of history and the years before 1995, where the small
> >circle of Jon Postel's cronies systematically controlled the allocation of
> >basic Internet resources through their combined government and educational
> >institution network, aided by a small group of corporate supporters who
> >realized they could make a lot of money, for doing very little, by supporting
> >that regime. That worked as long as the general public was given the
> >"mushroom treatment" (i.e. kept in the dark and fed manure).
> >
> >Here is a sample....
> >http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/20/interview.lynn.idg/index.html
> >"...ICANN's Lynn: No new domains anytime soon..."
> >....
> >Q: If there are no technical impediments to adding top-level domains,
> >would that essentially obligate you to do so?
> >A: No. We do have other responsibilities in creating a level playing field
> >and a fair place for competition.
> >-----------------
> >
> >It all boils down to fairness.
> >Which list do you think is more fair ?
> >The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
> >http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> >or
> >The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
> >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> >
> >People are now prepared to route around ICANN. Thanks to Microsoft,
> >all of the technology is in people's hands (via Windows XP) to break
> >free from the shackles of the Postel regime and to build a larger, more
> >open, and more free Internet, that all of the world's people can be proud of,
> >not just the small circle of insiders who have conspired for years to
> >control the allocation of Internet resources for their own financial gain.
> >
> >Jim Fleming
> >http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
> >http://www.in-addr.info
> >3:219 INFO
> >
> >--
> >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-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

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

Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 06:57:20 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The Laborers March

It is six something here in sunny southern California.  I stepped
outside and watched the procession of Laborers heading of with
proverbial lunch pales in hand.

Yes some will say stupid and irrelevant.

But I ask you deep down; are not they and their children entitled to use
of the Internet, to grow and gain knowledge and to bring themselves
equal with us haves?  Simply by hard work.

I am proud to work for a corporation that answers YES!

But I am saddened to work voluntarily for a corporation that answers
Hell no!

I am willing, as so many friends here have been willing to teach me
technology and the history of the net, to suffer through the indignities
required to teach technisians some sort of humanitarianism.

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: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:38:44 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] No New TLDs -- Except .US ?

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:07:18 +1100 (EST), David Goldstein reported:

>From BNA Internet Law News...
ICANN CEO SAYS NO NEW GENERIC TLDS, FOR NOW
In an interview with CNN, ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn says that ICANN is still
considering how to evaluate the current round of new gTLDs.  Arguing that
ICANN is not a regulatory body and that it takes a "minimalist approach",
Lynn says that stability of the DNS is critical in any future decisions to
add new gTLDs.  For a sense of a minimalist approach, see the new ICANN
contract on dot-aero released yesterday, the last of the new sponsored gTLDs
to reach agreement.  Dot-aero info at  http://www.icann.org/tlds/
Lynn interview at
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/20/interview.lynn.idg/index.html

NeuStar Takes Control Of America's '.us' Domain
Washington-based NeuStar Inc. today officially took control of America's
sovereign ".us" Internet addressing suffix.
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/172323.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: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:28:20 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No New TLDs -- Except .US ?

At 2:38 AM +1100 22/11/01, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>NeuStar Takes Control Of America's '.us' Domain
>Washington-based NeuStar Inc. today officially took control of America's
>sovereign ".us" Internet addressing suffix.
>http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/172323.html

Now that the U.S. IP community has their own sandpit to play in, can we
have our gTLD's back please?

Signed,

The global Internet community.

- -- 
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, 21 Nov 2001 08:41:06 -0800
From: "Tim Langdell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No New TLDs -- Except .US ?

Probably a silly question, but what about ".eu"? Anyone hear how that is
progressing?

Tim

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
To: "David Goldstein" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 7:38 AM
Subject: [ga] No New TLDs -- Except .US ?

> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:07:18 +1100 (EST), David Goldstein reported:
>
> >From BNA Internet Law News...
> ICANN CEO SAYS NO NEW GENERIC TLDS, FOR NOW
> In an interview with CNN, ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn says that ICANN is still
> considering how to evaluate the current round of new gTLDs.  Arguing that
> ICANN is not a regulatory body and that it takes a "minimalist approach",
> Lynn says that stability of the DNS is critical in any future decisions to
> add new gTLDs.  For a sense of a minimalist approach, see the new ICANN
> contract on dot-aero released yesterday, the last of the new sponsored
gTLDs
> to reach agreement.  Dot-aero info at  http://www.icann.org/tlds/
> Lynn interview at
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/20/interview.lynn.idg/index.html
>
> NeuStar Takes Control Of America's '.us' Domain
> Washington-based NeuStar Inc. today officially took control of America's
> sovereign ".us" Internet addressing suffix.
> http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/172323.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #864
************************