Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #865
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, November 21 2001         Volume 01 : Number 865

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

Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:07:30 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The "mushroom treatment"....

|> From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 4:30 AM
|> 
|> 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>

That's been one of the core arguments for suppressing the creation of new
TLDs, since four years ago. He plagerizes D'Crock almost word for word.

The truth is, as ANY marketer can tell you, you can never be specific for a
consumer need. That said, the need for new TLDs was proven years ago. Which
specific consumer need, is impossible to forecast. That has also been
proven. There's a certain requirement for trial and error here. However, the
need, for new TLDs, appears to be so high that it almost doesn't matter.
However, a TLD with a specific charter will probably get more attention, due
to its focused market, than a generic TLD. But, that is also a supposition.

Also, ANY change is destabilizing, according to Webster. The COM TLD
receives thousands of changes per day with no problem. The dot-com blowout
removed thousands of COM entities catastrophically, with no problems (some
web sites are no longer there). We've even had hundreds of thousands of
business loose their internet connectivity (North Point), and the Internet
didn't collapse.

Lynn is either too stupid to recognize FUD when he sees it (in which case, I
question is competency), or he is a part of the FUD machine (in which case,
I am disinclined to grant you suspension in my belief wrt his honesty).
- --
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 04:08:50 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No New TLDs -- Except .US ?

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 04:03:15 +1100 (EST), David Goldstein wrote:

> I'm not subscribed to the GA mailing list, so it probably won't get
> to the list, but the following to websites should be able to help you
> Tim and whoever else wants to find information on what's happening to
> .eu TLD.

See:

EU - .eu top level domain (RAPID -
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=MEMO
/01/247|0|RAPID&lg=EN)
The Council agreed on the Commission's proposal for a Regulation on
the implementation of the .eu Top Level Domain. The draft regulation
avoids a priori controls, provides for a period of sun-rise for
holders of prior rights and for public bodies. The draft also
acknowledges the concerns expressed by certain Member States on
geographical and geo-political names to either exclude such names or
to register them under a specific second level domain. see also .eu
top level domain (Council Press Release -
http://ue.eu.int/newsroom/LoadDoc.cfm?MAX=1&DOC=!!!&BID=87&DID=67043&GRP=363
1&LANG=1#_Toc518452706)
and EU Gives Initial Backing to '.eu' Internet Domain (Reuters).

EC-POP (EC Panel of Participants in Internet Organisation and
Management) - http://www.ec-pop.org

ICANN Channel Europe - http://www.icannchannel.org/tlds/eu.htm

It may also be worth checking out the Council of European National
Top-Level Domain Registries (CENTR) documents section of their web
site - http://www.centr.org/docs.

Cheers
David
 --- Tim Langdell <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

=====
David Goldstein
post: 82 Kingston Road, Earlsdon CV5 6LR, UK
email: [email-masked]
phone: +44 24 7667 7226 (home) +44 7786 704 887 (mobile)

- --
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 04:44:57 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

Hi Philip

At present the DNSO consists of seven constituency groups as follows:

*    ccTLD registries
*    Commercial and business entities
*    gTLD registries
*    ISPs and connectivity providers
*    Non-commercial domain name holders
*    Registrars
*    Trademark, intellectual property, anti-counterfeiting interests

In relation to the supply and demand for domain names, only two of these
seven could relate to the "demand-side" viz business and non-profits.

A simple question.  Do you agree with me that, without an individuals
constituency,  these initial constituencies are supply-side dominated?

With the current revisions to the Business Charter, I would suggest that the
constituencies be split into two equal divisions "supply" and "demand".

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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 13:55:57 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion and request for amendment

on 11/20/01 11:08 PM, Eric Dierker at [email-masked] wrote:

> 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 

Eric,
This is an agrement to agree.....essentially, you are asking the GA to agree
to act now on a consensus it will reach in due course....can't be done.
I think you may be getting a little confused.

Regards,

Joanna

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")
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 installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.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 13:46:10 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The "mushroom treatment"....

Eric and all assembly members,

  I understand your dislike of Jim Fleming Eric.  You have expressed
it on a number of occasions to me on the phone and lately here
on this forum.  I also understand you strong dislike or intimidated
feeling you have towards those who have strong technical knowledge.
However I think you judgment of Jim is skewed a bit.  Jim has an
excellent command of the english language, as does Jefsey, for
a frenchman.  As I speak a little French, I can appreciate this
as a possible handicap for some americans or only english speakers.
BTW did you know that even the little children in France speak
french?  >;)  And many of them are multilingual.  To bad most
Americans are not.

  Back to Jim and your comments:

  Jim is one of those few people that has both a strong technical background
as well as business background.  This is pretty well documented should you
care to do some real checking, Eric.  Hence he has the qualifications, background
and knowledge base.  He has also put his "Stuff" on the line with the NTIA.
I don't believe you have as of yet?  Ergo I am inclined to listen to what
Jim has to say with great interest and consideration.  Of course there
are those here on the DNSO GA that have mischaracterized him a number
of times.  Yet he seem to take that in stride.  Again an admirable trait
IMHO.  I wish I could do as well frankly!  Perhaps you might consider
that in the near future as well, Eric.  I hope you will.  >:)

  Jim is as you already know quite right in his comments below that
many are routing around the present ICANN damage.  In fact, as you
also know in the just completed MdR meeting WIPO has been given
the BOOT also as it is being widely accepted that the UDRP, as
we [INEGroup] along with Jim and a few others early on thought
and felt was extralegal as well as ill conceived.  Hence WIPO1 and
WIPO 2 which were largely unsuccessful in fixing the UDRP
adequately.  Microsoft as well and Calderos (Linux) is incorporating
DNS into their internal respective platform structures.  You will
also soon be seeing Red Hat (Linux) doing the same in short order.
Additionally many new IPO's recent (Past 5 months) have been
pushing new registry and registrar models as well as Root structures
for DNS that I have been tracking to the tune of over $600m.  More
will be on the way around the globe.  Of course as you also know
Eric, I have forwarded a number of these announcements to you via
E-Mail.  Our efforts and approach has been for some time now
in this direction should ICANN fail, as it many instances it has.
This has been the crux of much of our [INEGroup's] work.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> 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

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: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:18:11 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

Patrick,

Without detracting from your point about the individuals consitutuency, it
seems to me that only 3 of the 7 constituencies represent suppliers: ccTLD,
gTLD and registrars.  The rest are all on the demand side.  Moreover, only 2
of the 7 are actually required contractually to implement any consensus
policies developed.  That means that the supply organizations who are most
directly impacted by consensus policies only have six of 21 votes on the NC.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 12:45 PM
> To: Philip Sheppard
> Cc: [ga]
> Subject: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA
> 
> 
> Hi Philip
> 
> At present the DNSO consists of seven constituency groups as follows:
> 
> *    ccTLD registries
> *    Commercial and business entities
> *    gTLD registries
> *    ISPs and connectivity providers
> *    Non-commercial domain name holders
> *    Registrars
> *    Trademark, intellectual property, anti-counterfeiting interests
> 
> In relation to the supply and demand for domain names, only 
> two of these
> seven could relate to the "demand-side" viz business and non-profits.
> 
> A simple question.  Do you agree with me that, without an individuals
> constituency,  these initial constituencies are supply-side dominated?
> 
> With the current revisions to the Business Charter, I would 
> suggest that the
> constituencies be split into two equal divisions "supply" and 
> "demand".
> 
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
> 
> 
> --
> 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 13:37:04 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Jim Fleming's Elitism

Tuesday, Tuesday, November 20, 2001, 11:35:53 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> 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.

Which is where he belongs, along with Dierker, JW, and Baptista, i.e. the
"Net.Kook" filter.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Webcertificates.info
SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea

- --
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 14:04:57 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion and request for amendment

Getting confused???
I have always been confused.
Thank you for your input, I shall redraft in accordance to my understanding of
your concerns.
Hey that's why you get the big bucks ;-}
Eric

Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 11/20/01 11:08 PM, Eric Dierker at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> Eric,
> This is an agrement to agree.....essentially, you are asking the GA to agree
> to act now on a consensus it will reach in due course....can't be done.
> I think you may be getting a little confused.
>
> Regards,
>
> Joanna
>
> 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")
> 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 installing the Adobe Acrobat
> Reader, which is available for free down load at
> http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.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 14:11:56 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

Wednesday, Wednesday, November 21, 2001, 1:56:36 PM, Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

> That is why, incidentally, the DNSO needs to remain as it is, as the
> debating chamber for the development of consensus policies affecting the
> g-TLDs,

That is not what it is, nor is it what it should be or become.

There is no special status for the ccTLDs that warrant them having
their own SO.  None.

The ccTLD CONSTITUENCY bears the brunt of the responsibility for
non-addressing of ccTLD issues in the DNSO.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Webcertificates.info
SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea

- --
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 16:15:56 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

Chuck and all assembly members,

  I think you are off at least one here Chuck.  The BC is on the
supply side predominantly as well as are the ISP Constituency.
I would also say that the Trademark and IP are also on the
supply side as well see: http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ip/ip.html

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Patrick,
>
> Without detracting from your point about the individuals consitutuency, it
> seems to me that only 3 of the 7 constituencies represent suppliers: ccTLD,
> gTLD and registrars.  The rest are all on the demand side.  Moreover, only 2
> of the 7 are actually required contractually to implement any consensus
> policies developed.  That means that the supply organizations who are most
> directly impacted by consensus policies only have six of 21 votes on the NC.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 12:45 PM
> > To: Philip Sheppard
> > Cc: [ga]
> > Subject: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA
> >
> >
> > Hi Philip
> >
> > At present the DNSO consists of seven constituency groups as follows:
> >
> > *    ccTLD registries
> > *    Commercial and business entities
> > *    gTLD registries
> > *    ISPs and connectivity providers
> > *    Non-commercial domain name holders
> > *    Registrars
> > *    Trademark, intellectual property, anti-counterfeiting interests
> >
> > In relation to the supply and demand for domain names, only
> > two of these
> > seven could relate to the "demand-side" viz business and non-profits.
> >
> > A simple question.  Do you agree with me that, without an individuals
> > constituency,  these initial constituencies are supply-side dominated?
> >
> > With the current revisions to the Business Charter, I would
> > suggest that the
> > constituencies be split into two equal divisions "supply" and
> > "demand".
> >
> > Best regards
> > Patrick Corliss
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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. William's
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: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:23:52 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The "mushroom treatment"....

Get a grip, no matter what you think I said,  (which is partly why I generally don't
take your calls)
While I do not expect you to understand it, I somewhat like Jim. And believe it or not i
like you.
But that does not mean I approve of your elitist garbage.
The day I am intimidated by something on a list is the day technisians act like they
should socially.

I want the folks on this mail thread to take into account people who are not computer
professionals
that is it.  All the rest is irrelevant.

Happy thanksgiving there Tex.
Eric

Hey and a happy thanksgiving to all who would like to give thanks.

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all assembly members,
>
>   I understand your dislike of Jim Fleming Eric.  You have expressed
> it on a number of occasions to me on the phone and lately here
> on this forum.  I also understand you strong dislike or intimidated
> feeling you have towards those who have strong technical knowledge.
> However I think you judgment of Jim is skewed a bit.  Jim has an
> excellent command of the english language, as does Jefsey, for
> a frenchman.  As I speak a little French, I can appreciate this
> as a possible handicap for some americans or only english speakers.
> BTW did you know that even the little children in France speak
> french?  >;)  And many of them are multilingual.  To bad most
> Americans are not.
>
>   Back to Jim and your comments:
>
>   Jim is one of those few people that has both a strong technical background
> as well as business background.  This is pretty well documented should you
> care to do some real checking, Eric.  Hence he has the qualifications, background
> and knowledge base.  He has also put his "Stuff" on the line with the NTIA.
> I don't believe you have as of yet?  Ergo I am inclined to listen to what
> Jim has to say with great interest and consideration.  Of course there
> are those here on the DNSO GA that have mischaracterized him a number
> of times.  Yet he seem to take that in stride.  Again an admirable trait
> IMHO.  I wish I could do as well frankly!  Perhaps you might consider
> that in the near future as well, Eric.  I hope you will.  >:)
>
>   Jim is as you already know quite right in his comments below that
> many are routing around the present ICANN damage.  In fact, as you
> also know in the just completed MdR meeting WIPO has been given
> the BOOT also as it is being widely accepted that the UDRP, as
> we [INEGroup] along with Jim and a few others early on thought
> and felt was extralegal as well as ill conceived.  Hence WIPO1 and
> WIPO 2 which were largely unsuccessful in fixing the UDRP
> adequately.  Microsoft as well and Calderos (Linux) is incorporating
> DNS into their internal respective platform structures.  You will
> also soon be seeing Red Hat (Linux) doing the same in short order.
> Additionally many new IPO's recent (Past 5 months) have been
> pushing new registry and registrar models as well as Root structures
> for DNS that I have been tracking to the tune of over $600m.  More
> will be on the way around the globe.  Of course as you also know
> Eric, I have forwarded a number of these announcements to you via
> E-Mail.  Our efforts and approach has been for some time now
> in this direction should ICANN fail, as it many instances it has.
> This has been the crux of much of our [INEGroup's] work.
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #865
************************