Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #891
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, November 30 2001          Volume 01 : Number 891

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

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 06:59:13 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Objective of a GA member

You may be very correct, although research has shown the opposite.

However in fairness to all here and in objection to the failure of ICANN to
follow its' mandate.
And in further objection to the NCs' failure to promote a functioning GA.

I send my unsubscribe.

Sincerely,
Eric

Rick H Wesson wrote:

> I think there is one question that was not asked that should have been,
>
>   11. Is the GA doing its job?
>
> IMNSHO, the GA could do great things, no matter what anyone else says. I
> see nothing but bickering from the GA; I hope the GA will stand and
> the interested will provide input into the process, no matter how broken
> ICANN is, when large groups of folks AGREE people listen; when a few loud
> mouths post alot of krap people just tune out and discount the entire GA.
>
> If you have ideas you want to see executed, collect the masses, write the
> documents; if you want to continue to disservice the GA post more krap.
>
> -rick

- --
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, 30 Nov 2001 00:48:03 +0800
From: Joseph <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] A Worldwide Internet ... One Country At A Time

Hi,
	This is an interesting read ...
http://www.isp-planet.com/hosting/2001/cctlds.html

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

- --
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, 29 Nov 2001 19:17:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Stalled

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Frankly, I wish the GA cared more about finding
> adequate people for the Chair and Vice-Chair position
> -- nominations start in just over a week!

Since it seems things are very much stalled, I have thought about getting
more people (and I do not mean a million) to subscribe to the ga voting
registry (and list??). You have a chanal to make an attempt.

Individuals will not get a real voice in ICANN soon through the At Large,
if ever.  One does not need a domain to get into the ga. Why not try to
enlist people though your website? The ga is free. At Large won't be.

I know the ga has no power. Still, if there were thousands who backed up
an idea or proposal, or voted for it, ICANN could hardly ignore it
completely. I am not worried about capture or fraud. Isn't ICANN beyond
that already?

If more people are part of the ga, we will have more candidates for chair
etc. Even if not, maybe, quickly enough, right now.

- -- 
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:31:18 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A Worldwide Internet ... One Country At A Time

Joseph wrote:
> This is an interesting read ...
> http://www.isp-planet.com/hosting/2001/cctlds.html

Except the conclusion seems plainly wrong:

  Foregone conclusion
  So, what about the other 238 country code managers
  who have not signed agreements with ICANN?

  The country codes that have not yet been sold out
  to the highest bidders are to be sold on the open
  market. As a result, the fight for ccTLD control
  continues‹one country at a time.

I have no idea what the reporter intended to say, but that conclusion is
bizarre.

     -- Bret 

- --
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, 29 Nov 2001 21:34:07 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stalled

Dear Marc,
I wish I know a way to get some Members for the GA. We made a big effort 
about that a few months ago I reported in here in France. AFNIC, 
france@large and private people. The result was good making France the 
second represented country, but only a few shared in here. Only a part voted.

IMHO the reason why is that betting involved in the @large election is fun. 
Once. Getting involved with the ICANN, what for?

Jefsey

On 19:17 29/11/01, Marc Schneiders said:
>Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I wish the GA cared more about finding
> > adequate people for the Chair and Vice-Chair position
> > -- nominations start in just over a week!
>
>Since it seems things are very much stalled, I have thought about getting
>more people (and I do not mean a million) to subscribe to the ga voting
>registry (and list??). You have a chanal to make an attempt.
>
>Individuals will not get a real voice in ICANN soon through the At Large,
>if ever.  One does not need a domain to get into the ga. Why not try to
>enlist people though your website? The ga is free. At Large won't be.
>
>I know the ga has no power. Still, if there were thousands who backed up
>an idea or proposal, or voted for it, ICANN could hardly ignore it
>completely. I am not worried about capture or fraud. Isn't ICANN beyond
>that already?
>
>If more people are part of the ga, we will have more candidates for chair
>etc. Even if not, maybe, quickly enough, right now.
>
>--
>[email-masked]
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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, 29 Nov 2001 14:38:40 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Stalled

Hello Marc and Jefsey,

That has been my point for the past few weeks. IMHO, the value-proposition
isn't there. What does the participant get for their efforts? Once is fun,
but active participation isn't "fun" stuff, except for the very sick.
Without a way to implement the results of the discussion it becomes a moot
effort. If we cannot point at a process that shows a means to implement real
results, most people would rather not make the (very large) effort. The
whole thing becomes not much more than endless prattle. Most healthy folks
don't believe in wasting [much of] their time in such idle chatter.

Such a simple thing as guaranteeing a vote on the NC, or a presentation slot
with the BoD, would make all the difference. Give the GA a couple of seats
on the NC and you will be amazed at how many members you will gain.
Similarly, if the GA had a guaranteed BoD presentation slot. The @large
elections had such a huge turn-out because the value-offering was ICANN BoD
seats. There was a direct, non-imaginary, connection.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 12:34 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Stalled
|> 
|> 
|> Dear Marc,
|> I wish I know a way to get some Members for the GA. We made 
|> a big effort 
|> about that a few months ago I reported in here in France. AFNIC, 
|> france@large and private people. The result was good making 
|> France the 
|> second represented country, but only a few shared in here. 
|> Only a part voted.
|> 
|> IMHO the reason why is that betting involved in the @large 
|> election is fun. 
|> Once. Getting involved with the ICANN, what for?
|> 
|> Jefsey
|> 
|> 
|> On 19:17 29/11/01, Marc Schneiders said:
|> >Alexander Svensson wrote:
|> >
|> > > Frankly, I wish the GA cared more about finding
|> > > adequate people for the Chair and Vice-Chair position
|> > > -- nominations start in just over a week!
|> >
|> >Since it seems things are very much stalled, I have thought 
|> about getting
|> >more people (and I do not mean a million) to subscribe to 
|> the ga voting
|> >registry (and list??). You have a chanal to make an attempt.
|> >
|> >Individuals will not get a real voice in ICANN soon through 
|> the At Large,
|> >if ever.  One does not need a domain to get into the ga. 
|> Why not try to
|> >enlist people though your website? The ga is free. At Large 
|> won't be.
|> >
|> >I know the ga has no power. Still, if there were thousands 
|> who backed up
|> >an idea or proposal, or voted for it, ICANN could hardly ignore it
|> >completely. I am not worried about capture or fraud. Isn't 
|> ICANN beyond
|> >that already?
|> >
|> >If more people are part of the ga, we will have more 
|> candidates for chair
|> >etc. Even if not, maybe, quickly enough, right now.
|> >
|> >--
|> >[email-masked]
|> >
|> >--
|> >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
|> >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
|> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
|> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|> 
|> --
|> 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, 30 Nov 2001 00:46:02 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Stalled

Hello Roeland and GA readers,

Roeland Meyer wrote on 29.11.01, 14:38:40:
> That has been my point for the past few weeks. IMHO, the value-proposition
> isn't there. What does the participant get for their efforts? Once is fun,
> but active participation isn't "fun" stuff, except for the very sick.

Agreed, unfortunately. And I would have a really bad
conscience if I tried to get people to follow the GA
list on a regular basis, in its current state.

> Without a way to implement the results of the discussion it becomes a moot
> effort. If we cannot point at a process that shows a means to implement real
> results, most people would rather not make the (very large) effort. The
> whole thing becomes not much more than endless prattle. Most healthy folks
> don't believe in wasting [much of] their time in such idle chatter.

That's true. Currently:
[idle chatter] --> [not taken seriously] --> [no effect]

I don't believe that a change can start at the end or
middle of the chain. It has to start at the beginning
with proper procedures (e.g. the Best Practices document)
and effective guidance with a Chair and Vice Chair
working with each other and with the Secretariat.
If people get the feeling that their ideas will get
drowned in idle chatter, they will stay away.

> Such a simple thing as guaranteeing a vote on the NC, or a presentation slot
> with the BoD, would make all the difference. Give the GA a couple of seats
> on the NC and you will be amazed at how many members you will gain.
> Similarly, if the GA had a guaranteed BoD presentation slot. The @large
> elections had such a huge turn-out because the value-offering was ICANN BoD
> seats. There was a direct, non-imaginary, connection.

Getting listened to by NC and BoD are desirable end results.
The GA also has to make some changes so that there is
a value-offering on the other side. And no, simply stating
that the GA is "the voice of the people" is not enough.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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, 29 Nov 2001 18:04:51 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Being Accountable, Philip, Means Answering Questions

Patrick and all assembly members,

  Although this is a scathing review of the TF's and WG's much of it
rings unfortunately true of very close to it.  This is why I have been
so insistent that any and all TF's and WG's be open to any and
all willing and interested GA or other participants, instead of
"Closed" lists.

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 05:10:39 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00430.html
>
> > Meanwhile, for the sake of clarification, could you advise whether the
> number
> > of task forces is limited to the seven currently in train or have others
> been
> > proposed ?  How will the Names Council select GA representation in the
> absence
> > of a formal nomination?
> >
> > As I have been unable to establish the Terms of Reference for all seven task
> > forces, would you be so kind as to advise exactly what is being proposed in
> > each case?
> >
> > Could you also advise who is authorised to post to the Names Council mailing
> > list?  Do I, for example, still retain posting rights as the former
> Alternate
> > Chair?
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:07:39 +0100, Philip Sheppard replied:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00435.html
>
> > thank you for your numerous questions.
> >
> > Please see my reply today on the TF transfers issue.
> >
> > Details of NC TF and participants can be found in the DNSO archives.
>
> Hi Philip
>
> At least some of the questions were quite simple and such that you could have
> answered from the top of your head.  The first, for example, simply asked how
> many task forces are planned?  The last was asking who had posting rights to
> the Names Council mailing list?
>
> You have clearly made no effort to be of even minimal assistance.
>
> The meaty question related to the Terms of Reference for the Names Council
> Task Forces.  You have said to see the "DNSO archives".
>
> Of course, you are quite well aware that there are seven Task Forces each with
> their own mailing list.  I have read every email on all seven mailing lists.
> I have also read through the NC and GA mailing lists.  In fact, I have pointed
> out exactly which Task Force Terms of Reference I have been able to locate.
> On the GA mailing list, I wrote:
>
> > Please also note that I have been only been able to identify a Terms of
> Reference
> > in three out of seven instances.
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03038.html
>
> Now I have found that none of our representatives are in the least bit
> accountable for their actions.  Very few deign to answer questions of any
> sort.
>
> And when they do they fudge the answers, lie and prevaricate.  You more than
> most.
>
> The sad fact is, Philip, that the Task Forces are a con designed to avoid
> consensus and fast track the process in an underhanded and dishonest way.
>
> Which is exactly what you are trying to cover up.
>
> 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

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: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:33:00 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stalled

Alex, Roeland and all assembly members,

  Alex, we don't and never have had a "Vice-Chair" in the GA.  We
have had a "Alt-Chair".  They are not the same thing.  Just thought I would
point that out.  But your concern about getting others to participate
in the GA forum ML, is of course very understandable.  The divisiveness
of some here seems to be pervasive at times to the point of being
destructive and very non-productive.  But this has also always been
true on this and in my experience, many other forums from time
to time.

   I am hopeful that all assembly members intrinsically understand
that many stakeholders or Domain Name and non-domain name
holders have allot at stake.  Hence I think and except that political
wrangling on this forum is to be expected.  However being dishonest,
and in a fairly obvious way should not be tolerated and also should
be called, and pointed out for those on this forum that may not read
every post.  But some limit would be wise to consider.  This must
be voluntary however which makes "Chatter" a unfortunate result
too often.

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Hello Roeland and GA readers,
>
> Roeland Meyer wrote on 29.11.01, 14:38:40:
> > That has been my point for the past few weeks. IMHO, the value-proposition
> > isn't there. What does the participant get for their efforts? Once is fun,
> > but active participation isn't "fun" stuff, except for the very sick.
>
> Agreed, unfortunately. And I would have a really bad
> conscience if I tried to get people to follow the GA
> list on a regular basis, in its current state.
>
> > Without a way to implement the results of the discussion it becomes a moot
> > effort. If we cannot point at a process that shows a means to implement real
> > results, most people would rather not make the (very large) effort. The
> > whole thing becomes not much more than endless prattle. Most healthy folks
> > don't believe in wasting [much of] their time in such idle chatter.
>
> That's true. Currently:
> [idle chatter] --> [not taken seriously] --> [no effect]
>
> I don't believe that a change can start at the end or
> middle of the chain. It has to start at the beginning
> with proper procedures (e.g. the Best Practices document)
> and effective guidance with a Chair and Vice Chair
> working with each other and with the Secretariat.
> If people get the feeling that their ideas will get
> drowned in idle chatter, they will stay away.
>
> > Such a simple thing as guaranteeing a vote on the NC, or a presentation slot
> > with the BoD, would make all the difference. Give the GA a couple of seats
> > on the NC and you will be amazed at how many members you will gain.
> > Similarly, if the GA had a guaranteed BoD presentation slot. The @large
> > elections had such a huge turn-out because the value-offering was ICANN BoD
> > seats. There was a direct, non-imaginary, connection.
>
> Getting listened to by NC and BoD are desirable end results.
> The GA also has to make some changes so that there is
> a value-offering on the other side. And no, simply stating
> that the GA is "the voice of the people" is not enough.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:50:32 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Stalled

|> From: Alexander Svensson [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 3:46 PM

Hello Alex,

|> Roeland Meyer wrote on 29.11.01, 14:38:40:

|> > Without a way to implement the results of the discussion 
|> > it becomes a moot effort. If we cannot point at a process 
|> > that shows a means to implement real results, most people 
|> > would rather not make the (very large) effort. The whole 
|> > thing becomes not much more than endless prattle. Most 
|> > healthy folks don't believe in wasting [much of] their 
|> > time in such idle chatter.
|> 
|> That's true. Currently:
|> [idle chatter] --> [not taken seriously] --> [no effect]

Actually, I was thinking that it's a feed-back loop. The GA is not taken
seriously, therefore it devolves to idle chatter, which gives a reason to
not take it seriously, ad infinitum.

|> I don't believe that a change can start at the end or
|> middle of the chain. It has to start at the beginning
|> with proper procedures (e.g. the Best Practices document)
|> and effective guidance with a Chair and Vice Chair
|> working with each other and with the Secretariat.
|> If people get the feeling that their ideas will get
|> drowned in idle chatter, they will stay away.

Actually, we should feel lucky and grateful that Joanna and Bill's work is
mostly completed and appears "good enough" for the task. However, you'd have
a difficult time motivating folks to follow it if they feel that the results
would be nil. What I'm really saying is that you have to work on both ends
simultaneously. Otherwise, it's like painting the Goldengate bridge, no
sooner to you get done with one end then it is time to start all over at the
other. Following a process is not without pain. As such, it wont be born
unless there is a reason to bear it.

|> > Such a simple thing as guaranteeing a vote on the NC, or a 
|> > presentation slot with the BoD, would make all the 
|> > difference. Give the GA a couple of seats on the NC and 
|> > you will be amazed at how many members you will gain. 
|> > Similarly, if the GA had a guaranteed BoD presentation 
|> > slot. The @large elections had such a huge turn-out 
|> > because the value-offering was ICANN BoD seats. There 
|> > was a direct, non-imaginary, connection.
|> 
|> Getting listened to by NC and BoD are desirable end results.
|> The GA also has to make some changes so that there is
|> a value-offering on the other side. And no, simply stating
|> that the GA is "the voice of the people" is not enough.

I disagree that they are end-results. Without that condition, the GA will
never rise to the occasion. Frankly, I think it is a miracle that we already
have the accomplishments that we do have. The GA had, at one time, a much
higher level of participation and substantive content then is has currently.
Please review the entire archive if you doubt me. I submit that it is
precisely because of the lack of forseeable effect that participation and
substance is reduced, from those halcyon days. 

You might remember that the IFWP list, when those members really thought
that they were going to have an impact, in spite of various disruptions,
produced some very good results. The point is that folks were motivated to
keep a fair signal:noise ratio because they thought it mattered. When folks
don't think it matters then they wont make the effort.

- --
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, 29 Nov 2001 22:26:33 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New Global Cyber crime Treaty

All assembly members,

25 November 2001  Global Cyber Crime Treaty Signed
The United States, Canada, Japan and South Africa joined their
counterparts in 26 other countries in signing the Council of Europe1s
Convention on Cybercrime to harmonize laws and penalties for crimes
committed via the Internet.
See: http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/172398.html

Excerpts:

STRASBOURG, France--The 43-nation Council of Europe adopted an
international treaty on cybercrime, the first to take aim at 
criminal offenses committed over the Internet.

 The treaty criminalizes activities such as fraud and child
pornography committed on the Internet and sets up global 
policing procedures for conducting computer searches, 
intercepting e-mails and extraditing criminal suspects.

An FBI computer search after the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States
revealed information that led U.S. officials temporarily to ground all
crop-dusting planes out of concern they could be used for a chemical or
biological attack. The Council, based in Strasbourg, France, said the
treaty should be supplemented soon by provisions
to eliminate racist Web sites and to define and criminalize hate speech
on computer networks.

        http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7826224.html?tag=lh

   Excerpts:

Other nations that signed the treaty include: Albania, Armenia, Austria,
Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Italy, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, "the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia," Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

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: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 22:26:49 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Good News

Pascal and all assembly members,

  Thank you for your comments.  The are quite interesting and
I hope thought provoking to everyone.  I have a few
comments/clarifications
to your comments/observations.  (See below yours)

Pascal Bernhard - cube wrote:

> Jeff, Eric and all assembly members,
>
> On 28 Nov 2001, at 22:45, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > I have reached a LOI in which I gratuitously threw in the GA and AL
> > > importance to a company that will be reaching out to millions, no not
> > > spam but a commercial enterprise that will both have WWW presence and
> > > physically reach a global market.
> >
> >   ORSC, New.Net, INEGroup(Many web sites for instance) and a few
> > others kinda beat you to the punch by about 1 1/2 years.  But we hope we
> > will be glad you are going to be on board!  >;)
>
> Jeff, I'm not sure what board you mean.

  No "Board" of any particular type of kind.  Rather it is a manner of
expression or speech.

> As far as my experience with
> alternative roots reaches, all are trying to push their own system on
> the market.

  This may be true of "Alternative Roots" in some instances.  However
I was not referring to "Alternative Roots".  I was referring to
Inclusive
and/or Competitive Root structures and/or registries.  Big difference
in most instances.  ORSC is NOT and "Alternative" root, by the way..

> Information exchange takes just place, when somebody
> decides "to be kind" with someone else.

  Not always.  Information comes for all sorts of interchanges.  The
FBI and other police agencies could tell you that without hesitation.

> To be kind means
> instrumentalize the other one for the own aims. I don't wanna be
> destructive, but the reality is: alternative roots don't have a real
> common censensus until today.

  Your opinion may be true for "Alternative Roots".  However it is not
for "Inclusive and Competitive" Roots and/or registries.  Perhaps this
is at the "Root" of you seeming confusion?

>
>
> As divided systems, they are too weak to have a real weight in the
> balance with ICANN, even if ORSC has 40 Mio. hits. What's a hit,
> anyway?

  What is a hit you ask?  Hummmm?  Well it is in essence an event when
a stakeholder/user visits a particular Web site.

>
>
> > > You see some interests want a non-profit legitimacy and I lied
> > > and said this reference to the GA and AL would give it to them.  Nope
> > > nothing official but a guaranteed million hits a day by May 2002.  It
> > > is so sweet - it will just say "do you want to be a part of running
> > > the worlds' Internet click here" Of course it will include things like
> > > You could be the next General Assembly Chair or you could sit on the
> > > BoD of ICANN"
> >
> Dreams... There is one thing, the alternative roots should understand.
> A root system is just so much worth as ISPs resolve it.

  First it seems again/still that you are confused between the
difference
between "Alternative" and "Inclusive and Competitive" root structures.
You also seem to be confused between Root Structures and Registries.

> I don't mean
> ISPs like John Doe in Smithvillage but real carriers and ISPs: MCI,
> ECRC, ATT and the like or very used networks like AOL.

  Is Mindspring (The 4th largest ISP) a real "Carrier"?  If it is in
your opinion than in case you didn't know, they resolve New.nets
TLD's and Domain Names registered in those name spaces.

> If anybody
> is able to bring one of them to an new root system, then there is a
> weight in the balance and that one can discuss with ICANN.

  See above.

>
>
> > > You see it is a catch 22.  No one in ICANN wants participation but by
> > > properly offering it there is nothing ICANN can do about it.
> >
> >   Except what you propose above, if any example, is not proper or
> >   legitimate.
>
> Jeff, what legitimation has ICANN anyway? ICANN is based on a
> contract with the DoC and ICANN doesn't fulfill this contract.

  You answered your now question in part.  However ICANN must also
meet all the requirements of those contracts.  ICANN has not done that
yet.

>
> Furthermore, a contract with the US DoC legitimes ICANN in the US
> but not in Mexico, Lichtenstein, Iraq, UK or Germany.

  Well to an extent your are fight here.  However to the extent that
Mexico, Lichtenstein, Iraq, UK or Germany wish to use the
USG/ICANN Root structure and TLD's without using a ISP
that supports "Inclusive and/or COmpetitive" roots and registries,
the US DOC/NTIA does legitimize with these and many more
countries.

> If anybody
> want's to create a company supporting a root server system and
> creating a kind of customer decision voting procedure, it is legitimate.

  Yes it would be to that extent.  Some such as China are doing just
that.

>
>
> > > Oh sorry that is BAD NEWS for many of you, but what the heck you are
> > > not getting anything done in the meantime.
> >
> >   We are building new networks every week.  How is Hi-Tek doing?
>
> You see: division. _That_ is the one reason why ICANN can do
> things as it does.

  ICANN can do what it does for many reasons.  It can't do what
it wants to do because others will not or are not abiding by policies
that they have no or little voice or vote in.  ICANN's share of the
divided pie is getting smaller every day.  And at an excelerating
rate.  So therefore each stakeholder can/should ask themselves, is this
good or bad?  Does this benefit me/you as a stakeholder?

>
>
> Regards,
> Pascal
>
> ================================
> Pascal Bernhard
> cube
> Geschäfte werden von Menschen gemacht...
> [email-masked]
> http://cube.de/
> http://boroon.de/
> FON: +49-6352-753725
> FAX: +49-6352-753726
> Mail: Im See 3 - 67295 Bolanden

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: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 20:28:43 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] German Court acts against domain registrant's rights

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnewsstory.cfm?storyID=229963&thesection=business&thesubsection=latest

(Watch the word wrap, you may have to cut and paste it in parts)

A brief quote:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
A German court has ruled that oil giant Shell has more right to the
www.shell.de internet domain name than an individual named Shell who
had already registered the name.

Deutsche Shell GmbH, the German unit of Royal Dutch/Shell, sued
Andreas Shell, who owned the address, over the right to use it.

The German federal court in Karlsruhe said in its ruling the use of
web addresses should be decided by determining which party had the
overriding interest in owning the name, even if someone else had
already registered it.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Another:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The name Shell was well known, the judge said, and most customers
would expect to find the firm's website at shell.de, not that of the
individual.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

This is a very bad decision.

- -- 
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: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:46:27 +0100
From: "Pascal Bernhard - cube" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Good News

Jeff and all assembly members,

On 29 Nov 2001, at 22:26, Jeff Williams wrote:

>   Thank you for your comments.  The are quite interesting and
> I hope thought provoking to everyone.  I have a few
> comments/clarifications
> to your comments/observations.  (See below yours)

Sure. I hope the provocation has been heard. As you may be aware, 
my official (and true) position may be read in the White Paper of 
BORooN.

Still there are precisions to be made about the words used, thank 
you for that, Jeff. See my statements below.

> > >   ORSC, New.Net, INEGroup(Many web sites for instance) and a few
> > > others kinda beat you to the punch by about 1 1/2 years.  But we
> > > hope we will be glad you are going to be on board!  >;)
> >
> > Jeff, I'm not sure what board you mean.
> 
>   No "Board" of any particular type of kind.  Rather it is a manner of
> expression or speech.

Still a "board" determines a side or a community. That is, there 
should be a principle, which tight members together on the board. 
The question was in fact what principle defines the board you mean, 
even if it is just an idiomatic expression.

> > As far as my experience with
> > alternative roots reaches, all are trying to push their own system on
> > the market.
> 
>   This may be true of "Alternative Roots" in some instances.  However I
> was not referring to "Alternative Roots".  I was referring to Inclusive
> and/or Competitive Root structures and/or registries.  Big difference in
> most instances.  ORSC is NOT and "Alternative" root, by the way..

For ICANN and most of the people out of here, all roots which are not 
managed by ICANN are alternative roots. Please don't expect people 
out of the classical industry (or old economy) to understand what is a 
root. Among the alternative roots, there are inclusive and exclusive 
roots. The definition of inclusive and exclusive seems to differ from 
community to community. I use inclusive roots as an expression for 
a root which includes the *official* roots.

The result of having many inclusive roots, is that they show on a 
common namespace (ICANN) and on own namespaces which may 
be different.

BTW: under this definition, ORSC is not an inclusive root, because 
.biz and .info are not shown in the namespace of ICANN.

I'm not sure to understand the expression competitive root structures.

Jefsey brought once the concept of coopetitive structures. I 
understand this as competitive root networks which share the same 
root file. That is the model BORooN supports.

> > As divided systems, they are too weak to have a real weight in the
> > balance with ICANN, even if ORSC has 40 Mio. hits. What's a hit,
> > anyway?
> 
>   What is a hit you ask?  Hummmm?  Well it is in essence an event when a
> stakeholder/user visits a particular Web site.

Jeff, I know what a hit is. But what is the _real_ comunication 
significance of a hit? If one Web site hat 20 gifs, one pageview 
makes 21 hits. By 2 millions hits, it just states about fewer than 
100000 pageviews, which is another relation.

> > > > You see some interests want a non-profit legitimacy and I lied and
> > > > said this reference to the GA and AL would give it to them.  Nope
> > > > nothing official but a guaranteed million hits a day by May 2002. 
> > > > It is so sweet - it will just say "do you want to be a part of
> > > > running the worlds' Internet click here" Of course it will include
> > > > things like You could be the next General Assembly Chair or you
> > > > could sit on the BoD of ICANN"

>   Is Mindspring (The 4th largest ISP) a real "Carrier"?  If it is in
> your opinion than in case you didn't know, they resolve New.nets TLD's
> and Domain Names registered in those name spaces.

That states, that new.net is running an adequate market strategy. Do 
you look at new.net as an inclusive/competitive root structure? Do 
you think the reaction of ICANN against new.net is adequate?

Regards,
Pascal
================================
Pascal Bernhard
cube
Geschäfte werden von Menschen gemacht...
[email-masked]
http://cube.de/
http://boroon.de/
FON: +49-6352-753725
FAX: +49-6352-753726
Mail: Im See 3 - 67295 Bolanden
- --
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 #891
************************