Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #899
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, December 3 2001           Volume 01 : Number 899

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

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:31:55 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Japanese translation of UDRP Questionnaire

[To: [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]]

Please find the Japanese translation of the UDRP Questionnaire that has been
posted on the JPNIC website on Nov. 30.
http://www.nic.ad.jp/jp/intl/organization/dnso/doc/20011105-udrp-q.html
I hope that this will be useful to you.

DNSO Secretariat

- --
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 19:29:37 +0800
From: Joseph <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

Roeland,
	Sorry, I accidentally did not send my previous post to the GA.  I'm doing
so now.

Roeland Meyer:
>>> If MY registered for embargo'd registrants then NSI might have to block
MY from the root-zone. NSI is a US registry under contract to US DOC.
AFAICT, there are contingent liability problems otherwise, for NSI. This is
what I was saying four years ago, policies at the root registry push down to
the sub-registries and registrars. Especially, those that are based in real
laws. It all depends on the jurisdiction of the registry and its upstream.
*** As I am not a lawyer, I can only state my opinion.  And my opinion is
that the above is false/cannot be done.  If NSI have to block MY from the
root-zone, US must have a clear sanction against MY.  This is like saying
that US will stop economic ties to countries that sells food to Afghanistan.
It is a whole chain reaction ending up that US having to sanction all
countries in the world.  A sanction is a direct ban.  Not indirectly.

regards,
- - Joseph LEE (Fook Heng)
=========================

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 5:14 PM
To: 'Joseph'
Subject: RE: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international
terr or

If MY registered for embargo'd registrants then NSI might have to block MY
from the root-zone. NSI is a US registry under contract to US DOC. AFAICT,
there are contingent liability problems otherwise, for NSI. This is what I
was saying four years ago, policies at the root registry push down to the
sub-registries and registrars. Especially, those that are based in real
laws. It all depends on the jurisdiction of the registry and its upstream.

- --
IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking legal action based on anything I
say or write, you are strongly encouraged to seek the advice of an attorney.

- --
R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
tel: +1 925 373 3954
cel: +1 925 352 3615
fax: +1 925 373 9781
http://www.mhsc.com

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Joseph [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 1:13 AM
|> To: Roeland Meyer
|> Subject: RE: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international
|> terror
|>
|>
|> Hi Roeland,
|>
|> 	<snip> ... Registrars are simply resellers for Registry
|> services. If they
|> are registered with NSI then NSI has an obligation to comply
|> with US law.
|> Downstream, this means that non-REGISTRARs cannot register embargoed
|> entities with a US-based REGISTRY. [BTW, I don't see any
|> legal exceptions
|> for ccTLD managers, under US embargo rulings, either.]
|> *** Can you please elaborate on the [text] please?  ccTLDs
|> may/may not be
|> managed by a US company/incorporation. If I run a .my ccTLD
|> registry, and my
|> country does not have a sanction/embargo against the
|> registrant's country, I
|> [should] be able to accept the registration.
|>
|>
|> regards,
|> - Joseph Lee (Fook Heng)
|> ========================
|>

- --
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 12:45:30 +0100
From: Charles Tiné - MailClub <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Mime-Version: 1.0

unsubscribe ga

- --
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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:48:49 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf agenda 13 December

[To: [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]

ICANN/DNSO

       DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 13 December 2001 - agenda

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

3 December 2001.

This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the DNSO
Names Council http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010711.NCprocedures-v3.0.html

Date, time, phones

     The Names Council teleconference will be held on 13 December at the
     following time:

     (6:00 LA, 9:00 New York, 15:00 Paris, 23:00 Japan/Korea, 01:00 (next
     day) Melbourne)
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     Local time between November and end March, WINTER in the NORTHERN
     hemisphere
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 14:00
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     California, USA UTC-8+0DST 6:00
     Missouri, USA UTC-6+0DST 8:00
     Monterrey, Mexico UTC-6+0DST 8:00
     Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 9:00
     St.Thomas, Virgin Islands UTC-4+0DST 10:00
     Santiago, Chile UTC-4+1DST 11:00
     Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 11:00
     London, United Kingdom UTC+0+0DST 14:00
     Brussels, Belgium (CET) UTC+1+0DST 15:00
     Barcelona, Spain (CET) UTC+1+0DST 15:00
     Frankfurt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 15:00
     Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 15:00
     Seoul, Korea UTC+9+0DST 23:00
     Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 23:00
     Melbourne, Australia UTC+10+1DST 01:00
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     The DST ends/starts on last Sunday of March (with some exceptions)
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

     The Conference telebridge will be provided by Cary Karp
     Details to be provided later.

     The full participants are the 21 NC members as listed in
     http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html, DNSO Secretariat,
     ICANN Officers: Louis Touton, Theresa Swinehart and the GA Chair, Danny
     Younger.

     The secretary, Glen de St. Géry, will take notes

     The conference MPEG3 recording will be provided by Philippe Renaut

Agenda and related documents

Philip Sheppard will be chairing the NC teleconference.

Scheduled time for meeting -120 mins.
15.00 to 17.00 Paris time

Timeline
Deadline agenda proposals 21 days - 22 November
Deadline agenda to NC 14 days - 29 November
Deadline documents to NC 7 days - 6 December

  1. Approval of summaries 12, 14 November - 5 mins
     Summary of meeting Marina del Rey (12 November)
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011112.NCmdr-minutes.html
     Summary of meeting Marina del Rey -(14 November)
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011114.NCmdr-minutes.html

  2. Adoption of amended final report on review (Philip Sheppard) 15 mins
     - agreement to dissolve the Review task force
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html

  3. Adoption of final report on dot Org (provisional) (Milton Mueller) -15
     mins.
     http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-org/Arc00/msg00239.html

  4. Discussion on IDNs with IETF representative (provisional) Elisabeth
     Porteneuve - 30 mins.
     - next steps, IDN task force

  5. Task force transfers TF (Marilyn Cade) - 5 mins.
     - comments from the GA (Danny Younger) 10 mins.

  6. Task Force update since November 14 - 30 mins.
     - UDRP Caroline Chicoine
     - Structure Philip Sheppard
     - WhoIs Paul Kane/Marilyn Cade

  7. AOB

     Next NC teleconference will be held on 17 January 2002, see dates for
     the NC teleconferences in 2002 in:
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html

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

                 Information from:  © DNSO Names

- --
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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:17:23 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international  terror

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, at 21:57 [=GMT+1300], Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 21:53 2/12/01 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> 
> >If we're taking votes the subject is really way off topic.
> 
> Agree. Not only off topic, but also as a US law enforcement issue a major 
> noise generating subject in a global forum such as the GA list.

I have to disagree. The fact that people still find it a good idea (or
do not even notice the problem) that the US controls worldwide DNS and
imposes its political ideas and national law on the world, by
determining who can register a domain and who not (even if terrorists)
is very much on topic here. It is not only about liberty/freespeech,
but also about US control of the DNS. 

- --
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 08:40:41 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international	terror

on 12/3/01 4:57 AM, Joop Teernstra at [email-masked] wrote:

> At 21:53 2/12/01 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> 
> 
>> If we're taking votes the subject is really way off topic.
> 
> Agree. Not only off topic, but also as a US law enforcement issue a major
> noise generating subject in a global forum such as the GA list.
> 
> --Joop

We are in the middle of a War affecting world stability, the ramifications
of which are catastrophic loss of life and business. The new Global
Coalitions and Treaties on Terrorism and Cybercrime are impacting every
nation's ability to do business internationally. ICANN's own Registrar
Accreditation Agreement, clause 3.7.2, requires compliance with all
applicable laws, not only those in the US.

Against this background we have named terrorist groups openly using the DNS,
putting up websites in the legacy root and using them to promote their
illegal activities. These are not "freedom fighters", these are people
engaged in genocide, in Israel, in America and who knows where next. They
are no more worthy of "freedom of speech" rights, than child pornographers
or Nazis, yet less than a handful of people here have taken a responsible
attitude or even shown an interest. There is a thunderous silence from all
the leading Registry and Registrar Compliance Executives, and many are
reading this list. Why? Are they cowards, or in denial?

I don't know about you, but I think they could at least be expressing deep
concern and telling the rest of the world that they will look into the
situation, and get back to us.

Is that off topic enough for you?

Regards,
Joanna 

- --
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 14:46:55 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Just a thought

On 03:00 03/12/01, Eric Dierker said:
>Wow Jefsey you have outdone yourself on the pompous scale here.  Take a
>deep breath and think of yourself as a member and not the professor.
>After all I think you are one of us not one better than us.

True. And this why WE have to do something about this GA and ourselves 
instead of blaming others and keeping talking icannese. Do you realy care 
about the NC, the DNSO outreach, etc... or do you care about the 
development of the network, of the future of the net, of world local and 
global economy, of e-human rights, of innovation? Are you happy at 
repeating the same things again and again without any other result than 
being sure that when you say something right it will be disregarded? Seems 
that you changed a lot ... or am I wrong (I do hope I am)?

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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 14:25:06 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Is there a businessman or a business lawyer on the list?

Should the leaders of an organization of which you are a Member write to 
you instead of publishing the organization budget as required by their 
Charter they try to abrogate:

"In the past the secretariat had presented a budget (with separate and 
variable costs for third party employment, web design, web hosting, travel 
etc) and assumed fee income would cover this. It did not and the 
organization incurred a deficit. Income from subscriptions in 2001 will 
more than cover the secretariat fee.

Detailed financial information is not appropriate to publish on the 
membership mailing list. Should any member wish to know more detail please 
telephone one of the reps. The secretariat can provide contact information."

1. would you think it to be genuine or a fake?
2. would you think this organization is a secret fraternity or an open 
business association?
3. who do you thing will be responsible for the debts?
4. would you think such an organization might be a Member of the ICANN 
structure?
5. would you assume such an organization could be a Constituency and could 
pay a DNSO yearly fee?
6. would you assume such an organization might have important debts?
7. would you feel secure in serving as a secretariat for them? (I feel our 
first duty is to the people we call upon). would you think the members have 
any control on the secretariat?

In case you might want to know if this piece of pure crystal transparency 
and honesty to the people waiting for their money and to the members is 
true or a fancy of mine, the only hint I will give for now is that this 
post was not issued by the Internet Enterprises Constituency bootstrap.

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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:31:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, at 08:40 [=GMT-0400], Joanna Lane wrote:

[...]
> Against this background we have named terrorist groups openly using the DNS,
> putting up websites in the legacy root and using them to promote their
> illegal activities. These are not "freedom fighters", these are people
> engaged in genocide, in Israel, in America and who knows where next. They
> are no more worthy of "freedom of speech" rights, than child pornographers
> or Nazis, 

I must disagree. Everyone has a right to freedom of speech. And there
are already some cases that have attracted attention in which sites
were shut down, e.g. for calling to violence (anti-abortionist group,
Neurenberg files). There are many pro-Nazi (right wing fascist)
propaganda sites, by the way, running from the US aimed at Germany.
The Germans tried to shut some down recently by using DNS and
diverting traffic. In France we had some case against Yahoo, which
demanded that Yahoo blocked traffic to certain webpages for French
citizins. We live in interesting times...

> yet less than a handful of people here have taken a responsible
> attitude or even shown an interest. There is a thunderous silence from all
> the leading Registry and Registrar Compliance Executives, and many are
> reading this list. Why? Are they cowards, or in denial?

They will not burn their hands on this topic, certainly not
ICANN. Whoever promotes censorship on the internet, will lose. It is
the beginning of the end.

I am not saying that nothing can and nothing ever should be done
against particular websites, e.g. those inciting violence. Telling the
Palestine side of the story, or the IRA side, etc. should be free
though. And decisions should be made on individual websites by the
courts, not ICANN, NSI in some general rules.

- --
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 15:57:49 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Top Three Issues

Full support of Danny's  attitude.
Our common threat is the gTLD DN ownership leading to a commercial capacity 
to capture the @large by the gTLD. Responding that ccTLD may represent the 
@large instead of locally cooperating with them is another way of trying to 
capture them. Why do we feel that what is considered is not so much the 
good of the @large but the number of their seats?
jfc

At 06:57 03/12/01, [email-masked] wrote:
>Peter,
>
>Thank you for your comments.  The issue of representation at the Board level
>is of concern to everyone in the ICANN community.  At MdR, I had occasion to
>speak with a Board member who indicated that the following was under serious
>discussion:
>
>5 seats for the At-Large (by region)
>2 seats for the At-Large (appointed by 2/3 of the Board)
>2 seats for the PSO
>2 seats for the ASO
>1 seats for the ccSO
>1 seat for the gTLDs
>1 seat for the registrars
>3 seats split between ISP, Non-Commercial, IP, and Business (on a rotating
>basis)
>1 seat appointed by ISOC
>
>Doubtless there are many possible options, but each that I have evaluated
>denies the full complement of nine seats for the At-Large that was promised
>to the Internet Community.  By arguing that the ccTLDs require an SO with at
>least one Board Seat, your associates have opened the door for registrars and
>the gTLDs to also argue that they too deserve a Board seat, and this has led
>to every other constituency arguing that they should similarly not be denied.
>  In short, you bear a certain responsibility for the structural
>reconsiderations that are now being envisiged.
>
>But please understand that we don't hold this against you, as the right to
>self-organization is paramount and well respected by members of this Assembly.
>
>Similarly, be clear about this point:  the bulk of the members in the General
>Assembly will become the members of the At-Large as soon as it is
>constituted.  While the ccSO will have a solitary Board seat, the At-Large
>will have a substantially greater degree of representation, and it will
>choose to support those that have shown an affinity for the positions
>represented by its loyalists in the GA.
>
>You have stated, "Please separate issues of importance to the GA of the DNSO
>from those of the @LM".  At this point in time, I no longer believe that such
>separation is possible.  This ICANN is an evolving organization wherein
>admittedly structures may change, but the participants will not.  The
>participants in the GA will become the participants in the At-Large, and we
>will assuredly remember those that gave the GA short shrift and those that
>respected the need for full and proper representation in the ICANN process.
>
>We have respected the contributions and participation of the ccTLDs within
>this Assembly, and many of us would like to see their efforts come to
>fruition.  So please understand that when we focus on the details at the
>origin of this experiment, we similarly act based on self-organizing
>motivations.
>
>We choose to focus on the promises made by Esther Dyson that we expect to be
>upheld.  Putting it within a context that should be familiar to you, if IANA
>were to break its promises and commitments regarding redelegations that were
>made in good faith a few years ago, and suddenly embark on a course of action
>to deny your members their participatory rights, you at the very least would
>take umbrage if not offense at such action.
>
>We have similar sensibilities.
>
>Best wishes,
>Danny younger
>
>
>--
>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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:35:52 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Final Review Task Force Report

The final report of the Review Task Force has been posted with new amendments 
by Phil Sheppard which grant even more powers to Council Task Forces at the 
expense of Working Groups:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00464.html

This is an ongoing attack against this Assembly's full participation in the 
DNSO process.  As usual, the positions of both the GA and the NCDNHC were 
cited and then disregarded.

At this time, I would advocate having the GA withdraw from all Council 
activities until the working group process is respected.  I request the views 
of the membership.

- --
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 11:18:21 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Top Three Issues

It's more likely that President Bush doesn't know it exists.

~k

At 10:14 PM 12/3/2001 +1300, you wrote:
>At 01:03 3/12/01 -0500, L Gallegos wrote:
>
>
>>On 3 Dec 2001, at 17:37, Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
>>
>> > If the USG ever feels that the ICANN which eventually presents itself does
>> > not meet the terms of the White Paper, or any new conditions mandated by
>> > the USG before transfer of technical management of the Legacy Root's names
>> > and numbers, it will seek to have ICANN make any necessary changes, or
>> > decline to transfer.
>>
>>And there's the real issue, IMO.  The USG DoC has repeatedly
>>abrogated its responsibilties in oversight of ICANN.
>
>Leah,
>
>Could this be because from their p.o.v. ICANN is doing just fine?
>Could it be that the White Paper is now considered as "something from the 
>Clinton administration" and best buried?
>
>--Joop
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:21:15 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Final Review Task Force Report

|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 8:36 AM
|> 
|> The final report of the Review Task Force has been posted 
|> with new amendments 
|> by Phil Sheppard which grant even more powers to Council 
|> Task Forces at the 
|> expense of Working Groups:  
|> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00464.html
|> 
|> This is an ongoing attack against this Assembly's full 
|> participation in the 
|> DNSO process.  As usual, the positions of both the GA and 
|> the NCDNHC were 
|> cited and then disregarded.
|> 
|> At this time, I would advocate having the GA withdraw from 
|> all Council 
|> activities until the working group process is respected.  I 
|> request the views 
|> of the membership.

If one were going to try and make an impact, I think that this is exactly
the wrong approach. Withdrawing activity only let's the opponent work
unmolested and out of oversight. They can later claim that we never
participated and the withdrawal was tacit agreement to whatever actions are
being taken.

Danny, the past few weeks have made me disappointed in many things. The
prime focus of the GA should be to bring itself forward. What you are doing
here is pounding on the blockhouse door, with your head. Everyone knows that
blockhouses only respond to cannons. You're only giving yourself a headache.

Proper escalation requires successive steps via;
DNSO/GA -> DNSO/NC -> ICANN/BoD -> USG/DOC -> USG/Congress.
At each step, relevent issues need to be surfaced, for that step, and as
that step's non-responsiveness is documented, issues are prepared for the
next step. One of the current problems are that the last two steps are
somewhat preoccupied with the current shooting-war. Therefore, issues have
to be refined that are relevent to the context of the current focus of those
steps.

Various moptions, pleas, and other arguments have been presented to both the
DNSO/NC and the ICANN/BoD. Thus far, there has been minimal response and
even that has been in the wrong direction. It is time to prepare arguments
with the US Department of Commerce, whilst at the same time, trying to get a
Congress-critter involved.
- --
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 09:36:09 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

All of which discussion below answers the complaint that this
issue is "off topic." One of the things that ICANN has to do is
obey the law, as does Verisign and on down the line, and if
there are any inklings that U. S. law is being violated, it is the
business of the GA to raise that issue.

If nothing else, the GA can at least seek to be the conscience
of  ICANN.

(And thank you, Leah: your comments are cogent and on point
as usual.)

Bill Lovell

L Gallegos wrote:

> On 3 Dec 2001, at 5:09, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> >
> > I do not think it is a good idea that the US is going to define what
> > sites are politically acceptable in the DNS.
> >
>
> I agree that the US should not define what *sites* are acceptible if they
> are within "free speech."  However, I also feel that US based registrars
> and hosting providers (not necessarily registries who are not themselves
> registrars) should have to follow the law and not do business with
> embargoed countries.
>
> OTOH, if a non US based registrar accepts a registration from a US
> embargoed country and a hosting provider outside of the US provides
> services to that country also, the US has no jurisdiction whatsoever.
>
> It is also true that anyone can register an *offensive* domain name and
> put up a site that none of us appreciates.  If that site is not breaking any
> laws, I don't see how the US can do much about it.  When it comes to
> terrorism such as what happened on Sept. 11, targeting civilians, or
> shopping malls or restaurants, etc., I would certainly advocate shutting
> down sites that aid the terrorists responsible.  How to accomplish that
> is something else.
>
> Leah
>
> --
> 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

- --

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:42:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 12/3/01 4:57 AM, Joop Teernstra at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > At 21:53 2/12/01 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >
> >
> >> If we're taking votes the subject is really way off topic.
> >
> > Agree. Not only off topic, but also as a US law enforcement issue a major
> > noise generating subject in a global forum such as the GA list.
> >
> > --Joop
>
> We are in the middle of a War affecting world stability, the ramifications
> of which are catastrophic loss of life and business.

And is the GA the proper place to solve any of this? No. I'm done with
this thread, please feel free to tell everyone of the deep abiding
relationship that exists between of ICANN to solving the
worlds belly-button lint crisis.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                     Stealthgeeks,LLC. Internet Consulting
                          http://www.stealthgeeks.net
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 09:51:56 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to internationalterror

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 21:53 2/12/01 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> >If we're taking votes the subject is really way off topic.
>
> Agree. Not only off topic, but also as a US law enforcement issue a major
> noise generating subject in a global forum such as the GA list.
>
> --Joop

Disagree here. That "global forum," in particular, might well be reminded
that whatever business it does in/with the U. S., and with entities such as
ICANN (a California corporation) and Verisign, register.com, etc., etc.,
has to be done in accordance with U. S. law.  Not fair? How'd the U.S.
get to be the big mokus here? Well, that's history -- it's now a fact and
the world has to live with it, until all this business gets placed under an
international treaty having specific "choice of law" terms.

If the GA wants to do something constructive, it might well set up a
group to draft an international treaty then to be floated out. Those
from other countries who tune in on all this blather might well have
a special interest in pursuing that track quite vigorously.

Bill Lovell

- --

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 11:56:32 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: RE: [ga] Final Review Task Force Report

At 09:21 AM 12/3/2001 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>|> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 8:36 AM
>|>
>|> The final report of the Review Task Force has been posted
>|> with new amendments
>|> by Phil Sheppard which grant even more powers to Council
>|> Task Forces at the
>|> expense of Working Groups:
>|> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00464.html
>|>
>|> This is an ongoing attack against this Assembly's full
>|> participation in the
>|> DNSO process.  As usual, the positions of both the GA and
>|> the NCDNHC were
>|> cited and then disregarded.
>|>
>|> At this time, I would advocate having the GA withdraw from
>|> all Council
>|> activities until the working group process is respected.  I
>|> request the views
>|> of the membership.
>
>If one were going to try and make an impact, I think that this is exactly
>the wrong approach. Withdrawing activity only let's the opponent work
>unmolested and out of oversight. They can later claim that we never
>participated and the withdrawal was tacit agreement to whatever actions are
>being taken.
>
>Danny, the past few weeks have made me disappointed in many things. The
>prime focus of the GA should be to bring itself forward. What you are doing
>here is pounding on the blockhouse door, with your head. Everyone knows that
>blockhouses only respond to cannons. You're only giving yourself a headache.
>
>Proper escalation requires successive steps via;
>DNSO/GA -> DNSO/NC -> ICANN/BoD -> USG/DOC -> USG/Congress.
>At each step, relevent issues need to be surfaced, for that step, and as
>that step's non-responsiveness is documented, issues are prepared for the
>next step. One of the current problems are that the last two steps are
>somewhat preoccupied with the current shooting-war. Therefore, issues have
>to be refined that are relevent to the context of the current focus of those
>steps.
>
>Various moptions, pleas, and other arguments have been presented to both the
>DNSO/NC and the ICANN/BoD. Thus far, there has been minimal response and
>even that has been in the wrong direction. It is time to prepare arguments
>with the US Department of Commerce, whilst at the same time, trying to get a
>Congress-critter involved.
>--
>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

I agree with Roeland.

So far, my participation has enabled us to prove the List Monitor Position 
was used to censor specific individuals, especially during critical 
times.  If I had not agreed to work with the Monitors we would not know 
this nor would we know that the WatchDog committee, who is supposed to 
protect us from impersonators actually supports them.  We certainly would 
not have evidence from 04/23/2001 when Kent Crispin received a warning from 
Harald Alvestrand for impersonating Jeff Williams 
online.  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01133.html

WatchDog committee members:

          o Roberto Gaetano (List Monitor)
          o Harald Alvestrand (List Monitor)
         o Kent Crispin
         o Dany Vandromme
         o Alexander Svensson (List Monitor)
         o Izumi Aizu

;)

~k

- --
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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:58:21 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Final Review Task Force Report

Roeland,

At MdR I asked quite a few different Board members whether they had discussed 
the GA vote on restructuring the DNSO.  They all replied "No".  The GA is 
simply not on their radar scope, and to the same degree that they don't want 
a Board that includes nine Karls and Andys, they don't want the troublesome 
participation of the GA.

ICANN remains an organization that only gives lip-service to bottom-up 
participation, and as long as they can continue to state "whereas public 
comments were solicited", while ignoring every pertinent public comment that 
was tendered, we are going nowhere fast with this continued farce of 
participating in these task forces.  

Our full participatory rights are being denied to us.  If we don't fight for 
our rights with every means of protest available to us, the Council will not 
only continue to treat us like niggers, they will do all within their power 
to make sure that our voices are never heard.  Ask Joanna if she can 
successfully post to the Council list any longer...

You indicate that a cannon is necessary... what do you propose?
- --
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 #899
************************