Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #910
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, December 7 2001           Volume 01 : Number 910

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

Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 16:40:53 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl soldiers on

Joop and all assembly members,

  But than again there is this: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02874.html

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> [Forwarded from Dave Farber's IP list; I invite ICANN representatives to
> reply. Background on Karl's relationship with ICANN (and campaign for a
> board seat last year:
> http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=Auerbach --Declan]
>
> >Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:52:32 -0800 (PST)
> >From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
> >To: David Farber <[email-masked]>
> >
> >Here's more on my now year-long quest to inspect ICANN's records:
> >
> >A Director of virtually any corporation in the US has several rights and
> >obligations.
> >
> >The obligation side of the equation is very strong - it's called a
> >"fiduciary" duty, which is one of most stringent obligations that our
> >legal system can impose on a person.  As part of that duty, a Director is
> >compelled to exercise his or her *independent* judgement.  The ability of
> >a Director to elect to rely upon the judgement of others is very tightly
> >circumscribed.
> >
> >As a Director I could be personally liable for corporate misdeeds.  There
> >are laws that protect some directors, but they are largely really not much
> >more than rice-paper walls that may easily be pierced.
> >
> >In other words, there are big Swords of Damocleas that hang above
> >Directors.
> >
> >The legal system recognizes that it is useless to impose responsibility on
> >Directors without also giving them, each of them individually, the powers
> >to become informed so that they may make informed judgements. To that end
> >the law gives Directors strong powers to inquire into every aspect of a
> >corporation's operations.
> >
> >Under the California corporations code that governs
> >non-profit/public-benefit corporations (such as ICANN) those rights are
> >"absolute":
> >
> >         6334.  Every director shall have the absolute right at any
> >         reasonable time to inspect and copy all books, records and documents
> >         of every kind and to inspect the physical properties of the
> >         corporation of which such person is a director.
> >
> >It's not often that a legislature underscores that a right is "absolute".
> >;-)
> >
> >This right to inspect and copy not a collective power that may be
> >exercised only by the board acting in concert.  Rather it is a distinct
> >power that exists in each and every Director - it may be exercised upon
> >the independent discretion of each Director.
> >
> >And a Director is not required to indicate to corporate management the
> >purpose of his or her inspection or what he or she is looking for.
> >
> >I have asked to inspect ICANN's financial records along with several other
> >documents (such as the employee handbook and proprietary rights
> >agreements, if any, that govern employee conduct).  I have also asked to
> >review the billing statements and conflict waiver requests from those who
> >render professional services to ICANN - that's a natural part of my role
> >on ICANN's "conflicts" committee, but it is a request that I could make
> >even were I not on the conflicts committee.
> >
> >In my experience as a Director of various corporations, inspection of the
> >corporate financial records is a good way to inquire as to the efficiency
> >and behavior of corporate management.  In most corporations, requests such
> >as mine are quickly and fully answered by management without stonewalling,
> >without demands for restrictive covenants that would force a Director to
> >surrender his or her rights of independent judgement, and without
> >statements from management that more than implicitly assert that the
> >Director has some nefarious purpose.
> >
> >One must remember that those fiduciary obligations that I mentioned impose
> >upon a Director an obligation of loyalty to the corporation.  That
> >obligation generally requires that a Director keep confidential that
> >corporate information that is, in-fact, confidential.  However, the
> >Director is not compelled to blindly and unthinkingly accept any
> >self-serving labels of confidentiality that corporate management may chose
> >to apply.
> >
> >I made my initial request to inspect the financial records - in particular
> >the general ledger - more than a year ago.  Despite repeated efforts and
> >requests, I still have not been allowed to see those records.
> >
> >Oh, ICANN's management will say that they have afforded an opportunity;
> >that I merely need to sign away my duty of independent judgement, that I
> >merely need to allow corporate management to bind me in advance in how I
> >may review the activities of that very same management; that I allow
> >management to set conditions on the inspection that are so limiting that
> >they would render any such inspection marginal and superficial.
> >
> >To sign these agreements would be to abandon my Director's obligations of
> >independent judgement - I would be agreeing to allow my decisions to be
> >controled by ICANN's management - by exactly the same people whose actions
> >I am obligated to review.
> >
> >To add insult to injury the "agreements" that ICANN has demanded that I
> >sign are cast in the most condescending of language and contain unfounded
> >assertions against my personal integrity.
> >
> >All of this has occurred for the most part outside of the public eye.
> >And even if I do gain access to corporate records the information that I
> >review will almost certainly remain inaccessible to the public - My
> >obligation of loyalty to the corporation demands that I use the
> >information only to improve the corporation and it is unlikely that
> >disclosure would further that obligation.  But one can not agree in
> >advance, as ICANN's management is demanding, that disclosure may never
> >occur.  For example: In the unlikely event that I were to discover
> >information that must be disclosed - such as evidence of criminal activity
> >- then, of course, my duties would be affected accordingly.
> >
> >ICANN's management has demonstrated over the course of the last year that
> >it has an institutional hostility and an intent to preventing me from
> >carrying out my duties as a Director of the Corporation.
> >
> >My recourse is to either abandon my obligations as a Director or to
> >initiate such steps outside of the corporate boundaries as are consistent
> >with my obligation of loyalty to the corporation.
> >
> >Such steps cost money, potentially lots of money.
> >
> >                 --karl--
>
> --Joop
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 16:51:56 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

Eric and all assembly members,

  You have nicely and simply outlined why the current version of the
UDRP needs to be re-written and than approved by vote of ALL
of the Stakeholders and/or Stakeholder/users.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Is not the real problem the age old problem of money?
>
> If a "defendant" has the money to take the matter to court then he has a fair
> shot.
>
> If not then he probably does not stand a chance in the UDRP either.
>
> Ergo the group that allows for easier methodology and simplistic filings in the
> UDRP is going to favor the registrant who cannot afford attorneys.  The groups
> that require lawyer type filings is going to favor those who can afford them.
> (remember the ABA would prefer the later, job security)
>
> US Workers Compensation concepts were developed for this very reason, there is
> precedence.  Our more socialistic countries throughout the world are replete with
> such examples.
>
> So it goes without saying that the UDRP process must be one that favors the
> registrant.  Systems and Solutions in such matters must be worked out to favor
> the underclass.  Anything that favors the already privileged is simply power
> grabbing, and a furtherance of monopolistic tendencies on the Internet.
>
> Please review the matters during our industrial revolution.  You do not pass
> rules to protect the rich and powerful you produce rules to protect those that
> need protection.
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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, 06 Dec 2001 20:15:05 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Errors

I have committed some errors.

unsubscribing - See Robertos post.

Trusting ICANN manipulators - see my post to the ALSC forum.

Suggesting I represent anyone but myself - See Jefsey's posts.

Direct Cross-posting - nothing is to be gained by it, stick to a
subject, make positions not counter-positions.

And so;

I volunteer for the worst two jobs available:

Watchdog - No games and no exceptions, here I will nail "dogs" trying to
cheat.

Abuse group - yes I will enforce it but lean toward any appeal and
request for liberality.  I will use good manners to ask first and then
enforce although I do not think that will be necessary.

Yes I can also handle any TFs necessary.

G** , Help us but someone must make it work.

- --
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, 06 Dec 2001 20:21:41 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] Update on Process

I do not want anyone to think for a minute that my criticism of our BS extends
to cavebear.

Yes I sometimes am critical of him because I want him to act outrageously.
But he maintains a high ground that we should all aspire to.

Just as it is with Danny, I sometimes take my shoe off and pound it on the
table, but I fully support both of these fine gentlemen.  We all owe them.

e

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > It would appear that the ALSC has devolved into a CEO/Staff function.
>
> > So I ask Karl whether this is appropriate corporate conduct?
>
> The ALSC report's contents were *not* adopted in Los Angeles last month.
> We merely accepted the document - with "accepted" being merely an
> acknowldegement of receipt of the document, not an endorsement of its
> contents.
>
> Given the mess of the procedures of the last election, it seems sensible
> to allow ICANN's staff to start figuring out how such an election will be
> held.  (Most of the debate on the ALSC report has not been on the election
> process but rather on other items.)
>
> This preparatory activity of the staff is limited - they must be "mindful"
> of the report's contents.  This means that they must act with awareness of
> the fact that the at-large as deployed may be very much different than
> what is in the ALSC report.
>
> ICANN's staff is going to have to do a balancing act between preparation
> and the fact that if they go too far some of their work may have to be
> undone.  There will almost certainly be some wasted effort and wasted
> effort - the trick will be to minimize that.
>
> I am fearful that there could develop a situation in which ICANN's staff
> implements their own view of an at-large and ends up creating a situation
> that I called "creeping fait accompli" - that of an increasing feeling
> that ICANN can not adopt any other approach because of the waste of money
> that would be involved by discarding what staff had done.
>
>                 --karl--

- --
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, 07 Dec 2001 02:28:58 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] Update on Process

Eric and all stakeholders or interested parties,

 Here Here for Karl!  >;)  And although Eric didn't mention him,
Here for Andy M.M.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I do not want anyone to think for a minute that my criticism of our BS extends
> to cavebear.
>
> Yes I sometimes am critical of him because I want him to act outrageously.
> But he maintains a high ground that we should all aspire to.
>
> Just as it is with Danny, I sometimes take my shoe off and pound it on the
> table, but I fully support both of these fine gentlemen.  We all owe them.
>
> e
>
> Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > It would appear that the ALSC has devolved into a CEO/Staff function.
> >
> > > So I ask Karl whether this is appropriate corporate conduct?
> >
> > The ALSC report's contents were *not* adopted in Los Angeles last month.
> > We merely accepted the document - with "accepted" being merely an
> > acknowldegement of receipt of the document, not an endorsement of its
> > contents.
> >
> > Given the mess of the procedures of the last election, it seems sensible
> > to allow ICANN's staff to start figuring out how such an election will be
> > held.  (Most of the debate on the ALSC report has not been on the election
> > process but rather on other items.)
> >
> > This preparatory activity of the staff is limited - they must be "mindful"
> > of the report's contents.  This means that they must act with awareness of
> > the fact that the at-large as deployed may be very much different than
> > what is in the ALSC report.
> >
> > ICANN's staff is going to have to do a balancing act between preparation
> > and the fact that if they go too far some of their work may have to be
> > undone.  There will almost certainly be some wasted effort and wasted
> > effort - the trick will be to minimize that.
> >
> > I am fearful that there could develop a situation in which ICANN's staff
> > implements their own view of an at-large and ends up creating a situation
> > that I called "creeping fait accompli" - that of an increasing feeling
> > that ICANN can not adopt any other approach because of the waste of money
> > that would be involved by discarding what staff had done.
> >
> >                 --karl--
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:44:16 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Call for nomination of candidates for election to DNSO GA Chair

  CALL FOR NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION TO THE DNSO GENERAL
ASSEMBLY CHAIR

[To: [email-masked]]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

7 December 2001

Call for nomination of candidates for election to the DNSO General Assembly
Chair
On 17th of November
     http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00403.html, the Names
     Council was asked by the GA Chair to manage an election process to
     select a nominee for appointment by the NC to the position of GA Chair.

III. The Secretariat determined with the DNSO GA Chair, and with Philip
     Sheppard, NC Chair, that the 2002 election will take place between 23
     November 2001 and 14 January 2002 with the following agenda:
        o Friday,   23 Nov - Reminder about voting roster, two weeks to
          register
        o Friday,   07 Dec - Call for nominations issued, two weeks to
          nominate
        o Friday,   21 Dec - Call for endorsements issued, two weeks to
          endorse
        o Friday,   04 Jan - List of candidates closes
        o Saturday, 05 Jan - Vote of the GA voting registry initiated, one
          week to vote
        o Saturday, 12 Jan - Vote of the GA voting registry closes
        o Monday,   14 Jan - Results calculated
        o Thursday, 17 Jan - NC elects the Chair and Alternate from the
          candidates ranked by the GA vote

The nomination period is:
    open  Friday 07 December 2001, 17:00 CET (Paris time), 16:00 UTC
    close Friday 21 December 2001, 17:00 CET (Paris time), 16:00 UTC
The acceptance period close on Friday  21 December 2001 at 20:00 UTC (21:00
CET Paris time)
(For local time in other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

Nominations must be sent by e-mail to [email-masked].
Please use a Template for nomination:

   1a. Full name of the nominee:
   1b. E-mail address of the nominee:
   2a. Full name of the nominator:
   2b. E-mail address of the nominator:
   2c. Type of GA membership:
       (GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber,
        GA-voting registry, Working Group subscriber,
        or DNSO Constituency member)

Acceptances must be sent by e-mail to [email-masked].
Please use a Template for acceptance:

   1a. Full name of the nominee:
   1b. E-mail address of the nominee:
   1c. Background information about the nominee:
   1d. Statement of the nominee's objectives
       in the role as GA Chair:
       (including his or her views of the role
       of the GA and its relationship with the
       Names Council and DNSO Constituencies)

Each nominee will be requested to give an acceptance statement to the
Secretariat.

Archives of nominations and acceptances received:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc05

Please consult       http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html
for more information on the DNSO GA Chair election.

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: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 19:30:34 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for nomination of candidates for election to DNSO GA Chair

I nominate Kristy McKee

I know it is a very quick move. This is also a personal move. There is a 
lot of time I want the talents and the patience of Kristy to be 
acknowledged. I think she has shown a real capacity to handle difficult 
situations on this list, to grasp kickly new issues and possibilities, she 
has demonstrated her capacity at being a catalyst for her and other's idea 
and to support boldly her positions. From what I understand she also runs a 
business and would not much be impressed by some of the BoD/NC/Staff folks. 
This makes a lot of qualities we need in our next Chair.

Jefsey

On 16:44 07/12/01, DNSO Secretariat said:
>   CALL FOR NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION TO THE DNSO GENERAL
>ASSEMBLY CHAIR
>
>[To: [email-masked]]]
>[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
>
>7 December 2001
>
>Call for nomination of candidates for election to the DNSO General Assembly
>Chair
>On 17th of November
>      http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00403.html, the Names
>      Council was asked by the GA Chair to manage an election process to
>      select a nominee for appointment by the NC to the position of GA Chair.
>
>III. The Secretariat determined with the DNSO GA Chair, and with Philip
>      Sheppard, NC Chair, that the 2002 election will take place between 23
>      November 2001 and 14 January 2002 with the following agenda:
>         o Friday,   23 Nov - Reminder about voting roster, two weeks to
>           register
>         o Friday,   07 Dec - Call for nominations issued, two weeks to
>           nominate
>         o Friday,   21 Dec - Call for endorsements issued, two weeks to
>           endorse
>         o Friday,   04 Jan - List of candidates closes
>         o Saturday, 05 Jan - Vote of the GA voting registry initiated, one
>           week to vote
>         o Saturday, 12 Jan - Vote of the GA voting registry closes
>         o Monday,   14 Jan - Results calculated
>         o Thursday, 17 Jan - NC elects the Chair and Alternate from the
>           candidates ranked by the GA vote
>
>The nomination period is:
>     open  Friday 07 December 2001, 17:00 CET (Paris time), 16:00 UTC
>     close Friday 21 December 2001, 17:00 CET (Paris time), 16:00 UTC
>The acceptance period close on Friday  21 December 2001 at 20:00 UTC (21:00
>CET Paris time)
>(For local time in other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)
>
>Nominations must be sent by e-mail to [email-masked].
>Please use a Template for nomination:
>
>    1a. Full name of the nominee:
>    1b. E-mail address of the nominee:
>    2a. Full name of the nominator:
>    2b. E-mail address of the nominator:
>    2c. Type of GA membership:
>        (GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber,
>         GA-voting registry, Working Group subscriber,
>         or DNSO Constituency member)
>
>Acceptances must be sent by e-mail to [email-masked].
>Please use a Template for acceptance:
>
>    1a. Full name of the nominee:
>    1b. E-mail address of the nominee:
>    1c. Background information about the nominee:
>    1d. Statement of the nominee's objectives
>        in the role as GA Chair:
>        (including his or her views of the role
>        of the GA and its relationship with the
>        Names Council and DNSO Constituencies)
>
>Each nominee will be requested to give an acceptance statement to the
>Secretariat.
>
>Archives of nominations and acceptances received:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc05
>
>
>Please consult       http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html
>for more information on the DNSO GA Chair election.
>
>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

- --
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, 7 Dec 2001 15:21:38 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Transfers & WHOIS

The transfers task force is discussing expanding their membership to include 
one or more additional non-voting participants.  Should such a decision be 
reached, it would be logical to have the runner-ups in our election serve in 
such a capacity.  The gTLDs have requested one TF rep and two additional 
participants, and our GA rep will need to cast a vote on how many 
participants will ultimately be allowed entry into this TF.    So far I have 
recorded interest on the part of three of our members:  Jeff Williams, Thomas 
Roessler, and Eric Dierker.  If I have missed anyone, or if others would like 
to vie for this TF, please let me know within the next few days so that we 
can commence with this election.

On a related note, the WHOIS committee has decided that each constituency and 
the GA may name up to two observers to assist with the work of the Committee. 
 Fair warning... there is a lot of work involved, as we are reviewing 
thousands upon thousands of comments to a lengthy survey that offered 
respondents the opportunity to comment at length on a large number of 
questions.  

Assistance is needed, and I would like to be able to report back to the WHOIS 
Committee within a few days with the names of volunteers.  

- --
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, 7 Dec 2001 12:38:36 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Transfers & WHOIS

Some of us, running other root zones, are doing our own whois efforts.
Including running code. Unless these guys are going to make the code a
sourceforge project, I really don't see how they're going to have a major
impact.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 12:22 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] Transfers & WHOIS
|> 
|> 
|> The transfers task force is discussing expanding their 
|> membership to include 
|> one or more additional non-voting participants.  Should such 
|> a decision be 
|> reached, it would be logical to have the runner-ups in our 
|> election serve in 
|> such a capacity.  The gTLDs have requested one TF rep and 
|> two additional 
|> participants, and our GA rep will need to cast a vote on how many 
|> participants will ultimately be allowed entry into this TF.  
|>   So far I have 
|> recorded interest on the part of three of our members:  Jeff 
|> Williams, Thomas 
|> Roessler, and Eric Dierker.  If I have missed anyone, or if 
|> others would like 
|> to vie for this TF, please let me know within the next few 
|> days so that we 
|> can commence with this election.
|> 
|> On a related note, the WHOIS committee has decided that each 
|> constituency and 
|> the GA may name up to two observers to assist with the work 
|> of the Committee. 
|>  Fair warning... there is a lot of work involved, as we are 
|> reviewing 
|> thousands upon thousands of comments to a lengthy survey 
|> that offered 
|> respondents the opportunity to comment at length on a large 
|> number of 
|> questions.  
|> 
|> Assistance is needed, and I would like to be able to report 
|> back to the WHOIS 
|> Committee within a few days with the names of volunteers.  
|> 
|> --
|> 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, 7 Dec 2001 13:11:43 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Transfers & WHOIS

Friday, Friday, December 07, 2001, 12:38:36 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Some of us, running other root zones, are doing our own whois efforts.
> Including running code. Unless these guys are going to make the code a
> sourceforge project, I really don't see how they're going to have a major
> impact.

Probably because the alt.roots are so small in usage that they aren't
that major an area to ignore.

- -- 
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, 7 Dec 2001 13:26:39 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Transfers & WHOIS

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 1:12 PM
|> 
|> Friday, Friday, December 07, 2001, 12:38:36 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> 
|> > Some of us, running other root zones, are doing our own 
|> whois efforts.
|> > Including running code. Unless these guys are going to 
|> make the code a
|> > sourceforge project, I really don't see how they're going 
|> to have a major
|> > impact.
|> 
|> Probably because the alt.roots are so small in usage that they aren't
|> that major an area to ignore.

I was thinking more along the lines of the open source community. It isn't
just the public alt.roots (which are actually the inclusive roots, BTW),
It's the general way that the Internet works. In that regard, the ICANN is
in the same boat. This whois task force is still building a proprietary
whois. Just like the one we had before. Now an open source whoisd would more
likely have an impact.

What I'm objecting to is the closed nature of the project. It is incidental
that other root players are also interested. But, not inconsequential.
- --
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, 07 Dec 2001 23:33:16 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Transfers & WHOIS

On 22:11 07/12/01, William X Walsh said:
>Friday, Friday, December 07, 2001, 12:38:36 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > Some of us, running other root zones, are doing our own whois efforts.
> > Including running code. Unless these guys are going to make the code a
> > sourceforge project, I really don't see how they're going to have a major
> > impact.
>
>Probably because the alt.roots are so small in usage that they aren't
>that major an area to ignore.

I work on an proximity Internet project involving millions of 3/4LD 
addresses. The issue is not the level of the root (please reread RFC 1034, 
P. Mokapertis has well understood that). The issue is the right of the 
people to introduce themselves or not. We have started the QuiEst projet. 
http://quiest.net (sorry it is in French for that project). Basically 
QuiEst means WHOIS in Latin, a universal language for a universal right. 
The principle is simple: the best whois you can find is the web. So the 
ultimate idea is that quiest://domain.name give access to an opt-in 
information page.

As far as the network security is concerned the http://nic.ws solution 
works well. You can drop a mail to the DN holder through the Registry. No 
one knows who you are.

I do not want to enter into political aspects but I share now in a well 
documented doctrine on how the universal WHOIS and the methods of 
collection/sales of the personal data will probably lead to a financial 
collapse of the world and to revolutions. Some kind of a new AIDS pandemia.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #910
************************