Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #921
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, December 12 2001         Volume 01 : Number 921

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:55:41 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 2:39 AM

|> With the TM "sex.shop" for tanning oil (LoL) he wanted to 
|> reverse hijack my domain name registered with new.net (I got 
|> some threats via e-mail and phone).
|> http://www.new.net/search_whois.tp?domain=sex&tld=shop
|> 
|> But as long as I don't sell tanning oil on www.sex.shop 
|> (LoL) I won't lose my domain. ;-)

This is getting to be a royal PITA! www.sex.shop doesn't resolve here.

|> What should this analogy tell you?
|> Don't waste your money at the TM office. ;-)

It's not an analogy, it's a case study <g>. The fragmentation, started by
the ICANN created colliders, is getting to be inconvenient. Rather than
mediating and negotiating TLDs, ICANN is stubbornly declaring it's own TLDs,
not caring what happens to the rest of the Internet or the fallout from
those decisions.

The thing is, the USPTO changed their minds, wrt trademarking domain names,
about 6 months after a legal mechanism was developed and proposed, to
protect TLDs regardless of root zone. I still don't agree with the ruling. I
think that it was a serious mistake, by US DOC. IMHO, it was done
specifically to remove legal protections from, at that time, non-US DOC
TLDs. One of the major reasons that it was a mistake is that the sword is
double-edged. It means that US DOC TLDs have no such protections either. I
also can't imagine WIPO (as much as I dislike them) having gone along with
this as quietly as they have. The whole thing smells of rank stupidity,
rather than malevolence. Whomever came up with that ruling, did so for
reasons having nothing to do with business, internet or otherwise.

In the long run, what's going to do us all in, is the fact that we can't
protect our business.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:29:19 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Get a friggen life, Danny.

Wednesday, Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 9:52:33 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> In a closed-door session of the Board:

> "I don't want a bunch of net.kooks like Karl and Andy spewing their garbage 
> and sullying our credibility."  "Agreed.  We can't have Andy on any 
> committee, even as an observer, because he might embarrass us with his 
> comments about our procedural bullshit."  "But how will we deal with the fact 
> that only Karl, Andy and Vint have expressed any interest in participating on 
> this committee?"  "Perhaps we can use some procedural bullshit to deny Karl 
> and Andy the opportunity to join, then we can stack the committee with those 
> that have absolutely no interest in participating".  "Better yet, those of us 
> that aren't interested and aren't willing to work can hold a vote that will 
> determine that as a group we have decided not to send any interested 
> observers to the committee".

> "Question� I know that everyone in this room understands Vint's position on 
> inter-galactic transfers, but shouldn't he at least state his position during 
> an election?"  "Don't be ridiculous, this is only a beauty contest� why 
> should those of us that don't care ask any candidate to actually state his 
> position?"  "We all know that we don't want Karl and Andy to be on the 
> Committee� that's the only thing that matters, so let's just ask the Chair to 
> come up with a procedural way to make sure that they aren't included."  
> "Sounds good to me.  Do we a second?"  "Seconded."  "The motion is passed.  
> Next order of business� dealing with those troublemakers in the GA� if only 
> they could start acting like responsible members of the Board�"

> --
> 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

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:29:42 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

Wednesday, Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 10:55:41 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

|>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|>> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 2:39 AM

|>> With the TM "sex.shop" for tanning oil (LoL) he wanted to 
|>> reverse hijack my domain name registered with new.net (I got 
|>> some threats via e-mail and phone).
|>> http://www.new.net/search_whois.tp?domain=sex&tld=shop
|>> 
|>> But as long as I don't sell tanning oil on www.sex.shop 
|>> (LoL) I won't lose my domain. ;-)

> This is getting to be a royal PITA! www.sex.shop doesn't resolve here.

My point exactly.

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:39:33 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  DNSO NC TF on Structure-Discussion paper

David Farrar wrote:  "Please note it is not a position paper of the Taskforce 
but a paper drafted by the TF Chair as a starting point."

I would ask why are we even discussing this paper if the Terms of Reference 
upon which it is predicated haven't even been voted upon by the members of 
this TF?

I would also ask to see the record of the vote taken to ratify Phil Sheppard 
as the Chair of this TF.  NC procedures state:  (3.2)  "In the case of a task 
force the NC typically chooses to ratify the election of a chair by the task 
force itself."  So far, no vote has been held of which I am aware.  Why?

If the Chair has not been ratified and the Terms of Reference have not been 
voted upon, why are we then even bothering at this point to discuss Phil's 
opinions on the At-Large?

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:45:45 +0100 (MET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

> |> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 2:39 AM
> |> With the TM 'sex.shop' for tanning oil (LoL) he wanted to 
> |> reverse hijack my domain name registered with new.net (I got 
> |> some threats via e-mail and phone).
> |> http://www.new.net/search_whois.tp?domain=sex&tld=shop
> |> 
> |> But as long as I don't sell tanning oil on www.sex.shop 
> |> (LoL) I won't lose my domain. ;-)
> This is getting to be a royal PITA! www.sex.shop doesn't resolve here.
- --> What? You use an antique ISP?
Choose an advanced one here: http://www.new.net/about_us_partners.tp
or use a plug-in. I would suggest the New.net plug-in ( http://www.new.net/download/instructions_win_ie.tp ) or the NameSlinger plug-in ( http://www.nameslinger.com/nmescket.exe ).

|> What should this analogy tell you?
> |> Don't waste your money at the TM office. ;-)
> It's not an analogy, it's a case study <g>.
- --> This point is for you.

 The fragmentation, started by
> the ICANN created colliders, is getting to be inconvenient. Rather than
> mediating and negotiating TLDs, ICANN is stubbornly declaring it's own TLDs,
> not caring what happens to the rest of the Internet or the fallout from
> those decisions.
- --> Use the Nameslinger plug-in. With it you can surf all the roots!
http://www.nameslinger.com/nmescket.exe

btw. check out nic.pro in the name.space root

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:58:22 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

WXW wrote:  "Get a friggen life, Danny"

Yes, William, I suppose I could get a life like yours, spending all evening 
long attacking "enemies" on the IDNO list so that I could make the claim that 
I have no time available to commit to the real issues which actually affect 
domain name owners.  

Unfortunately for me, I am not being paid to disrupt the well-intentioned 
efforts of others.  

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:04:26 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  DNSO NC TF on Structure-Discussion paper

How amusing to see Danny callin ga TF Chair to task for not acting
like a chair, when he himself is such a glaring example of how not to
be a chair.

Wednesday, Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 11:39:33 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> David Farrar wrote:  "Please note it is not a position paper of the Taskforce 
> but a paper drafted by the TF Chair as a starting point."

> I would ask why are we even discussing this paper if the Terms of Reference 
> upon which it is predicated haven't even been voted upon by the members of 
> this TF?

> I would also ask to see the record of the vote taken to ratify Phil Sheppard 
> as the Chair of this TF.  NC procedures state:  (3.2)  "In the case of a task 
> force the NC typically chooses to ratify the election of a chair by the task 
> force itself."  So far, no vote has been held of which I am aware.  Why?

> If the Chair has not been ratified and the Terms of Reference have not been 
> voted upon, why are we then even bothering at this point to discuss Phil's 
> opinions on the At-Large?

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

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:11:35 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Wednesday, Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 11:58:22 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> WXW wrote:  "Get a friggen life, Danny"

> Yes, William, I suppose I could get a life like yours, spending all evening 
> long attacking "enemies" on the IDNO list so that I could make the claim that 
> I have no time available to commit to the real issues which actually affect 
> domain name owners.  

> Unfortunately for me, I am not being paid to disrupt the well-intentioned 
> efforts of others.  

Neither am I.

And your slander is noted.

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:15:27 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 11:46 AM
|> 
|> > |> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> > |> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 2:39 AM
|> > |> With the TM 'sex.shop' for tanning oil (LoL) he wanted to 
|> > |> reverse hijack my domain name registered with new.net (I got 
|> > |> some threats via e-mail and phone).
|> > |> http://www.new.net/search_whois.tp?domain=sex&tld=shop
|> > |> 
|> > |> But as long as I don't sell tanning oil on www.sex.shop 
|> > |> (LoL) I won't lose my domain. ;-)
|> > This is getting to be a royal PITA! www.sex.shop doesn't 
|> resolve here.
|> --> What? You use an antique ISP?
|> Choose an advanced one here: http://www.new.net/about_us_partners.tp
|> or use a plug-in. I would suggest the New.net plug-in ( 
|> http://www.new.net/download/instructions_win_ie.tp ) or the 
|> NameSlinger plug-in ( http://www.nameslinger.com/nmescket.ex ).

Sorry, I am my own ISP. MHSC.NET and ROOT-SERVICE.NET use TLDA root zones
derived from the ORSC and  there is a SHOP TLD there that is not the same as
yours. That is the essence of the PITA. I know of four major root zone
publishers, besides ROOT-SERVICE.NET (Owned by MHSC). Do you really think
that NewNet, the new kid on the block, is the only player outside of ICANN?

|>  The fragmentation, started by
|> > the ICANN created colliders, is getting to be 
|> inconvenient. Rather than
|> > mediating and negotiating TLDs, ICANN is stubbornly 
|> declaring it's own TLDs,
|> > not caring what happens to the rest of the Internet or the 
|> fallout from
|> > those decisions.
|> --> Use the Nameslinger plug-in. With it you can surf all the roots!
|> http://www.nameslinger.com/nmescket.ex

Sorry, in this day and age of virii and trojans, I don't run executables
that I don't know. All executables at MHSC is either compiled from sources,
comes in as a CDROM, or is updated from a recognised vendor site, where we
have a service agreement for a purchased product. Besides, it won't run on
my Linux servers anyway. I also make it a practice to not encourage
single-platform solutions. That is, until Bill Gates starts sending some
cash my way<g>.

- --
R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
http://www.mhsc.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:16:39 +0100
From: "Jeanette Hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

On 12 Dec 2001, at 12:52, [email-masked] wrote:

I find it somewhat misleading to compare the role of Karl and Andy with that of Jeff and 
Erik. In fact, the lack of a common understanding of the difference between political 
nonsense and political diversity leads to so much noise on this list. 

jeanette

> In a closed-door session of the Board:
> 
> "I don't want a bunch of net.kooks like Karl and Andy spewing their garbage 
> and sullying our credibility."  "Agreed.  We can't have Andy on any 
> committee, even as an observer, because he might embarrass us with his 
> comments about our procedural bullshit."  "But how will we deal with the fact 
> that only Karl, Andy and Vint have expressed any interest in participating on 
> this committee?"  "Perhaps we can use some procedural bullshit to deny Karl 
> and Andy the opportunity to join, then we can stack the committee with those 
> that have absolutely no interest in participating".  "Better yet, those of us 
> that aren't interested and aren't willing to work can hold a vote that will 
> determine that as a group we have decided not to send any interested 
> observers to the committee".
> 
> "Question… I know that everyone in this room understands Vint's position on 
> inter-galactic transfers, but shouldn't he at least state his position during 
> an election?"  "Don't be ridiculous, this is only a beauty contest… why 
> should those of us that don't care ask any candidate to actually state his 
> position?"  "We all know that we don't want Karl and Andy to be on the 
> Committee… that's the only thing that matters, so let's just ask the Chair to 
> come up with a procedural way to make sure that they aren't included."  
> "Sounds good to me.  Do we a second?"  "Seconded."  "The motion is passed.  
> Next order of business… dealing with those troublemakers in the GA… if only 
> they could start acting like responsible members of the Board…"
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:24:31 +0100 (MET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

> Wednesday, Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 10:55:41 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> |>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |>> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 2:39 AM
> |>> With the TM 'sex.shop' for tanning oil (LoL) he wanted to 
> |>> reverse hijack my domain name registered with new.net (I got 
> |>> some threats via e-mail and phone).
> |>> http://www.new.net/search_whois.tp?domain=sex&tld=shop
> |>> 
> |>> But as long as I don't sell tanning oil on www.sex.shop 
> |>> (LoL) I won't lose my domain. ;-)
> > This is getting to be a royal PITA! www.sex.shop doesn't resolve here.
> My point exactly.
- --> To prevent this, make sure your Domain resolves in all roots.
In the 'alt roots' I saved all the law.pro, med.pro and cpa.pro domains. Therfore the dotPRO namespace could be THE ONLY namespace where every single domain name could belong to the same registrant!
A registrant of a dotPRO domain name from RegistryPro could get the identical domain name from me.

This would give this registrant visitors from the PacificRoot, The Universal Registry and from the name.space root in addition. --> 100% visibility

http://root-dns.org/VueDig/VueDig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=pro

cheers,
simon

http://nic.pro.xs2.net

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:39:20 +0100 (MET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

> |> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 11:46 AM
> |> 
> |> > |> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> > |> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 2:39 AM
> |> > |> With the TM 'sex.shop' for tanning oil (LoL) he wanted to 
> |> > |> reverse hijack my domain name registered with new.net (I got 
> |> > |> some threats via e-mail and phone).
> |> > |> http://www.new.net/search_whois.tp?domain=sex&tld=shop
> |> > |> 
> |> > |> But as long as I don't sell tanning oil on www.sex.shop 
> |> > |> (LoL) I won't lose my domain. ;-)
> |> > This is getting to be a royal PITA! www.sex.shop doesn't 
> |> resolve here.
> |> --> What? You use an antique ISP?
> |> Choose an advanced one here: http://www.new.net/about_us_partners.tp
> |> or use a plug-in. I would suggest the New.net plug-in ( 
> |> http://www.new.net/download/instructions_win_ie.tp ) or the 
> |> NameSlinger plug-in ( http://www.nameslinger.com/nmescket.ex ).
> Sorry, I am my own ISP. MHSC.NET and ROOT-SERVICE.NET use TLDA root zones
- --> Congratulation for beeing your own ISP.

> derived from the ORSC and  there is a SHOP TLD there that is not the same as
> yours. That is the essence of the PITA. I know of four major root zone
> publishers, besides ROOT-SERVICE.NET (Owned by MHSC). Do you really think
> that NewNet, the new kid on the block, is the only player outside of ICANN?
- --> I know: http://root-dns.org/VueDig/VueDig_tld.php?tld=shop&record=NS&submit=VueDig
If you are realistic New.net is the only player outside of ICANN who could challenge them.

> |>  The fragmentation, started by
> |> > the ICANN created colliders, is getting to be 
> |> inconvenient. Rather than
> |> > mediating and negotiating TLDs, ICANN is stubbornly 
> |> declaring it's own TLDs,
> |> > not caring what happens to the rest of the Internet or the 
> |> fallout from
> |> > those decisions.
> |> --> Use the Nameslinger plug-in. With it you can surf all the roots!
> |> http://www.nameslinger.com/nmescket.ex
> Sorry, in this day and age of virii and trojans, I don't run executables
> that I don't know. All executables at MHSC is either compiled from sources,
> comes in as a CDROM, or is updated from a recognised vendor site, where we
> have a service agreement for a purchased product. Besides, it won't run on
> my Linux servers anyway. I also make it a practice to not encourage
> single-platform solutions. That is, until Bill Gates starts sending some
> cash my way<g>.
- --> I can fully understand that.
Btw. if you would run only one windows pc you could download the NameSlinger plug-in here: http://www.nameslinger.com/dnsupgrade.html. But I think you would rather download it from pacificroot: http://www.pacificroot.com/updatedns.shtml 
It's the same plug-in.

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:49:24 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> In a closed-door session of the Board:
>
> "I don't want a bunch of net.kooks like Karl and Andy spewing their garbage
> and sullying our credibility."

Are you claiming this happened, or just speculating? If the former, how do
you know? If the latter, what does it matter? I have some rather similar
speculations in my more cynical moments, but I'm not silly enough to think
they're important.
 
> ... "Perhaps we can use some procedural bullshit to deny Karl
> and Andy the opportunity to join, then ...
> 
> ... "We all know that we don't want Karl and Andy to be on the
> Committee… that's the only thing that matters, so let's just ask the Chair to
> come up with a procedural way to make sure that they aren't included."

It isn't entirely clear, but what I think you're doing here is trying to
make an analogy between imagined board misuse of procedures and equally
imaginary misuse of procedures here. If so, the analogy fails in two ways.

First, it is silly to complain about imaginary board scheming when there
are real and obvious examples like the extension of terms for directors
who were supposed to be 'interim', and all the other attempts attempt to
weasel out of the commitment to have half the board openly elected.

Second, the people playing silly games on this list are the ones trying
to change the election procedures in mid-stream and introduce the notion
that runners up become observers, not the ones trying to just have a
normal election of a representative.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:46:14 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

On 2001-12-12 12:52:33 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

[Creative Writing exercise deleted.]

Why don't you just ask the Secretariat to implement, for instance, 
Jon Weinberg's proposal which would give the members of this GA an 
actual choice about whom to send and whom not to send to the task 
force?

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:01:58 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Wednesday, Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 12:49:24 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:

> [email-masked] wrote:
>> 
>> In a closed-door session of the Board:
>>
>> "I don't want a bunch of net.kooks like Karl and Andy spewing their garbage
>> and sullying our credibility."

> Are you claiming this happened, or just speculating? If the former, how do
> you know? If the latter, what does it matter? I have some rather similar
> speculations in my more cynical moments, but I'm not silly enough to think
> they're important.

It never happened, it is just one of Danny's fictions.

Like his leadership ability.

> Second, the people playing silly games on this list are the ones trying
> to change the election procedures in mid-stream and introduce the notion
> that runners up become observers, not the ones trying to just have a
> normal election of a representative.

Yep, but that isn't the point.  Danny wants the kooks appointed, so
that the NC can (RIGHTFULLY) refuse to seat them and then he can use
that in his little campaign against them which has interfered with his
responsibility to the GA during his term.

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:06:00 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Wednesday, Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 12:46:14 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2001-12-12 12:52:33 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

> [Creative Writing exercise deleted.]

> Why don't you just ask the Secretariat to implement, for instance, 
> Jon Weinberg's proposal which would give the members of this GA an 
> actual choice about whom to send and whom not to send to the task 
> force?

Because that wouldn't give him the result he wants which he thinks he
can use in his little anti-DNSO campaign.

It's all about his agenda, has been from day one of his term.  You
people are just now seeing clearly what I have been warning you all
about for months.

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:24:08 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

FYI: WXW - your  WXW...info domain is no good - mail keeps bouncing. 
You registered your domain with the collider version of .INFO.

FYI, Name.Space has the only legitimate version of .INFO. You will
need to register your domain there.

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:38:14 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

BTW, your quoting mechanism sux. Please use something besides vi, as a
mailreader.

|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 12:39 PM
|> 
|> Btw. if you would run only one windows pc you could 
|> download the NameSlinger plug-in here: 
|> http://www.nameslinger.com/dnsupgrade.html. But I 
|> think you would rather download it from pacificroot: 
|> http://www.pacificroot.com/updatedns.shtml 
|> It's the same plug-in.

And how does this help MHSC, or its clients, resolve internal TLDs? We have
many of them, for internal security purposes. That is the problem with the
whole concept of these plug-ins. They assume that internal LAN and external
internet are the same thing. Many workstations, in business environments,
resolve internal roots and only get out via proxy servers. These plug-ins
actually create security holes. The same ones created by referencing the DOC
legacy root servers directly. This is why these business have their own
internal roots, behind firewalls and on internal LANs, in a fully
distributed architecture, in the first place. The demarc-point is the
external firewall. Many (all telcos) even have layers of internal firewalls,
like an onion. For references, see Jefsey's latest messages. He's got it
right. Some of them even use RFC1918 addresses, internally.

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:45:11 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

Wednesday, Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 1:24:08 PM, John Palmer wrote:

> FYI: WXW - your  WXW...info domain is no good - mail keeps bouncing. 
> You registered your domain with the collider version of .INFO.

> FYI, Name.Space has the only legitimate version of .INFO. You will
> need to register your domain there.

Yeah, right  :)

Dream on.  Your little fraction of a percent of the internet can't see
my domain, oh well.  The rest of the world can, and that's what
matters.

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:44:39 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  DNSO NC TF on Structure-Discussion paper

On 21:04 12/12/01, William X Walsh said:
>How amusing to see Danny callin ga TF Chair to task for not acting
>like a chair, when he himself is such a glaring example of how not to
>be a chair.

depends on what you want: to amuse yourself or to get an honnest result? 
IMHO you are right and Danny is wrong, not for what he does, but because 
the game is so biased .... some have lost touch with IH (intellectual 
honnesty) for so long.... but what puzzles me is ... what do the get in return?

You, me, Danny we oppose but we try honnestly our best for what we believe 
is the common interest (look how much the GA costed to Danny's family). And 
we check we are right with our oneself in checking we do not cheat.

I just wander how much Philip and Marilyn families paid for them to go to 
Stockholm, Montevideo and MdR. We all know how much Danny paid. WXW, please 
fight Danny all you want, but let us praise Mrs. 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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:49:42 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

Rather than the coordinating body, that was envisioned in 1998, the DNSO has
become a propaganda machine. The ICANN was supposed to achieve broad
consensus via mediation. The DNSO was supposed to be one of the main
mechanisms and the GA, specifically added to the ICANN bylaws by the DOC MoU
negotiations, was supposed to be the main mediation channel.

Dishonesty and corruption have broken down those mechanisms to the point of
abject failure.

The fragmentation has started. ICANN deliberatly created those colliders,
against all recommendations from DNSO/WG-C. This sent a clear signal to the
other root zone publishers that collisions are okay. Well, they aren't and
the ICANN, in its stubborn arrogance, refuses to admit that.

That doesn't look like negotiation, mediation, and consensus to me. It looks
more like stupid authoritarianism.

|> From: John Palmer [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 1:24 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?
|> 
|> 
|> FYI: WXW - your  WXW...info domain is no good - mail keeps bouncing. 
|> You registered your domain with the collider version of .INFO.
|> 
|> FYI, Name.Space has the only legitimate version of .INFO. You will
|> need to register your domain there.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:22:54 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ad homina

I must express my real regrets about the situation which currently develops 
at the GA. Most of the posts are considering as an accepted matter that 
Members may be personnally criticized and investigated. Until now that kind 
of situation never happened. Even in the case of Mr. Walsh or Mr. Younger.

I therefore want to indicate my full and total solidarity with Mr. Jeff 
Williams and Mr. Eric Dieker. I am not at this stage interested in any of 
the particulars. I am only interested in the shame of our disciminatory 
attitudes. I will consider that everything said against any of them only 
because they are them will be said against me. Any one willing to join is 
welcome: I think it is the only way to stop this.

I also want to tell my concern at the international lack of maturity this 
represents in the case of Mr. Jeff Williams. I do not want again to enter 
in any detail about what is represented against Mr. Williams. It may be 
conceived as an offence by some US people due to the US legal culture. But 
it his is a perfect right under the Habeas Corpus and his acknowldged right 
under most of the free speach and civil rights in most of the countries 
including mine. Teasing is something, hurting ad hominem is not acceptable.

I am in no way to juge the reasons of any action of my fellow members, but 
I could not let this continue. We are not the BoD.
Jefsey Morfin

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:03:20 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

Wednesday, Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 1:49:42 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> The fragmentation has started. ICANN deliberatly created those colliders,

Come on, end the comedy.

The "fragmentation" as you call it effects less than a fraction of a
percent of internet users.  The ones who have deliberately created
this situation are those operating outside the system.

It's an insignificant issue anyway.  I'm not particularly bothered
that John Palmer has difficulty resolving my domain name  :)

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:29:31 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 1:45 PM
|> 
|> Wednesday, Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 1:24:08 PM, John 
|> Palmer wrote:
|> 
|> > FYI: WXW - your  WXW...info domain is no good - mail keeps 
|> bouncing. 
|> > You registered your domain with the collider version of .INFO.
|> 
|> > FYI, Name.Space has the only legitimate version of .INFO. You will
|> > need to register your domain there.
|> 
|> Yeah, right  :)
|> 
|> Dream on.  Your little fraction of a percent of the internet 
|> can't see
|> my domain, oh well.  The rest of the world can, and that's what
|> matters.

William, you know that this arrogant gloating isn't right. We've had our
disagreements, but I've always respected your moral integrity. Whatever it
is you believe in, you do believe in it. This is more than many ICANN
members can claim. 

The market-share is what it is and can change any time. A single fraction
may be inconsequential, but many single fractions add up quickly. This is
the single reason that random fragmentation isn't good, at any level. Those
of us building distributed networks realize this. It complicates external
references immeasurably. A single source of external data, is a good thing.
Multiple sources quickly become nightmarish. Where the ICANN fallacy lies is
that a single source, for both internal and external reference, is both
overly simplistic and a security problem.

Granted, most of us that know this, haven't been particularly good at
articulating it. But, it is difficult developing the theory whilst being
beaten about the head by demogogues and even more difficult to articulate it
whilst trying to overcome the shouting, by those selfsame demogogues.

These forums are populated more with folks putsching a politcal agenda than
trying to solve a problem. As a direct result, we can't even get the problem
stated correctly.
- --
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 #921
************************