Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #932
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, December 18 2001          Volume 01 : Number 932

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 12:54:29 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] New List

Can you forward to the GA?  Thanks.

All,

In an effort to become more open and transparent and to provide more public 
participation in the ICANN process, the gTLD registries (both sponsored and 
unsponsored) are proud to announce the creation of a new public mailing list 
to address issues specifically related to the ICANN-approved gTLD registries. 
 Archives will be posted shortly on the gTLD Website at 
http://www.gtldregistries.org/feedback.html.

In order to subscribe to the e-mail list, you need to send an e-mail to:

[email-masked] and in the main body of the e-mail type only the 
words "subscribe gtld".  Once you have subscribed to the unrestricted list, 
you can post to messages to the list by sending an e-mail to 
[email-masked].

We look forward to using this list to become more active in the ICANN process 
and to promote meaningful discussion among and between the registries on the 
issues affecting businesses, consumers, and the Internet community as a whole.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
- --
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, 17 Dec 2001 13:06:08 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NewRoot Council

Pascal and all assembly members,

  Pascal is essentially correct here.  A new or other root structure
is relevant as any other including the Legacy/USG root structure
presently.  The fact that the Legacy/USG root's are more widely used
is a potentially temporary condition.  How Temporary?  I don't
think anyone really knows.

Pascal Bernhard - cube wrote:

> Nobody needs an authority to implement a new TLD. ICANN doesn't,
> NewRoot doesn't, BORooN does neither.
>
> But if anybody is setting up visible TLDs, these should rely on solid,
> stable infrastructures. Stable infrastructures mean that the user
> should be sure to be able to run his domain, and that this domain is
> visible to the part of the world (s)he wants to address.
>
> I look at name councils, TLD authorization and the like as the wrong
> point of view. The function of a root server network is to resolve TLDs
> and not to allow or reject them.
>
> Best regards,
> Pascal
>
> On 17 Dec 2001 at 2:30, Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> > "ICANN represents that it has no authority to implement new TLDs"
> > http://www.icann.org/tlds/correspondence/esi-v-icann-13nov00.htm
> >
> > It all boils down to fairness.
> > Which list do you think is more fair ?
> > The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> > or
> > The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
> > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> >
> > Why would people pay for Address Space, when it is FREE ?
> >
> > Jim Fleming
> > http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
> > http://www.in-addr.info
> > 3:219 INFO
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Pascal Bernhard - cube" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 1:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] NewRoot Council
> >
> >
> > > Jim and all assembly members,
> > >
> > > ICANN 3? As long as TLDs will be *authorized* without any clear,
> > > logical rules, this stuff will stay a struggel between ICANN and
> > > wannabe-ICANN.
> > >
> > > There's no reason why these 7 guys are better as the ICANN BoD nor
> > > vice- versa. Furthermore, the legitimacy level is lesser than that of
> > > the ICANN.
> > >
> > > The business of providers is to provide technical or economical
> > > facilities. To *approve* or to *authorize* TLDs is nobody's business.
> > > Period.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Pascal
> > >
> > >
> > > On 16 Dec 2001 at 15:41, Jim Fleming wrote:
> > >
> > > > > http://newroot.com/council.html
> > > > >
> > > > > The NewRoot Council is charged with the approval of new TLDs. The
> > > > > Council consist of seven individuals who volunteered to assist
> > > > > NewRoot with this difficult task. The Council can be best compared
> > > > > with a Jury in a court room.
> > > > >
> > > > > The following individuals have agreed to assist NewRoot as members
> > > > > of the Council.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  1) Prof. Dr.  M.J. Matser
> > > > > 2) Prof. J.F Sinclair
> > > > > 3) Mr. M.J.P. Leenders
> > > > > 4) Mr. B.J. Schadd
> > > > > 5) Ing. P.J.S.I Scheepers
> > > > > 6) B. Thornton
> > > > > 7) B. Stegers
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jim Fleming
> > > > Why Gamble on a .BIZ Lottery? Start a Real .BIZ Today !
> > > > http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
> > > > 0:212 - BIZ World
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ================================
> > > Pascal Bernhard
> > > cube
> > > Geschäfte werden von Menschen gemacht...
> > > [email-masked]
> > > http://cube.de/
> > > http://boroon.de/
> > > FON: +49-6352-753725
> > > FAX: +49-6352-753726
> > > Mail: Im See 3 - 67295 Bolanden
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> ================================
> Pascal Bernhard
> cube
> Geschäfte werden von Menschen gemacht...
> [email-masked]
> http://cube.de/
> http://boroon.de/
> FON: +49-6352-753725
> FAX: +49-6352-753726
> Mail: Im See 3 - 67295 Bolanden
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 21:04:25 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Question for Chair Candidates

We currently have no limit in force on the number of posts per person
that can be made a day.The list rules (online at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html) allow for
the Chair or monitors to place a limit on.

My question to any Chair candidates are if they will reinstitute such
a limit and if so what limit do they have in mind.

I note some days people have made as many as 14 posts.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:11:43 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New List

Let be it!
this is the gTLDSO under way. The USgTLD @large ML.... Mr. Jeffrey J. 
Neuman, Esq. well timed it so it can have some momentum before Ganha. I 
only hope Peter de Blanc will copy soon.

Actually it would be a good thing for every constituency to open a user 
list. Most of the businesses and products do that. See you there, guys... 
Hopefully on both or more ...

I hope it will only help the GA to be more structured (here are interesting 
GA sub-lists if the constituencies know managing it). Elisabeth shown us 
she could well manage the DNSO list: ccTLD's future is in her hands.

Jefsey

On 18:54 17/12/01, [email-masked] said:
>Can you forward to the GA?  Thanks.
>All,
>In an effort to become more open and transparent and to provide more public
>participation in the ICANN process, the gTLD registries (both sponsored and
>unsponsored) are proud to announce the creation of a new public mailing list
>to address issues specifically related to the ICANN-approved gTLD registries.
>  Archives will be posted shortly on the gTLD Website at
>http://www.gtldregistries.org/feedback.html.
>
>In order to subscribe to the e-mail list, you need to send an e-mail to:
>
>[email-masked] and in the main body of the e-mail type only the
>words "subscribe gtld".  Once you have subscribed to the unrestricted list,
>you can post to messages to the list by sending an e-mail to
>[email-masked].
>
>We look forward to using this list to become more active in the ICANN process
>and to promote meaningful discussion among and between the registries on the
>issues affecting businesses, consumers, and the Internet community as a whole.
>
>Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
>Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
>--
>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: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 02:37:06 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] TR/Chair/multilingual

Elisabeth,

Please explain your nomination of TR and your Multilingual work.

He has emphasized his refusal to work with others within the GA.

Granted that those of you who see yourselves as the ruling elite may not
like us dotcommoners, but have we deteriorated to the point where it is
acceptable to be a
chair on a platform of hatred for those with opposing viewpoints?

Let me see;  You just got appointed to a "Blue Ribbon Panel" by the BoD,
You do not participate here in any meaningful way, you resigned as our
secretariat, quietly nominate TR for Chair, and are you now somehow
sitting on the Names Council, and are going to run the ccTLD lists?

Perhaps it would be good for you to publicly announce your and TR's game
plan to rid the DNSO of dotcommoner interference.  If indeed that is
your plan.

I also note that while you had great movement a year ago, that while
accepting great acclaim for multilingual work; since it has been under
your auspice it has been dead.  I just finished a conference in San
Fran, where the
real time translation and all the little ear pieces were less than 5K
for the
conference, yet ICANN seems to be moving backwards in this area not
forward.

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

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

Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:08:24 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Board Review

Dear members,

I wrote to the ICANN Board expressing a number of concerns.  The Chairman of 
the ICANN Board has agreed to place these concerns on the agenda for an 
upcoming Board meeting:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00532.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: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:56:55 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: [GTLD Registries List] gTLD Restructuring Proposal

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Jim Fleming'" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: [GTLD Registries List] gTLD Restructuring Proposal

> Mr. Fleming.  I wanted to take this discussion off the list.  You have made
> your point about ipv8 for so long now and it has absolutely no relevance to
> the discussion on ICANN Governance or restructuring.  It is a technical
> discussion that should be kept for those technical forums. 
> 
> Please, and I am trying to ask this nicely, keep your comments to the
> discussion at hand.  I would like to keep you on this list and I know you
> have valuable insight to add, but please do not use this list to advocate
> the same issues you have in other forums.
> 
> Again, I know you have valuable feedback to give, so keep the discussion on
> point.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Fleming [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 12:48 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [GTLD Registries List] gTLD Restructuring Proposal
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing several years of history. The industry is about
> where it was in 1997. Five years have been lost, because people were
> told back then to step aside and give the U.S. Government a "few months"
> to solve things. Those months turned into years. Now that 2002 is almost
> here, it is time for people to get back on schedule.
> 
> http://www.dot-biz.com/History/
> 1995 $50 per name/year .COM Charging Begins, .BIZ Proposed 
> 1996 ISOC Meets, .BIZ Registry #1 Starts, IAHC/WIPO Launched 
> 1997 NSF, ISOC, IANA, IAHC & CORE Delay the Entire Industry 
> 1998 eDNS .BIZ Making Progress, Postel Dies, ICANN Formed 
> 1999 The World Waits for the U.S. Government's DOC & ICANN 
> 2000  ICANN Selects .BIZ from 40 Beauty Pageant Contestants 
> 2001  .BIZ Added to IPv4 Legacy Root Servers, Registry #2 Started 
> 2002 2002:<IPv4>:0000:0:212 - BIZ Planned for IPv8
> ----
> 
> This may help...
> http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Tutorial/
> http://www.RepliGate.net
> 
> The Netfilter Project: Packet Mangling for Linux 2.4
> http://netfilter.samba.org
> 
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IPv8.info
> IPv16....One Better !!
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 9:58 AM
> Subject: [GTLD Registries List] gTLD Restructuring Proposal
> 
> 
> > All,
> > 
> > The gTLD Registries put forth a position paper on the restructuring of
> ICANN
> > in Early October.  I have copied the proposal into this e-mail below.  In
> > light of the final ALSC Report issued last month, the gTLD is
> re-evaluating
> > its proposal to ensure that this is still the view of the constituency.  I
> > would ask that if anyone on this list that has any comments, please let us
> > know.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > 
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> > Chair, Registry Constituency
> > e-mail: [email-masked]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > gTLD Registry Restructuring Proposal 
> > October 4, 2001 
> > Principles
> > The gTLD Constituency believes the following principles should be kept in
> > mind as the ICANN community considers possible restructuring options:
> > 1. The most important role of the Board is to recognize the
> > existence of documented consensus supporting policies that become
> mandatory
> > pursuant to established contracts with registries and registrars. The role
> > of the Board is not to create and impose policies in a top-down fashion,
> > much less allow anyone other than the Board to impose policies on those
> who
> > have agreed to participate in and abide by the results of the ICANN
> > consensus policy process.
> > 2. The Board should contain an array of "representative"
> > voices. These voices should include Board members selected by (a) those
> who
> > are bound by contract to comply with ICANN policies and (b) those
> > predictably and substantially affected by such policies. The Board should
> be
> > constructed to assure that "consensus" is truly achieved.
> > 3. Similarly-situated entities should be treated similarly. In
> > particular, registries and registrars (whether gTLD or ccTLD) competing in
> > the global marketplace should be subject to the same rules.
> > 4. Both commercial and noncommercial domain name registrants,
> > who are bound by ICANN policies through contracts that flow down through
> > registries and registrars, should have representation on the Board.
> > 5. If Supporting Organizations are created to reflect the views
> > of particular groups, those SOs should be required to help bear the costs
> of
> > the ICANN process (recognizing that such contributions should not create a
> > bar to participation by particular SOs).
> > 6. If Supporting Organizations are created to reflect the views
> > of particular groups, there should be some new cross-SO mechanism to
> > facilitate inter-SO deliberation on policies that might affect various SOs
> > and to generate documented consensus (on the basis of which the Board
> could
> > take action).
> > 7. ICANN consensus policies imposed by contract on registries,
> > registrars and registrants, and other substantive Board actions with
> policy
> > implications, should be clearly limited as to subject matter, addressing
> > only issues for which central and coordinated resolution is necessary to
> > assure stable interoperability of the domain name system.
> > 8. The Board should remain at a reasonable size (to facilitate
> > meaningful deliberation) and should have an odd number of members (to
> avoid
> > deadlock).
> > 9. No substantial restructuring of the Board and/or the DNSO
> > may or should occur without the consent of those who have contractually
> > agreed to abide by ICANN policies established pursuant to the present
> > structure.
> > 10. ccTLDs should sign contracts that require them to abide by
> > consensus policies on issues for which central and coordinated resolution
> is
> > necessary to assure stable interoperability of the domain name system.
> > 11. Restructuring actions designed to reflect recommendations of
> > the At Large Study Committee, proposed creation of a ccSO, and other
> > proposals to reform the DNSO should all proceed at the same time and in
> the
> > context of a comprehensive plan that serves the principles set forth
> above. 
> > ---------------
> > Proposal
> > The gTLD constituency sets forth the following suggestions as a basis for
> > further discussions:
> > 1. A group of Producer SOs should be created to reflect the
> > views of those bound directly by contracts with ICANN. These SOs should
> > include: (1) a ccTLD Registry SO, (2) a gTLD Registry SO (with separate
> > representation for sponsored and unsponsored TLDs), and (3) a Registrar
> SO.
> > (These Producers are all significantly impacted by ICANN policy decisions
> > and also provide up to 90% of ICANN's funding at the moment.)
> > 2. The User community, including both commercial and
> > noncommercial registrants of domain names, should have a role in selecting
> > an equivalent number of Board members. Users could play this role through
> > one or more Supporting Organizations. Two separate SOs for commercial
> users
> > (including large and small businesses and trademark interests) and
> > noncommercial users (including individuals and nonprofit organizations)
> > could be created, each of which would select three Board members. Or the
> At
> > Large SO suggested by the ALSC could be created, selecting six Board
> members
> > from each of six geographic regions.
> > 3. Additional Board seats should be available to reflect the
> > views of those who are not included in the previously described SOs and
> who
> > are predictably likely to be substantially affected by ICANN policies.
> Such
> > groups could be treated as either additional Supporting Organizations or
> as
> > advisory committees, and the Board members selected might be chosen in a
> > variety of different ways. Such groups could include ISPs and ASO and PSO
> > members. The number of such representatives should be determined with a
> view
> > towards manageability and assuring an odd number of Board members. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------
> > Participants on the gTLD Registry Constituency public mailing list are
> requested to not cross-post messages.
> > 
> > 
> 

- --
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: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:06:09 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: "working with other registrars and the registry "

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 2:05 PM
Subject: "working with other registrars and the registry "

> http://www.opensrs.org/archives/discuss-list/0112/0516.html
> From: Rick Baraniuk ([email-masked])
> 
> "As we speak we are currently working with other registrars and the registry 
> to ensure a consistent and proper message is delivered to *all* stakeholders 
> that participated in the .biz pre-registration period."
> ----
> 
> Working where ?....in private ?
> 
> 
> Jim Fleming
> Why Gamble on a .BIZ Lottery? Start a Real .BIZ Today !
> http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
> 0:212 - BIZ World
> 
> 
> 

- --
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 #932
************************