Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #949
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, January 3 2002          Volume 01 : Number 949

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 11:58:30 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New Year's Resolution -- Better Subject Lines

On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 17:45:50 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:

Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [GTLD Registries List] What is the accreditation
status of registrars that made fake applications?
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03930.html

Hi Eric & All

Is there any possibility that we can start off the New Year by promising to
use more meaningful subject lines on our posts?  It really is very messy to
use THREE cross posted lists in one header.

You are allowed to change them, you know, to something like:

                "Digital Divide Between Engineers and Pollywogs"

Or more simply:

                "Request for Information about RFCs"

Regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 19:29:51 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New Year's Resolution -- Better Subject Lines

Patrick and all assembly members,

  I would tend to agree that better subject lines, or at least more
descriptive subject lines would indeed be helpful and useful for
historical purposes.  However the opinion of what IS better
may not be shared amongst all participants or assembly members.
Ergo, it is difficult to impossible to make such a determination
as a "One size fits all".

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 17:45:50 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [GTLD Registries List] What is the accreditation
> status of registrars that made fake applications?
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03930.html
>
> Hi Eric & All
>
> Is there any possibility that we can start off the New Year by promising to
> use more meaningful subject lines on our posts?  It really is very messy to
> use THREE cross posted lists in one header.
>
> You are allowed to change them, you know, to something like:
>
>                 "Digital Divide Between Engineers and Pollywogs"
>
> Or more simply:
>
>                 "Request for Information about RFCs"
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 19:38:33 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Wake Up To Yourself, Patrick.

Patrick and all assembly members,

  Yet another of our members the one time Alt Chair no less has
blessed or cursed us with yet another diatribe of visceral prose.
How special...

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:41 AM, Jeff Wiliams wrote:
>
> >   This is an interesting diatribe I am sure to some.  However I fail to see
> > your point nor can I verify your conclusions here Eric.  As such I can
> > only conclude that you have brought upon yourself along with the
> > other participants disfavor and disgruntlement as Sandy rightly
> > indicated in his response below.  Therefore if anyone has dissuaded
> > participation of late it would seem to be yourself, Eric.  However
> > I can fully understand you not wishing to take responsibility for
> > that fact...
>
> Dear Eric
>
> You should understand that Jeff Williams is something like a human virus.  He
> will goad you, taunt you and provoke you beyond endurance.  When you reply
> (whatever you say) you will have disseminated his sig file further over the
> internet.
>
> Don't believe me?  Just read any of Jeff's postings.  Here's just one:
>
> > I am sure that any assistance that you could provide Mike, would
> > be your hand in their pocket. Of course, this is a very nice way of
> > greasing the palms to get those $$, eh? >;)
>
> <snip>
>
> > No misunderstanding at all Mike, in fact you make a statement
> > here that is categorically untrue.
>
> http://www.opensrs.org/archives/policy-list/0006/0003.html
>
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > > But I wonder.  Especially in light of the fact that you both know, or at
> least should
> > > know, that I ask these questions as a straw man and in a Socratic dialogue
> fashion,
> > > and that I personally already know the answers.
>
> Crap, Eric.  Stop being so defensive.  You leave yourself wide open.  Be
> honest.
>
> > > I have a following that provided over 30% of the chair vote last election.
>
> Incredible that a person can so delude themselves.
>
> > > But I wonder why you slam me so hard.  You could not do it out of
> ignorance.  So I must
> > > conclude;
>
> Try, please try, to stop talking about yourself.  We are here to discuss
> domain name policy.
>
> > > You do it to dissuade others from posting and to assure the GA's
> ineffectiveness.
> > >
> > > Well you both are doing a great job of beating up on me an scaring others
> from
> > > participating.
> > >
> > > (because our two remaining monitors are running for office, we are
> essentially not
> > > monitored so please
> > > feel free to really beat the heck out of me for this post)
>
> As you know, I consign all of your mail to trash, unread.  However, I pick up
> "splatter" from Jeff Williams and others.  If you want people to pay
> attention, start acting like an adult.
>
> Re-read Sandy's mail without tears in your eyes and you will find he stated
> the facts quite calmly and sensibly.  In fact, any objective person would
> thank him for his forbearance.  Sandy's put downs were very mild and much less
> than you deserved.
>
> However, Jeff Williams did taunt you.  But you should know his modus operandi
> by now and try to ignore him.  Didn't you learn anything in primary school ???
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 09:17:15 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Fwd: Mail System Error - Returned Mail]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------E67432BB92074F67C653BDA8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mail link on the acceptance template page does not appear to be working.

Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]

- --------------E67432BB92074F67C653BDA8
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

To: [email-masked]
From: Mail Administrator <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: Mail Administrator <[email-masked]>
Subject: Mail System Error - Returned Mail
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 01:40:12 -0500

- --===========================_ _= 1385192(1981+12868752)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason:

Each of the following recipients was rejected by a remote mail server.
The reasons given by the server are included to help you determine why
each recipient was rejected.

    Recipient: <[email-masked]>
    Reason:    <[email-masked]>... User unknown

Please reply to <[email-masked]>
if you feel this message to be in error.

- --===========================_ _= 1385192(1981+12868752)
Content-Type: message/delivery-status
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Reporting-MTA: dns; VL-MS-MR001.sc1.videotron.ca
Received-From-MTA:dns; videotron.ca (24.203.109.143)
Arrival-Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 01:40:11 -0500

Remote-Recipient: rfc822;<[email-masked]>
Diagnostic-Code: smtp;551 SMTP-Deliver:BadRecipient
Action: failed 
Status: 5.1.6
Remote-MTA: DNS;dnso.dnso.org
Last-Attempt-Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 01:40:12 -0500

- --===========================_ _= 1385192(1981+12868752)
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 01:39:43 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: acceptance

1a. Full name of the nominee: Dan Steinberg

1b. E-mail address of the nominee: [email-masked]

1c. Background information about the nominee: Dan Steinberg has been
working on DNS-related issues since 1996. I am currently working on the
UDRP review Task Force. This has proven to be an interesting task and I
have endeavoured to represent the GA.  So far nothing has come up that
requires actual 'representation'of a GA perspective but when it does I
will seek guidance.

1d. Statement of the nominee's objectives
 in the role as GA delegate to the NC Transfer TF: It is clear that
there is no simple solution here. If there had been one, we would have
rapidly approached it and not needed to set up a task force. My
objective is obviously to represent the GA, but as with the UDRP Task
Force, in order to represent, there must be 'positions'
taken...consensus, vote, whatever.  Absent a position to represent, I
will use common sense and my perception of fairness. The procedures for
transfers have to somehow balance the needs of the registrars, the
registries and the customers. Does that sound like I'm avoiding the
answer? perhaps. But I think the only way for the problem to not exist
is to eliminate the whole registrar/registrty structure....and that
would be terribly unfair to the regisrars.

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]

- --===========================_ _= 1385192(1981+12868752)--

- --------------E67432BB92074F67C653BDA8--

- --
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, 2 Jan 2002 09:44:31 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Yet another case of reverse hi-jacking.

http://save.unicom.com/

- --
R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
tel: +1 925 373 3954
cel: +1 925 352 3615
fax: +1 925 373 9781 
http://www.mhsc.com
- --
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, 02 Jan 2002 18:40:29 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [GTLD Registries List] What is the accreditatio...

Stephen and all staleholders or interested parties,

Stephen Waters wrote:

> On Mon, 2001-12-31 at 18:01, Bruce Young wrote:
> >
> > I don't disagree.  However, the law as it currently exists recognizes the
> > right of trademark holders over domain names whether we agree or not.  I'm
> > just arguing to limit that right to a few domains.  Otherwise, opening new
> > TLDs is pointless: if tradmarks are allowed to rule in ALL domains, opening
> > a new TLDs does no one any good -- except the trademak holder, who would
> > have yet another domain they probaly don't need anyway!
>
> I think the following scenario would work... what do y'all think?
>
> i) [tm] is ruled not to be watered down simply by the presence of
> alternative, similar domains. i.e., [tm] holders are not required to buy
> them all up or sue like madmen to keep their [tm].
>
> ii) anyone should be able to hold a domain with a [tm] word or phrase so
> long as the content does not attempt to infringe upon [tm] holder or
> otherwise confuse the consumer. Getting the wrong address (i.e., domain)
> is *not* considered consumer confusion.
>
> thoughts?

  This is a good idea Stephen IMHO.  It has been made before in a little
different terms however.  The IP community rejected the idea on a number
of grounds which I will not elaborate here in this response.  As I also
recall there WAS/IS a .TM (DotTM) TLD that could be used for this
purpose as well.  I not sure if it still exists or was "Sanctioned" by
the ICANN BoD and staff.  None the less with different countries
having different Trade Mark laws and the US TM law (See Lanaham Act)
it is the responsibility, in the US anyway, that the TM holder be responsible
for defending their Mark.  This would also be true, in the US, for
Common Law Marks as well.  Hence perhaps you can see why the
IP community did not and does not still like this method which you
again present here.

>
> -s
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Part 1.2   Type: application/pgp-signature

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: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 18:48:15 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] Will Hal Lubsen please answer the questions, or is openness a 'sham' on this forum?

Richard and all,

  It seem that the practice of the "ICANN Accredited" Registries such
as Afilias is relatively not interested in their customer base or
potential
registrants in many respects and feels that it can flaunt or ignore the
Accreditation Contract that the ICANN Staff is supposed to
oversee at will.  I amongst many of our members also have gotten
not response from Afilias on specific registration issues outstanding
regarding the "Sunrise" period as well...

Richard Henderson wrote:

>    I note with regret that Hal Lubsen (CEO of Afilias) has failed to
> respond to my specific and detailed concerns, voiced on behalf of many
> members of the Internet community who have got no answer from him on
> other forums. Our concern, clearly expressed, was that consumers were
> defrauded by the Afilias roll-out, and that Hal Lubsen's company
> DomainBank had profited from the submission of ineligible data in the
> Sunrise, at the expense of honest customers.
>
> We were also dismayed that over half of all fake Sunrise claims had
> been submitted, for profit, by Afilias executives or directors. We
> shared the view of honest Afilias director Robert Connelly that this
> Sunrise fraud and roll-out was "an abomination".
>
> Hal Lubsen is a member of this forum but has failed to respond to
> these very serious concerns. Of course, everyone knows that he is
> under no obligation to answer any questions raised here, but bearing
> in mind that a major purpose of the forum is to promote "openness and
> transparency", his failure to answer serious issues directed
> specifically at him is hugely dosappointing.
>
> Is this a rogue industry where the customer is simply ignored?
>
> Or could Hal Lubsen simply give open and transparent answers to
> questions put to him.
>
> I find his silence and evasion a dismal sign of the contempt in which
> honest customers appear to be held.
>
> Come on Hal, please do the decent thing and answer.
>
> Happy New Year to everyone
>
> Richard Henderson
> (www.theinternetchallenge.com)
>
>
>

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: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 18:54:57 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Fwd: Mail System Error - Returned Mail]

Dan and all assembly members,

  I to noticed this and just now E-Mailed the Secretariat off list
in this regard.  The link that is broken is:
http://www.dnso.org/notes/2001.DNSO-GA-TransferTF.html

Dan Steinberg wrote:

> Mail link on the acceptance template page does not appear to be working.
>
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Part 1.2       Type: message/rfc822
>               Encoding: 7bit

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: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 17:38:18 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] Will Hal Lubsen please answer the  questions, or is openness a 'sham' on this forum?

This is starting to make me very nervous about Transfer issues.

My goodness if this is how they handle registrations what kind of nightmare
should we expect when we want to transfer?

Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Richard and all,
>
>   It seem that the practice of the "ICANN Accredited" Registries such
> as Afilias is relatively not interested in their customer base or
> potential
> registrants in many respects and feels that it can flaunt or ignore the
> Accreditation Contract that the ICANN Staff is supposed to
> oversee at will.  I amongst many of our members also have gotten
> not response from Afilias on specific registration issues outstanding
> regarding the "Sunrise" period as well...
>
> Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> >    I note with regret that Hal Lubsen (CEO of Afilias) has failed to
> > respond to my specific and detailed concerns, voiced on behalf of many
> > members of the Internet community who have got no answer from him on
> > other forums. Our concern, clearly expressed, was that consumers were
> > defrauded by the Afilias roll-out, and that Hal Lubsen's company
> > DomainBank had profited from the submission of ineligible data in the
> > Sunrise, at the expense of honest customers.
> >
> > We were also dismayed that over half of all fake Sunrise claims had
> > been submitted, for profit, by Afilias executives or directors. We
> > shared the view of honest Afilias director Robert Connelly that this
> > Sunrise fraud and roll-out was "an abomination".
> >
> > Hal Lubsen is a member of this forum but has failed to respond to
> > these very serious concerns. Of course, everyone knows that he is
> > under no obligation to answer any questions raised here, but bearing
> > in mind that a major purpose of the forum is to promote "openness and
> > transparency", his failure to answer serious issues directed
> > specifically at him is hugely dosappointing.
> >
> > Is this a rogue industry where the customer is simply ignored?
> >
> > Or could Hal Lubsen simply give open and transparent answers to
> > questions put to him.
> >
> > I find his silence and evasion a dismal sign of the contempt in which
> > honest customers appear to be held.
> >
> > Come on Hal, please do the decent thing and answer.
> >
> > Happy New Year to everyone
> >
> > Richard Henderson
> > (www.theinternetchallenge.com)
> >
> >
> >
>
> 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

- --
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 #949
************************