Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #957
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, January 7 2002           Volume 01 : Number 957

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 02:49:54 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Jeff Williams Spams Again

Sunday, Sunday, January 06, 2002, 12:52:41 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Jeff

> I trust that we appoint Kristy, Alexander or Thomas as the new GA Chair as I
> doubt that any of them will put up with your spamming everyone in sight.

> Most of these people subscribe to the GA list so this is quite unnecessary.
> Can't you just post to the mailing list like everyone else?  What makes you so
> special?

As stupid as it is, there is really nothing that the GA Chair can, or
should, be empowered to do about it.

Who he emails to is not something that is or should be in the GA
Chair's area of control.

Of course, I'm sure other perfectly valid reasons exist for taking
action against him, but none of that will stop his use of BCC's of
posting members to get around it.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

- --
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: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 08:56:28 -0500
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Jeff Williams Spams Again

the best defenses are good mail filters

ken stubbs
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 3:52 AM
Subject: [ga] Jeff Williams Spams Again

> Hi Jeff
>
> I trust that we appoint Kristy, Alexander or Thomas as the new GA Chair as
I
> doubt that any of them will put up with your spamming everyone in sight.
>
> Most of these people subscribe to the GA list so this is quite
unnecessary.
> Can't you just post to the mailing list like everyone else?  What makes
you so
> special?
>
> Sheesh !!
>
> Patrick Corliss
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
> To: Don Heath <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Milton Mueller <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; NameCritic
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; tc louis <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; marc schneiders
> <[email-masked]>; simon higgs <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; Jason Graff <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <secretariat@coreni
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 11:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: [ncdnhc-announce] ORG divestiture policy
> nears completion!
>
> <snip>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 01:10:18 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Jeff Williams Spams Again

On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 02:49:54 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:

> As stupid as it is, there is really nothing that the GA Chair can, or
> should, be empowered to do about it.

That's not a particularly helpful remark.  For a start, there's such a thing
as persuasion even wrt Jeff Williams.  If others on the list show their
condemnation then he might stop or at least tone down his approach.

Jeff could have posted to the GA list with a cc to those he thought weren't on
the list but he was just too lazy to try to work out who was subscribed to GA
and who wasn't.

> Who he emails to is not something that is or should be in the GA
> Chair's area of control.

That depends.  Jeff has, for example, cross posted between [ga] and other
mailing lists including [ga-abuse].  I consider that prohibition against
cross-posting to multiple maiing lists is quite a reasonable measure.

> Of course, I'm sure other perfectly valid reasons exist for taking
> action against him, but none of that will stop his use of BCC's of
> posting members to get around it.

Sure, but Jeff doesn't like being suspended.  Don't forget there are two
sanctions available under the existing rules.

- - Monitoring of posts. This will cause delay of postings from the affected
  individual until a list moderator approves them as being within the content
  rules, or rejects them.
- - Suspension of posting rights. This will cause mail from that person not to
  be sent to the GA list.

Until now we have only used the second sanction "suspension".  We could always
try the first "monitoring of posts".  And you must know that other lists (for
example, the TLDA list/s) have restrictions on multiple email addresses.

But I'm surprised.  It's not like you to give up so easily :-)

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

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 17:50:17 +0100 (MET)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Structure Taskforce Update

Thank you David for this summary.

I like the scenario. Both ALSO and DNSO have to meet on the domain
names policy, it is an elegant way to do it.

> This of course touches on wider issues such as whether the ALSO (and
> an IDNHC) should be limited to domain name holders/admin contacts.  

No, definitely not. 

There is a great need to have a forum which purpose would be to consider 
names _and_ IP addresses (and applications) together in the end-user interest.

Elisabeth Porteneuve
- --

- ----Original message----
>From [email-masked] Sun Jan  6 09:29 MET 2002
X-UIDL: 5H]"!m0i"!d\a!!1b3!!
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Structure Taskforce Update
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 21:28:11 +1300
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

An update and request for feedback from those interested in the DNSO
Structure Taskforce.

An initial discussion paper was published (v2) on 3 December at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00003.doc

I posted some feedback on 15 December at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00056.html

The TF Chair followed up at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00057.html on the issue
of where policy making on domain name issues should happen and posted
four models, being :

1. Status quo - no ALSO, no individuals domain name holders
constituency (IDNHC) within the DNSO. Result: lack of individuals'
representation.
 
2. ALSO, no change DNSO. 
Result: Board may get contradictory advise, DNSO role in policy
weakened, relevance of today's GA uncertain.
 
3. ALSO, new IDNHC within DNSO
Result: Board may get contradictory advise, DNSO role in policy
weakened, GA reverts to its intended role as a unifying assembly,
duplication of individuals voice in policy making.
 
4. Different ALSO (direct elections to board, but policy directed via
the DNSO), otherwise no change DNSO
Result: Board gets consistent advise, DNSO role in policy
strengthened, GA reverts to its intended role as a unifying assembly.

Option 4 has been looked at in more detail.  I posted (at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00069.html) that there
could well be advantage in having an ALSO perform a dual role of
electing Board members as an SO does but also function within the DNSO
as a constituency.  I stated that I believed that if one went down
this route the ALSO should get to elect 3 members of the Names Council
as well as directly electing Board members.

The TF Chair responded
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00070.html) and has
put forward a scenario which is:

1. ALSO is formed and directly elects 5/6/9 Board members (as ALSC
proposal but lets not argue about the number here)
2. ALSO also elects 10/12 member Administrative Council (as ALSC
proposal but with an administrative role to organise the SO and
outreach downwards on policy)
3. ALSO Administrative Council selects 3 members (or the 3 top
geographically diverse of the directly-elected council election list)
appointed to Names Council to input on policy matters. The 3 AL Names
Council reps get full voting rights on policy issues on the NC (but do
not vote at the annual election for DNSO Board members).
4. The individuals petitioning for an individual domain name holders
constituency within the DNSO are encouraged to participate in the ALSO
and become AL Administrative Council members and reps to the NC.
5. The GA reverts to its intended role of uniting all DNSO
constituencies (and expands to include at least the AL Administrative
Council and NC reps).

Feedback specifically on the scenario above, but also on any aspects
of the work to date, is welcome.

I see two main benefits of possibly having the ALSO perform a dual
role.  They are:

1) It may cut down on considerable duplication in what may be a
limited volunteer pool of participation in both an ALSO and an IDNHC. 

2) Already the Board and staff ignore the DNSO as the place where
domain name policy should be formulated.  If the ALSO functions
outside the DNSO in terms of advising on domain name policy then it
gives even greater carte blanche for Board and staff to pick and
choose what they do.  

This of course touches on wider issues such as whether the ALSO (and
an IDNHC) should be limited to domain name holders/admin contacts.  

As I said feedback welcome.

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

- --
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: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 14:11:12 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] CONCERNS

On 15:30 04/01/02, Roberto Gaetano said:
>Anyway, the minimum is done, but it would be nice if more enthusiasm could 
>be shown in supporting our candidates: the number of endorsements will 
>remain as public record.

As your own number of posting on the GA while the former Chair. I feel this 
is more related to the Members understanding that the ICANN does not 
interest them. If you consider carefully the posts you have five types of 
posts:

- - personal relations. Mostly people exchanging to keep the show going.
- - fighting against the ICANN showing mainly a frustration over IANA 
function understanding
- - Registrars/gTLD management
- - occasional relations with the Staff and BoD;
- - NC cheating

With no vote of any importance.

I would suggest we consider the things differently. Let accept that the 
ICANN has two missions: IANA functions and Registrars market management. 
This makes four responsibilities with one SO each, DNSO for DNS issues, ASO 
for Addresses, PSO for Protocols, ALSO for Registrars' market and some 
uncertainty about the no-interest CCSO and possible interest NICSO.

Now let consider that the ICANN has a negative impact on the nets for many 
political, technical etc... reasons but that no one is going to change that 
from inside, all the more than its main target is the stability of the 
Registrars they created (could someone tell me why we need them except to 
serve as a banker for the registries?).

- - all this is based upon ICP-3 creed
- - all this is based upon a real/voluntary ignorance of DNS origin, history 
and logic and most of all operations : the root system does not work better 
than the host system.
- - all this is based upon a wrong understanding of the nature of the domain 
name and of its relations with the Trade Marks.
- - all this oriented towards poor petty money making.

Frankly, is all that very exciting?

As NZ documented it very well: we are not here to do something better but 
to know in advance what harm the ICANN intends to do to us. ....

Show me wrong.

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 14:36:28 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

On 20:48 05/01/02, Gomes, Chuck said:
>The fact is that this service offered at the registrar level can never
>be as effective as the same service would be at the registry level.  So
>if you want the best service for the ultimate customers, it must be done
>at the registry level.  The alternative is an inferior service for the
>potential registrants.

Glad you confirm: Registrars are of no use to registrants.
Jefsey

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

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

Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 14:44:58 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Come on Sotiris,
on which grounds can you say that?

On 08:17 06/01/02, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
>Actually, what is happening is that Verisign is
>effectively trying to sell a domain name TWICE.  First,
>there's the original registration and now this proposal
>(if effected) will amount to the RESALE of any given
>already registered domain name with absolutely NO
>guarantees whatsoever that the second registrant will ever
>get anything for their money.

Where did you read there would be only one on the waiting list?
:-)
Jefsey

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 09:32:59 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

At 08:43 6/01/02, you wrote:

>The value to the Internet community therefore seems rather obvious to
>me. But, if there is none as you suggest, then the service will be a
>failure.  On the other hand, if there is demand and hence value, it will
>succeed.  The level of success will depend on how much demand and value
>there is.  The best way to test it is to let the market prove it one way
>or other.

Chuck,

Not only the Market. There is also something called ethics.
You may put my valuable collectibles on a waiting list for covetous 
companies or individuals, but it would be unethical to do so without my 
approval.

Has Verisign such an "approval" system in place?

(hey, you could market it...)

- --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

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

Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 18:04:45 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Jeff Williams Spams Again

Patrick and all assembly members,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 03:11:15 -0800, Jeff William wrote:
>
> >   Spamming?  How and whom?  My CC list in this instance includes GA
> > members and also has others that are not GA members as well.  How is
> > that spam?
>
> It's still spam.

  How?  Or are you just interested in utter nonsense lately?

>
>
> > It is my E-Mail client, I shall use it once a posting has come to me
> > by whatever means or method I choose to.  That is not Spam, Patrick...
>
> Yes it is.

  Prove it!

>
>
> > I am
> > not advertising anything...  So you improper characterization
> > here is a form of abuse in and of itself.  Please discontinue it.
>
> The abuser's defence -- "it's an 'ad hominem' attack".  LOL.

  No I didn't asy anything about any ad hominem attack...

>
>
> So innocent . . . :-)
>
> > Thank you in advance for your cooperation, Patrick...
>
> I've reported it to your upstream provider.  Here is the full list:

  Good.  Noene the less even an idiot could and can plainly see
that there is no spam involved.

>
>
> To: Don Heath <[email-masked]>
> CC: Milton Mueller <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
> [email-masked],
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, NameCritic <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, tc louis <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]"
> <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, marc schneiders <[email-masked]>,
>    simon higgs <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    Jason Graff <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    Dan Stienberg <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    Christopher Roosa <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>    Malcolm Miles <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: [ncdnhc-announce] ORG divestiture
>    policy nears completion!
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss

- --
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: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 16:09:35 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Jeff Williams Spams Again

Sunday, Sunday, January 06, 2002, 6:10:18 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 02:49:54 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:

>> As stupid as it is, there is really nothing that the GA Chair can, or
>> should, be empowered to do about it.

> That's not a particularly helpful remark.  For a start, there's such a thing
> as persuasion even wrt Jeff Williams.  If others on the list show their
> condemnation then he might stop or at least tone down his approach.

You obviously have not dealt with Jeff Williams as much as many of us
on the list have.  There is no way to shame him into acting any way.

Every possible means of doing that has been tried, it is a futile
effort.

> Jeff could have posted to the GA list with a cc to those he thought weren't on
> the list but he was just too lazy to try to work out who was subscribed to GA
> and who wasn't.

Again,

>> Who he emails to is not something that is or should be in the GA
>> Chair's area of control.

> That depends.  Jeff has, for example, cross posted between [ga] and other
> mailing lists including [ga-abuse].  I consider that prohibition against
> cross-posting to multiple maiing lists is quite a reasonable measure.

That has NEVER been a sanctionable offense here, it has ALWAYS been
one that has been technically implemented by the list operator.  To
try and apply it to a single member in a manner in which it has not
been applied to others is prejudicial.

>> Of course, I'm sure other perfectly valid reasons exist for taking
>> action against him, but none of that will stop his use of BCC's of
>> posting members to get around it.

> Sure, but Jeff doesn't like being suspended.  Don't forget there are two
> sanctions available under the existing rules.

> - Monitoring of posts. This will cause delay of postings from the affected
>   individual until a list moderator approves them as being within the content
>   rules, or rejects them.
> - Suspension of posting rights. This will cause mail from that person not to
>   be sent to the GA list.

> Until now we have only used the second sanction "suspension".  We could always
> try the first "monitoring of posts".  And you must know that other lists (for
> example, the TLDA list/s) have restrictions on multiple email addresses.

> But I'm surprised.  It's not like you to give up so easily :-)

I stand by my original post, completely.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

- --
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: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 16:12:27 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Jeff Williams Spams Again

Sunday, Sunday, January 06, 2002, 6:10:18 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> That's not a particularly helpful remark.  For a start, there's such a thing
> as persuasion even wrt Jeff Williams.  If others on the list show their
> condemnation then he might stop or at least tone down his approach.

One last thing, wrong action is wrong action, even if it is being used
against an unpopular person.  And it should never be simply accepted
because the target is unpopular.  And anyone attempting to that should
be put down to the same level as their target.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

- --
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: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 16:29:01 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Jeff Williams Spams Again

Sunday, Sunday, January 06, 2002, 1:36:53 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> I've reported it to your upstream provider.  Here is the full list:

For what?

For emailing people about something?

That is not spam, not under any ISP's definition.

Sheesh, Patrick, have you sunk that low now?

Attempting to get anyone's internet service shut off should be only
for the most serious offenses, and to be honest, I take a very dim
view of those who try and use that means to silence people for
anything less.  I find it a rather despicable form of attack.

If my opinion of you could have sunk any lower, it would have with
this attack by you.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

- --
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, 07 Jan 2002 01:51:09 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] CONCERNS

David,

>
>Wrong rules.  You only need two endorsements for the GA Chair
>election.  10 is what you need to be a candidate fort ICANN Board.
>

You're right, thanks for correcting my mistake.

Anyway, I still think that a more lively endorsement period would be 
beneficial: the rationale for it is to show support to the candidates, that 
can be a useful indication to the voters.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.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: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 20:03:00 -0500 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C196EF.BC593E80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Joop,

This service would do nothing with your domain name unless you elected
to release it.  A domain name is not owned; it never has been.  You
register it for a specified period of time and you have the right to
renew it.  If you don't it becomes available for others.  To use your
logic, your approval would be needed for a re-registration of the name
you formerly registered but deleted.

I must admit that I am rather surprized to see an argument like this
from you.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 3:33 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
> 
> 
> At 08:43 6/01/02, you wrote:
> 
> 
> >The value to the Internet community therefore seems rather obvious to
> >me. But, if there is none as you suggest, then the service will be a
> >failure.  On the other hand, if there is demand and hence 
> value, it will
> >succeed.  The level of success will depend on how much 
> demand and value
> >there is.  The best way to test it is to let the market 
> prove it one way
> >or other.
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> Not only the Market. There is also something called ethics.
> You may put my valuable collectibles on a waiting list for covetous 
> companies or individuals, but it would be unethical to do so 
> without my 
> approval.
> 
> Has Verisign such an "approval" system in place?
> 
> (hey, you could market it...)
> 
> --Joop
> 

- ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C196EF.BC593E80
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature;
	name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="smime.p7s"

- ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C196EF.BC593E80--

- --
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, 07 Jan 2002 02:16:58 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

Chuck Gomes wrote:
>
>Since 1996, there have been potential domain name holders who have
>requested some sort of wait list service in case domain names are
>released into the available pool.  The service at the registrar level
>was a response to this demand.  Putting the service at the registry
>level improves the value of the service for potential registrants.

The more I think about this, the less I like it.
In 1996 the situation was rather different, as there was no distinction 
between the Registrar and the Registry.
One of the pillars of a healthy competition was, IMHO, the separation of the 
roles (you might remember that for this very reason I did strongly oppose 
the new contract allowing Verisign to do both for .com).
Here we have yet another proof of how unwise was that choice, because there 
is an obvious (to me, at least) conflict of interest between the Registrar 
and the Registry in offering competing services.
Incidentally, if Verisign (the Registry) registers an expired name to the 
first-in-queue, skipping the Registrars, who will be the Registrar that will 
be commercially in contact with the Registrant for future services? Or will 
Verisign (the Registry) operate also as Registrar, and this independently 
from Verisign (the Registrar)? Obviously, to have Verisign (the Registrar) 
inheriting the Registrar function for the Registrants in the queues operated 
by Verisign (the Registry) will be unfair practice.

>
>The value to the Internet community therefore seems rather obvious to
>me. But, if there is none as you suggest, then the service will be a
>failure.  On the other hand, if there is demand and hence value, it will
>succeed.  The level of success will depend on how much demand and value
>there is.  The best way to test it is to let the market prove it one way
>or other.

I disagree that the commercial success should be the only measure.
Let's take the extreme example of the smugglers of cigarettes and spirits: 
they provide a doubtless value to the customers by selling directly foreign 
goods, skipping part of the value chain that will include resellers and 
taxes, but the commercial success is not a good enough reason to allow the 
practice.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #957
************************