Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #977
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, January 11 2002           Volume 01 : Number 977

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

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:25:17 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:53:53 -0500

- --part1_cb.1b915dea.296f6ecd_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 1/10/2002 2:10:19 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Please be careful gentlemen,
> 
> The first most profitable commodities sold on Wall Street were?
> 
> You guessed it; Slaves.
> 

Wrong .. It was Tea. 

- --part1_cb.1b915dea.296f6ecd_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=2>In a message dated 1/10/2002 2:10:19 PM Central Standard Time, [email-masked] writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Please be careful gentlemen,
<BR>
<BR>The first most profitable commodities sold on Wall Street were?
<BR>
<BR>You guessed it; Slaves.
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>Wrong .. It was Tea. </FONT></HTML>

- --part1_cb.1b915dea.296f6ecd_boundary--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:39:45 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ORG NC Task Force (Final Draft (v 5.4)): Comments?

Marc and all assembly members,

  Some comments on this draft:

1.) It would seem reasonable that a limit on the high end of the
     amount for such application fee for the RFP be delineated?

2.) There should be a restriction of and on Verisign from being a
      potential subcontractor for at least 5 years.

3.) Existing registries should be restricted from purchase or mergers
      with the entity determined for the new .ORG registry for a period
      of at least 3 years.

4.) Not changes in the current practice of DN registration of DN's in the
     .ORG name space should be a requirement.

5.) The management of the new entity for .ORG should be answerable
     to the registrants.  Any and all policies for registration, marketing,
     reselling, transferring and deletion of domain names in the .ORG
     name space must be approved by vote of the registrants.

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Some people on this list have already commented on the pre-final
> draft. Here is the final one. The changes between the two are
> described by Milton Mueller as follows:
>
> "Probably the only one of significance is that
> the words "controlled by noncommercial registrants" in 1a
> has been replaced by "noncommercial in orientation and
> the initial board of which includes substantial representation
> of noncommercial .org registrants."
>
> Also section 4 now makes it clear that the registry operator
> need not be a separate organization from the management
> organization, a minor point requested by the registrars."
>
> Additional comments (or new ones), please as soon as possible. The NC
> will discuss (and approve, we hope) this report in a few days.
>
> --
> [email-masked]
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:30:57 -0500
> From: Milton Mueller <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [nc-org] Final Draft (v 5.4)
>
> NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
> v 5.4 (January 10, 2002)
>
> The .org registry should be operated for the benefit of the worldwide
> community of organizations, groups, and individuals engaged in
> noncommercial communication via the Internet. Responsibility for .org
> administration should be delegated to a non-profit organization that has
> widespread support from and acts on behalf of that community.
>
> The notions of sponsorship and restriction, as applied elsewhere in the
> gTLD process, do not provide an adequate framework for the .org
> practices will be necessary but this must not result divestiture. Some clear statement of administrative and marketing practices will be necessary,
> but this must not result in an exclusive boundary being set around the
> community of eligible registrants. The manner in which the normative
> guidelines are labeled is not a primary consideration, but the framework
> should include all the points below.
>
> 1. Characteristics of the Organization to Administer .org
>
> 1a. The initial delegation of the .org TLD should be to a non-profit
> organization that is noncommercial in orientation and the initial board of
> which includes substantial representation of noncommercial .org
> registrants. We recognize that noncommercial registrants do not have
> uniform views about policy and management, and that no single
> organization can fully encompass the diversity of global civil society.
> Nevertheless, applicant organizations should be able to demonstrate
> international support and participation from a significant number of
> noncommercial .org registrants. The organization's policies and practices
> should strive to be responsive to and supportive of the noncommercial
> Internet user community, and reflect as much of its diversity as possible.
> While the initial delegation should be to an organization that meets the
> criteria described above, the ongoing governance arrangements should be
> open to any .org registrant.
>
> 1b. Applicants for operation of the .org registry should be recognized non-
> profit entities (understood to include corporations, associations,
> partnerships or cooperatives as those terms are defined in the legal
> jurisdiction in which the organization is established). Subcontracting of
> operational functions to for-profit providers is permitted.
>
> 1c. Applicants are encouraged to propose governance structures for the
> .org TLD that provide all .org registrants with the opportunity to either
> directly participate in the selection of officers, or the election of policy-
> making council members, or both. The bylaws should provide explicitly for
> an open, transparent and participatory process by which .org operating
> policies are initiated, reviewed and revised in a manner which reflects the
> interests of .org domain name holders and is consistent with the terms of
> its registry agreement with ICANN.
>
> 1d. In order to permit the largest number of qualified non-profit
> organizations to compete for award of the .org TLD contract, the Board
> should require no more than the equivalent of USD$200,000 in
> demonstrated financial resources from applicants.
>
> 2. Policy Guidelines for Applicants to Administer .org
>
> 2a. Definition of the .org community
> Each applicant organization should include in its application a definition of
> the relevant community for which names in the .org TLD are intended,
> detailing the types of registrants who constitute the target market for
> .org and proposing marketing and branding practices oriented toward that
> community.
>
> The definition of the relevant community should be much broader than
> simply formal non-profit organizations. It must also include individuals and
> groups seeking an outlet for noncommercial expression and information
> exchange, unincorporated cultural, educational and political organizations,
> and business partnerships with non-profits and community groups for
> social initiatives.
>
> 2b. No eligibility requirements
> Dot org will continue to be operated without eligibility requirements. With a
> definition of the served community and appropriate marketing practices in
> place, the organization and the registrars should rely entirely on end-user
> choice to determine who registers in .org.
>
> Specifically, applicants:
> * Must not propose to evict existing registrants who do not conform to its
> target community. Current registrants must not have their registrations
> cancelled nor should they be denied the opportunity to renew their names
> or transfer them to others.
>
> * Must not attempt to impose any new prior restrictions on people or
> organizations attempting to register names, or propose any new dispute
> initiation procedures that could result in the cancellation of domain
> delegations. The UDRP would apply as per section 5 below, however.
>
> 2c. Surplus funds
> Applicants should specify how they plan to disburse any surplus funds.
> Use of surplus funds for purposes not directly related to dot org registry
> operation is permitted, provided that the registry operation itself is
> adequately sustained and that the additional purposes bear some
> relationship to Internet use, administration and policy. For example,
> applicants are encouraged to propose methods of supporting and assisting
> non-commercial participants in the ICANN process. Uses intended only to
> subsidize other activities of the organization or its subsidiaries, activities
> that are not subject to oversight and management by the .org
> governance arrangements, should not be considered.
>
> 2d. Registrars
> All ICANN-accredited registrars should be eligible to register names in .org.
> However, applicants are encouraged to propose methods of managing the
> relationship between the registry and registrars that encourage
> differentiation of the domain.
>
> 2e. Definition of marketing practices
> Differentiation of the domain is a key policy objective in the transition, and
> new marketing practices are the primary tool for achieving that objective.
> Applicants should propose specific marketing policies and practices
> designed to differentiate the domain, promote and attract registrations
> from the defined community, and minimize defensive and duplicative
> registrations.
>
> 3. The Verisign endowment
>
> Applicants should meet all requirements needed to qualify for the $5 million
> endowment from Verisign. Applications should describe how they propose
> to utilize the endowment and the timing of its use.
>
> 4. The Registry Operator
>
> Any entity chosen by the TLD delegee to operate the .org registry
> (including itself) must function efficiently and reliably and show its
> commitment to a high quality of service for all .org users worldwide,
> including a commitment to making registration, assistance and other
> services available to ICANN-accredited registrars in different time zones
> and different languages. The ".org" registry should match or improve on
> the performance specifications of the current ".org" registry. The registry
> fee charged to accredited registrars should be as low as feasible
> consistent with the maintenance of good quality service. The registry-
> registrar protocol should either remain the same as the current ".org"
> registry, or it should match the new international standard for registry-
> registrar protocols being developed in the Internet Engineering Task
> Force.
>
> 5. ICANN Policies
>
> The .org administration must adhere to policies defined through ICANN
> processes, such as policies regarding registrar accreditation, shared
> registry access, the uniform dispute resolution policy, and access to
> registration contact data via WHOIS.
>
> 6. Follow up
>
> ICANN should invite applications from qualifying non-profit organizations
> to assume responsibility for operation of the .org registry with a deadline
> no later than 30 June 2002, so that an evaluation, selection and
> agreement process may be completed well in advance of the 31 December
> expiration of the current agreement with Verisign.
>
> ICANN will provide an opportunity for the Names Council to review the
> request for proposals (RFP) prepared by the ICANN staff prior to its public
> dissemination, and will adjust the RFP as needed in consultation with the
> Task Force to ensure compliance with the policy. Application fees should
> be as low as possible consistent with the objective of discouraging
> frivolous applications.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:42:18 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Call for an Urgent help whic could also  help us a lot

Richard and all,

  Ok thank you Richard for clarifying this for us all!  Well done!  >;)

Richard Jullig wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> unfortunately, the correct reading is that the proposals have to be in by
> 5pm PST on 15 Jan 2002. We either need to have a signed hardcopy or an
> electronic copy by then (can  be submitted via email). If you send an
> electronic copy first, the hardcopy needs to be postmarked no later than 15
> Jan 2002.
>
> On the upside, the proposals don't have to be very long; just be sure you
> address briefly and concisely the topics in the outline included in the RFP.
> If you can't complete all teaming arrangements, include the current status
> and the expected final outcome in the proposal. You can update us on
> progress re teaming relationships while proposals are being evaluated.
>
> Feel free to contact me with further questions.
>
> Regards
>
> Richard
>
> Richard Jullig, PhD
> Program Manager
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> CommerceNet Consortium
> 10050 N. Wolfe Road, SW2-255
> Cupertino, CA 95117
> T: 408.446.1260 x286
> F: 408.446.1268
> email: [email-masked]
> www.commerce.net
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Setting the business agenda
> for global electronic commerce
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:27 PM
> To: Jefsey Morfin
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Call for an Urgent help whic could also
> help us a lot
>
> Jefsey and all assembly members,
>
>   Hummm?  That's not how I read it.  The deadline for a "RFP"
> was listed as the 15th of Jan 2002.  If this is incorrect perhaps
> Richard or Amy could elaborate?  Richard, Amy?  My reference was:
> http://www.commerce.net/initiatives/ngi/overview/faqs.html#committed
> Contact persons are [email-masked] and [email-masked]
>
> Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > At 12:38 10/01/02, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > >Jefsey and all assembly members,
> > >
> > >This would be a great project for the DNSO GA to consider.
> > >However at this late date Jan 10, 2002 it is too late for a
> > >good proposal to be submitted by the 15th of Jan 2002.
> >
> > No! The need is only to file a form to register. Any Californian software
> > center or Internet company interested may contact the person at
> > [email-masked]. There is no commitment at this stage. The opportunity
> > for us is the very short delay: if the developping firm gets a registrant
> > through us we will get them as sponsor and we will certainly share into
> the
> > developement specifications as we are certainly interesting panels both to
> > the developper and to the Californian Agency. So this is a real concrete
> > opportunity for he ICANN and the Constituencies/GA.
> > Jefsey
> >
> > >Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > > > I apologize for this intrusion but IMHO this is an urgent opportunity
> in
> > > > the best interest of the whole Internet Community.
> > > >
> > > > The California Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency issued a Next
> > > > Generation Internet ( NGI) Application Development Program Call for
> > > > Proposals offering lead funding of up to $2.5 million . Only
> California
> > > > based businesses, non-profit corporations and public institutions are
> > > > eligible to apply, but products and development teams may originate
> from
> > > > anywhere.
> > > >
> > > > Proposal deadline is January 15 2002 - more information at
> www.commerce.net
> > > > or at NGI Application Development RFP Donald Cahill - (408) 446-1260
> x273
> > > > or Joanne Kim (408) 446-1260 x206.
> > > >
> > > > I found a potential revolution being "a smart working environment
> browser"
> > > > permitting to carry your  own activities on a unique and simply
> organized
> > > > browser without caring if you are on the nets or on your own windows,
> Mac,
> > > > Linux machine as it is Java and simultaneously locally and ASP
> supported in
> > > > a stand-alone and in groupware form). That project is under
> development and
> > > > is sponsored and funded by the French Innovation Agency.
> > > >
> > > > The designer agrees to sponsor the GA and the NCDNHC if he gets
> funding
> > > > through us. I proposed that the ICANN to use a community management
> tool: I
> > > > had selected this product to serve as a basis for such a project. For
> > > > on-line working forum like us, it would be a real plus.
> > > >
> > > > You will find a rush presentation of the designer under
> > > > http://jefsey.com/superwiz.htm. I would also propose that other
> similar
> > > > project could be selected and that an ICANN WG works on having one to
> > > > support governance management for transparent, coordinated, simple
> > > > multi-lingual archiving, votes,  position editing, etc...
> > > >
> > > > I have been informed of the Californian program only recently so its
> > > > designer looks very urgently for a partner to co-apply. Any
> > > > software/internet oriented Californian firm, University or non-profit
> may
> > > > be interested. I personally think it could also be a kill for a
> University
> > > > as the market is for millions of copies.
> > > >
> > > > Jefsey Morfin
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Discuss mailing list
> > > > [email-masked]
> > > > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > >
> > >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
>
> 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

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:59:07 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Poll for Verisign WLS proposal

All assembly members,

  The following is a Poll that should be considered voluntary regarding
Verisign's WLS proposal:
(please place you "X" in the appropriate box provided below)

In favor of WLS proposal [ ]
Not in favor of WLS proposal [ ]

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:05:43 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: [icann-delete] Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:53:53 -0500

George Kirikos wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >We asked for feedback on the proposal.  We have received a lot, in
> > particular with regard to the price, and we are taking a new look at
> the
> > economics.  Regardless of whether it makes a significant dent in the
> > load issue or not, I personally believe it would be a valuable
> service
> > for consumers.  Rather than continuing to argue that point, it seems
> > like it would be really useful to give it a 12-month test where
> > registrars and registries and other interested parties can find out
> in
> > real time.
> 
> I think it was much more than price that was wrong about the WLS. I
> don't think you can simply tweak that, and expect "WLS II" to fly. 

Well, it seems like that is exactly what is being
attempted.

The
> main reason that WLS was put forth by Verisign in the first place was
> to solve the "load issue". Now trying to argue that "it would be a
> valuable service for consumers" seems beyond the scope of Verisign
> registry -- it seems beyond the scope of their role as the simple
> managers of a database. 

This seems to be clear to just about everyone everyone but
the Verisign representative.

Innovation should take place at the registrar
> level, where there is a competitive landscape. And, if you've noticed,
> that competition already exists (NameWinner, NicGenie.com, SnapNames,
> eNom Drop club, IAregistry, AWregistry, ExpireFish and all the other
> competitors mentioned before). It's out of place for Verisign registry
> to interfere in that market.

Verisign is not just a registry and no matter how often
they keep repeating their mantra of "the registry and
registrar businesses are separate", the truth is that they
are still one and the same business: VERISIGN.  Verisign
appears to be suffering from a split personality of sorts
and appears to be confused about their role(s) in the
marketplace.  

> 
> Since Verisign owns .cc and .tv, I propose that should it wish to run a
> WLS test for a year, it run it on those two registries. It can report
> back to the community in a year, and let us know whether the test was
> "successful". One should specify in advance what is considered to be a
> "success" (i.e. pre-specify the metrics that are used to determine
> whether results meet goals). I'm 100% confident that the SnapNames
> people can adapt their technology to the .cc and .tv registries, and
> propose that they direct their energies in that direction. I look
> forward to reading your report in 2003.

COM is the only TLD people will line up for, so Verisign
has its sights fixed on the most lucrative market.  Funny
thing is, there is no value in an after market if a name
is not already registered.  For, as Abel Wisman pointed
out, the registrant creates the value in a name, and
Verisign wants to capitalize on already existing domains
without providing any tangible or real value for their
proposed waiting list service patrons.  In the real world,
when someone sells the rights to something they have no
right to sell, the practice is called fraud. 

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:19:51 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Poll for Verisign WLS proposal

All assembly members,

  My vote is indicated below...

Jeff Williams wrote:

> All assembly members,
>
>   The following is a Poll that should be considered voluntary regarding
> Verisign's WLS proposal:
> (please place you "X" in the appropriate box provided below)
>
> In favor of WLS proposal [ ]
> Not in favor of WLS proposal [x ]
>
> 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

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:08:39 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Poll for Verisign WLS proposal

Not in favor of WLS proposal [X]

Thursday, January 10, 2002, 6:59:07 PM, Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
JW> All assembly members,

JW>   The following is a Poll that should be considered voluntary regarding
JW> Verisign's WLS proposal:
JW> (please place you "X" in the appropriate box provided below)

JW> In favor of WLS proposal [ ]
JW> Not in favor of WLS proposal [X]

JW> Regards,

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

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:46:16 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [icann-delete] Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:53:53 -0500

Thursday, Thursday, January 10, 2002, 10:08:56 AM, Rick H Wesson wrote:

> dotsplash:

> first of all I don't believe you as you don't sound like a registrant.
> first of all you don't use your own domain; you post from yahoo's free
> mail service. If you mailed from your own doain it would lend some
> credability to your post.

And I'll bet he subscribed that address to the list just moments
before making that post   :)

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

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux 

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

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

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:32:55 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mailing List Participation

Hi William

> The only ones not happy with discussing it here are you and Eric.

You're doing it again William.

> I think the comment above was obvious and accurate.
>
> Again you show nothing but the extraordinary length you have to go to
> in order to attack me.

Crap, William.  You attack everybody else and cry foul when people point it
out.

> Is your life as a failed businessman and ex-academic really so
> depressing that you have to sink that low to attack someone else?

See !!  We all fail sometimes.  Even you.

I am also a failed Alt Chair because I resigned rather than subject myself to
your continuing attacks.  Now we have no Chair and no List Monitors.

And no procedures to speak of.

As you have effectively destroyed not only the sublists but also the main GA
list, I will not put up with your spin.

The pity is that by responding to you, I am actually damaging the list (which
is, of course, suiting your objective of wrecking the lists).

Shame, William

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: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 19:58:21 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Poll for Verisign WLS proposal

Hello,

> In favor of WLS proposal [ ]
> Not in favor of WLS proposal [X]

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:09:43 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Poll for Verisign WLS proposal

> > In favor of WLS proposal [ ]
> > Not in favor of WLS proposal [X]

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 21:57:36 -0800
From: Harold Whiting <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Poll for Verisign WLS proposal

 In favor of WLS proposal [ ]
 Not in favor of WLS proposal [X]

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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 22:05:28 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Results from Registrar Telecon on Deletes & Update....

Excellent summary (and nice spreadsheet with charts/graphs), Ross.

If you add a link to the DNSO GA discussions of the issue, starting
from:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/maillist.html

to the list of links at http://www.byte.org/rc-deletes then I think
you'd have an almost complete list of the major discussion on the
issue. The other links that might be added for completeness would be:

http://www.opensrs.org/archives/discuss-list/0201/date.html
(OpenSRS resellers discussion list archives)

and any public links to the ICANN-DELETES mailing list (a public
archive might be useful of those discussions).

I'm shocked and saddened the "Let's Make George Kirikos a
Multi-Millionaire Proposal" got no votes! :( C'est la vie... at least
it got as many "favourable" votes as the WLS (a resounding zero!) from
the registrars. Perhaps a recount? ;)

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

- --- "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> The approximately final notes from the registrar teleconference of
> January
> 9, 2002 are available at
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01798.html - this
> post
> also includes a link to a quick analysis that I completed on where
> the other
> registrars positions lie and a few other interesting tidbits.
> 
> Also, David McGuire from NewsBytes has a penned a decent article on
> the
> story - his piece can be found at
> http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/173564.html
> 
> The interesting pieces can be found towards the end of the article
> where he
> discusses the ICANN staff reaction to the issue. It is reassuring
> that the
> staff are up to speed on our discussions and seem to be prepared to
> intervene if Verisign is unable to garner significant public support
> for the
> WLS proposal.
> 
> Lastly, I have updated the issues page at
> http://www.byte.org/rc-deletes
> that provides a decent backdrop to the issue, links to the various
> proposals
> as well as some insight into the discussions that led up to the Dec.
> WLS
> proposal by Verisign.
> 
> If you have any questions, you know where to find me ;)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -rwr

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:49:13 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign Buying Revenue?

According to TheStreet.com they may be doing just that:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ts/020108/fund2_020008.html

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

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux 

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

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

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:52:50 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Stuart Lynn wants restricted TLDs only

http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020110/n10212356_2.html
The president of the group that oversees the Internet's naming system
said Thursday that he favored creating new members-only suffixes, such
as .edu and .museum, over unrestricted domains like .com and .info.

M. Stuart Lynn, president of the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers, told Reuters that restricted ``top level'' domains
open only to members of a select group such as schools or museums
would likely pose fewer problems than unrestricted top-level domains
open to the general public.

``A lot of the problems surrounding the new TLDs (top-level domains)
are less in a sponsored environment,'' he said.

Has to be the lamest reason I've ever heard.

Sounds more like trying to find an excuse to do what the Corporate/IP
interests would like, which is to see NO new unrestricted TLDs.  They
fought hard during Workgroup C to prevent open TLDs from being
introduced, arguing for no expansion of the namespace.

I think the quote in my sig reflects quite appropriately on this
situation.

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

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

- --
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 #977
************************