- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ga] New top-level internet addresses come with $100, 000-plus price tag
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 28, 2008

June 28, 2008

Roberto and all, Good point and all true Roberto. What's better though is cooperation between the root structure systems. Oh I forgot, ICANN doesn't want to do that, do they. Shame that. More importantly is the collisions ( non physical ) of DN's that share the same TLD but are on different root structure systems. Who was first in Commerce will and should have precedence, logically and legally speaking. Same is true for "Passing off" under the Lanham act in the US, and by International practice in the UN. Again, "first use in commerce" will and should prevail, legally, and logically speaking on a global scale as well. This where the problem is now, has been to an extent, and unless ICANN cooperates with other Root server structures, non physical collisions will ensue. That sets up a host of legal considerations extraneous, and inclusive of the Lanham Act, including, but not limited to abusive business practices act depending on who had first use of any particular TLD or DN in a TLD name space, and Restraint of Trade statutes, both US, and other countries similar statutes, and in accordance with UN practice under WIPO. This would be the case with .bank in Danny's example earlier on this thread. Yet I still applaud ICANN's opening up the gTLD and IDN gTLD name space as it offers more use in commercial and non-commercial activity. But ICANN must learn to share, or be faced with potential and likely protracted litigation which will tarnish ICANN's image further, create confusion amongst users/consumers globally, and likely engender criminal prosecution of ICANN's own Bod and Staff on commercially based grounds under Restraint of Trade grounds. I for one would not like to see this happen. How about you? I want a happy, fair and honest ICANN, don't you Roberto? Roberto Gaetano wrote: > I am missing something here. > We have been flooded over the years with emails that have been stating how > successfule alternate roots are, on how ISPs all over the world are > increasingly pointing to a system that is able to override what is in the > "ICANN root" with a different choices, and so on. > Now, what's the problem now? If ICANN delegates some TLDs that have a > different resolution in a different root system, all what it takes for who > wants to address the latter rather than the one in the ICANN root is to > change your setting and point to the alternate system. > It's called "competition", I am being told. There's nothing wrong in having > different highways systems, as it already happens with different railroad > systems. > Cheers, > Roberto > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ga(a)gnso.icann.org > > [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of > > sotiris(a)hermesnetwork.com > > Sent: Sunday, 29 June 2008 01:30 > > To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org > > Subject: Re: [ga] New top-level internet addresses come with > > $100, 000-plus price tag > > > > > > What a load of crap Danny! Are you bucking for employment at > > ICANN again or something? > > > > Truly a sad day for the Internet indeed. > > > > Here's an analogy for you: What if your town along with your > > neighbouring towns have simply lost confidence in the > > existing Highway or Levee authorities because they have been > > siphoning off the the money that was intended for maintenance > > to say... fight pointless wars overseas or some such > > nonsense... So, the highway and levee systems around your > > town(s) are not what you and your fellow country bumpkins > > were hoping for when you paid your taxes like good little > > sheeple. So, your town and its neighbouring towns decide to > > build your own highways and levee systems ON YOUR OWN PRIVATE > > LAND. You end up running into many others in neighbouring > > towns and cities who feel the same way across the country and > > all together and at your own expense you end up setting up > > your system of highways (or levees). Then, all of a sudden, > > the looters at the now anachronistic Highway/Levee Authority > > move in and take over your highways and levees because they > > have the guns, bombs, and HAARP. How would that make you feel > > Mr. Establishment Apologist? > > > > Regards, > > > > Sotiris > > > > > > > > John, > > > > > > I don't see it that way. Let me try to use an analogy. > > There are a > > > set of properties that are in a poorly-trafficked side of > > town. Most > > > folks can't easily find these properties as they are not > > listed in the > > > maps (search engines) that most people will use. They provide some > > > local benefit to those that own the properties and to the > > limited set > > > of neighbors that are aware of the property locations, but > > as they are > > > not situated on the main thoroughfares, most will just pass them by > > > without even realizing that they are there. > > > > > > The owners of these properties can arrange to move these > > structures to > > > the main highway by entering into a leasehold arrangement with the > > > highway department (the same way that a McDonald's, for > > example, can > > > occupy a prime rest stop location along an interstate thruway). Of > > > course, these property owners may have to compete with > > other property > > > owners to obtain such a lease. > > > > > > And yes, there are times when a major highway might pass through a > > > minor property development and create a loss situation for > > a property > > > owner as the highway builders exercise their eminent domain > > rights. > > > In such cases, there are victims, and often enough such > > victims are not compensated. > > > > > > Anyone that has watched the development plans for this highway has > > > known that it has been many years in the making; certainly > > enough time > > > for property owners to make their plans. > > > > > > Most would say: you can't stop the march of progress. Most would > > > also agree that progress outweighs the needs of the few > > whose assets > > > might be damaged. Such is life. > > > > > > Those that choose not to get out of the way of a > > steamroller will wind > > > up being crushed -- that's just the way that it is. If you seek to > > > grow your properties, the consider entering into the > > process set up by > > > the highway department. You have just as much right as > > anyone else to > > > bid on a lease (and ICANN leases are forever). Put together a > > > business plan and field a bid. It's a better option than > > grousing over the current situation. > > > > > > regards, > > > Danny > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/28/08, John Palmer > > <jpalmer(a)american-webmasters.net> wrote: > > > > > >> From: John Palmer <jpalmer(a)american-webmasters.net> > > >> Subject: Re: [ga] New top-level internet addresses come with > > >> $100,000-plus price tag > > >> To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org > > >> Date: Saturday, June 28, 2008, 4:27 PM This is nothing but > > an attempt > > >> at wholesale theft of property from one group of people (small > > >> businesses) by an organization so that they can sell that stolen > > >> property to rich and powerful people. Most of the gTLDs that are > > >> popular are already owned and operated by companies, most of them > > >> small businesses with limited resources. You know how > > justice works > > >> in the country - You get justice if you can buy it, > > otherwise, you're > > >> out of luck. They are now proposing to do what they did with .BIZ > > >> back in 2000 on a wide scale basis. > > >> > > >> Whats new? ICANN is all about stealing things it does not own and > > >> profiting off of it. We all know, for instance, that the UDRP is > > >> nothing but a scheme that allows rich and powerful > > interests to steal > > >> domains from poor people. > > >> > > >> ICANN, Dick Cheney, George Bush, the Bilderburgs, > > Hapsburgs, Vladimir > > >> Putin, Robert Mugabe - no difference between any of them. > > >> > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > >> From: "Dominik Filipp" > > >> <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> > > >> To: <sotiris(a)hermesnetwork.com>; > > >> <ga(a)gnso.icann.org> > > >> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 1:59 PM > > >> Subject: RE: [ga] New top-level internet addresses come with > > >> $100,000-plus price tag > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Sotiris, > > >> > > >> bright conclusions as usual, but I see one positive aspect > > on it, a > > >> decrease of Verisign's .COM dominance. Just imagine perfect URL > > >> addresses such as > > >> > > >> http://microsoft > > >> http://ibm > > >> http://xerox > > >> > > >> affordable for the rich though. > > >> > > >> But all the rest in your post remains perfectly valid. > > >> > > >> Dominik > > >> > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: owner-ga(a)gnso.icann.org > > >> [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of > > >> sotiris(a)hermesnetwork.com > > >> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 5:03 PM > > >> To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org > > >> Subject: [ga] New top-level internet addresses come with > > >> $100,000-plus price tag > > >> > > >> > > >> All, > > >> > > >> See article: > > >> > > http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4218 > > >> 629 > > >> .ece > > >> > > >> One last money grab by the looters at ICANN and their moocher > > >> cronies. > > >> The day of the truly international, standardized Internet is over. > > >> This move is a pretty transparent attempt to dominate any > > DNS system > > >> by a bunch of shortsighted and pigheaded individuals who > > have all the > > >> visionary capacity of a rotten potato. The real (and > > >> unstated) intent of > > >> this move is to preclude the advent of extra-ICANN DNS > > systems in any > > >> language on earth, such that the resulting (or continuing) US > > >> dominated addressing system will remain within the purview of > > >> American control. In effect, what ICANN is telling the > > world is that > > >> no country/nation has the right to create its own DNS as they will > > >> simply collide it into irrelevancy and make a handsome "profit" at > > >> the same time! > > >> > > >> A sad day for Internet users worldwide. > > >> > > >> Sotiris > > >> > > >> P.S. I will be unsubscribing from this list as there is no > > longer any > > >> reason for me to follow the meaningless blabber hereon. > > >> Good luck to all > > >> of you (except to the looters and moochers, I hope your genitalia > > >> rot). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: winmail.dat > winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef > Encoding: base64 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ga] ECTA Letter to Twomey
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 28, 2008

June 28, 2008

Danny and all, Thank you for making us all aware of this VERY interesting letter to Mr. Twomey and ICANN via the ISPCP rather than in a more open and transparent manner. I remain unsurprised, as do our members that ecta and ICANN continue to be less than transparent and open with the larger internet, user, and registrant community. As such I hope that Glen will put out an announcement regarding this letter and in doing so seeks the user and registrant community sector of the private sector as to their opinion on the contents and tone of this letter accordingly. I know that a good number of our members are ECTA members, registrants, and trade mark holders and do not share the ECTA's position and concern expressed in this letter from ECTA and none that I know of, or have heard of even, knew that this letter was sent or considered at any time. This therefore leads to the belief that the ECTA members were not broadly consulted before this letter was sent, and as such cannot be considered representative of the full or majority of the ECTA members accordingly. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Jun 28, 2008 9:12 AM >To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: [ga] ECTA Letter to Twomey > > >The European Communities Trade Mark Association has sent a letter to Paul Twomey regarding GNSO improvements. It doesn't appear in the ICANN Correspondence pages, but may be found via the ISPCP list -- see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/msg00433.html > > > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Community Members Request an ALAC Investigation
by Danny Younger June 28, 2008

June 28, 2008

Dear all, I have received a request to have the ALAC investigate an issue -- it concerns possible gaming of the .asia sunrise cycle. The preliminary details are spelled out below. Please advise the course of action that will be taken by the Committee. Thank you, Danny Younger --- On Fri, 6/27/08, Yehuda Katz <yehudakatz(a)mailinator.com> wrote: > From: Yehuda Katz <yehudakatz(a)mailinator.com> > Subject: Danny: Possible dot.ASIA Front-Running scheme > To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com > Date: Friday, June 27, 2008, 11:42 PM > Danny, > > Please run this on the ALAC mail-list. > > It looks like there is a 'Front-Running' scheme > going on with the .ASIA > Auctions > > http://www.dotasia-complot.org/ > > http://www.dotasia-complot.org/cat30.html > > The Guy (Thomas Rucker) is doing his homework, its worthy > of a ALAC probe, > that may flush out the bushes > > Thnx

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ga] New top-level internet addresses come with $100, 000-plus price tag
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 28, 2008

June 28, 2008

Sotiris and all, This is one time amongst a host of others that I did not, I actually agree with Vint. The Internet is a public resource or is supposed to be. But than again aren't governments part of the Public as well? My answer is yes, but only part! Yet governments do, can, and will, directly, indirectly, or by legal statute, regulate the Internet. How far this will go in certain countries is a matter of good guessing and significant political intrigue. Oh my, what drama! And of course all in the name of good for the internet and good for the users, and introduced by various social engineering crackpots of multiple politically diverse bents. How lovely! sotiris(a)hermesnetwork.com wrote: > > In the course of time we will have good new TLDs that will serve > > particular needs. I, for one, look forward to the possibilities offered > > by a .bank TLD. These TLDS will add value to the namespace, and they will > > be readily found by those using common search engine applications. And > > yes, we will still have some remaining vanity TLDs outside of the root > > that almost no one will find that will continue to offer little to the > > broader Internet community. > > That is a rosy picture indeed. Personally, I don't see the need for a > .bank TLD as the existing namespace has not hindered online banking > developments in any way, at least not in any way that I can see... Perhaps > you could explain to us all *how* a .bank TLD will add value to the > namespace, except of course to the registry/registrars who will peddle the > TLD? > > When Jon Postel stated his opposition to the expansion of the TLD > namespace, it was because he actually had a clear understanding of what he > was about. I think you need to take a look at an interesting article you > may not have run across yet entitled "Vint Cerf Wonders If We Need To > Nationalize the Internet" see: > http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/25/vint-cerf-wonders-if-we-need-to-nation… > > Surely Atlas must be shrugging these days... > > Regards, > > Sotiris Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ICANN Board Approves Censorship Policy for DomainNames Based on Morality: 2 Board Members Speak Against It]
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 27, 2008

June 27, 2008

Vittorio and all, I must admit that Vittorio has a good point. The ALAC hasn't formulated any consensus that can be definitely demonstrated without objection to anything what so ever. Neither have any of the ALS'es to my knowledge. But this I believe is mostly due to the poor structure of the ALAC and the ALS'es and the lack of mechanisms that delineate what positions are, or are not, broadly shared by it's participants. Hiring a consulting group did little and may have disserved the ALAC and the ALS'es in it's weak/meager attempt to determine "Consensus". This amongst other reasons is why I believe that proposals however formal or otherwise should be voted upon by each and every participant that wishes to do so, so that there is no doubt where the members/participants actually do stand on any issue it has or may be considering. Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Evan Leibovitch ha scritto: > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >> 1) How comes that a statement from a constituency which is supposed to > >> represent the views of the entire world is only representing one point > >> of view, but not the other? > >> > > Because the global consensus was overwhelmingly with one side. > > > > (Why are you incapable of grasping that every region of the world might > > agree that the morality/order sections of the resolution are a bad idea?) > > Excuse me? > Can you please point me to the places where the various RALOs discussed > the issue and come to consensus to recommend against public order > considerations? > At least for Europe, I haven't seen any kind of discussion to this regard. > > > In fact, it is notable that, despite the considerable diversity within > > At-Large, it was capable of gaining consensus on this position. Perhaps > > that should indicate to you that condemnation for these clauses is > > widespread; this is absolutely not a view from just one region. > > > >> 2) How comes that the ALAC only stated the negative aspects of this > >> decision, but did not bother to mention the positive sides and the > >> satisfaction of many At Large participants? > >> > > > > Perhaps you did not take the time to listen to Wendy's actual comments; > > the very first thing she said was "the at-large, as registrants and as > > users of domain names, supports the introduction of new gTLDs". > > > > But her comments indicated that the good parts -- which we all want -- > > are seriously poisoned by the bad. Any long-term view of the situation > > must acknowledge that the short-term benefit of new gTLDs will be > > seriously impeded by the morality and order sections. > > This is your opinion. > My opinion is that the sections on morality and public order will > actually make the introduction of new gTLDs viable and stable. > I am sure that my opinion is shared by several other ALSes. > Why wasn't this opinion reflected in the ALAC statement? I'm not saying > that the ALAC must adopt my opinion, but certainly, by stating that the > At Large supports a position which is far from being consensual, it is > stating the fake. > > >> 3) How were the community and the ALSes consulted on that statement? > >> > > NCUC expressed this position emphatically yet was ignored in the GNSO > > conclusion. > > > > Of course, as is overwhelmingly the case, ALAC was put in a responsive > > position and did not have enough time to do a complete canvass of ALSs. > > So it was the ALAC -- a mainly-elected global group intended to express > > the views of the grassroots -- which did what it could, together with > > the elected RALO chairs and secretariats who were able to confirm the > > community agreements with the ALAC position. > > These recommendations have been out for one year or so, and there was no > time to ask for ALS / public comment on an ALAC position?? > I think that the ALAC should better come up with a better excuse... > Ciao, > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ICANN Board Approves Censorship Policy for DomainNames Based on Morality: 2 Board Members Speak Against It]
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 27, 2008

June 27, 2008

Michele and all, Well, the subjectiveness of any given string will be the decision of the GNSO council however it will be constituted after the GNSO review decision is finalized. Than the Bod will make a final decision as to if ICANN agrees to the proposal and the string associated with same. At that point, DOC/NTIA with the input of the GAC will either approve or disapprove. The test case will again be the reconsideration of .XXX., as ICANN is looking to trying to avoid being sued by the original group that put forth that proposal pending the called upon independent review, which I believe but do not know, ICANN's legal folks feel is not going to be favorable towards ICANN or DOC/NTIA and needs to buy time. As the .XXX proposal cost an estimated $4m to prepare and present, and that if ICANN looses a potential suit from the original group that put forth that proposal and damages are assessed, those damages could easily exceed 5 to 12 times the actual cost of the original .XXX proposal and each individual Bod members and GNSO council members at the time of reversing it's original decision, could be held financially responsible for all or part of any potential damage award. Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: > > I also > >know that there are strings that spell a benign word in one language, > >and an indecent word in another, and that public morality means very > >different things in different countries. > > Exactly. It's far too subjective. > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection > http://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Locall: 1850 929 929 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Money influences? Telecom Immunity Flip-Floppers Got More Telecom Money
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 27, 2008

June 27, 2008

All, A real USER issue. Kudos to Maplight and Larry Lessig! A nice analysis by Maplight.org indicating that those Democratic representatives who changed their vote on telecom immunity between March and June received on average http://www.maplight.org/FISA_June08 40% more in contributions from telecom interests than those Democrats who held firm. Maplight asks, "Why did these ninety-four House members have a change of heart? Their constituents deserve answers." Across both parties, representatives who voted for immunity in June had received almost twice a much telecom money as those who voted against. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/telecom-amnesty.html Wired's coverage includes a quote from Larry Lessig, who is on the Maplight board: "Money corrupts the process of reasoning. [Lawmakers] get a sixth sense of how what they do might affect how they raise money. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

[Fwd: [governance] dot.ASIA Front-Running scheme claimed]
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 27, 2008

June 27, 2008

Yehuda, Done. Dot.Asia has been a moderately too a very poorly manage registry sense it's very conception. It remains so. It comes as no surprise that others have finally taken note and interest in recognizing this more broadly recognized fact. It is rather amazing to me that ICANN has not yet redeligated this Registry to more a more appropriate party or parties. But this is partly due to ICANN itself having glaring and significant management and leadership deficiencies that have been shown time and time again. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [governance] dot.ASIA Front-Running scheme claimed Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:53:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Yehuda Katz" <yehudakatz(a)mailinator.com> Reply-To: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org,"Yehuda Katz" <yehudakatz(a)mailinator.com> To: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org All, Please (cross-post) run this on the ALAC mail-list. It looks like there is a 'Front-Running' scheme going on with the .ASIA Auctions http://www.dotasia-complot.org/ http://www.dotasia-complot.org/cat30.html The Guy (Thomas Rucker) is doing his homework, its worthy of a ALAC probe, that may flush out the bushes. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ga] VeriSign Registry Service Proposal
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

Bashar and all, For myself only, I was of the same opinion as Bashar. So I would like his questioned answered. What I think Verisign is wanting to do is a 2nd level registry to test our the idea of some unknown sort with very particular restrictions. Bashar Al-Abdulhadi wrote: > Chuck, > > Can you please explain what does two-character 2nd-level domains on .com > and .net ? i thought all two letters/characters were available for > registration and already been allocated to their respective owners? > > Best Regards, > > Bashar Al-Abdulhadi > > CEO, KuwaitNET.net > > Gomes, Chuck wrote, On 6/26/2008 10:54 AM: > > > It is for single and two-character 2nd-level domain names for .com and > > .net. > > > > Chuck > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:04 PM > >> To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org; Gomes, Chuck; > >> na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov; > >> ssene(a)ntia.doc.gov > >> Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign Registry Service Proposal > >> > >> Danny, Chuck and all, > >> > >> Thank you Danny for making us all aware of this. > >> > >> Chuck, thank you for making us as aware as you possibly > >> could regarding this proposal. Is this a TLD or a Domain > >> Name? I believe you meant TLD. In any event, our INEGroup > >> members will be very interested I am sure to review this > >> proposal very closely and shall relay their remarks to me > >> which I shall share as broadly as possible to ICANN staff, > >> Bod and other constituency groups within the GNSO. > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > >>> From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > >>> Sent: Jun 25, 2008 6:33 PM > >>> To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org > >>> Subject: [ga] VeriSign Registry Service Proposal > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> CHUCK GOMES: In the interest of transparency and > >>>>> > >> disclosing my interests, I would like to inform you that > >> VeriSign has submitted a registry service proposal for the > >> allocation of single and two-character domain names. There > >> aren't very many two-character domain names available, by the > >> way, one. > >> > >>> So, unfortunately, until it's posted it is not appropriate > >>> > >> for me to discuss the details. I can tell you that I believe > >> that we incorporated a lot of the issues that were > >> recommended in the comments with regard to ICANN's paper and > >> that we think it has excellent benefit for the community. > >> > >>> And in fairness to ICANN staff so that we submitted it late > >>> > >> leading up to these meeting and at a very difficult time for > >> them to respond -- although we have had some interaction, so > >> I don't want this to come across as a criticism to ICANN > >> staff that it hasn't been posted. > >> > >>> If per chance -- and I don't know whether this will happen > >>> > >> or not -- it is posted this week, we will be happy to talk > >> about it and receive comments from people. > >> > >>> https://par.icann.org/files/paris/Paris-GNSO-22JUN08am.txt > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders > >> strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > >> Abraham Lincoln > >> > >> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with > >> what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > >> > >> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the > >> burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L > >> multiplied by > >> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > >> United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > >> =============================================================== > >> Updated 1/26/04 > >> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > >> div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > >> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > >> jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 > >> > >> > > > > > > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

user_s summit 2009 and icann committment to be user oriented
by Annette Muehlberg June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

All, We finally made it and will be able to organize a userŽs summit in Mexico, March 2009! I think it would be great if we could make sure, that the userŽs summit will not be something seperated from the ICANN Meeting. Instead, ICANN should show its committment to strengthen its bottom up structure and be user oriented in all its policies. For the public discussion my proposal is, to approach all icann bodies - such as the board, various committees, the advisory councils, the ICANN supporting organisations and their constituencies as well as icann staff. We should ask them - throughout the whole icann meetings whenever they give a public presentations - to explain what the respective issues/ policy proposals mean for the internet end-user. I think implementing such a procedure would be a great step forward. Best greetings and many thanks to all, who have been working very hard to make the summit possible. Annette

7 6