[IFWP] Privacy on the internet heating up! - Attn Becky Burr! Where is DOC and ICANN on this?

[Jeff Williams]

All,

See: http://www.informationweek.com/795/privacy.htm
   http://www.informationweek.com/795/privacy2.htm
   http://www.informationweek.com/795/privacy3.htm

  Intresting excerpts:

Such activities have turned online privacy into an explosive issue, one
that many  companies may be underestimating. "There are a lot of heads
in the
sand," says  Gary Clayton, founder and CEO of the Privacy Council, 
a Dallas company  created to help businesses improve privacy practices. 
"Data flows through a  company like water flows through pipes. I don't 
think businesses have really  thought about how they manage this data, 
how it flows throughout the company.  They haven't answered the 
questions: How do you get it, how do you use it, and   who has rights 
to it?"

 For the FTC, the suit against Toysmart.com demonstrates not the power
of the  people, but the problems with online privacy. "The FTC has the 
ability to take  action in this case because Toysmart.com had a privacy 
policy and violated it,"  says an FTC spokesman. "But most companies 
don't have a policy at all, and  they're free to do as they see fit 
with personal data. Our ability to protect the  public is not sufficient 
to deal with the scope of the problem."

And...

Earlier this month, the European Parliament
voted down the so-called "Safe Harbor Agreement," which would have
allowed the export of electronic data on European citizens to the 
United States.  The European Union's 1998 Data Protection Directive 
requires that European consumers be allowed to access and correct 
their data and specifically agree to sharing it with others. It 
also forbids the transfer of data on European citizens to
countries that don't meet these standards. The Safe Harbor Agreement,
announced May 30 after two years of negotiations with the U.S.
Department of Commerce, says U.S. companies that agree to comply 
with voluntary guidelines  would gain "safe harbor" from prosecution 
for importing data on European consumers. The agreement calls on 
the Commerce Department to keep a list of safe harbor-eligible 
companies, the FTC to review complaints, and the  Department of 
Transportation and the FTC to police E-commerce Web sites
and  brick-and-mortar companies for violations.

  Personal notes:

  Mrs. Burr, one wonders why the DOC/NTIA has not directed ICANN
in relationship to the DNS issues with respect to Privacy in "Whois"
data for instance?  When might ICANN adopt a privacy policy similar to
the EU's?

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: [dnso.discuss] Registrar Cybersquatting - Are You Going to do anything to Stop NSI?

[Jeff Williams]

Curtis and all,

  Curtis you may not be aware of this but the complaint of which you
are making to ICANN Board members has been made many times
before, and gone ignored or not dealt with in any meaningful manner.
Relevant E-Mail lists are full of these complaints and concerns with
respect to the oversight responsibility that ICANN is supposed to in
part assume and have failed to do so on many occasions.

Curtis E. Sahakian wrote:

> Dear Ms. Dyson,
>
> Is there anyone who is going to exercise some control over
> registrar behavior like that of NSI squatting on abandoned
> domain names.  They are holding an abandoned name I'd like to
> register.  They apparently plan to auction it.
>
> Like many others, I do not want to do business with them... but
> their cybersquating forces me to do so (under the terms of their
> non-negotiable agreement).  Apparently their non-negotiable
> agreement indirectly grants them the right to do this.
>
> Telephone companies aren't permitted to own or squat on 800
> numbers.  NSI should not be permitted to do so.  No registrar
> should be permitted to do so.  As far as I can see there is no
> vested interest on your board likely to stand up against this.
> Is there?
>
> Is this issue on your agenda?  If not what does it take to put
> it on your agenda?
>
> Curtis Sahakian
> 847/676-2774
>
> ---
> You are subscribed to dnso.discuss as: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> To unsubscribe, change your list options, or view archives go to:
> http://lists.association.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=dnso.discuss
> This list system donated by Lyris Technologies (http://www.lyris.com/).

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Re: CYBER-FEDERALIST No.2: ICANN Yokohama Meeting

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  As many have already witnessed starting in Singapore, ICANN is
already a failure in many respects.  Some of which you point out here
nicely.  Yokohama only emphasized this with the antics of several of the
ICANN Board members procedural maneuverings as well as
outlandish statements from Board members (Illegitimate?) and ICANN
Staff members.

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> see notes below
>
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Hans Klein wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > REFLECTIONS ON THE ICANN MEETING IN YOKOHAMA
> >
> >
> > ***
> > CYBER-FEDERALIST   No. 2July 17, 2000
> > Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
> > http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy
> > Internet Democracy Project
> > http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/
> > ***
> >
> >
> > ICANN's board meeting in Yokohama Japan wrapped up yesterday after an
> > eventful four days. What follows here is a report of the major events:
> > 1. Government Officials Question Privatization
> > 2. User Representation Not Killed, Only Weakened
> > 3. New TLDs -- $50,000 to Apply
> > 4. Launch of the Civil Society Internet Forum
> >
> >
> > 1. Government Officials Question Privatization
> > ==
> > ICANN received some remarkable public criticism in Yokohama from two high
> > government officials.  Paul Twomey (head of the Governmental Advisory
> > Committee) and Christopher Wilkinson (the European Union's lead official on
> > ICANN) made comments relating to a proposed bylaws revision to reduce and
> > possibly eliminate elected (At Large) user representatives on the Board.
> > The officials warned that an unbalanced Board could invite government
> > oversight of ICANN -- which could, in effect, end the ICANN experiment in
> > privatization.
>
> There's a reason for Twomey change of pace.  He has been fired from his
> position in the AUS government - and now his future and reputation makes
> it or breaks it with ICANN.  Paul now has a direct interest in keeping it
> honest (ICANN) and preventing it from failure.
>
> > In separate public comments, these two officials presented a vision of the
> > ICANN board as consisting of two parts: an Internet supply industry
> > association (the 9 Supporting Organization directors) and a consumer
> > association (the 9 At Large members).  In this vision the two associations
> > balance each other, with industrial interests matched by consumer interests.
> >
> > To date, however, only the industry association part has been implemented,
> > leaving industry interests unopposed by consumer interests.  With only one
> > interest represented, ICANN risks becoming a supply industry association.
> > (To use language only slightly more direct than that of the officials,
> > ICANN risks becoming a cartel -- a combination of independent business
> > organizations formed to regulate supply of goods by the members.  Cartels
> > are often illegal or regulated.)
> >
> > Twomey noted that if ICANN would continue to develop as a one-sided
> > industry association, then it might be necessary for governments to
> > regulate it to protect consumer interests.
>
> translation - don't screw up or we'll take you over.  in fact this is a
> baseless threat.  anyone can run the root and i think twomey has finally
> begun to realize that.
>
> > In other words, the fundamental principle underlying ICANN -- that the
> > Internet should be managed by the private sector -- was publicly questioned
> > by two officials.
> >
> >
> > 2. User Representation Not Killed, Only Weakened
> > 
> > Policies about elections were the hottest issues in Yokohama.  In addition
> > to government officials, numerous participants also spoke out against the
> > proposal to reduce At Large directors.  Alan Davidson of the Center for
> > Democracy and Technology, who sounded the initial alarm about this proposal
> > just a few days before the Yokohama meeting, was among those who spoke
> > cogently at the public comment period.
> >
> > Nonetheless, the final bylaws revision adopted by the Board still weakens
> > user representation.  While five directors will be elected this fall, the
> > remaining four seats will remain closed for another two years (until the
> > Annual Meeting of 2002).  Thus, user representation will be constrained at
> > 5 of 19 seats, rather than 9 of 19 as envisioned in the bylaws.
> >
> > The near-unanimity of Board members in their support for measures to weaken
> > At Large representation was striking.  Of nineteen directors only one, Vint
> > Cerf, questioned the reduction. All other directors were either silent or
> > spoke in favor of the proposal to reduce elected representatives.
> >
> > Rules for electing At Large directors also changed.  The Board lowered the
> > threshold for candidate nominations from 10%

[IFWP] Re: ICANN-Yokohama: DNSO Meetings Complete, Public Forum Tomorrow

[Jeff Williams]

Ben and all,

  Thank you for pointing this out!  I am cc'ing this to other relevant lists
for their review.

  I did notice at
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/subcom-ga-071400.html
that of the 15 questions posed, not a single one was answered to my
knowledge.  I wonder why that might be???

Ben Edelman wrote:

> Greetings!
>
> You are receiving this message because you preregistered to attend ICANN's
> upcoming public meetings in Yokohama, Japan (July 12-17) via webcast.
>
> Today's meetings of the DNSO General Assembly and Names Council are now
> complete, as is the Government Advisory's Public Forum.  Archives of these
> sessions are now posted in the online meeting archive at
> .  Archives include
> agendas, scribe's notes, documents and presentations used, real-time
> questions received, and online discussion logs.  RealVideo archives will be
> posted within the next 24 hours.
>
> Meetings resume tomorrow at 8:30AM local time with the ICANN Public Forum.
> To join the webcast, go to .
> During and just before webcasts, a prominent link on this page will allow
> you to enter the remote participation area.  Please be sure to join us
> online at the proper time, being aware of time zone differences.  For
> example, tomorrow's Public Forum begins at 8:30AM local time on July 15 --
> which is July 14 at 11:30PM in UTC, and July 14 at 7:30PM in US Eastern
> time.
>  00&hour=8&min=30&sec=0&p1=248> converts the time at the start of this
> session to local times in other time zones.
>
> In preparation for the meetings, you may want to review the meeting agenda,
> as posted at .  From that page,
> you'll also find public comment spaces on major agenda items.
>
> If you miss some or all of the Public Forum or if you wish to review content
> generated by the Public Forum, be advised that complete archives of the
> session will be posted at
>  upon its conclusion.
>
> Access to the remote participation system requires a 28.8kbps or faster
> modem, with best access over 56k or faster connections.  Access to the live
> audio and video feeds requires the RealPlayer, version 5.0 or later (G2 or
> later strongly recommended), available for free from
> .  Finally, access to the live chat and
> dynamically-updated scribe's notes areas requires a JAVA-capable browser (IE
> or Netscape version 3 or later) or a dedicated IRC client.
>
> Finally, if you're not already subscribed to ICANN's announcements list, you
> may find it helpful to join in order to receive important future
> announcements from ICANN.  See
>  for instructions.
>
> We look forward to seeing you online during the meetings!
>
> Ben Edelman
> Berkman Center for Internet and Society
> Harvard Law School

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] FYI - Security Alert Consensus #053 BSD

[Jeff Williams]

FYI,

  -- Security Alert Consensus --
Number 053 (00.29)
 Thursday, July 13, 2000
Created for you by
  Network Computing and the SANS Institute

Relevant Info on BSD security bugs and problems as follows:

This week saw many vendors releasing patched versions of ftpds.  As it
turns out, the type of vulnerability that plagued WU-FTPD last week was
also found in OpenBSD ftpd and FreeBSD ftpd, as well as Opieftpd.  The
original vulnerability was described as {00.27.007} and this week as
{00.29.002}. You will need to be a subscriber to the "Cross-Platform"
category to receive those alerts.

Keep in mind that SAC is archived, and the archives feature all
categories, so if you would like to see items not in your subscribed
category, you can view the issue at:

http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/

Specifics as follows:

--- BSD News ---

--> {00.29.003} Update to {00.28.003}: Canna remote buffer overflow in
SR_INIT command

FreeBSD has released updated packages that fix the vulnerability
described in {00.28.003} ("Canna remote buffer overflow in SR_INIT
command").

FreeBSD packages:

ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-3-stable/japanese/ja-Canna-3.2.2.tgz


ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-4-stable/japanese/ja-Canna-3.2.2.tgz


ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/alpha/packages-4-stable/japanese/ja-Canna-3.2.2.tgz


ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-5-current/japanese/ja-Canna-3.2.2.tgz


Source: FreeBSD
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/freebsd/2000-07/0041.html

--> {00.29.008} Update to {00.25.006}: OpenSSH "Uselogin" allows
commands to be run as root

FreeBSD has released a patch that corrects the vulnerability discussed
in {00.25.006} ("OpenSSH 'Uselogin' allows commands to be run as root").

Patch:
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/CERT/patches/SA-00:30/sshd.patch

Source: FreeBSD
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/freebsd/2000-07/0040.html

--> {00.29.020} Update to {00.23.004}: QPop euidl buffer overflow

FreeBSD has released updated packages that correct the vulnerability
discussed in {00.23.004} ("QPop euidl buffer overflow").

Download updated packages:

ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-3-stable/mail/qpopper-2.53.tgz


ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-4-stable/mail/qpopper-2.53.tgz


ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/alpha/packages-4-stable/mail/qpopper-2.53.tgz


ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-5-current/mail/qpopper-2.53.tgz


ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/alpha/packages-5-current/mail/qpopper-2.53.tgz


Source: FreeBSD
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/freebsd/2000-07/0036.html

--> {00.29.022} XFree86 4.0 local buffer overflow

FreeBSD has released updated packages that detail a local buffer
overflow in XFree86 version 4.0. The vulnerability lets a local attacker

gain root privileges.

Updated FreeBSD packages:

ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-3-stable/x11/
ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-4-stable/x11/
ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/alpha/packages-4-stable/x11/
ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-5-current/x11/
ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/alpha/packages-5-current/x11/

Source: FreeBSD
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/freebsd/2000-07/0037.html

==  End of update =

Regards,







--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] our missionary to the military

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  Yes thank you Joe for sharing this with us.  >;)
"Onward Christian Soldiers"
  "In God we trust, in ICANN we wonder"

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> I want to thank brother Bob - for his pastorsforsoldiers.god
> campaign.  Today PCCF helped Bob and his Minitry reach out to 30,000
> servicemen and women.  God bless Bob.
>
> > Date: Thu Jul 13 04:53:34 EDT 2000
> > From: Rev. Bob McKenny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Rev Joe Baptista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Hello
> >
> > Dear Brothers & Sisters in the U.S. military services:
> >
> >   I'm sending you this message to let you know about some exciting
> > news.  We are setting up a mission on the internet to help soldiers
> > and their families.  Our hope is to make pastors from various
> > demonitations available via email to military service personnel and
> > their families in order to provide support and councilling.  We know
> > your jobs are difficult and we hope in some way our mission will show
> > you how much you and the work you do is appreciated.
> >
> >   Our site "Pastors for Soldiers" http://pastorsforsoldiers.god/ will
> > be online in a few months.  But we need your help in making this a
> > reality.  Please join ICANN at http://members.icann.org/ (it's free)
> > and support our application to have our domain available to the U.S.
> > military computer service.  At the present time our domain can only be
> > seen by people using the new expand internet domain services.  To visit
> > us you'll need to make changes to your computers configuration. Look at
> > http://www.adns.net/ or you can try http://support.open-rsc.org/How_To/
> > for more information.
> >
> >   In closing, thank you for your time and any support you may give our
> > efforts and goals.
> >
> > God bless, protect and love you
> > Rev. Bob McKenny
> > Pastors for Soldiers Ministry
>
> you gotta love it ..
> Joe Baptista
>
> http://www.dot.god/
> dot.GOD Hostmaster
> +1 (805) 753-8697

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: Comments and Position of Image Online Design, Inc.

[Jeff Williams]

Chris and all,

  Ok, but they are not registered TM's at this time as you seem to
indicate.  And you have 90 days in which to file an appeal I believe...

  I would suggest that unless you have allot of NEW evidence you
do not file an appeal, as it will be denied abruptly.

Christopher Ambler wrote:

> >  Oh, you might also want to remove the following from your
> >home pag : " .WEBT, The .WEBT Internet Domain Registry, and The.WEBT are
> >trademarks of Image Online Design, Inc. All rights reserved.", given that
> >you LOST your last court case involving these TM's, Chris.  A bit
> >misleading at this point if I do say so myself
>
> We still claim common-law trademark status on those marks, and an
> appeal is being considered.
>
> Christopher

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: Image Online Design's Response

[Jeff Williams]

Ron, Chris and all,

  From a independent point of view we [INEGroup] see
IOD as in a battle for it's very existence.  This would of course
include Chris Ambler.  I have chided and disagreed with Chris
in the past and will likely do so again in the future, but his
response to ICANN seems, as I earlier posted, to be pretty
good in the my first reading.  Our staff will also be reviewing it
as well.  I will say that I doubt that ICANN will thoroughly
review this response at this late stage before the Yokohama
meeting.  I hope I am not correct here though.

  If Chirs Ambler and IOD do get selected as a registry for
.WEB, they will have earned it and IMHO deserve to become
a registry despite my chiding him on several occasions.  He has
fought the good fight and deserves the opportunity to run a registry
for .WEB exclusively if possible.  My guess is that ICANN
will not allow exclusive registries and that all registrars will have
the right to register DN's in any new gTLD's that may come about
irrespective of whom is the registry.  I will also venture a guess
that the ICANN board has already made up it's mind about
.WEB at least and about what restrictions new registries will
have to comply with, even though ICANN cannot even enforce
it's own Registrar agreements as we have seen.

 So in closing here, this is not all just about money, but for the
most part money plays a central motivation role, of course.
And there is nothing wrong with that necessarily!

Ron Bennett wrote:

> Michael-
>
> You hit the head right on the nail...it all comes down
> to money...if .WEB succeeds, many people benefit
> including the many thousands of domain holders who
> already have domains in the semi-official .WEB zone.
>
> And of course so does IOD from running the .WEB
> Registry and so does ICANN from all the extra money
> they'll get from Registrars that register .WEB domains.
>
> Everybody makes money...and who knows, maybe
> even NSI will make money too...I'm surprised Verisign
> hasn't considered just buying out IOD and controlling
> .WEB like they do the other gTLDs and ensuring that
> the U.S. intelligence friendly SAIC remains in the loop.
>
> Ron Bennett
>
> At 01:49 AM 7/10/00 -0400, Michael Sondow wrote:
> >Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >
> > > I look forward to seeing many of you in Yokohama this week.
> >
> >Your website says: "Image Online Design is proud to be a sponsor of
> >the ICANN meeting in Yokohama." That's a bit much, isn't it?
> >
> >I guess that, if ICANN approves your .WEB TLD, that will be the end
> >of your protests about ICANN's legitimacy, just as Tony Rutkowsky
> >has buttoned his lip since being hired by NSI.
> >
> >It's all just money, huh? Democracy, the law, justice, fairness,
> >honesty...these mean nothing.
> >
> >Good going, America!
> >
> >
> >
> >Michael Sondow   I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
> >Tel. (718)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] ICANN still does not have 501(c) status

[Jeff Williams]

Karl and all,

  Yes I have been following this situation very closely as well
and can also confirm that at least the IRS has not accepted
ICANN as a 501(c)(3) status, and cannot really determine
at this juncture whether or not they should be granted
such a status.

  Given the nature of ICANN as a calif. Corp. and it's activities,
this may be just read tape on the part of the IRS or it could be
that the IRS doesn't really know what to do.  Neither would surprise
me at all.  Given that ICANN has yet to adequately establish a funding
model, the IRS may be waiting to see how ICANN does this before
proceeding or deciding as well.  This would seem reasonable if it is
the case.  My sources inside the IRS tell me unofficially that this
is one of several concerns it has presently.

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> I have had it confirmed, ICANN still does not have IRS 501(c) status.
>
> Their application is apparently, after 18 months, still pending.
>
> (This is not surprising given that ICANN is trying to squeeze into
> 501(c)(3) and doesn't really seem to fit into any of the defined
> categories of 501(c)(3).)
>
> The fact that ICANN *is not* a 501(c) corporation vitiates protection
> under all the various "volunteer" director protection laws except one.
> (And that remaining one requires a degree of insurance protection that
> ICANN has not yet demonstrated exists.)
>
> --karl--
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: Comments and Position of Image Online Design, Inc.

[Jeff Williams]

Chris and all,

  Very nicely done from about half of what I have read thus far
in my first reading.

  Oh, you might also want to remove the following from your
home pag : " .WEB™, The .WEB™ Internet Domain Registry, and The.WEB™ are
trademarks of Image Online Design, Inc. All rights reserved.", given that
you LOST your last court case involving these TM's, Chris.  A bit
misleading at this point if I do say so myself

> It is long, so I will not post it to the list, but will, instead, provide
> URLs.
>
> http://webtld.com/Yokohama.htm
>
> http://webtld.com/Yokohama.doc (Microsoft Word Format)
>
> Christopher Ambler
> Image Online Design, Inc.

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: Image Online Design's Response

[Jeff Williams]

Chris and all,

  A proud sponser of ICANN in Yokohama, eh?  Kinda
says it all Chris...

Christopher Ambler wrote:

> Michael, you presume too much, both about Image Online
> Design and myself.
>
> I have no desire to argue with you, other than to say that
> you're wrong about me.
>
> Believe what you will.
>
> Christopher
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Michael Sondow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Christopher Ambler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 10:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Image Online Design's Response
>
> > Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >
> > > I look forward to seeing many of you in Yokohama this week.
> >
> > Your website says: "Image Online Design is proud to be a sponsor of
> > the ICANN meeting in Yokohama." That's a bit much, isn't it?
> >
> > I guess that, if ICANN approves your .WEB TLD, that will be the end
> > of your protests about ICANN's legitimacy, just as Tony Rutkowsky
> > has buttoned his lip since being hired by NSI.
> >
> > It's all just money, huh? Democracy, the law, justice, fairness,
> > honesty...these mean nothing.
> >
> > Good going, America!
> >
> >
> > 
> > Michael Sondow   I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
> > Tel. (718)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927
> > 
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: [idno] Re: LPA opposition to .union TLD

[Jeff Williams]

Leah and all,

  I believe that we are in complete agreement here wit respect to
the LPA letter to the ICANN Board and staff.  It is indeed
insulting and IMHO wrong headed.  Politically speaking it
could make some headway though as it is inherently negative
towards Unions.  As you likely know, negative politics
and the media seem to go hand in hand and plays well with
the public at large, as was clearly shown with the Clinton
scandal.  The same could happen here, but most likely on
a much smaller scale in this instance...

  THe ICANN Board and staff could take advantage of
the use of negative politics as it did with NSI in the past
in this situation with the potential .UNION gTLD being
managed or controlled by the Labor Unions.  It is for this
and other reasons we [INEGroup] believe that a light
weight approach to determining registries and new TLD's
should prevail or predominate any ICANN policy regarding
Registries in general.  If not the DNS wars will most likely
take a turn for the worse, and I don't like the various
potential of that occurring.

  I personally have no direct affiliations with unions or a
position on them one way or another generally speaking.
Some unions are good ones and others are not.  The fact
remains that they are a necessary evil IMHO and have been
for over half a century in the USA anyway.  So to deny
them a gTLD of .UNION should they so choose to
run a registry for .UNION would seem both politically
unpalatable and frankly in violation of the tradition of the
Internet to date.

J&L Enterprises ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> Dear Mr. Williams,
>
> My comments here are not necessarily to be taken as for or against
> having a .union TLD.  I have not made up my mind whether I would
> be in favor of it or not at this point.  I tend to think we do not need
> it, but am neutral at the moment.  The comments are more to
> address the obvious intent of the LPA as typical of big business in
> this endeavor to control the new TLD,s as much as taking control of
> the ICANN policies and the UDRP to the detrement of domain name
> holders.
>
> I hope I have made myself abundantly clear.  The LPA letter
> insulted my intelligence.
>
> "LPA is an association of the senior human resource executives of
> more than 200 leading corporations in the United States. LPA’s
> purpose is to ensure that U.S. employment policy supports the
> competitive goals of its member companies and their employees.
> LPA member companies employ more than 12 million employees, or
> 12 percent of the private sector U.S. workforce.
>
> Well, duh...  Who represents the other 88 percent?  Sheesh!
>
> "LPA members have a substantial interest in making sure that
> employees receive accurate information about whether they are
> represented by a union or not. "
>
> Well, duh again!  Sure they do.  It's called propaganda control and
> disinformation.
>
> "The addition of a .union top-level domain could prematurely
> undermine employee confidence in the use of the Internet as a tool
> for communicating with employees.  "
>
> Now, give me a major break.  Having been in the work force as well
> as having been an employer, for well over 30 years, I can tell you
> that most employees are not so backward that they cannot make
> up their own minds about what to believe on the net.  Nor are they
> so stupid they can't see what an organization is trying to "sell."  An
> organization can be the employer as well as the "union."  Been
> there, done that.
>
> Besides which, it does not matter whether there is a chartered TLD
> or not.  Unions will post their information or misinformation in any
> TLD, just as the major corporations do on their intranets.  I just
> "love" the "benevolent dictator" who must think for his serfs, don't
> you?
>
> "I. The Creation of a .union TLD Would Create Confusion and
> Administrative Problems
>
> "LPA believes that a .union TLD would create more problems than
> benefits and should be dropped from consideration, particularly at
> this stage of domain name expansion. The creation of a .union TLD
> could confuse employees, especially those who are not familiar with
> union organizing procedures. "
>
> When did the public become unaware of union "procedures"
> (tactics)?  AND when did employees become brainless?  Perhaps a
> little "confusion" may be good, not bad.  It would invite questions,
> certainly.
>
> "The .union domain name would also likely require the chartering
> entity to put in place sophisticated application and management
> procedures to reduce the inevitable disputes that would arise
> among competing unions..."
>
> It probably would.  However, that would become the problem to
> solve by the TLD chartering entity before gaining approval.
>
> Yes, the battle has begun.
>
> Leah Gallegos
>
> > James and all,
> >
> >   Well this is no small wonder here is it?  It looks like the battle
> > for a .UNION gTLD has begun in earnest.  I hope that the Labor unions
> > on a global scale will file a respo

[IFWP] In the headlines-- Beyond dot-com? Troubled Net group grapples with new names

[Jeff Williams]

All,

Beyond dot-com? Troubled Net
group grapples with new names
Source: Associated Press
Publication date: 2000-07-09

  See:
http://cnniw.yellowbrix.com/pages/cnniw/Story.nsp?story_id=11888365&ID=cnniw&scategory=Internet%3ARegulations

 Some interesting excerpts of note:

"There really are people with different interests,"
 says Esther Dyson, ICANN's chairwoman. "We
 need to reconcile this in a way so that even if you
 lose something, you feel the process is fair."


  I can hear the sawdust shuffling under her feet now!

And:

But board member Vinton Cerf, a founding father of
the Net, understands how names can generate
controversy. When the Net exploded the economy
worldwide, even Internet addresses themselves
gained value.

He explains: "It boils down to money."



  Now Vinton, I though you believed that 'The Internet is for Everyone"?

Has your thinking on this changed with respect to new gTLD's?
Jon Postal must be spinning in his grave, poor fellow...  :(

  My My how soon we forget, eh?

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: LPA opposition to .union TLD

[Jeff Williams]

James and all,

  Well this is no small wonder here is it?  It looks like the battle
for a .UNION gTLD has begun in earnest.  I hope that the
Labor unions on a global scale will file a response to this letter.

James Love wrote:

> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 09:02:53 -0400 (EDT)
> From: James Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Random-bits] LPA opposition to .union TLD
>
> The Public Policy Association of Senior Human Resource Executives, a
> corporate group that fight labor union organization efforts, has filed a
> 6 page letter with ICANN, opposing the creation of a .union top level
> domain..   Jamie
>
> http://www.lpa.org
> http://www.lpa.org/lpapublic/downloads/00-173_LPA_ICANN_Comments.pdf
>
> =
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> P.O. Box 19367| http://www.cptech.org
> Washington, DC 20036  | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Voice 202/387-8030| Fax 202/234-5176
> =
>
> ___
> Random-bits mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: Reply to Michael Volpe (GAO)

[Jeff Williams]

William and all,

  First of all these lists, are not a court of law.  As such I see
no reason why  Michael needs or should present any evidence
of the nature that you are hereby requesting.  Hence it would seem
reasonable that you are simply grandstanding at Michaels expense
for purposes that are not readily evident.  But most of us here
do know that you have had a long standing feud with Michael
Sondow as you have with others including myself on various
discussion lists concerning these (Listed in Michaels post)
issues amongst others.  The archives of these lists show clearly
and without much argument that you William X. Walsh have
a overly excited and unreasonable vendetta towards Michael
Sondow amongst others.

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Michael,
>
> You make some serious accusations here, but present no facts
> whatsoever to back them up.  One would hope that if you have such
> facts, you would present them to strengthen your arguments, otherwise
> your accusations will (rightfully) fall on deaf ears.
>
> So can you back this up with facts?  Or is this just more of the same
> kind of stuff we have grown used to seeing come out of the ICIIU
> 1 man Congress?
>
> Saturday, July 08, 2000, 8:44:45 PM, you wrote:
>
> > July 8, 2000
>
> > Michael R. Volpe
> > Asst. General Counsel
> > U.S. General Accounting Office
> > OGC/RCED, Rm. 7870
> > Wash., DC 20548
>
> > Dear Mr. Volpe,
>
> > In your Report No.GAO/OGC-00-33R: Department of Commerce:
> > Relationship with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> > Numbers, you state:
>
> > "According to ICANN, the late Dr. Jon Postel was primarily
> > responsible for the
> > selection of ICANN’s interim board."
>
> > and
>
> > "According to Department officials, the Department did not
> > participate in the consideration or
> > selection of proposed ICANN interim board members."
>
> > and
>
> > "The Department states that its relationship with ICANN is limited
> > to its various agreements with the corporation and that its
> > oversight of the corporation is restricted to whether these
> > agreements are being met."
>
> > Mr. Volpe, is it your practice, and in your opinion correct
> > procedure under the rule of law, to accept as true, despite the
> > available evidence, the statements of a person or entity that has
> > been accused of violation of the law?
>
> > The above assertions made by Department of Commerce officials are
> > lies. 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1) provides that: "Whoever, in any matter
> > within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial
> > branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and
> > willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
> > device a material fact shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
> > not more than 5 years, or both."?
>
> > Are you aware that by repeating and substantiating the lies of DOC
> > officials you are an accessory to their violation of the Code, and
> > that you can be prosecuted as such?
>
> > You also state in your report that:
>
> > "... the Government Corporation Control Act was inapplicable to the
> > formation of ICANN since the Department did not acquire or establish
> > ICANN."
>
> > and
>
> > "The Department had no direct role in the drafting of ICANN's
> > corporate bylaws or the selection of its interim board of
> > directors."
>
> > These, too, are lies. However, you do not cite the Department as
> > their origin, instead asserting them yourself. By so doing, you are
> > in direct violation of the Code and liable for its penalties.
>
> > Yours,
> > Michael Sondow (for the ICIIU)
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  Williammailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: GAO report is out

[Jeff Williams]

Karl and all,

  I think most of us know that Kent has a tendency to jump
the gun or provide his own spin on just about anything that
is not necessarily completely in ICANN's favor.  This example
not withstanding of course...

  Thank you for clarifying the specifics on the GAO report
for us all here.  I am sure it is much appreciated by many.

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 12:41:15PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > > The GAO report is out
> > >
> > > www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf
> > >
> > > Nothing earthshaking except that the Dept. of Commerce indicates that
> > > it has no intention of letting go of the ICANN root of the DNS.
> > >
> > > (The report doesn't reconcile that with its oft-repeated statement that
> > > the NTIA/DoC contract with ICANN will end either on Sept 30 [or be
> > > extended, but will still end at some time afterwords.])
> >
> > I'm rather surprised that you say "nothing earthshaking", given your
> > longstanding negativity concerning the legal basis for ICANN.
>
> You certainly do have a penchant for not reading things well.
>
> To quote the report
>
> The Department [of Commerce] has no specific statutory obligations
> to manage the domain name system or to control the authoritative
> root server.
>
> and
>
> It is unclear whether the Department has the authority to transfer control
> of the authoritative root server to ICANN.
>
> The reason the report didn't inquire further is that DoC said it would
> retain control of the ICANN franchise root system, thus reducing ICANN to
> nothing more than a private advisory group with no actual authority or
> decisionmaking power.  (It will be interesting to see what happens if DoC
> simply blindly follows ICANN's choices and thus makes it apparent that the
> DoC is simply abrogating the authority that it told the GAO that the DoC
> would retain.)
>
> > The GAO report is a resounding affirmation of the properness of
> > everything that NTIA and ICANN have done.
>
> Balderdash, it is no such thing.  I suggest that you actually read it.  It
> is a very limited document that did not go beyond the limited scope of the
> questions presented to it.
>
> > GAO found *no* problems with the legal basis
> > for ICANN
>
> That was not one of the questions before the GAO.  The report *did* find
> that there was no statutory authority for what NTIA has done except for
> the ability of NTIA to enter into contracts and attend meetings.
>
> > or for NTIA's actions, or in the actions concerning the
> > formation of ICANN, or in the method that the directors were chosen
>
> Again, you have failed to read.  Your weekend assignment is to actually
> read the report.
>
> > or with anything about how ICANN has conducted itself.
>
> Again that wasn't among the questions that the GAO was asked to answer.
>
> Left entirely unanswered, for example, is whether the APA will apply now
> that the DoC has made it clear that changes to the ICANN franchise root
> will be the result of NTIA decisions, not of ICANN decisions.
>
> > ... despite the fact that you and a number of
> > prominent ICANN critics were listed as "experts"...
>
> You must be jealous.
>
> --karl--

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Can you all look at this and make suggestions

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  Joe, please add me as a signatory onto this letter.  I hope you
have also sent it to some press folks too.  If not please let me know
and I will be happy to do so for you if you like.  This should be
published.

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> Can you all look at this and make suggestions - it's a draft of a letter
> I'm sending my special list of 3,000 media people.  Let me know what you
> think - suggestions - feel free to correct for spelling and grammer.
>
> love & kisses
> Joe Baptista
>
> http://www.dot.god/
> dot.GOD Hostmaster
> +1 (805) 753-8697
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:21:14 -0400
> From: J. Baptista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> MEDIA LETTER
>  Keep message with Guides ---
>
> I am the internet top level administrator for GOD - which see
> http://god.pccf.net/ - and I am writing you - a member of the press
> to let them know that there are significant developments and changes
> to the internet infrastructure in process.  The internet community
> has lost faith in the United States Governments ability to administer
> the internet root servers and I want to let you know that I hold
> Becky Burr responsible.  Becky is a civil servant with the National
> Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of
> Commerce (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/).
>
> One of the internets biggest myths is that the US Government was
> ever in charge of the domain system.  That is not true.  Anyone can
> provide root service to the internet community and at this time two
> independent organizations are doing just that.  The Open Root Server
> Consortium (http://www.open-rsc.org/) and the Internet Namespace
> Cooperative (http://www.tinc-org.com/).  In the orient - root service
> is available from i-DNS (http://www.i-DNS.com/).  At this time non
> us root servers have 0.3% of the domain name space which represents
> over 600,000 internet users.  A number of private companies do the
> same in order to improve service to customers.
>
> The only reason why the United States Government provides a majority
> of internet users with domain service is simply because:
>
> 1) They were there first
> 2) They were reliable and stable
>
> In short - the United States root servers were convenient.  But that
> is no longer the case.  The appointment of ICANN (The Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) by the NTIA has ended up
> making a dog breakfast of the dns.  It's no longer reliable - and no
> longer stable.  And I hold Becky Burr reponsible for that - her
> failure to do her job and provide oversight on ICANN's activities
> has resulted in a movement away from ICANN and the US Government's
> crude and uneducated attempts to take over central control of the
> internet.
>
> This will result in considerable embarrassment to the United States
> Government and it's supporters - which see
> (http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/DNS/gac/index.htm)
>
> At this time a comprehensive educational campaign is being waged by
> various groups involved in internet infrastructure and dns.  A radio
> campaign was launched today - http://www.adns.net/NEWS/270501.html
> by ADNS who run the top level domains EARTH, USA and Z.
>
> Various groups are also launching various campaigns - which see
>
> http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/054025.htm
>
> and
>
> http://www.news.com/Perspectives/Column/0,176,459,00.html?st.ne.per.gif.a
>
> My personal experience in this comes from managing the GOD top level
> domain.  We went public a few months ago and only expected a few
> domains holders to help us in our beta test.  Which see -
>
> http://www.internetnews.com/wd-news/article/0,2171,10_364761,00.html
>
> However - instead of a few hundred users - we got over 1,000 users and
> just under 8,000 domains registered in GOD space within the three day
> registration period.  We never expected such a demand for domains.  And
> I hold Becky Burr responsible for the forced scarcity of namespace on
> US servers.  Have a look at our stats yourself -
>
> http://god.pccf.net/admin/stats-2000-06-01/index.htm
>
> I hope that you as a member of the media will take enought of an
> interest to clean up the US governments backyard.  As a US taxpayer
> I'm embarrassed to support a government which is trying to take control
> of the dns - but is too stupid to realize that ONE - it can't be done
> and TWO - in the process of doing that their going to piss off internet
> users and end up running a root service no one uses.  This is a civil
> servant comedy of error that must come to an end or else the US taxpayer
> is going to end up holding the bag.  Please help us expose this fraud.
>
> Regards
> Joe Baptista
>
> http://www.dot.

[IFWP] Re: on DomainNotes.com: Article: Speculation, Incorporated

[Jeff Williams]

Scott, Judith and all,

  No, I think your posting this here is VERY appropriate.  It would
even be more so had you posted this to the DNSO GA list.  I would
suggest you do so, although I am sure that Harald and Roberto will
be  somewhat displeased.  >;)

  Judith.  Thank you for an very insightful and educational article
here.  I hope others will read it completely and take whatever
action to admonish ICANN in an appropriate fashion.  I salute
Alternic for their tenacity and effort.  >;)

Scott Clark wrote:

> Speculation, Incorporated
> We focus on the battle that aftermarket exchange Afternic.com has been
> forced wage against ICANN, denied registrar accreditation specifically
> because it engages in the very activity that P&G will profit from, and
> accredited registrar Network Solutions is entering!
> http://www.domainnotes.com/news/article/1,2160,3371_406331,00.html
>
> Please let me know if my posting of this info is inappropriate, and I will
> cease these notes.
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
> Scott Clark ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> Managing Editor
> Web Developer's Virtual Library: http://wdvl.com
> DomainNotes: http://domainnotes.com
> Dr. Website: http://www.webdeveloper.com/drweb/
> Join the WDVL Discussion List!
> http://wdvl.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: Barbie sues Consumer.net

[Jeff Williams]

Russ and all,

  It seems obvious to me that Mattel believes it has right to all
speech related in any way to the term "Barbie".  I find that to
be extraordinary and in disagreement in the extreme with the
1st amendment in several obvious areas.  The part of your
web page, Trademarks.org that indicated this clearly
is the following:
"By linking, you acknowledge and agree that, other than as set
 forth herein... No link(s) may appear on any page on your web
 site or within any context containing content or materials that
 may be interpreted as libelous, obscene or criminal, or which
 infringes, otherwise violates, or advocates the infringement or
 other violation of, any third party rights ... All terms and
 conditions related to the use of INTA’s web site will be
 construed according to the laws of the State of New York, United
 States of America, without regard to its conflict of law
 provisions. "

  Appalling though process on the part of the Mattel lawyers!

  Possibly a public awareness effort should be put into action against
Mattel with respect to "Barbie Dolls" and other Barbie related items
that Mattel sells...

  It also seems that again we can see clearly that ICANN in it's
pandering for support from the TM lobby has shown that it has
created a legal morass and mess that defies their White Paper directive
of "Stability".

domainiac wrote:

> Mattel has filed a federal lawsuit against Consumer.net concerning the
> domain name barbies.net in New York.  The suit claims that offering e-mail
> addresses using "@barbies.net" causes infringement and dilution and, of
> course, they claim that registering the domain violates the
> Anti-Cybersquatter Protection Act.
>
> Information is being posted at an alternate location since the barbies.net
> domain name has already been transferred to Mattel.  Information has already
> been posted about a whole series of these threats dating back to '96.  See:
> http://Trademarks.org
>
> Russ Smith
> http://consumer.net

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] What a candidate for ICANN director needs to know...

[Jeff Williams]

Ellen and all,

Good suggestion and a practice I have used for some time now.
Unfortunately they (The ICANN Board) is not very responsive.
I would also suggest that you copy Becky Burr, Elliot Maxwell
and Andrew Pincus of DOC/NTIA as well.

Ellen Rony wrote:

> Send these questions immediately to Louis Touton, counsel for ICANN, with
> copies to every member of the ICANN board.  Ask for a reply by July 10.
>
> Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> >As a possible candidate for the ICANN at-large board election, I've been
> >looking at the liability exposure of a Director and the protections
> >offered by California law.
> >
> >The legal liability is potentially extremely large.
> >
> >And the protections are potentially of more form than substance.  The
> >California statutes that purport to protect Directors from liability in a
> >non-profit are a Swiss cheese of conditions and exceptions.  And these
> >exceptions are triggered by the existance or non-existance of many things.
> >
> >It turns out that a potential candidate can not make an evaluation of the
> >potential risk because ICANN has not revealed certain critical facts.
> >
> >For a person to make an informed decision about running for Director,
> >several questions need to be answered.  Among those questions are the
> >following:
> >
> > - Is ICANN presently an IRS 501(c) corporation?  If so, then under
> >   which subsection of 501(c)?
> >
> >   [Certain procedural protections of Director liability hinge on whether
> >   the non-profit is a 501(c) and which subsection of 501(c).  It is
> >   interesting in that the most likely category for ICANN, 501(c)(3),
> >   causes some procedural protection to vanish.]
> >
> >   [By-the-way, if ICANN is an IRS 501(c) then where is ICANN's IRS 1023
> >   posted?  It is a public document that the corporation is required to
> >   make available subject to a $20/day accruing penalty.]
> >
> > - Does ICANN have a million dollars or more in General Liability
> >   insurance?
> >
> >   [Certain statutory liabilty protections are contingent on the
> >   corporation holding at least that much general liability insurance.]
> >
> > - Does ICANN have a "reasonable" degree of liability protection against
> >   the reasonably foreseeable risks?
> >
> >   [Certain statutory liability protections are contingent on the
> >   corporation holding insurance that is adequate to protect the public,
> >   the exact  amounts or means to measure adequacy are not specified by
> >   the statutes.]
> >
> > - Does ICANN have an operative Directors Liability insurance policy?  If
> >   so, then it is important for the potential directors to obtain it as
> >   the exact language is critical - general statements that "we have a
> >   policy" are essentially useless given the wide variation in coverage
> >   afforded by such policies.
> >
> > - What is ICANN's policy regarding payments to Directors?  [The statutes
> >   often strip all liability protections if there is any form of
> >   compensation beyond strict reimbursement for expenses.]
> >
> >   --karl--
>
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
> Ellen Rony//  http://www.domainhandbook.com
> Co-author  *="   /[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The Domain Name Handbook  \ )  +1  415.435.5010
>   //   \\ "Carpe canine"
>
>   The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: Doubt, change management and DisINTA-mediation by INEG stakeholders

[Jeff Williams]

Patrick and all,

  Standing!  And please check your headers on Kent's posts frequently.
I do.

  In retrospect, I find it terribly funny some of the posts contributed to
me in various ways.  Most especially those that I have seen in the
past couple of days from Kent (Forged headers posting as me) and
those from Mark Measday (This thread).  In any event, I do fail to
see any gain from it all other than some possible amusement...

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> And now will the real Jeff Williams please stand up?
>
> Some years ago, there used to be a TV program in England where a famous
> named person (eg author, bishop or footballer) would be shadowed by two
> doppelgangers.  All three claimed to be the genuine persona.  All were asked
> questions on air but the genuine celebrity was the only one who had to tell
> the truth.  The other two could say whatever they wanted.
>
> The denouement came with a statement like "And now . . . Will the REAL Jeff
> Williams please stand up."  After a bit of pretence (one or other started
> standing up) the real celebrity rose up.  Most in the audience were usually
> surprised which it was.
>
> The show really was very entertaining.
>
> So is this the real Mark Measday talking?  Or the real Patrick Corliss
> asking?
>
> Me or not me.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Mark Measday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 8:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [IFWP] Doubt, change management and DisINTA-mediation by INEG
> stakeholders: was: There's something dirty in the works
>
> > Kent,
> >
> > I'd be interested for comments on the following partial note, from all
> > those who are Jeff Williams, those passing through a Jeff Williams phase
> > and those still pretending not to be Jeff Williams. I apologise for
> > thinking aloud (again), sententiously and badly, but it is not only
> > something that will be allowed in my country as of November, but a
> > protected right for most readers of this email. It is partly in view of
> > the proposed meeting for INEG stakeholders in Yokohama next month (cf:
> > list emails from David Maher, Don Heath, Goberto Raetano and others), a
> > group in which Kent Crispin, myself and these others now find themselves
> > members, conceivably without having any conscious intention of becoming
> > so, sucked in by the need to fulfil the Jeff Williams role in his
> > absence, I hazard. I ask why we have to belong to this group, why these
> > people have been selected to represent our interests, and how a purely
> > imaginary constituency can come to so dominate the structure to the
> > detriment of worthier causes. And I also ask everyone, in the light of
> > Kent's quote from Mark Twain below, to also become Jeff, it is time.
> >
> > There is no planned entry in the 'Bavarian Journal of Primatology
> > 2000/4: : Examples of mimetic and other transferable behavioural
> > patterns on the Internet: ed. Jeffrey Williams.' The following note is
> > PURE hypothesis, written from the point of view of the Martian required
> > to discombobulate the Rosetta stone of IFWP and other archives, those
> > afraid of a Lysenko-style rewrite of history (which always and
> > unfailingly happens, as people fight against it), or those searching for
> > a purely semiotic and cultural understanding of the 'noise' as filtered
> > by those who filter, since they are still listening to the previous set
> > of instructions and don't have time for the new. (Who does? Isn't this a
> > normal human function?) However, there is absolutely nothing new here,
> > nothing that couldn't have been found in the equivalent of '50's William
> > Gibson (Marcuse?) or conceivably in some Egyptian hieroglyph. The aim is
> > to apply the generalizations to one particular case, to see how they
> > fit. And I think the answer is well, although how that implicates the
> > collusions of Yokohama, I don't yet know.
> >
> > Given the falsificability of email addresses, and indeed the underlying,
> > and ineradicable, problem of falsificability of identity, we are all
> > tempted towards the JW paradigm, and some succumb occasionally, as you
> > note you do yourself, Kent, to become him. This is the reason JW should
> > be defended at all costs, as indeed he may be you, or you may be he, at
> > any time. Attacking yourself makes little sense, even by the standards
> > of evolutionary psychology, but particularly at the individual level.
> > Pretence is a well-established social function, indeed many
> > non-scientists amongst the p

Re: [IFWP] That register.com commercial

[Jeff Williams]

Ellen and all,

  Yes indeed.  And it is too bad that ICANN doesn't enforce their
own policies upon their Registrars.

Ellen Rony wrote:

> The Registrar Accreditation Agreement implies a prohibition against
> warehousing of domain names:
>
> http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-12may99.htm
>
> 9. Registrar shall abide by any ICANN-adopted policy prohibiting or
> restricting warehousing of or\ speculation in domain names by registrars.
>
> >>I'm curious about something.  Many of you have probably seen the
> >>register.com commericals, where they have people touting the domains
> >>they've registered (e.g., sisterearth.com, hydrowatts.com, thefabers.com).
> >>Checking the whois database, of course, reveals all these domains are
> >>actually owned by register.com.
> >>
> >>Particularly in the case of thefabers.com, what recourse would a family
> >>with the last name of Faber have against this blatant squatting?
> >>These domains that register.com are using are not tied to or
> >>representative of any 'product or service', except that they are
> >>domain names, and register.com sells domain names.
> >>
> >>Would someone have a case to take these domains away from register.com
> >>under the UDRP?  What are the implications should the arbiters decide
> >>that register.com deserves to keep these names?
>
> Mikki Barry wrote:
>
> >
> >Of course not.  Register.com is a large company.  Therefore, they
> >will win under the UDRP.  Don't you yet understand how this works?
>
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
> Ellen Rony//  http://www.domainhandbook.com
> Co-author  *="   /[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The Domain Name Handbook  \ )  +1  415.435.5010
>   //   \\ "Carpe canine"
>
>   The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] There's something dirty in the works

[Jeff Williams]

Bill and all,

> Hi, guys and gals:
> 
> I find in the following,
> 
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la/archive/remotes-110299.html,
> 
> that I was a "remote participant" in an ICANN to-do.  Sorry, but
> I was not. Check it out and see how many others of you have had
> your names used to pad the ICANN spectre of respectability. Now
> if I only knew an attorney . . . !

If you did he would laugh you out of his office.  "On the Internet no one
knows you're a dog".  There is no way to verify the identities
of those who sign up remotely.  We all know that you are really Richard 
Sexton in disguise.


Regards,

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Off topic a bit - More probes by DOJ into antitrust concerns - AOL is targeted..

[Jeff Williams]

All,

  See: http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,37024,00.html

  Could ICANN be next?  Seems that with their relationship with
AOL and IBM that is a likely potential.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] [Fwd: [announce] ICANN - New TLD Consultation document]

[Jeff Williams]

All,

  FYI.  For your consideration.  Please voice your opinion.  If you
are not an ICANN At-Large or DNSO participant/member send
your opinions and comments to the DOC/NTIA or the members
of the ICANN Board directly.  If any of you need assistance in
doing so, please E-Mail me privately I shall provide the necessary
E-Mail addresses and other contact information available.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208





[ To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ To: WG's ]
[ To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[ To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; please inform your Constituency members]


Please refer to the following URL for the ICANN consultation document:
http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm

ICANN Yokohama Meeting Topic: Introduction of New Top-Level Domains
Posted: 13 June 2000 Deadline for Public Comments: 10 July 2000

The ICANN Board of Directors is expected to consider adopting 
a policy under which new TLDs would be introduced in a measured 
and responsible manner at its meeting on 15-16 July 2000 in Yokohama,
Japan.

DNSO Secretariat

Re: [IFWP] Re: [ga] [Admin] Monitoring imposed

[Jeff Williams]

Harald and all assembly members,

  You have yet again demonstrated for all of us how you contradict yourself
in the same sentence.  This clearly illustrates a lack of reason and complete
mental faculties.  Self Censorship in this situation would mean that
Joe would not have responded at all...

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 14:15 10.06.2000 -0400, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
>
> > > Note: At the moment, Jeff Williams is the only person barred from sending
> > > to the list. Most other messages rejected by the list software either
> > comes
> > > from nonsubscribers or violates the crossposting rule.
> >
> >That is a lie.  Jeff Williams is not the only person barred from sending
> >to the list.  I have been barred for life and you are the person who did
> >that.  Let's not be shy about admitting the obvious ;-)
>
> since you seem to be almost incapable of posting a message to the GA list
> without violating the crossposting rule (as the one I'm replying to did),
> you are in fact censoring yourself.
>
>   Harald
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#

[IFWP] Re: Senator Seeks .Sex (fwd)

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  The only problem, and it is a big one, we have with  .SEX or .XXX,
is that they will like be chartered, which I view as a good thin, but
than those business'slt related will only be allowed to register their DN's
in those name spaces.  That is CENSORSHIP.  An you know how I feel
about that subject.

Joe Baptista wrote:

> I agree with the senator - we need a dot.sex - just as much as we need a
> dot.safe tld for family values - I don't think Senator Lieberman knows
> that is also an option.
>
>  Senator  Seeks .Sex (Politics 3:00 a.m. PDT)
>  http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,36867,00.html?tw=wn2609
>  Senator Joseph Lieberman wants to segregate Internet bawdiness. He
> told the Commission on Child Online Protection that he wants to see
> xxx or .sex domains. Declan McCullagh reports from Washington.
>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] [Fwd: ] - Update on this bogus?/Forged? E-mail

[Jeff Williams]

All,

  In a bit of follow-up it looks like this post (Bogus or contrived)
is attributed to ATTCanada from Netcom.ca IP address 207.181.79.54
and the owner of that IP address and the associsted block is as follows:

Netcom Canada Inc. (NETBLK-NETCOM-CA-BLK1)
905 King Street West
Toronto ON, 3G9
CA

Netname: NETCOM-CA-BLK1
Netblock: 207.181.64.0 - 207.181.127.255
Maintainer: NCCA

Coordinator:
   Leger, Daniel  (LD-ORG-ARIN)  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   416-341-5755
 Fax- 416-341-5725

  Test.org does not resolve properly as well...  But is owned by a
German
concern.  See:
Registrant:
   Maisel EDV Systeme (TEST42-DOM)
  Harburgerstr. 9
  Bayreuth, DE D-95444
  DE

  Domain Name: TEST.ORG

  Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact,
Billing Contact:
 Maisel, Peter  (PM1079)  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Maisel Computing Services
 Harburgerstr. 9
 D-95444 Bayreuth
 Germany
 DE
 +49 921 789950

  Record last updated on 27-Jul-1997.
  Record expires on 28-Jul-2000.
  Record created on 27-Jul-1997.
  Database last updated on 7-Jun-2000 15:54:38 EDT.

  Domain servers in listed order:

  NS.TMT.DE195.27.208.131
  NS.MAISEL.DE 195.27.209.131

  Which leads me righ back to Roberto and his little Games on the DNSO
list and passing them off as someone else forging this post.

Regards,





--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208




Such a pretty little girl,
her hair all done in curls - 
it's magic - do dum dee doo

Ester your that girl,
you twat's a little perl -
it's magic - do dum dee doo

. ok next topic - has anyone noticed our pin numbers doen't work?

It's magic - dumdeee deee dum - do do

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

Re: [IFWP] Voting procedure [Was: Re: [ga] List Rule(s) Proposal: Disorderly Words] (fwd)

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  Yes I do smell something rotten as well.  Seems like Roberto is up
to his childish games yet again.

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> Roberto seems to be singing about little girls and twat's.  I'm not sure
> what it all means.  But I smell a pin number fiasco.
>
> Joe Baptista
>
> dot.GOD Hostmaster
> +1 (805) 753-8697
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 10:13:38 +0200 (MET DST)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roberto Gaetano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Voting procedure [Was: Re: [ga] List Rule(s) Proposal: Disorderly
> Words]
>
> Such a pretty little girl,
> her hair all done in curls -
> it's magic - do dum dee doo
>
> Ester your that girl,
> you twat's a little perl -
> it's magic - do dum dee doo
>
> . ok next topic - has anyone noticed our pin numbers doen't work?
>
> It's magic - dumdeee deee dum - do do
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.
> Send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Re: FYI - European ccTLDs refuse to pay ICANN fee? (fwd)

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  How about a special .GOD domain for the ccTLD's?
blessedcctlds.god perhaps  >;)

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > Hello Joe,
> >
> > Tuesday, June 06, 2000, 12:52:09 PM, you wrote:
> >
> > JB> FYI: More ccTLD's say no to ICANN FEES
> >
> > Good for them!  As I have said in the past, the ccTLDs are the weak
> > link for ICANN.  They will be the test of ICANN's presumed "authority"
> > and they won't bow down to ICANN easily.
>
> Yes - I have to agree - I think it's great fun to watch.  This now makes
> two cctld's that have refused ICANN generous advances for enrichment.  The
> other cctld i think is South Africa.  I don't know if there are any more -
> but I expect they'll soon be lining up to say NO - and God bless them for
> that.
>
> regards
> Joe Baptista
>
> dot.GOD Hostmaster
> +1 (805) 753-8697

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: Special attn Esther Dyson: to: Re: [IFWP] Dr. Baptista's fireside chats with the extraterrestrials

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Joe and all,
> >
> >   Well sign me right up there, Joe!  >;)  Sounds like a good idea
> > and very interesting as well.  I will forward your wisdom and information
> > on this class to our members so that they can join in as well
>
> Your on the list Jeff.  Cheers.

  Great!  Thank you Joe!  I look forward to it!  >;)

>
>
> >   Maybe Esther Dyson will join in as well!  >;)   Remember Esther,
> > Red Latex is class time apparel!  >;)  Remember the "Cluless" especially
> > need all the education they can get!
>
> Oh yes - as you know I have a special thing for Ester.  I gurantee her an
> immediate class promotion to teachers pet.

  ROFLMAO!  Maybe she will have a cherry for the Teacher on her
first day!  >;)

>
>
> Cheers
> Joe Baptista
>
> dot.GOD Hostmaster
> +1 (805) 753-8697
>
> >
> > !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> >
> > > Announcing my new conference.
> > >
> > > Dr. Baptista's fireside chats with the extraterrestrials
> > > or howto setup your own tld and bypass ICANN
> > >
> > > Over the last few days - and as a result of a discussion on opensrs
> > > concerning the recent addition to tld space - dot.GOD - I have been
> > > approached by many people on howto setup your own tld.  I have decided to
> > > hold classes concerning this topic.  The lesson plan will be general in
> > > nature and will include setting up basic registry operations as well as
> > > dns politics.  I personally feel that people exist out there who can run
> > > tld's - it's about time they joined the party.
> > >
> > > So if you too are interested in setting up your own tld, give me a dingle
> > > and i'll put you on our class list.
> > >
> > > I should point out that this is not a free for all discussion list.  I
> > > will be the only one in charge.  You will not see the class
> > > communications to myself - but you will see my replies to the individual
> > > class members.  From time to time a I may reply using realaudio - when I
> > > don't feel like typing.
> > >
> > > This list will have only one purpose - to educate tld registrars and
> > > increase the number of tlds in the namespace pool.  An educated person is
> > > my biggest weapon against ICANN.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > Joe Baptista
> > >
> > > dot.GOD Hostmaster
> > > +1 (805) 753-8697
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Special attn Esther Dyson: to: Re: [IFWP] Dr. Baptista's fireside chats with the extraterrestrials

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  Well sign me right up there, Joe!  >;)  Sounds like a good idea
and very interesting as well.  I will forward your wisdom and information
on this class to our members so that they can join in as well

  Maybe Esther Dyson will join in as well!  >;)   Remember Esther,
Red Latex is class time apparel!  >;)  Remember the "Cluless" especially
need all the education they can get!

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> Announcing my new conference.
>
> Dr. Baptista's fireside chats with the extraterrestrials
> or howto setup your own tld and bypass ICANN
>
> Over the last few days - and as a result of a discussion on opensrs
> concerning the recent addition to tld space - dot.GOD - I have been
> approached by many people on howto setup your own tld.  I have decided to
> hold classes concerning this topic.  The lesson plan will be general in
> nature and will include setting up basic registry operations as well as
> dns politics.  I personally feel that people exist out there who can run
> tld's - it's about time they joined the party.
>
> So if you too are interested in setting up your own tld, give me a dingle
> and i'll put you on our class list.
>
> I should point out that this is not a free for all discussion list.  I
> will be the only one in charge.  You will not see the class
> communications to myself - but you will see my replies to the individual
> class members.  From time to time a I may reply using realaudio - when I
> don't feel like typing.
>
> This list will have only one purpose - to educate tld registrars and
> increase the number of tlds in the namespace pool.  An educated person is
> my biggest weapon against ICANN.
>
> regards
> Joe Baptista
>
> dot.GOD Hostmaster
> +1 (805) 753-8697

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: Small businesses register most dot-coms - Attn. Richard Sexton!!

[Jeff Williams]

Roeland and all,

  That in part is why he (Dave Crocker) is known far and wide as
"The Crock".   ROFLMAO!!  "ad hominem police", that's good
Roeland.  Is he the "Chief of the Internet mailing list ad hominem
police"?
I think this is a new title for Dave.  Richard, you need to update your
link on Dave Crocker to reflect this new Title!  I guess this would
potentially make Kent Crispin "Deputy Chief  of the Internet mailing
list ad hominem police"?

Roeland Meyer (E-mail) wrote:

> All of this, from the man who carries the sole title of "ad
> hominem police".
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Owner-Domain-Policy
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> > Behalf Of Dave Crocker
> > Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 7:33 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Small businesses register most dot-coms
> >
> >
> > At 06:14 PM 6/4/00 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > >On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > >(By-the-way, I would appreciate it if you would shut down
> > your spam relay.
> > >I have received an unacceptable degree of commercial junk
> advertising
> > >email that was forwarded through a machine in your domain.)
> >
> > Karl,
> >
> > it is customary a) not to broadcast problem reports publicly,
> > and b) to
> > provide diagnostic details.  Since you are quite familiar
> > with both these
> > points, it suggests that you are far more interested in issuing
> public
> > abuse than in fixing a problem.
>
> This is cute ... someone operating an open-relay, that is
> actively being used by spammers, accusing the victim of being
> abusive. David, are you joining the spam brigade?
>
> > > > [..usual tedious rhetoric deleted..]
> > >Yours?
> >
> > Again,  you show more interest in game playing than substance.
> >
> >
> > > > that was involved in the formation of the DNSO.  Indeed,
> > it was messy,
> > > > and there were many ugly compromises.
> > >
> > >I'll agree to the "ugly" but to nothing else you said.  I'd
> > modify your
> > >use of the word "compromises" to say that ICANN was
> > compromised by the
> > >constituency structure.
> >
> > Yet more linguistic game-playing, worthy only of the type of
> jousting
> > attorneys, more intent on winning or confusing, than in
> reaching an
> > understanding.
>
> Dave, where's the substance. What linguistic game playing are you
> refering to?
>
> > >The Dept of Commerce, on the other hand, is supposed to be
> part of a
> > >democratic government.
> >
> > a) you need to learn far more about the specifics of the US
> form of
> > government; the simplistic labels and model you profess are
> > not tied to
> > this reality, and
>
> Funny, I thought that was correct. Yes, it is more accurately a
> Federal Republic, but that's not 100% either. Publically, we
> style ourselves as democratic. It appears that you are of the
> opinion that we live in something a bit more totalitarian?
>
> > b) the DoC's activities have been subject to not-a-little
> > political and
> > public review; if there actions were as thoroughly
> > unacceptable as you like
> > to paint them, then we all would have seen serious force of
> > action against
> > them; perhaps you have missed the resounding absence of it?
> >
> >
> > The aggregation of the observations I am making show clearly
> > that serious
> > discussion is not your goal.  And since your many and varied
> > mis-characterization of technical and procedural fact have
> > been amply and
> > repeatedly corrected, it is unlikely that the rest of this
> > list's readers
> > stand to benefit from continuing the repartee.
> >
> > Hence I'll refrain from further comment on your blustering,
> > and sincerely
> > hope others will too.
>
> Who is the one doing the blustering here?

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Network Solutions - ATTENTION - what's happening with this?

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  As you know Joe, ICANN/DOC/NTIA is suppose to be doing oversight
to prevent these sorts of situations occurring.  That oversight has not been
occurring as this article, amongst many others in the recent past have
reported.

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> Network Solutions - ATTENTION - what's happening with this?
>
> 
>http://www.thestar.com/thestar/editorial/updates/business/2601NEW01d_CI-DOMAIN1.html
>
> There should also be some consideration here to pursue criminal
> action.  This is theft.
>
> Registrant:
>  Billy Tandoko
>  Kotak Pos 3988 JKP
>  Jakarta Pusat, DKI 10039
>  ID
>
>  Domain Name: WEB.NET
>
>  Administrative Contact:
> Tandoko, Billy  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (081) 811-0078
>
>  Technical Contact:
> Tandoko, Billy  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (081) 811-0078
>
>  Billing Contact:
> Tandoko, Billy  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (081) 811-0078
>
>  Record last updated on 1-Jun-2000.
>  Record expires on 24-May-2001.
>  Record Created on 26-May-1993.
>
>  Domain servers in listed order:
> DNS1.RESERVEME.COM   209.219.133.110
> DNS2.RESERVEME.COM   209.219.133.111
>
> Registrant:
>  Billy Tandoko
>  Kotak Pos 3988 JKP
>  Jakarta Pusat, DKI 10039
>  ID
>
>  Domain Name: BALI.COM
>
>  Administrative Contact:
> Tandoko, Billy  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (081) 811-0078
>
>  Technical Contact:
> Tandoko, Billy  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (081) 811-0078
>
>  Billing Contact:
> Tandoko, Billy  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (081) 811-0078
>
>  Record last updated on 30-May-2000.
>  Record expires on 01-Nov-2001.
>  Record Created on 02-Nov-1998.
>
>  Domain servers in listed order:
> DNS1.RESERVEME.COM   209.219.133.110
> DNS2.RESERVEME.COM   209.219.133.111

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Looking for good DN's - FreeUtility.com Selling Off Domain Name Invetory

[Jeff Williams]

All,

  For you speculators out there  See:
http://cnniw.yellowbrix.com/pages/cnniw/Story.nsp?story_id=10760123&ID=cnniw&scategory=Internet%3ARegulations

Enjoy! >;)

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] more .god yada yada yada

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  The URL you are refrencing seems to mostly be dealing with
the good idea of .GOD TLD.  Are you sure you have the right URL?

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/18/2346226
>
> You can all consider the slashdot disscussions our contribution to the
> Sunrise + 20 crap.
>
> Love and kisses
> Joe Baptista

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Re: Kent's Rhetoric and Bombast - and ICANN the Scam..

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  Thank you Joe for addressing my question so promptly and directly.
We [INEGroup] are pleased to see that sunrise +20 is not to become
a policy with the .GOD gTLD.  I hope that the DOC/NTIA and ICANN
can take a lesson from this wise and stability minded decision.

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> Sorry Jeff - forgot to address the rest of your question.  I've been busy
> with people sending in so many queries to dot.god.
>
> On Thu, 18 May 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > By the way does Sunrise +20 work with your .GOD TLD as a policy
> > Joe?
>
> That does not work with .GOD.  Were not having any of that nonsense.  We
> intend to operate a professional registry that will provide stable domain
> name resources and not the instability which is ICANN.
>
> Regards
> Joe Baptista
>
> > and variations of Crispy-songbird.god for me as well.  Some of those
> > variations might be as follows:
> >
> > Crispybrain-songbird.god
> > CrispyCrockett-songbird.god
> > ect...  ect...   I think you can follow the direction here joe?  >;)
> >
> > Reserve a few of those for Michael Graham as well would you be
> > so kind to do so.  And bill me on the total amount.
> >
> > !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> >
> > > Shall I register it in your name Jeff?  Or in crispies name?  Someone has
> > > already register icann.god.
> > >
> > > http://god.pccf.net/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?icann.god
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Joe Baptista
> > >
> > > On Thu, 18 May 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > > Joe and all,
> > > >
> > > >   How does Crispy-Songbird.god sound joe?  >;)  Oh yes, of course there
> > > > are no trailing "-'s"...   Is that ok with you Louis or Mike?
> > > >
> > > > !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 17 May 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >   As for Kent, well the bullshit flowith!  Joe B. How about a
> > > > > > .GOD special domain for Kent and Songbird.  I know you can come
> > > > > > up with something wholesome!  >;)  Send me the bill on the registration.
> > > > >
> > > > > songbird.god is taken.  any other choices?  or sunrise variations?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Joe ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Repoman wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I should rise above that but it's hard not to fall into the trap
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Been there myself unfortunately from time to time. :-(
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > of fighting
> > > > > > > > the battle on the other person's terms.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Battle? The gradual TM lobby usurpation of the DNS has been conducted in
> > > > > > > a  'closed door' manner as far as I suspect the internet community at 
>large
> > > > > > > and domain holders are concerned. I see little to no battle. Why fight 
>if you
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > afford to insure victory by just buying it?
> > > > > > > Judge and jury are financed by trademark holders in the current internet
> > > > > > > arbitration scenario. If enough precendents in favor of TM holders, 
>particularly
> > > > > > > if common language terms like 'songbird' are in place in the UDRPs, then 
>that
> > > > > > > spells good (!$) business and invites establishment of more UDRPs. 
>Ultimately
> > > > > > > (if not already) the consideration of the the position of an arbiter at 
>any UDRP
> > > > > > > will also be based on his/her disposition on TMs I suspect.
> > > > > > > 'Never bite the hand that feeds you'!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re Kent: I perceive Kent in this forum by now as a bright and eloquent 
>salesman
> > > > > > > selling something
> > > > > > > (the TM scam) you have to (currently!) buy whether you wish to or not.
> > > > > > > Nonetheless:
> > > > &g

Re: [IFWP] Re: Kent's Rhetoric and Bombast - and ICANN the Scam..

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  Ok thank you Joe.  >;)

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Thu, 18 May 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Joe and all,
> >
> >   Sure, that would be fine.  Send me the bill.  And than I will grant it
> > to either Kent or a worthy non-profit sunrise +20 supporter organization.
> > By the way does Sunrise +20 work with your .GOD TLD as a policy
> > Joe?   I hope not.  But if so, randomly select the best 20 possibilities
> > and variations of Crispy-songbird.god for me as well.  Some of those
> > variations might be as follows:
>
> Wait until I get the new machine online.  And then you and friends can
> register as many as you want.  I should also advise tha the registry will
> be beta testing and during that period the domains will be given out for
> free.  There will be a charge but that will only be implimented next
> year.  Since people will be helping us test the system - inlcuding the
> implimentation and testing of a floating root - there will be no charge in
> exchange for their assistance.
>
> > Crispybrain-songbird.god
> > CrispyCrockett-songbird.god
> > ect...  ect...   I think you can follow the direction here joe?  >;)
>
> You got it:
>
> http://god.pccf.net/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?whois=crispy-songbird.god
> http://god.pccf.net/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?whois=crispybrain-songbird.god
> http://god.pccf.net/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?whois=crispycrockett-songbird.god
>
> Regards
> Joe
>
> P.S.  I'll put you on an announce list so you'll be notified when the
> registry become operational.
>
> > Reserve a few of those for Michael Graham as well would you be
> > so kind to do so.  And bill me on the total amount.
> >
> > !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> >
> > > Shall I register it in your name Jeff?  Or in crispies name?  Someone has
> > > already register icann.god.
> > >
> > > http://god.pccf.net/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?icann.god
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Joe Baptista
> > >
> > > On Thu, 18 May 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > > Joe and all,
> > > >
> > > >   How does Crispy-Songbird.god sound joe?  >;)  Oh yes, of course there
> > > > are no trailing "-'s"...   Is that ok with you Louis or Mike?
> > > >
> > > > !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 17 May 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >   As for Kent, well the bullshit flowith!  Joe B. How about a
> > > > > > .GOD special domain for Kent and Songbird.  I know you can come
> > > > > > up with something wholesome!  >;)  Send me the bill on the registration.
> > > > >
> > > > > songbird.god is taken.  any other choices?  or sunrise variations?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Joe ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Repoman wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I should rise above that but it's hard not to fall into the trap
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Been there myself unfortunately from time to time. :-(
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > of fighting
> > > > > > > > the battle on the other person's terms.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Battle? The gradual TM lobby usurpation of the DNS has been conducted in
> > > > > > > a  'closed door' manner as far as I suspect the internet community at 
>large
> > > > > > > and domain holders are concerned. I see little to no battle. Why fight 
>if you
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > afford to insure victory by just buying it?
> > > > > > > Judge and jury are financed by trademark holders in the current internet
> > > > > > > arbitration scenario. If enough precendents in favor of TM holders, 
>particularly
> > > > > > > if common language terms like 'songbird' are in place in the UDRPs, then 
>that
> > > > > > > spells good (!$) business and invites establishment of more UDRPs. 
>Ultimately
> > > > > > > (if not already) the consideration of the the position of an arbiter at 
>any UDRP
> > > > > > > will also b

Re: [IFWP] Re: Kent's Rhetoric and Bombast - and ICANN the Scam..

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  Sure, that would be fine.  Send me the bill.  And than I will grant it
to either Kent or a worthy non-profit sunrise +20 supporter organization.
By the way does Sunrise +20 work with your .GOD TLD as a policy
Joe?   I hope not.  But if so, randomly select the best 20 possibilities
and variations of Crispy-songbird.god for me as well.  Some of those
variations might be as follows:

Crispybrain-songbird.god
CrispyCrockett-songbird.god
ect...  ect...   I think you can follow the direction here joe?  >;)

Reserve a few of those for Michael Graham as well would you be
so kind to do so.  And bill me on the total amount.

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> Shall I register it in your name Jeff?  Or in crispies name?  Someone has
> already register icann.god.
>
> http://god.pccf.net/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?icann.god
>
> Regards
> Joe Baptista
>
> On Thu, 18 May 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Joe and all,
> >
> >   How does Crispy-Songbird.god sound joe?  >;)  Oh yes, of course there
> > are no trailing "-'s"...   Is that ok with you Louis or Mike?
> >
> > !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 17 May 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > >   As for Kent, well the bullshit flowith!  Joe B. How about a
> > > > .GOD special domain for Kent and Songbird.  I know you can come
> > > > up with something wholesome!  >;)  Send me the bill on the registration.
> > >
> > > songbird.god is taken.  any other choices?  or sunrise variations?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Joe ;-)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Repoman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > > I should rise above that but it's hard not to fall into the trap
> > > > >
> > > > > Been there myself unfortunately from time to time. :-(
> > > > >
> > > > > > of fighting
> > > > > > the battle on the other person's terms.
> > > > >
> > > > > Battle? The gradual TM lobby usurpation of the DNS has been conducted in
> > > > > a  'closed door' manner as far as I suspect the internet community at large
> > > > > and domain holders are concerned. I see little to no battle. Why fight if you
> > > > > can
> > > > > afford to insure victory by just buying it?
> > > > > Judge and jury are financed by trademark holders in the current internet
> > > > > arbitration scenario. If enough precendents in favor of TM holders, 
>particularly
> > > > > if common language terms like 'songbird' are in place in the UDRPs, then that
> > > > > spells good (!$) business and invites establishment of more UDRPs. Ultimately
> > > > > (if not already) the consideration of the the position of an arbiter at any 
>UDRP
> > > > > will also be based on his/her disposition on TMs I suspect.
> > > > > 'Never bite the hand that feeds you'!
> > > > >
> > > > > Re Kent: I perceive Kent in this forum by now as a bright and eloquent 
>salesman
> > > > > selling something
> > > > > (the TM scam) you have to (currently!) buy whether you wish to or not.
> > > > > Nonetheless:
> > > > > Much like the rare successful sale of a refigerator to an Eskimo, I suspect 
>he:
> > > > > a.) enjoys making 'the sale' the reference rather than the practical value of
> > > > > the item he sells.
> > > > > One Eskimo convinced is a sure fire reference for another Eskimo prospect!
> > > > > Kent would sell the 'energy efficiency' of the unit, 'as it does not even 
>need
> > > > > to be plugged in to maintain food safety standards.'
> > > > > Intelligent Eskimos like you or !Dr.Joe and many others on this list are
> > > > > obviously
> > > > > bad for business. Roberts would seem to be a much easier sell - especially 
>with
> > > > > a fat
> > > > > 'factory buyer rebate' easily financing the next ICANN trip to Nepal (?) in
> > > > > 2002.
> > > > >
> > > > > b.)he seeks ( I'd hate to sell Kent short) 'world domination' of
> > > > > the word 'songbird' in the DNS. He may just be sweating his little 'songbird
> > > > > whatever' TM right about now. 'Song

Re: [IFWP] Re: Kent's Rhetoric and Bombast - and ICANN the Scam..

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  How does Crispy-Songbird.god sound joe?  >;)  Oh yes, of course there
are no trailing "-'s"...   Is that ok with you Louis or Mike?

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Wed, 17 May 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >   As for Kent, well the bullshit flowith!  Joe B. How about a
> > .GOD special domain for Kent and Songbird.  I know you can come
> > up with something wholesome!  >;)  Send me the bill on the registration.
>
> songbird.god is taken.  any other choices?  or sunrise variations?
>
> Regards
> Joe ;-)
>
> >
> > Repoman wrote:
> >
> > > Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > I should rise above that but it's hard not to fall into the trap
> > >
> > > Been there myself unfortunately from time to time. :-(
> > >
> > > > of fighting
> > > > the battle on the other person's terms.
> > >
> > > Battle? The gradual TM lobby usurpation of the DNS has been conducted in
> > > a  'closed door' manner as far as I suspect the internet community at large
> > > and domain holders are concerned. I see little to no battle. Why fight if you
> > > can
> > > afford to insure victory by just buying it?
> > > Judge and jury are financed by trademark holders in the current internet
> > > arbitration scenario. If enough precendents in favor of TM holders, particularly
> > > if common language terms like 'songbird' are in place in the UDRPs, then that
> > > spells good (!$) business and invites establishment of more UDRPs. Ultimately
> > > (if not already) the consideration of the the position of an arbiter at any UDRP
> > > will also be based on his/her disposition on TMs I suspect.
> > > 'Never bite the hand that feeds you'!
> > >
> > > Re Kent: I perceive Kent in this forum by now as a bright and eloquent salesman
> > > selling something
> > > (the TM scam) you have to (currently!) buy whether you wish to or not.
> > > Nonetheless:
> > > Much like the rare successful sale of a refigerator to an Eskimo, I suspect he:
> > > a.) enjoys making 'the sale' the reference rather than the practical value of
> > > the item he sells.
> > > One Eskimo convinced is a sure fire reference for another Eskimo prospect!
> > > Kent would sell the 'energy efficiency' of the unit, 'as it does not even need
> > > to be plugged in to maintain food safety standards.'
> > > Intelligent Eskimos like you or !Dr.Joe and many others on this list are
> > > obviously
> > > bad for business. Roberts would seem to be a much easier sell - especially with
> > > a fat
> > > 'factory buyer rebate' easily financing the next ICANN trip to Nepal (?) in
> > > 2002.
> > >
> > > b.)he seeks ( I'd hate to sell Kent short) 'world domination' of
> > > the word 'songbird' in the DNS. He may just be sweating his little 'songbird
> > > whatever' TM right about now. 'Songbird' is about as thin as it get's I'd say in
> > > TM and DNS.
> > > Ask any kid on the street what he/she thinks a 'songbird' is.
> > > Any word in 'Webster' (TM!) certainly has every and no claim on an address in
> > > the global DNS.
> > >
> > > FCFS! A premise that built the US, Australia and every other country I can think
> > > of
> > > off hand that has any global significance today. This concept is as old as
> > > sperm as a drastic example.
> > > ('Thank god for the big TMs up at ICANN, but I should at least try to sell an
> > > Eskimo here and there myself - if anything to convince myself by the endorsement
> > > of some real Eskimo.' type of rationale on Kent's part? )
> > >
> > > >Of course he still hasn't replied
> > > >properly to my 17 points.
> > >
> > > There are very few (if any) Eskimos on this list that would jump at the
> > > opportunity of buying a fridge I've noticed.   As Heather already aptly advised:
> > > 'Don't hold your breath!' He can't reply compellingly to your points here
> > > (although I wish he would try). Now as before I find Kent a valuable testing
> > > ground of 'TM pro/con lobby argumentation'.
> > >
> > > Please continue your thought provoking, IMO important and often truly
> > > interesting
> > > comments on this list. 

[IFWP] Re: Kent's Rhetoric and Bombast - and ICANN the Scam..

[Jeff Williams]

John the Repoman and all,

  John, you have aptly captured in your own adept manner the
scam that ICANN has become to anyone that has half a brain,
and exercises it just a tad.  >;)  Maybe we should hang a label on
it as "ICANN-ISCAM"?   Has a ring to it doesn't it?  >;)

  As for Kent, well the bullshit flowith!  Joe B. How about a
.GOD special domain for Kent and Songbird.  I know you can come
up with something wholesome!  >;)  Send me the bill on the registration.

Repoman wrote:

> Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I should rise above that but it's hard not to fall into the trap
>
> Been there myself unfortunately from time to time. :-(
>
> > of fighting
> > the battle on the other person's terms.
>
> Battle? The gradual TM lobby usurpation of the DNS has been conducted in
> a  'closed door' manner as far as I suspect the internet community at large
> and domain holders are concerned. I see little to no battle. Why fight if you
> can
> afford to insure victory by just buying it?
> Judge and jury are financed by trademark holders in the current internet
> arbitration scenario. If enough precendents in favor of TM holders, particularly
> if common language terms like 'songbird' are in place in the UDRPs, then that
> spells good (!$) business and invites establishment of more UDRPs. Ultimately
> (if not already) the consideration of the the position of an arbiter at any UDRP
> will also be based on his/her disposition on TMs I suspect.
> 'Never bite the hand that feeds you'!
>
> Re Kent: I perceive Kent in this forum by now as a bright and eloquent salesman
> selling something
> (the TM scam) you have to (currently!) buy whether you wish to or not.
> Nonetheless:
> Much like the rare successful sale of a refigerator to an Eskimo, I suspect he:
> a.) enjoys making 'the sale' the reference rather than the practical value of
> the item he sells.
> One Eskimo convinced is a sure fire reference for another Eskimo prospect!
> Kent would sell the 'energy efficiency' of the unit, 'as it does not even need
> to be plugged in to maintain food safety standards.'
> Intelligent Eskimos like you or !Dr.Joe and many others on this list are
> obviously
> bad for business. Roberts would seem to be a much easier sell - especially with
> a fat
> 'factory buyer rebate' easily financing the next ICANN trip to Nepal (?) in
> 2002.
>
> b.)he seeks ( I'd hate to sell Kent short) 'world domination' of
> the word 'songbird' in the DNS. He may just be sweating his little 'songbird
> whatever' TM right about now. 'Songbird' is about as thin as it get's I'd say in
> TM and DNS.
> Ask any kid on the street what he/she thinks a 'songbird' is.
> Any word in 'Webster' (TM!) certainly has every and no claim on an address in
> the global DNS.
>
> FCFS! A premise that built the US, Australia and every other country I can think
> of
> off hand that has any global significance today. This concept is as old as
> sperm as a drastic example.
> ('Thank god for the big TMs up at ICANN, but I should at least try to sell an
> Eskimo here and there myself - if anything to convince myself by the endorsement
> of some real Eskimo.' type of rationale on Kent's part? )
>
> >Of course he still hasn't replied
> >properly to my 17 points.
>
> There are very few (if any) Eskimos on this list that would jump at the
> opportunity of buying a fridge I've noticed.   As Heather already aptly advised:
> 'Don't hold your breath!' He can't reply compellingly to your points here
> (although I wish he would try). Now as before I find Kent a valuable testing
> ground of 'TM pro/con lobby argumentation'.
>
> Please continue your thought provoking, IMO important and often truly
> interesting
> comments on this list. Most reflect my exact thoughts (verbalized
> very nicely by you Patrick!)
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
> P.S.: I wonder how much it would cost to mail every domain(s) registrant in the
> world
> a brief opinion questionaire (even by snail mail (argh)- postcard even - no ppd
> return envelope necessary) on major issues under consideration by ICANN to get a
> feel for the sentiments of the net community? More or less than a trip to Berlin
> or Cairo or Santiago...? The internet is akin to a new global community whose
> opinions will be heard and the majority will prevail ultimately - hopefully with
> an 'enlightened'(!!) and globally democratic ICANN at it's helm (my wish with
> noted qualifications) but certainly also 'without', if global issues are not
> addressed fairly.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] dot.god on internet news

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  This is a nice and truthful piece of journalism at least and at last.
Nice work Joe.  May God be with you!  >;)

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> http://www.internetnews.com/wd-news/article/0,2171,10_364761,00.html
>
> Regards
> Joe Baptista

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] S.D.Dellheim Companies?

[Jeff Williams]

Richard and all,

  I did some time ago now, and told the guy to bugger off.  Than
hung up the phone on him and blocked his dial in number perminantly.

Richard J. Sexton wrote:

> I got a few phone calls and emails from this fellow asking me to
> remove all references to his name from the PAB archives that
> I maintain a mirror of on newdom.com.
>
> I really didn't like the idea of doing this, to my mind
> archived are either complete or they're not, but he
> was veryu polite, firm and insitant and I was basically
> too tired to argue.
>
> So, anywhere you see [Deleted] in the PAB arrhives on newdom.com
> pretend the words S.D.Dellheim Companies was there.
>
> Is anybody else getting mail from S.D.Dellheim Companies about this?
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://ph-1.613.473.1719
> It's about travel on expense accounts to places with good beer. - BKR

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Re: Fw: Your names council at work

[Jeff Williams]

Michael and all,

  I can't disagree with you proposed remedy here Michael.  I
for one appreciate you frankness in this regard.

Michael Sondow wrote:

> Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> >   DOn't forget Joe that Ken was elected illegitimately as the history
> > of the DNSO clearly shows...
>
> The DNSO is an invention of CORE and the CORE leadership. Mssrs.
> Stubbs, Crispin, Abril i Abril, Sola, and the the others from CORE
> who co-opted the DNSO with the ICANN Board's permission and, through
> the DNSO, have taken illegitimate control of DNS policy are
> conspirators to commit antitrust fraud under the meaning of the
> Sherman Act, and should be indicted on criminal charges for it.
>
> That goes as well for Martin Schwimmer, David Maher, Jonathan Cohen,
> and the other IP lawyers who conspired with CORE, all of whom should
> be disbarred for collusion in the criminal fraud that has been
> perpetrated on the Internet user public.
>
> 
> Michael Sondow   I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
> Tel. (718)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927
> 

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Re: Fw: Your names council at work

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  DOn't forget Joe that Ken was elected illegitimately as the history
of the DNSO clearly shows...

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> Ken - your full of shit.  Forgive me - but truth in advertising.  Your a
> names council exec - you should conduct yourself accordingly and not put
> ICANN in a position for being sued for libel and slander.  Are you not
> tired of being sued yourself and pursued by creditors.  You can learn from
> your own life here ;-)
>
> Regards
> Joe Baptista
>
> On Mon, 15 May 2000, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
> >  classic sexton here !!!
> >
> >  he only posts one side of the exchange...
> > these were personal posts to him in response to particularly obnoxious posts
> > such as the one he made this am.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: Richard J. Sexton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 10:41 AM
> > > Subject: Your names council at work
> > >
> > >
> > > > >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Digitel - Ken Stubbs)
> > > > >To: "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >References:  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >Subject: Re:  Re: [IFWP] Re: (OT) Re: Sunset for sunrise
> > > > >Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 08:33:46 -0400
> > > > >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> > > > >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
> > > > >
> > > > >glad to hear your up & awake !!!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > From: "Ken Stubbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > References:  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Subject: Re:  Re: Is Barbie a famous mark?
> > > > Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 20:50:53 -0400
> > > > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> > > > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
> > > >
> > > > i always appreciate those "special words of guidance" from you richard.
> > > >
> > > > stay healthy and make sure baptista keeps taking his meds regularly
> > > >
> > > > best wishes
> > > >
> > > > ken
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To: "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > References:  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Subject: Re:  Re: unsubscribe
> > > > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 13:27:51 -0400
> > > > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> > > > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > http-equiv=Content-Type>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > and dont forget to brush your teeth after each meal !!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > From: "Ken Stubbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > References:  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Subject: Re:  Re: unsubscribe
> > > > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 13:26:04 -0400
> > > > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> > > > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > thanks richard !!!
> > > > my best wishes to you as well !
> > > > keep bathing regularly !!
> > > > --
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://ph-1.613.473.1719
> > > > It's about travel on expense accounts to places with good beer. - BKR
> > >
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Another case of a large TM owner abusing a small DN owner/registrant

[Jeff Williams]

All,

  Just got these tonight:
Subject:  Freedom?
   Date:  Wed, 10 May 2000 02:26:31 EDT
   From:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]




"Those who give up a little freedom for a little security
> will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"
>--Thomas Jefferson

I dont know you, and you dont know me,,,But Ford Motor Company is sueing
me,
for being the registrant of the domain name--justfords.com and
justfords.net
Seems to me the fact that I must leave my family and job in colorado,
and
drive to michigan, and stand in front of a judge in the district court
of
eastern michigan, in front of a group of Over Paid and Zealous lawyers,
in a
court that I belive is not the court of the WWW,,and will most likley be

found guilty, and will be orderd to pay the 200.000. that they
wantis
Quite a loss of freedom.   you dont need to reply to this,,,i just
thought
you mite like to know this. The Web is not a place to express your
freedoms,,,but to repress them, in fear of Reprisal.   Tom Molinaro
lakewood
co.

==

AND:

Subject:  trademarks and disputes
   Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 01:42:07 EDT
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




This is what i just found on the web"Kerry and all,

Kerry Miller wrote:

> Roeland,
>
> > They make the suggestion, but if the trademark holder disagrees then
the
> > judge is back to the rather one-sided choice of enforcing TM law or
> > making
> > new law to cover the suggestion. Judges are NOT in the law making
> > business.
> > It would probably take an act of Congress.
>
> The tigher the *logical case ICANN can make, the less inclined a
> TM holder may be to press a case which would likely require some
> sort of substantial proof that pizza hut  had in fact lost customers
> to  pizahut, pizzzahut, pizzahouse, etc ad nauseam.

  This indeed may occur at some point, but not likely in the immediate
future from where I am sitting at any rate.  Also at any rate
this potential

My Name is Tom Molinaro, I live in lakewood colorado- i just read this
on the
web, and although you mite not remember writing thisI and 71or so
others
are being sued in a Michigan District Court By Ford Motor Company for
Millions of Dollars, for nothing more then being the Registrant of a
domain
name, that contains the word FORD in it. My domain Name is "
justfords.com
I have no web site, I did however want to build a site for others like
me,
that own fords.  So as you can see, the issue of trademark disputes is
real,
and is being taken to courts by lawyers who want to make a name for
themselfs.   So Much for the Domain Nane Dispute Magistrate.


==

  And the TM abuse goes on

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Mailing List Conventions - Attn Esther Dyson and Linda Wilson

[Jeff Williams]

Patrick and all,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Thank you, Jeff (Williams), that's cleared up a few points.

  Well I am very glad it does!  >;)  I had hoped it would.

>
>
> The reason I raised it was because of the post "Floating root servers and
> stupid lawyer questions - was: Sunrise" by Dr Joe Baptista.  This went to to
> IFWP list which I was subscribed to and referred to a posting by Michael
> Graham.
>
> Dr Joe's comments included several references "stupid lawyer stuff" and I
> take it that he feels frustrated at the recent tendency towards
> "governance".  Although I would have phrased it very differently, I share
> his sentiments.

  Yes I think that Joe is in disagreement with the type of Governance as it
seems to be heading presently from ICANN, the TM lobby and WIPO.
I too along with some 112 members (Stakeholders) of INEGroup share
this sentiment as well. And from what I gather so do most of those in the
Non-commercial DNSO constituency.  Yet we see ICANN and WIPO
blindly moving in a direction in which there is no majority consensus, not
to mention a measured consensus of any sort.  This is known as on of
several steps to "Stacking the Deck".  This is also quite evident in the
manner in which the ICANN At-Large membership is being set up
as well.  Not a good sign, IOHO

>
>
> My problem was that the thread Dr Joe was referring to was not on IFWP at
> all.  And I was not a member of the other two lists at that time.  Now Dr
> Joe was taken to task by Michael Graham for "flaming".   But what list was
> that reply posted to?

  Either list would be viable and proper.

>
>
> Unless you're on all the lists, it's hard to follow the thread.  And if
> everybody is on all the lists, why do you need to have three lists?

  I ask this question over a year ago when ICANN was in the process
of early forming and suggested as well as requested that only one list
from ICANN be established.  Esther Dyson and the than Interim Board
of ICANN declined.  So, here we are...

>
>
> Unless you want anarchy, there must be some sort of protocol (which is what
> the lawyers are arguing).

  Protocol is fine as long as the participants are in majority agreement
as to what that Protocol is or should be. It seems obvious to me anyway
that is not the case

>
>
> Personally I'm in favour of anarchy.

  Anarchy has it's uses and its place from time to time.  I am not sure that
this is either the time or place for it, but it seems that in spurts, we seem to
have
anarchy anyway

>
>
> Patrick Corliss

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: Mailing List Conventions

[Jeff Williams]

Patrick and all,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Jeff
>
> On Wed 10 May 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >Patrick, you need to learn to turn wrap on in your E-Mailer or don't
> >sent your response as an attachment.
>
> >Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> >>Part 1.1   Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> >>   Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> I'm sure you've got much more technical expertise but I don't quite get
> what's going wrong.  Meanwhile I've reset the mail sending format from HTML
> to Plain Text.

  Ok good.  It seems that now the wrap is on on your E-Mail app.

>
>
> Did you mean to send that to me privately or as a post to the mailing list?

  Both, just in case you didn't get it from your Addr.

>
> Because I got both.  In fact I also got two messages "ICANN membership
> applicants and Linda Wilson etc."  Perhaps that because, like you, I'm on
> both IFWP and this list.
>
> Is that what's meant by "cross-posting"?

  No.  Some people that are on the IFWP list are not on the Domain-Policy
or the ICANN announce list in which the Membership information post which
I responded to originated.  CC'ing it to both lists insures to some degree
that as many ICANN membership applicants are notified

>
>
> Patrick Corliss

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Attn. ICANN membership applicants and Linda Wilson to - Re: ICANN Creates At Large Election and Nominating Committees

[Jeff Williams]

Linda and all,

  I wonder how this could occur as stated in this announcement when
to my knowledge none of the applicants that applied for membership,
including myself, have received the information or anything sense
applying?  Can you answer this for all of us please...

ICANN wrote:

> ICANN CREATES AT LARGE ELECTION AND NOMINATING COMMITTEES
>
> (May 9, 2000) The Internet Corporation for Assigned
> Names and Numbers (ICANN) today announced the appointment
> of Election and Nominating Committees that will play key
> roles in the process by which five At Large Directors of
> ICANN will be selected later this year through a global
> online election.
>
> The At Large Members of ICANN are individuals who have
> indicated an interest in participating in ICANN. They
> will vote to select five Directors for the ICANN Board,
> one from each of five defined geographic regions
> (Africa, Asia/Pacific, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean,
> and North America). With nearly 15,000 applications so
> far, ICANN's At Large Membership outreach effort has
> been greeted with notable enthusiasm among the
> members of the global Internet community.
>
> Today's announcement marks the beginning of the first
> phase of this selection process.  The Nominating
> Committee will nominate a set of At Large candidates.
> At the same time, ICANN's Election Committee will
> solicit and select an outside vendor for the online
> voting system, and complete detailed recommendations
> for ICANN's campaign and voting procedures, including
> independent oversight and monitoring.
>
> Following this first phase, there will be
>
>   *  a petition period, in which candidates who
>  were not nominated by the Nominating Committee
>  can seek a place on the ballot by attracting a
>  minimum threshold of support from At Large
>  Members in her/his region via online petition;
>
>   *  a campaign period; and
>
>   *  the vote of the At Large Members.
>
> About the Election Committee
>
> The Election Committee will develop detailed
> recommendations on the ICANN election procedures,
> subject to public review and comment prior to ICANN's
> next meeting in July. The Election Committee will
> propose the rules that will apply in this election for
> campaigning, voting, measures to prevent vote fraud,
> and independent oversight and monitoring. The Committee
> will solicit proposals from third-party vendors of
> online voting systems, and will recommend a vendor
> to the Board. To read more about the Election
> Committee, its charter, and its members, please
> see http://www.icann.org/elcom/.
>
> The Committee's membership includes experts in
> electronic voting, Internet infrastructure and
> security and election oversight and monitoring. The
> members of the Election Committee are:
>
>o Greg Crew - Chair
>
> Greg Crew is currently Chairman of the Australian
> Communications Industry Forum Ltd., Chairman of the
> Australian Information Technology Engineering Centre
> Ltd., and a non-executive director of ERG Ltd. (Perth)
> and of Silicon Wireless Ltd. (California). He was
> Chief Executive Officer of Mercury Communications
> Ltd. (UK) (1993-95) and Chief Operating Officer of
> Hongkong Telecommunications Ltd. (1991-93). He was
> one of the nine initial Directors of ICANN. He lives
> in Australia.
>
>o Charles Costello
>
> Charles Costello became director of the Carter
> Center's Democracy Program in December 1998.
> Previously, he was director of the Center for Democracy
> and Governance at the U.S. Agency for International
> Development (USAID) since shortly after its creation
> in 1994. From 1993-94, he headed the USAID mission
> in post-conflict El Salvador, overseeing programs to
> help demobilize forces, support reformed political
> institutions, and rebuild civil society.  At USAID
> since 1975, he also had headed USAID missions in
> Ecuador and Guatemala and served in Kenya and Bolivia.
> A former Peace Corps volunteer in Guatemala and
> staff member in Colombia, he earned a bachelor's
> degree from the University of Michigan and a J.D.
> from the University of California at Berkeley. He
> lives in the United States.
>
>o Lorrie Faith Cranor
>
> Dr. Lorrie Faith Cranor is a Senior Technical Staff
> Member in the Secure Systems Research Department at
> AT&T Labs-Research Shannon Laboratory in Florham
> Park, New Jersey. She is chair of the Platform for
> Privacy Preferences Project (P3P) Specification
> Working Group and co-chair of the P3P Interest
> Group at the World Wide Web Consortium. Her research
> has focused on a variety of areas where technology
> and policy issues interact, including online
> privacy, electronic voting, and spam. Dr. Cranor
> received her doctorate degree in Engineering &
> Policy from Washington University in St. Louis in
> 1996. She lives in the United States.
>
>o Patrik Fältström
>
> Patrik Fältström works at Tele2/Swipnet. He works
> on technologies involving everything from directory

Re: [IFWP] Re: [wg-b] Verizon really sucks

[Jeff Williams]

John and all,

  Areidiots.com and Areidiots.org are available.  >;)

  Yes you would THINK that Bell Atlantic and GTE would be
in position to know.   But I have found over the past 10 years of so
that this is as likely not the case as it is...  >;)

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> > Verizon is the new name of the Bell Atlantic-GTE merger.
> > BA pre-emptively registered "verizonsucks.com"
>
> Yes, well... One supposes that they'd be in a position to know.
>
> > So an organization registered "verizonreallysucks.com"
> >
> > Showing a rather pathetic lack of a sense of humor, not to
> > mention a lack of better things to do with her time, Bell
> > Atlantic's lawyer Sarah Deutsch sent a letter that asserted,
> > among other things:
> >
> > "your registration and/or use of these domain names infringes
> > Bell Atlantic's valuable trademark rights in the "Verizon" mark
> > and violates the new Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection
> > Act (the "Anticybersquatting Act")Accordingly, unless you
> > immediately agree to take the steps set forth below, including
> > ceasing any use of the "Verizon" and "Bell
> > Atlantic" marks and transferring the domain name
> > VERIZONREALLYSUCKS.COM to Bell Atlantic, Bell
> > Atlantic intends to proceed under the federal Trademark Act,
> > including the Anticybersquatting Act, by filing suit to protect
> > its
> > rights in federal court."
>
> I hope they get a nice frame to hang that one on the wall.
>
> "How to boost a web site's hit rate in one easy step"...
>
> It almost makes you sad that IsAnIdiot.com is already taken.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Verizon really sucks - Special Attn. Emmanuel Goldstein

[Jeff Williams]

Milton and all,

  Thank you Milton for bringing this to our attention.  I find it that
Bell Atlantic's action both tasteless and baseless from a legal
standpoint,
not to mention disgusting to boot.  But of course we have been here
before, haven't we?  :(

  I hope that Mr. Emmanuel Goldstein can share with us Ms. Sarah Deutsch

E-Mail address so others can directly express their view in an E-Mail.

Milton Mueller wrote:

> Bell Atlantic is attempting to use reverse domain name hijacking
> to prevent the use of critical domain names.
>
> Verizon is the new name of the Bell Atlantic-GTE merger.
> BA pre-emptively registered "verizonsucks.com"
> So an organization registered "verizonreallysucks.com"
>
> Showing a rather pathetic lack of a sense of humor, not to
> mention a lack of better things to do with her time, Bell
> Atlantic's lawyer Sarah Deutsch sent a letter that asserted,
> among other things:
>
> "your registration and/or use of these domain names infringes
> Bell Atlantic’s valuable trademark rights in the “Verizon” mark
> and violates the new Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection
> Act (the “Anticybersquatting Act”)Accordingly, unless you
> immediately agree to take the steps set forth below, including
> ceasing any use of the “Verizon” and “Bell
> Atlantic” marks and transferring the domain name
> VERIZONREALLYSUCKS.COM to Bell Atlantic, Bell
> Atlantic intends to proceed under the federal Trademark Act,
> including the Anticybersquatting Act, by filing suit to protect
> its
> rights in federal court."
>
> I hope I, too, will be privileged to get such a letter, since the
> label of this message also uses a trademarked term.
>
> See the article here
> http://www.2600.com/news/2000/0508.html
>
> --MM

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] floating the root

[Jeff Williams]

Richard and all,

  Good point Richard.  Most of us here know that WXW has had a long
standing feud with Jim Fleming dating back several years now.  Indeed
that is unfortunate and basically unnecessary.  But that is WXW's nature
or habit has been in dealing with several individuals including myself.
Rather than doing the necessary research, WXW takes a negative
view on an ad hoc and personal basis.

Richard J. Sexton wrote:

> Hey WXW, explain what floating the root means. You're objecting to it
> because Fleming thought it up, yet you have no idea what it means or
> how it works.
>
> Prove me wrong.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://ph-1.613.473.1719
> It's about travel on expense accounts to places with good beer. - BKR

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] GAO Scrutinizes ICANN

[Jeff Williams]

Jay and all,

  Yes, I have been contacted in regards to this investigation process
regarding ICANN, again...

Jay Fenello wrote:

> The New York Times Scoops the Rest (again)!
>
> FYI:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/05/cyber/capital/02capital.html
>
> Congressional Investigators Scrutinize Internet Oversight Group
> By JERI CLAUSING
> May 2, 2000
>
> WASHINGTON -- The Internet's always controversial oversight body, the
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann), is facing a
> new round of scrutiny that promises to reignite a nearly two-year-old
> debate over the validity of its creation, its mission and its authority.
>
> The General Accounting Office, the independent investigative arm of
> Congress, has been contacting nearly everyone who has ever had anything to
> do with the process that created Icann for a comprehensive report that is
> due on June 30.
> Icann has been the subject of intense controversy since it was picked by
> the Clinton administration in late 1998 to oversee the Internet's
> addressing, or domain name system, and to introduce competition into the
> lucrative business of registering domains.
>
> 
>
> Among the questions the GAO apparently will be trying to answer is whether
> the Clinton administration had the legal authority to hand administration
> of the Internet to a private entity and how ICANN was selected.
>
> ###

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Re: [Nc-tlds] Opinion from China regarding new gTLD. (fwd)

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  I also have to agree with both your potential scenario and Dave
Crockers comments here as well.  But I somehow doubt that
China will in the end block all gTLD (DNS Entirely) and will
modify their tendency for pull business practices to some expectable
level, eventually or risk being segregated by their own hand.

Joe Baptista wrote:

> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 00:58:03 -0400 (EDT)
> From: !Dr. Joe Baptista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Milton Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  Non-commercial TLDs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Nc-tlds] Opinion from China regarding new gTLD.
>
> I wonder what would happen - if the chiness were to block all dns service
> to china from the outside world (firewall the dns) only allow official
> queries to be done via authorized government dns services, then they would
> setup their own root servers - and say bye bye to the rest of the world
> and NSI and ICANN.
>
> Then they can setup their own registries and sell their own version of
> dot.com.
>
> Knowledge of the dns is power, is it not croker.
>
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> > Whatever the language used by the Chinese, their concern is about outflow
> > of money.
> >
> > Hence, ANY gTLD is likely to be a problem, unless the registry is run by a
> > Chinese organization.  Yes. outflow of "dollars" might be a bigger concern
> > than outflow of Ringett, but the high-level issue is the same.
> >
> > That's an inherent concern with the globalization that the Internet
> > brings.  Some groups want to deal with it by protectionism and others want
> > to deal with it by aggressively developing "pull" products and services.
>
> ___
> Non-Commercial Top Level Domains mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-tlds

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] TUCOWS.com Comments on IPC Sunrise Proposal (fwd)

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  We at INEGroup would have to agree with Ross on this very
strongly.  As you may know, Milton Muler has sent to the NCDNHC
list a solicited response to the IP constituency's and Michael Palage,
so called "Sunrise Proposal" .

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> I don't know if this has been posted yet - but it's a good little write up
> concerning tucows response to Comments on IPC Sunrise Proposal.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:51:34 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Ross Wm. Rader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: TUCOWS.com Comments on IPC Sunrise Proposal
>
> 15 April, 2000
>
> Michael Palage
> Chair, Working Group B/Registrars Constituency Secretariat
> Domain Name Supporting Organization
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
> Michael,
>
> TUCOWS.com Inc. is responding in the limited time available to your
> request that we comunicate our views concerning the latest proposals from
> the Intellectual Property Constituency, called "sunrise plus twenty."
>
> While we are aware that you are acting as best you can in limited
> circumstances of budget and time, TUCOWS must protest the inadequate
> consultation that has taken place in regard to these proposals, and must
> on grounds of substance reject them in their entirety. We find it
> increasingly anomalous that the secretary of the registrars association is
> acting to compromise the interests of IP holders with the interests of the
> vast mass of Internet users in this way.
>
> The essence of ICANN's problem is the disproportionate attention which is
> being given inside the working groups, and, increasingly outside, in
> private conferences, to the pretensions of the IP community to stall the
> process of domain name expansion, on grounds that we and our Internet
> users consider to be dubious and, in some cases, in outright error: error
> both as to policy as regards the future direction of the Internet, and
> more fundamentally, as to their power to hold up domain name expansion
> based on the monopoly of the NSI over the root server.
>
> You have received commentary from John Berryhill, which, in our view,
> devastates the position of the IPC that they are entitled to extra-legal
> privileges in the matter of establishing domain names for famous names,
> and lately, for all trade mark holders in all countries.
>
> The IPC's contentions that trade mark holders are owed a special set of
> privileges regarding domain names, different from and superior to those
> worked out in national legislatures, is not something that other users of
> the Internet need to accept. Moreover, it is unnecessary. The fastest way
> to eradicate the problem that the IPC pretends to solve is to have a
> rapid, large expansion of domain names.  The IPC is threatened by this
> approach because it diminshes the value of what they are protecting, and
> the value fo the services they render.
>
> The issue is not, as  they suppose, "confusion" in the marketplace, or
> the protection of consumers. It is the protection of the economic
> position of intellectual property lawyers.
>
> What we are actually observing in the saga of domain name expansion is a
> power-grab of major proportions over the architecture of the Internet,
> using ICANN not so much as a representative forum for IP interests as the
> embodimenet of IP lawyers' interests. This tendency is not good for the
> Net, for Internet users, for small businesses which need the increase of
> namespace, and ultimately it will lead, if unchecked by common sense and
> contrary interests, to the avoidance of the DNS and the downfall of ICANN.
>
> The policy that should be followed in relation to IP interests is this:
> no privilege shall be granted to any trade mark or famous name holder by
> ICANN that is not available under domestic trade mark law. We understand
> that this principle will need adjustment to accord with the global nature
> of top level domains, but by sticking to it ICANN will do better for the
> Internet, for millions of users, and even for the interests of IP owners,
> than a policy of restriction.
>
> TUCOWS has been supporting reasonable compromise between IP owners and
> domain name expansion for some time. On reflection, We have decided that
> we are not going to get domain name expansion in this way, and that we are
> in fact acceding to a takeover of the political processes of ICANN by a
> set of interests that oppose what the Internet stands for. We urge you to
> reconsider the nature of the compromises you may be making, and what you
> may consider to be realistic. To us at TUCOWS, compromise with the kinds
> of proposals we are seeing coming from the IPC will get us nowhere.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Ross Wm. Rader
> Director, Assigned Names Division
> TUCOWS.com Inc.
>
> --
> Ross Wm. Rader http://www

[IFWP] Re: [idno] Re: NSI Restricts Re-sale of Domain Names - and IDNO revisionist history?

[Jeff Williams]

Karl and all,

  Indeed I am sorry that you take such offense at my attempting to
keep interested parties informed.  I also see that you have a tendency
to contradict your self in your response.  I also noticed that in your
response you also cross posted.  As I recall you, Andy, William
and even Joop have done so on quite a number of occasions to
the Domain Policy list, the DNSO GA list, and the IFWP.

Karl E. Peters wrote:

> Mr. Williams,
> For one who so readily criticizes the amateurish list behavior of
> others, you certainly have much room for improvement.
> Please refrain from cross posting this drivel from other lists onto
> this one and equally, from cross posting drivel from our list onto other
> lists. If it is not important enough to write twice, perhaps it is not
> important enough to be read by two groups of people. Certainly posts
> like this last one do not deserve even a single reading.
> To the rest of you receiving this, I apologize for this intrusion
> into your mailboxes, but believe that public attention to this behavior
> is key to trying to discourage it.
>
> Karl E. Peters
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: NSI Restricts Re-sale of Domain Names - and IDNO revisionist history?

[Jeff Williams]

Joe andy and all,

  As a matter of record, I have all of the posts to the IDNO list
even those of the pre-SC days.  And they seem to bear Joe's
contention out very graphically after reviewing some of them
this mourning.

  Revisionist history is fun for some people I suppose, but is a bit
out of place and improper as to accuracy.  I am sorry that Andy
and WXW choose to engage in that sort of activity.  :(

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Andy Gardner wrote:
>
> > >He did - http://list.idno.org/archives/ and anyone wanting too look in the
> > >archives - may and they'll know the definition of classical white trash.
> >
> > Those archives are incomplete. They do not have the full story of
> > what happened during the pre-SC days.
>
> well - give us a URL where they are complete.  then we can compare - but
> as far as I know - that's the official archive - unless you or joop can
> redirect us elsewhere.
>
> > Only one person killed the IDNO and that was Joop the dictator.
>
> no andy - Walsh and you were joint buddies in that.  again - the record
> speaks for itself.
>
> > You, on the other hand Joe, are just a shit-stirrer, pure and simple.
> > Like your buddy Jeff.
>
> Shit disturber or freedom fighters - what's in a name - would a rose by
> any other name smell as sweet?  I think it's clear I disturb the ICANN
> dung heap - there is no dispute to that.  But then again - who else is
> qualified to tear down the opposition.
>
> The only question is - when one disturbs the dung heap - does one get
> results - or not.  I feel confident I've gotten the right results ;-)
>
> Regards
> Joe Baptista

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Internet Names Worldwide, INWW, Announces Namebuddy -- the Answer to Domain Name Nightmares

[Jeff Williams]

All,

  Tracking or thinking about a new DN?  Well try out Namebuddy!  >;)
 It ain't perfect, but it has it's uses.  Sure better than WXW's tool!
>;)
See:
http://cnniw.yellowbrix.com/pages/cnniw/Story.nsp?story_id=9847528&ID=cnniw&scategory=Internet%3ARegulations

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] CNNFN Article: New worry begins over names and domains on Internet

[Jeff Williams]

All,

  More interesting news, though not so new to most of us here, but
yet spreading the word on ICANN and Domain Names..
See:
http://cnniw.yellowbrix.com/pages/cnniw/Story.nsp?story_id=9857077&ID=cnniw&scategory=Internet%3ARegulations

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Network Solutions Releases Domain Name Data Statistics

[Jeff Williams]

All,

  Interesting FYI, see:
http://cnniw.yellowbrix.com/pages/cnniw/Story.nsp?story_id=9858023&ID=cnniw&scategory=Internet%3ARegulations

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] ICANN Meta Questions

[Jeff Williams]

Richard and all,

  Richard Sexton asks some very good questions here that need,
and even demand good answers.  Our organization has some views
on these questions that we believe are relevant as well as very
important now and more so in the future

Richard J. Sexton wrote:

> (Never meta question I didn't like)
>
> 1) Where is the community consensus that the GAC should be a part of all this?

  I myself having been involved on most if not all of the public forums
discussing these issues, have not seen demonstrated by the GAC any
verifiable or accountable "Consensus" on their influence or decision making
on policy issues with respect to ICANN or the Internet as a whole to date.

>
>
> 2) Why is working group C asked to decide "how many tlds and what names" ?
> That sounds like a loaded question just waiting for the answer to be read
> from the IAHC script.

  Good question here as well Richard.  In that DOC killed the IAHC as it
was illegitimate or constructed in an improper manner at least, it seems
that the DNSO Working Group C as it is currently and was formed
in a somewhat questionable manner to begin with as interested parties
were, and still are not able to participate on that Working Group
public mailing list.  This constitutes a direct violation of the White
Paper as well as the MoU which the DOC/NTIA and ICANN
singed in good faith.

>
>
> Shouldn't the question be "by what process or terms should new tld registries
> be accepted into the legacy root"?

  Yes, we believe this is a better way of couching the question with
respect to additional TLD's and registries being added to enhance
the DNS and the internet as a whole.

>
>
> Isn't that what we're really trying to find out here?

  We believe it should be.  However as you and many others
have seen from the ICANN Board, and yes, from the NTIA
itself this doesn't seem to be the direction in which the process
of policy for the future of the Internet is being dragged towards.
One may wonder how this provides for the stability of the internet,
and more specifically the DNS.

>
>
> Does anybody really believe that working group C is so cleevr thay can fortell
> what 6-10 names are going to be the end-all be-all to expansion of the dns
> namwespace?

  We don't think that this is really possible, but some probability can be
expected or surmised.

>
>
> For reference, here are the top names poeple have chosen on the right
> hand side of a hyphen in a .com name. Surely this is some indication
> of what poeple want, as opposed to what some committe of people with
> vested interests think is right.
>
> Notes:
>
> 1) List truncated to names with 1000 or more names in that taxa.
>
> 2) List generated from an 11 million name .com zone, a bit over a
> month old. List will be regenerated from a 12 million name .com zone
> when it gets there next week or so.
>
> >   17631 ONLINE
> >   12954 INC
> >9558 NET
> >9143 USA
> >6092 GROUP
> >5674 UK
> >5142 WEB
> >4903 TECH
> >4678 E
> >4613 IT
> >4360 DESIGN
> >3962 SOLUTIONS
> >3929 US
> >3778 SHOP
> >3661 LINE
> >3659 WORLD
> >3534 SYSTEMS
> >3469 CONSULTING
> >3434 SERVICES
> >3414 Z
> >3219 DIRECT
> >3158 LAW
> >3103 INTERNATIONAL
> >3093 S
> >3058 1
> >3028 SOFTWARE
> >2896 CO
> >2878 INFO
> >2875 TV
> >2781 HOMES
> >2776 EUROPE
> >2765 ART
> >2721 FRANCE
> >2547 COM
> >2505 JP
> >2462 SERVICE
> >2412 INTL
> >2405 TRAVEL
> >2368 CORP
> >2299 MEDIA
> >2251 NOW
> >2244 NETWORK
> >2235 MAIL
> >2232 STORE
> >2194 MALL
> >2181 CENTER
> >2162 BUSINESS
> >2136 CLUB
> >2135 LTD
> >2114 2000
> >2102 MUSIC
> >2085 ASSOCIATES
> >2064 NEWS
> >1985 I
> >1950 CHINA
> >1946 INSURANCE
> >1860 INDIA
> >1854 HOME
> >1852 REALESTATE
> >1818 SA
> >1806 MARKETING
> >1776 BANK
> >1765 PRODUCTS
> >1700 INTERNET
> >1683 ENTERPRISES
> >1675 AMERICA
> >1664 ESTATE
> >1647 SALES
> >1641 SEX
> >1638 INT
> >1623 X
> >1618 JOBS
> >1607 HOTEL
> >1562 GUIDE
> >1542 AG
> >1537 COMMERCE
> >1504 REALTY
> >1502 PLUS
> >1497 ONE
> >1471 GMBH
> >1469 LINK
> >1469 HOUSE
> >1440 A
> >1436 HOTELS
> >1429 CITY
> >1398 LIFE
> >1392 EXPRESS
> >1391 ASIA
> >1378 FR
> >1367 TRADE
> >1347 C
> >1344 MARKET
> >1332 FAMILY
> >1329 SITE
> >1325 T
> >1325 EXCHANGE
> >1323 TECHNOLOGY
> >1317 SPORTS
> >1301 SALE
> >1301 BOOKS
> >1300 U
> >1288 CANADA
> >1276 SEARCH
> >1261 FREE
> >1251 RESEARCH
> >1228 COMPUTERS
> >1214 NY
> >1213 DESIGNS
> >1204 7
> >1187 TECHNOLOGIES
> >1184 MANAGEMENT
> >1183 SOFT
> >1183 JAPAN
> >1179 SHOPPING
> >1178 COMPANY
> >1176 HEALTH
> >1175 ENGINEERING
> >1164 PRO
> >1164 G

Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN/DNSO (fwd)

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  Yes I posted them to the DNSO GA list for informational
purposes as Mo, was having a problem in getting on the
DNSO GA list for some odd reason.  And yes, it seems that
WXW forgot to take his prozack again  :(

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> Well - those censored messages are now in the public domain.  So here's a
> copy of the full message.  Poor WXW is seeing ghosts again.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 00:17:01 -0700
> From: Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Mo McKinlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>  Roberto Gaetano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  DNSO Listadmin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  General Assembly of the DNSO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: ICANN/DNSO
>
> Mo and all,
>
>   Thank you Mo for you insightful and interesting response to my
> original response to your concerns and interests as well and your
> idea that openness is or should be paramount in order to reach
> reasonable decisions that have a majority consensus that is
> measurable.  We (you and INEGroup) are definitely in agreement here.
> It is as you most eloquently and accurately state below terrible
> that Harald, Roberto and the DNSO List admin as well as the ICANN
> Board are not in agreement with us here
>
> Mo McKinlay wrote:
>
> > #   Mo, I agree that restricting the content of a post to the DNSO
> > # GA list is a very bad thing and a terrible president to set in light
> > # of what the Internet represents, as well a forums like this one.
> > # I am glad that you re-open this sort of discussion again here,
> > # it is sorely needed.
> >
> > I find it interesting, but not suprising, that you head straight for the
> > issue closest to home, as it were - the post restriction for the GA list.
> >
> > While I believe that this is huge concern, not just for DNSO itself (and
> > obviously its members), my fears are largely based on the fact that this
> > issue will affect the general populus of Internet users.
> >
> > It saddens me to see that an organisation that is trusted by millions
> > across the globe to set out Internet policy has become almost nothing more
> > than a battleground.
> >
> > While I do not have first-hand experience of the issues that you have
> > faced (primarily the illegitimate rulings), the publically accessible
> > archives on the DNSO website do nothing short of speaking for themselves.
> >
> > Incidentally, due to a minor configuration error at my end, I have been
> > unable to subscribe to the GA list (my subscription address and the
> > address I responded to authentication from were ultimately
> > slightly different, and I am hence awaiting approval).
> >
> > In any case, whether I am subscribed to the GA list or not, I still have
> > the right to raise with you my areas of concern, as a "typical" user of
> > the Internet (if there is such a thing).
> >
> > If you'll bear with me, I'd like to share my concerns with you.
> >
> > First, there is the issue of the running and decision-making of DNSO, and
> > censorship of its members. My personal view on this issue is that reactive
> > action should be taken, not proactive. Moderated lists have thier place,
> > but not in an issue such as this. I therefore propose to the members, and
> > list admin, that moderation be removed. In light of this, however, I
> > strongly suggest that lists are managed properly.
> >
> > That is, breach of the _agreed_ rules is dealt with accordingly, *after*
> > messages have circulated throughout the list, to the responsible ADULTS
> > that populate it. If somebody becomes offended by a particular post, they
> > should say something to the list administrators, and action taken from
> > then on. However, the risks of pre-censoring posts are phenomenal - if a
> > post contains 90% of worthwhile content and 10% which *some* *may* find
> > offensive, it would be censored; thus rendering the 90% of worthwhile
> > content unheard. This helps nobody, *including* those who may have been
> > offended by a portion of the post.
> >
> > The majority of Internet mailing lists and newsgroups work in this way,
> > and do so very successfully; it seems to be a case of shooting yourself
> > in the foot to do it any other way.
> >
> > My other concerns are probably very contriversial, but 

[IFWP] Re: tucows and open srs is falling apart

[Jeff Williams]

William and all,

  For some of you who may be new on this list.  William X. Walsh
has had a long standing dislike and feud with Joe Baptista, as well
as myself amongst a few others.  Anything that WXW may say in
response to posts coming from Joe, myself, Joop, and a few others
should be read carefully so as not to get confused with reality and
his visceral attitude.

William X. Walsh wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Don't pay any attention to this fool's misinterpretations and exaggerations.
>
> On 05-Apr-2000 !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> > There's a big rebellion going on in the tucows and opensrs lists.  Alot of
> > two cows mirrors are cancelling out.  It's a real mess.
> >
> > http://www.opensrs.org/archives/discuss-list/3307.html
>
> - --
> William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> http://userfriendly.com/
> GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
> Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/
>
> iD8DBQE46rOL8zLmV94Pz+IRAje5AKCdhPvsjCsnfHmWPzVZkrGfA6jdhgCePVaJ
> Tv2nsROgUbo3sOV4DAASHoE=
> =MKCQ
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] [ga] About GA membership again and additional TLD's

[Jeff Williams]

All,

  FYI for information on existing additional TLD's:
===
Subject:
 Re: [ga] About GA membership again..
Date:
 Sun, 02 Apr 2000 15:23:49 -0700
   From:
 Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Organization:
 INEGroup Spokesman
 To:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 CC:
 Peter de Blanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  References:
 1




Peter and all assembly members,

  If by the term "Consensus" on these matters regarding TLD's
that are already running on some number of ISP's I would have to
say given the off the cuff number of ISP's you mention, that some form
of "Consensus" is already determined.

  On the other hand in order to determine if a "Real Consensus" is
so, we the stakeholders need to have a VOTE to determine that
"Real Consensus" is met.

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Re: The press release: "ADNS NEWSLETTER: ASLAN SERVER VISIBILITY
JUMPS..."
>
> Perhaps a bit pushy- however...
>
> I feel there is some merit in considering the past work in alternative
or
> 'additional' TLDs. There is a thin line between what 'might' have been

> experiments in the true 'RFC' sense of consensus formation, regarding
> insertion of new TLDs, and some of the almost 'Pirate like'
underground
> activities that developed around 'Alternic' and other groups.
>
> If, for example, there was a root server in switzerland, called 'Z',
and it
> contained 'alternative', 'enhanced' 'additional' TLD's, and 1000 or so
of
> the worlds major ISP's updated their DNS cache from it, there 'might'
be
> enough consensus to make the new TLDs 'valid enough'.
>
> The point I am making is, with consensus, anything can happen.
>
> With enough consensus, new TLDs can be inserted into the 'A' root
server as
> well.
>
> Perhaps we can measure our success here in the GA, and in ICANN in
general,
> by the speed with which we can form consensus.
>
> Since we have this forum, why not see if we can increase our speed of
> consensus formation WRT new TLDs? And if some of those potential new
TLDs
> happen to be the ones in the 'alternative root' systems, would it
matter?
>
> Peter de Blanc
> .VI Admin
>
> Simon Higgs wrote:
> >
> >
> >I'd also like to propose that the pre-IAHC work with IANA be
recognized
> ,
> >and that an iTLD constituency be created. Constituents can from known

> >contributors to the Jon Postel new TLD/registry drafts, or other new
> >TLD/registry Internet Drafts published during 1996, or are named on
the
>
> >iTLD applicant list that Jon Postel published on behalf of IANA to
> >iahc-discuss. The purpose of the iTLD Constituency is to create new
> >registries that will compete at the registry-level with NSI
(currently
> no
> >competition exists for gTLDs or rTLDs at the registry-level).
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.
> Send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

[Jeff Williams]

Mikael and all assembly members,

  Do you have a URL for the IDG article?  If so, would you share
it with us?  I must have somehow missed it.

Mikael Pawlo wrote:

> On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Michael Sondow wrote:
> > > > The Swedish government will on Monday release a report suggesting new
> > > > rules for the administration of domain names under .se
> > > > These new regulations are since long released by the
> > > > self-regulatory body  of .se.
> > So which is it, Mikael, self-regulation or government control?
>
> Government control policies will be released on Monday and these policies
> are not yet known to the public. However, the governmental investigators
> have done some statements today on the policies in the Swedish industry
> magazine Computer Sweden (IDGs Swedish edition of Computer World).
> Thus, there is a self regulation of .se domains today. What will be the
> case next week we can't tell for sure yet. We do know, however, that some
> changes will be imposed by the government, both regarding the
> self-regulation as such and the regulations.
>
> I hope this is sufficient answer to your question.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Mikael
>
> _
>
>   ICQ:35638414mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   http://www.pawlo.com/

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re:

[Jeff Williams]

Louis and all other interested parties,

  Louis, you are full of it buddy.  I nearly fell out of my chair
laughing when I read this nonsense  Get a grip fella, will ya!

ICANN, INC. wrote:

>  *** Attention ***
>
>  It's that time again!
>
>  As many of you know, each leap year the Internet must be shut down for 24
>  hours in order to allow us to clean it.  The cleaning process, which
>  eliminates dead email and inactive ftp, www and gopher sites, allows for
>  a better-working and faster Internet.
>
>  This year, the cleaning process will take place from 12:01 a.m. GMT on
>  April 1 until 12:01 a.m. GMT on April 2.  During that 24-hour period,
>  five powerful Internet-crawling robots situated around the world will
>  search the Internet and delete any data that they find.
>
>  In order to protect your valuable data from deletion we ask that you do
>  the following:
>
>  1.  Disconnect all terminals and local area networks from their Internet
>  connections.
>
>  2.  Shut down all Internet servers, or disconnect them from the Internet.
>
>  3.  Disconnect all disks and hardrives from any connections to the
>  Internet.
>
>  4.  Refrain from connecting any computer to the Internet in any way.
>
>  We understand the inconvenience that this may cause some Internet users,
>  and we apologize.  However, we are certain that any inconveniences will
>  be more than made up for by the increased speed and efficiency of the
>  Internet, once it has been cleared of electronic flotsam and jetsam.
>
>  We thank you for your cooperation.
>
>  Louis Touton
>  Grand Galactic Council
>  ICANN, INC.

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Domain Reg Frustrations (fwd)

[Jeff Williams]

Joe, Morica and all,

  Yes this sounds very similar to how Register.Com does business,
as we have already seen and read plenty of evidence of.  It seems that
the vaunted oversight from ICANN and the NTIA is neglecting its
responsibilities.  Why am I not surprised?

  More to the point however Morica, it might be wise to just
file a complaint directly to the ICANN board or consider a
suit.  Otherwise, as in other situations exactly like yours you will
just be ignored and feel ripped off, which it seems that you were.

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> same old - same old - complains galor - any response to this NSI?
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:11:43 -0700
> From: Morica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Domain Reg Frustrations
>
> After contacting NSI and ICANN, emails to/from the Reseller I used,
> and to various OpenSRS representatives, I am in need of clarification
>  of a domain registration which I hope somebody on this list can
> provide.
>
> I applied to register "Indiscreet.com" on March 18, through an NSI
> Reseller.  NIC RECEIVED my request (NIC-000318.a757) on March 18, but
>  on March 21 rejected it (Domain registered to another party).  On
> March 20, this name was registered to someone else.
>
> 2000/3/18-04:36:35 RECEIVED indiscreet.com NIC-000318.a757
> 2000/3/21-02:00:20 ERROR indiscreet.com NIC-000318.a757
> E indiscreet.com 328D3DBE7AC02DCD81F38CEB349F3CC8
> Domain registered to another party.
>
> When I talked to NSI the first time, I was told the name was deleted
> by the previous owner, and it had just become available, and was on
> March 18 (the day I sent in my request), but by the time my
> application was processed, it was already registered by this other
> person.
>
> Today, I called and spoke to someone else at NSI, who gave me a
> totally different answer, saying that the name was still in the
> registry on March 18 at the time I applied for it, but became
> available 'after', thus the reason for the rejection and registration
>  by somebody else.  Basically I was SOL due to bad timing.
>
> ICANN said they couldn't do anything because I used a reseller, and
> nobody at OpenSRS has responded to any of my emails.
>
> Why did it take NSI just under 3 days, until March 21, to reject my
> application?  Can someone please help me determine what happened so I
>  can ease my frustrations?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Morica
> BaDDa  bOOm! Creative Media

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] RFC 2795 on The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (IMPS) (fwd)

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  ROFLMAO!   Seems like a typical day for the IETF to me!  >;)

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> A slow day at the IETF ;-)
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:02:43 -0800
> From: RFC Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: IETF-Announce:  ;
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RFC 2795 on The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (IMPS)
>
> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
>
> RFC 2795
>
> Title:  The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (IMPS)
> Author(s):  S. Christey
> Status: Informational
> Date:   1 April 2000
> Mailbox:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Pages:  20
> Characters: 42902
> Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None
>
> URL:ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2795.txt
>
> This memo describes a protocol suite which supports an infinite
> number of monkeys that sit at an infinite number of typewriters in
> order to determine when they have either produced the entire works
> of William Shakespeare or a good television show.  The suite
> includes communications and control protocols for monkeys and the
> organizations that interact with them.
>
> This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
> not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
> memo is unlimited.
>
> This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
> Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
> should be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Requests to be
> added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should
> be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
> an EMAIL message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message body
> help: ways_to_get_rfcs.  For example:
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: getting rfcs
>
> help: ways_to_get_rfcs
>
> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
> author of the RFC in question, or to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Unless
> specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
> unlimited distribution.echo
> Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC
> Authors, for further information.
>
> Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza
> USC/Information Sciences Institute
>
> ...
>
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader
> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version
> of the RFCs.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Re: NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new TLDs

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  Of course you are correct Joe.  I think that we all know that Kent
has a special interest here in making this obviously incorrect statement.
What is amazing to me anyway is that others actually believe this
dribble...

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > 1) There are millions of names in .com.  Even with 5 names marked out,
> > adding 6 new gTLDs is an *enormous* expansion of the domain space.
>
> complete nonsense here.  the root file can be as big as dot.com, that's a
> fact, if that was not a fact dot.com would not work.  Last time I looked
> dot.com was 900 megs in size, which means the root can be 900 megs in
> size.  at this time the root is only some 200K - so spare us the
> misinformation kent.
>
> regards
> joe
>
> >
> > 2) Far more important than the particular number is the set of criteria
> > for admission in the list.  If there are indeed 5 legitimate "famous
> > marks" by some defensible definition, then 5 is a true measure of
> > the scope of the problem.  (The IAHC challenge panel guidelines had
> > objective criteria for famous marks -- "formally registered as a mark in
> > more than 75 countries", for example.)
> >
> > 3) The list, as I understand it, is for the dominant (except in wg-c)
> > definition of "gTLD"s -- that is, TLDs that allow open registration to
> > all, without any enforced policies on registration.  TLDs that had real
> > charters would be in a different category -- for example, a TLD (say,
> > nom) that had a registration requirement that the SLD name had to be a
> > legal name for the individual registering the SLD could be exempt from
> > the exclusion list (so macdonald.nom could really go to someone name
> > macdonald).
> >
> >
> > >  I think this is a practical and serious issue.  How big would
> > > the list be?  There is also an issue of the type of protection Pesi
> > > would get.  Would Pesi get protection from popesitdown.com or
> > > pesivcoke.comparison?
> >
> > You mean "pepsi", I believe.  As far as I know, the exclusion list is
> > for exact string matches.
> >
> > > And, if the world wants to set a global trademark policy, why doesn't
> > > the world do this through its existing international institutions like
> > > WIPO or WTO?   Why does ICANN, hardly a representative or accountable
> > > group, become a policy maker in this area?
> >
> > Because domain names bring the problem to the surface, and there is no
> > other body in the correct place to do anything in anything like the
> > "internet" time scale.
> >
> > --
> > Kent Crispin   "Do good, and you'll be
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]   lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Internet stability (was Re: CoolMail.com dispute/lawsuit?)

[Jeff Williams]

Michael and all,

  Good tongue and cheek post here Michael.  I also echo Michaels
joust here Becky.  Yours and the NTIA's oversight with ICANN has
been and continues to be the poorest example of oversight from any
organization I believe I have ever seen in my entire life to date.  Had
either of my little girls (7 and 9 yrs of age) done this poor of a job
they would be in some serious trouble and punished

Michael Sondow wrote:

> Dear Ms. Burr-
>
> Thank you for the stability that you and the NTIA have brought to
> the Internet.
>
> Yours,
> Michael Sondow
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 11:45 PM
> > Subject: ElectronMail.com
> >
> > Greetings.
> >
> > You are receiving this message because you are a former member of
> > Coolmail.com. We are the former owners of the domain name and
> > deeply regret to inform you that we have lost it in a lawsuit.
> > The court has ordered us to shut down the site immediately.
> > Please note that the Coolmail.com service of which you are a
> > member is not affiliated with Coolmail.net, Coolemail.com,
> > Planetary Motion, Inc., and Coolemail.com, Inc.  We deeply
> > regret any inconvenience the shutdown may impose.
> >
> > We are in the process of appealing the court's decision, so it is
> > possible that we will reacquire the domain name.  If that is the
> > case, all of your accounts and messages will be accessible to you.
> > In the meantime, however, we recommend that you try our new e-mail
> > service, Electron Mail.  Your old login name will be working at
> > Electron Mail, so you will have immediate access.  Electron Mail
> > offers voice mail and fax capability free as well as a bevy of
> > other highly desirable features.
> >
> > In case you have forgotten, here is the account information you
> > will need to log in to Electron Mail:
> >
> > Username:
> > Password:
> >
> > Your new e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Electron Mail is
> > on the web at http://www.electronmail.com/.
> >
> > We sincerely hope you will accept our apologies and
> > support us through our difficult time.
> >
> > Have a good day, and take care.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Techsplosion, Inc.
>
> --
> 
> Michael Sondow   I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
> Tel. (718)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927
> 

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: IP address holders - are they represented?

[Jeff Williams]

Jay and all assembly members,

  First let me say this should not really be on the DNSO GA list...
More comments below as to the subject

Jay Fenello wrote:

> At 07:49 PM 3/15/00 , David R. Conrad wrote:
> >Michael,
> >
> > > I know it's in the interests of IBM, MCI,& AT&T to put small
> > > companies out of business, but is it in the interests of the RIRs?
> >
> >Sorry, I have _no_ interest in getting into yet another education effort on
> >the implications of CIDR, address aggregation, provider based addressing, and
> >why it is necessary.  I have been involved in and seen all the arguments and
> >counter-arguments more times than I want to recall and have neither the time
> >nor the interest in wading through it yet again.
> >
> >If this is something you are actually interested in (rather than using it as
> >yet another rhetorical soapbox to bash ICANN), I suggest you start by reading
> >the old IEPG and IETF CIDRD and ALE working group archives.  You might also
> >check the APNIC and ARIN archives for the dicussions when they were
> >established.  You will find much of the discussion repetitive -- as I
> >indicated, this argument has been repeated _many_ times since people
> >discovered that 32 bits was not infinite, but hopefully informative.
> >
> >The executive summary is: addresses are allocated the way they are because the
> >folks who work at RIRs are interested in insuring the Internet continues to
> >work.
>
> Hi David,
>
> What does this have to do with complaints
> about ARIN's regressive pricing policies?
>
> Or the huge @Home delegation?
>
> These are questions of policy.

  I can remember and document if necessary when David Conrad made some
statements to the effect that IP numbers were not for sale and could not be
purchased.  Of course we all know now that David's statements along these lines
were inaccurate than and remain so now.

>
>
> >If you do not believe this statement, go read the stuff I mentioned above.
> >
> > > I've wasted two years reading what ICANN writes or posts. Not a
> > > single thing they've said has been put into practice, just the
> > > opposite. They are professional con artists, whose sole interest is
> > > to take as much power away from individuals as they can. The users
> > > have been swept aside, the ISPs have been swept aside, and sooner or
> > > later you, too, will be swept aside if you don't wise up.
> >
> >Hopefully, you'll someday learn that demonizing in this way does very little
> >to help your credibility.
>
> Deamonizing aside, Michael's
> complaints are still accurate!

  Agreed, Michaels statements/comments are very accurate.  I also didn't
see or read any "Demonizing" in them.  Rather I did gather that David was
attempting in a snide sort of way, which is his habit of notice, to demonize
Michael or make it appear to the readers that Michael was behaving in his
comments in demonic fashion.  This is typical of David on occasion.

>
>
> Jay.
>
> >Rgds,
> >-drc
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jay Fenello,
> New Media Relations
> 
> http://www.fenello.com  770-392-9480
> Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World
> 
> "The unexamined life isn't worth living"
>-- Socrates

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: NACK not ACK,was Re: Fw: Re: NSI says they can't transfer do mains from COREregistrars

[Jeff Williams]

Ed and all,

  I made a very similar argument some months ago now, and it too fell
on deaf ears.  What is even more amazing is that the DOC/NTIA
let's this slide! To me that is utterly amazing, and displays their utter
disdain for the Registrant and nearly complete ignorance

Ed Gerck wrote:

> Chuck:
>
> Thanks for your reply -- which is not a surprise, but somehow
> I hoped otherwise.  So, the tail is wagging  the dog?  Instead of
> changing a faulty statement (Appendix B), the SRP decides to code
> it and  enforce it.  Fraud becomes the default -- and this is illegal, may
> I note, which invalidates Appendix B as an enforceable clause.
>
> As another argument besides that of providing an illegal incentive to fraud,
> IMO what Appendix B says is illegal in California -- as an example.
> In California, an agreement to conduct a transaction electronically may not be
> contained in a standard form contract that is not an electronic record,
> and an agreement in such a standard form contract may not be conditioned
> upon an agreement to conduct transactions electronically.  Somehow thus,
> the losing registrar should be able to say NO in a variety of ways, including
> ex protocol -- instead of being conditioned upon that agreement to conduct
> said transaction  electronically and in a fraudulent-prone way.
>
> As a "positive" point in the case of the mandatory auto ACK, the losing
> registrar may now claim it has no liability in the case of domain hijacking
> -- isn't this great?? Seems to suit the general model of avoiding liability
> at the expense of the registrant.
>
> But, by accepting this, IMO the Registry (e.g., NSI) needs to also accept full
> responsibility for any fraud commited using a loophole known to the Registry
> and which could be easily prevented by changing the automatic ACK to
> NACK.  So, liability may not be so easy to circumvent -- just changed
> target from losing registrar to Registry.  Perhaps, an incentive to change
> the ACK to NACK?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed Gerck
>
> "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
>
> > Ed,
> >
> > No argument with your point here but what I said is accurate.  The protocol
> > was originally designed with an auto NAK but we were required to change it
> > according terms of the Registry License and Agreement executed on November
> > 10, 1999.  In Appendix B of that agreement you will find this statement: "In
> > all cases, the losing Registrar shall respond to the e-mail notice regarding
> > the "transfer" request within five (5) days. Failure to respond will result
> > in a default "approval" of the "transfer.""
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ed Gerck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 3:39 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: NACK not ACK, was Re: Fw: Re: NSI says they can't transfer
> > domains from CORE registrars
> >
> > It is not good at all, when you affirm that Bill is correct.
> > I hope you are mistaken. Because what you just
> > confirmed  is fully incorrect in a fair protocol.
> >
> > The losing registrar's failure to make its negative
> > response arrive at the NSI Registry within 5 days
> > might be: (i) because the reply was diverted, (ii) because
> > the question never arrived, (iii) because the question
> > arrived but was not read, etc.
> >
> > The correct protocol response, as I may have said
> > elsewhere, is for the SRP to enforce a NACK (no
> > acknowledgment) if there is no response to the
> > Registry from the losing registrar -- not an automatic
> > ACK.  This would stop the transfer on its tracks,
> > which is necessary even if it may err on the side of
> > caution.
> >
> > Of course, the alternative is for domain hijacking to
> > be the default mode of operation in the SRP.
> >
> > As another argument, it is perhaps time to reread Danny Cohen's think
> > piece on "The Dating Habits of Japanese Men in The State of Kansas"
> > or something like that.
> >
> > It deals with the great question of whether the suitor should commit
> > suicide when not receiving a reply from his invitation to his intended
> > fiancee;-)...
> >
> > It recounts all the possible reasons why the reply might not be
> > received.  Cutting to the chase scene...
> >
> >  Not delivered to the intended recipient.
> >  Not answered by the recipient, though it was received.
> >  Reply sent, but not received by the suitor.
> >
> > Only one of these is legitimate case for commiting suicide, per
> > Japanese custom.  All of these are legimate reasons to transfer
> > a domain name, per your message.
> >
> > Thus, it seems to me that this case may also has interesting echoes
> > from Danny's story.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Ed Gerck
> >
> > "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> >
> > > Bill is correct.  The losing registrar may also respond in the affirmative
> > > before the 5-day period is up, in which case the transfer will occur
> > sooner.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Bill Gerrard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTE

[IFWP] Re: Fw: Re: NSI says they can't transfer domains from CORE

[Jeff Williams]

Ken and all,

  And this "Procedure" is wholly insufficient as well as dangerous to the
Registrant.  But given the source of this "Procedure" I am not at all
surprised, "Stubby"...  By the way, how is the "Cold Calling" going
there "Stubby"?  >;)

Ken Stubbs wrote:

>  core has a policy for registrant transfers and every core srs member has
> the
>  capacity to accomplish this. depending on the member you have to notify
> them
>  and request a transfer in writing on the letterhead of the current
>  registrant (by fax). if you have any questions on the procedure please
>  contact the srs member you are currently using. if you have a problem then
>  let me know who it is and i will help to facilitate it.
>
>  ken stubbs
>
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Ron Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 2:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: Fw: Re: NSI says they can't transfer domains from CORE
> > registrars
> >
> >
> > > Ken is talking about *Registrant* transfers, NOT
> > > Registrar transfers. With that said, you're correct
> > > regarding that Registrar transfers are initiated by
> > > the new Registrar and the 5 day thing.
> > >
> > > CORE has no problem with doing Registrant
> > > transfers in either direction, but they don't allow
> > > Registrant transfers (transfer from person to
> > > person) the last I checked; and incidently a
> > > CORE customer's inability to transfer a domain
> > > to another person is what started this thread.
> > >
> > > Ron Bennett
> > >
> > >
> > > At 10:34 AM 3/14/00 -0800, Bill Gerrard wrote:
> > > >Hello,
> > > >
> > > >>  the transfer must be effected thru the core registrar you are
> dealing
> > with
> > > >> not directly with the entity.
> > > >
> > > >I thought the *gaining* registrar was the one that initiates the
> > registrar
> > > >transfer request, then NSI Registry sends a confirmation message to the
> > > >losing registrar.  If the losing registrar does not respond in the
> > > >negative within 5 days, the domain is tarnsferred to the gaining
> > > >registrar.
> > > >
> > > >Can someone confirm this?
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >Bill
> > > >
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: NSI says they can't transfer domains from CORE registrars

[Jeff Williams]

All,

  Considering CORE's once fearless and renowned leader Ken "Stubby" Stubbs,
it is hardly surprising that COREland is an unhappy place and it's registrars
are jumping ship.  Now of course we have "Stubby" on the DNSO NC.

William X. Walsh wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 14-Mar-2000 Ron Bennett wrote:
> > .now one can
> > see why many people have jumped ship at CORE.
>
> Including many of their registrars, who have decided to skip out and get ICANN
> Accreditation theirselves.  I wish I could publish a few of these emails,
> suffice it to say there is some unhappiness in COREland.
>
> - --
> William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> http://userfriendly.com/
> Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
> Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/
>
> iD8DBQE4zq6q8zLmV94Pz+IRAjkCAKDzVAYVhPgYJfS+SHOwOBIqsQjH3gCdFRVm
> BvYNqjJo2dPV9xdjo4b2ntw=
> =359O
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IPaddressholders - are they represented?

[Jeff Williams]

David and all,

David R. Conrad wrote:

> Richard,
>
> > Would I be wrong then in taking your positon to be "IP addresses should
> > be managed by a technical process, while domain names should be managed
> > by a political process"?
>
> I do not necessarily feel political processes are the best mechanism to manage
> the DNS, rather I'd say political processes are appropriate for the creation
> of the policies by which the DNS is managed.

  Well this is basically saying the same thing as Richard was saying, David.  But
of course you already knew that.  I suspect Richard, and many other readers
of this list do as well.

>
>
> > It seems to me, so far that professional politicians have had their
> > way with the DNS and the, as you say "people affected" have had
> > pretty mush no say at all.
>
> ICANN is still new.  I remain hopeful.

  Hope springs eternal, doesn't it!  >;)  Hope is the mother of
all men as well  Hope against reality is just that, Hope
It has very little meaning nor does it necessarily engender
proper action

>
>
> Rgds,
> -drc

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] RE: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are they represented?

[Jeff Williams]

Mike and all,

  I would agree that collaboration vs confrontation would be the PREFERRED
approach, Mike.  But sometimes that is not always possible and unrealistic
as well.  As for David Conrad, we differ greatly in that regard

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I agree with David Conrad.  And that's not just because he maintains
> a courteous tone in his mails.  David's record is one of achievement
> through cooperation, and I would suggest that collaboration rather than
> confrontation is what we need.
>
> Regards.
>
> Mike Norris
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: !Dr. Joe Baptista [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 4:07 PM
> > To: David R. Conrad
> > Cc: Michael Sondow; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are
> > they represented?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, David R. Conrad wrote:
> >
> > > IPv4 address allocation is based on technical
> > considerations that relate to
> > > management of a limited (albeit one can argue not currently
> > scarce) resource
> > > and the implications the allocation of that resource has on
> > the Internet
> > > routing system.  The allocation of IPv4 addresses has
> > _NEVER_ been democratic,
> > > it has been and is driven by the physics of the Internet.
> >
> > No - that's misinformation and in your case a lie.  The IPv4 address
> > blocks were handed out by postel to a large extend as good
> > merit badges to
> > his friends.  We all know the facts on that Conrad, and that's why the
> > IPv4 system is suffering such scarcity - and the reason why
> > the IETF is
> > running around like scared bunnies trying to get IPv6 to work
> > - which it
> > won't.
> >
> > > What I would like to see is continued reliance on technical
> > considerations for
> > > the allocation of IPv4 address space rather than a system
> > that relies on
> > > politics.
> >
> > Unacceptable.  You can not run from politics when you try to effect
> > control.  It's a well established fact you know.
> >
> > Regards
> > Joe Baptista
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] New gTLD's? Is the IP boys going to like this?

[Jeff Williams]

Richard and all,
  Good point here Richard!  And simply stated too!  Well
done!
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
At 02:44 PM 3/13/00 -0800, you wrote:
>All,
>
>  See:
>http://cnniw.newsreal.com/cgi-bin/NewsService?osform_template=pages/cnniwStory&ID=cnniw&storypath=News/Story_2000_03_10.NRdb@2@23@3@398&path=News/Category.NRdb@2@17@2@11
And so beginneth the Famous Marks FUD - "FMFUD". Somebody go
gramm FUD.FM quick like a bunny and document it all.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]    [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
http://www.dnso.com
It's about travel on expense accounts to places with good beer. - BKR
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
 

[IFWP] Re: New gTLD's? Is the IP boys going to like this?

[Jeff Williams]

Kristy and all,

  I agree with you Kristy that ICANN has it's proverbial head in the
sand on this one to a degree.  And even more so, ICANN with the
UDRP along with recent WIPO decisions is sending out very mixed
signals, making this sort of thing a bit scary to some and angering others
to the degree that the IP folks, especially the legal folks will have
a hay day over this.

  But I agree that more opportunity is the key and broadening the address
spaces (gTLD's) is a positive thing overall.

Kristy wrote:

> Gerald Jenkins of Goldberg, Kohn definately has the correct point of view
> on the issue.
>
> In addition, the addition of these provides more opportunities for
> marketing arms;
> therefore, it is a fundraising effort which will most likely be successful.
>
> ICANN's spokespeople must really think poorly of the educated public.
>
> :)
>
> ~k
>
> At 02:44 PM 3/13/00 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >All,
> >
> >  See:
> >http://cnniw.newsreal.com/cgi-bin/NewsService?osform_template=pages/cnniwSt
> oryID=cnniw&storypath=News/Story_2000_03_10.NRdb@2@23@3@398path=News/Categor
> y.NRdb@2@17@2@11
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >--
> >Jeffrey A. Williams
> >Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
> >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Contact Number:  972-447-1894
> >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] New gTLD's? Is the IP boys going to like this?

[Jeff Williams]

All,

  See:
http://cnniw.newsreal.com/cgi-bin/NewsService?osform_template=pages/cnniwStory&ID=cnniw&storypath=News/Story_2000_03_10.NRdb@2@23@3@398&path=News/Category.NRdb@2@17@2@11

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are they represented?

[Jeff Williams]

Joe, Mike and all,

  I am in complete agreement with Joe on this issue and the disenfranchising
structure of the ASO.  I have voiced my opinion on this before.  I shall
do so again in greater detail.  But In essence Joe's comments are a hint
at least as to how the ASO is disinclusionary and seemingly in violation
of the ICANN bylaws, the White Paper, and the Mou.  As an IP address
holder I think I have just as much right to participate in the policy making
for IP addresses as anyone else...  Currently under the ASO structure,
I don't.  I find that to be discriminatory in nature.

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> response below ..
>
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > > I am increasingly concerned that the ASO has no means of representing
> > > indivudual ipv4 holders.  The virtual infrastructure is represented, but
> > > those people who operate the ipv4 structure (ipv4 holders) have no
> > > representation whatsoever in the "bottoms up" ICANN process.
> > >
> > > Am i wrong in making this conclusion?
> >
> > The ASO structure is built on the RIRs (regional Internet registries), which
> > it
> > represents.  In Europe, the RIR is RIPE NCC, which is owned by its members
> > i.e.
> > all those who receive IP registry services from it (the ipv4, and ipv6,
> > holders).
> > These members, and others, attend open RIPE meetings three times a year and
> > this
> > forum is used to discuss and form policy, and to elect ASO representatives.
> > In
> > this way, address holders have a real involvement in regional policy
> > formation
> > and representation at the global level.
>
> OK - I was not aware of that with respect to RIPE.  I anticipate you are a
> member of RIPE, and that RIPE keeps you informed on this - however - ny
> ipv4 registries are via ARIN, and I have never been invited to participate
> in any vote, and have never received notice from ARIN on ICANN
> issues.  I'm not happy with that.
>
> I am also unhappy with the fact that no one has remembered to setup a
> separate constituency for ipv4 holders.  I personally do not feel
> comfortable being represented by ARIN.  I want other ipv4 holders to have
> their say and a means of interacting and participating with each other and
> having real direct input.  At this time in accordance with the existing
> structure - any representation I may have is non existent.  ARIN never
> asks nor solicits my opinion, and I don't have the opportunities of
> ownership evident in RIPE.
>
> I'd also be interested to know how the APNIC people participate, if that
> registry is directly owned by the members - like RIPE.
>
> > In addition, ICANN's membership structure (http://members.icann.org) is open
> > to
> > **all** members of the Internet community and offers a broad and global
> > channel
> > for input and representation in Internet governance.
>
> That's not acceptable Mike.  I think it's clear to most in the community
> that the @large membership is quickly becoming an unacceptable farce and
> has received considerable negative international attention.  Including a
> boycott of the proceeding by President Mubarak of Egypt.
>
> Also - ipv4 owners have considerably different interests then ICANN's
> @large membership.
>
> So - because of these reasons I don't find that avenue acceptable.
>
> It's becoming obvious to me that a whole group of important community
> members have been forgotten.
>
> Regards
> Joe Baptista

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> response below ..
>
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > > I am increasingly concerned that the ASO has no means of representing
> > > indivudual ipv4 holders.  The virtual infrastructure is represented, but
> > > those people who operate the ipv4 structure (ipv4 holders) have no
> > > representation whatsoever in the "bottoms up" ICANN process.
> > >
> > > Am i wrong in making this conclusion?
> >
> > The ASO structure is built on the RIRs (regional Internet registries), which
> > it
> > represents.  In Europe, the RIR is RIPE NCC, which is owned by its members
> > i.e.
> > all those who receive IP registry services from it (the ipv4, and ipv6,
> > holders).
> > These members, and others, attend open RIPE meetings three times a year and
> > this
> > forum is used to discuss and form policy, and to elect ASO representatives.
> > In
> > this way, address holders have a real involvement in regional policy
> > formation
> > and representation at the global level.
>
> OK - I was not aware of that with respect to RIPE.  I anticipate you are a
> member of RIPE, and that RIPE keeps you informed on this - however - ny
> ipv4 registries are via ARIN, and I have never been invited to participate
> in any vote, and have never received notice from ARIN on ICANN
> issues.  I'm not happy with that.
>
> I am also unhappy with the fact that no one has remembered to setup a
> separate constituency for ipv4 holders.  I personally do not feel
> comfortable being represented by ARIN.  I want other ipv4 holde

Re: [IFWP] IP address holders - are they represented?

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  I don't believe you are wrong here Joe.  The way the ASO is structured
is not a true membership organization.  It looks allot like what Roberto and

Harald are trying to force down the throats of the DNSO assembly members
already extant.  I find that to be in direct violation of the ICANN Bylaws,
the White Paper, and the MoU.  It shouldn't be allowed to stand...

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> I am increasingly concerned that the ASO has no means of representing
> indivudual ipv4 holders.  The virtual infrastructure is represented, but
> those people who operate the ipv4 structure (ipv4 holders) have no
> representation whatsoever in the "bottoms up" ICANN process.
>
> Am i wrong in making this conclusion?
>
> Regards
> Joe Baptista

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Board to Nominate "At-large" Directors!!!

[Jeff Williams]

Ellen and all,

  I agree that the ICANN @Large seems to be a very weak process.
This is of course indicative of the ICANN board.  It has been very weak
on process, thus producing very poor substance in many instances.  The
UDRP and the "Accreditation Policy" is just two past examples.

 Nominees should come from the membership itself.  But as we [INEGroup]
predicted almost a year ago now, the ICANN board does not wish or want
this to occur for reasons of loosing a tight fisted control of things.

Ellen Rony wrote:

> I currently serve as chair the Nominating Committee for the Environmental
> Forum of Marin, a 27 year-old organization.  In our situation, the
> Nominating Committee wields enormous power because it screens potential
> candidates and presents a proposed slate to the Board of Directors which is
> then approved to be voted on by the members at the annual meeting.  While
> additional nominees can come from the floor at that time, the vote is
> always pro forma.  The Nominating Committee nominates its successors.
>
> Where are the checks and balances in the ICANN @Large nominating plan?  An
> ICANN board can appoint a Nominating Committee that has a particular agenda
> or perspective and may screen out candidates who do not fit the desired
> mold.
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >The following are highlights from the ICANN Board's 10 March 2000
> >meeting in Cairo:
> >
> >At-Large Membership:
> >
> >   The Board instructed the staff to prepare Bylaws amendments
> >   and other resolutions, for public comment and subsequent
> >   Board action, to accomplish the following:
> >
> >   * Establish a Nominating Committee to be appointed by the
> > Board to accept recommendations from the Internet community
> > for At-Large ICANN Directors, and to nominate five or more
> > candidates for consideration for selection to the ICANN
> > Board.
>
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
> Ellen Rony//  http://www.domainhandbook.com
> Co-author  *="   /[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The Domain Name Handbook  \ )  +1  415.435.5010
>   //   \\ "Carpe canine"
>
>   The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: Anyone get their ICANN PIN yet??

[Jeff Williams]

Ron and all,

I haven't.  Neither has any of our members that have joined.  I was
wondering when
this would occur as well...  Anyone else received one??

Ron Bennett wrote:

> Has anyone received their ICANN PIN yet??
>
> Ron Bennett

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] ICANN May Add New Internet Suffixes

[Jeff Williams]

All

  ICANN seems to wish to clone previous effort on new gTLD's
of the defunct IAHC/CORE...
see:
http://cnniw.newsreal.com/cgi-bin/NewsService?osform_template=pages/cnniwStory&ID=cnniw&storypath=News/Story_2000_03_09.NRdb@2@20@3@38&path=News/Category.NRdb@2@17@2@11

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] infousa.com/grabadot.com offer Domain name registration

[Jeff Williams]

All,

  Another ICANN clone is offering Domain Name registration...
See:
http://cnniw.newsreal.com/cgi-bin/NewsService?osform_template=pages/cnniwStory&ID=cnniw&storypath=News/Story_2000_03_09.NRdb@2@14@3@106&path=News/Category.NRdb@2@17

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] "How To Fight the Corporate Takeover of the Internet"

[Jeff Williams]

Nancy and all,

  Nancy, thank you very much for your reply.  We [INEGroup] are not
very encouraged by ICANN's past history in holding elections, as you may
know.  We are also very concerned regarding policy making by ICANN
that has already taken place without Stakeholder consent.  From our reading
of the ICANN At-Large membership documentation, it seems that ICANN's
board, part of which was elected (Fraudulently?) ending October 8th '99.  Many
stakeholders were refused participation on the DNSO.ORG GA mailing list
to participate in those elections, sense leading to several questionable claims
from the DNSO NC that these stakeholders were of questionable validity,
including myself.  So as you can plainly understand we [INEGRoup] of some
108k members is very concerned about the intent of ICANN in general
not to mention Governance, which they (The ICANN Board) have flatly
denied that they represent.

NANCY KRANICH wrote:

> Thank you for your interest in the program held by FAIR in late
> February.  My talk was about Information Equity.  I did not speak
> about ICANN; it is not my area of expertise.  ALA is a partner in
> the Markle project.  We intend to develop information for cyber
> citizens about the vote should it ever come to pass and encourage
> libraries to host elections.  We are concerned about the nature of
> the ICANN developments and are working with the partners to
> encourage broader public involvement.
>
> Some key elements about the ICANN elections.
>
> 1. ICANN has not yet held its at-large elections.
>
> 2. ALA is working with the partners to explore how to make the election as
> democratic as possible and to advise ICANN of our findings. We just held a
> workshop of election experts at Harvard on that topic.
>
> 3. Two partners, CDT and Common Cause, have written a letter to the
> ICANN Board urging caution.
>
> 4. A report by some of the partners about the state of the ICANN
> elections recommends improvements in the democratic process for
> electing governors.
>
> I assure you that ALA is concerned about developments with the ICANN
> election process and we are working hard to encourage a more
> responsive, accountable election and governance process.
>
> --Nancy Kranich
>
> > Date:  Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:13:25 -0800
> > From:  Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Organization:  INEGroup Spokesman
> > To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc:[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject:   Re: [IFWP] "How To Fight the Corporate Takeover of the Internet", 
>but no mention of ICANN?
>
> > Michael, Ms Kranich and all,
> >
> >   I also would like to know the answers to these questions as well.
> > Thank you Ms Kranich for your cooperation in advance.
> >
> > > Dear Ms. Kranich-
> > >
> > > According to the FAIR announcement below, you are leading a
> > > discussion tomorrow evening on "How To Fight the Corporate Takeover
> > > of the Internet", yet on the agenda there is no mention of ICANN,
> > > the non-profit corporation that has been set up by IBM, MCI, AT&T,
> > > and US security groups to control the Internet infrastructure - the
> > > domain name system and IP address allocation, and which has been
> > > granted authority to do so by the Dept. of Commerce through an
> > > undemocratic process.
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, I believe you are aware of ICANN, since the American
> > > Library Association is, if I am not mistaken, one of the
> > > organizations chosen by the Markle Foundation (a National Security
> > > Council front) to receive grant monies for helping organize ICANN's
> > > so-called At-large Membership, which has been stripped of any power
> > > to either elect ICANN's Board of Directors or influence ICANN's
> > > policies, in direct violation of the USG's White Paper on the
> > > Internet.
> > >
> > > How do you explain the silence about ICANN at your FAIR meeting
> > > tomorrow, on the one hand, and on the other your collaboration with
> > > Markle and ICANN?
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > Michael Sondow
> > > =
> > >   INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS
> > >http://www.iciiu.org(ICIIU)[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Tel(718)846-7482Fax(603)754-8927
> > > ==

Re: [IFWP] Comments@icann.org

[Jeff Williams]

Mark and all,

Mark Measday wrote:

> In rereading some of the comments on the icann.org list, I was struck by
> the absence of some 50% of the messages. It may be that these were all
> from Jeff, it may be that they were unretrieved by the server for some
> technical reason, it may be that they have been censored for good or bad
> reasons. At least their absence meant that I did not have to read them.

  Well you did not have to read them any way, as one can be selective
from the archives as one chooses, Mark.  But no, the ICANN comments
list has been poorly managed for some time now despite many people
making note of posts that are not received or archived, as required.

>
>
> However, their absence, and the lacuna in information that allows one to
> attack ICANN because of their absence shows interestingly that ICANN,
> chronically underfunded and short-staffed, will not be able to establish
> full legitimacy (whatever that is) until it has the resources necessary
> to resist attacks from governments, individual activists and opponents,
> and until it also functions in the neutral way of international
> administrations, neither proposing nor disposing but mediating,
> educating and generally doing nothing that can be attacked (itself a
> subject of attack, but nothing is perfect).
>
> Forced as I am to concentrate on Mr Sondow's able demolition of
> purposive action by such as Mr Sims and the DOC, who did what they
> could, and his discovery of the genius of David Maher, one wonders how
> to size the problem even more now. Your conference is opened by prime
> ministers, one catches the able Mr Blair teaching a youngster how to
> route through altavista on tv, whilst NSI is sold to Verisign for
> comparatively small change.

  $21b for NSI is hardly small change.  I am a bit surprised, but not overly

so.  However as a NSI stock holder, I am pleased as punch at the offer
price.  >;)

> The domain and address have become prime
> signifiers, but how big are domain name and addressing problems? Big
> enough to compete for airtime with the disasters and pleasures of
> primetime tv? What would be the costs of an internet strike amongst
> those manning the root servers? Would the strike be broken in the
> (inter)national interest?

  New Root Servers can be set up rather easily, as has already been
demonstrated.  Shared Root System, is that future (Near term?) for
the DNS anyway, whether or not ICANN or the IP interests believe it
to be so or not.

>
>
> Unreal problems whilst the internet community is there to protect us
> with its ideal of equal free access, service to the community and
> maintenance of stability. But what will happen as the interest groups
> within ICANN polarise further, as commercial forces reach deeper down
> into the organisation, splitting the ideal from the real? No businessman
> (I have no licence to speak for IBM here) is going to be happy with the
> underpinnings of his work run by a volunteer network of idealists.

  Agreed.  Idealists pursuit can only play a role, but not effect control
over time, even a short time.  However it is obvious that commercial
interests can and will decide to one extent or another what the landscape
or the DNS will be.  If there is a desire or a perceived large enough
financial interests for multiple root structures, then they will appear
or be deployed.

> As
> such ICANN has a duty to see that the necessary internet mappings, qua
> the NSI model are not only supported by government at a fully strategic
> level, but also appropriately capitalised and remunerated. Some of this
> is in place, but not all.

  Unfortunately ICANN does not have or has not sufficiently shown that
it can effect good Internet Mappings to date.  The IANA of old, also
demonstrated this some 5+ years ago.

>
>
> ICANN will presumably negotiate itself a place in the sun somewhere
> between the chaotically free 'route around damage' model and the
> fully-fledged treaty organisation model where nothing can really happen.

  Both models will effectively take their place.  Not one of the other.

>
> Institutions are designed to absorb the shock of technical change and
> redistribute it softly. ICANN must acquire larger and more powerful
> resources in order to do so. However, it is unlikely that it will be
> allowed to retreat to the highly technical cooperative resource model.

  Agreed.

>
>
> MM

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] this is very odd - Where's ICANN Cairo??

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  Yep!  But of course Berkman is handeling the links, right?  >;)
Seems like a familier pattern here, doesn't it?  :(

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> ICANN Cairo is missing.  The meetings started 45 minutes ago, but so far
> the page has yet to be updated for the remote link.  Very sad.
>
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/cairo/

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] DOC/ICANN Pandering to special interests?

[Jeff Williams]

All,

  See:
http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article/0,1087,4_315131,00.html
Very interesting...

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] The Internet Daily: Fortune 500 ripe for cybersquatters-03/02/2000

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  There is not good reason that Antony Van Couvering should be "Shocked"
if he has been paying attention, which it appears he has not.  Of course
this is indicative of the ICANN board in general.

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

>
> Fortune 500 ripe for cybersquatters
>
> More than half of the largest companies in the United States have
> failed to protect themselves in cyberspace. NameEngine.com, a company
> which registers Web domains and researches their ownership, reported
> Thursday 265 of the Fortune 500 own fewer of their domain names than
> do other companies and individuals. "I was shocked," said president
> Antony Van Couvering, who researched domain name registrations around
> the world. He found, for instance, American Express (AXP) has
> registered "americanexpress" in 19 countries, while in 11 others the
> registration belongs to somebody else. CBS has four of its own
> registrations, while other have 46, he said in an interview with
> CBS.MarketWatch.com. "On average, it costs about $50 to register a
> domain name, but anywhere from $10,000 to over $3 million to buy it
> back from a cybersquatter," he added. "It is at least 200 times
> cheaper to prevent, than to cure." Some of the best protected
> companies include Intel (INTC), with 104 registrations of its own,
> compared to other parties which have registered four.
>
> Companies which want to trademark their advertising slogans may be
> able to do so through Network Solutions' (NSOL) registration service.
> It will now accept domain names as long as 67 characters. Previously,
> there was a 23-character limit. "Now companies can register their
> slogans and products to drive traffic to their primary Web site," said
> senior vice president Doug Wolford. According to Network Solutions'
> data, the highest concentration of domain names are between 8 and 12
> characters. Approximately 45 percent of all domain names registered by
> Network Solutions fall in this range.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Re: I have no idea what this is - Forwarded mail....

[Jeff Williams]

All,

  Hay William, the more INEGroup's the merrier WXW boy!  And thanks
for the extra notoriety as well got three calls bout INEGroup form some press
folks this mourning.  Much appreciated.  However INEGRoup.com has
no affiliation with INEGRoup, but that is ok it is a free market system
that we all live under, and I am all for it!  >;)  So please join right in!  >;)

William X. Walsh wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02-Mar-2000 Jeff Williams wrote:
> > Joe and all,
> >
> >   I don't know whom this "Bill Jeffries" person is, but he is using a
> > free E-Mail account from USA.COM yet he provides no SIG file
> > giving any indication as to whom he may be or what affiliation(s)
> > he may have.  I also find no listing for him anywhere with that E-Mail
> > address.  GIven he is using "INEGroup" as his user ID, I find this
> > a bit strange, he is not on our membership list BTW.
>
> Looks like he is from your Chicago office, Jeff.
>
> - From the headers (included in all mail.com emails)
> X-Originating-IP: 209.0.226.55
>
> Which resolves to: 209-0-226-55.chi0.flashcom.net
>
> A Chicago modem bank for flashcom's internet service.
>
> Just remember, Jeff, you aren't the only INEGroup in town.  Soon anyone will be
> able to get an @inegroup.com email address.
>
> - --
> William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> http://userfriendly.com/
> Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: DSo Networks
>
> iD8DBQE4voqp8zLmV94Pz+IRAivyAKCKU/ct4efJwMZ6n1Oyo3Ybk0Nf+wCbBLJg
> EcO0Lx1S0fgDugV0krZK+Yk=
> =QjlI
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Re: I have no idea what this is - Forwarded mail....

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  I don't know whom this "Bill Jeffries" person is, but he is using a
free E-Mail account from USA.COM yet he provides no SIG file
giving any indication as to whom he may be or what affiliation(s)
he may have.  I also find no listing for him anywhere with that E-Mail
address.  GIven he is using "INEGroup" as his user ID, I find this
a bit strange, he is not on our membership list BTW.

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> i'm innocent.  it has nothing to do with me. what a joke, a year ago -
> people were complaining that I didn't exist, then we had Shaw of the ITU
> claim we were spies for NSI, and now people are claiming stuff belongs to
> me.  And let's not forget the fact that i'm the most spoken of person in
> some newsgroups - some of which I have no membership in - like the
> BWG.  Will there be no end to this rampant speculation.
>
> As the very lovely Ben Edleman would say - oy!
>
> Regards
> Joe Baptista
>
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Bill Jeffries wrote:
>
> > Nonsense, Gary.  It's an extract from the HTTP access log for Baptista's
> > Mubarak page.
> >
> > On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:30:09 -0600, "Gary Peake" wrote:
> > >On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:37:42 -0500, "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >wrote:
> >
> > >I got this really weird message - All it says is Woof Woof and then
> > >there's a bunch of domain names/host names attached.
> > >
> > >Now the question I have is why?  Im posting it here because netsol is
> > >listed, there's the australian goverment and zintrain of harvard and
> > >visa.  Makes me nervous when I get this sort of stuff.  Alot of key
> > >players are listed - so have attached the file.
> > >
> > >Any ideas?
> >
> > I have NO inside knowledge but I can give you a good guess if it came to
> > you anonymously ...
> >
> > Being a beta tester/developer, I have seen things like this circulating
> > before. Several banks were recently warned and failed to heed the fact that
> > they were listed on just such a list. 5 days later, they were all hacked.
> >
> > Yahoo, et al were also listed on such a list a couple of weeks ago.
> >
> > Some of the computers on the list were computers used to do the hacking,
> > others were targets.
> >
> > The "word" on the nets is that the DOS attacks and what have you are simply
> > a warning that the system is severely broken and no one is fixing it. That
> > is merely scuttlebutt and I do not even remember where or when I heard that
> > (for all you "official" people watching this list).
> >
> > Hopefully, eventually, they will realize that they are hurting many
> > innocent people when they do those types of things or they will all get
> > caught.
> >
> > In the meantime, I would warn someone if a list like that came to me.
> >
> > But, be prepared to be ignored, laughed at, bally-hooed, and then AFTER THE
> > FACT get more attention than you ever dreamed of wanting if it is what I
> > think it is.
> >
> > Someone who got or saw just such a list was the one I think I heard this
> > all from. At 47, I don't play those games, nor do I pay much attention. I
> > have my own firewall set-up and rely on that to protect what needs to be
> > protected. I think I heard that on one of the alt. newsgroups.
> >
> > Good luck Joe. Seems someone may be trying to use you as a messenger.
> >
> > I hope they listen to you.
> >
> > __
> > FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
> > Sign up at http://www.mail.com?sr=mc.mk.mcm.tag001
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Re: Please read this if you have a domain with Network Solutions!

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  In this instance Mr. Diaz has a good reason to be unhappy.

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> an unhappy customer.
>
> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Vin Diaz wrote:
>
> > Here's a horror story I wish had never happened.  Everybody who uses the
> > CRYPT-PW auth scheme with Network Solutions please read:
> >
> > Yesterday I modified the DNS servers for a domain name that I have
> > registered with Network Solutions.  I use the CRYPT-PW authentication scheme
> > for my domain names.  The confirmation was pretty quick, got a response
> > within 5 minutes.  The tech contact for the domains is a role account
> > (hostmaster@mycompany), which is an alias that goes to me and many other
> > technical people at my company, including my boss and the CIO.  So I got a
> > separate copy of the confirmation email sent to the tech contact, which is
> > also cc'ed to the admin of the DNS servers.
> >
> > To my great horror, I found that the confirmation email included the
> > original request I sent out, with the plain text password completely intact!
> > Which means all my colleagues at my company and the sysadmins at my ISP (a
> > big ISP, who knows how many people are on that list) now have access to my
> > personal password!  To add to my embarrassment, my password includes some
> > naughty words, so my boss, my boss's boss, and all my colleagues now know my
> > little dirty secret!
> >
> > Network Solutions!  I want to f*^& all the incompetent morons who work at
> > that dumbass company.
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Re: [idno] Nominations (Guest)

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all IDNO'ers,

  Yes little WXW is a bit of a stinker isn't he.  As well is his friend and
fellow compatriot Andrew.  Those poor lads!

  Besides this maliciousness I still think that is is always better to turn a
negative into a positive.  I am sorry however that you are declining the
nomination, Joe.  Your excellent political skills combined with your
keen and rapier like wit are valued and useful assets for a spokesman.
I am sure that the IDNO will be hard pressed to find someone with
your excellent talents as a spokesman.  Your talents would have been
a tremendous asset in this capacity for the IDNO

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> William is being malicious again in his own special way.  Ever time the
> poor boy loses his position in anything - he end up nominating me.
>
> I'm sharing your nomination William with everyone else so we can share
> your stupidity and malicious affections for me.  I of course decline such
> nomination.
>
> Regards
> Joe Baptista
>
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > Since the IDNO cannot and will not be taken seriously in its current state,
> > only a spokesperson who is not and cannot be serious would be appropriate.
> >
> > Therefore I, in all seriousness, nominate our esteemed member Joe Baptista.
> >
> > The state this organization is in, there is no more fitting spokesperson.
> >
> > I ask for an immediate second.
> >
> > - --
> > William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > http://userfriendly.com/
> > Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> > GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> > Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: DSo Networks
> >
> > iD8DBQE4umYx8zLmV94Pz+IRArLAAKDFHrovzN64DEs/URHrcA5y0u05+ACfd5gI
> > hCfyfVW3R2DMqv+t26xGn0I=
> > =8e6H
> > -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> >
> > ___
> > Idno-discuss mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/idno-discuss
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: mistaken identity Re: [IFWP] http://www.iciiu.org

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

  From my information Mr. Gobrachov, has a substantial financial
trust that has holding in NSOL!  Smart move on his part.  As to
take over rumors, well I think that might be premature!  >;)

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
> > >There's only one Michael here. And one Mikael.
> >
> > Now I'm really confused. What's Gobrachov got to do with this?
>
> Gobrachov is the one who's buying network solutions.

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Re: Simple ICIIU questions wonderful responses on the IFWP list?

[Jeff Williams]

Joe and all,

 ROFLMAO!  Very appropriate and to the point precisely Joe.
Well done!


!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > Someone who knows I am preparing to add some material about Mr Sondow
> and his
> > one man International Congress of Independent Internet Users forwarding
> me a
> > thread on the IFWP list today/tonight that show a flurry of activity
> from the
> > VRX.net/PCCF/Gordon Cook types in response to a simple set of questions
> someone
> > asked about the ICIIU.
>
> William - it's time to grease up that tool and go to work.  Use that tool
> William, because your brain cells seem to be in a casality loop.  Go fix
> up the INEGroup.com web site.  I won loney william x walsh award by a
> landslide and that should be reflected on the main page.
>
> You've made a committment to expose us all - not get to it and stop
> ejaculating all over the conferences with your nonsense.
>
> Joe

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] http://www.iciiu.org

[Jeff Williams]

John and all,

  Yes, curiosity is a interesting thing.  It is why it is said cats have nine
lives  >;)

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> > If you call yourself "International Congress of Independent Internet
> > Users" and an independent user asks about funding and membership you
> > should be able to reply.
>
> yeah, I've been working on certain ladies garments for years, and they still
> won't let me into the International Ladies Garment Workers' Union.
>
> Might it be the case that not every organization on the planet was put here
> for you to join at your whim?  Nor to satisfy your idle curiousity.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] http://www.iciiu.org

[Jeff Williams]

John and all,

 It is very difficult to see the WHOLE story on how ICANN is funded
as well  Wonder why that is?   Seems the EU is also very interested
in the ICANN's funding story as well

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> > You have to promise not to tell anyone that the ICIIU and Vrx are bying
> > network solution.  It's an official rumour.
>
> No, but the bidding war is nearing an end.
>
> I didn't find any information about how the Masonic Lodge is funded from
> their website either.
>
> Shucks.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] http://www.iciiu.org

[Jeff Williams]

Dan and all,

  For some I would immagine it would take lots of dinero, $$, cash,
scratch, bucks, ect, ect

Dan Steinberg wrote:

> So what does it take to become a member, Richard?
>
> Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> > > >Dear Friends,
> > > >I've tried to find out how the ICIIU is funded but I can't find this
> > > >piece of information on their web site. Come to think of it, I can't find
> > > >any information on the members of ICIIU (with the exception of Michael
> > > >Sondow of course).
> > > I'm an ICIIU member. I know how it's funded and I ain't telling :-)
> > (---)
> >
> > Why is this a secret?
> > What are you hiding?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mikael
> >
> > _
> >
> >   ICQ:35638414mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >   http://www.pawlo.com/
>
> --
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin
> Box 532, RR1phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] http://www.iciiu.org

[Jeff Williams]

Richard and all,

  I don't know that it is any of Mr. Pawlo's business as to how ICIIU
is funded, unless he is a member.  I think Mr. Pawlo is just off on one
of his tangents in an attempt to discredit the ICIIU.  He must have
forgotten to take his medication today.  Maybe he needs another dosage
boost

Richard J. Sexton wrote:

> At 12:29 AM 2/24/00 +0100, you wrote:
> >Dear Friends,
> >I've tried to find out how the ICIIU is funded but I can't find this
> >piece of information on their web site. Come to think of it, I can't find
> >any information on the members of ICIIU (with the exception of Michael
> >Sondow of course).
>
> I'm an ICIIU member. I know how it's funded and I ain't telling :-)
>
> In the interest of full disclosure I will say the ICIIU sponsored
> my trip to Berlin with a cash grant.
>
> There is no truth to the rumor the ICIIU is buying Network Solutions.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.dnso.com
> It's about travel on expense accounts to places with good beer. - BKR

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208