From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #6 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Monday, February 7 2000 Volume 01 : Number 006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 03:50:45 -0000 From: "Robert Waters" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Enouth NSI/IANA/ICANN Control - Free This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF7055.58E50B80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To under estimate the size of the internet is a foolish fault for which = i am not quilty of. Agreed you and others may run your own root servers but with the = IANA/ICANN legacy root what i plan to do is to do away with iana/icann = root and start a completely new one useing my DNS-k2 Protocol's I would how ever be intrested to know how to setup a root of my own = useing the current protocols/software ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Roeland M.J. Meyer=20 To: Robert Waters=20 Sent: 06 February 2000 03:24 Subject: RE: [wg-c] Enouth NSI/IANA/ICANN Control - Free=20 Erhem ... =20 You need to look at http://www.superroot.com and http://www.dnso.net=20 On the latter site, check out the references to the ORSC. Then, point your resolvers at NS1.MHSC.NET and NS2.MHSC.NET. ... it's a bigger Internet than you thought. ... ain't it? =20 Point is; ... been there ... done that ... still doing it. =20 Fact is; most of us ARE running our own root systems. -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of = Robert Waters Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 6:56 PM To: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: Re: [wg-c] Enouth NSI/IANA/ICANN Control - Free=20 Its not limited to the normal TLD's and can use basically anything = you like e.g. London.Europe! Its been designed for Speed and Volume, because if the internet is = to survive we need more resources then we have at hand. and it is more user friendly then the current Root system for which = I have been given a flavour off :\ And one Big benefit Non Profit Controlled - Free Internet philosophy The root server is running on my brothers web hosting server you can = contact him for access. From Jake Waters IBM Programer! From: Will Donaldson=20 To: Robert Waters=20 Sent: 06 February 2000 02:46 Subject: Re: [wg-c] Enouth NSI/IANA/ICANN Control=20 what is your root server? and what makes it different from any other primary/secondary DNS? THANKS! =20 =20 will donaldson -----Original Message----- From: Robert Waters To: wg-c@dnso.org Date: Saturday, February 05, 2000 9:43 PM Subject: [wg-c] Enouth NSI/IANA/ICANN Control=20 Hello, I have been a very quite reader of this list and belive its = time for my voice to be heard. Why because i am sick of NSI/IANA/ICANN and what ever big = corperation's that control the main root. I have developed my own Root Domain Name system and have = implemented it, and if .eu wants their own root i will gladly help. From Jake Waters IBM Programer! - ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF7055.58E50B80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To under estimate the size of the internet is a = foolish fault=20 for which i am not quilty of.
 
Agreed you and others may run your own root servers = but with=20 the IANA/ICANN legacy root what i plan to do is to do away with = iana/icann root=20 and start a completely new one useing my DNS-k2 Protocol's
 
I would how ever be intrested to know how to setup a = root of=20 my own useing the current protocols/software
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Roeland = M.J. Meyer=20
To: Robert Waters
Sent: 06 February 2000 = 03:24
Subject: RE: [wg-c] Enouth = NSI/IANA/ICANN=20 Control - Free

Erhem ...
 
You need to look at http://www.superroot.com and http://www.dnso.net=20
On the latter site, check out the = references to the=20 ORSC.
Then, point your resolvers at NS1.MHSC.NET = and=20 NS2.MHSC.NET.
... it's a bigger Internet than you = thought. ...=20 ain't it?
 
Point is; ... been there ... done that ... = still=20 doing it.
 
Fact=20 is;  most of us ARE running our own root = systems.
-----Original Message-----
From: = owner-wg-c@dnso.org=20 [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Robert=20 Waters
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 6:56 = PM
To:=20 wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Enouth NSI/IANA/ICANN = Control -=20 Free

Its not limited to the normal TLD's and can use = basically=20 anything you like e.g. London.Europe!
Its been designed for Speed and Volume, because = if the=20 internet is to survive we need more resources then we have at=20 hand.
and it is more user friendly then the current = Root system=20 for which I have been given a flavour off :\
And one Big benefit Non Profit Controlled - Free = Internet=20 philosophy
The root server is running on my brothers web = hosting=20 server you can contact him for access.
 
From
Jake Waters
IBM Programer!
From:=20 Will=20 Donaldson
To: Robert Waters
Sent: 06 February 2000 = 02:46
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Enouth=20 NSI/IANA/ICANN Control

what is your root server?
 
and what makes it different from any other=20 primary/secondary DNS?
 
THANKS!
 
 
will donaldson
-----Original=20 Message-----
From: Robert Waters <robert@rwater.globalnet.co.= uk>
To:=20 wg-c@dnso.org <wg-c@dnso.org>
Date:=20 Saturday, February 05, 2000 9:43 PM
Subject: = [wg-c] Enouth=20 NSI/IANA/ICANN Control

Hello,
   I have been a very quite reader = of this=20 list and belive its time for my voice to be heard.
   Why because i am sick of=20 NSI/IANA/ICANN and what ever big corperation's that control the = main=20 root.
   I have developed my own Root = Domain Name=20 system and have implemented it, and if .eu wants their own root = i will=20 gladly help.
 
From Jake Waters
IBM=20 Programer!
- ------=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF7055.58E50B80-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 09:27:17 +0100 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs At 10:26 PM 2/5/2000 , Milton Mueller wrote: > > While such language sounds like nice compromise, I did not define two > > end-points, nor did you. > >Extreme 1: IANA has already defined all necessary procedures to handle the >problem. >Extreme 2: There are no existing procedures and all must be started from >scratch. >Both are wrong. The truth is in the middle. I repeat: Although that has all the tone of being wonderfully reasonable and maybe "rational", the reference to a "middle" is without elaboration and therefore without content or meaning, absent your affording us with that elaboration. You previously issued a summary judgement, without explaining its basis: >I understand this perspective. But the effective destruction of DNSO process The EU is pursuing a path that invokes a thoroughly well-established IANA process. There is no formal documentation requiring or suggesting that ICANN should modify or replace existing practise, or at least not without serious and legitimate reason. You have offered no such reason other than emotion-filled declaratives about the result. > > A meaningful range of software products for the net started appearing in > > 1987 and commercial services started around 1990. By 1994, there were > > estimated to be 2 million users of the net. > >I am referring specifically to the management of the top level of the name >space. Commercial pressure on that process did not begin until 1995, when >charging for domain name registrations began, as you well know. In 1994, >when RFC 1591 was defined, there was no charging. You might want to learn a bit more about the processes (and costs) that were already taking place, for obtaining SLDs in domain name registration venues other than those administered by NSI. A number of TLD administrators were already charging. > > So suggesting that somehow IANA had not been "dealing" with the relevant > > changes to the net prior to that is simply wrong. > >IANA did not issue a single controlling RFC regarding new TLDs or TLD >delegation since 1994. As soon as charging was implemented and control of That's the problem with relying on written records for a culture that had not yet fully come to rely on them. Also as I noted previously, the tendency was to document existing procedure, rather than define new ones. Treating those documents as the sole and definitive source entirely misunderstands their place. >the root became a legal political and economic issue of significance it lost Again, you would do well to do rather deeper research about the administrative and operational realities of the root during that time. IANA very much continued to dictate its content. >control. Wrt ccTLDs, even before 1994 IANA was learning to its dismay that >ccTLD delegations were becoming more contentious politically, particularly No one is debating whether ccTLDs have had their own, rocky road, although most of that rockiness pertained either to identifying the proper government agency or resolving government efforts to change from a pre-government-involved TLD administrator. The basis for the latter had more to do with technical competence than "policy". > > [IANA's loss of authority over adding names to the root] > > was the direct result of intervention by Ira Magaziner. He nicely and > > fully de-stabilized the previously well-established position of IANA. Had > > he not intervened, the gTLDs-Mou would have been fully implemented. > >This is obviously wrong. Magaziner was not even paying attnetion to this >issue in 1995, so he could not have prevented draft-Postel's proposal to add Well, of course, if one relies on the incorrect claim that control was lost earlier, then no he was not the cause. Given your extensive involvement in Net DNS technology, administration and operations in those days, I'm sure that debating the fine-grained details of this point will be interesting. >150 TLDs (an episode you wisely chose to ignore in your response). As you Sigh. Thanks for asserting knowledge of my decision process, Milton. However, the draft wasn't even on my radar screen, so I made no such choice. Again, the problem here is more a lack of familiarity with common practises than anything really interesting. More familiarity would offer the benefit of knowing that iterating on drafts, and even off-loading final handling to a "select" committee was not all that unusual. The draft was circulated in the usual fashion for comment. It got plenty and that prompted forming the IAHC. Now, I suppose, we might have a debate about ISOC's vote on this matter, but we'll need to remember that their role WAS new and was, in any event, quite secondary to community rough consensus. Again, I'd be glad to debate the fine-grained details of this, since your extensive experience with these activities at the time will provide interesting insight to contrast with my own... >know, the trademark interests and ITU stopped that proposal (another fact >you chose to ignore). Also, the new TLD proposers didn't like Postel's >proposal either. The implication is clear: IANA had, even BEFORE the >gTLD-MoU, completely lost the legitimacy and authority to add new names to You think that having the proposal get rejected meant that IANA had lost legitimacy? Pardon me, Milton, but the range of different labels -- none in the positive direction, of course -- for such an assessment has just overloaded my system. I'll resort to the entirely too constrained "silly". At the least this reflects such an impressively massive lack of knowledge about Internet processes, in force at that time, so as to make clear that further discussion about IANA's history cannot proceed until there is a seriously improved factual basis for your claims. >Mueller: Commerce Dept specifically delegated the task of adding new TLDs >to ICANN's DNSO. It is in the White Paper. > >Crocker: The White Paper does no such thing. Since you claim otherwise, I >request that you cite the specific supporting text, and caution that text >in the White Paper is quite sensitive to proper use within context. > >Wow, Dave. You really know how to lob a softball into the middle of the plate. You are welcome, Milton. Since focus on the facts was proving so difficult, I had hoped to provide you the obviously necessary help. Didn't work too well, though... Just to make clear: Support for a thesis requires more than simply quoting lots of text that has some random thing to do with the topic. In needs to contain language that relates quite specifically to one side of the debate or another. >"_ As Internet names increasingly have commercial value, the decision to add >new top-level domains cannot be made on an ad hoc basis by entities or The ccTLD process is not even close to ad hoc. >individuals that are not formally accountable to the Internet community." > >"Response: The challenge of deciding policy for the addition of new domains >will be formidable. We agree with the many commenters who said that the new >corporation would be the most appropriate body to make these decisions based >on global input." Commentary section of the paper, rather than directive, and in no way dictating changing EXISTING practise. >"As set out below, the U.S. Government is prepared to recognize, by entering Where, in that quoted paragraph, does it say anything about establishing new practise or changing old ones? The language talks about being responsible for administration. That hardly supports the contention that the DNSO should DO anything about the matter. >"In order to promote continuity and reasonable predictability in functions >related to the root zone, the development of policies for the addition, >allocation, and management of gTLDs and the establishment of domain name >registries and domain name registrars to host gTLDs should be coordinated." Yes, I had suspected you failed to note the "g" before the "TLD". We have been talking about admission under the ISO table, and those are not gTLDs. They are ccTLDs. >"Purpose. The new corporation ultimately should have the authority to manage >and perform a specific set of functions related to coordination of the >domain name system, including the authority necessary to: .... > >3) oversee policy for determining the circumstances under which new TLDs are >added to the root system." That suggests that ICANN has the power to change existing policy, but it does not in any way suggest or mandate doing it for every existing practise or without substantial basis. Nor does it say anything about requiring DNSO intervention in this matter. Remember, you claimed that the White Paper REQUIRED DNSO intervention: >Commerce Dept specifically delegated the task of adding new TLDs to ICANN's >DNSO. It is in the White Paper. DNSO is not an "abstract sandbox," it is Yet you quote no such approximate language from the White Paper, never mind "specific". > > Oh, I suppose that one can use narrow, technical grounds, to debate and > contest the term "country", but one attuned to the intended philosophy > knows full well that it pertains to a class of entities, such as > > governments, sovereignties, and the like. The EU definitely is such a > thing. > >This is what happens when computer programmers get it into their heads that >they are policy experts and political scientists. The EU is not a "country." Yeah, we really screwed up creation of the Internet, didn't we. And heaven knows that all those policy experts and political scientists sure were helpful in creating and managing this phenomenon... (To paraphrase the comment I used in an earlier note, "Thanks for doing such good work for 25 years, now go away and let the experts 'fix' things." By the way Milton, responible discussion should include care in labeling other people. Please review my background at . It's just a tad broader than programming. >It is an association of countries. The EU has no sovereignty. Whatever >governmental powers it has are delegated to it by real governments. The Authority is usually delegated from somewhere. The fact that you dismiss the validity of its coming from another government raises very interesting questions about your views on the US Federal government's genesis from authorizations by the 13 independent states. >distinction is important, but only to people who have some grasp of >political institutions. As opposed to those who grasp more than "some"? At any rate, I am relieved to hear that you do not teach reading comprehension. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA Gong Xi Fa Cai / Selamat Tahun Baru Cina ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 10:20:06 +0100 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs At 10:26 PM 2/5/2000 , Milton Mueller wrote: > > While such language sounds like nice compromise, I did not define two > > end-points, nor did you. > >Extreme 1: IANA has already defined all necessary procedures to handle the >problem. >Extreme 2: There are no existing procedures and all must be started from >scratch. >Both are wrong. The truth is in the middle. I repeat: Although that has all the tone of being wonderfully reasonable and maybe "rational", the reference to a "middle" is without elaboration and therefore without content or meaning, absent your affording us with that elaboration. You previously issued a summary judgement, without explaining its basis: >I understand this perspective. But the effective destruction of DNSO process The EU is pursuing a path that invokes a thoroughly well-established IANA process. There is no formal documentation requiring or suggesting that ICANN should modify or replace existing practise, or at least not without serious and legitimate reason. You have offered no such reason other than emotion-filled declaratives about the result. > > A meaningful range of software products for the net started appearing in > > 1987 and commercial services started around 1990. By 1994, there were > > estimated to be 2 million users of the net. > >I am referring specifically to the management of the top level of the name >space. Commercial pressure on that process did not begin until 1995, when >charging for domain name registrations began, as you well know. In 1994, >when RFC 1591 was defined, there was no charging. You might want to learn a bit more about the processes (and costs) that were already taking place, for obtaining SLDs in domain name registration venues other than those administered by NSI. A number of TLD administrators were already charging. > > So suggesting that somehow IANA had not been "dealing" with the relevant > > changes to the net prior to that is simply wrong. > >IANA did not issue a single controlling RFC regarding new TLDs or TLD >delegation since 1994. As soon as charging was implemented and control of That's the problem with relying on written records for a culture that had not yet fully come to rely on them. Also as I noted previously, the tendency was to document existing procedure, rather than define new ones. Treating those documents as the sole and definitive source entirely misunderstands their place. >the root became a legal political and economic issue of significance it lost Again, you would do well to do rather deeper research about the administrative and operational realities of the root during that time. IANA very much continued to dictate its content. >control. Wrt ccTLDs, even before 1994 IANA was learning to its dismay that >ccTLD delegations were becoming more contentious politically, particularly No one is debating whether ccTLDs have had their own, rocky road, although most of that rockiness pertained either to identifying the proper government agency or resolving government efforts to change from a pre-government-involved TLD administrator. The basis for the latter had more to do with technical competence than "policy". > > [IANA's loss of authority over adding names to the root] > > was the direct result of intervention by Ira Magaziner. He nicely and > > fully de-stabilized the previously well-established position of IANA. Had > > he not intervened, the gTLDs-Mou would have been fully implemented. > >This is obviously wrong. Magaziner was not even paying attnetion to this >issue in 1995, so he could not have prevented draft-Postel's proposal to add Well, of course, if one relies on the incorrect claim that control was lost earlier, then no he was not the cause. Given your extensive involvement in Net DNS technology, administration and operations in those days, I'm sure that debating the fine-grained details of this point will be interesting. >150 TLDs (an episode you wisely chose to ignore in your response). As you Sigh. Thanks for asserting knowledge of my decision process, Milton. However, the draft wasn't even on my radar screen, so I made no such choice. Again, the problem here is more a lack of familiarity with common practises than anything really interesting. More familiarity would offer the benefit of knowing that iterating on drafts, and even off-loading final handling to a "select" committee was not all that unusual. The draft was circulated in the usual fashion for comment. It got plenty and that prompted forming the IAHC. Now, I suppose, we might have a debate about ISOC's vote on this matter, but we'll need to remember that their role WAS new and was, in any event, quite secondary to community rough consensus. Again, I'd be glad to debate the fine-grained details of this, since your extensive experience with these activities at the time will provide interesting insight to contrast with my own... >know, the trademark interests and ITU stopped that proposal (another fact >you chose to ignore). Also, the new TLD proposers didn't like Postel's >proposal either. The implication is clear: IANA had, even BEFORE the >gTLD-MoU, completely lost the legitimacy and authority to add new names to You think that having the proposal get rejected meant that IANA had lost legitimacy? Pardon me, Milton, but the range of different labels -- none in the positive direction, of course -- for such an assessment has just overloaded my system. I'll resort to the entirely too constrained "silly". At the least this reflects such an impressively massive lack of knowledge about Internet processes, in force at that time, so as to make clear that further discussion about IANA's history cannot proceed until there is a seriously improved factual basis for your claims. >Mueller: Commerce Dept specifically delegated the task of adding new TLDs >to ICANN's DNSO. It is in the White Paper. > >Crocker: The White Paper does no such thing. Since you claim otherwise, I >request that you cite the specific supporting text, and caution that text >in the White Paper is quite sensitive to proper use within context. > >Wow, Dave. You really know how to lob a softball into the middle of the plate. You are welcome, Milton. Since focus on the facts was proving so difficult, I had hoped to provide you the obviously necessary help. Didn't work too well, though... Just to make clear: Support for a thesis requires more than simply quoting lots of text that has some random thing to do with the topic. In needs to contain language that relates quite specifically to one side of the debate or another. >"_ As Internet names increasingly have commercial value, the decision to add >new top-level domains cannot be made on an ad hoc basis by entities or The ccTLD process is not even close to ad hoc. >individuals that are not formally accountable to the Internet community." > >"Response: The challenge of deciding policy for the addition of new domains >will be formidable. We agree with the many commenters who said that the new >corporation would be the most appropriate body to make these decisions based >on global input." Commentary section of the paper, rather than directive, and in no way dictating changing EXISTING practise. >"As set out below, the U.S. Government is prepared to recognize, by entering Where, in that quoted paragraph, does it say anything about establishing new practise or changing old ones? The language talks about being responsible for administration. That hardly supports the contention that the DNSO should DO anything about the matter. >"In order to promote continuity and reasonable predictability in functions >related to the root zone, the development of policies for the addition, >allocation, and management of gTLDs and the establishment of domain name >registries and domain name registrars to host gTLDs should be coordinated." Yes, I had suspected you failed to note the "g" before the "TLD". We have been talking about admission under the ISO table, and those are not gTLDs. They are ccTLDs. >"Purpose. The new corporation ultimately should have the authority to manage >and perform a specific set of functions related to coordination of the >domain name system, including the authority necessary to: .... > >3) oversee policy for determining the circumstances under which new TLDs are >added to the root system." That suggests that ICANN has the power to change existing policy, but it does not in any way suggest or mandate doing it for every existing practise or without substantial basis. Nor does it say anything about requiring DNSO intervention in this matter. Remember, you claimed that the White Paper REQUIRED DNSO intervention: >Commerce Dept specifically delegated the task of adding new TLDs to ICANN's >DNSO. It is in the White Paper. DNSO is not an "abstract sandbox," it is Yet you quote no such approximate language from the White Paper, never mind "specific". > > Oh, I suppose that one can use narrow, technical grounds, to debate and > contest the term "country", but one attuned to the intended philosophy > knows full well that it pertains to a class of entities, such as > > governments, sovereignties, and the like. The EU definitely is such a > thing. > >This is what happens when computer programmers get it into their heads that >they are policy experts and political scientists. The EU is not a "country." Yeah, we really screwed up creation of the Internet, didn't we. And heaven knows that all those policy experts and political scientists sure were helpful in creating and managing this phenomenon... (To paraphrase the comment I used in an earlier note, "Thanks for doing such good work for 25 years, now go away and let the experts 'fix' things." By the way Milton, responible discussion should include care in labeling other people. Please review my background at . It's just a tad broader than programming. >It is an association of countries. The EU has no sovereignty. Whatever >governmental powers it has are delegated to it by real governments. The Authority is usually delegated from somewhere. The fact that you dismiss the validity of its coming from another government raises very interesting questions about your views on the US Federal government's genesis from authorizations by the 13 independent states. >distinction is important, but only to people who have some grasp of >political institutions. As opposed to those who grasp more than "some"? At any rate, I am relieved to hear that you do not teach reading comprehension. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA Gong Xi Fa Cai / Selamat Tahun Baru Cina ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 22:08:16 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Friedman Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU Dave, With all due respect, you know that while such matters have historically been resolved informally (but with consensus) there exists no formal "authoritive texts." Despite this, there is unwritten procedures. Very arguably, ccTLDs have been assigned only to entities on the ISO 3166 list. - --Joseph On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Dave Crocker wrote: > At 09:06 AM 2/4/2000 , Joseph Friedman wrote: > >What constitutes "authoritative" for this issue? > > Joseph, > > 1. You made an assertion of fact and the (detailed) basis for it was > requested. In case you have forgotten which assertion is in question: > > At 04:07 PM 2/3/2000 , Joseph Friedman wrote: > >No .EU should be created. .XX is reserved for the ISO country code list. > > > 2. More than one person has attempted to ask you to expain yourself. > > The simple reality is that your assertion of fact was not valid. > > You are welcome to provide detailed, authoritative text that proves otherwise. > > d/ > > ps. All of this, of course, ignores the fact that the EU is seeking a > listing in the ISO table... > > =-=-=-=-= > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg Consulting > Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 > 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 07:40:53 +0100 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU At 04:08 AM 2/7/2000 , Joseph Friedman wrote: >With all due respect, you know that while such matters have historically >been resolved informally (but with consensus) there exists no formal >"authoritive texts." Despite this, there is unwritten procedures. Very >arguably, ccTLDs have been assigned only to entities on the ISO 3166 list. Check the IANA web pages. They have extremely clear language about using that table. So, the issue isn't "arguable". It is quite clearly documented, including IANA's refusal to debate the basis for entry into that table. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA Gong Xi Fa Cai / Selamat Tahun Baru Cina ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #6 ************************