From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #36 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Tuesday, March 14 2000 Volume 01 : Number 036 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:13:03 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs Speaking as somebody who was working for the USG at the time, drafted the interagency task force report that Dave mentions, and helped draft the Green Paper, I'm not sure any of the comments in this thread get it quite right. I'd tell, but then I'd have to kill you :-} Jon At 02:24 PM 3/13/00 -0800, you wrote: >At 12:04 PM 3/13/00 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >>From: "Kevin J. Connolly" >> > Nope. The #1 reason why the GTLD-MOU tanked was opposition from the >> > trademark community. >> >>Nope. The #1 reason was the US government's lack of...er....comfort at the >>role of the ITU. ICANN was created primarily to avoid having to put these > >The ITU? You are kidding, right? > >You seem to confuse the rhetoric of some noisy voices with legitimate fact. > >Having been in the middle of the activities at that time and having gotten >assessments from a number of independent sources directly -- including two >meetings with Magaziner and many second-hand reports of regular >conversations with him -- I heard a consistent summary that a) a PORTION of >the trademark community -- namely a few very large multi-nationals, and b) >the U.S. Congress were the primary reasons Magaziner felt compelled to >re-invent IANA rather than allow it to develop under its own steam. > >The ITU made good news copy for rabble-rousers but concerns about them >never had any substance. The factual aspects of ITU concerns were raised >by the US government and pursued through normal channels. For example the >one that got the most publicity resulted in an ITU member country review >committee -- of which the US was a part -- and it produced a unanimous >statement of support for the ITU's involvement. > >Unanimous means that the US approved. > > >>The #2 reason was the refusal of the USG to allow a government contractor >>such as IANA to grab control of valuable taxpayer-funded assets without any >>formal authorization. > >A well-spoken representation of a popular -- albeit false -- view, >unencumbered by any concern over the actual facts of the actual history. > >IANA already had control and had been exercising it since the inception of >the DNS. The U.S. government had very little involvement in IANA >activities. By contrast IANA had the full support -- and the derived >authority -- of the Internet community. Magaziner's Green paper countered >a -- still unpublished -- US interagency task force report's >recommendations and, effectively, undermined IANA's existing authority. > > >>The trademark theory is an odd one, given the participation of WIPO and INTA >>in the gTLD-MoU, and the fact that gTLD-MoU gave them more power and more > >Nice of you to cite that. It is often forgotten. Indeed, they did >participate and in good faith. > >On the other hand, a small number of specific, multi-national corporations >conducted their own, forceful lobbying campaign privately. They tended to >present a public facade of being supportive but were working quite hard at >undermining things. And they succeeded. > > > >At 12:21 PM 3/13/00 -0500, Kevin J. Connolly wrote: >>How fascinating. Where, in the CORE-POC paradigm, did the >>trademark community have a seat at the table? Where, in that >>process, was the ability to prevent the growth of the TLD >>namespace forever by imposing operationally-impossible >>constraints? > >(Just to show that my concern for accuracy is not partisan...) The WIPO >and INTA were on the IAHC. As I recall we also wrote them into the >POC. For that matter, the recently adopted dispute policy is essentially >identical with the mechanism put forward in the IAHC proposal and, as I >recall, first suggested by the WIPO participant. > >d/ > >=-=-=-=-= >Dave Crocker >Brandenburg Consulting >Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 >675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:48:08 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] reposted for Paul Garrin >From: Paul Garrin >To: James Love >cc: wg-c@dnso.org >Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs >Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:26:41 -0500 > >> >> Kent Crispin wrote: >> > Suppose 10000 new members suddenly appeared and decided to add a TLD >> > called ".general-motors". Or maybe ".saddam". And then 30000 more >> > people suddenly joined and voted for ".death-to-gore". >> >> Are there technical reasons why these TLDs should not be approved? >> >> Jamie >> >> love@cptech.org >> http://www.cptech.org >> > > >No. There are no technical reasons why these and other existing >TLDs have not been approved. Only political reasons. > >Paul >pg@name.space >http://name.space >http://name.space.xs2.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:03:03 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] Reply to co-chair (was: CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs ...) Jon, Let's agree to pass on the meaning of "registry" and what isn't in the call for consensus, at least for today, and deal with the second issue I raised in my objection -- time. The second issue I raised is the familiar issue of delay to some purpose. We are all familiar with the positions and manuvers of the parties which co-authored Position Papers C -- delay substantive actions until the "marks" interests complete their procedural actions -- the dominance of private ownership of intellectual property, presently trademark, over all competing interests in the DNS. And, We are all familiar with the positions and manuvers of the parties which co-authored Position Papers B -- delay substantive actions until the "free market" interests complete their procedural actions -- the dominance of private ownership of capacity to act, the semi-mythical "market", over all competing interests in the DNS. So ... Position Paper E affords to the Names Council and the ICANN Board their first opportunity to reject the claim that some predicate condition(s) must be satisfied before ICANN may create its first gTLD. Position Paper E is simply the first available specific instance of the general position articulated in Position Paper D and A, that ICANN has the capacity to act and that capacity to act includes its discretionary capacity to judge on merit and need. Further, ICANN may delegate policy and jurisdictional competency, as it has the capacity to define policy and jurisdiction, a capacity lacking in nation states, and unweildly in the international treaty system. Aside: Personally I found the IANA decision to act on the .PN issue (jurisdictional competency) pleasing. Finally, ICANN may act at any time, prior to WG-C reaching any consensus call, and without ICANN adopting that conclusion, whatever it may be. It is a consequence that my communities are the ones that are the direct beneficiaries, someone has to be the direct beneficiaries, but it is ICANN itself that benefits from discretionary substantive acts which are within its competency and charter. Three claims are bandied about: a) ICANN may not act (Rutkowski, Auerbach, etc) b) ICANN may not act in a discretionary manor (Meuller, Ambler, etc) c) ICANN may not act substantively (Chicoine, etc) Meaningful consensus without excluding the proponents of each of the above camps isn't going to stick, if the fundamental proposition is contrary to their position, so why bother? I expect the next big idea after Sheppard/Kleiman will be the return of the lottery -- the lengths people will go to to avoid either having to frame a critical process, or allow themselves to imagine ICANN operating, is more then I ever thought people could be pursuaded to endure. I'm unchanged in my position, or my advise to others. Sheppard/Kleiman is junk, and Meuller/Sheppard is more junk. In this instance, the co-chair errs. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:17:03 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Reply to co-chair (was: CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting t - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 14-Mar-2000 Eric Brunner wrote: > Aside: Personally I found the IANA decision to act on the .PN issue > (jurisdictional competency) pleasing. IANA only acted at that time because the current administrator removed his objection to any transfer, effectively consenting to it. In that context, it sets no precedent, and is not a statement of their jurisdiction. - - -- William X. Walsh 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/ iD8DBQE4zb0/8zLmV94Pz+IRAllpAKDNB+1oDSTuZsNEgFYBszogRtcsXQCeNmdS 6wMZcTPSlVg6I96DczCvcro= =dRKL - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:22:17 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "principles") The Shepperd/Kleiman mail purports to set out criteria for the evaluation of a gTLD registry operator application. Not defined within the criteria is who the gTLD registry operator applicant is, nor who preforms the act of applying the criteria to the applicant's application. Clearly, a general evaluation mechanism with unspecified actors panders to the set of interests which do not view specific evaluation with specified actors as a desired outcome of the WG-C process, or who hold the view that ICANN lacks the legal capacity to engage in discretionary conduct when the WG-C process reaches some conclusion concerning the issues it was tasked to undertake. This approach, a general mechanism with no agency (affirmative ability to act) to ICANN, was first advocated by the author of Position Paper B, and effects a bar on progress on specific gTLD proposals until a general form, whether cast as a "contract" or as "criteria", and argued in the abstract, is approved, first by WG-C, then by the NC, the ICANN Board, and finally by the US DoC. The WG-C ballot of December identifies three broad camps in WG-C, two of which voted "YES" on the ballot issue, and one which voted "NO". These camps are: YES co-signers of Position Papers A, D, and E (YES_A) YES co-signers of Position Paper B (YES_B) and NO co-signers of Position Paper C (NO_C) These three camps comprise three approximately equally sized blocks of voting members of the working group as it then existed (membership was frozen during the ballot period). The union of the two YES vote blocks produced a narrow "win" for the ballot proposition (44 to 20, 2/3rds supermajority, with 3 voting "abstain" and 43 not voting). Under the process rules for WG-C, public comment on all the WG-C Position Papers was held, overlapping the ballot period (17 Nov to 10 Jan). The results of the public comments were summarized in email to wg-c by the working co-chair Jonathan Weinberg on 13 January. In his summary he identified four classes of comments: Class I focus on the creation of new gTLDs Class II on the stated need to delay rollout until after the implementation of better trademark protections Class III on Position Paper E Class IV is miscellaneous The summary revealed that the YES_B and NO_C camps were not able to substantially expand their bases of support. Comments falling into the first class were split between YES_A and YES_B. Comments falling into the second class were substantially from members of WG-B not already members of WG-C, or who identified themselves as associated with the current ICANN DNSO Intellectual Property Constituency. Comments in the third class formed 2/3rds of all comment offered (~200 of ~300). Position Paper E is a specific instance of Position Paper A (and D). The sum of the ballot and public comment periods experiences are that WG-C is split into three camps of equal size, a situation not replicated in either WG-B, nor in the subset of the general DNS-interested community which participated in the public comment period. Any two of these three camps can block the advancement of the third under the 2/3rds supermajority rule, and that both the YES_B and NO_C camps can agree (too few, too many) that no new gTLDs be created now. With the public comment tipping the uneasy balence of forces in WG-C to the benefit of the YES_A camp prior to the Cairo ICANN meeting, where WG-C is an agenda item, and taking momentary advantage of the absence of the working co-chair, Mr. Sheppard (NO_C) and Ms. Kleiman (YES_B), are revisiting Mr. Mueller's prior attempts at inserting a precondition to the creation of the first gTLD in the DNS root during the ICANN period of stewardship. Two charter applications actually exist, the first is Position Paper E, the second is the European Union's. Each involves a distinct process in the ICANN system, with no precedent but merit and necessity to offer. Shepperd/Kleiman haven't applied their criteria to concrete test charters and they've declined to apply their criteria to these charters. If anyone thinks I've stuck a fork into the wrong slice of toast (theirs), do drop me a line. I'd like nothing better than to amend the above to show that 6-10 isn't dead within WG-C, that either the NO_C camp has decided to shift their ground enough to allow 6-10 to proceed, or that the YES_B camp has decided that the NO_C camp aren't good long-term partners and want to get some of the balls rolling, even if mine or Kent's or IAHC's or ... My guess is that neither camp will make the smallest jump, and that the nutty tiptoe number of specifics avoidance, whether .EU's or .NAA's or any other concrete candidate or hypothetical, will continue to hold the stage. It isn't useful, but it is decorative. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:58:09 -0800 (PST) From: Patrick Greenwell Subject: Re: [wg-c] Reply to co-chair (was: CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs ...) On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Eric Brunner wrote: > Position Paper E affords to the Names Council and the ICANN Board their > first opportunity to reject the claim that some predicate condition(s) > must be satisfied before ICANN may create its first gTLD. That ability is not bound to any position paper or expressed views. In both word and action the ICANN board has expressed their predisposition to arbitrary and capricious action obstensibly justified by unsubstantiated and/or unqualified claims of "consensus." > Position Paper E is simply the first available specific instance of the > general position articulated in Position Paper D and A, that ICANN has > the capacity to act and that capacity to act includes its discretionary > capacity to judge on merit and need. ICANN should be an instrument of the will of the at large community, something it has not at any time acted as. As mentioned above, ICANN has not found it necessary to seek the aid of contribuatory documents in order to justify its behaviour, or has changed them at whim to do so. > It is a consequence that my communities are the ones that are the direct > beneficiaries, someone has to be the direct beneficiaries, but it is ICANN > itself that benefits from discretionary substantive acts which are within > its competency and charter. > > Three claims are bandied about: > > a) ICANN may not act (Rutkowski, Auerbach, etc) > b) ICANN may not act in a discretionary manor (Meuller, Ambler, etc) > c) ICANN may not act substantively (Chicoine, etc) > > Meaningful consensus without excluding the proponents of each of the above > camps isn't going to stick, if the fundamental proposition is contrary to > their position, so why bother? > > I expect the next big idea after Sheppard/Kleiman will be the return of the > lottery -- the lengths people will go to to avoid either having to frame a > critical process, or allow themselves to imagine ICANN operating, is more > then I ever thought people could be pursuaded to endure. It is my hope that the "next big idea" might be that which myself and I believe others have suggested previously: adetermine which TLDs are most desireable by the community ICANN purports to serve, and place the operation of those TLDs up for bid. In doing so, the most objective process and set of criteria may be applied to the selection process. No lottery is necessary. > I'm unchanged in my position, or my advise to others. Sheppard/Kleiman is > junk, and Meuller/Sheppard is more junk. In this instance, the co-chair > errs. It is a simple matter to criticize. It is much more difficult to back such criticism with substance. Simply labeling other proposals as "junk" is both non-communicative and non-productive. If you wish to assert a specific position, how about doing so on the merits of those assertions rather than resorting to simply being hostile? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 01:28:42 -0500 From: Paul Garrin Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "principles") [...] > that no new gTLDs be created now. [...] Eric, There is a very serious flaw in your choice of language. It's not a question of whether "new" gTLDs will be "created" but more a question of WHEN "emerging" gTLDs (of which there are HUNDREDS already in existance and in operation) will be RECOGNIZED and inserted into the "legacy" ROOT. Best regards, Paul pg@name.space http://name.space http://name.space.xs2.net p.s. I support the "naa." TLD as much as I support the hundreds of other currently active (but not globally recognized) TLDs. - --------------------------------------------------------- Get Free Private Encrypted Email https://mail.lokmail.net Switch to Name.Space: http://namespace.org/switch ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:19:20 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "principles") At 01:28 AM 3/14/00 -0500, Paul Garrin wrote: >It's not a question of whether "new" gTLDs will be "created" >but more a question of WHEN "emerging" gTLDs (of which there >are HUNDREDS already in existance and in operation) will be >RECOGNIZED and inserted into the "legacy" ROOT. Paul, Nice try, but Eric's characterization is correct and yours is not. The fact that someone has gone off and done something with an independent DNS root system does not have any relevance to these activities. No doubt those seeking to profit from their rogue (errr... independent) activity wish to force their activities into the mainstream, but their desires for profit do not create the necessary relevance. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 05:22:41 -0500 From: Paul Garrin Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "principles") > > At 01:28 AM 3/14/00 -0500, Paul Garrin wrote: > >It's not a question of whether "new" gTLDs will be "created" > >but more a question of WHEN "emerging" gTLDs (of which there > >are HUNDREDS already in existance and in operation) will be > >RECOGNIZED and inserted into the "legacy" ROOT. > > > Paul, > > Nice try, but Eric's characterization is correct and yours is not. > > The fact that someone has gone off and done something with an independent > DNS root system does not have any relevance to these activities. > > No doubt those seeking to profit from their rogue (errr... independent) > activity wish to force their activities into the mainstream, but their > desires for profit do not create the necessary relevance. > > d/ Mr. Crocker, Your statment is a perfect illustration of how absolutely clueless you are about the Name.Space Project and its purpose. Please do your due diligence before publishing such patetly false and inaccaruate opinions about something you evidently know very little or nothing about, apart from your speculative and emotional characterizatons all of which have no basis in reality. Running code beats running mouths. I don't speak very much since I am busy doing the latter, while others, preoccupied by the former, merely chatter. Paul pg@name.space http://name.space - --------------------------------------------------------- Get Free Private Encrypted Email https://mail.lokmail.net Switch to Name.Space: http://namespace.org/switch ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 02:34:10 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 14-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > The fact that someone has gone off and done something with an independent > DNS root system does not have any relevance to these activities. I'm afraid I have to agree here. Those operators knew they were operating outside the system, and should not expect any kind of standing whatsoever. - - -- William X. Walsh 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/ iD8DBQE4zhWi8zLmV94Pz+IRAiQTAKD2qNBzh0nnnU3cIMcwrtf7CvcI2QCfTWBI StYzqJqJGTyt8myrhDWtN74= =nr+1 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:25:49 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 14-Mar-2000 Paul Garrin wrote: > Please do your due diligence before publishing such patetly false and > inaccaruate opinions about something you evidently know very little or > nothing about, apart from your speculative and emotional characterizatons > all of which have no basis in reality. I think you have him confused with yourself, Paul. Name.space and any of the operators of alternative TLDs have no right to expect introduction or prior use rights here. None. You knew perfectly well you were operating outside of the system, and your attempt to get that system tossed out in court failed, miserably. You have no leg to stand on here. Any proposal which gives "alternative" tld operators advanced standing in this process, or any expectation that that they will have any rights to the strings they have self declared for themselves, would be patently unfair. It would work against those who, unlike yourself, have invested years of working within the system to acheive these goals. You should have no more and no less standing than anyone else at the end of this process. Your arguments opposing this view and based only on emotion, and not on the facts. The facts do not support your view, and the courts have even recognized that your arguments were invalid. Any attempt to grandfather "alternative TLDs" into the system will meet with staunch opposition, and there is no way that consensus will exist on that point. - - -- William X. Walsh 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/ iD8DBQE4zi/N8zLmV94Pz+IRAgCNAJ41oeXyB/GNrpDEkPVTQHGoj1DJqgCfZScl injTDmchCMjVhSCp2Q8ZZ2s= =D0EY - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:38:28 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "principles") Mr. Garrin, You wrote that there is a "very serious flaw" in my "choice of language". While I'm gratified that a self-aggrandizing technically vacuous flake has only taken one clause consisting of a qualifier and the surrounding set of words or abstractions qualified to build his recurring hobbyhorse, I would be more pleased if you would fall off the roof under your own, albeit limited power. Kindly toot your own "I gota parade off the ICANN route" horn, and leave us musically challenged, seriously flawed wonks in peace. In a better list, you'd be administratively unsubscribed, for repeated grandstanding while chanting "fuck the WG-C Charter and fuck ICANN too". Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:54:23 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "principles") A reminder from the message I now routinely send to all new subscribers: "Ground rules for the working group include basic courtesy and respect for others . . . " This applies to everyone (including those who feel themselves provoked). Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:21:12 -0800 From: "Josh Elliott" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Reply to co-chair (was: CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting t While I am constantly amused at statements claiming to know stories that only IANA can tell, I am irritated conversation like this ends up on this list. Please take it somewhere else. Thanks, Josh (former IANA Administrator) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > William X. Walsh > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 8:17 PM > To: Eric Brunner > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: RE: [wg-c] Reply to co-chair (was: CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting > t > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 14-Mar-2000 Eric Brunner wrote: > > Aside: Personally I found the IANA decision to act on > the .PN issue > > (jurisdictional competency) pleasing. > > IANA only acted at that time because the current administrator removed his > objection to any transfer, effectively consenting to it. In > that context, it > sets no precedent, and is not a statement of their jurisdiction. > > - -- > William X. Walsh > 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/ > > iD8DBQE4zb0/8zLmV94Pz+IRAllpAKDNB+1oDSTuZsNEgFYBszogRtcsXQCeNmdS > 6wMZcTPSlVg6I96DczCvcro= > =dRKL > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- __________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:35:00 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p > Name.space and any of the operators of alternative TLDs have > no right to expect > introduction or prior use rights here. None. Would you care to back that assertion with a bit of logic? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:50:36 -0500 From: Harold Feld Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman"principles") Not to mention the two-post a day limit. Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > A reminder from the message I now routinely send to all new subscribers: > > "Ground rules for the working group include basic courtesy and respect for > others . . . " > > This applies to everyone (including those who feel themselves provoked). > > Jon > > Jonathan Weinberg > co-chair, WG-C > weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:41:36 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] WG-C List administrivia During the list-freeze late last year (6-10 vote period) there were 110 subscribers to the WG-C list. Presently (Cairo period) there are 140 subscribers to the WG-C list. Vote period WG-C subscribers who are not currently subscribed to WG-C: "Amadeu Abril i Abril" "Jon Englund" "Cohen, Tod" "Jim Glanz" "Jim Glanz" "Caroline Chicoine" "Greg Maxon" "Mark A. Sportack" "Gurpreet Singh" "Rita M. Odin" "Joseph Friedman" "Matt Hooker" This removes two (2) December "YES" voters, one of which co-signed Position Papers A and D, four (4) December "NO" voters three of which co-signed Position Paper C, and five who did not vote in December, one of which also co-signed Position Paper D. Other changes, e.g., address-only changes: measday@josmarian.ch ADD (measday@ibm.net, markmeasday@hotmail.com) "Ross Wm. Rader" CHANGE (attyross@aol.com, ross@tucows.com) "Roger Cochetti" CHANGE (rogerc@netsol.com) "William X. Walsh" CHANGE (william@userfriendly.com) "Jay Parker" CHANGE (parker@westcomgroup.com) New subscribers to WG-C: Harald Tveit Alvestrand "Richard S. Campbell" Fred Vogelstein "Bret A. Fausett" "Francois-7ways" AndrwWatt@aol.com hiroyasu.murakoshi@toshiba.co.jp Shunichi Otagaki "Troy.Bradley" "stuart ellis" "Yoshioka Tsuneo" Alex Kamantauskas faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe "Winer, Jonathan" jothan@nic.cc "Will Donaldson" Will Donaldson "Tony Linares" Michael Prescott "Timothy Vienneau" "Stephanie Rulfs" "Lisa A.Nelmida" jelliott@tucows.com Patrick Greenwell ajay.joshi@utoronto.ca jwheeler@boardwatch.com "Mariah Garvey" "Daniel Pare" "Kroon, Richard" "Joe Kelsey" "Chris Pelling" "Warwick Rothnie" tinwee@pobox.org.sg KathrynKL@aol.com david@aminal.com "Jerry Yap" "James Seng" "Jeff Trexler" "Ken Cartwright" "James Love" I've updated my "administrivia" list, below. Errors or omissions to me. Cheers, Eric 140 subscribers of list 'wg-c' (revised as of 13 Mar 2000): - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | 6-10 | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A.M. Rutkowski | | B | | | | Ajay Joshi | | | | NEW | | Alex Kamantauskas | | | | NEW | | Amadeu Abril i Abril | | | | EXIT | | Amar Andersson | | A,D | | | | Andrew Lutts | | |YES | | | Andrew Watt | | | | NEW | | Ann-Catherine Andersson | | |YES | | | Annie Renard | | C |NO | | | Anthony Lupo | | C |NO | | | Astrid Broich | | |YES | | | Barbara Dooley | | |NO | | | Beth Kennedy | | | | | | Bob Broxton | | |NO | | | Bret Fausett | | | | NEW | | Caroline Chicoine | | C |NO | EXIT | | Chris Burton | | | | | | Chris Conant | | |YES | | | Chris Pelling | | | | NEW | | Christopher Ambler | | B |YES | | | Constanze Schmidt | | | | | | Craig Simon | | F |YES | | | Daiva Tamulioniene | | |YES | | | Daniel Pare | | | | NEW | | Dave Crocker | | A,D |YES | | | David Maher | | A,D |YES | | | David Rosenblatt | | | | | | David Schutt | | | | NEW | | Dongman Lee | | |YES | | | Elisabeth Porteneuve | | |NO | | | Eric Brunner | | A,D,E |YES | | | Eric Lee | | | | | | Eva Froelich | | |ABSTAIN| | | Francois-7ways | | | | NEW | | Fred Vogelstein | | | | NEW | | Frederick Duca | | | | | | Geoffrey Dalman | | | | | | Glenn Kowack | | | | | | Greg Maxon | | |YES | EXIT | | Gurpreet Singh | | | | EXIT | | Hal Lubsen | | |YES | | | Harold Feld | | |YES | | | Harald Tveit Alvestrand | | | | NEW | | Hiroyasu Murakoshi | | | | NEW | | Ian Penman | | |YES | | | Ivan Pope | | | | | | J. William Semich | | |NO | | | James Love | | | | NEW | | James Seng | | | | NEW | | Javier Sola | | D | | | | Jay Parker | | |YES | | | Jean-Michel Becar | | A |YES | | | Jeff Shrewsbury | | |YES | | | Jeff Trexler | | | | NEW | | Jeffrey Neuman | | | | | | Jerry Yap | | | | NEW | | Jim Glanz | | D | | EXIT | | Joe Kelsey | | | | NEW | | John Charles Broomfield | | |YES | | | John Giannandrea | | | | | | John Lewis | | |NO | | | John Zehr | | | | | | Jon Englund | | | | EXIT | | Jonathan Weinberg | | A |YES | | | Jonathan Winer | | | | NEW | | Josh Elliot | | | | NEW | | Joop Teernstra | | B |YES | | | Joseph Friedman | | A,D |YES | EXIT | | Karl Auerbach | | |YES | | | Kathryn Vestal | | B |YES | | | Kathryn KL | | | | NEW | | Keith Gymer | | C |NO | | | Ken Cartwright | | | | NEW | | Ken Stubbs | | |YES | | | Kent Crispin | | D,E | | | | Kevin J. Connolly | | |NO | | | Kilnam Chon | | |YES | | | Kyle Taylor | | | | | | Lisa Nelmida | | | | NEW | | Loo, Douglas | | | | | | Mariah Garvey | | | | NEW | | Marilyn Cade | | C |NO | | | Mark A. Sportack | | | | EXIT | | Mark Langston | | B |YES | | | Mark Measday | | A |YES | | | Martin Schwimmer | | C |NO | | | Matt Hooker | | |NO | EXIT | | Michael Palage | | |NO | | | Michael Prescott | | | | NEW | | Michael Schneider | | | | | | Mikki Barry | | B |YES | | | Milton Mueller | | B |YES | | | Myron L. Rosmarin | | | | | | Myung Sun Chung | | | | | | Neeran Saraf | | | | | | Olivier Kozlowski | | |YES | | | Oscar Robles | | | | | | Otho Ross | | |NO | | | Patrick Greenwell | | | | NEW | | Paul Garrin | | B |YES | | | Paul Gregson | | | | | | Paul Stahura | | A |YES | | | Petter Rindforth | | C |NO | | | Philip Sheppard | | |NO | | | Raul Echeberria | | |ABSTAIN| | | Rebecca Nesson | | |YES | | | Richard Campbell | | | | NEW | | Richard Kroon | | | | NEW | | Richard Lindsay | | |YES | | | Rick H. Wesson | | |YES | | | Rita M. Odin | | C |NO | EXIT | | Rob Hall | | | | | | Robert F. Connelly | | A |YES | | | Robert Keller | | | | NEW | | Robert Waters | | | | | | Rod Dixon | | A,B |YES | | | Roeland Meyer | | G |YES | | | Roger Cochetti | | | | | | Ross Wm. Rader | | |YES | | | Scott Pollard | | |NO | | | Shunichi Otagaki | | | | NEW | | Siegfried Langenbach | | A |YES | | | Soo Jeong LEE | | | | | | Stephanie Rulfs | | | | NEW | | Stephen Goodman | | | | | | Stuart Ellis | | | | NEW | | Sue Leader | | | | | | Timothy M. Denton | | B |YES | | | Timothy Vienneau | | | | NEW | | Tod Cohen | | C |NO | EXIT | | Tolga Yurderi | | | | | | Tom Newell | | | | | | Tony Bradley | | | | NEW | | Tony Linares | | | | NEW | | Tsuneo Yoshioka | | | | NEW | | Warwick Rothnie | | | | NEW | | Werner Staub | | |YES | | | Wes Monroe | | | | | | Will Donaldson | | | | NEW | | William X. Walsh | | B |YES | | | Younjung Park | | |ABSTAIN| | | hyeyoung kang | | | | | | faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe | | | | NEW | | igschuckman@register.co | | | | NEW | | j.eder@berkom.de | | | | NEW | | jothan@nic.cc | | | | NEW | | jwheeler@boardwatch.com | | | | NEW | | tinwee@pobox.org.sg | | | | NEW | | m.janiaud@paris.infonie.| | | | | | zehl@berkom.de | | | | NEW | | ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #36 *************************