Re: [ga] Note to the ICANN Community UPDATE:

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

There are so many misreprentations in that statement that I won't even 
try to address off of them here.  It is typical of the disinformation 
campaign being waged.

In particular:

If the dates represented in the formal launch of an online live registration 
system are to be the criteria, Neulevel has no claim at all, do they?  It 
has not been launched.  There is a very long paper trail for the original 
.BIZ TLD and the date of recognition by roots of the re-delegation is also 
documented.  

Let's see... If .net suspended registrations tomorrow, would it be okay 
for another root to duplicate it using different name servers?  There are 
others which are really dormant, but plan to activate.  Is that reason to 
have another root duplicate them using different name servers?  Why 
should anyone recognize their autonomy?

Also, if the registry/manager's reservation of names for a particular 
purpose or reason is suspect then look at those reserved by Neulevel 
(many of which are duplicates of SLDs reserved by ARNI months ago).  
60% of registrations in the first wave?  More like reservations prior to 
launch - just like Neulevel.  Hmmm.... except that ours were actually 
reserved months prior to launch of the automated system, which was 
months before any hint of an annoucement by 
Neulevel/JVTeam/Neustar.  Everything was time stamped after the 
formal launch of the automated registration system  for uniformity.  All 
registrations were extended based on that time stamp, including those 
that had been manually registered prior to even the beta.  Registrations 
were accepted by email prior to the auto system.  I guess, using their 
statement, many ccTLDs are bogus.  They don't have online registration 
systems at all.  If I am not mistaken, .WEB will re-stamp regisrations 
upon entrance to the USG root.

It is also interesting that no other root attempted to allow a duplicate of 
the original .biz any more than they would duplicate .com.  The ICANN 
ploy to crush this TLD is to set a precedent that they can do so at will, 
regardless of existing legitimate business.  The statement disparages 
the registry based on size/market share.  Oh well, let's just kill all small 
business then.  Let's pass laws on business models, or better yet, have 
all business nationalized.

Opportunistic registrations?  Speculators?  How many speculation 
registrations exist in other TLDs?  Is it illegal to speculate?  Will 
registrants who infringe on third party rights be subject to legal action?  
Sure.  How is that different from any other registration activity?  Let's 
close .com/net/org then.  Watch out, NSI.

Lastly, there were phone calls to those who showed interest in .BIZ 
prior to the formal launch of the auto system and to the lodging of 
applications to ICANN.  Some ICANN board members have known of 
.biz since 1996. All were made aware prior to and duringYokohama.  
the question was posed to the candidates for board seats prior to the at-
large elections.  

The re-delegation of .biz was in May of 2000 after quite a bit of 
discussion.  ICANN applications were lodged in October and Neulevel's 
(JVTeam) was not posted until the 15th.  There were notices on the 
ICANN forum as soon as it opened stating that .BIZ existed. Email was 
sent to Ken Hansen at Neustar (the contact listed for the app) and the 
other applicants more than once.  There is no excuse for what ICANN 
has done.

Amazing how those who wish to make a case will interpret things the 
way they like with no real background or documentation.  The 
propaganda is all too familiar.  I seem to remember seeing this type of 
disinformation coming from the Soviet Union many years ago.  Then 
there were the blacklist days of the McCarthy era.  It's really sad to see 
the public duped by the organization that is supposed to serve them in 
a transparent, open, bottom-up manner.  There is Radio Free Europe 
(still active) which was used extensively during WWII to bring the truth 
to those under the thumb of dictators.  Perhaps we need Radio Free 
World wrt ICANN duplicity.

The statement quoted below is bogus.  Once again, Sheesh!

Leah


On 29 May 2001, at 20:33, Jeff Williams wrote:

> Bruce and all assembly members,
> 
>   I have two problems with this draft.
> 
> 1.) That there is no place specified where discussion online for this
> draft should be sent to (E-Mail address).  
> Question: Should the discussion be done on this forum?
> 
> 2.) In particular to this draft for discussion, I take exception with
> some characterizations and inaccurate statements made in this section:
> 
>     "One prominent example, described in recent testimony before the US
> Congress, was the activation of a previously dormant TLD within an
> "alternative" root after other companies had already expressed interest in
> establishing a TLD of the same name through the ICANN process, and after
> several detailed proposals were submitted for community consideration. In
> an apparent effort to preempt the community-based process, a number of
> registrations were created in the alternative TLD by a small number of
> registrants (indeed, 60% of the first wave of registrations were made in
> the operator's own name), and various public statements were made,
> including in Congressional testimony, that were clearly intended to create
> the illusion of long-established and continuous operation. In fact, an
> analysis of registrations in this "alternative" TLD shows that, as of April
> 2001, there were only slightly over 3,600 names registered, a significant
> number of which are obviously names captured by speculators (such as
> cnn.biz and disney.biz). On the basis of this opportunistic record, this
> operator has claimed global priority over the    community decisions
> through the ICANN process. This episode illustrates the wisdom of the White
> Paper's warning that "decision[s] to add new top-level domains [must not]
> be made on an ad hoc basis by entities or individuals that are not formally
> accountable to the Internet community."10"
> 
>   The ICANN BoD is basically admitting that they were aware that another
> registry was operating/servicing a the TLD .BIZ prior to their selection
> (Lottery) of this TLD.  Yet seem to be claiming that it was dormant at the
> time they "Lottery Selected" this TLD, .BIZ.  The record clearly shows,
> from what I have gleaned that this statement is incorrect, and constitutes
> a seemingly purposeful misinformation to the public as such.  Secondly, the
> ICANN BoD has yet to show the public that the Public or stakeholders were
> in favor of the process by which the ICANN BoD choose or selected potential
> Registries to operate a TLD Registry for .BIZ or .INFO specifically.
> 
> 
> Bruce James wrote:
> 
> > Discussion Draft: A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS
> >
> > Posted: 28 May 2001
> > Note to the ICANN Community
> > UPDATE:
> >
> >  http://www.icann.org/stockholm/unique-root-draft.htm
> >
> > /Bruce
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 


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