Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [GTLD Registries List] What is the accreditation status of registrars that made fake applications?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Eric and all stakeholders or interested parties,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Thank you for your comments,
>
> 1.    When should a RFC be disregarded?  What is the criteria?

  Look it up yourself.  It is on the IETF web site as to when, and how
this is determined.

>
>
> 2.    If circumstances warrant differing from an RFC should one first challenge
> the existing RFC?

  Yes of course.  To do so within the IETF process one would need to
set up their own WG in accordance with established IETF procedure.
Again you can look this up yourself on the IETF web site.

  To do so outside the IETF is also possible and done on occasion.
However for a standards body to be excepting of such an effort
of set of conclusions would be up to those that engaged in this
method to convince the IESG and the IETF or W3C to acknowledge.
Failing that or not even considering that approach, than the effort
would need to be marketed in any number of other ways to convince
those of interest or affected to consider seriously.  This too has been
successful in the recent past with foreign TLD's and Domain Names
protocols for instance.  There are of course other examples as well...

>
>
> 3.    When fully constituted should the AL have a GA?

  Not necessarily.  But if the AT-Large members felt that such
was needed they could indeed create a General Assembly.
However I can't see the need presently.

>
>
> 4.    It would appear that every RFC interferes with sovereign nation status.

  They do?  How so?  Please elaborate?  In what way?  Can you present
an argument that supports this assertion?

>
> Should they?

  Not all or even very many do.  So this question is really not appropriate
that I can see...

>
>
> 5.    Is IETF elected?

  The Chair is Elected.  Some other members for other positions
are elected as well.  Perhaps you should do a review of how the IETF
works...???

> - No, so they should make no policy?

  Yes some positions in the IETF are elected (See directly above comments)
They don't set policy they recommend policy in a very few instances as well
as recommend standards.

>
>
> 6.    Is the digital divide between engineers and pollywogs,
> or between have and have nots?

  Ah!  I see now the gist of you dialog/diatribe here now much more
clearly.  No Eric, the digital divide is between the knowledgeable and
those of lesser knowledge or understanding.  The digital divide is an
education problem predominantly along with a access and affordability
problem...  So this sort of political diatribe is not all that helpful that
you have presented here...

>
>
> Peace,
> Eric
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Eric and all stakeholders or interested parties,
> >
> >   I will be more than happy to respond.
> > (See specific comments/observations to Eric's response in line below)
> >
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you Jeff,
> > >
> > > I believe this may be the perfect time for you to explain to the rest of
> > > us why you believe it is important to stick with old RFC's.
> >
> >   It is not my belief that I was referring to if you read my post correctly
> > and with some attention to detail.  It was and still remains the ICANN
> > BOD's and Staff's public statement and policy to do so.
> >
> >   My personal and the majority or our members opinion that
> > the IETF RFC's in many instances are out of date of obsolete.
> > However RFC 1591 is not one of those.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > It would seem that the Net and/or the WWW changes quite quickly but that
> > > RFC's move quite slowly.
> >
> >   Indeed this is quite true.  But in most instances the Net/WWW doesn't
> > change so quickly or dramatically as to make most of the RFC's obsolete
> > in the same amount of time.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The only forum that seems to keep up with constant advances seems to be
> > > the
> > > GA and that appears to be because it does not create RFC's.
> >
> >   Not really true.  There are a number of forums, some of which are
> > IETF forums that keep up very nicely.  As I have yet to see you
> > on any of those forums, perhaps you are not aware.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > It also currently does not seem to censor, which allows it to handle
> > > problems arising
> > > tomorrow - today.
> >
> >   Selective censorship has been a problem with the DNSO GA as
> > you know and as has been repeatedly documented on that forum
> > for some 2+ years now.  So I am surprised at your statement here...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > i.e. ccTLDs of Arabic design - we will discuss and have great input prior
> > > to any other forum yet we will put forth no RFC.
> >
> >   As you perhaps do not know, there is a RFC for foreign language
> > ccTLD's and Domain Names.  So perhaps a review of the IETF
> > web site on this subject would be a good exercise for you.  But
> > I am sure you are referring to the very recent post from
> > "Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc." <alnajjar@any-dns.com>
> > see:  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03919.html
> > to which I believe you responded to at:
> >  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03921.html
> > However a more detailed and in depth review of the DNSO GA
> > archives will reveal very little in this area of discussion or area
> > of issue/interest.  However I would be happy to be corrected
> > on this point if you can provide some URL's references from
> > the DNSO GA archives to the contrary...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please respond.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > Jeff Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > > Daryl and all stakeholders or interested parties,
> > > >
> > > >   VEry good brief Rundown here Daryl.  And one that has been presented
> > > > in par or in full by several other stakeholders on more than one
> > > > occasion including yours truly.
> > > >
> > > >   One important point that perhaps you forgot or had not considered
> > > > is that the ICANN BoD and Staff had and IMHO still has is to
> > > > abide by RFC1591 which the ICANN BoD as far as RFC's
> > > > has touted to be very supportive of.  Yet in this instance (RFC 1591)
> > > > it decided in the MdR Meeting of Nov 2000 drastically deviated
> > > > from in preference to a lottery selection process for new TLD's.
> > > > We [INEGroup] along with many other groups warned that such
> > > > a method would be a huge mistake with long term ramifications
> > > > BEFORE the ICANN BoD and staff decided without stakeholder
> > > > consensus or vote to dictate.  Now the proverbial turkey has come
> > > > home to roost.
> > > >   It is for some of the reasons in your rundown and my above comments
> > > > that it is paramount that Stakeholders/users must be in the majority
> > > > on the ICANN BoD with 9 seats.  However given the ALSC
> > > > "Final Report" and denial of the polls and comments submitted on
> > > > this forum is is unlikely that such will occur.  If not, ICANN will
> > > > never be ligitimate in the mid to long term...
> > > >
> > > > Daryl Tempesta wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > ICANN should stipulate
> > > > > > that trademarks only apply on COM NET and BIZ, and
> > > > > > reserve the rest,
> > > > > > particularly the INFO, for first come, first served.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have talked to Lawyers which represent Verisign AKA
> > > > > Network Solutions. I was told that buisness clients
> > > > > complain all the time about being advised to buy up
> > > > > EVERY domain in every TLD for every trademark they
> > > > > own.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bruces suggestion in a very good one in my oppinion
> > > > > because in some form it is inevitable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is why; I think that ICANN will either do  it
> > > > > volunterally or the US congress will step in - perhaps
> > > > > as the result of a high profile Supreme Court case.
> > > > > Consider these senarios.
> > > > >
> > > > > a) Some time in the near future, many more TLDs  are
> > > > > introduced, pressure from the atLarge and millions of
> > > > > individual domain owners will be successfull in
> > > > > lobbying ICANN for TM free TLDS
> > > > >
> > > > > Reason for non TM and TM requirements - Market
> > > > > saturation
> > > > >
> > > > > b)   Some time in the near future, many more TLDs  are
> > > > > introduced, Laws from congress passed due to the
> > > > > pressure of millions of individual domain owners will
> > > > > then be successfull.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reason for non TM and TM requirements - Legal
> > > > > intervention including new laws.
> > > > >
> > > > > Conclusion: it is inevitable that there will be both
> > > > > TM and non TM requirements in TLDs.
> > > > >
> > > > > ICANN build the framework now,
> > > > > while you have the choice how.
> > > > >
> > > > > Daryl Tempesta
> > > > > hotdot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Bruce Young <byoung651@attbi.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jeff wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >It is poignantly and disgustingly clear that
> > > > > > >the ICANN staff either cannot or will not do
> > > > > > adequate oversight
> > > > > > >of it's rubber stamped "Registrars and Registries"
> > > > > > given the
> > > > > > >events of the past year or so that have been
> > > > > > reported here
> > > > > > >and on other forums.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ya think?! :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > These guys are making this SO much harder tha it
> > > > > > needs to be.  Part of the
> > > > > > problem are these ugly "sunset" periods.  Why?  If
> > > > > > the point of new TLDs is
> > > > > > new addresses for peoplke that don't havethem, why
> > > > > > are we letting the same
> > > > > > old people buy up addresses before everyone else?
> > > > > > ICANN should stipulate
> > > > > > that trademarks only apply on COM NET and BIZ, and
> > > > > > reserve the rest,
> > > > > > particularly the INFO, for first come, first served.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bruce Young
> > > > > > Portland, Oregon
> > > > > > byoung651@attbi.com
> > > > > > http://home.attbi.com/~byoung651/index.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > > Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> > > > > http://greetings.yahoo.com
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > --
> > > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> > --
> > 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 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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