[ga] Fw: 0:212 [00D4] - .BIZ - Moving Beyond the Proof-of-Concept Phase - Update

["Jim Fleming" <jfleming@anet.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fleming" <jfleming@anet.com>
To: <wbailey@ntia.doc.gov>; <jcrapa@ntia.doc.gov>; <ehawkins@ntia.doc.gov>; <dhurley@ntia.doc.gov>; <smadden@ntia.doc.gov>;
<hshaw@ntia.doc.gov>; <nvictory@ntia.doc.gov>; <mwallach@ntia.doc.gov>; <swilliams@ntia.doc.gov>
Cc: <jandl@jandl.com>; "PacificRoot Hostmaster" <idno@tallship.net>; <karl.peters@bridgecompanies.com>; <jo-uk@rcn.com>;
<DannyYounger@cs.com>; <pdeblanc@usvi.net>; <karl@CAVEBEAR.COM>; <dhc@dcrocker.net>; <kent@songbird.com>; <brunner@nic-naa.net>;
<bmanning@karoshi.com>; <jim.casey@neustar.com>; <jeff.neuman@neustar.com>; <eva@tibbir.se>; <vcerf@MCI.NET>
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 8:12 AM
Subject: 0:212 [00D4] - .BIZ - Moving Beyond the Proof-of-Concept Phase - Update


> http://listserver.isocnz.org.nz/pipermail/idno-discuss/2001-November/001864.html
> Karl E. Peters idno-discuss at idno.org
> Sat, 17 Nov 2001 00:30:58 -0500
>
> "To clarify my corporate relationships once more, I am a partner in ARNI who
> manages three TLDs who have been contractually using the automated registration
> system of JTL/Pacificroot. I have no other interest in JTL/Pacificroot whatsoever.
> Any indication otherwise is a willful misrepresentation or LIE!"
>
> http://listserver.isocnz.org.nz/pipermail/idno-discuss/2001-November/001868.html
> L Gallegos idno-discuss at idno.org
> Sat, 17 Nov 2001 01:44:13 -0500
>
> I thought I had made it perfectly clear that ARNI has no relationship to
> the PacificRoot/JTL other than a contract for the provision of registry
> services for TLDs that are managed by ARNI.
>
> Neither Karl Peters nor I work for The PacificRoot, never have and most
> likely never will.  JTL is an IT company.  If anything, ARNI may be a
> competitor one day.  Neither of us has any other relationship with the
> PacificRoot.  Why is it so difficult to grasp the concept of a contract for
> a registry or DNS provider?  Further, what has that to do with IDNO?
>
> karl personally holds domain names and so do I.  That constitutes
> individual domain name holders on both our parts.  As such, either of us
> is eligible for membership in IDNO unless this organization has other
> criteria.  The same applies to election to any position in IDNO.
>
> Karl holds a percentage of the ARNI corporation.  He does not work for
> the corporation.  In any case, ARNI has nothing to do with anything in
> IDNO.  As a matter of fact, ARNI is on the side of individual domain
> name holders and does its best to protect them.  We don't adopt the
> UDRP, for one thing and have been very vocal against the discriminatory
> practices against any attempts to create the IDNHC.  One of the
> reasons that I asked Karl to be part of ARNI was his stand for IDNH.  I
> have been an advocate for years.
>
> It is truly disappointing to see outright untruths on the list regarding this
> issue.  Just because there are some who do not like Karl's positions or
> want to accuse him of collusion with others, they choose to
> mischaracterize ARNI's role in whatever issue arises.  I resent this, as I
> am the more active person in that corporation.
>
> So, please stop saying that ARNI and the PacificRoot are in any way co-
> joined.  They are separate businesses on opposite coasts of the US
> with some very different focuses, and neither has any say in what the
> other does.
>
> The misrepresentations and attacks on this list are a couple of reasons
> why I have never formally joined IDNO.
>
> Leah Gallegos
>
> http://listserver.isocnz.org.nz/pipermail/idno-discuss/2001-November/001872.html
> Joop Teernstra idno-discuss at idno.org
> Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:53:30 +1300
>
> I think you have to make them absolutely clear, once again, Karl.
> The problem with the word democracy is that it is frequently used by its
> very opponents.
> To me your positions for the last 2 years  have been un-democratic.
> You , and Mr Walsh favoured "ORSC" rules for list behaviour with
> self-appointed moderators.
> You, along with Mr Walsh,  favoured the "representative governance
> model"   over the "democratic model".
> Representative models as you and Mr Walsh have advocated, are a euphemism
> for autocracy.
> Wide discussion about this can be found in the archives.
> Could you please highlight  postings of yours  from the archives that makes
> your position completely clear?
>
> You also have to come clean about your support for Bradley Thornton and
> William Walsh, who have attempted by highly undemocratic methods to hijack
> that first steering committee. Bradley Thornton volunteered for Chair and
> you supported that self-nomination in spite of the Charter clause against it.
> Bradley Thornton's subsequent actions are well known.
> ---------
>
> http://www.possr.com/aboutpossr.shtml
> Once we launch POSSR II (Our PacificRoot Accredited Registrar program) the landscape will change drastically. Hundreds of
registrars
> will be coming online, and we will no longer be offering most tech support functions for registrants (except our own). Each
> Accredited Registrar will provide their own tech support and offer their clients registration services directly from their sites,
> using their own merchant accounts or whatever payment method they choose to accept.
>
> We will still be accepting new TLDs into the POSSR system, yet since each Registrar will be providing their own tech support to
> users you will not be directly responsible for supporting their registrants. Setup fees for loading the TLD onto the POSSR system
> will still apply. You will be responsible for establihing the long-term wholesale price above that which the registry assesses in
> fees. The registrars will charge the public per registration as the competitive market permits.
>
> With POSSR II, You will be responsible for drafting a licensing agreement acceptable to The PacificRoot which is to be between you
> (the TLD Manager/Holder) and the PacificRoot Accredited Registrars, licensing them to provide registration services for your
TLD(s)
> residing in The PacificRoot's POSSR registry database. We will make this agreement available to PacificRoot Accredited Registrars
> via the site located at http://www.POSSR.com, as well as the POSSR client code which is free. Registrars must agree to the terms
and
> conditions of your license before being permitted by the registry to engage in providing registration services to their clients
for
> your TLD(s), and must adhere to those terms and conditions.
> ----
>
> http://listserver.isocnz.org.nz/pipermail/idno-discuss/2001-November/001785.html
> William X Walsh idno-discuss at idno.org
> Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:15:36 -0800
> "I am actively working on the now infamous POSSR2 system which has been
> the subject of so much unwarranted attention on this list, and is
> taking so much of my time."
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg02803.html
> Re: [ga] 0:212 BIZ Update
>
> Mr. William X. Walsh:
>
> It is widely reported that you develop the software for the .BIZ
> registry operating in the State of California. http://www.BIZTLD.net
> Is that true ?
>
> If so, can you comment on the robustness of that software ?
>
> Was it developed for Early Experimental work or the current Proof-of-Concept
> tests ?
>
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg02804.html
> From: William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> <yawn>
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg02808.html
> From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <idno@tallship.net>
> "As far as how to corral the horses? Well, I certainly cannot speak for
> ARNI, but I suspect that they would be willing to pay a dollar or two for
> ICANN's .biz ;), with the fate of the unfortunate souls that participated
> in ICANN's illegal Lottery in those 'pre'registrations subject to
> negotiations. Then everyone could think about going home happy."
>
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg02882.html
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] 0:212 BIZ Update
> From: "L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>
> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 05:40:01 -0500
> The launch of the automated reg system is the launch of the automated reg system, not the launch of the registry. One of the
earlier
> websites .biz went live on May 30, 2000 and was hosted by @quasar Internet Solutions. Registrations began prior to that date. Ben
> Edelman made an assumption and we all know what assume means. It makes no difference what the launch date for the web based system
> was.
>
> Leah
> ------------------------
>
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg02996.html
> [ga] Fw: Which .BIZ Registry does OpenSRS use ?
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg03071.html
> [ga] 0:212 .BIZ IPv8 Address Space Management, will be in good hands....
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg03078.html
> [ga] Why is ICANN Allowing Lame Delegations in the IPv4 Proof-of-Concept .BIZ servers ???
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg03109.html
> [ga] Fw: 0:212 [00D4] .BIZ IPv6 TLD Cluster
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg03123.html
> [ga] Will ICANN People Ever Get Back to Technical Discussions ?
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg03147.html
> [ga] 0:212 [00D4] - Will IN-ADDR.BIZ be Co-Managed ?
>
>
> It all boils down to fairness.
> Which list do you think is more fair ?
> The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> or
> The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
>
> Why would people pay for Address Space, when it is FREE ?
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
> http://www.in-addr.info
> 3:219 INFO
>

--
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