<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] We have a problem ...
We have a problem. It seems that someone has included
support@bulkregister.com into the mailer-list. Can we please fix it so that
I stop getting these failure notices everytime I post to the GA?
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: support@bulkregister.com [mailto:support@bulkregister.com]
|> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 9:36 AM
|> To: Roeland Meyer
|> Subject: RE: RE: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure --- FAILURE
|>
|>
|> Error: You are emailing to BR: , however this address doesn't exist.
|>
|>
|> X-POP3-Rcpt: bulk@mail1.bulkregister.com
|> >Received: from dnso.dnso.org (dnso.dnso.org [192.134.4.239])
|> > by mail1.bulkregister.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28175;
|> > Thu, 22 Nov 2001 12:34:27 -0500
|> >Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
|> > by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id SAA15921;
|> > Thu, 22 Nov 2001 18:13:21 +0100 (MET)
|> >Received: from condor.mhsc.com ([216.27.184.246])
|> > by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA15917
|> > for <ga@dnso.org>; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 18:13:19 +0100 (MET)
|> >Received: by condor.mhsc.com with Internet Mail Service
|> (5.5.2650.21)
|> > id <WR74R1YH>; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:14:23 -0800
|> >Message-ID: <EA9368A5B1010140ADBF534E4D32C72806A04E@condor.mhsc.com>
|> >From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
|> >To: "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes@verisign.com>,
|> > "'Patrick Corliss'"
|> > <patrick@quad.net.au>
|> >Cc: "[ga]" <ga@dnso.org>
|> >Subject: RE: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure
|> >Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:14:22 -0800
|> >MIME-Version: 1.0
|> >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
|> >Content-Type: text/plain;
|> > charset="iso-8859-1"
|> >Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
|> >Precedence: bulk
|> >
|> >The entire concept of separating supply and demand is
|> bogus, IMHO. There is
|> >no instance of a pure supplier or a pure consumer, as
|> organized entities.
|> >This is also true of ISPs, every ISP has an ISP. There are
|> upstreams,
|> >downstreams, and peers. Other than the leaves, everyone
|> else falls into this
|> >and even the leaves can have off-topology downstreams and
|> peers. We may look
|> >at this as a hierarchy and we may sing the hierarchy
|> mantra, but it is
|> >really a network of networks and until we start looking at
|> it that way we
|> >will continue to FUBAR. Networks are not hierarchies.
|> >
|> >|> -----Original Message-----
|> >|> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
|> >|> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 6:05 AM
|> >|> To: 'Patrick Corliss'; Gomes, Chuck
|> >|> Cc: [ga]
|> >|> Subject: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure
|> >|>
|> >|>
|> >|> Patrick,
|> >|>
|> >|> I don't find any problem with your analysis. In a
|> purely dichotomous
|> >|> situation (which I recognize does not exist) I would put the
|> >|> constituencies
|> >|> you classify as NEITHER on the demand side; in other words,
|> >|> if there was
|> >|> simply a choice between supply and demand, I personally
|> >|> think they are more
|> >|> on the demand side. In the case of the ccTLDs, I recognize
|> >|> that in many
|> >|> cases they have some special obligations on the demand side
|> >|> but it is also
|> >|> true with regard to some ccTLDs that they are almost totally
|> >|> on the supply
|> >|> side and are even for profit organizations.
|> >|>
|> >|> My primary point of course was to note that the NC is not
|> >|> dominated by those
|> >|> on the supply side and in fact may be underrepresented when
|> >|> one considers
|> >|> the amount of impact on registries and registrars
|> (including ccTLDs).
|> >|>
|> >|> Chuck
|> >|>
|> >|> > -----Original Message-----
|> >|> > From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@quad.net.au]
|> >|> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 2:08 AM
|> >|> > To: Gomes, Chuck
|> >|> > Cc: [ga]
|> >|> > Subject: DNSO Constituency Structure
|> >|> >
|> >|> >
|> >|> > On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 04:44:57 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:
|> >|> > > At present the DNSO consists of seven constituency groups
|> >|> > as follows:
|> >|> > >
|> >|> > > * ccTLD registries
|> >|> > > * Commercial and business entities
|> >|> > > * gTLD registries
|> >|> > > * ISPs and connectivity providers
|> >|> > > * Non-commercial domain name holders
|> >|> > > * Registrars
|> >|> > > * Trademark, intellectual property,
|> >|> anti-counterfeiting interests
|> >|> > >
|> >|> > > In relation to the supply and demand for domain names, only
|> >|> > two of these
|> >|> > > seven could relate to the "demand-side" viz business and
|> >|> > non-profits.
|> >|> >
|> >|> > On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:18:11 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
|> >|> >
|> >|> > > Without detracting from your point about the individuals
|> >|> > consitutuency, it
|> >|> > > seems to me that only 3 of the 7 constituencies
|> >|> represent suppliers:
|> >|> > ccTLD,
|> >|> > > gTLD and registrars. The rest are all on the demand side.
|> >|> >
|> >|> > Hi Chuck
|> >|> >
|> >|> > I'd agree that ccTLDs are probably more likely to be on the
|> >|> > supply side but
|> >|> > it is true, at least in the cause of .au, that auDA
|> >|> > represents both supply
|> >|> > and demand. It is reasonable to say they represent country
|> >|> > codes which do
|> >|> > both.
|> >|> >
|> >|> > ISPs and connectivity providers do not demand or supply
|> >|> > domain names per se.
|> >|> > They provide a support service. Really, they should be in a
|> >|> > "Technical"
|> >|> > Supporting Organisation. Trademarks are an odd one out.
|> >|> > They are both or
|> >|> > neither as you wish. So I see the following:
|> >|> >
|> >|> > BOTH ccTLD registries
|> >|> > DEMAND Commercial and business entities
|> >|> > SUPPLY gTLD registries
|> >|> > NEITHER ISPs and connectivity providers
|> >|> > DEMAND Non-commercial domain name holders
|> >|> > SUPPLY Registrars
|> >|> > NEITHER Trademark, intellectual property,
|> >|> > anti-counterfeiting interests
|> >|> >
|> >|> > That's two for demand, two for supply and three for other.
|> >|> >
|> >|> > Best regards
|> >|> > Patrick Corliss
|> >|> >
|> >|> --
|> >|> 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
|> >|>
|> >--
|> >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
|>
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|