>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 15:07:44 -0500 (EST)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [John Charles
Broomfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From manta.outremer.com!jbroom Mon Feb 8 15:07:43 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from manta.outremer.com([209.88.69.3]) (10166 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
> via sendmail with P:smtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
> (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 15:07:36 -0500 (EST)
> (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
>Received: (from jbroom@localhost) by manta.outremer.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) id
QAA29039; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 16:16:37 -0400
>From: John Charles Broomfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Paris Draft Site Up with Full Draft Text
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 16:16:37 -0400 (AST)
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In-Reply-To: <000701be5379$2520b000$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from
"Antony Van Couvering" at Feb 8, 99 10:38:58 am
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>Hi Anthony,
> I'm copying below the original message that was sent to ccTLD admins
>about the IATLD & RFC-1591.
>What I like so much about it is the first line "The subject line says it
>all." and then goes on to ramble like crazy. Ok, so the subject line says it
>all.... What does the subject line say? "Will you sign on to support
>RFC-1591?". Pretty misleading as far as I'm concerned. And it's pretty fuzzy
>about whether the question is directed personally or as admin contact. Note
>quite clearly that the admin contact is very free to give whatever answers
>he want on a personal basis, but would probably ask around a little before
>giving any answers as admin contact for the ccTLD.
>Also another note... Many of us have said that we didn't think that it was a
>good idea to enshrine RFC-1591, and we had nice answers from you saying that
>you weren't trying to enshrine it at all... Look at the first paragraph:
>"asking that ISI enshrine RFC 1591 into its bylaws." Fun isn't it?
>As you say, Patrick answered "YES" to a question with that subject line
>where the first line says "Subject line says it all". Are you guys now like
>unscrupulous second-hand-car salespersons where we've got to read all the
>fine print before even answering? Sounds good...
>
>As to:
>> Is Patrick Raimond the admin contact or is not? Are you now going to say
>> that anyone who doesn't speak English natively shouldn't be able to
>> participate, because s/he might not understand?
>Well, if the guys asking the questions are you lot it would start to look
>like that unfortunately... :-(
>I thought this was supposed to be inclusive. If you want to send out
>questions to international readers in English, it would be nice if you
>looked at them twice to make sure that they were unambiguous.
>
>As to:
>> In re: support of RFC 1591, .GP answered "YES" to the question of whether
>> ICANN should put this phrase in its bylaws:
>> "The ICANN agrees to continue to use RFC 1591 for any and all actions it
>> takes, or any role it assumes, with regard to the two-letter ISO 3166 TLDs
>> commonly known as Country Code TLDs (ccTLDs)."
>> Neither .GP nor anyone else was asked if they supported RFC 1591, they
>> were asked this specific question.
>
>Nice bit of editing there... pity the original is included below, eh?
>
>As to his support of the Paris draft, I'll get back to you as soon as I've
>heard how direct (or not?) the questions were.
>
>Yours, John Broomfield.
>
>>Date: Thu, 29 Oct 98 22:57:33 EDT
>>From: "J. William Semich (NIC JWS7)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: "Will you sign on to support RFC 1591?"
>>
>>Original-From: "J. William Semich (NIC JWS7)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Original-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 98 23:09:13 EDT
>>
>>
>>Hello;
>>
>>The subject line says it all.
>>
>>I'm writing to ask that you support a proposal by the newly-formed
>>International Association of TLDs (IATLD) asking that ISI enshrine RFC
>>1591 into its bylaws.
>>
>>You don't need to "join" IATLD to do that (although it would be great if
>>you'd agree to do so). The only goal of the IATLD is to assure the
>>continuation of RFC 1591, as crafted by Jon Postel, in all dealings with
>>ccTLDs. We will be sending a letter to ISI-IANA, the US Government's
>>Department of Commerce, the NTIA, and Ira Magaziner making this plea
>>within the next 24 hours.
>>
>>Won't you please sign on?
>>
>>The IATLD, who's members include .NU and a few others so far, asks that
>>the following language be included in the final ICANN bylaws:
>>
>>"The ICANN agrees to continue to use RFC 1591
>>(http://info.internet.isi.edu:80/in-notes/rfc/files/rfc1591.txt) for any
>>and all actions it takes, or any role it assumes, with regard to the
>>two-letter ISO 3166 TLDs commonly known as Country Code TLDs (ccTLDs)."
>>
>>In addition to our members, we are looking for any ccTLD who would like
>>to support RFC 1591 as well. We will add your name to the list of
>>supporters (but not as an IATLD member unless you request it) in order
>>to give this request more impact.
>>
>>RFC 1591 is what we are all running under now, and is, in effect, our
>>"Constitution" as drafted by Jon Postel. There is nothing pro- or
>>anti-government in this approach. The proposed language needs to be
>>simple to get consensus quickly, and we need to propose something
>>quickly to have any effect.
>>
>>The basic idea is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!
>>
>>If you support RFC 1591, won't you please come forward and either let us
>>include your ccTLD on the list of supporters of the preservation of RFC
>>1591, or contact ISI about your support for RFC 1591 directly?
>>
>>Hope to hear from you very soon!
>>
>>Bill Semich (NIC JWS7)
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>.NU Domain
>>Memberships: ISOC, ISP/C, APIA, Internet Users Society - Niue
>
>End of message.
>
>
>> When I replied in thanks, I also wrote (in French) that there seemed to be a
>> communications problem between you and him. Maybe you should sort out the
>> fact that *you* don't seem to be speaking for .GP before you go accusing
>> others of being "unscrupulous people."
>>
>> Antony
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Charles
>> > Broomfield
>> > Sent: Saturday, February 06, 1999 3:31 PM
>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Subject: Re: Paris Draft Site Up with Full Draft Text
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Everyone,
>> > Ok, I've said this privately a few times and now I've had enough.
>> > I haven't
>> > read (yet) either the Paris draft or the BMW draft. However there is one
>> > thing that seems screwed about the process involved in the Paris draft
>> > (note: something screwed about the PROCESS).
>> > I've just been to http://dnso.association.org to see who endorses
>> > it, and I
>> > find under the list of endorsing registries "Guadeloupe" (strange that
>> > Martinique isn't there seeing that they are both managed by the same
>> > non-profit organisation...).
>> > Why is Guadeloupe there? I presume it stems because the admin contact for
>> > Guadeloupe a while back replied to a message with the words "I support
>> > RFC-1591".
>> > I actually doubt that the IATLD is more than a front for a bunch (5?) of
>> > unscrupulous people. I question very strongly (until I see evidence of it)
>> > their so called involvement and support from all those ccTLDs (73 of them
>> > according to them).
>> > Patrick Raimond (the admin contact for ".gp") speaks reasonably good
>> > English. I saw the message he had received and it was asking for
>> > support of
>> > RFC-1591 in the ICANN bylaws (or something along those lines, in
>> > any case it
>> > wasn't clear). He said that he had understood the question to be if he
>> > supported RFC-1591. Obviously he DOES support RFC-1591, as I expect just
>> > about everyone else who runs any registry. In any case, it was not at all
>> > clear that it was an endorsement on behalf of the GP & MQ NIC. In other
>> > words, it was a personal question.
>> > I would imagine that the fluency in English of many contacts for other
>> > registries is less than that of Patrick, so it would seem that
>> > the so called
>> > support is actually quite fraudulent. IATLD is a fake.
>> >
>> > I request: get GP off your lists and your webpage. (I have no idea whether
>> > we will support the Paris draft or not, but that support is
>> > premature to see
>> > the least).
>> >
>> > Yours, John Broomfield.
>> > GP & MQ NIC.
>> >
>> > > Hello everyone. After catching up on some sleep, I have now
>> > made sure that
>> > > the http://dnso.association.org/ web site is now up to date with the
>> > > complete draft of the Paris Draft Proposal, the cover letter and the
>> > > supporting letter from AIP, with the appendix of proposed edits that
>> > > couldn't make it in on time from AIP and NSI.
>> > >
>> > > The supporting organization list is up, as well, along with the contact
>> > > email for suggestions to the draft (which we are archiving) -
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the official list for the Paris Draft -
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >
>> > > If you are a supporting organization, or think you may want to be one,
>> > > please review the supporting organizations page to make sure we
>> > have your
>> > > information correctly. Please make sure we have the URL, and, if it says
>> > > "<Description Forthcoming>", we need your brief one-paragraph
>> > organizational
>> > > description. Please send these to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >
>> > > I want to say thank you to everyone involved in this process, and I look
>> > > forward to moving forward in this open forum in bringing together the
>> > > various drafts that were submitted. It is my hope that we can
>> > come closer
>> > > and ideally merge multiple drafts out there before the
>> > Singapore meeting.
>> > >
>> > > And now, on that note, I'm going to go catch up on some sleep.
>> > Have a great
>> > > weekend, everyone!
>> > >
>> > > Sincerely,
>> > > Andrew Kraft
>> > > --
>> > > Andrew Q. Kraft, MAIP
>> > > Executive Director, Association of Internet Professionals (AIP)
>> > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > Phone: 310-724-6589
>> > > More Info: http://www.association.org/
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
--
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "It's all just marketing" +1 (613) 473-1719
Maitland House, Bannockburn, Ontario, CANADA, K0K 1Y0
