From nlockett at Sidley.com Thu Oct 1 14:34:07 1998 From: nlockett at Sidley.com (Lockett, Nick) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 07:34:07 -0500 Subject: FW: Public trust & IANA? Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > Sent: 01 October 1998 13:17 > To: 'govt-role at worldnames.net' > Subject: RE: Public trust & IANA? > > > > If IANA has made secret rule changes without going through the same > process of rule-making consensus as 1591 did, then whoever makes these > secret rule changes is working in breach of the public trust. > > > If acting in breach of trust the actions are probably void, I wonder > whether the public trust status may mean that the beneficiaries can > enforce local law? > > Does that breach also mean that IANA are open to a challenge that they are > unfit under RFC 1591?? > > Does that breach carry over with the obligations and liabilities > transferred to IANA2?? > > > Regards > Nick Lockett > E-Mail: > Private E-mail: > This message is the personal opinion of Nick Lockett. Where this message > contains legal issues, then no liability is accepted. -------- Logged at Thu Oct 1 17:13:09 MET DST 1998 --------- From nlockett at Sidley.com Thu Oct 1 15:04:20 1998 From: nlockett at Sidley.com (Lockett, Nick) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 08:04:20 -0500 Subject: Public trust & IANA? - monopolistic rule-making Message-ID: QUOTE: Section 3. NOTICE AND COMMENT PROVISIONS (b) Prior to adoption of any policies that substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third parties, the Board will: (i) provide public notice on the Web Site explaining what policies are being considered for adoption and why; (ii) provide a reasonable opportunity for parties to comment on the adoption of the proposed policies, to see the comments of others, and to reply to those comments; and (iii) after a reasonable comment period, take action on the proposed policies, establishing an effective date, and publishing the reasons for the action taken. UNQUOTE Which appears to mean: (i)We will tell you what we intend to do (ii) We will seek your comments (iii) after a reasonable comment period, we will do as we choose - regardless of our obligation to act in public trust function, your comments and our pre-existing obligations. Shouldn't iii) have something built in about requiring a majority of Registrars to expressly consent or not more than 5 registrars to object or similar. IANA still appear to be ignoring the fact that their authority to act is only by consensus and constrained by public trust functions. Where pre-existing rules have operated they appear to have obtained the status of contractual terms and those terms could only be changed by consent. Nick Lockett E-Mail: Private E-mail: This message is the personal opinion of Nick Lockett -no liability is accepted -------- Logged at Fri Oct 2 14:59:37 MET DST 1998 --------- From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Oct 1 21:19:08 1998 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 14:19:08 -0500 Subject: the free market decides (was Re: Registrars) Message-ID: <321e01bded70$629cb880$059f20cf@webster.unir.net> -----Original Message----- From: Kent Crispin > >> When you start a business, you may choose from >> one of many TLDs. You can choose a ccTLD (which, I might note, >> nobody is calling monopolies. Funny, that). > >ccTLDs *are* monopolies, but they are controlled by governments. >[In fact, a reasonable definition of a government is an entity with a >monopoly on force.] > Kent, It might be useful if you refresh everyone's memory about who your employer is. Are you still employed by the U.S. Government ? As for the so-called ccTLDs. Numerous examples have been cited to show that your above statement is not true. Two of the more high-profile examples are the .MQ and .GP TLDs, as well as the .FR TLD. It is now becoming clear that France does not control those TLDs. Sure, the French government wrote a paper about them, but people are thumbing their noses at the French government. Those TLDs remain. The flip side of this is the U.S. Government is trying to control .COM. People are thumbing their noses at that. If you had not noticed, there is a pattern here. TLDs are TLDs are TLDs. The people that control them all act the same way. Governments seem to have little or no impact. What use is it to continue to try to continue the myth that governments have control of the ccTLDs ? Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com 0:201 .COM http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt End-2-End: VPC(Java)----C+ at ------C+ at ----(Java)VPC http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Fri Oct 2 22:12:57 MET DST 1998 --------- From joao at ripe.net Fri Oct 2 22:12:08 1998 From: joao at ripe.net (Joao Luis Silva Damas) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 22:12:08 +0200 Subject: Default behaviour for referred domain queries In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:41:32 BST. <360B816C.9DC7E8F8@ucd.ie> References: <360B816C.9DC7E8F8@ucd.ie> Message-ID: <9810022012.AA11298@ncc.ripe.net> Hello, thanks for your input. I will summarize here the modifications to the initial proposal of the referral mechanism that were discussed during the Edinburgh meeting. In coincidence with your input, the db-wg also found that whenever the server shows data from a remote server instead of the local data in response to a query, the response should be preceded by a notice clearly informing the user that the information being displayed is coming from another server that contains the authoritative data. It was also noted that the original proposal did not provide a way to look at the "local" object if it contained a refer attribute. In order to avoid potential confusion from a mode of operation where two objects are displayed, it would be better to provide a whois flag (-R was agreed) that would disable the referral and show the local object. Whenever data from a remote server is displayed the full message from that machine will be displayed (including any copyright messages provided by the remote server). I think this satisfies all comments received. The DB group at the RIPE NCC is currently working according to this definition to get this feature fully implemented and tested in the RIPE DB within the next 3-4 weeks. I hope this implementation satisfies everyone. Regards, Joao Damas RIPE NCC -------- Logged at Mon Oct 5 13:48:08 MET DST 1998 --------- From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Oct 3 02:09:06 1998 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 19:09:06 -0500 Subject: 1:250 MQ (MARTINIQUE) Message-ID: <386f01bdee62$11f95300$059f20cf@webster.unir.net> -----Original Message----- From: Jay Fenello To: DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET Date: Friday, October 02, 1998 5:20 PM Subject: Re: the free market decides (was Re: Registrars) >At 11:43 AM 10/2/98 , John Charles Broomfield wrote: >>Would Jay Fenello accept to have Iperdome run by registrants of ".per" (ie, >>that ".per" registrants would be the shareholders of Iperdome and vote for >>the board etc...) Would IOD accept to be run by registrants of ".web"? No, >>didn't think so... > > >Hi John, > >Given the number of times you've been proven wrong >in this debate, don't you think you should at least >give people a chance to answer the questions you ask? > >As usual, you are WRONG again! > >I would certainly consider transforming Iperdome into >a membership organization for ".per" registrants. > Not only that...Jay has provide a list of 8 Trustees for the .PER TLD under the IPv8 Plan. Those Trustees are like the trustees of a public library. They make the decision about what "registry" operates the TLD for the SLD.TLD owners. Think of them as a POC for the TLD. John Broomfield has NOT done this for the .MQ or .GP TLDs. John Broomfield has stated that he does not want anyone looking over his shoulder for those TLDs. Now, he has the country of France publishing a paper that says those TLDs are being exploited. Why does a country think that .MQ and .GP are being exploited ? It is ironic that .MQ and .GP do not qualify for the IPv8 Plan because they do not have proper PUBLIC OVERSIGHT. John Broomfield claims that he wants TLDs to have public oversight. Why not appoint 8 Trustees for .GP and 8 for .MQ ? Maybe Annie Renard can be a Trustee for each of them. Maybe someone from the French government can be named. How about some more people from .MQ and .GP. Why is John Broomfield the only person pursuing the .MQ and .GP TLDs ?....and he does not even use those TLDs for e-mail and such. Hopefully, people in the G1 and G2 Regions will look into this. I am busy with G0, especially 0:201 .COM. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 1:250 MQ (MARTINIQUE) 2:82 GP (GUADELOUPE) Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)----C+ at ------C+ at ----(Java)VPC http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Oct 5 15:15:00 MET DST 1998 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Mon Oct 5 16:09:58 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 15:09:58 +0100 Subject: Default behaviour for referred domain queries In-Reply-To: <9810022012.AA11298@ncc.ripe.net> References: "25 Sep 1998 12:41:32 BST." <"360B816C.9DC7E8F8"@ucd.ie> Message-ID: <0F0C00GCPY0URF@hermes.ucd.ie> Looks good, Joao. Thanks. Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Mon Oct 5 20:11:23 MET DST 1998 --------- From jbroom at manta.outremer.com Mon Oct 5 21:19:03 1998 From: jbroom at manta.outremer.com (John Charles Broomfield) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:19:03 -0400 (AST) Subject: More mindless crap about IPv8 fantasies from Fleming (safe to ignore) (was 1:250 MQ (MARTINIQUE) In-Reply-To: <386f01bdee62$11f95300$059f20cf@webster.unir.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Oct 2, 98 07:09:06 pm Message-ID: <199810051919.PAA24210@manta.outremer.com> Hi Jim, Maybe we'll all be lucky when you finally one day notice that your plan is dead in the water. One of many flaws is to expect that everyone will follow a list in the order you have drawn it up. As you are so intent on noting the numbers in your plan for Guadeloupe and Martinique, I'll add a couple of notes to that. You keep saying that your plan means that TLDs with grouped interest will come together. However, directly you manage to: -put Guadeloupe in Group 1 (with both 2 letter and 3 letter codes) -put Martinique in Group 2 (" " ") -put France in Group 3 (" " ") -put France Metropolitan in Group 3 (" " ") -despite it not existing any longer in ISO-3166 -have an entry for ".Reunion" but no entry for ".RE" (despite being in ISO-3166) -have no entries for either ".pm" (St. Pierre & Michelon) nor ".yt" (Mayotte). (I note that ".re", ".pm" & ".yt" are all in the IANA root -although I also note that they are practically unused). I would imagine that all french territories would have common interests. Other discrepancies: Greenland is in Group 1 Denmark is in Group 3 Netherlands in Group 3 Netherlands Antilles in Group 2 Portugal in Group 3 Macao (".mo") is left out... UK in Group 3 Isle of Mann (".im) is left out... Jersey (".je") is left out... Guernsey surprisingly is in group 3 however. I've just found in two seconds 6 currently working TLDs left out, and I have NOT compared the current root to your list. Presumably more are missing. Even if it's only the 6 above, you've just swiped out 3% of existing TLDs. Nice. Of course that's only a VERY superficial look at the pipe-dream. If in what group you are is not so important, then why have groups at all. (What's the purpose of the plan then?) If in what group you are IS important, why is it so mixed up? Don't you think that people would fight over what group to be in? Everyone would want to be in the "nice" groups (like Group 0 with com, net, org , or maybe Group 1 with ".us", or maybe group 3 with the europeans). Make up your mind Jim, either Geograpolitical distribution matters or it doesn't. If it does, then why the discrepancies I've found in 2 seconds? If it doesn't then why have you lumped together com/net/org in one group, the euro's in another, north america in another... Also, don't you think it's a bit presumptious to lump in all the U.S. states in there? What about all the provinces of France for example? Where are all the regions of China? Your plan *might* be a good exercise in theory. Taking it to the practice and declaring yourself God as to how you create the groups is doing exactly what you criticise others: ie trying to create a system with no oversight. Yours, John Broomfield. (sick and tired of being mentioned by Jim Flemings pipe-dreams). Jim Fleming wrote: > >At 11:43 AM 10/2/98 , John Charles Broomfield wrote: > >>Would Jay Fenello accept to have Iperdome run by registrants of ".per" > (ie, > >>that ".per" registrants would be the shareholders of Iperdome and vote for > >>the board etc...) Would IOD accept to be run by registrants of ".web"? No, > >>didn't think so... > > > > > >Hi John, > > > >Given the number of times you've been proven wrong > >in this debate, don't you think you should at least > >give people a chance to answer the questions you ask? > > > >As usual, you are WRONG again! > > > >I would certainly consider transforming Iperdome into > >a membership organization for ".per" registrants. > > > > > Not only that...Jay has provide a list of 8 Trustees for > the .PER TLD under the IPv8 Plan. Those Trustees > are like the trustees of a public library. They make the > decision about what "registry" operates the TLD for > the SLD.TLD owners. Think of them as a POC for the > TLD. > > John Broomfield has NOT done this for the .MQ or .GP > TLDs. John Broomfield has stated that he does not want > anyone looking over his shoulder for those TLDs. Now, > he has the country of France publishing a paper that > says those TLDs are being exploited. Why does a country > think that .MQ and .GP are being exploited ? > > It is ironic that .MQ and .GP do not qualify for the IPv8 Plan > because they do not have proper PUBLIC OVERSIGHT. > John Broomfield claims that he wants TLDs to have public > oversight. Why not appoint 8 Trustees for .GP and 8 for > .MQ ? Maybe Annie Renard can be a Trustee for each of > them. Maybe someone from the French government can > be named. How about some more people from .MQ and > .GP. Why is John Broomfield the only person pursuing > the .MQ and .GP TLDs ?....and he does not even use > those TLDs for e-mail and such. > > Hopefully, people in the G1 and G2 Regions will look into this. > I am busy with G0, especially 0:201 .COM. > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > 1:250 MQ (MARTINIQUE) > 2:82 GP (GUADELOUPE) > > > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com > End-2-End: VPC(Java)----C+ at ------C+ at ----(Java)VPC > http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm > > > -- > DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to > To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY" > For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP" > -------- Logged at Tue Oct 6 12:35:39 MET DST 1998 --------- From mike.norris at heanet.ie Tue Oct 6 10:10:47 1998 From: mike.norris at heanet.ie (Mike Norris) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:10:47 +0100 Subject: Default behaviour for referred domain queries Message-ID: <01BDF109.34F4CCA0@pc19.heanet.ie> In coincidence with your input, the db-wg also found that whenever the server shows data from a remote server instead of the local data in response to a query, the response should be preceded by a notice clearly informing the user that the information being displayed is coming from another server that contains the authoritative data. Right. It was also noted that the original proposal did not provide a way to look at the "local" object if it contained a refer attribute. In order to avoid potential confusion from a mode of operation where two objects are displayed, it would be better to provide a whois flag (-R was agreed) that would disable the referral and show the local object. Bear in mind that there could be multiple referrals involved i.e. the process is recursive. Suppose the query is for a third-level domain, that the second-level domain is referred from the RIPE DB to a TLD registry server, and that the target domain is referred onward from the TLD server to an ISP's whois server. Now what will the -R flag deliver - the local object in the RIPE DB? That'll give you the coordinates of the TLD server, which you again query with -R to get the ISP 'local' object. Regards. Mike -------- Logged at Tue Oct 6 16:28:05 MET DST 1998 --------- From JimFleming at unir.com Tue Oct 6 16:14:11 1998 From: JimFleming at unir.com (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:14:11 -0500 Subject: 0:201 COM News Message-ID: <048701bdf133$a52a97a0$059f20cf@webster.unir.net> Richard, As people can see, the .COM TLD is no different from the other TLDs. Changes are made from time to time. Hopefully, these changes will continue and .COM will become free of the legacy Root Name Servers in the IPv4 address space. It looks like Network Solutions is starting to make some of the recommended changes. I think that we all knew that adult supervision would play more and more of a role in the management of TLDs. It is great to see that NSI is playing a leadership role and moving away from the legacy root "playground". While on the subject of .COM, it seems useful to review the .COM neighborhood or "neighbor net" from an IPv8 point of view. As you can see below, .COM is between a vacant seat 0:200 and the .ISLAND TLD 0:202. I have not been able to locate any Trustees for .ISLAND, but I have a feeling they are out there. The Trustees for 0:199, .LTD have been in communication so the neighborhood is taking shape. Hopefully, we can find a group to pick up the 0:200 seat and things will start to fill in and the base of contacts will grow. This will help to keep people informed about what the status is of the various TLDs (including .COM). http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 0:199 LTD 1. David Rogers - djrogers at enterprise.net 2. Jason Hendeles - jnh at skyscape.net 0:200 <<<<<< AVAILABLE >>>>> 1. __________________________ 2. __________________________ 0:201 COM 1. Jim Fleming - JimFleming at unir.com 2. Richard Sexton - richard at vrx.net 0:202 ISLAND 1. __________________________ 2. __________________________ Hopefully, the RSCs and the GRS people will pick up on the changes that NSI has described below. Also, I hope that NSI continues to make more changes. It is good to see that the .COM TLD is moving away from the legacy roots and taking shape. If we all work together using the neighbor net approach, we can keep each other informed of these changes. Then, if someone has a question, people can go to the people that have been providing stewardship for a particular TLD. We should keep in mind that root server operators (RSCs) do not generally pay much attention to the day to day issues of a particular TLD. They have to look at all of the TLDs. People should not be surprised that RSCs may not be the best source of info about a particular TLD. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com 0:201 .COM http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt >>To: dholtz at internic.net ("David H. Holtzman") >>cc: nanog at merit.edu >>Subject: open letter (Re: NSI Bulletin 098-013 | gtld server) >>From: Paul Vixie >>Date: 05 Oct 1998 22:25:50 -0700 >>Lines: 28 >>Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu >> >>I have three questions about: >> >>dholtz at internic.net ("David H. Holtzman") writes: >> >>> In a continuing effort to enhance service to the community, Network >>> Solutions has added another gTLD server, f.gtld-servers.net (207.159.77.18) >>> at PAIX, Palo Alto, CA. The server will be operation in the next couple of >>> days. This server will serve the .com, .net and .org domains only. >>> _____________________________________ >>> David H. Holtzman (dholtz at internic.net) >>> Sr Vice President of Engineering >>> Network Solutions, Inc. >> >>1. As the operator of F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET, which is also at PAIX, I'm >>curious to know whether your reselection of the letter "F" in your host's >>name indicates a relationship between your "F" and my "F"? >> >>2. In the past, changes in the COM delegation have been made via IANA. >>Since IANA was not involved in this announcement, should I interpret this >>as a unilateral move on NSI's part? >> >>3. Does NSI still think of COM, NET, and ORG as its intellectual property? >>And is this belief bolstered in some way by the ICANN announcements? >>-- >>Paul Vixie >>La Honda, CA "Many NANOG members have been around >> longer than most." --Jim Fleming >>pacbell!vixie!paul (An H.323 GateKeeper for the IPv8 Network) >-- -------- Logged at Wed Oct 7 01:07:40 MET DST 1998 --------- From jbroom at manta.outremer.com Wed Oct 7 02:15:19 1998 From: jbroom at manta.outremer.com (John Charles Broomfield) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:15:19 -0400 (AST) Subject: Joke from Jim Fleming (was: 0:201 COM News) In-Reply-To: <048701bdf133$a52a97a0$059f20cf@webster.unir.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Oct 6, 98 09:14:11 am Message-ID: <199810070015.UAA22331@manta.outremer.com> Hey, nice joke there Jim... So now YOU and Richard Sexton are the contacts for ".com" in your IPv8 pipedream? (...) > 0:201 COM > 1. Jim Fleming - JimFleming at unir.com > 2. Richard Sexton - richard at vrx.net (nicely cushioned between a non-existant domain and a non-existant domain, in other words with no oversight). You've REALLY lost it this time... Yours, John. -------- Logged at Wed Oct 7 09:02:52 MET DST 1998 --------- From JimFleming at unir.com Wed Oct 7 02:25:27 1998 From: JimFleming at unir.com (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 19:25:27 -0500 Subject: Joke from Jim Fleming (was: 0:201 COM News) Message-ID: <067601bdf189$026f3ce0$059f20cf@webster.unir.net> -----Original Message----- From: John Charles Broomfield To: Jim Fleming Cc: richard at vrx.net ; bhelfant at globecomm.com ; bobr at dprc.net ; at at ah.net ; orobles at nic.mx ; tld-wg at ripe.net ; jnh at skyscape.net ; phil at CHARON.MILEPOST.COM ; erony at marin.k12.ca.us ; Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net ; pgp at pgmedia.net ; jc.praud at ludexpress.com ; MarshM at diebold.com ; DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET ; djrogers at enterprise.net ; dstein at TRAVEL-NET.COM ; cgomes at internic.net ; chrisc at NETSOL.COM ; amr at chaos.com ; Jay at Iperdome.com ; ivan at NETNAMES.COM ; usdh at mailhub2.ncal.verio.com ; commerce at mail.house.gov ; com-priv at lists.psi.com ; lessig at law.harvard.edu ; mike.norris at heanet.ie ; mueller at syr.edu ; domain-policy at open-rsc.org Date: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 2:17 PM Subject: Joke from Jim Fleming (was: 0:201 COM News) > >Hey, nice joke there Jim... >So now YOU and Richard Sexton are the contacts for ".com" in your IPv8 >pipedream? >(...) >> 0:201 COM >> 1. Jim Fleming - JimFleming at unir.com >> 2. Richard Sexton - richard at vrx.net > John, As you should be aware, but apparently are not, the IPv8 Plan calls for 8 Trustees for each TLD. Only the top 2 Trustees are listed. The Trustees are arranged in a 2+2+4 structure. There are two leaders, 2 backup leaders and 4 support people. This helps to provide continuity. The 8 people decide who the 2 leaders are. We are trying to get the 8 leaders organized for .COM. If you are interested in that activity, let us know. Here is the form, that helps to show how the 8 people are structured in relation to each other. Keep in mind that these 8 people may not have anything to do with the registry operation or the registrars. They are the public oversight body for deciding what company is designated to do that, on behalf of the SLD owners who hopefully help to select the 8 Trustees. 5. ____________________ 3. ____________________ 6. ____________________ 1. ____________________ 2. ____________________ 7. ____________________ 4. ____________________ 8. ____________________ If you recall, you have consistently said that you do not want anyone looking over your shoulder as the Registry operator for the .MQ and .GP TLDs. You have also not been able to name 7 other people that help to provide public oversight for those TLDs. The Country of France has now announced that they want to end the "exploitation" of those TLDs. This may be because there is no public oversight. You might want to explain to everyone how you are governed by public oversight. Some people seem to miss it and you are always deflecting attention to other activities that are attempting to provide the oversight that people think is prudent. Why is that ? Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com 0:201 .COM http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt -------- Logged at Wed Oct 7 12:16:34 MET DST 1998 --------- From at at ah.net Wed Oct 7 11:18:39 1998 From: at at ah.net (Adam Todd) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 19:18:39 +1000 Subject: Fw: 3:242 ES (SPAIN) In-Reply-To: <"alpha.dante.:174380:980921154226"@dante.org.uk> References: <3.0.5.32.19980921114543.01895d20@mail.ah.local> <09f901bde4b4$191cb580$059f20cf@webster.unir.net> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19981007191839.01ddd620@mail.ah.local> >>The legacy TLD holders are mostly structued to make PROFIT. THe new TLD >>holders are structued to banish to profits of those Legacy Holders. >> > > legacy TLD holders was there for public interest. New candidates for >holding new TLDs are for profit. C'mon, in this sort of TLD-gold rush new Legacy TLD holders making profit: .AU .NZ .COM .NET .ORG .EDU .BG .PL .IO .TM .NL .CC .CD .AM excuse me for stopping short ... I got bored. The NSW Government Stole our AJ from his Mothers Nursing Arms. Now they won't apologise for the mistake. http://www.aj.inau.com/docs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Adam Todd Father of AJ - 6 Months Young (8/Oct/98) Stolen from my own Bedroom. Phone (intl) +61 2 9729 0565 (Australia) 02 9729 0565 Fax (intl) +61 2 4659 6786 (Australia) 02 4659 6786 Feel free to send faxes and make phone calls. We appreciate your support. -------- Logged at Tue Oct 20 16:38:32 MET DST 1998 --------- From Sean at Jackson.TC Tue Oct 20 12:45:01 1998 From: Sean at Jackson.TC (Sean Jackson) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:45:01 +0100 Subject: rfc 1591 Message-ID: <013901bdfc16$b1edbe70$0b0699c3@thorin.william.org> The managers of MS. VG, & TC consider its only reasonable that the terms of RFC 1591 are adhered to. It was the basis on which top level domains were founded. Any attempt by the United States government to alter this would need international agreement. God Bless You, Sean Sean Jackson, 3 Adams Road, Cambridge, CB3 9AD, United Kingdom. Tel: 01223 464 800 Fax: 0171 681 1268 -------- Logged at Fri Nov 6 08:56:56 MET 1998 ---------