hahaha
well it looks like jimi & mmvi have both been canned
from borderpoint
tho it is unclear yet whether it was for taste or
content or behaviour

or hopefully some combination of all 3

but here below
following the automatic notification
is the rejected post
so you can be the judge

be aware tho
any multipointing implications in all this are purely
incidental
& would only involve the terminal tripoints of this
new eez boundary in any case
with everyones land in both cases

dkelnon & dkelnos respectively
from top to bottom

farewell & best wishes to all there

& thanx to all here for being here in any case

--- Yahoo! Groups <notify@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Date: 21 Feb 2006 22:10:56 -0000
> To: jimvandura@...
> From: Yahoo! Groups <notify@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Unable to deliver your message
>
>
> We are unable to deliver the message from
> <jimvandura@...>
> to <borderpoint@yahoogroups.com>.
>
> The email address used to send your message is not
> subscribed to this
> group. If you are a member of this group, please be
> aware that you may
> only send messages to this group using the email
> address(es) you have
> registered with Yahoo! Groups. Yahoo! Groups allows
> you to send messages
> using the email address you originally used to
> register, or an alternate
> email address you specify in your personal settings.
>
> If you would like to subscribe to this group:
> 1. visit
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/borderpoint/join
> -OR-
> 2. send email to
> borderpoint-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> For further assistance, please visit
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/
> > Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:10:55 -0800 (PST)
> From: jim van dura <jimvandura@...>
> Subject: Re: [borderpoint] Re: DKNO signed today
> To: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com

> Right, and by that definition the continental shelf
> includes the entire EEZ, so, generally, every UNLOS
> "continental shelf boundary" except an "extended"
> one
> is also an EEZ boundary. (Hence the distinction. And
> you are right about there being a very few slight
> and
> odd exceptions.) Nor, obviously, is this the natural
> continental shelf UNLOS is talking about here, since
> THAT begins at the shoreline and only occasionally
> extends 200nm seaward. In the present case, as
> Jesper's map further suggests by its blue-to-white
> coloration of the seas (and now Peter's too by its
> gold), the natural continental shelves have pretty
> much ended before either the EEZ boundary or the
> 200nm
> limits are reached in this area. (Also, I think it
> is
> clear that any earlier agreement is still in full
> effect unless specifically changed or revoked.)
> Cheers! --Jv
>
> --- Anton Zeilinger <anton_zeilinger@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear "Jim",
> >
> > yes, the inner "limit" of an "extended"
> continental
> > shelf is the 200
> > nm line. But according to Art 76 UNCLOS "the
> > continental shelf
> > comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine
> > areas that extend
> > beyond its territorial sea". Thus the continental
> > shelf extends from
> > the outer line of the territorial sea either to
> the
> > 200 nm or, if
> > the circumstances allow it, beyond that. Thus, up
> > until 200 nm both
> > the EEZ (if declared) and the CS exist parallel.
> >
> > One boundary can delimit both, or there can be
> > diverging lines (see
> > e.g. Australia/PNG in the Torres Strait) or just a
> > boundary for one
> > of the zones (see e.g. UK/France).
> >
> > Since the signatories to the 1920 convention have
> > fishing rights off
> > Svalbard/Spitsbergen, it is not unreasonable to
> > assume that they
> > might at least be consulted when there is some
> kind
> > of limitation or
> > delimitation of these rights.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Anton
> >
> >
> > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, jim van dura
> > <jimvandura@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi! As the map indicates the 200nm limits, this
> > could
> > > only be an EEZ boundary. (The inner limit of an
> > > extended continental shelf is the 200nm line
> which
> > > marks the outer edge of an EEZ. In areas like
> this
> > > where an EEZ is less than 200nm wide since it
> > > terminates at a boundary with another state,
> there
> > can
> > > be no extended continental shelf claim or
> > boundary.)
> > > And, the news report appears to indicate this
> was
> > > indeed a conventional (i.e., bilateral) "Law of
> > the
> > > Sea" agreement. (Nor can I think of any reason
> for
> > the
> > > other signatories of Spitsbergen 1920 to have
> > gotten
> > > involved with it.) Cheers! --Jimi
> > >
> > > --- Anton Zeilinger <anton_zeilinger@...>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Is this an EEZ or a Continental Shelf
> boundary?
> > Or
> > > > both?
> > > >
> > > > Do you know whether the signatories of the
> > > > Spitsbergen Treaty of
> > > > 1920 were involved in the negotiations in any
> > way?
> > > >
> > > > Of course, it is unclear whether the treaty
> > applies
> > > > to the EEZ and
> > > > CS as well (since it speaks only of fisheries
> > rights
> > > > in the
> > > > territorial sea), but a majority of scholars
> and
> > > > signatories appears
> > > > to support the notion that it does, as far as
> I
> > am
> > > > aware.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Anton
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Jesper
> > > > Nielsen/Borderbase"
> > > > <jesper@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Map:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

http://www.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/42AA838F-904E-46AD-AE2E-

> > > > 611A04922CF4/0/Kortski
> > > > > tseendelbilagtiloverenskomsten160106.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jesper
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Borderbase - your online guide to
> > international
> > > > borders and
> > > > tripoints

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com