Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #26
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, March 21 2000           Volume 01 : Number 026

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:15:45 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] You won't convince those not already convinced.

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BF9287.8BC1D700
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I gave up long ago trying to convince people about the validity of =
ADNS's ownership in EARTH, USA and Z. These people will never be =
convinced, so why waste=20
energy.=20

I concentrate on running my business and expanding the visibility of my =
top level domains as well as other ORSC domains. There is only so much =
time allotted for debate and then someone has to go and make something =
happen. I have chosen to make something happen, and so has Chris, I =
think

John
- -----
AGN Domain Name Service
http://www.adns.net
http://The.Earth
Get Your Website and Your Mind Out of the .COM Rut
Define Yourself or Be Defined.
Remember: ICANN really means "You cant!"

- ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BF9287.8BC1D700
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I gave up long ago trying to convince =
people about=20
the validity of ADNS's ownership in EARTH, USA and Z. These people will =
never be=20
convinced, so why waste </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>energy. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I concentrate on running my business =
and expanding=20
the visibility of my top level domains as well as other ORSC domains. =
There is=20
only so much time allotted for debate and then someone has to go and =
make=20
something happen. I have chosen to make something happen, and so has =
Chris, I=20
think</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>John</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>-----</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>AGN Domain Name Service</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://www.adns.net">http://www.adns.net</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://The.Earth">http://The.Earth</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Get Your Website and Your Mind Out of =
the .COM=20
Rut</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Define Yourself or Be =
Defined.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Remember: ICANN really means "You=20
cant!"</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BF9287.8BC1D700--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 23:23:47 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

Simon Higgs wrote:

>
>I was there. You weren't. You can say whatever you want. I'll stand by 
the 
>historical facts:
>
>In 1995/1996, IANA solicited new iTLD requests under the guidelines 
laid 
>out in RFC1591. IANA received many new iTLD applications and published 
the 
>results on the IAHC-discuss mailing list (archived at www.gtld-mou.org 
for 
>some inexplicable reason). At the same time, IANA started the process 
to 
>establish unquestionable authority to formally introduce new TLDs 
>(beginning with the "Postel drafts" and now under ICANN). The iTLD 
>applications received by IANA were printed out and placed in a file at 
IANA 
>(I've seen the file - it exists) pending the results of that process.
>
>And here we are.
>

I was not there, but I would like to comment anyhow on your passages 
above.

What strikes me is that, at the origin, we had a "simple" problem of 
enhancing the Domain Name space with the introduction of new gTLDs (or 
iTLDs, if you prefere).
We went through different efforts, committees of any sort, papers of 
different colours, even the attempt to define a new model for Internet 
Governance, but, as you well put it "and here we are", years later, with
 a lot of discussions, and maybe even results, but with the starting 
question about new gTLDs still unanswered.

Why?

Regards
Roberto
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:56:49 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] You won't convince those not already convinced.

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 20-Mar-2000 John Palmer wrote:
> I gave up long ago trying to convince people about the validity of ADNS's
> ownership in EARTH, USA and Z. These people will never be convinced, so why
> waste 
> energy. 

I have no problem with this position.  The problem comes when you may try to
assert rights to those strings in the root namespace, and there you simply have
no rights.

I can say I own any given thing, but that doesn't make my claims valid.

Too add to your subject line, "You won't convince those not already convinced
that anarchy reigns and we can do whatever we want."

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE41qyx8zLmV94Pz+IRAi9kAKDcl8+nAFpuZBKrkU5DT0vzWowq5wCg5Xkm
Vz9jhf612CuQub3wnFcbOWI=
=gviu
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:06:27 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: About .eu - Was: Re: [ga] Meeting on the creation of .EU TLD

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 20-Mar-2000 Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Also, about the status of the request for establishment of the 
> "official" IS0-3166-1 code, the Maintenance Agency has already notified 
> that they have no objection on the use of .eu as ccTLD, even if the code
>  is still formally in the reserved list (AFAIK).
> See also http://www.din.de/gremien/nas/nabd/iso3166ma/new02_00.html for 
> the official position of the ISO-3166/MA.
> 

Of course the Maintenance agency has no objection, its not a service they are
responsible for.  But the generally accepted rules of the ccTLD domains are
that the codes on the reserved list are not recognized for ccTLD purposes.  

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE41q7z8zLmV94Pz+IRAs8nAJ9X/xd0qsARntsXJt8E3TS8yVDk7gCfT53Q
mCEob0NqjtlTbMEkmbCwFbY=
=5n4a
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 100 17:34:37 -0400 (AST)
From: John Charles Broomfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: About .eu - Was: Re: [ga] Meeting on the creation of .EU TLD

William Walsh wrote:
> On 20-Mar-2000 Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > Also, about the status of the request for establishment of the 
> > "official" IS0-3166-1 code, the Maintenance Agency has already notified 
> > that they have no objection on the use of .eu as ccTLD, even if the code
> >  is still formally in the reserved list (AFAIK).
> > See also http://www.din.de/gremien/nas/nabd/iso3166ma/new02_00.html for 
> > the official position of the ISO-3166/MA.
> 
> Of course the Maintenance agency has no objection, its not a service they are
> responsible for.  But the generally accepted rules of the ccTLD domains are
> that the codes on the reserved list are not recognized for ccTLD purposes.  

I may be wrong, but I believe that Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Mann (.je,
.gg & .im respectively) are not in ISO-3166-1 but actually in the reserved
list. 243 ccTLDs according to the list at IANA. 239 codes in ISO-3166-1 (and
some of them not delegated (Western Sahara for example ".eh").
Reserved list delegation is not the case for the majority of ccTLDs, but it
wouldn't be the only case either.

Yours, John Broomfield.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:11:43 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: About .eu - Was: Re: [ga] Meeting on the creation of .EU TLD

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 20-Mar-2000 John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> I may be wrong, but I believe that Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Mann (.je,
> .gg & .im respectively) are not in ISO-3166-1 but actually in the reserved
> list. 243 ccTLDs according to the list at IANA. 239 codes in ISO-3166-1 (and
> some of them not delegated (Western Sahara for example ".eh").
> Reserved list delegation is not the case for the majority of ccTLDs, but it
> wouldn't be the only case either.

It is possible.  However, I do seem to remember that Jersey and Guernsey were
listed on the ISO-3166-1 at one point.  I certainly wish there was a better
source than the ISO on this, because their publication rules are stringent, and
make it hard to document changes in this document.  A revision history would
sure be handy right now.

Is it possible that they were removed from the list?  To my knowledge, IANA has
never removed a ccTLD for being removed from the ISO-3166-1 list, so please
educate me if this is not the case.

In otherwords, I am asking if it is possible that those codes occured on a
prior revision of the ISO-3166-1, delegated as ccTLDs, and then later moved to
the reserved list instead.   This is pure speculation, however.  I certainly
wish there was a more open standard in use than the ISO for these issues.

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE41r4/8zLmV94Pz+IRAjZxAKCIFfbRbzwMYVnU6/tF7P+bCiPRxQCfYV5W
RYrCwnEy1yWHmolZNHaUe10=
=OZfh
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 15:13:04 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Admin] Removal of posting rights for Joe Baptista

At 13:07 20.03.00 -0500, Joe Baptista posing as Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>It's time to go back to the old ways of doing business.  These rules are
>nothing more then horsehit for the horseshitters.
>
>I am a member here and I will not be silenced.

Joe Baptista has been given the choice between civility and silence on
this mailing list.
By not choosing civility, he has chosen silence.

Monitoring of messages that might be coming from Joe Baptista has been imposed.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause to others.

                     Harald T. Alvestrand

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:30:40 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

At 11:23 PM 3/20/00 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>Simon Higgs wrote:
> >I was there. You weren't. You can say whatever you want. I'll stand by
> >the historical facts:
> >
> >In 1995/1996, IANA solicited new iTLD requests under the guidelines
> >laid out in RFC1591. IANA received many new iTLD applications and published
> >the results on the IAHC-discuss mailing list (archived at www.gtld-mou.org
> >for some inexplicable reason). At the same time, IANA started the process
> >to establish unquestionable authority to formally introduce new TLDs
> >(beginning with the "Postel drafts" and now under ICANN). The iTLD
> >applications received by IANA were printed out and placed in a file at
> >IANA (I've seen the file - it exists) pending the results of that process.
> >
> >And here we are.
>
>I was not there, but I would like to comment anyhow on your passages
>above.
>
>What strikes me is that, at the origin, we had a "simple" problem of
>enhancing the Domain Name space with the introduction of new gTLDs (or
>iTLDs, if you prefere).
>We went through different efforts, committees of any sort, papers of
>different colours, even the attempt to define a new model for Internet
>Governance, but, as you well put it "and here we are", years later, with
>  a lot of discussions, and maybe even results, but with the starting
>question about new gTLDs still unanswered.
>
>Why?

You are absolutely correct in your observation. Unfortunately, to 
accurately answer your question will offend a lot of people as blame will 
be placed where it is due. I'm not sure ICANN is ready for that level of 
public scrutiny or accountability. Let me put my flame-proof suit on first. ;-)

Best Regards,

Simon

- --
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds 
discuss people, and Fools argue.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 09:10:04 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older registrations

At 12:16 PM 3/20/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

> > You can say whatever you want. I'll stand by the
> > historical facts:
> >
> > In 1995/1996, IANA solicited new iTLD requests under the guidelines laid
>                      *********
>Not fact.

Semantics. When two out of four IANA employees tell others to go ahead and 
submit an application, and even go so far as to tell them how to go about 
that process, even informally, I'd call that something "semantically 
similar" to a solicitation.

> > out in RFC1591. IANA received many new iTLD applications and published the
> > results on the IAHC-discuss mailing list (archived at www.gtld-mou.org for
> > some inexplicable reason).
>
>IANA published the collection of applications that people had sent in
>over a substantial period of time, whether on whim

Submissions started in response to this message from Jon Postel:

http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/1995q3/0233.html

Hardly a whim. And the period of time of submissions was exactly the length 
of time between the above message and the creation of the IAHC (when IANA 
published their list). This can be verified from the time stamps noted on 
the IANA list (9/14/95 through 11/28/96):

http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html

Best Regards,

Simon

- --
"Disraeli was pretty close: actually, there are Lies, Damn lies, Statistics,
Benchmarks, and Delivery dates."

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:26:01 -0500
From: Craig Simon <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older registrations

Simon Higgs wrote:
> 
> Submissions started in response to this message from Jon Postel:
> 
> http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/1995q3/0233.html

That doesn't make sense to me. Submissions started prior to that. In fact, the
first submission was from you (Simon Higgs), dated 14 Sept, and Postel's message
follows on the 18th, a few days later. 

It looks to me like Jon was signalling that he agreed with the idea of adding
new gTLDs, but that he wanted to work on establishing some formal way to mediate
the additions.

And it seems to me that the list he posted in December 1996 was primarily for
informational purposes at the inception of the IAHC deliberations. He repeats
the caveat about the "considerable possibility" that individual requests won't
be granted, but his attempt to show care that all submissions be properly
counted indicates that he was still open to the possibility that some would have
been. Note that there are no requests to describe or verify operational status
of the iTLDs, which nevertheless was part of the process he used for adding new
ccTLDs.

Craig Simon

> Hardly a whim. And the period of time of submissions was exactly the length
> of time between the above message and the creation of the IAHC (when IANA
> published their list). This can be verified from the time stamps noted on
> the IANA list (9/14/95 through 11/28/96):
> 
> http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:55:59 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older registrations

> Simon Higgs wrote:
> >
> > Submissions started in response to this message from Jon Postel:
> >
> > http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/1995q3/0233.html
>
> That doesn't make sense to me. Submissions started prior to that. In fact,
the
> first submission was from you (Simon Higgs), dated 14 Sept, and Postel's
message
> follows on the 18th, a few days later.

What Jon said in public and what he said in private are two different
things. Often,
he would tell someone to do something to see how it went, and, upon seeing
that, he would say the same thing in public to encourage more.

> It looks to me like Jon was signalling that he agreed with the idea of
adding
> new gTLDs, but that he wanted to work on establishing some formal way to
mediate
> the additions.

Precisely. What Simon posted was the very beginning.

> And it seems to me that the list he posted in December 1996 was primarily
for
> informational purposes at the inception of the IAHC deliberations.

You would be amazed to find out what Jon intended the Ad-Hoc committee
to be. I am reminded of the words of Don Heath, when told that it was a good
thing that IANA's Ad-Hoc committee was being formed, who said, "Oh, no,
this isn't THAT Ad-Hoc committee."

The rest of the history we all know.

- --
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 100 14:09:45 -0400 (AST)
From: John Charles Broomfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older registrations

Simon Higgs wrote:
> At 12:16 PM 3/20/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > > You can say whatever you want. I'll stand by the
> > > historical facts:
> > > In 1995/1996, IANA solicited new iTLD requests under the guidelines laid
> >Not fact.
> Semantics. When two out of four IANA employees tell others to go ahead and 
> submit an application, and even go so far as to tell them how to go about 
> that process, even informally, I'd call that something "semantically 
> similar" to a solicitation.

If you ask how can you have an island given to you by the Government of
Malaysia, and there is no clear procedure and a Malaysian government official
tells you "send an application", you don't immediately presume that you will
be given an island or if you do you are very naive. Using the argument "as I
am naive, I deserve a TLD 5 years down the line" is humourous at least! :-)
Persistance is fine, but won't necessarily get you your demands just because
of consistent hammering them in.

> > > out in RFC1591. IANA received many new iTLD applications and published the
> > > results on the IAHC-discuss mailing list (archived at www.gtld-mou.org for
> > > some inexplicable reason).
> >IANA published the collection of applications that people had sent in
> >over a substantial period of time, whether on whim
> Submissions started in response to this message from Jon Postel:
> http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/1995q3/0233.html

Which reads:
- ---
Hi.

The IANA is seriously considering the creation of a few new top level
domains and the allocation of these to new registration service
centers. It is important to do this thoughtfully. It will be helpful
to carefully consider the criteria for selecting these new registration
service centers and the requirements they should meet in providing the
service.

- --jon.
- ---

Resumed (for the mentally challenged): "IANA hears people saying "more TLDs",
how should it be done?"

> Hardly a whim. And the period of time of submissions was exactly the length 
> of time between the above message and the creation of the IAHC (when IANA 
> published their list). This can be verified from the time stamps noted on 
> the IANA list (9/14/95 through 11/28/96):
> http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html

A few (naive?) people decided to interpret the Mon, 18 Sep 1995 message from
Jon as "applications for TLDs will be processed on a FCFS basis as of now,
so go ahead and send in the applications". As quite a few people though that
there was a nice gravy train to be had should someone be so naive as to
throw TLDs in the air for anyone to catch, the result is that IANA *did* in
fact receive a large number of applications (many of them conflicting, like
multiple applications for ".web"). IANA published the list of the requests,
and seeing that it wasn't such a straight forward task as could have
initially be thought, it created a task force to evalue how to proceed
(IAHC). The findings of the IAHC were attacked from two important sides:
those who saw they werene't going to get a TLD assigned on a
no-questions-asked-and-you-do-whatever-you-want-with-it basis; and from the
IP trademark community who felt more TLDs means more trouble.

So:
Mon, 18 Sep 1995 Jon Postel asks "what shall we do?"
There follows a bunch of "I want a TLD!!!" applications.
Thu,  5 Dec 1996 Jon Postel states "Here is a preliminary summary of the file
  of messages, including domain name registration forms, received by the IANA
  since Septermber 1995." and lists those applications. He states in the same
  message that "In most cases if a reply was sent at all it said something
  like:(...) There is some considerable possibility that this particular
  request will not be granted (in simple words -- don't plan on it)."
The phrase <<(in simple words -- don't plan on it)>> is part of the original
message of Jon Postel (including the brackets). It is NOT some comment added
at a later date. I don't think it can be any clearer.
Because of the questions surrounding how to go forward with the addition of
more TLDs (highlighted by all the controversy before during and after), the
IAHC was created. The rest is more recent (and better documented) history.

All those who operate alternative/rogue roots/TLDs and state that "IANA told
me I could" had a clear and concise message from Jon Postel. If they sent an
application for a TLD to IANA they either had no response (which certainly
does NOT give an indication that it is being dealt with) or they got a
message saying amongst other things "...There is some considerable
possibility that this particular request will not be granted (in simple 
words -- don't plan on it)." . 

Sorry, no biscuit.

Yours, John Broomfield.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:54:47 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older registrations

The problem is that the WIPO people are trying to get registrars to be
enforcement arms for their members. This is the crux of the problem.

In the publishing world, as long as a publication does not have a history of
being a trandemark/copyright referee, they let trademark holders
duke it out with advertisers. If someone places an ad which is a copyright
violation or mis-uses someone else's service or trademark, the courts
don't hold the publication responsible for this, but the person/company
placing the ads. Now WIPO has hijacked the DNS in order to "draft" it
into being their strong arm.

The topic of trademarks has NO business being mixed in the the DNS debates -
trademark disputes are between holders and those they accuse of
violating their trademarks.

This is not to be confused with the rights of someone to own a domain,
including top-level domains. ADNS owns the top level domains USA, EARTH
and Z because were first to use them and first to apply for them (Postel's
list is evidence of this which is admissible in court).

What happened with the simple concept of adding new gTLDs was that it was
hijacked by WIPO and those interested in obtaining power and
prestige by having control over the whole system.

Thats why ADNS got out of the debate and decided to take action on its own
like others. We will defend our intellectual property if someone tries to
steal it, however.

John
AGN Domain Name Service, Inc.
http://www.adns.net
http://The.Earth
Get Your Mind and Your Website out of the .COM Rut.
Define Yourself or Be Defined!
Remember: ICANN really means "You Can't"

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:30 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

> At 11:23 PM 3/20/00 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> >Simon Higgs wrote:
> > >I was there. You weren't. You can say whatever you want. I'll stand by
> > >the historical facts:
> > >
> > >In 1995/1996, IANA solicited new iTLD requests under the guidelines
> > >laid out in RFC1591. IANA received many new iTLD applications and
published
> > >the results on the IAHC-discuss mailing list (archived at
www.gtld-mou.org
> > >for some inexplicable reason). At the same time, IANA started the
process
> > >to establish unquestionable authority to formally introduce new TLDs
> > >(beginning with the "Postel drafts" and now under ICANN). The iTLD
> > >applications received by IANA were printed out and placed in a file at
> > >IANA (I've seen the file - it exists) pending the results of that
process.
> > >
> > >And here we are.
> >
> >I was not there, but I would like to comment anyhow on your passages
> >above.
> >
> >What strikes me is that, at the origin, we had a "simple" problem of
> >enhancing the Domain Name space with the introduction of new gTLDs (or
> >iTLDs, if you prefere).
> >We went through different efforts, committees of any sort, papers of
> >different colours, even the attempt to define a new model for Internet
> >Governance, but, as you well put it "and here we are", years later, with
> >  a lot of discussions, and maybe even results, but with the starting
> >question about new gTLDs still unanswered.
> >
> >Why?
>
> You are absolutely correct in your observation. Unfortunately, to
> accurately answer your question will offend a lot of people as blame will
> be placed where it is due. I'm not sure ICANN is ready for that level of
> public scrutiny or accountability. Let me put my flame-proof suit on
first. ;-)
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Simon
>
> --
> Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds
> discuss people, and Fools argue.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:55:52 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older registrations

> > Semantics. When two out of four IANA employees tell others to go ahead
and
> > submit an application, and even go so far as to tell them how to go
about
> > that process, even informally, I'd call that something "semantically
> > similar" to a solicitation.
>
> If you ask how can you have an island given to you by the Government of
> Malaysia, and there is no clear procedure and a Malaysian government
official
> tells you "send an application", you don't immediately presume that you
will
> be given an island or if you do you are very naive.

But if the government official also has said, in public, "we're working on
the
procedure for giving away islands, here is a draft, please work on it with
us, and also, if you could swim out to the island that you want and build
a city, that might show us how it would work. Naturally, if you build the
city, and it works, that would be the island that this process would grant
you."

- --
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 100 14:30:16 -0400 (AST)
From: John Charles Broomfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ISO-3166-1 and reserved codes

Hi,
	Something that may clarify the questions surrounding addition or not
of TLDs from the reserved list. A message from the late Jon Postel himself.

Yours, John Broomfield.

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country Code TLDs

     Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:45:59 -0800 
     From: [email-masked] (Jon Postel) 
     Subject: Country Code TLDs 

Hello:

As a point of clarification, here is the IANA's statement about country
code top level domain names.

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        The codes we use are those from the ISO 3166 standard.

        A country must recognised as such by the ISO (or by the UPU);
        the code used must be the ISO-3166 code (or if there is no code
        in the Standard, then the code used should be that which is
        reserved in the ISO-3166 Reserved Code Elements list as a UPU
        code).

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The effect of the extra stuff about allowing as a TLD something that is
both a ISO-3166 Reserved Code Element and a UPU code is to add 4
possibilities:

        AC = Ascension Island
        GG = Guernsey
        IM = Isle of Man
        JE = Jersey

This small extension of the rules by the IANA seemed to greatly offend
a very few people, and seemed to be no big deal to many others.  A key
point to keep in mind is that the IANA did not choose the codes or make
up the list, it extended the set of allowed codes to another list
provided by the ISO 3166 maintenance agency.

- --jon.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:24:29 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older registrations

At 02:26 PM 3/21/00 -0500, Craig Simon wrote:
>Simon Higgs wrote:
> >
> > Submissions started in response to this message from Jon Postel:
> >
> > http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/1995q3/0233.html
>
>
>That doesn't make sense to me. Submissions started prior to that. In fact, the
>first submission was from you (Simon Higgs), dated 14 Sept, and Postel's 
>message
>follows on the 18th, a few days later.

I wondered who would notice. :-) I think a couple of folk were tipped off. 
I think I know how but I want to verify it first. I've been searching for 
the reference, but haven't found it yet.

>It looks to me like Jon was signalling that he agreed with the idea of adding
>new gTLDs, but that he wanted to work on establishing some formal way to 
>mediate
>the additions.

Correct.

>And it seems to me that the list he posted in December 1996 was primarily for
>informational purposes at the inception of the IAHC deliberations. He repeats
>the caveat about the "considerable possibility" that individual requests won't
>be granted, but his attempt to show care that all submissions be properly
>counted indicates that he was still open to the possibility that some 
>would have
>been.

Note that nearly all requests come from an individual who is the request 
contact person. This makes the statement moot without the rest of the 
application information to determine who is a company and who is an individual.

>Note that there are no requests to describe or verify operational status
>of the iTLDs, which nevertheless was part of the process he used for 
>adding new
>ccTLDs.

Actually there were, but not in that message. The operational verification 
information was to be evaluated in the registry application process.

Best Regards,

Simon

- --
The bandwidth is out there...

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 100 15:01:07 -0400 (AST)
From: John Charles Broomfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older registrations

> > > Semantics. When two out of four IANA employees tell others to go ahead and
> > > submit an application, and even go so far as to tell them how to go about
> > > that process, even informally, I'd call that something "semantically
> > > similar" to a solicitation.
> >
> > If you ask how can you have an island given to you by the Government of
> > Malaysia, and there is no clear procedure and a Malaysian government official
> > tells you "send an application", you don't immediately presume that you will
> > be given an island or if you do you are very naive.
> 
> But if the government official also has said, in public, "we're working on the
> procedure for giving away islands, here is a draft, please work on it with
> us, and also, if you could swim out to the island that you want and build
> a city, that might show us how it would work. Naturally, if you build the
> city, and it works, that would be the island that this process would grant
> you."
> 
> --
> Christopher Ambler
> [email-masked]

Anyone for ".atlantis"?

Yours, John Broomfield.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #26
***********************