Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #47
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, April 3 2000            Volume 01 : Number 047

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

Date: Sun, 2 Apr 100 10:14:25 -0400 (AST)
From: John Charles Broomfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: ADNS NEWSLETTER: ASLAN SERVER VISIBILITY JUMPS BY 54%

Hi Roeland,
	You didn't understand what I was getting at apparently. I agree
completely with you that the CPU-power you need currently is very low. What
I was saying is that ORSC as it stands today is not handling more than a
completely marginal proportion of internet traffic (probably less than
0.01% of legacy IANA traffic), so for all practical purposes it just doesn;t
exist. The problem of having enough CPU or not just doesn't come into it.

So this lovely newletter stating over half a million hits in one month is
really an attempt of glorifying something that doesn't need to be glorified.
Your servers may be able to handle all the load you want. I'm not arguing
about that. What I *am* arguing is that you don't have any load at all
because (in all practical senses) nobody is using you. From the perspective
of the size of the internet, a mere 500K uses in one month works out to one
use every 5 seconds, which means that nobody uses you or has heard about
you. For all I care, you may have a Beowolf linux cluster of 5000 alpha-500
boxes and have ten units like that spread over the world making you the most
impressive computing facility alive, and would never have a CPU problem in
this matter. Unfortunately it would all be a wasted effort (for the moment).
Please do inform us when you get something like a million hits per DAY. (How
many users on the 'net today? aprox 200 million some say? Even if you get
just ONE hit per month per person, that would be 200 million hits... -yes
oversimplification because of cache etc, but you get the idea-)
The LARGEST rogue^H^H^H^H^Halternative root system out there NEEDS less than
64Kb of bandwidth to run and that's an overkill.
Your 500K hits in one month work out to one hit every 5 secs aprox. Lets say
that 200 bytes are exchanged in each hit (I'm being extremely exagerated
there), that means you are consuming an average of 40bytes per second, in
other words (because of CRC etc) lets say around 400 bits/second. So, in
fact, you don't even need a 64Kb link. You just need a 0.4Kb link. You could
run your current server over a 1200baud modem (over a 300baud you would
probably saturate, but as I've estimated on the higher side, it *might* just
work). So, run it now on a 300 baud modem, check the bandwidth saturation
and if it proves to be too bad, you can migrate to a 1200 baud modem to have
mode than enough bandwidth spare. Hmmm then again that would make your
latency pretty bad, so maybe (if you have the cash to spare) a 9600baud
modem would really eliminate all your latency/bandwidth problems, and at
your current rate of growth shoul allow you another couple of years. Yes,
very relevant I don't think. You're a technical minded guy. Care to indicate
where I've made a mistake?
As far as an excel sheet to backup the above analysis, sorry I don't use
excel to do 2+2 type equations.
So, as you see, there is no FUD, apart from that put out by ORSC trying to
disguise a 300baud-modem system as something that is currently handling
traffic in a major way. I am *NOT* disputing the fact that you MIGHT be able
to handle it. What I'm saying is that the effort as-is today is completely
irrelevant (from the figures you give.

Yours, John Broomfield.

P.S.
/whine on
I *wish* I had 2 E1's. I only have one (E1=2Mb bandwidth). It's a standard
leased circuit, not SDSL. And it costs aprox 240Kff per month (around US$35K).
And I can't colocate out of here, because I need to get the bandwidth from
the 'net to my customers (who ARE local). If you're wondering why it's so
expensive, it's because we're located in Guadeloupe -Caribbean-. Bandwidth
to under-developed areas and third world countries is EXTREMELY expensive
because of monopolistic structuring of the local telcos (you don't even have
to go that far, just ask how much a 2Mb link costs between London and Paris,
and you will see the advantages of breaking up the national telco as they
did in US).

> > Behalf Of John Charles Broomfield
> > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 3:44 PM
> >
> > Hi all,
> > 	Apart from the fact that it's just a shameless plug,
> > I'd like to put it into perspective.
> >
> > (...)
> > > 1. Visibility of ORSC Top-Level domains jumps 54% in March
> > (...)
> > > VISIBILITY OF ORSC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS JUMPS 54% IN MARCH
> > > The results are in and they show that the number of hits on ADNS's
> > > root server / resolver ASLAN.OPEN-RSC.ORG jumped in March
> > to 530,634 hits
> > > compared to 353,000 in February. This is an increase of over 54%.
> >
> > /flame on heat-level=nova
> 
> Really? This sounds like FUD to me ...
> 
> > This means that on average, it was getting around 1 hit every
> > 5 seconds.
> > Note that if I look at the hits that *my* main resolver gets (the main
> > resolver for an ISP with around 3500 dialup customers, and a
> > bunch of hosted
> > sites, but with a total outbound connectivity of 2Mb which is
> > not full -ie a VERY small ISP by todays standards-) it's aproximately 5
> > times that (one hit per second aprox).
> 
> Okay, you have a pair of E1's ... I believe that matches the smallest system
> feeding alternate roots, but they're a pair of SDSL lines (1.1 Mbps each).
> 
> > My system services 3500+ customers. ORSC roots are trying to
> > indicate that
> > they are a RELEVANT alternative to the legacy IANA roots
> > (which serve for
> > all *practical* purposes ALL of the internet).
> > If someone can post the hits per second of the legacy IANA
> > roots, it would
> > put it even further in perspective, but I suspect that the
> > ORSC is something
> > around 0.01% of hits at the VERY most. I don't call that
> > relevant. In fact I
> > call it totally IRRELEVANT.
> 
> As pointed out before, the DNS is a very light load. Even a K6-200 can
> handle multiple hits per second and a dual PIII-800 could probably handle
> the entire Internet, with all zones local. But, if one really feels like
> spending money, a VALinux Cluster City would handle all possible loads, with
> one gig-ether NIC
> disconnected.<http://www.valinux.com/systems/clustercity.html>
> 
> > /flame off
> >
> > A burning commentary, but true nevertheless.
> 
> I'd like to see a capacity analysis supporting your statement. An Excel
> spreadsheet would be fine. I you have a problem with MS products, xspread is
> also useable. Even my esteemed opponent, Kent Crispin, agrees that you don't
> need a big box for DNS. What you need is decent pipes and, with DSL and
> whatnot, those are getting cheaper every day. (Covad SDSL [1.1 Mbps] is
> $348US per month, retail. [Sorry John, I know what those E1's are costing
> you]).
> 
> I suspect that in the process of building such an analysis (which you
> clearly haven't done) you will come to the realization that making such
> claims, in an audience containing folks who do that sort of thing, as part
> of their livelyhood, is more than slightly risk-prone. The numbers had
> better be there, they had better be right, and you MUST show your work.
> Anything less is FUD.
> 
> BTW, didn't we go throught this effort on the IFWP list, or was it
> DOMAIN-POLICY.
> 
> --
> 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: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 13:33:57 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ADNS NEWSLETTER: ASLAN SERVER VISIBILITY JUMPS BY 54%

There is also one thing that you are forgetting. Because ADNS doesn't have
access to stats on other ORSC servers, we cannot provide
information about OTHER ORSC root servers.

The information (54%, etc) is about usage of ASLAN.OPEN-RSC.ORG only, not
about all of the servers. If you check the list of
root servers, you will see that ASLAN is down the list a bit. So, if you
look at the numbers we post as a complete view of ORSC
visibility, you are getting a major undercount on hits.

Remember - the stats are for ASLAN, not for all of ORSC. I don't know if the
other operators of ORSC servers keep stats.

John

- --
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: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 21:59:16 +0200
From: "Alf Hansen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

Roberto,

Well said. I really appreciate what you and others are doing (as
individuals) in order to try to create some structure into the DNSO.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Roberto
> Gaetano
> Sent: 2. april 2000 02:48
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......
>
.....
>
> It sure is a can-of-worms, but we should address the problem, anyhow.
>
> I do not mean to try to convince you, but I will just bring my own case.
>
> I am an ICANN At-Large member, like you, and particularly interested in
> DN issues (I am also interested in protocols, but that's another issue).
>
>
> I do not belong to any constituency, for the simple reason that my
> (daylight) job is with a company that does not have, at this point in
> time, a direct interest in my participation in this process.
> Therefore, I am participating as an individual (i.e. on my own time and
> expenses) in said (I was about to mispell "said" in "sad") process.
>
> Is there a Constituency for Internet Users that want to have a say in
> the process? No, up to now. The only possibility is the GA.
> Why not the At-Large? Because it is simply unknown, for the time being,
> what the @Large will be.
> And even if, why should my specific interest as a DNS user be diluted in
>  a more general group like the @Large? Why should I have a forum to
> discuss my opinions about protocols in the IETF, but not have a forum to
>  discuss my opinions about the DNS? Would you abolish the IETF and
> suggest that everybody be just "At Large ICANN Member"? Of course not
> (and I will concede that the example is not completely fit, but you
> should concede that there are some similarities).
>
> As a bottom line, I think that the individual that does not have a
> "professional" involvment, in the sense that he/she does not have a firm
>  that sponsors his/her trips and activities in the Internet, still has
> something to contribute to this process, and that it will be a gross
> mistake not to listen to him/her and to take his/her POV into account if
>  we want to build a really global model.
>
> The GA, as it looks now, is the only forum in which the lay[wo]men can
> get together and talk about their hobby, and their needs as users.
>

I see your point. But. The "power" of IETF is that they have a scaleable
process on how to start and finish focused WGs, in several Areas. Anyone can
participate, and if someone wants to destroy the process, he can try to do
that in one or two WGs, but it is "impossible" to jam the whole structure.

I am afraid that if we allow anyone with a DNS hobby in one way or another,
or, allow any individual (perhaps a 0.0x % of them wants to destroy the
process) to use the DNSO GA for their individual purpose, there will be
chaos. Unless the DNSO has a focused, self-regulatory structure like the
IETF.

Basicly, I think you are right, there are individuals who are needed in the
DNSO GA. The procedure for "consensus building" of the DNSO has to be
strengthened, and I think the enforced rules for this list is a step in the
right direction.

If formal voting is a part of the "consensus building" process of the DNSO
GA, it is my opinion that for the time being, that only member organizations
should be allowed to vote, according to the membership database.

> Incidentally, in my programme before elections, this is what I put in
> light, and this is what I still maintain is my first priority.
>
>
> Regards
> Roberto

Best regards,
Alf H
.NO

- --
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: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 15:23:49 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

Peter and all assembly members,

  If by the term "Consensus" on these matters regarding TLD's
that are already running on some number of ISP's I would have to
say given the off the cuff number of ISP's you mention, that some form
of "Consensus" is already determined.

  On the other hand in order to determine if a "Real Consensus" is
so, we the stakeholders need to have a VOTE to determine that
"Real Consensus" is met.

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Re: The press release: "ADNS NEWSLETTER: ASLAN SERVER VISIBILITY JUMPS..."
>
> Perhaps a bit pushy- however...
>
> I feel there is some merit in considering the past work in alternative or
> 'additional' TLDs. There is a thin line between what 'might' have been
> experiments in the true 'RFC' sense of consensus formation, regarding
> insertion of new TLDs, and some of the almost 'Pirate like' underground
> activities that developed around 'Alternic' and other groups.
>
> If, for example, there was a root server in switzerland, called 'Z', and it
> contained 'alternative', 'enhanced' 'additional' TLD's, and 1000 or so of
> the worlds major ISP's updated their DNS cache from it, there 'might' be
> enough consensus to make the new TLDs 'valid enough'.
>
> The point I am making is, with consensus, anything can happen.
>
> With enough consensus, new TLDs can be inserted into the 'A' root server as
> well.
>
> Perhaps we can measure our success here in the GA, and in ICANN in general,
> by the speed with which we can form consensus.
>
> Since we have this forum, why not see if we can increase our speed of
> consensus formation WRT new TLDs? And if some of those potential new TLDs
> happen to be the ones in the 'alternative root' systems, would it matter?
>
> Peter de Blanc
> .VI Admin
>
> Simon Higgs wrote:
> >
> >
> >I'd also like to propose that the pre-IAHC work with IANA be recognized
> ,
> >and that an iTLD constituency be created. Constituents can from known
> >contributors to the Jon Postel new TLD/registry drafts, or other new
> >TLD/registry Internet Drafts published during 1996, or are named on the
>
> >iTLD applicant list that Jon Postel published on behalf of IANA to
> >iahc-discuss. The purpose of the iTLD Constituency is to create new
> >registries that will compete at the registry-level with NSI (currently
> no
> >competition exists for gTLDs or rTLDs at the registry-level).
> >
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 16:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

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

On 02-Apr-2000 John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> The Swedish government has just decided (in consultation or not, but that's
> another matter) how they want ".se" to be run. As the ".se" registry is a
> rather unique operation (business?), in that there are no other globally
> visible ccTLDs for Sweden being run in Sweden, *ANY* legislation written up
> in
> Sweden for the running of a TLD registry will be uniquely written for this
> one singular case. Saying "lets apply international law" is an over
> simplification and doesn't work unfortunately, so that can be left aside.
> So, the Swedish government has suddenly drafted/decided/decreed/published or
> whatever the rules on how ".se" is to be run. The *current* entity that runs
> ".se" is doing so from inside of Sweden, so obviously swedish law DOES apply
> to them. From that point of view, whether you like it or not, whether you
> agree with the Swedish laws or not, they DO apply.

The government can surely pass a law through their legislative process.  No one
is disputing that, John, and I have always said that the legislative route is
the proper route for a government to take in the ccTLD policy area.

That is not what has happened here.  This is an executive edict, without force
of law.

> From RFC-1591 we have:

The problem with your quotes from RFC1591 is that they are not binding on the
delegation of the .SE top level domain.  RFC1591 is the "contract" between IANA
and most ccTLDs and the means of delegation.   The contract is the text of
RFC1591 at the time of delegation.   Later changes to the RFC1591 cannot be
binding on the ccTLD unless they further agree to these changes.

Furthermore, ccTLDs such as .SE that were delegated prior to the creation of
RFC1591 have no such binding agreement between then and IANA, their delegation
authority came without such restrictions.  If ICANN attempts to change that
now, without entering into a new contract in advance, they could really face
some strong liability.  

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
http://userfriendly.com/
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/

iD8DBQE459qA8zLmV94Pz+IRAoyHAJwPpKy05l40dxZrsDgqMY5SwX8e3ACfY8/n
yqUPIt8ia8kV0eF8BDPTxxs=
=Tshe
- -----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: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 22:44:45 +0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

At 05:04 PM 4/1/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>You're the one who insinuated that he represented NSF. You're
>the one with the claim to back up, not me.

Chris,

Please stay focussed. You made a claim:

At 10:41 AM 4/1/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>Strawn's participation on the IAHC was specifically disclaimed by
>the NSF as being Strawn's personal participation and having no
>bearing on the NSF in any way.

Note the "specifically disavowed".

When, where and how did NSF "specifically disavow" Strawn's participation?

Please provide documentation for the claim.

Absent such documentation, the presumption is that NSF did NOT make the 
statement that YOU claimed.

(Other presumptions ensure, but they are left to the imagination of the 
reader.)

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

- --
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: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 18:25:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

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

On 02-Apr-2000 Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 05:04 PM 4/1/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>>You're the one who insinuated that he represented NSF. You're
>>the one with the claim to back up, not me.
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Please stay focussed. You made a claim:

Actually you made the claim that his work was an effective endorsement of the
IAHC process by the NSF.  This was a bogus claim
 
> At 10:41 AM 4/1/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>>Strawn's participation on the IAHC was specifically disclaimed by
>>the NSF as being Strawn's personal participation and having no
>>bearing on the NSF in any way.
> 
> Note the "specifically disavowed".

Actually it was disclaimed, but then you seem to have a problem with details
anyway.
 
> When, where and how did NSF "specifically disavow" Strawn's participation?

http://www.fnc.gov/

Is that sufficent?   There is more if you want it.
 
> Please provide documentation for the claim.
> 
> Absent such documentation, the presumption is that NSF did NOT make the 
> statement that YOU claimed.
> 
> (Other presumptions ensure, but they are left to the imagination of the 
> reader.)

Ah yes, that standard you apply to assertions of others than you don't apply to
assertions made by yourself.

Face it, Dave, you're wrong.

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
http://userfriendly.com/
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/

iD8DBQE45/L38zLmV94Pz+IRAkl4AKDjLGPdNzg/dBGcIssmxM9D+mG8fwCfce5l
5CH3vf1odIdl9o8Fh0OoOlE=
=wx9T
- -----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: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 18:30:41 -0700
From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

Only membership orgs, eh? What about corporations, thery are legally orgs,
yet have no rolls.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Alf
> Hansen
> Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2000 12:59 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......
>
>
> Roberto,
>
> Well said. I really appreciate what you and others are doing (as
> individuals) in order to try to create some structure into the DNSO.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
> Of Roberto
> > Gaetano
> > Sent: 2. april 2000 02:48
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......
> >
> .....
> >
> > It sure is a can-of-worms, but we should address the
> problem, anyhow.
> >
> > I do not mean to try to convince you, but I will just bring
> my own case.
> >
> > I am an ICANN At-Large member, like you, and particularly
> interested in
> > DN issues (I am also interested in protocols, but that's
> another issue).
> >
> >
> > I do not belong to any constituency, for the simple reason that my
> > (daylight) job is with a company that does not have, at
> this point in
> > time, a direct interest in my participation in this process.
> > Therefore, I am participating as an individual (i.e. on my
> own time and
> > expenses) in said (I was about to mispell "said" in "sad") process.
> >
> > Is there a Constituency for Internet Users that want to
> have a say in
> > the process? No, up to now. The only possibility is the GA.
> > Why not the At-Large? Because it is simply unknown, for the
> time being,
> > what the @Large will be.
> > And even if, why should my specific interest as a DNS user
> be diluted in
> >  a more general group like the @Large? Why should I have a forum to
> > discuss my opinions about protocols in the IETF, but not
> have a forum to
> >  discuss my opinions about the DNS? Would you abolish the IETF and
> > suggest that everybody be just "At Large ICANN Member"? Of
> course not
> > (and I will concede that the example is not completely fit, but you
> > should concede that there are some similarities).
> >
> > As a bottom line, I think that the individual that does not have a
> > "professional" involvment, in the sense that he/she does
> not have a firm
> >  that sponsors his/her trips and activities in the
> Internet, still has
> > something to contribute to this process, and that it will be a gross
> > mistake not to listen to him/her and to take his/her POV
> into account if
> >  we want to build a really global model.
> >
> > The GA, as it looks now, is the only forum in which the
> lay[wo]men can
> > get together and talk about their hobby, and their needs as users.
> >
>
> I see your point. But. The "power" of IETF is that they have
> a scaleable
> process on how to start and finish focused WGs, in several
> Areas. Anyone can
> participate, and if someone wants to destroy the process, he
> can try to do
> that in one or two WGs, but it is "impossible" to jam the
> whole structure.
>
> I am afraid that if we allow anyone with a DNS hobby in one
> way or another,
> or, allow any individual (perhaps a 0.0x % of them wants to
> destroy the
> process) to use the DNSO GA for their individual purpose,
> there will be
> chaos. Unless the DNSO has a focused, self-regulatory
> structure like the
> IETF.
>
> Basicly, I think you are right, there are individuals who are
> needed in the
> DNSO GA. The procedure for "consensus building" of the DNSO has to be
> strengthened, and I think the enforced rules for this list is
> a step in the
> right direction.
>
> If formal voting is a part of the "consensus building"
> process of the DNSO
> GA, it is my opinion that for the time being, that only
> member organizations
> should be allowed to vote, according to the membership database.
>
> > Incidentally, in my programme before elections, this is
> what I put in
> > light, and this is what I still maintain is my first priority.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Roberto
>
> Best regards,
> Alf H
> .NO
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 18:33:13 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 04:40:49PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
[...]
> 
> That is not what has happened here.  This is an executive edict, without force
> of law.

How do you know that an executive edict doesn't have the force of law in
Sweden? They do in the US.  In fact, could you explain the relevance of
"the force of law" to this discussion? The rfcs don't say anything about
the "force of law" -- they just require that the responsible party for
the domain be in the territory in question.  The rfcs make no judgment 
as to what is "legitimate" force.

> 
> > From RFC-1591 we have:
> 
> The problem with your quotes from RFC1591 is that they are not binding on the
> delegation of the .SE top level domain.  RFC1591 is the "contract" between IANA
> and most ccTLDs and the means of delegation.   The contract is the text of
> RFC1591 at the time of delegation.   Later changes to the RFC1591 cannot be
> binding on the ccTLD unless they further agree to these changes.
> 
> Furthermore, ccTLDs such as .SE that were delegated prior to the creation of
> RFC1591 have no such binding agreement between then and IANA, their delegation
> authority came without such restrictions.  If ICANN attempts to change that
> now, without entering into a new contract in advance, they could really face
> some strong liability.  

Your experience as a lawyer is showing.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 18:53:21 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

I'm sorry, Dave, YOU stay focused. You made a claim that
Strawn's participation implied endorsement of the IAHC.
I believe I asked you to back that up, and I'm still waiting.

The IAHC process being rather well-dead, I really don't
much care. As to its left-over, CORE... well... that
seems to be taking care of itself.

- -- 
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: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 18:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

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

On 03-Apr-2000 Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 04:40:49PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> 
> [...]
>> 
>> That is not what has happened here.  This is an executive edict, without
>> force
>> of law.
> 
> How do you know that an executive edict doesn't have the force of law in
> Sweden? They do in the US.  In fact, could you explain the relevance of

No, they don't.  Only after legislation creating a structure of authority is
passed.  

> "the force of law" to this discussion? The rfcs don't say anything about
> the "force of law" -- they just require that the responsible party for
> the domain be in the territory in question.  The rfcs make no judgment 
> as to what is "legitimate" force.

Force of law is the ability of the government to force an organization to
conform to their requirements.  If an executive edict doesn't carry the force
of law, then there is no obligation on the part of the organization to adopt
the proposal from the govt.  Only if legislation creates such a means, can
those recommendations carry any force of law.  The RFCs are irrelevent for this
purpose, Kent.
 
>> 
>> > From RFC-1591 we have:
>> 
>> The problem with your quotes from RFC1591 is that they are not binding on
>> the
>> delegation of the .SE top level domain.  RFC1591 is the "contract" between
>> IANA
>> and most ccTLDs and the means of delegation.   The contract is the text of
>> RFC1591 at the time of delegation.   Later changes to the RFC1591 cannot be
>> binding on the ccTLD unless they further agree to these changes.
>> 
>> Furthermore, ccTLDs such as .SE that were delegated prior to the creation of
>> RFC1591 have no such binding agreement between then and IANA, their
>> delegation
>> authority came without such restrictions.  If ICANN attempts to change that
>> now, without entering into a new contract in advance, they could really face
>> some strong liability.  
> 
> Your experience as a lawyer is showing.

Actually, those weren't my conclusions, but the conclusions of an attorney when
these very issues were being discussed just after the creation of ICANN.  If
you have something to show the analysis as invalid, please, by all means,
present it.

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
http://userfriendly.com/
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/

iD8DBQE45/n18zLmV94Pz+IRAi9jAKCcuNEhbG+HfMgbKFQ2dbMAscGF6wCgizmC
gmgmmYvtK60S6KL1s8qZZVw=
=t+Y1
- -----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: Sun, 2 Apr 100 20:35:05 -0400 (AST)
From: John Charles Broomfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ADNS NEWSLETTER: ASLAN SERVER VISIBILITY JUMPS BY 54%

Oh wow, so the ASLAN server could run off a 300 baud modem, and possibly
other servers would be able to run through a 1200 baud modem? Is this what
you're trying to say? That maybe a server of the ORSC cluster actually is
0.02% relevant instead of 0.01% relevant?
No problem. I accept that the rest of the servers have 10 times the
relevance of the ASLAN server (10 times non relevant probably stays
non-relevant).
Yours, John Broomfield.

> There is also one thing that you are forgetting. Because ADNS doesn't have
> access to stats on other ORSC servers, we cannot provide
> information about OTHER ORSC root servers.
> 
> The information (54%, etc) is about usage of ASLAN.OPEN-RSC.ORG only, not
> about all of the servers. If you check the list of
> root servers, you will see that ASLAN is down the list a bit. So, if you
> look at the numbers we post as a complete view of ORSC
> visibility, you are getting a major undercount on hits.
> 
> Remember - the stats are for ASLAN, not for all of ORSC. I don't know if the
> other operators of ORSC servers keep stats.
> 
> John
> 
> --
> 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: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 22:02:13 +0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

Chris,

At 10:41 AM 4/1/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>Strawn's participation on the IAHC was specifically disclaimed by
>the NSF as being Strawn's personal participation and having no
>bearing on the NSF in any way.

So, no documentation is forthcoming which indicates specifically where and 
when NSF "specifically disclaimed" Strawn's participation?

In other words, NSF did NOT make the disclaimer.

It was just wishful thinking, creative interpretation, overstatement of the 
facts, or...?

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

- --
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, 3 Apr 2000 08:16:24 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

The link was posted by someone else.

Now it's your turn. Please provide documentation that
Strawn's participation endorsed the IAHC (remember,
that dead effort).

- --
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 7:02 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

Chris,

At 10:41 AM 4/1/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>Strawn's participation on the IAHC was specifically disclaimed by
>the NSF as being Strawn's personal participation and having no
>bearing on the NSF in any way.

So, no documentation is forthcoming which indicates specifically where and
when NSF "specifically disclaimed" Strawn's participation?

In other words, NSF did NOT make the disclaimer.

It was just wishful thinking, creative interpretation, overstatement of the
facts, or...?

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

- --
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 #47
***********************