Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #100
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Saturday, July 8 2000            Volume 01 : Number 100

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 07:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] last word on .earth, .usa, and .z

John,

On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, John Palmer wrote:

> ON THE EVE OF YOKOHAMA - A RADIO AD CAMPAIGN WARNING INTERNET 
> USERS ABOUT THE DAMAGE THAT ICANN WILL DO IF IT STAYS ON ITS 
> PRESENT COURSE

[snip]

> 
> Palmer also announced today that ADNS's  root nameserver, ASLAN, a member 
> of the Open Root Server Consortium, received 763,311 hits in June - an 
> increase of over 40% over May. 
> 

763,311 queries per month is equlivant to about 1 query every 2 seconds.
one ICANN root server does 9,000 queries per second sustained. in one
month an ICANN root server averages 23,328,000,000 queries. Mr palmers
servers serves 0.0032720% of the number of queries an ICANN root server
does.

I hope we all can now better understand just what visibility and
penitration the .earth, .usa, and .z  are getting into the greater
internet.

If Mr Palmer wishes to publish his zones I'm sure we can make better
estimates but with out them we can only compare his rogue zones
with the information he has provided.

best regards,

- -rick

- --
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: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:35:46 -0400 (AST)
From: John Charles Broomfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] last word on .earth, .usa, and .z

Rick Wesson wrote:
> John,
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, John Palmer wrote:
> [snip]
> > Palmer also announced today that ADNS's  root nameserver, ASLAN, a member 
> > of the Open Root Server Consortium, received 763,311 hits in June - an 
> > increase of over 40% over May. 
> 763,311 queries per month is equlivant to about 1 query every 2 seconds.
> one ICANN root server does 9,000 queries per second sustained. in one
> month an ICANN root server averages 23,328,000,000 queries. Mr palmers
> servers serves 0.0032720% of the number of queries an ICANN root server
> does.

Actually less than that... It's 1 query every 3.3 seconds on average. A lot
of which I would presume are from Mr. Palmers own machines. Would be nice to
see how many average-Joe internet users (or even ISPs) are using that server.
And when you see that the average query to an ICANN root server comes from a
main resolver of an ISP or organisation, and that the average query to a
non-ICANN root server *PROBABLY* comes from an individual user, you see that
the stats look even worse for the alternative RSCs.

Now, don't get me wrong, I believe that the existance of alternative RSCs is
a VERY good thing, as it obliges the ICANN RSC to be fair, useful and
competent. The pathetic stats that all the alternative RSCs are showing just
indicate that they are all doing a lousy job. It would be *probably* even
better if some alternative RSC were to turn up and actually gain public
acceptance. For the time being that is not happening and the ICANN RSC is
all we have (realistically speaking).

> I hope we all can now better understand just what visibility and
> penitration the .earth, .usa, and .z  are getting into the greater
> internet.
> 
> If Mr Palmer wishes to publish his zones I'm sure we can make better
> estimates but with out them we can only compare his rogue zones
> with the information he has provided.

Agreed.
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: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:38:52 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] last word on .earth, .usa, and .z

> Rick H Wesson: Friday, July 07, 2000 7:25 AM

> If Mr Palmer wishes to publish his zones I'm sure we can make
better
> estimates but with out them we can only compare his rogue zones
> with the information he has provided.

You know, you're as bad as D'Crock. PgMedia is rogue, ORSC isn't.
If you don't know what I'm talking about you can go to the
archives from just a few weeks ago.

<flame>
In the mean-time, you are only showing what sort of bigoted
sumbitch/a**hole you are. Do yourself a favor and quit
mis-applying the rogue label. It only makes you look like more of
a fool than you are. Then you could maybe learn some social
skills, maybe folks will be more forthcoming with information.
Also, you could possibly learn to be a little more open minded,
in order to convince folks that you are not a complete idiot.

Quit being the belligerent a**hole and someone *might* take you
seriously. You can also learn to do some of your own homework
'stead of bitching at hard-working folks for not doing it for
you.

Also, you shouldn't advertise so loudly that you don't have a
clue.
</flame>

If you want to play lumber-jack then you should learn to carry
your own end of the log, before bitching at others for how they
carry theirs.

- --
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: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:13:40 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] last word on .earth, .usa, and .z

On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 08:38:52AM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> <flame>
> In the mean-time, you are only showing what sort of bigoted
> sumbitch/a**hole you are. Do yourself a favor and quit
  ****************

I wish to formally request that Mr Meyer be removed from the GA list for 
a time, as our list rules indicate.

- -- 
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: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:38:02 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] last word on .earth, .usa, and .z

My apologies to the list, that was supposed to be a direct reply,
not list fodder.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Kent
> Crispin
> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 9:14 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] last word on .earth, .usa, and .z
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 08:38:52AM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer
wrote:
> > <flame>
> > In the mean-time, you are only showing what sort of bigoted
> > sumbitch/a**hole you are. Do yourself a favor and quit
>   ****************
>
> I wish to formally request that Mr Meyer be removed from the
> GA list for
> a time, as our list rules indicate.
>
> --
> 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

- --
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: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 13:42:12 -0400
From: George Kougias <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] last word on .earth, .usa, and .z

My only question is why do people post such insults to the list, If you
have a problem, why not send email privately, discussions of
disagreements are finefor the group, actually probably very good, as
they spur thoughts which may not otherwise be exposed, but the blatent
insulting manner of such a post (and there seems to be quite a few) is ,
in my opinion, un-needed.

Sincerely
George Kougias

"Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote:

> <flame>
> In the mean-time, you are only showing what sort of bigoted
> sumbitch/a**hole you are. ......

<snip>

- --
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: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 20:11:50 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Names Council Yokohama Meeting on 14 July 2000 - agenda

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

[ from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000714.NCyokohama-agenda.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

        DNSO Names Council Yokohama Meeting on 14 July 2000 - agenda
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 July 2000

Date, time and webcast

  1. The DNSO Names Council meeting in Yokohama will be held on 14 July
     2000, 13:00 - 17:00, [@ Yokohama Pacifico, Main Hall] .

     (21:00 Los Angeles former day, 00:00 New York, 04:00 UTC, 06:00 CET,
      14:00 Melbourne)
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         Local time between April 2nd and October, 2000.
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         04:00
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         California, USA                            UTC-8+1DST  21:00 July 13th
         Missouri, USA                              UTC-6+1DST  22:00 July 13th
         Washington DC, USA                   (EDT) UTC-5+1DST  22:00 July 13th
         Santiago, Chile                            UTC-4+0DST  22:00 July 13th
         Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST  23:00 July 13th
         Nouakchott, Mauritania                     UTC+0+0DST   4:00
         Dublin, Ireland                            UTC+0+1DST   5:00
         Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+1DST   6:00
         Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+1DST   6:00
         Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+1DST   6:00
         Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+1DST   6:00
         Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  13:00
         Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST  13:00
         Melbourne, Australia                      UTC+10+0DST  14:00
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

  2. The NC will be webcast by Berkman Center, thanks to Ben Edelman
     [email-masked]

     Access will be via http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/ as
     usual.
     Requires RealPlayer 5.0 or later and a 14.4Kbps or faster modem.

Agenda

  1. Roll call & announcement of Proxies

  2. Review & Adoption of minutes of previous meetings

  3. Discussion & Establishment of Proposed Intake Committee

  4. DNSO ICANN board representative upcoming nominations & election

  5. Reports and updates from ICANN Staff

  6. Establishment of a committee to review DNSO & its functions

  7. Updates on WG-D & E

  8. Discussion of WG-C 6 principles

  9. Budget Update & Discussion (i.e. resources available to DNSO)

 10. Developing Countries & Regions perspectives on the DNSO

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

                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

- --
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: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] last word on .earth, .usa, and .z

Roeland,

On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> PgMedia is rogue, ORSC isn't.
> If you don't know what I'm talking about you can go to the
> archives from just a few weeks ago.

I apply the term rogue to any organization that premotes the sale of 
DNS labels that are not in the ICANN root.

I believe ORSC, PgMedia (name.space) and AURSC all fall into this
category. I also find the sale of iDNS names premature because so few
implementations interoplate and they too are not in the ICANN root.

- -rick

- --
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: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:26:50 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] last word on .earth, .usa, and .z

That is mis-application of the worst sort. See the archives.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 11:20 AM
> To: Roeland M.J. Meyer
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] last word on .earth, .usa, and .z
>
>
>
> Roeland,
>
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>
> > PgMedia is rogue, ORSC isn't.
> > If you don't know what I'm talking about you can go to the
> > archives from just a few weeks ago.
>
> I apply the term rogue to any organization that premotes the
sale of
> DNS labels that are not in the ICANN root.
>
> I believe ORSC, PgMedia (name.space) and AURSC all fall into
this
> category. I also find the sale of iDNS names premature because
so few
> implementations interoplate and they too are not in the ICANN
root.
>
> -rick
>
>
>

- --
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: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] last word on .earth, .usa, and .z

Roeland,

I've read the archives for years, and a review of the April GA archives
does refrence the term "rogue" several times. 

It has been along time since postel made his "draft" and thats just waht
it was a DRAFT. Can we move on now? The folks that tried to create their
own roots (pgmedia, ORSC et. al.) tried, just like the IAHC tried, they
both failed for a verity of reasons.

If we could just move forwards insted of back, forget greed [of money and
power] for just a moment, maybe we could may have the oppertunity to
review the issues at hand. We are close to defining a process for the
additions of new gTLDs should we ignore the oppertunity?

- -rick

On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> That is mis-application of the worst sort. See the archives.
> 

- --
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: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 13:39:52 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Another senseless rejection of the pioneering work of Jon Postel (was RE: [ga] last word on .earth, .usa, and .z)

At 11:19 AM 7/7/00 -0700, Rick H Wesson wrote:
>On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>
> > PgMedia is rogue, ORSC isn't.
> > If you don't know what I'm talking about you can go to the
> > archives from just a few weeks ago.
>
>I apply the term rogue to any organization that premotes the sale of
>DNS labels that are not in the ICANN root.

So...

...you reject, as "rogue", the experimental iTLD work of Jon Postel and 
IANA prior to the IAHC formation, correct?

...you reject, as "rogue", the IANA guidance from 1995 and 1996 (including 
legal disclaimers provided by IANA to non-IANA-root registries) which 
established the early registry pioneers, correct?

You get flamed for good reasons, Rick.

Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

- --
It's a feature not a bug...

- --
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: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 14:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Another senseless rejection of the pioneering work of Jon  Postel (was RE: [ga] last word on .earth, .usa, and .z)

Simon,

in 1994 through 1996 the IANA guidance was experemental, and the IAHC came
out of all that. I have alot of respect for the folks that tried to move
things allong, that had no interntion to use the corts or had the grand
desire of wealth. I don't think the iTLD movements are applicable 4 to 6
years later, not internet-years (remember the term?) regular years!

This is the year 2000, we should have setteled all those issues along time
ago. Its all history if we can just move on now, please ?!?

this is NOW, not 1995. we need one root and we need those same folks that
wanted new gTLD back in 1995 to realize that it took along time and the
Internet is not the same as it ws back then. I wish you would realize we
are finally comming up to a real chance to get additional gTLDs inserted
into the IANA roots. 

Don't you remember how all this started?

- -rick

On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Simon Higgs wrote:

> At 11:19 AM 7/7/00 -0700, Rick H Wesson wrote:
> >On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >
> > > PgMedia is rogue, ORSC isn't.
> > > If you don't know what I'm talking about you can go to the
> > > archives from just a few weeks ago.
> >
> >I apply the term rogue to any organization that premotes the sale of
> >DNS labels that are not in the ICANN root.
> 
> So...
> 
> ...you reject, as "rogue", the experimental iTLD work of Jon Postel and 
> IANA prior to the IAHC formation, correct?
> 
> ...you reject, as "rogue", the IANA guidance from 1995 and 1996 (including 
> legal disclaimers provided by IANA to non-IANA-root registries) which 
> established the early registry pioneers, correct?
> 
> You get flamed for good reasons, Rick.
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Simon Higgs
> 
> --
> It's a feature not a bug...
> 

- --
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: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 14:12:21 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Another senseless rejection of the pioneering work of Jon  Postel(was RE: [ga] last word on .earth, .usa, and .z)

I think that we both do and it is NOT helped by your inflammatory
behavior.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 2:00 PM
> To: Simon Higgs
> Cc: [email-masked]; Roeland M.J. Meyer
> Subject: Re: Another senseless rejection of the pioneering work
of Jon
> Postel(was RE: [ga] last word on .earth, .usa, and .z)
>
>
>
> Simon,
>
> in 1994 through 1996 the IANA guidance was experemental, and
> the IAHC came
> out of all that. I have alot of respect for the folks that
> tried to move
> things allong, that had no interntion to use the corts or had
> the grand
> desire of wealth. I don't think the iTLD movements are
> applicable 4 to 6
> years later, not internet-years (remember the term?) regular
years!
>
> This is the year 2000, we should have setteled all those
> issues along time
> ago. Its all history if we can just move on now, please ?!?
>
> this is NOW, not 1995. we need one root and we need those
> same folks that
> wanted new gTLD back in 1995 to realize that it took along
> time and the
> Internet is not the same as it ws back then. I wish you would
> realize we
> are finally comming up to a real chance to get additional
> gTLDs inserted
> into the IANA roots.
>
> Don't you remember how all this started?
>
>
> -rick
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Simon Higgs wrote:
>
> > At 11:19 AM 7/7/00 -0700, Rick H Wesson wrote:
> > >On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > >
> > > > PgMedia is rogue, ORSC isn't.
> > > > If you don't know what I'm talking about you can go to
the
> > > > archives from just a few weeks ago.
> > >
> > >I apply the term rogue to any organization that premotes
> the sale of
> > >DNS labels that are not in the ICANN root.
> >
> > So...
> >
> > ...you reject, as "rogue", the experimental iTLD work of
> Jon Postel and
> > IANA prior to the IAHC formation, correct?
> >
> > ...you reject, as "rogue", the IANA guidance from 1995 and
> 1996 (including
> > legal disclaimers provided by IANA to non-IANA-root
> registries) which
> > established the early registry pioneers, correct?
> >
> > You get flamed for good reasons, Rick.
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Simon Higgs
> >
> > --
> > It's a feature not a bug...
> >

- --
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: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 14:25:50 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] last word on .earth, .usa, and .z

Hello John,

Friday, July 07, 2000, 8:35:46 AM, you wrote:

> Now, don't get me wrong, I believe that the existance of alternative RSCs is
> a VERY good thing, as it obliges the ICANN RSC to be fair, useful and
> competent. The pathetic stats that all the alternative RSCs are showing just

You give ICANN way more credit than it deserves.  There is nothing
fair, useful, and competent about ICANN.  Nothing at all.  Indeed, the
only thing they have been competent about is pandering to special
interests.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 14:27:54 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] last word on .earth, .usa, and .z

Hello Roeland,

Friday, July 07, 2000, 8:38:52 AM, you wrote:

>> Rick H Wesson: Friday, July 07, 2000 7:25 AM

>> If Mr Palmer wishes to publish his zones I'm sure we can make
> better
>> estimates but with out them we can only compare his rogue zones
>> with the information he has provided.

> You know, you're as bad as D'Crock. PgMedia is rogue, ORSC isn't.
> If you don't know what I'm talking about you can go to the
> archives from just a few weeks ago.

No, they are all rogue.  Rogue RSC or rogue registry, they are still
rogue.

> <flame>
> In the mean-time, you are only showing what sort of bigoted
> sumbitch/a**hole you are. Do yourself a favor and quit
> mis-applying the rogue label. It only makes you look like more of
> a fool than you are.

The rogue label is one of the few things Rick got right.

> Then you could maybe learn some social
> skills, maybe folks will be more forthcoming with information.
> Also, you could possibly learn to be a little more open minded,
> in order to convince folks that you are not a complete idiot.

Open minded is being defined as friendly to Rogue Registry positions?

Me thinks thou protest too much.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:59:24 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Another senseless rejection of the pioneering work of Jon Postel

At 02:00 PM 7/7/00 -0700, Rick H Wesson wrote:

You have caused an immense disservice to ICANN in the past 24 hours, and 
you've been called on it by a number of people. They may not have been 
polite or righteous, but they were ultimately responding to your mistrust 
and dishonesty.

>in 1994 through 1996 the IANA guidance was experemental, and the IAHC came
>out of all that.

The IAHC rejected the prior IANA work and got sued (IOD). Then the DoC, 
recognizing the inequity the IAHC had created in the process, stepped in 
and invalidated the IAHC and tore up the gTLD-MoU. Remember? NSI and IANA 
got sued again (PGPMedia) and IANA gave it's discretional authority back to 
the DoC to avoid litigation. The result (more than I have time to write 
here) was the DoC creating ICANN out of the ashes of IANA, and the root 
zone landing in the hands of the DoC.

The experimental process IANA started still exists, and has not been 
invalidated by law, due process, or business model (in fact it works 
exactly as John Gilmore describes "to route around censorship"). It has 
worked alongside the DoC both formally (in response to the Green and White 
papers) and informally.

FYI, the experimental process still carries the 5 non-conflicting IAHC 
TLDs, and therefore attempts to protect the end consumer who registered 
domain names under the CORE registry. The very things you accuse the 
pioneers of are the reasons why the CORE registry has failed so far.

>I have alot of respect for the folks that tried to move
>things allong, that had no interntion to use the corts or had the grand
>desire of wealth.

Why don't I believe you? Your impression of motives is twisted like all the 
other CORE folks. What you are telling me is only you can be right, and 
everyone else is wrong. That's not good enough for an open process. You've 
criminalized the early pioneers for what? Being first? Working with IANA 
and being productive?

Tell me, why are those pioneers still standing, working together 
co-operatively with a comprehensive, non-conflicting root system which 
resolves for those who want to see them, when the IAHC and gTLD-MoU was 
shut down by the US Government and marked as a failure? Even the pioneers 
still recognize the rules established by Jon Postel and carry the five 
non-conflicting IAHC/CORE TLDs - in spite of the aggressive lies and false 
accusations made against them by CORE members.

Are we seeing a pattern develop here over the last 6 years? Do you see who 
is really cooperating, and who is politiking and only serving special 
interests?

>I don't think the iTLD movements are applicable 4 to 6
>years later, not internet-years (remember the term?) regular years!

That's where you are wrong. They are more important now than ever. Why? 
Because ICANN has the opportunity:

1. to learn how to introduce new TLDs from those who have already done it
2. to honour those who have followed the rules in the prior processes
3. to be fair and impartial and recognize *all* TLD requests per RFC1591. 
Not just some of them. (RFC1591 is mandated under US Code by the NSF)
4. to show proper leadership in internet governance

Failure in any one of those is failure over all. Remember ICANN cannot 
afford to fail. So ignoring the lessons from the past is your wise counsel? 
I think not. It is inherently irresponsible and stupid.

>This is the year 2000, we should have setteled all those issues along time
>ago. Its all history if we can just move on now, please ?!?

But they haven't been settled. Have they? They've been shoved under the 
carpet, ignored, ridiculed, poked fun at, and lied about. So much for an 
open and equitable process.

>this is NOW, not 1995. we need one root and we need those same folks that
>wanted new gTLD back in 1995 to realize that it took along time and the
>Internet is not the same as it ws back then.

One root. I can buy that. I only use one root. ;-)

The Internet's not the same as it was in 1995. I can buy that. ;-)

So what?

The principles people like Jon Postel established are as valid today as 
they were back then, and should not be taken for granted, ignored, or 
diluted - which is what you are doing.

>I wish you would realize we
>are finally comming up to a real chance to get additional gTLDs inserted
>into the IANA roots.

Yes, and? We should throw justice and openness away in order to put new 
TLDs in the root? You'd rather sell out your soul for a new TLD? I think not.

New TLDs are inevitable. They won't happen until a just process ("equitable 
to all parties" per RFC1591) puts them there. Now could be the time for 
that process if ICANN doesn't get distracted by special interests, pride, 
egos, or sheer bloody mindedness.

If you want to help, please clean up the mess you have created over the 
last 24 hours. Everyone has been more than willing to help you. You treat 
them badly, and act surprised when they get upset at you. Read the man 
pages for dig and nslookup.

>Don't you remember how all this started?

Yeah, I do. I was the first non-ccTLD applicant to IANA. Before newdom. So, 
how about putting the last six years in proper perspective and let us 
finish what we started, which was the orderly introduction of new TLDs to 
the IANA root? If you get in the way of that, to serve your own interests, 
you are an obstacle to the whole process.

And, you'll love this... You want the alt.roots to go away? I know how to 
shut them down all down and make them obsolete. You don't know how to do 
that. If you did, you wouldn't be causing so much bad blood over trivial 
issues like zone transfers.

>-rick
>
>On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Simon Higgs wrote:
>
> > At 11:19 AM 7/7/00 -0700, Rick H Wesson wrote:
> > >On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > >
> > > > PgMedia is rogue, ORSC isn't.
> > > > If you don't know what I'm talking about you can go to the
> > > > archives from just a few weeks ago.
> > >
> > >I apply the term rogue to any organization that premotes the sale of
> > >DNS labels that are not in the ICANN root.
> >
> > So...
> >
> > ...you reject, as "rogue", the experimental iTLD work of Jon Postel and
> > IANA prior to the IAHC formation, correct?
> >
> > ...you reject, as "rogue", the IANA guidance from 1995 and 1996 (including
> > legal disclaimers provided by IANA to non-IANA-root registries) which
> > established the early registry pioneers, correct?
> >
> > You get flamed for good reasons, Rick.
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Simon Higgs
> >
> > --
> > It's a feature not a bug...
> >

Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

- --
It's a feature not a bug...

- --
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: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 22:46:49 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Another senseless rejection of the pioneering work of  JonPostel

Simon Higgs wrote:

> >in 1994 through 1996 the IANA guidance was experemental, and the IAHC came
> >out of all that.
> 
> The IAHC rejected the prior IANA work and got sued (IOD). Then the DoC,
> recognizing the inequity the IAHC had created in the process, stepped in
> and invalidated the IAHC and tore up the gTLD-MoU. Remember? NSI and IANA
> got sued again (PGPMedia) and IANA gave it's discretional authority back to
> the DoC to avoid litigation. The result (more than I have time to write
> here) was the DoC creating ICANN out of the ashes of IANA, and the root
> zone landing in the hands of the DoC.

I'm coming late to all this. I do know what IANA and NSI are, and have
some clue how DNS works, but I've never heard of IAHC or the lawsuits.
Is there a web site somewhere that will bring me up to date, preferably
without having to read several years of archived posts.
 
> The experimental process IANA started still exists, and has not been
> invalidated by law, due process, or business model (in fact it works
> exactly as John Gilmore describes "to route around censorship"). It has
> worked alongside the DoC both formally (in response to the Green and White
> papers) and informally.

Anyone got a URL for those?
- --
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: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 20:18:22 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Another senseless rejection of the pioneering work of Jon Postel

On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 05:59:24PM -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
> At 02:00 PM 7/7/00 -0700, Rick H Wesson wrote:
> 
> You have caused an immense disservice to ICANN in the past 24 hours,

Eh?

> and 
> you've been called on it by a number of people. They may not have been 
> polite or righteous, but they were ultimately responding to your mistrust 
> and dishonesty.
> 
> >in 1994 through 1996 the IANA guidance was experemental, and the IAHC came
> >out of all that.
> 
> The IAHC rejected the prior IANA work and got sued (IOD).

Suit thrown out.

> Then the DoC, 
> recognizing the inequity the IAHC had created in the process, stepped in 
> and invalidated the IAHC and tore up the gTLD-MoU. Remember? NSI and IANA 
> got sued again (PGPMedia)

Lost.

> and IANA gave it's discretional authority back to 
> the DoC to avoid litigation. The result (more than I have time to write 
> here)

Pity.  Your fantasies are so entertaining.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #100
************************