Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #101
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Sunday, July 9 2000             Volume 01 : Number 101

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 20:33:55 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Another senseless rejection of the pioneering work of Jon  Postel

Hello Simon,

I won't respond to the rest of your diatribe, and if I said what I
really thought of your self serving manipulative email to Rick, I'd
probably get kicked off the list, no matter how accurage the comments
would be.  But I wanted to point one thing out.

Friday, July 07, 2000, 5:59:24 PM, you wrote:

> 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.

No, the Renegade Rogue registries (nearly all of whom do not have
operational registries) are working together for nothing more than
their own self interest in the hopes that they will be handed a gold
mind by nothing more than their own little claim that they wanted to
do this.

Spare us, Simon, you are wrong.

ICANN **will** ignore your claims, and as a result of your antics
justify not adopting a truly open process to create more gTLDs than
the mere token TLDs that will be the result now.

And don't ask if I have an inside scoop or how I know what ICANN will
do.  We can all see the writing on the wall, Simon.  And you have done
nothing helpful to prevent it, either.

- -- 
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 20:43:55 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Another senseless rejection of the pioneering work of  JonPostel

Hello Sandy,

Friday, July 07, 2000, 7:46:49 PM, you wrote:

> Anyone got a URL for those?

http://www.its-all-in-simons-dreams.com/

- -- 
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: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 01:32:45 -0400
From: Craig Simon <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Another senseless rejection of the pioneering work of  JonPostel

Sandy Harris wrote:

> Anyone got a URL for those?

Welcome to the DNS Wars, Sandy.

I've got some stuff at http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/overview.html that
might be of interest. There's a also a three year old paper called "the
technical construction of globalism" that gets into the pre-IFWP
goings-on in more detail.  http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/dnsdraft.html

And, since I think it's related, here's a rehash of something I posted
elsewehere not long ago in response to the question, "Why is CORE
controversial?"

.....

Short answer: 

1) It's part of the age-old dispute between authority and autonomy. 
2) Follow the money.

Longer answer:

The gTLD-MoU plan was to: 

1) create 7 new gTLDs under a non-profit shared registry (though the
actual registry database service would be contracted out to a
profit-oriented venture, subject to rebid). Taking the .com database
from NSI was definitely on the agenda. The stated thrust was to treat
the gTLD space as a public good, which meant ending the private 
monopoly on gTLDs and to cultivate private competition and innovation in
SLD sales at the registrar level.

2) create a worldwide system of registrars who would sell into the new
gTLDs, and later com/net/org (the original plan limited the number of
registrars to 28, spread equally across the continents, but EC protests
led to the removal of that constraint).

3) manage dispute resolution through WIPO (TM interests were apparently
going to have some sort of special read only access into the central
registry machine to enable checks on whether certain strings they cared
about were registered. There was no "sunshine" provision excluding
certain strings.) 

4) use the fees to fund IANA, which was expecting to lose its DARPA
support.

5) create POC and PAB. Policy oversight committee constituted mostly by
IETF/IAB/ISOC. Public advisory committee (non-binding) constituted by
groups that show up and declare their allegiance (not many did).

In addition:

6) CORE was the Council of Registrars, representing the people who put
up the money to be registrars. Spawned by a mostly-closed, non-minuted
process (the IAHC) made up of IETF/INTA/WIPO/ITU types, there was
widespread concern that at best, the volunteer-run Internet root was
being put under tighter control of big business which now had lots of $
at stake, or at worst, the root was being captured by interests
(particularly the ITU) considered to be inimical to open networking.

7) CORE hoped to be online by late 1997, but things were over budget and
still delayed by early 1998. The Green Paper essentially shot it down,
though it's clear CORE was not ready for prime time. (CORE supporters
dispute among themselves how ready they actually were.)

8) CORE was stigmatized by "unstatesmanlike" behavior on the part of
certain IAHC members, exacerbated by a long history of bad blood between
several of the IAHC folks and some people on various lists (particularly
the NSI-funded ones).

9) The IAHC's decision to require a non-profit shared registry model for
all new gTLDs was opposed by people who wanted to make money through
proprietary control of gTLDs. It was also opposed by people who objected
to the business model of splitting the registrar function from the
registry. And it was opposed by poeple who were concerned about lack of
public accountability in the POC and WIPO. And it was opposed by NSI,
which mounted a well-funded campaign to block it.

10) CORE would have moved controlling authority over the legacy root to
Geneva. CORE opponents were able to get a lot of political mileage by
making nativist appeals, especially to members of Congress.

11) The IAHC's plan for only 7 new gTLDs fell far short of Postel's
initial suggestions of around 150. That number emerging from the IAHC,
with no formal mention of more to come later, represented a big victory
for the TM community. And of course, none of these were ever introduced.
The only parties who have benefited from the delay more than TM holders
are NSI and the resellers of overpriced names in .com.

....

I've been working on and off on a Ph.D. dissertation called "Roots of
Power: The Rise of Dot-Com and the Decline of the Nation-State." The
odds are good that I'll complete it before any new gTLDs get added to
the root. That gives me lots of time.

Craig Simon
- --
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 23:34:16 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Another senseless rejection of the pioneering work of Jon Postel

Hi Sandy,

See below...

>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.

My short outline of the process:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc00/msg00951.html

Name.Space, Inc. (formerly pgMedia) v. Network Solutions, Inc. and the 
National Science Foundation
http://name.space.xs2.net/law/

Look under U.S. Federal and U.S. California for PGPMedia and IOD suits:
http://www.wia.org/dns-law/

Kent's criticism of my last post, and the outcome of the lawsuits, is 
largely irrelevant. The problem is that, according to RFC1591:

"3. The major concern in selecting a designated manager for a domain is 
that it be able to carry out the necessary responsibilities, and have the 
ability to do a equitable, just, honest, and competent job."

and

"3. 3) The designated manager must be equitable to all groups in the domain 
that request domain names. This means that the same rules are applied to 
all requests, all requests must be processed in a non-discriminatory 
fashion, and academic and commercial (and other) users are treated on an 
equal basis."

RFC1591 goes on to say that the name space is recursive and the same rules 
must be applied at each level.

The obvious sign that this equitable process isn't happening is the filing 
of a lawsuit against the manager of the domain (in the above cases the 
manager of the root domain/zone). Lawsuits are the leading indicator that 
the process has failed (and the reality of the IOD suit triggered the US 
Government's intervention in the IAHC/gTLD-MoU process).

> > 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?

http://www.open-rsc.org/
[ORSC submission to DoC: 
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/orsc/ORSC_PRO.htm ]

http://www.superroot.org/

http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone/

Hopefully, you will get a feel for who will tell you the truth (with URLs 
so you can verify the facts for yourself), and who will just make wild 
accusations and clutter bandwidth. It's the latter folk who have caused the 
obstacles to progress. I'd like to apologize for them, but they should 
really do that themselves.

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: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 00:45:03 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Another senseless rejection of the pioneering work of Jon Postel

> > The IAHC rejected the prior IANA work and got sued (IOD).
> 
> Suit thrown out.

Wrong. Application for temporary restraining order denied, suit then
dismissed without prejudice when USG stepped in (why pay for
a suit that appears will go the distance yet is moot?)

Christopher

- --
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: Sat,  8 Jul 2000 15:13:08 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA Agenda - additional points

Folks,

So far I have received the following comments:

1. recognition of an Individual DNH Constituency
2. report on iDNS
3. relationship btw. NC and GA
4. admin report from Secretariat

These are my comments:

1. I think that this is covered by point 3b) in my original message. I 
think that we need to revitalize the discussion about this before going 
to a vote an a motion to put this forward to NC. I don't feel correct to
 call for a vote in Yokohama, only with the relaively few people 
attending in person, without previous thorough discussion on the list. 
What we can do in Yokohama is to discuss how to restart the issue, that 
has been dormant, with a plan to put forward a proposal over summer.

2. about iDNS, be aware that Harald is not likely to be there, so I 
don't have right now a speaker on the subject, and therefore I do not 
feel confident on making it a separate agenda point. But we can raise 
the issue in any other business.

3. the relationship between NC and GA has been tried in Cairo, but 
seemed to me not to have caused interesting debate. Let's do this, I'll 
check in Yokohama for a show of interest before approving the agenda, 
and if there's sufficient interest, I'll add it. On the same subject, 
there's the remark of Brett about the election of a Director within the 
DNSO quota. Maybe this can also be introduced.

4. I meant the status report /DNSO admin to be exactly this. Sorry if 
that was not clear enough.

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: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 15:39:44 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation Details

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 3:21 PM
To: ICANN-Yokohoma Remote Participation Preregistrants
Subject: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation Details

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because you preregistered to attend ICANN's
upcoming public meetings in Yokohama, Japan (July 12-17) via webcast.

To better plan which sessions to join via webcast, you may find it helpful
to review the schedule ICANN has posted at
<http://www.icann.org/yokohama/#schedule>.  The schedule clearly designates
sessions to be webcast; you'll find that major plenary sessions will be
webcast, including the DNSO's meetings and the GAC Public Forum on July 14,
the ICANN Public Forum on July 15, and the ICANN Board of Directors Meeting
on July 16.

To join the webcast each day, go to
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama>.  During and just before
webcasts, a prominent link on this page will allow you to enter the remote
participation area.  Please be sure to join us online at the proper time,
being aware of time zone differences.  For example, ICANN's Public Forum
begins at 8:30AM local time on July 15 -- which is, for example, July 14 at
11:30PM in UTC, and July 14 at 7:30PM in US Eastern time.
<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=15&month=7&year=20
00&hour=8&min=30&sec=0&p1=248> converts the time at the start of this
session to local times in other time zones.  Similarly, ICANN's Board of
Directors meeting, beginning at 9:00AM local time on July 16, begins at
midnight at the start of July 16 in UTC and at 8PM on July 15 in US Eastern
time, with more times available via
<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=16&month=7&year=20
00&hour=9&min=0&sec=0&p1=248>.

In preparation for the meetings, you may want to review the meeting agenda,
as posted at <http://www.icann.org/yokohama/#agenda>.  From that page,
you'll also find public comment spaces on major agenda items.

We intend to make available complete archives at the conclusion of each day;
go to <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama> to access such archives,
to join the webcast, and to preregister others to attend remotely.

Access to the remote participation system requires a 28.8kbps or faster
modem, with best access over 56k or faster connections.  Access to the live
audio and video feeds requires the RealPlayer, version 5.0 or later (G2 or
later strongly recommended), available for free from
<http://www.real.com/products/player>.  Finally, access to the live chat and
dynamically-updated scribe's notes areas requires a JAVA-capable browser (IE
or Netscape version 3 or later) or a dedicated IRC client.

Finally, if you're not already subscribed to ICANN's announcements list, you
may find it helpful to join in order to receive important future
announcements from ICANN.  See
<http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcements.htm> for instructions.

We look forward to seeing you online during the meetings!

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet and Society
Harvard Law School

- --
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, 9 Jul 2000 11:50:53 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation Details

I was reading up on some to the items for action on the agenda and must say
that the pricing they are proposing for the applications fees for new TLD's
was certainly an interesting read. $7,500 to $50,000 USD.  Non-refundable.
The deadline for making comments on any of the items up for action is fast
approaching also.  If you wish to comment you will need to do so quickly.
*	New Top-Level Domains
<http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm>
<http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic-actions-considered.htm>

*	At Large Membership and Elections
<http://www.icann.org/elcom>
<http://www.icann.org/at-large/self-nomination.htm>
<http://www.icann.org/yokohama/atlargebylaws-topic.htm>

*	ccTLD Delegation and Administration Policies
<http://www.icann.org/yokohama/cctld-topic.htm>

*	Definition of ICANN's Geographic Regions
<http://www.icann.org/yokohama/geo-topic.htm>

*	Board Meeting Minutes and Updates
<http://www.icann.org/yokohama/minutesbylaws-topic.htm>

- --
Darryl Lynch (Dassa)
DHS International Pty Ltd
ACN: 091 935 492
- --

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 3:21 PM
To: ICANN-Yokohoma Remote Participation Preregistrants
Subject: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation Details

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because you preregistered to attend ICANN's
upcoming public meetings in Yokohama, Japan (July 12-17) via webcast.

- --
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, 09 Jul 2000 01:52:03 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Agenda - additional points

At 15:13 8/07/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Folks,
>
>So far I have received the following comments:
>
>1. recognition of an Individual DNH Constituency

>These are my comments:
>
>1. I think that this is covered by point 3b) in my original message. I 
>think that we need to revitalize the discussion about this before going 
>to a vote an a motion to put this forward to NC. I don't feel correct to
> call for a vote in Yokohama, only with the relaively few people 
>attending in person, without previous thorough discussion on the list. 
>What we can do in Yokohama is to discuss how to restart the issue, that 
>has been dormant, with a plan to put forward a proposal over summer.
>
Respectfully disagree, Roberto.
This issue has been discussed and this list has seen all the arguments (and
the ad hominems) ad nauseam.
I would say: let's not procrastinate on this issue any further and take it
to a vote a.s.a.p.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  

- --
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: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 20:15:56 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA Agenda - additional points

Hello Joop,

Saturday, July 08, 2000, 6:52:03 AM, you wrote:

> At 15:13 8/07/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>Folks,
>>
>>So far I have received the following comments:
>>
>>1. recognition of an Individual DNH Constituency

>>These are my comments:
>>
>>1. I think that this is covered by point 3b) in my original message. I 
>>think that we need to revitalize the discussion about this before going 
>>to a vote an a motion to put this forward to NC. I don't feel correct to
>> call for a vote in Yokohama, only with the relaively few people 
>>attending in person, without previous thorough discussion on the list. 
>>What we can do in Yokohama is to discuss how to restart the issue, that 
>>has been dormant, with a plan to put forward a proposal over summer.
>>
> Respectfully disagree, Roberto.
> This issue has been discussed and this list has seen all the arguments (and
> the ad hominems) ad nauseam.
> I would say: let's not procrastinate on this issue any further and take it
> to a vote a.s.a.p.

On what? There is no proposal for a constituency that has been put
forward.  There is nothing to vote on.

Roberto is right, the proper plan is to decide how to return to this
issue and what concerns people have about how such a constituency
should be formed.

- -- 
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: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 13:26:54 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Yokohama - Draft Agenda

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> What any grouping of Individual DN owners will need to know as part of its
> bootstrapping process is the *acceptance in principle* of this eighth
> constituency of the DNSO.

Please add my support for a recognition in principle of a constituency for
individual DN ownership (as proposed by Joop).

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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, 9 Jul 2000 13:51:35 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proposed ICANN Constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners

William X Walsh wrote:

> Being a member doesn't mean that one should automatically and blindly
> support the one person dictator of the organization in every one of
> his ventures.  Or that a member will think the organization is
> automatically a candidate for recognition or anything else for that
> matter.

How can a reasonably sane person be a member of an organisation ruled by a
one person dictator?  Does this membership have any voting rights?

If not, what is the worth of such an undemocratic membership?

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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 #101
************************