Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1139
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, April 24 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1139

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

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 01:18:19 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS referred to the DNSO; WLS & competition

According to  
<http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-22apr02.htm>, the WLS  
proposal has been referred to the DNSO for comment.

I'd suggest that the GA tries to dig out those arguments which are  
actually reliable, and compiles an "official" position, this time.

Here's one possible argument which hasn't come up, yet, I think.   
Maybe my thinking is flawed - if so, please point it out. 

Consider any registrar who has hoarded expired domain names.  Such a 
registrar could wait for WLS subscriptions being made through it.   
Once a WLS subscription for a hoarded domain name is there, the  
domain could be relased - and immediately re-registered through the  
same registrar, due to the WLS subscription.  If a WLS subscription 
is made through a different registrar, nothing happens.

Rumor of this could be expected to quickly spread in the community:  
If you want to back-order a domain name which has expired, but is  
not available, go to the old registrar for your WLS subscription.

Ultimately, this approach to selling off hoarded domain names (which 
would be economically quite attractive at least to Verisign, and - 
at sufficiently high WLS prices - possibly also for other  
registrars) could lead to a _significant_ increase in the cost for  
registering an expired domain.  It would also skew competition  
between registrars as far as registrations of these domains are  
concerned - effectively, potential registrants would be forced to go 
to the "old" registrar.

The conclusion from this scenario is to hold up WLS until the  
hoarding problem has been solved.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 19:47:13 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Gomes on WLS, the NC and Constituencies

In the WLS document "VGRS Response to General Counsel's Analysis of VGRS's 
Request for Amendment to Registry Agreement", Chuck Gomes raises some 
interesting issues:

<<The DNSO is supposed to deal with substantive policy as related to the DNS. 
Even if the WLS involved substantive policy (VGRS believes it does not), an 
argument could be made that the Names Council has failed to fulfill its role 
of managing the consensus process but has rather tried to become the 
consensus making body itself. Moreover, if substantial decisions are going to 
be based on NC recommendations, and if that is done because the NC is 
supposed to be representative of most affected stakeholders, then there 
should be an effort to validate whether or not the DNSO constituencies 
actually do represent the constituencies they claim to represent. If they do 
not, then it becomes a very flawed approach to let the NC significantly 
influence decisions, policy or otherwise.>>

http://www.icann.org/minutes/response-vgrs-wls-21apr02.htm

The recent Board resolutions on WLS may be found at 
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-22apr02.htm
- --
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, 22 Apr 2002 16:52:14 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com hacked

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-04-22 09:41:14 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
>> I've not seen a single one that has addressed the issue of seeking to 
>> track down who did the hacking.  Would that not be the first  issue 
>> on the agenda?
>
>
> The defaced page's text listed an address @xpaxo.net, and if you  look 
> at www.xpaxo.net, you'll even find icannatlarge.com on a list  of the 
> sites these guys (apparently some Russian script-kiddies) are proud to 
> have defaced.  The log snippet which is in Joop's message  has some 
> more information on the hack, which actually points into  the same 
> direction. 

Late breaking news! I just tried to access xpaxo.net and told that entry 
was forbidden!
:-)

Bill Lovell

>
>

- --
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, 22 Apr 2002 17:47:41 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com hacked

Monday, Monday, April 22, 2002, 4:52:14 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> Thomas Roessler wrote:

>> On 2002-04-22 09:41:14 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>>
>>> I've not seen a single one that has addressed the issue of seeking to 
>>> track down who did the hacking.  Would that not be the first  issue 
>>> on the agenda?
>>
>>
>> The defaced page's text listed an address @xpaxo.net, and if you  look 
>> at www.xpaxo.net, you'll even find icannatlarge.com on a list  of the 
>> sites these guys (apparently some Russian script-kiddies) are proud to 
>> have defaced.  The log snippet which is in Joop's message  has some 
>> more information on the hack, which actually points into  the same 
>> direction. 

> Late breaking news! I just tried to access xpaxo.net and told that entry 
> was forbidden!
> :-)

They'll be up at a new host within 48 hours.

It really is a game of whack a mole, Bill.  You get a little joy out
of hitting them, but as soon as you do, they just pop up again
somewhere else.

Unless they do over $5,000 of damages, they know they won't get
prosecuted.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.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: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:49:20 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Board Resolutions on At-Large "mechanisms"

Interim At-Large Support

Whereas, in resolutions 02.16 and 02.17, the Board concluded that "ICANN 
should have a robust At Large mechanism for meaningful, informed 
participation by Internet users of the kind recommended in the ALSC report" 
and called "upon the ICANN community to devote sustained energy to the 
creation of At Large structures built upon bottom-up, self-organized, local 
Internet community institutions and other organizations that meet the general 
criteria of openness, participation, and self-sustainability";

Whereas, members of the ICANN community led by Esther Dyson have raised 
US$22,000 for the purpose of funding staff to support the efforts of 
interested individuals and organizations to create At Large mechanisms for 
meaningful, self-organizing informed participation in ICANN by a full range 
of Internet users of the kind recommended in the ALSC report;

Whereas, the Board welcomes this positive response from the community and 
believes that ICANN should facilitate these efforts by accepting a 
contribution of these funds, restricted to the purpose of funding staff 
support for the organizational efforts;

Resolved [02.60] that the President is authorized to accept restricted 
contributions for the purpose of funding staff support for the creation and 
nurturing of At Large mechanisms for meaningful, self-organizing informed 
participation in ICANN by a full range of Internet users; and

Further resolved [02.61] that the President is hereby authorized, for the 
balance of the present fiscal year, to expend restricted contributions 
received for that purpose, including by the engagement of an independent 
contractor, for so long as unexpended contributed funds remain available.

http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-22apr02.htm

- --
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, 22 Apr 2002 22:07:34 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS referred to the DNSO; WLS & competition

Here's an interesting example of the abuse which Verisign (and others) 
will be able to practice if the WLS is implemented:

I wish to register the doma

Domain Name: DIGITALBOOKS.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact
Dickson, Chris  (CD6751 <http://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?%21CD6751&id=0>)  [email-masked]
Individual
14924 Jacks Pond Road
Austin, TX 78728
512.244.3348 (FAX) 512.244.3358
   
Billing Contact:
Slaughter, Kristen  (KSS203 <http://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?%21KSS203&id=0>)  [email-masked]
ibooks.com, Inc.
804-C Rio Grande St.
Austin , TX 78701
512-478-2700 X102 (FAX) 512-478-0500

Record last updated on 22-Mar-2002.
Record expires on 20-Jan-2002.
Record created on 20-Jan-2000.
Database last updated on 22-Apr-2002 09:34:00 EDT

*****Expired since January 20th of this year!

Of course, it is possible for me to BACK ORDER this domain through Verisign's SNAPBACK service...

Now, this is evidence of a clear-cut abuse of Verisign's registrar/registry position.  

Perfect example why the WLS schema should not be implemented.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

in  name  

DIGITALBOOKS.COM

But, I am unable to do so through my registrar of choice despite the fact that the domain is expired:

inThomas Roessler wrote:

> According to  
> <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-22apr02.htm>, the WLS  
> proposal has been referred to the DNSO for comment.
>
> I'd suggest that the GA tries to dig out those arguments which are  
> actually reliable, and compiles an "official" position, this time.
>
>
> Here's one possible argument which hasn't come up, yet, I think.   
> Maybe my thinking is flawed - if so, please point it out.
> Consider any registrar who has hoarded expired domain names.  Such a 
> registrar could wait for WLS subscriptions being made through it.   
> Once a WLS subscription for a hoarded domain name is there, the  
> domain could be relased - and immediately re-registered through the  
> same registrar, due to the WLS subscription.  If a WLS subscription is 
> made through a different registrar, nothing happens.
>
> Rumor of this could be expected to quickly spread in the community:  
> If you want to back-order a domain name which has expired, but is  not 
> available, go to the old registrar for your WLS subscription.
>
>
> Ultimately, this approach to selling off hoarded domain names (which 
> would be economically quite attractive at least to Verisign, and - at 
> sufficiently high WLS prices - possibly also for other  registrars) 
> could lead to a _significant_ increase in the cost for  registering an 
> expired domain.  It would also skew competition  between registrars as 
> far as registrations of these domains are  concerned - effectively, 
> potential registrants would be forced to go to the "old" registrar.
>
>
> The conclusion from this scenario is to hold up WLS until the  
> hoarding problem has been solved.
>

- --
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, 22 Apr 2002 22:08:24 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS referred to the DNSO; WLS & competition

> I'd suggest that the GA tries to dig out those arguments which are  
> actually reliable, and compiles an "official" position, this time.

Let's start off with a discussion of the inequities & benefits of FCFS....

...and see where it takes us. 

I'd be surprised if the status quo doesn't prevail in this matter.

- -rwr

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:02:25 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  http://www.dnso.org/icannatlarge/2002.ICANNATLARGE-Panel-vote.html

At 09:19 22/04/02 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>Now that the DNSO Secretariat has provided a website address to monitor the
>activities at icannatlarge.com, perhaps the DNSO could also provide a forum
>for the candidates that are standing for election -- so far all that I have
>noted are candidate statements with absolutely no debate whatsoever... the
>classic "beauty contest".

I have to agree in part with Danny.
In the haste to satisfy those who pushed so hard for early elections, there 
is no time alotted for debate.
There is not even enough time for all the candidates to post their 
introductions.

There is a place for debate right in the forum, under the elections header, 
that is not the problem.  The time factor is.

The only thing that can be said in defence for the procedure followed is 
that there  now going to be at least *an* elected bootstrap Panel and that 
the three months given to this panel will not only show the nice words of 
the candidates, but also the deeds of the interim panel members.

The next election of 27July for a longer term Panel, should give the 
community all the opportunity to elect candidates on an informed basis.

>An election process devoid of all debate does not portend well for the future
>
>of this icannatlarge.com organization...

We can divine the Future with FUD, or we can build it with action. You are 
still welcome to join.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 01:25:19 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com hacked

On 2002-04-22 16:03:51 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:

>   So does anyone want to know what the next step might be?

A cost-benefit analysis.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 06:03:15 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com hacked

Thomas:

On the suggestion of a cost/benefit analysis as a "next step" as noted by
Thomas below:

That's one good one, certainly. What's needed in icannatlarge.com, though,
is the equivalent of both a Chief Executive Officer and a Board of 
Directors,
the first to carry out any such effort and then to proceed as indicated, 
and the
second to oversee and authorize. Events such as this hacking bit, in my 
opinion,
point to the need of some "immediate action" folks to jump on issues 
like this
when they come up, rather than have it whittled away at by sequences of 
posts
from various know-it-alls such as myself who will jump in to the middle 
of the
thing and distract it who know where. Point 2 of the Mandate for the 
Supervisory
Panel speaks to the formation of the ultimate icannatlarge.com 
structure, so what
I'm doing here is jumping the gun a bit and suggesting that the standard 
corporate
structure should be adopted, whereby the organization would become 
something other
than a futile debating society that never does anything.  I'm told that 
has been
known to happen. :-)

(The foregoing is particularly true in that were any legal action 
decided upon, that
would have to be carried out in confidence, not on any open ML like this.)

But back to the point, William X. Walsh likens my finding of the contact 
data for
what appears to be the offending source as "whacking a mole," but I 
would suggest
that in the icannatlarge.com logs there are digital trails that would or 
would not confirm
whether there indeed were entries (to icannatlarge.com) by www.xpaxo.net 
that would
coincide in time with the occurrence of the hacking. If there were, 
well, I won't go any
further, since that indeed would be legal advice, and icannatlarge.com 
is not a client of mine.

Bill Lovell

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-04-22 16:03:51 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
>>   So does anyone want to know what the next step might be?
>
>
> A cost-benefit analysis.
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:22:12 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS referred to the DNSO; WLS & competition

Will there be a comment on this specific instance of WLS abuse from the 
VSign people or anyone else?

Thomas, will this make the summary you're preparing?

Perhaps we'd all be better served if Ben Edelman started an exhaustive 
research into just how many domain names have long been expired and are 
potentially WLS abuse material (which _all_ of them are of course, but 
some more than others).

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Here's an interesting example of the abuse which Verisign (and others) 
> will be able to practice if the WLS is implemented:
>
> I wish to register the doma
>
> Domain Name: DIGITALBOOKS.COM
> Administrative Contact, Technical Contact
> Dickson, Chris  (CD6751 
> <http://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?%21CD6751&id=0>)  
> [email-masked]
> Individual
> 14924 Jacks Pond Road
> Austin, TX 78728
> 512.244.3348 (FAX) 512.244.3358
>   Billing Contact:
> Slaughter, Kristen  (KSS203 
> <http://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?%21KSS203&id=0>)  
> [email-masked]
> ibooks.com, Inc.
> 804-C Rio Grande St.
> Austin , TX 78701
> 512-478-2700 X102 (FAX) 512-478-0500
>
> Record last updated on 22-Mar-2002.
> Record expires on 20-Jan-2002.
> Record created on 20-Jan-2000.
> Database last updated on 22-Apr-2002 09:34:00 EDT
>
>
> *****Expired since January 20th of this year!
>
> Of course, it is possible for me to BACK ORDER this domain through 
> Verisign's SNAPBACK service...
>
> Now, this is evidence of a clear-cut abuse of Verisign's 
> registrar/registry position. 
> Perfect example why the WLS schema should not be implemented.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> in  name 
> DIGITALBOOKS.COM
>
> But, I am unable to do so through my registrar of choice despite the 
> fact that the domain is expired:
>
> inThomas Roessler wrote:
>
>> According to  
>> <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-22apr02.htm>, the WLS  
>> proposal has been referred to the DNSO for comment.
>>
>> I'd suggest that the GA tries to dig out those arguments which are  
>> actually reliable, and compiles an "official" position, this time.
>>
>>
>> Here's one possible argument which hasn't come up, yet, I think.   
>> Maybe my thinking is flawed - if so, please point it out.
>> Consider any registrar who has hoarded expired domain names.  Such a 
>> registrar could wait for WLS subscriptions being made through it.   
>> Once a WLS subscription for a hoarded domain name is there, the  
>> domain could be relased - and immediately re-registered through the  
>> same registrar, due to the WLS subscription.  If a WLS subscription 
>> is made through a different registrar, nothing happens.
>>
>> Rumor of this could be expected to quickly spread in the community:  
>> If you want to back-order a domain name which has expired, but is  
>> not available, go to the old registrar for your WLS subscription.
>>
>>
>> Ultimately, this approach to selling off hoarded domain names (which 
>> would be economically quite attractive at least to Verisign, and - at 
>> sufficiently high WLS prices - possibly also for other  registrars) 
>> could lead to a _significant_ increase in the cost for  registering 
>> an expired domain.  It would also skew competition  between 
>> registrars as far as registrations of these domains are  concerned - 
>> effectively, potential registrants would be forced to go to the "old" 
>> registrar.
>>
>>
>> The conclusion from this scenario is to hold up WLS until the  
>> hoarding problem has been solved.
>>
>
>
> -- 
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:01:24 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Request for a WLS working group

Thomas,

The ICANN Board has requested that the Names Council coordinate within the 
DNSO a comprehensive review of issues concerning the deletion of domain names 
and possible solutions for those issues and to submit to the Board, no later 
than 10 June 2002, a status report on that review, with the status report to 
include any recommendations (with supporting materials) concerning VeriSign's 
request to modify the .com and .net agreements to allow it to provide a 
wait-listing service, for a fee, as part of its operation of the .com and 
.net registries.

Could you perhaps raise this request within the AOB portion of tomorrow's NC 
conference call?  To my knowledge, the Transfers TF has not yet been tasked 
with this mission, and has not undertaken any discussion of WLS (even though 
the Board has indicated that <<the Transfers Task Force within the DNSO has 
undertaken a review of issues raised by deletion practices (including the WLS 
proposal) in the context of its analysis of transfers, and is scheduled to 
submit its final report for public comment in May, so that the Names Council 
can provide a final report to the Board in June).>>

I don't believe that the Transfers TF is on schedule to release a final 
report in May, nor that its occasional participants can handle both the 
current transfers project and a new project within the requested time frame.  
This would be a good time to create an open working group (remember those?) 
to provide a comprehensive review and discussion.  The last major open 
working group (Review) was able to create a comprehensive report within three 
weeks (they commenced on Dec. 23 and had a report ready on schedule by 
January 15).  As no task force thus far has been able to accomplish their 
workload in a timely fashion, this would be a good time to return to the use 
of the Working Group so that we can properly honor this request by the Board.

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:22:05 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: WLS referred to the DNSO; WLS & competition

I wrote:

>Here's one possible argument which hasn't come up, yet, I think.

Looking at 3b and 4 of the registrars' official comments, these  
points cover the same argument.  I should have taken the time to 
read that document _before_ claiming that something hasn't come up 
in the discussion.  Sorry for that.

Despite that, I believe that the interaction with hoarding is one of 
the key problems with WLS.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:37:58 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: WLS referred to the DNSO; WLS & competition

> Despite that, I believe that the interaction with hoarding is one of
> the key problems with WLS.

This goes to the heart of the discussion I proposed regarding "first-come,
first-served" (FCFS).

Either FCFS is a desirable mechanism to allocate registrations or it isn't.
As a community, I think that we have enough collective experience to do some
analysis and discussion on the pro's and con's of this mechanism and make
some pretty fundamental judgements as to whether or not we should allow for
modifications to this basic facility.

I'm pretty biased, so I'll leave someone else to kick off the discussion,
but I will say that I would be pretty disappointed if these basics aren't
examined within the DNSO.

- -rwr

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:59:20 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: anyone notice fallout from this?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Griffin" <[email-masked]>
To: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: anyone notice fallout from this?

> In the referenced message, John Palmer said:
> [Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John R. LoVerso" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 3:26 PM
> > Subject: anyone notice fallout from this?
> >
> >
> > > ------- Start of forwarded message -------
> > > This document describes the 'Root Fix for the .US Top Level Domain'.
Root
> > > Fix is a series of actions taken by the Open Root Server Confederation
> > > (ORSC) to prevent the destabilization of the DNS due to ICANN's
> > > introduction of colliding top level domains.  This document describes
the
> > > actions taken bythe ORSC to remedy the collateral damage that has been
> > > directly caused to the .US top level domain in non-ICANN root systems.
> > >
> > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> > >
> >
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-higgs-schneiders-root-fix-us-00.tx
> > t
> > > ------- End of forwarded message -------
> >
> > Lets get something straight.
> > 1. ORSC and Inclusive Namespace roots did not cause this problem,
Neustar
> > did
> > by deliberatly moving the .US nameservers under BIZ.
> > 2. ICANN's versionof .BIZ is the collider.
> >
> > No damage has been done that hasn't already been fixed.
> >
> > John
>
> ITYM "alternative roots" were the cause of the problem.
>
> DNS has but one root. You may not like that root, you may seek to
> change that root, but it only has 1 root.
> --
> To join this list, send "subscribe usdom" to
> [email-masked]
>

The internet has one namespace, not one root. If someone goes and
deliberatly
causes instability by creating collisions, that is wrong. If someone (or
company)
is hell-bent at destroying any and all competition and is willing to
destabilize
the internet by moving an entire ccTLD to gtld servers that are on an
illegitmate
colliding version of a TLD, that too is wrong.

1: The Neulevel BIZ is illegitimate because it was not the first to
be in continuous operation. In the opinion of a growing number of
people, ICANN and Neulevel perpetrated a theft.

2: The reason that they moved .US gtld servers under .BIZ was
to try to harm the competiton by trying to force the ever-growing
list of ISPs using inclusive namespace root servers to switch
back. They failed.

3: Typical of ICANN apologists, the poster tries to take an act
of sabatoge and theft (perpetrated by you know who) that was intended
to try and stamp out legitimate businesses, and turns around
and tries to blame the intended victims.

Sorry - wrong answer, but thank you for playing

Next???

- ---
AGN Domain Name Services : http://www.adns.net
Censorship-Free GA list : http://dns-o.org/mailman/listinfo/ga

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 18:15:21 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] IANA & the .US Sell-Out

In his article ".US Sell-Out Begins Tomorrow", Bret Fausett notes that the 
"usTLD Policy Council" that Neustar pledged to create is not yet operational. 

This begs the question:  How prudent was the IANA's "emergency redelegation" 
of the .us TLD, and as a matter of policy can we as an organization allow for 
such redelegations without full and due process?  

Unlike prior redelegations, wherein IANA has held that it is charged with 
seeking input from persons significantly affected by the transfer, 
particularly those within the nation or territory which the ccTLD has been 
established to benefit, this redelegation involved no such dialogue with the 
American Internet Community.  In this particular case, the U.S. Government 
dictated to the IANA that a relegation was required, and the IANA implemented 
such redelegation immediately without recourse to standard process.  Would 
the IANA bow to any such similar demand from any other government entity?  
Never.

The IANA (as noted in ICP-1) will make the view of the relevant government 
entity "a major consideration in any TLD delegation/transfer discussions", 
but it is not to be the *only* consideration.  

Having denied the American Internet Community the opportunity to offer input 
into the process, we are now stuck with an untenable situation in which 
short, memorable names that truly belong in the public realm are now to be 
sold off to speculators without the prior benefit of appropriate policy 
council guidance on the issue.  Had public input been requested prior to the 
redelegation, many such issues would long ago have already been resolved.

To whom is this IANA accountable?  Can we hold them to due process 
requirements... or does due process go out the window when the US Government 
makes its demands?  Is the ICANN Board responsible for the IANA decisions?  
Can an IANA decision be revoked, or reconsidered?  Are there any checks and 
balances that pertain to the IANA function, or is it empowered to act without 
notice-and-comment provisions?  

Any reform of the ICANN should include a reform of the IANA... either we 
consistently abide by our policies, or we become a farce to the rest of the 
world.  Ask any ccTLD manager what they think of such "emergency 
redelegations"...

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 18:50:05 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] usTLD Policy Council Formed

Neustar has today announced the formation of the usTLD Policy Council
http://www.nic.us/policies/docs/dotus_policy_council.pdf

Members of the Council are:
Chair -- Jonathan Hudis, (American Intellectual Property Law Association)
Tom Cunningham (BulkRegister)
Juan Otero (National League of Cities)
Michael Palage (Chairman of the ICANN Registrars Constituency)
Joe Rubin (US Chamber of Commerce)
Larry Singer (Nat. Assoc. of State Chief Information Officers)
Claudette Tennant (American Library Association)
David Wascher (TheRegistry at Info Avenue)
James Casey (Neustar)
Tom McGarry (Neustar)

Fully half of the Council is drawn from the registrar community... 
- --
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: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:53:18 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DRAFT - Terms of Reference / WLS (Re: Request for a WLS working group)

- --nYySOmuH/HDX6pKp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline

Please review the attached draft terms of reference ASAP.  Note that 
I am, for the moment, deliberately leaving the question open _who_  
this task force (or working group, or whatever) should be.

The key elements of this draft are these:

 - Give priority to those concerns which have already been submitted 
   to the public (GA and registrars);
 - give others an opportunity to submit their concerns during a 
   short, but reasonable time line;
 - authorize the task force to enforce that deadline;
 - produce a clear deadline for task force output.

Obviously, these terms of reference would not be compatible with the 
Transfer Task Force drafting and finishing its survey first. 
However, they are not incompatible with that task force giving WLS  
priority for the moment, and just getting the job done.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

On 2002-04-23 15:01:24 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>From: [email-masked]
>Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:01:24 EDT
>Subject: [ga] Request for a WLS working group
>To: [email-masked]
>
>Thomas,
>
>The ICANN Board has requested that the Names Council coordinate within the 
>DNSO a comprehensive review of issues concerning the deletion of domain names 
>and possible solutions for those issues and to submit to the Board, no later 
>than 10 June 2002, a status report on that review, with the status report to 
>include any recommendations (with supporting materials) concerning VeriSign's 
>request to modify the .com and .net agreements to allow it to provide a 
>wait-listing service, for a fee, as part of its operation of the .com and 
>.net registries.
>
>Could you perhaps raise this request within the AOB portion of tomorrow's NC 
>conference call?  To my knowledge, the Transfers TF has not yet been tasked 
>with this mission, and has not undertaken any discussion of WLS (even though 
>the Board has indicated that <<the Transfers Task Force within the DNSO has 
>undertaken a review of issues raised by deletion practices (including the WLS 
>proposal) in the context of its analysis of transfers, and is scheduled to 
>submit its final report for public comment in May, so that the Names Council 
>can provide a final report to the Board in June).>>
>
>I don't believe that the Transfers TF is on schedule to release a final 
>report in May, nor that its occasional participants can handle both the 
>current transfers project and a new project within the requested time frame.  
>This would be a good time to create an open working group (remember those?) 
>to provide a comprehensive review and discussion.  The last major open 
>working group (Review) was able to create a comprehensive report within three 
>weeks (they commenced on Dec. 23 and had a report ready on schedule by 
>January 15).  As no task force thus far has been able to accomplish their 
>workload in a timely fashion, this would be a good time to return to the use 
>of the Working Group so that we can properly honor this request by the Board.
>
>
>
>--
>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

- --nYySOmuH/HDX6pKp
Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="wls-tor.doc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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- --nYySOmuH/HDX6pKp
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="wls-tor.html"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
	<META HTTP-EQUIV="CONTENT-TYPE" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-15">
	<TITLE></TITLE>
	<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="StarOffice/5.2 (Linux)">
	<META NAME="AUTHOR" CONTENT="Thomas Roessler">
	<META NAME="CREATED" CONTENT="20020423;22455500">
	<META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="Thomas Roessler">
	<META NAME="CHANGED" CONTENT="20020423;23455100">
	<STYLE>
	<!--
		@page { margin-left: 1.25in; margin-right: 1.25in; margin-top: 1in; margin-bottom: 1in }
		P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 150% }
		TD P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 150% }
	-->
	</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV TYPE=HEADER>
	<TABLE WIDTH=100% BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=4 CELLSPACING=0>
		<COL WIDTH=85*>
		<COL WIDTH=85*>
		<COL WIDTH=85*>
		<TR VALIGN=TOP>
			<TD WIDTH=33%>
				<P><FONT FACE="Arial, sans-serif"><FONT SIZE=1><SDFIELD TYPE=DATETIME SDVAL="37369.9798553241" SDNUM="6153;1033;M/D/YY">4/23/02</SDFIELD></FONT></FONT></P>
			</TD>
			<TD WIDTH=33%>
				<P ALIGN=CENTER><BR>
				</P>
			</TD>
			<TD WIDTH=33%>
				<P ALIGN=RIGHT><FONT FACE="Arial, sans-serif"><FONT SIZE=1><SDFIELD TYPE=FILENAME FORMAT=NAME>wls-tor.sdw</SDFIELD></FONT></FONT></P>
			</TD>
		</TR>
	</TABLE>
	<P ALIGN=RIGHT STYLE="margin-bottom: 0.2in; line-height: 100%"><BR>
	</P>
</DIV>
<P STYLE="margin-top: 0.17in; line-height: 100%; page-break-after: avoid">
<FONT FACE="Verdana"><FONT SIZE=4><B>Terms of Reference - DNSO Work
on WLS</B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P><BR><BR>
</P>
<P><BR><BR>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE="Verdana">Mission and Time Line</FONT></P>
<P><BR><BR>
</P>
<P>The Task Force is instructed to <I>comprehensively review issues
concerning the deletion of domain names and possible solutions for
those issues</I>. 
</P>
<P> [Board resolution 02.53; see
<A HREF="http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-22apr02.htm">http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-22apr02.htm</A>.]</P>
<P><BR><BR>
</P>
<P>In order to achieve this mission, the Task Force is instructed to:</P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT><B>1.</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: medium"> immediately
begin to review the concerns published by the registrars'
constituency and the General Assembly concerning the WLS proposal
(and of any other material submitted by constituencies or the GA
before May 5), and post for public comment a recommendation on how
these concerns (if found valid) can be addressed, no later than May
20, 2002;</SPAN></P>
<P><B>2.</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: medium"> based on this review,
and comments received, submit a recommendation to the Names Council
no later than June 3, 2002;</SPAN></P>
<P><B>3.</B><SPAN STYLE="font-weight: medium"> subsequently, address
any further concerns or policy improvements identified during its
work.</SPAN></P>
<P><BR><BR>
</P>
<P><BR><BR>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE="Verdana">Background Material</FONT></P>
<P><BR><BR>
</P>
<P>The Task Force's work during its first work phase is expected to
be based, in particular, on the material listed below:</P>
<UL>
	<LI><P>Verisign GRS material on the
	proposal:	<A HREF="http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html">http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html</A></P>
	<LI><P>Registrar Constituency
	comments:	<A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01524.html">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01524.html</A>
		</P>
	<LI><P>General Assembly comments: 
		<A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01355.html">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01355.html</A>
		</P>
	<LI><P>ICANN counsel's analysis of the WLS proposal: 
	<BR>			<A HREF="http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm">http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm</A>
		</P>
	<LI><P>Verisign's response:
		<A HREF="http://www.icann.org/minutes/response-vgrs-wls-21apr02.htm">http://www.icann.org/minutes/response-vgrs-wls-21apr02.htm</A>
		</P>
</UL>
<P><BR><BR>
</P>
<P>Nothing in these terms of reference shall be interpreted as
preventing the Task Force from taking into account other material at
any point of time of its work, if it believes this is appropriate in
order to help the Task Force accomplish its mission. However, the
Task Force is explicitly authorized to defer until after June 3 the
review of any material received from constituencies after May 5.</P>
<DIV TYPE=FOOTER>
	<P ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="margin-top: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">
	<BR>
	</P>
</DIV>
</BODY>
</HTML>
- --nYySOmuH/HDX6pKp--
- --
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 #1139
*************************