Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #124
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, August 23 2000          Volume 01 : Number 124

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:57:26 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 01:29 AM 8/22/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:

>In trying to judge among the candidates, perhaps it will help to put 

>questions specific to them.

>I've noted that far too many participants have broad, negative agendas, 

>focusing on various, vague, general fears, rather than on specific 

>constructive goals or even constructive approaches to making 

>improvements.  There also seems to be an unfortunate lack of
understanding 

>of DNS technical details or even of ICANN's limited scope.

	I was intrigued by Dave's comment, so I took a look at the acceptance
statements of the various candidates, to see what material in those
statements arguably proposed "specific constructive goals" or specific
"constructive approaches to making improvements," or displayed
"understanding of DNS technical details" or "ICANN's limited scope." 
Results follow.

Jonathan Cohen

>I hope to work with the DNSO and the public to determine what
possibilities exist to expand the UDRP, in the hope that a broader
spectrum of

>       Internet disputes will be capable of resolution online in a time
frame and at a cost that makes it accessible and useful for a larger
number of Internet

>       users globally.  I believe that the participation of interested
parties from different countries, cultures and legal systems are
essential to the development

>       of an "enhanced" UDRP to make it a widely, if not universally,
useful mechanism for Internet dispute resolution, and I will make every
effort to

>       encourage such broad international participation.  

>       I am hopeful that, if elected to a subsequent term, I can work
with the Board to forge strong, cooperative links with the ccTLD
community.  I think it

>       is very important that an acceptable and positive relationship
amongst ICANN, the ccTLDs and the GAC be reached as soon as possible.

Peter de Blanc (de Blanc established a ccTLD registry, and so presumably
is familiar with DNS technical details)

>I feel that is our responsibility, as Internet professionals, to
champion the cause of outreach to under serviced populations. . . .

> It is also our responsibility to give more than lip service to the
concepts of "Open and transparent process" while we go

>            about the work of Internet governance. We need more outreach
and encouragement of those "sitting on the sidelines", so

>            they become a part of the process. The process will be
completely open when all the stakeholders are present and

>            participating. 

>            I stand for "limited Internet governance, personal freedom
and responsibility, and a robust and interoperable DNS".

Jill Keogh

none

James P. Love

>>>>

<excerpt>a.   ICANN should not do very much.  It should not be a big
bureaucracy, or seek to centralize power and authority over the Internet.

b.   There is a danger that people will see ICANN as having such power,
and seek to control ICANN in order to advance various agendas.  One can
come to different judgements about the merits of various agendas, and
still see that ICANN is ill-suited to be a broad governance 
institution.

c.   Some want ICANN to be a tool to protect intellectual property.  I
agree that it is important to protect intellectual property, subject to
important public interest  limitations and exceptions.  However, ICANN
does not have the expertise or accountability be a global policy maker in
the ever growing range of IPR issues that have or could be raised in
ICANN forums.  ICANN responsibilities in this area should be limited and
narrow. 

d.   The UDRP has performed useful services to trademark owners, but the
process itself could be improved.  In particular, ICANN or WIPO needs to
deal with the tendency of UDRP panels to ignore the public's rights in
the areas of criticism, parody or association.  Domain names are part of
speech, and the UDRP process should explicitly protect free speech. There
are also many UDRP decisions that have anticompetitive consequences,
including those that give trademark owners improper control over generic
names, or which undermine a  firm's right to comparative marketing. . .
.

e.   ICANN should not require new TLD registries to sign contractual
provisions or make other assurances that they will not participate in
alternative root systems.  I am not aware of any evidence that such
alternatives present problems for the Internet, and ICANN should avoid
practices that will be seen as monopolistic or anticompetitive.

f.   The TLD space should be vastly expanded.  This will greatly reduce
the pressure on the existing UDRP process.  There is no reason why there
should be so few opportunities for  various parties to use second level
domain names that have such obvious multiple uses.  ICANN should not seek
to micro- manage registry policies on the allocation of domain names.
ICANN's oversight should be limited to a narrow set of consumer
protection and technical issues, including, for example, malfeasance
(failures to maintain acceptable services), fraud or price gouging.

g.   The DNSO itself gives far too much weight to business interests. 
Consumer interests should have a much greater role in the DNSO decision
making process.  Individual domain name holders should have a separate
constituency.  The non-commercial constituencies should not be a
catch-all for all disenfranchised members of the public seeking a voice
in the DNSO. 

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

Ronald N. Weikers

none
- --
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, 22 Aug 2000 10:57:04 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Elections (Seconded)

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> At 10:44 18/08/2000 -0400, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> 
> >Mr. Roberto Gaetano and his side kick Harald earlier this year engagaed in
> >electoral fraud.  We discovered it was intentional and premeditated.  But
> >nothing was every done.
> 
> shall we have a vote on whether Baptista's unfounded allegiations of
> election fraud in an opinion poll (now THAT is a strange claim) constitute
> reason for denying him posting rights?

Of course not.

His posts are certainly irritating, and make him look an idiot, but I see
no reason above to even consider blocking them.

> I'm getting tired of this.

No doubt.
- --
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, 22 Aug 2000 19:37:16 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Harald,
I like your a little bit icannoclast suggestion.
But one question first: to get an endorsement is it enough to call a friend 
and to ask him to subscribe to this list?

Now, I will apologize to 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/icann-nominations/Arc00/msg00006.html>Jonathan 
Cohen not to support his tremendous dedication, but I am afraid his views 
and strategy are too different from mine's.
 From 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/icann-nominations/Arc00/msg00004.html>Mr. 
Weikers' short and uncommitted letter of intent I understand he wants to be 
hired to do what is in ICANN's and every Internet user's best interest. I 
am surprised by his immediate supporter number since this is an election 
process?
I will therefore support 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/icann-nominations/Arc00/msg00015.html>Mr. 
James P. Love who is most probably the nearest from the "silent consensus" 
(ie what the widest number of people would stand for should they be 
neutrally and fully informed).

But I would ask from every of the five candidates to address the following 
questions I feel important:

- - what is your definition of a domain name? On which grounds do you think 
IP is concerned? Do you consider that owning a domain name is the same as 
using it? Which solutions would you propose to get rid legally and fairly 
of cybersquatting?

- - is the address semantic part for IP or part of free speech? I explain: is 
there a difference for you between http://support.france.ibm.com (Saxon 
semantic) and http://support.ibm-france.com (Latin semantic)

- - a network may two architectures: central operations with slave stations 
(star network) or distributed stations and central services (meshed 
network). What is the Internet on your opinion? How do you relate this to 
Roots, ICANN, DNSO WGs?

- - how important to you is IP numbering plan management? do you support the 
concept of a de facto worldwide control of the people through their IP 
addresses? what is your opinion on privacy in the IP context?

- - every nominated candidate is from NorthA. Have you previously committed 
clearly to the opening of the Internet structures and technologies to new 
cultures, character sets, national, regional, local interests?
ICANN should be a real international body. This should be made clear 
through the recognition of several languages and the geographical location 
of its instances (not only through the tourism of its meetings). DNSO paved 
the way. Would you support equal right ICANN offices (even unstaffed) in 
every geographical area?Do you have suggestions to make such local presence 
useful?

- - new industries and automation will have a tremendous use of Internet, 
opening new ways to use, develop, control and pay for it. Would you support 
innovative avenues in studying this aspect, like - this is only an example 
- - in having test/experimental gTLD sponsored by the DNSO (out of the 
current ICANN work)? Other suggestions?

- - ICANN charter is to work out consensus. The "stay @large" experience is 
not satisfactory in its present form (over representation of Japan and 
Germany, unequal number of ICANN nominated person, short period during 
vacations, 70% of the voting PINs not received). This is therefore an 
anti-consensus operation: which strategy would you propose? Which is your 
vision of the ICANN and what are the bylaws modifications you would support?

- - ICANN needs a budget and people dedicating time and resources to the 
common good should deserve to be correctly compensated (do you approve). 
ICANN seems to weave links, financial expanses, working culture, etc... to 
become a need for a court of large interests and real or self nominated 
experts, making itself necessary as a business would do. Do you agree? Do 
you support this strategy? Which alternative would you support? Would you 
support the concept of SO having an independent budget and resources?

- - there are in the world many worldwide organizations representing 
interests using Internet, from IATA to Churches, Red Cross to Interpol, GAC 
to CCITT. Would you support the concept of an International Organization 
Internet Club for them to periodically meet, exchange informations and 
experience, share projects, describe needs, etc..? Would you support the 
idea of a ad hoc Working Group to study this and propose a Supporting 
Organization set-up?

- - if elected at the BoD, do you consider that you will have to represent 
the then current opinion of the DNSO General Assembly even if changing, or 
that you owe the DNSO and the people who voted for you to stay cleverly 
consistent with your own views.

I apologize to have been long, but IMHO some of these 10 issues will decide 
of the survival of the ICANN and we need to know where our director will stand.
Sincerely yours.
Jefsey Morfin

At 08:21 22/08/00, you wrote:
>while the At Large is going on, we also have our own selection: Of a board 
>member from the DNSO.
>
>The candidate list, as of my latest viewing:
>
>           Jonathan Cohen (NorthA), 1 supporters
>           Peter de Blanc (NorthA), 3 supporters
>           Jill Keogh (NorthA), 0 supporters
>           James P. Love (NorthA), 4 supporters
>           Ronald N. Weikers (NorthA), 10 supporters
>
>Our only formal input into this process is by endorsing candidates.
>Does anyone want to give their opinion on the candidates, to help those of 
>us who do not think they know who to endorse yet?
>
>My personal take:
>
>           Jonathan Cohen - incumbent. Also co-chaired WGs A and B.
>                 I guess we all have an opinion on his track record.
>           Peter de Blanc - no personal knowledge
>           Jill Keogh - the only one to ask for support on this list
>           James P. Love - union/consumer advocate, active email sender
>           Ronald N. Weikers - no personal knowledge
>
>Other views?
>
>                  Harald
>
>
>--
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
>+47 41 44 29 94
>Personal email: [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

- --
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, 22 Aug 2000 14:04:54 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

>  > Our only formal input into this process is by endorsing candidates.
>>  Does anyone want to give their opinion on the candidates, to help those of
>>  us who do not think they know who to endorse yet?
>
>Why endorse anyone?  The NC will pick the one candidate best suited to
>protect the special interests who dominate the DNSO NC.
>
>Seems like a futile effort to me.

Exactly.

Jonathan Cohen is a shoe-in. He's played the ICANN/WIPO game far too 
well to be dumped.

If he does get replaced, look for him to appear in a position of even 
greater power in the near future.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
- --
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, 22 Aug 2000 13:12:29 -0700
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 14:04 22/08/2000 -0500, Andy Gardner wrote:
>Exactly.
>
>Jonathan Cohen is a shoe-in. He's played the ICANN/WIPO game far too well 
>to be dumped.

So far, only one person has made a statement of support.
I have also heard dissatisfaction with his performance from other places; 
my personal opinion of the WG-B process was that it was handled very, very 
badly, and I think this opinion is shared by several other ICANN people.

The process does not allow the posting of negative support; our only formal 
way of showing non-support for Jonathan Cohen is to post support for others.

              Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:08:01 -0700
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 19:37 22/08/2000 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>Harald,
>I like your a little bit icannoclast suggestion.
>But one question first: to get an endorsement is it enough to call a 
>friend and to ask him to subscribe to this list?

yes.

>Now, I will apologize to 
><http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/icann-nominations/Arc00/msg00006.html>Jonathan 
>Cohen not to support his tremendous dedication, but I am afraid his views 
>and strategy are too different from mine's.
> From 
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/icann-nominations/Arc00/msg00004.html>Mr. 
> Weikers' short and uncommitted letter of intent I understand he wants to 
> be hired to do what is in ICANN's and every Internet user's best 
> interest. I am surprised by his immediate supporter number since this is 
> an election process?

Not quite an election process. Anyone who meets the minimum number of 
supporters is passed to the NC for review.
I did not know any of the names who supported mr. Weikers; I recognize 4 of 
the names supporting Peter de Blanc. This does not prove anything; I don't 
know most of the people in this process.

I guess one reason to let the NC make the final decision is that it can 
consider whether the support lists show support from many quarters or just 
from a single well-organized group.

>- every nominated candidate is from NorthA.

note that the two other board members from the DNSO are not from North 
America. Thus, people from Europe and Asia were barred from nomination this 
time.

                Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:20:37 -0700
From: Kristy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 12:04 PM 8/22/2000 , Andy Gardner wrote:
>>  > Our only formal input into this process is by endorsing candidates.
>>>  Does anyone want to give their opinion on the candidates, to help
those of
>>>  us who do not think they know who to endorse yet?
>>
>>Why endorse anyone?  The NC will pick the one candidate best suited to
>>protect the special interests who dominate the DNSO NC.
>>
>>Seems like a futile effort to me.
>
>Exactly.
>
>Jonathan Cohen is a shoe-in. He's played the ICANN/WIPO game far too 
>well to be dumped.
>
>If he does get replaced, look for him to appear in a position of even 
>greater power in the near future.
>
>-- 
>Andrew P. Gardner
>
Yes, but isn't is widely know that his efforts are not supported by the group
at large?  We should give someone else the opportunity to please or displease
us.  Maybe Mr. Cohen will find a place where he can please himself, his
interests, and us within the DNSO or ICANN...  

~k

- --
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, 22 Aug 2000 16:45:34 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] WG-B

>  ... my personal opinion of the WG-B process was that it was handled
>  very, very badly ....

I beg to differ.  I have been a member of WG-B since last year,
and I think it has been handled well, given the circumstances.

Otho Ross
- --
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, 22 Aug 2000 16:01:27 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WG-B

>  >  ... my personal opinion of the WG-B process was that it was handled
>>   very, very badly ....
>
>I beg to differ.  I have been a member of WG-B since last year,
>and I think it has been handled well, given the circumstances.
>
>Otho Ross

What constituency are you involved with?

No, no, let me guess....

Oohhhh ohhhh! I know!  IP!

Do I win anything?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
- --
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, 22 Aug 2000 19:08:40 -0400
From: Jeff Racho <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

>I did not know any of the names who supported mr. Weikers; I recognize 4 of 
>the names supporting Peter de Blanc. This does not prove anything; I don't 
>know most of the people in this process.

Number 11 on the Mr.Weikers list is Robert Bemer, a former IBM employee and
computer scientist who was instumental in the development of COBOL,
FORTRAN, ASCII, and the development of IBM mainframes.  Mr.Bemer has also
advised several U.S. Presidents on computer issues as well as the U.S. DoD.
 Mr. Bemer is currently retired but advised a number of large U.S.
corporations in the late 1990s as they performed Y2K remediation on their
mainframe systems. 

Number 6, Leon Kappelman, is an IT professor at the U. of Texas in the U.S.
 Both of these gentlemen have been involved in other listservs related to
IT issues.

- --
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, 22 Aug 2000 20:14:26 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

I worked in Working Group B.  I am unaware of Jonathan Cohen's involvement
in that working group.  Is there some confusion here?

- -----Original Message-----
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 4:12 PM
To: Andy Gardner; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 14:04 22/08/2000 -0500, Andy Gardner wrote:
>Exactly.
>
>Jonathan Cohen is a shoe-in. He's played the ICANN/WIPO game far too well 
>to be dumped.

So far, only one person has made a statement of support.
I have also heard dissatisfaction with his performance from other places; 
my personal opinion of the WG-B process was that it was handled very, very 
badly, and I think this opinion is shared by several other ICANN people.

The process does not allow the posting of negative support; our only formal 
way of showing non-support for Jonathan Cohen is to post support for others.

              Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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
- --
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, 22 Aug 2000 20:49:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Perhaps they mean the inept handling of working group A.  See Comments on
ICANN Uniform Dispute Policy, http://www.law.miami.edu/~amf/icann-udp.htm
(Oct. 13, 1999)

On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I worked in Working Group B.  I am unaware of Jonathan Cohen's involvement
> in that working group.  Is there some confusion here?
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 4:12 PM
> To: Andy Gardner; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member
> 
> 
> At 14:04 22/08/2000 -0500, Andy Gardner wrote:
> >Exactly.
> >
> >Jonathan Cohen is a shoe-in. He's played the ICANN/WIPO game far too well 
> >to be dumped.
> 
> So far, only one person has made a statement of support.
> I have also heard dissatisfaction with his performance from other places; 
> my personal opinion of the WG-B process was that it was handled very, very 
> badly, and I think this opinion is shared by several other ICANN people.
> 
> The process does not allow the posting of negative support; our only formal 
> way of showing non-support for Jonathan Cohen is to post support for others.
> 
>               Harald
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: [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
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

- --
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, 22 Aug 2000 19:33:01 -0700
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 20:14 22/08/2000 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>I worked in Working Group B.  I am unaware of Jonathan Cohen's involvement
>in that working group.  Is there some confusion here?

on his resume, he mentioned that he had co-chaired the group.
But when I check out my WG-B archives, I find that Victoria Carrington said 
that she had replaced him as "NC representative" on Nov 15, 1999 - so it 
may not be right to blame him for anything that happened after that.

                 Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:11:50 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 09:57 AM 8/22/00 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>At 01:29 AM 8/22/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >focusing on various, vague, general fears, rather than on specific
> >constructive goals or even constructive approaches to making
> >improvements.  There also seems to be an unfortunate lack of understanding
> >of DNS technical details or even of ICANN's limited scope.
>
>         I was intrigued by Dave's comment, so I took a look at the 
> acceptance statements of the various

Jonathan, an interesting exercise.  Thanks for pursuing it.

While what follows might seem critical, it is intended to suggest the 
difficulty of evaluating candidates.  The question is how to tell who is 
really qualified, and THAT begins with trying to understand requirements of 
the job.

(I should dissemble a bit further.  None of what follows is critical of the 
people being discussed.  Rather, I'm trying to focus on the criteria.)

>Peter de Blanc (de Blanc established a ccTLD registry, and so presumably 
>is familiar with DNS technical details)

The ICANN Board is responsible for global policy of DNS (and IP) 
administration.  Having experience with a particular registry is, of 
course, helpful.  However it tells us nothing about the person's 
understanding of large-scale operations, design or policy issues. They 
might have great insight or they might not.  We can't tell.

An auto mechanic might be quite good at auto repair, but would you 
automatically assume that they are good at designing a new automobile, or 
even able to suggest engineering changes to existing cars?  And just so 
there is no confusion:  the answer to both parts is no.)

> >I feel that is our responsibility, as Internet professionals, to 
> champion the cause of outreach to under serviced populations. . . .

All of this text that you quoted is really general platitudes.  Not 
negative, and that's nice, but it tells us nothing about what the person 
knows or how they might decide particular issues.  (To be fair, of course, 
the application form did not solicit such detail.  For those voting, 
however, it would be helpful to get it.)

>James P. Love

Given that James and I have had strong exchanges and seem to hold strongly 
different views, it's worth noting that most if the text you quoted from 
him is far more concrete than the usual platitudes provided in such forms.

>>e.   ICANN should not require new TLD registries to sign contractual 
>>provisions or make other assurances that they will not participate in 
>>alternative root systems.  I am not aware of any evidence that such 
>>alternatives present problems for the Internet, and ICANN should avoid 
>>practices that will be seen as monopolistic or anticompetitive.

Most of the statements pertain to fuzzier aspects of legitimate social (and 
legal) policy and, therefore, can reasonably be debated.  This one, 
however, falls victim to the efforts at trying to move technical realities 
and constraints into that fuzzier area.  That is, it tries to pretend that 
technical issues are not technical issues.  We had all better be very 
careful that ICANN does not start trying to make rules that violate 
technical realities, such as the nature of the DNS root.

d/

- --
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, 23 Aug 2000 04:42:23 GMT
From: "Nancy Weeks" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] unsubscribe [email-masked]

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

- --
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, 23 Aug 2000 00:14:48 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 07:33 PM 8/22/00 -0700, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>At 20:14 22/08/2000 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>>I worked in Working Group B.  I am unaware of Jonathan Cohen's involvement
>>in that working group.  Is there some confusion here?
>
>on his resume, he mentioned that he had co-chaired the group.
>But when I check out my WG-B archives, I find that Victoria Carrington said 
>that she had replaced him as "NC representative" on Nov 15, 1999 - so it 
>may not be right to blame him for anything that happened after that.

	Victoria Carrington is an associate lawyer in the firm in which Jonathan
Cohen is senior managing partner.  She was named to his position
representing the Intellectual Property Constituency on the NC when he
joined the ICANN Board.

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

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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:41:34 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: DNS/ICANN understanding

- --=====================_20103997==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Dave,

1. Candidate filtering
I thank you for this. This should be rule nr°1 in all the Internet so 
called "governance".
At 06:11 23/08/00, you wrote:
>The ICANN Board is responsible for global policy of DNS (and IP) 
>administration.  Having experience with a particular registry is, of 
>course, helpful.  However it tells us nothing about the person's 
>understanding of large-scale operations, design or policy issues. They 
>might have great insight or they might not.  We can't tell.
>An auto mechanic might be quite good at auto repair, but would you 
>automatically assume that they are good at designing a new automobile, or 
>even able to suggest engineering changes to existing cars?  And just so 
>there is no confusion:  the answer to both parts is no.)

2. DNS nature
Now, let see your key point which is also well stated.
>>>e.   ICANN should not require new TLD registries to sign contractual 
>>>provisions or make other assurances that they will not participate in 
>>>alternative root systems.  I am not aware of any evidence that such 
>>>alternatives present problems for the Internet, and ICANN should avoid 
>>>practices that will be seen as monopolistic or anticompetitive.
>Most of the statements pertain to fuzzier aspects of legitimate social 
>(and legal) policy and, therefore, can reasonably be debated.  This one, 
>however, falls victim to the efforts at trying to move technical realities 
>and constraints into that fuzzier area.  That is, it tries to pretend that 
>technical issues are not technical issues.  We had all better be very 
>careful that ICANN does not start trying to make rules that violate 
>technical realities, such as the nature of the DNS root.

User demand
.
First I will get rid of the non technical issue: the technical solutions 
are there to address the user's demand Mr. Love wants to represent. I am 
sure you would not accept if I pretended you position reflects your 
technical inability to match the user's demand!
DNS Technicalities and NASDAQ

Warning: I quote two RFCs here to support my text. They are of 0 technical 
degree of complexity. Anyone can understand them. Anyway, the quotes I make 
are enough to fully understand my point.

You obviously refer to <ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2826.txt>RFC 2826 
which is the state of the art on this question. Being a technician you 
should read it in a technical way, not in the biased way of an old stubborn 
lawyer :-).

1) a technician you will probably accept the words "old stubborn" ...
when I show you the misvision of "God" vs the Yokohama acceptance of the 
need of new gTLDs. You will read Jon Postel's 
<ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt>RFC<ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt> 
1591 (this is the vision funding the TLDs). The text says:

'In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a hierarchy 
of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set of what are called 
"top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, 
ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166. It 
is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created.'

As you know, the ICANN sells away this Jon Postel's vision $50.000 a study. 
Real world is not always technical.

2) Now you are not anymore biased ... :-)
and have acknowledge there may be some different technical visions, we may 
come back to the ICANN "funding <ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2826.txt>RFC 
<ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2826.txt>2826". This RFC is the central 
reference used by ICANN, NSI, and al. to justify their anticompetitive 
conduct.

Any layman can read the document summary and understand. So let do it.

- -  this RFC is only a comment. Its Title is:

"IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root".

    (IAB stands for Internet Architecture Board)

- -  this RFC is for information. It starts with the following note:

"Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not 
specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is 
unlimited".

I underline: "it does not specify an Internet standard of any kind". An 
entire economy and millions of dollars in Domain Name value are built on 
the two quoted RFC... When NASDAQ understands it ...

- -  this RFC then supports a seemingly obvious yet contradictory concept:

"To remain a global network, the Internet requires the existence of a 
globally unique public name space. The DNS name space is a hierarchical 
name space derived from a single, globally unique root."
...
"This does not preclude private networks from operating their own private 
name spaces, but if they wish to make use of names uniquely defined for the 
global Internet, they have to fetch that information from the global DNS 
naming hierarchy, and in particular from the coordinated root servers of 
the global DNS naming hierarchy."

In lay words this means that:

- - to get all the information you must have an access to all the information.
- - but it adds: this does not prevent you to access it together with your 
own information.

This means you will have your information (the addresses of your private 
network) plus the information of the Internet. This is contradictory since 
your private network information is not available to others which therefore 
have not the more extended information you have (this contradiction is 
adressed and solved in my last part "globally" consistently with the RFC).

- - the RFC summary ends with another confused yet apparently pretty obvious 
point  :

"[the need of a globally unique root] This is a technical constraint 
inherent in the design of the DNS. Therefore it is not technically feasible 
for there to be more than one root in the public DNS. That one root must be 
supported by a set of coordinated root servers administered by a unique 
naming authority."

"Put simply, deploying multiple public DNS roots would raise a very strong 
possibility that users of different ISPs who click on the same link on a 
web page could end up at different destinations, against the will of the 
web page designers."

This intends to mean:

- - 'if you want to have the information of a database you must use that 
database': this is OK.

But it also includes two non discussed suppositions:

- - people must obey the author, removing the Internet navigation freedom 
rights.

I may want to subscribe to a [family] DNS root which removed all the adult 
and gambling sites, or to a [business] DNS root which also removed all the 
family related sites, replacing by little flowers, or NASDAQ reports. These 
DNS roots are value added DNS roots.

Value added DNS services is a coming industry, with broad ambitions. The 
alternative root pionneering time will probably be over very soon as 
alternative evoluates towards super (cf. infra).

- - global DNS = public DNS.
.
The entire issue is here: from the occurrence of the two words in two 
different paragraphs  about two complementary issues in the same document 
inattentive people assumed they were an unique concept because of the ill 
worded "globally unique public" of the introduction (othewise it would be 
like explaining that 2=1 because 1+1=1).

To be true this confusion comes from a lack of technical and semantic 
consideration by the authors who focused on the inner rather than on the 
external technicalities of the DNS using inconsiderately the adverb 
"globally" which is meaningless if you consider it in details and should 
probably be replaced by "finally" or "eventually".

Warning: the value added DNS industry will disseminate a better 
understanding of the DNS system by the public and a deeper analysis of its 
technical, legal, commercial possibilities. This will certainly lead to a 
revaluation of the value of several NASDAQ companies. It is of  particular 
interest to consider yesterday NSI announcement of foreign language domain 
name endorsement: it creates in the public understanding scores of new 
local gTLDs. This is pure value added DNS industry on a large scale 
(millions of domain names ahead).

The global/public issue being a key issue I will discuss it in a separated 
part.
GLOBAL vs PUBLIC DNS

<ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt>RFC 
<ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt>1591 can only be understood if you 
realize it talks about TWO different data bases.

Prior to discuss this point I want to tell I happened to head, back in 
1984/1986, Tymnet "public" network  "Extended Services". Being a French 
national, I got such difficulties to make the word "global" heard and  ny 
concept about it understood that I was nicknamed "the Global One" :-).

So, I am quite used to people meeting difficulties at these very simple, 
yet very powerful, new concepts.

The equation is not "public = global", but "public + extended = global" 
services.

I tried for years to define the extended services (it was my job 
definition!). I would say they are everything  a technician may build that 
the user may request and the network operator may not consider as his job.

One side: an offer defined by technicians (you David). An other side: needs 
represented by people like James L. Love.

I modelized the concept, enlarging the ISO model and I tried to analyse all 
this. IMHO a basic element to consider is the very nature of a network 
which allows both the operator and the user to control their use of it 
according to their own views, duties and interests.
.
- - Dave says "I owe to the public stable operations allowing the author to 
make available pages to his readers".
.
this is a public top quality service which can only be achieved by a public 
unique root.
.
I am not short minded so I help people extending my common offer
- - James says "I am the user and I have the right to a global solution" 
including:

the default public service offered by the network
.
and to any addition by Value Added/Extended services I want to use even not 
perfect.

Now, if you go into the details of the 
<ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt>RFC 
<ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt>1591 you will see that my reading 
is perfectly technically correct if you accept that the public service is 
part of the global network, not the otherway around. This translates into a 
scheme where the user or the ISP has its own virtual intranet (I name it 
externet), and  runs its own super root (not an alternative root) and 
defaults to the public root when a TLD is not matched. This way:
    * the user system has correctly an unique root (his super root) and the 
routing is exactly what he wants, preserving his Internet navigation 
freedom rights, at his own risks the public service  is a top quality 
reference well behaved and managed by the Public Root Systems under the 
ICANN/DNSO control on the 13 existing machines: the users may default to it 
or value added clones may copy and filter it according to their own specs.
    * BTW this shows you the futility of the Domain Name/TradeMark issue. I 
would be very very interested if someone could give me a legal definition 
of what is a Domain Name ???  I asked the WIPO in a very polite and 
documented way, to know if I could use the URDP for the two gTLDs I propose 
which introduce new addessing semantics. Eventhough I am a prospect for 
them I got no response for weeks now.
I hope this helps. Anyone interested in discussing this in a 
pragmatic/business way is welcome.

<http://utel.net/jefsey.htm>Jefsey <http://utel.net/jefsey.htm>Morfin
- --=====================_20103997==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
Dear Dave,<br>
<br>
<font color="#FF0000"><b>1. Candidate filtering<br>
</b></font>I thank you for this. This should be rule nr°1 in all the
Internet so called &quot;governance&quot;.<br>
At 06:11 23/08/00, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>The ICANN Board is responsible for global
policy of DNS (and IP) administration.&nbsp; Having experience with a
particular registry is, of course, helpful.&nbsp; However it tells us
nothing about the person's understanding of large-scale operations,
design or policy issues. They might have great insight or they might
not.&nbsp; We can't tell.<br>
<font color="#000080">An auto mechanic might be quite good at auto
repair, but would you automatically assume that they are good at
designing a new automobile, or even able to suggest engineering changes
to existing cars?&nbsp; And just so there is no confusion:&nbsp; the
answer to both parts is
no.)</font><font color="#0000FF"><b></b></font></blockquote><br>
<br>
<font color="#FF0000"><b>2. DNS nature<br>
</b></font>Now, let see your key point which is also well stated.<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><blockquote type=cite cite><blockquote type=cite cite>e.&nbsp;&nbsp;
ICANN should not require new TLD registries to sign contractual
provisions or make other assurances that they will not participate in
alternative root systems.&nbsp; I am not aware of any evidence that such
alternatives present problems for the Internet, and ICANN should avoid
practices that will be seen as monopolistic or
anticompetitive.</blockquote></blockquote><font color="#000080">Most of
the statements pertain to fuzzier aspects of legitimate social (and
legal) policy and, therefore, can reasonably be debated.&nbsp; This one,
however, falls victim to the efforts at trying to move technical
realities and constraints into that fuzzier area.&nbsp; That is, it tries
to pretend that technical issues are not technical issues.&nbsp; We had
all better be very careful that ICANN does not start trying to make rules
that violate technical realities, such as the nature of the DNS
root.</font></blockquote><br>
<font color="#FF0000"><b>User demand</b></font> <br>
.
<dl>
<dd>First I will get rid of the non technical issue: the technical
solutions are there to address the user's demand Mr. Love wants to
represent. I am sure you would not accept if I pretended you position
reflects your technical inability to match the user's demand! 
</dl><font color="#FF0000"><b>DNS Technicalities and NASDAQ<br>
</b></font>&nbsp; 
<dl><i>
<dd>Warning: I quote two RFCs here to support my text. They are of 0
technical degree of complexity. Anyone can understand them. Anyway, the
quotes I make are enough to fully understand my point.<br>
<br>
</i>
<dd>You obviously refer to
<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2826.txt"><b>RFC 2826</a></b>
which is the state of the art on this question. Being a technician you should read it in a technical way, not in the biased way of an old stubborn lawyer :-). <br>
<br>
<font color="#FF0000">
<dd>1) </font>a technician you will probably accept the words &quot;old stubborn&quot; ... 
<dd>when I show you the misvision of &quot;God&quot; vs the Yokohama acceptance of the need of new gTLDs. You will read Jon Postel's <a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt"><b>RFC</a><a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt"> 1591</a></b> (this is the vision funding the TLDs). The text says: <br>
<br>

<dd>'<font face="Courier New, Courier" color="#000080">In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set of what are called &quot;top-level domain names&quot; (TLDs). These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created.</font><font face="Courier New, Courier">'<br>
<br>
</font>
<dd>As you know, the ICANN sells away this Jon Postel's vision $50.000 a study. Real world is <b>not</b> always technical.<br>
<br>
<font color="#FF0000">
<dd>2)</font> Now you are not anymore biased ... :-)
<dd>and have acknowledge there may be some different technical visions, we may come back to the ICANN &quot;funding <a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2826.txt"><b>RFC </a><a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2826.txt">2826</a></b>&quot;. This RFC is the central reference used by ICANN, NSI, and al. to justify their <font color="#800000"><b>anticompetitive conduct</b></font>. <br>
<br>

<dd>Any layman can read the document summary and understand. So let do it.<br>
<br>

<dd>-&nbsp; this RFC is only a <font color="#800000"><b>comment</b></font>. Its Title is: <br>
<br>
<div align="center">
<font face="Courier New, Courier" color="#000080">
<dd>&quot;IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root&quot;.<br>
<br>
</font></div>

<dd>&nbsp;&nbsp; (IAB stands for Internet Architecture Board)<br>
<br>

<dd>-&nbsp; this RFC is for <font color="#800000"><b>information</b></font>. It starts with the following note:<br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier" color="#000080">
<dd>&quot;Status of this Memo <br>
<br>

<dd>This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited&quot;.<br>
<br>
</font>
<dd>I underline: &quot;<font color="#800000"><b>it does not specify an Internet standard of any kind</b></font>&quot;. An entire economy and millions of dollars in Domain Name value are built on the two quoted RFC... When NASDAQ understands it ...<br>
<br>

<dd>-&nbsp; this RFC then supports a seemingly obvious yet contradictory concept:<br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier" color="#000080">
<dd>&quot;To remain a global network, the Internet requires the existence of a globally unique public name space. The DNS name space is a hierarchical name space derived from a single, globally unique root.&quot; 
<dd>... 
<dd>&quot;This does not preclude private networks from operating their own private name spaces, but if they wish to make use of names uniquely defined for the global Internet, they have to fetch that information from the global DNS naming hierarchy, and in particular from the coordinated root servers of the global DNS naming hierarchy.</font>&quot;<br>
<br>

<dd>In lay words this means that:<br>
<br>

<dd>- to get all the information you must have an access to all the information. 
<dd>- but it adds: this does not prevent you to access it together with your own information. <br>
<br>

<dd>This means you will have your information (the addresses of your private network) <font color="#800000"><b>plus</b></font> the information of the Internet. This is contradictory since your private network information is <font color="#800000"><b>not</font> </b>available to others which therefore have not the more extended information you have (this contradiction is adressed and solved in my last part &quot;globally&quot; consistently with the RFC).<br>
<br>

<dd>- the RFC summary ends with another confused yet apparently pretty obvious point&nbsp; :<br>
<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier" color="#000080">
<dd>&quot;[the need of a globally unique root] This is a technical constraint inherent in the design of the DNS. Therefore it is not technically feasible for there to be more than one root in the public DNS. That one root must be supported by a set of coordinated root servers administered by a unique naming authority.&quot;<br>
<br>

<dd>&quot;Put simply, deploying multiple public DNS roots would raise a very strong possibility that users of different ISPs who click on the same link on a web page could end up at different destinations, against the will of the web page designers.&quot;<br>
<br>
</font>
<dd>This intends to mean: <br>
<br>

<dd>- 'if you want to have the information of a database you must use that database': this is OK. <br>
<br>

<dd>But it also includes two <font color="#800000"><b>non discussed </b></font>suppositions:<br>
<br>

<dd>- people must obey the author, <b>removing the Internet navigation freedom rights</b>. 
<dl>
<dd>&nbsp; 
<dd>I may want to subscribe to a [family] DNS root which removed all the adult and gambling sites, or to a [business] DNS root which also removed all the family related sites, replacing by little flowers, or NASDAQ reports. These DNS roots are <font color="#800000"><b>value added </b></font>DNS roots. <br>
<br>

<dd>Value added DNS services is a coming industry, with broad ambitions. <i>The alternative root pionneering time will probably be over very soon as alternative evoluates towards super (cf. infra).<br>
<br>
</i>
</dl>
<dd>- global DNS = public DNS. 
<dd>. 
<dl>
<dd>The entire issue is here: from the occurrence of the <b>two</b> words in <b>two</b> different paragraphs&nbsp; about <b>two</b> complementary issues in the same document inattentive people <font color="#800000"><b>assumed</b></font> they were an <b>unique</b> concept because of the ill worded &quot;globally unique public&quot; of the introduction (othewise it would be like explaining that 2=1 because 1+1=1).<br>
<br>

<dd>To be true this confusion comes from a lack of technical and semantic consideration by the authors who focused on the inner rather than on the external technicalities of the DNS using inconsiderately the adverb &quot;globally&quot; which is meaningless if you consider it in details and should probably be replaced by &quot;finally&quot; or &quot;eventually&quot;.<br>
<br>
<font color="#FF0000"><b>
<dd>Warning</b></font>: the value added DNS industry will disseminate a better understanding of the DNS system by the public and a deeper analysis of its technical, legal, commercial possibilities. This will certainly lead to a revaluation of the value of several NASDAQ companies. It is of&nbsp; particular interest to consider yesterday NSI announcement of foreign language domain name endorsement: it creates in the public understanding scores of new local gTLDs. This is pure value added DNS industry on a large scale (millions of domain names ahead).<br>
<br>

<dd>The <b>global/public</b> issue being a key issue I will discuss it in a separated part. 
</dl>
</dl><font color="#FF0000"><b>GLOBAL vs PUBLIC DNS<br>
<br>
</font><a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt">RFC</a> <a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt">1591</a> </b>can only be understood if you realize it talks about TWO different data bases.<br>
<br>
Prior to discuss this point I want to tell I happened to head, back in 1984/1986, Tymnet &quot;public&quot; network&nbsp; &quot;Extended Services&quot;. Being a French national, I got such difficulties to make the word &quot;global&quot; heard and&nbsp; ny concept about it understood that I was nicknamed &quot;the Global One&quot; :-).&nbsp; <br>
<br>
So, I am quite used to people meeting difficulties at these very simple, yet very powerful, new concepts.<br>
<br>
The equation is not &quot;public = global&quot;, but &quot;<font color="#800000"><b>public + extended = global</b></font>&quot; services.<br>
<br>
I tried for years to define the extended services (it was my job definition!). I would say they are everything&nbsp; a technician may build that the user may request and the network operator may not consider as his job.<br>
<br>
One side: an offer defined by technicians (you David). An other side: needs represented by people like James L. Love. <br>
<br>
I modelized the concept, enlarging the ISO model and I tried to analyse all this. IMHO a basic element to consider is the very nature of a network which allows both the operator and the user to control their use of it according to their own views, duties and interests. <br>
. 
<dl>
<dd>- Dave says &quot;I <font color="#800000"><b>owe</b></font> to the public stable operations allowing the author to make available pages to his readers&quot;. 
<dd>. 
<dl>
<dd>this is a <b>public</b> top quality service which can only be achieved by a <b>public unique root</b>. 
</dl>
<dd>. 
<dl>
<dd>I am not short minded so I help people extending my common offer 
</dl>
<dd>- James says &quot;I am the user and I have the <font color="#800000"><b>right</b></font> to a <b>global solution&quot; </b>including: 
<dd>&nbsp; 
<dl>
<dd>the <font color="#800000"><b>default public service</b></font> offered by the network 
<dd>. 
<dd>and to any addition by Value Added/Extended services I want to use even not perfect. <br>
<br>

</dl>
</dl>Now, if you go into the details of the <a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt"><b>RFC</a> <a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt">1591</a> </b>you will see that my reading is perfectly technically correct if you accept that the public service is part of the global network, not the otherway around. This translates into a scheme where the user or the ISP has its own <u>virtual intranet</u> (I name it <b>externet</b>), and&nbsp; runs its own <font color="#FF0000"><b>super root </b></font>(not an alternative root) and <font color="#800000"><b>defaults</b></font> to the public root when a TLD is not matched. This way: 
<ul>
<li>the user system has correctly an unique root (his super root) and the routing is exactly what he wants, preserving his Internet navigation freedom rights, at his own risks the public service&nbsp; is a top quality reference well behaved and managed by the Public Root Systems under the ICANN/DNSO control on the 13 existing machines: the users may default to it or value added clones may copy and filter it according to their own specs. 
</ul>
<ul>
<li>BTW this shows you the futility of the Domain Name/TradeMark issue. I would be very very interested if someone could give me <b>a legal definition of what is a Domain Name </b>???&nbsp; I asked the WIPO in a very polite and documented way, to know if I could use the URDP for the two gTLDs I propose which introduce new addessing semantics. Eventhough I am a prospect for them I got no response for weeks now. 
</ul>I hope this helps. Anyone interested in discussing this in a pragmatic/business way is welcome.<br>
<br>
<b><a href="http://utel.net/jefsey.htm">Jefsey </a><a href="http://utel.net/jefsey.htm">Morfin</a></b></html>

- --=====================_20103997==_.ALT--

- --
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 #124
************************