Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1267
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, June 8 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1267

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

Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 01:43:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ZA administrator says may be forced to shut the ccTLD down

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020607/wr_nm/tech_internet_safrica_dc_1

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear YJ,
>
> Don't even sink to WXWs silly level. Why are they called "Country" Codes.
>
> I know that people love to saintify Postel, but in fact he gave some of the ccTLDs to the wrong
> folk.
> They were designed and will always remain to be Country Codes and by and through that a Country
> Resource.

well - lets not get our nickers in a twist here.

now postel did not have the benefit of hindsight - not that hindsight has
any significance here.  all that happened was that postel needed a means
of assigning countries identifiable namespace - he choose the iso
designation and he gave the assignments to the people who where there and
were offering their services.  they rightfully belong to these people.
that is the nature of the dns.  the za administrator may do as he pleases.

now the fact the south african government are about to make fools of
themselves on the international telecommunications stage is the fault of
the US dept of commerce who have kept these people ignorant of the fact
that they can run their own zone infrastructure and not only take control
of their namespace but also increase their national security through the
operation of a south african root server network.

the australian aboriginals secure their own zones - i see no reason why
the south africans can't follow in the same path.

and we all know the security implications of relying on insecure root
infrastructure - don't we?

regards
joe baptista

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

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 23:15:14 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] .ZA administrator says may be forced to shut the ccTLD down

- --------------16EABD7CD47614514213715F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Alrighty then allow me to unbunch me knickers,

Any good country administration of a cc should be available to explore and or implement more reliable
sources of inter connectivity.

Routing around IANA problems should be of paramount importance and security considerations.

ICANN rooted situational remedies should be but one weapon in an arsenal meant to provide a stable
and usable internet and resource for any country.  Alternative methodology and inclusive allocations
should also be a part of a realistic global strategy for any country.

I am hardly waiting for someone to press the point that ICANN standards are International standards
within a WTO or USBTA agreement.  I believe the DoC will back off any such outlandish position and
admit to a void in ISO.

Thank you for your insistence on smelling the roses and reality of the unreal.

Eric

Joe Baptista wrote:

> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020607/wr_nm/tech_internet_safrica_dc_1
>
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Dear YJ,
> >
> > Don't even sink to WXWs silly level. Why are they called "Country" Codes.
> >
> > I know that people love to saintify Postel, but in fact he gave some of the ccTLDs to the wrong
> > folk.
> > They were designed and will always remain to be Country Codes and by and through that a Country
> > Resource.
>
> well - lets not get our nickers in a twist here.
>
> now postel did not have the benefit of hindsight - not that hindsight has
> any significance here.  all that happened was that postel needed a means
> of assigning countries identifiable namespace - he choose the iso
> designation and he gave the assignments to the people who where there and
> were offering their services.  they rightfully belong to these people.
> that is the nature of the dns.  the za administrator may do as he pleases.
>
> now the fact the south african government are about to make fools of
> themselves on the international telecommunications stage is the fault of
> the US dept of commerce who have kept these people ignorant of the fact
> that they can run their own zone infrastructure and not only take control
> of their namespace but also increase their national security through the
> operation of a south african root server network.
>
> the australian aboriginals secure their own zones - i see no reason why
> the south africans can't follow in the same path.
>
> and we all know the security implications of relying on insecure root
> infrastructure - don't we?
>
> regards
> joe baptista

- --------------16EABD7CD47614514213715F
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Alrighty then allow me to unbunch me knickers,
<p>Any good country administration of a cc should be available to explore
and or implement more reliable sources of inter connectivity.
<p>Routing around IANA problems should be of paramount importance and security
considerations.
<p>ICANN rooted situational remedies should be but one weapon in an arsenal
meant to provide a stable and usable internet and resource for any country.&nbsp;
Alternative methodology and inclusive allocations should also be a part
of a realistic global strategy for any country.
<p>I am hardly waiting for someone to press the point that ICANN standards
are International standards within a WTO or USBTA agreement.&nbsp; I believe
the DoC will back off any such outlandish position and admit to a void
in ISO.
<p>Thank you for your insistence on smelling the roses and reality of the
unreal.
<p>Eric
<p>Joe Baptista wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020607/wr_nm/tech_internet_safrica_dc_1">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;u=/nm/20020607/wr_nm/tech_internet_safrica_dc_1</a>
<p>On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
<p>> Dear YJ,
<br>>
<br>> Don't even sink to WXWs silly level. Why are they called "Country"
Codes.
<br>>
<br>> I know that people love to saintify Postel, but in fact he gave some
of the ccTLDs to the wrong
<br>> folk.
<br>> They were designed and will always remain to be Country Codes and
by and through that a Country
<br>> Resource.
<p>well - lets not get our nickers in a twist here.
<p>now postel did not have the benefit of hindsight - not that hindsight
has
<br>any significance here.&nbsp; all that happened was that postel needed
a means
<br>of assigning countries identifiable namespace - he choose the iso
<br>designation and he gave the assignments to the people who where there
and
<br>were offering their services.&nbsp; they rightfully belong to these
people.
<br>that is the nature of the dns.&nbsp; the za administrator may do as
he pleases.
<p>now the fact the south african government are about to make fools of
<br>themselves on the international telecommunications stage is the fault
of
<br>the US dept of commerce who have kept these people ignorant of the
fact
<br>that they can run their own zone infrastructure and not only take control
<br>of their namespace but also increase their national security through
the
<br>operation of a south african root server network.
<p>the australian aboriginals secure their own zones - i see no reason
why
<br>the south africans can't follow in the same path.
<p>and we all know the security implications of relying on insecure root
<br>infrastructure - don't we?
<p>regards
<br>joe baptista</blockquote>
</html>

- --------------16EABD7CD47614514213715F--

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

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

Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 01:51:36 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ZA administrator says may be forced to shut the ccTLD down

Eric, Joe and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

>    Alrighty then allow me to unbunch me knickers,

Could you also fumigate them when you finished.  Oh yes, and wash
your hands very thoroughly also...  >;)

>
>
> Any good country administration of a cc should be available to explore
> and or implement more reliable sources of inter connectivity.

  Agreed.  In fact not doing so would be and incompetent oversight...

>
>
> Routing around IANA problems should be of paramount importance and
> security considerations.

  Also agreed as well.  And with the current and seeming increasing and
ongoing
DOS and virus attacks as well as other types of hacks, it would also be
incompetent to not do so if the situation would require or seemingly
require
it...

>
>
> ICANN rooted situational remedies should be but one weapon in an
> arsenal meant to provide a stable and usable internet and resource for
> any country.  Alternative methodology and inclusive allocations should
> also be a part of a realistic global strategy for any country.

  Can't argue with this logically or even technically in many instances
as well...

>
>
> I am hardly waiting for someone to press the point that ICANN
> standards are International standards within a WTO or USBTA
> agreement.  I believe the DoC will back off any such outlandish
> position and admit to a void in ISO.

  Well I am not sure that DOC will do so, but lets hope so, and it would
be
wise for them to do so as well...

>
>
> Thank you for your insistence on smelling the roses and reality of the
> unreal.

  Yes, smelling the roses, as you put it Eric, is preferable to smelling
the
dirty diapers of the IANA and ICANN in many, and increasing instances...

>
>
> Eric
>
> Joe Baptista wrote:
>
> >
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020607/wr_nm/tech_internet_safrica_dc_1
>
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > Dear YJ,
> > >
> > > Don't even sink to WXWs silly level. Why are they called "Country"
> Codes.
> > >
> > > I know that people love to saintify Postel, but in fact he gave
> some of the ccTLDs to the wrong
> > > folk.
> > > They were designed and will always remain to be Country Codes and
> by and through that a Country
> > > Resource.
> >
> > well - lets not get our nickers in a twist here.
> >
> > now postel did not have the benefit of hindsight - not that
> hindsight has
> > any significance here.  all that happened was that postel needed a
> means
> > of assigning countries identifiable namespace - he choose the iso
> > designation and he gave the assignments to the people who where
> there and
> > were offering their services.  they rightfully belong to these
> people.
> > that is the nature of the dns.  the za administrator may do as he
> pleases.
> >
> > now the fact the south african government are about to make fools of
>
> > themselves on the international telecommunications stage is the
> fault of
> > the US dept of commerce who have kept these people ignorant of the
> fact
> > that they can run their own zone infrastructure and not only take
> control
> > of their namespace but also increase their national security through
> the
> > operation of a south african root server network.
> >
> > the australian aboriginals secure their own zones - i see no reason
> why
> > the south africans can't follow in the same path.
> >
> > and we all know the security implications of relying on insecure
> root
> > infrastructure - don't we?
> >
> > regards
> > joe baptista
>
>

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 12:10:00 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [fwd] Nominating Committee & at-large (from: [email-masked])

- --=======5F89205F=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3D6E32D2; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 17:27 06/06/02, Thomas Roessler said:
>If I'm strongly mistaken about what you folks think, please speak up now, 
>so I can send a correction to the council. ;-)

Your report seems accurate in term of what I read too from the GA. But we 
could build a real and serious proposition from that, since Dennis Jennings 
and Joe Sims made the GA to represent the @large so far.

The easiest way IMHO to keep the @large notion effective and present would 
be to have "@large members" elected to the NomCom by the local communities 
- - (ex.: one per GAC Member).

I nickname the NomCom "NomComgress" for three reasons :

1. to remind that the Reform Committee as expressed a question about its 
size. Obviously the largest the size the closest we are from the true 
@large population which is probably around 1500 individuals and corporate 
and organization people. So we may have stability and reasonable 
representativity without capture (either by external interest of by the BoD).

2. to permit at least some members of the NomCom to be elected. A two 
levels direct election was partly the one of the ALSC. In the interest of 
stability and representation of the different problems and solutions we 
should have 50/50 election from Internet Participants gathered through 
"netwide" types of concerns (the SOs) and Internet Participants gathered 
through personal issues or geography (the @large).

3. to follow on Kent Crispin's logic which should be acceptable to BoD and 
Staff. He says the NC is representative because it is elected, even if it 
is by non representative groups.
jfc

>From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
>I may have not been as clear as I should be in one of my statements
>during today's call, concerning the relationship between a
>nominating committee and an at-large membership, so let me try to
>clarify this a bit more.
>
>1. It is safe to assume that most of the GA's members (certainly
>most of its active ones) would clearly favor direct at-large
>elections over any nominating (or rather: selection) committee
>approach.
>
>2. Since that doesn't seem to be feasible at this point of time,
>reserving a number of board seats for an at-large membership, and
>having the selection committeee fill these seats as a stop-gap
>measure, is certainly preferable over assigning these seats to a
>selection committee for all future, effectively eliminating even the 
>notion of an at-large membership.
>
>3. In order to make such an arrangement more than just a
>lip-service, the reservation of board seats for an at-large
>membership would have to have some teeth - for instance, a bylaws
>provision which mandates at-large elections at a well-defined point
>of time in the future, provided certain factual conditions are
>fulfilled.  Bad enough, it seems unlikely to me that the current board 
>would even consider such a change.
>
>4. Maybe having some kind of open election for some (or even all?
>;-) members of the selection committee may be the way to go for at
>least some at-large membership representation within the structure
>currently proposed.
>
>--
>Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>
>----- End forwarded message -----
>--
>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
>
>

- --=======5F89205F=======--

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

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

Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 14:17:25 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

- --=======5575CF8=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3D6E32D2; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 17:17 06/06/02, Marc Schneiders said:
>On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, at 10:50 [=GMT-0400], John Berryhill wrote:
> > The WLS as currently proposed, contains no protection for IP interests at
> > all,
>
>Or any other interests, except VeriSigns.
>
> > in contrast to every other new service which has been launched since
> > the inception of ICANN.  This is reason enough to send the WLS back for a
> > re-work to explain how they intend to address the concerns of intellectual
> > property owners.
>
>During this revision they should not forget to deal with trademarks that
>expire during the period a 'buyer' is waiting. And certainly not in how to
>deal with new trademarks, acquired by third parties after a 'buyer' bought
>himself the right to wait.

These are interesting features. But first I would like to understand what 
happens in the case of a standard UDRP on a WLSed domain-name. If the 
current DN holder loses, who gets the name? If the WLS holded does not get 
the name he should be allowed to share in the UDRP and refunded. I 
understand this would make the UDRP a tri-party abitration. Does anyone 
heard about such an arbitration? Who should then bear the extra costs?
jfc

- --=======5575CF8=======--

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

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

Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 14:05:15 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ZA administrator says may be forced to shut the ccTLD down

- --=======1E3655BB=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3D6E32D2; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 03:45 08/06/02, William X Walsh said:
>Someone tell me who the idiots were who made the governments believe
>they had any rights at all to manage the ccTLD namespaces themselves.

Just read ICP-3 and you will understand why and who. Nothing is worse than 
to believe you know ...

- --=======1E3655BB=======--

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

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

Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 14:09:46 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ZA administrator says may be forced to shut the ccTLD down

- --=======665D9B=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3D6E32D2; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 04:31 08/06/02, Joop Teernstra said:
>That is how, ultimately, the voters are responsible for the deeds of their 
>governments.
>Do you have an issue with the Parliament of South Africa or with democracy?

When are you going to make the NZ Gov to vote the Sun to be Blue and the 
sky yellow. I would be fro a change. jfc

- --=======665D9B=======--

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

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

Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 10:17:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ZA administrator says may be forced to shut the ccTLD down

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Any good country administration of a cc should be available to explore and or implement more reliable
> sources of inter connectivity.

I would say that in a perfect world - ICANN would of approached the
National Governments and suggested they setup their own top level domain
managers for their own top level domain.  It's a bit of a joke watching
the various attempts to take over or nationalize an existing resource that
they never have had any control over in the first place.

It's much easier to simply setup a national TLD - or several national tlds
- - and then the various interested governments can develop those resources
as they deem fit to do.  Start with a clean slate and move forward.

Frankly it has never been the business of a cc tld administrator to
explore or implement more reliable sources of inter connectivity.  The way
this show has been run is do as you please and carry on.  Thats the nature
of how the assignments were made.

If a government is concerned about it's security and securing access to
namespace by it's own nationals - then it would be prudent for it to run
it's own national root servers and tlds.  I think this is a much better
proactive approach then begging the US Government for a scrap here and
there.

regards
joe

> Routing around IANA problems should be of paramount importance and security considerations.
>
> ICANN rooted situational remedies should be but one weapon in an arsenal meant to provide a stable
> and usable internet and resource for any country.  Alternative methodology and inclusive allocations
> should also be a part of a realistic global strategy for any country.
>
> I am hardly waiting for someone to press the point that ICANN standards are International standards
> within a WTO or USBTA agreement.  I believe the DoC will back off any such outlandish position and
> admit to a void in ISO.
>
> Thank you for your insistence on smelling the roses and reality of the unreal.
>
> Eric
>
> Joe Baptista wrote:
>
> > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020607/wr_nm/tech_internet_safrica_dc_1
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > Dear YJ,
> > >
> > > Don't even sink to WXWs silly level. Why are they called "Country" Codes.
> > >
> > > I know that people love to saintify Postel, but in fact he gave some of the ccTLDs to the wrong
> > > folk.
> > > They were designed and will always remain to be Country Codes and by and through that a Country
> > > Resource.
> >
> > well - lets not get our nickers in a twist here.
> >
> > now postel did not have the benefit of hindsight - not that hindsight has
> > any significance here.  all that happened was that postel needed a means
> > of assigning countries identifiable namespace - he choose the iso
> > designation and he gave the assignments to the people who where there and
> > were offering their services.  they rightfully belong to these people.
> > that is the nature of the dns.  the za administrator may do as he pleases.
> >
> > now the fact the south african government are about to make fools of
> > themselves on the international telecommunications stage is the fault of
> > the US dept of commerce who have kept these people ignorant of the fact
> > that they can run their own zone infrastructure and not only take control
> > of their namespace but also increase their national security through the
> > operation of a south african root server network.
> >
> > the australian aboriginals secure their own zones - i see no reason why
> > the south africans can't follow in the same path.
> >
> > and we all know the security implications of relying on insecure root
> > infrastructure - don't we?
> >
> > regards
> > joe baptista
>

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

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

Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 10:40:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] More .ZA reports

More .ZA reports

http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.jsp?a=11&o=4547
http://www.dispatch.co.za/2002/06/08/southafrica/ALLAY.HTM
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=6&art_id=ct20020607192318721C000913&set_id=1
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=124&art_id=qw1023078240492B261&set_id=1

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

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

Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 10:05:15 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] .ZA administrator says may be forced to shut the ccTLD down

- --------------951AA68AD9A57A3872DCC450
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Any good country administration of a cc should be available to explore and or implement more reliable
> > sources of inter connectivity.
>
> I would say that in a perfect world - ICANN would of approached the
> National Governments and suggested they setup their own top level domain
> managers for their own top level domain.  It's a bit of a joke watching
> the various attempts to take over or nationalize an existing resource that
> they never have had any control over in the first place.
>

I find the current debate over restructuring of ICANN amusing in the sense that they only look inward and
toward their own structure.  One would have hoped a debate over restructuring would include your
suggestions above.  I must say it is reflective of a US centric conceit.  The world is where it is at and
connecting up differently established domains is where the proper course lies.  Be they "alternative",
inclusive, ccs' or Martian. (look how television uses the word network and how easy it is to find your
favorite, although that VCR still gives me fits ;-})

As your next post with references makes clear and our recent debacle in AU has illustrated take-overs
become quite a queer dog.  As a matter of point I find that countries that have the
management/administration lodged originally in academia to be in more serious problems unless they can get
some marketing and business perspective into said ivory towers.

>
> It's much easier to simply setup a national TLD - or several national tlds
> - and then the various interested governments can develop those resources
> as they deem fit to do.  Start with a clean slate and move forward.
>

Until the great ICON Icon falls I suggest a dual model of both the Legacy and a clean slate.  As a
practical matter militaries should be setting their own up anyhow and if they do it in a modular fashion
they can then duplicate for in/out country commercial viability.

>
> Frankly it has never been the business of a cc tld administrator to
> explore or implement more reliable sources of inter connectivity.  The way
> this show has been run is do as you please and carry on.  Thats the nature
> of how the assignments were made.
>

You should be ashamed of your cynical nature.  That is why our group works with countries and that is to
break this mold for the benefit of the people.  Internet and technicians and scholars and lawyers should be
our tools and not our masters.

>
> If a government is concerned about it's security and securing access to
> namespace by it's own nationals - then it would be prudent for it to run
> it's own national root servers and tlds.  I think this is a much better
> proactive approach then begging the US Government for a scrap here and
> there.
>

I would like to be enlightened as to why they should really go the root server model.  As I am sure you are
aware there are now other models.  Like an overly centralized location of power is dangerous so is an
overly centralized Internet. I should think by their total lack of active involvement themselves the DoC
would welcome such activity.

Sincerely,
Eric

>
> regards
> joe
>
> > Routing around IANA problems should be of paramount importance and security considerations.
> >
> > ICANN rooted situational remedies should be but one weapon in an arsenal meant to provide a stable
> > and usable internet and resource for any country.  Alternative methodology and inclusive allocations
> > should also be a part of a realistic global strategy for any country.
> >
> > I am hardly waiting for someone to press the point that ICANN standards are International standards
> > within a WTO or USBTA agreement.  I believe the DoC will back off any such outlandish position and
> > admit to a void in ISO.
> >
> > Thank you for your insistence on smelling the roses and reality of the unreal.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > Joe Baptista wrote:
> >
> > > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020607/wr_nm/tech_internet_safrica_dc_1
> > >
> > > On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear YJ,
> > > >
> > > > Don't even sink to WXWs silly level. Why are they called "Country" Codes.
> > > >
> > > > I know that people love to saintify Postel, but in fact he gave some of the ccTLDs to the wrong
> > > > folk.
> > > > They were designed and will always remain to be Country Codes and by and through that a Country
> > > > Resource.
> > >
> > > well - lets not get our nickers in a twist here.
> > >
> > > now postel did not have the benefit of hindsight - not that hindsight has
> > > any significance here.  all that happened was that postel needed a means
> > > of assigning countries identifiable namespace - he choose the iso
> > > designation and he gave the assignments to the people who where there and
> > > were offering their services.  they rightfully belong to these people.
> > > that is the nature of the dns.  the za administrator may do as he pleases.
> > >
> > > now the fact the south african government are about to make fools of
> > > themselves on the international telecommunications stage is the fault of
> > > the US dept of commerce who have kept these people ignorant of the fact
> > > that they can run their own zone infrastructure and not only take control
> > > of their namespace but also increase their national security through the
> > > operation of a south african root server network.
> > >
> > > the australian aboriginals secure their own zones - i see no reason why
> > > the south africans can't follow in the same path.
> > >
> > > and we all know the security implications of relying on insecure root
> > > infrastructure - don't we?
> > >
> > > regards
> > > joe baptista
> >
>
> --
> 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

- --------------951AA68AD9A57A3872DCC450
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Joe Baptista wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
<p>> Any good country administration of a cc should be available to explore
and or implement more reliable
<br>> sources of inter connectivity.
<p>I would say that in a perfect world - ICANN would of approached the
<br>National Governments and suggested they setup their own top level domain
<br>managers for their own top level domain.&nbsp; It's a bit of a joke
watching
<br>the various attempts to take over or nationalize an existing resource
that
<br>they never have had any control over in the first place.
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
I find the current debate over restructuring of ICANN amusing in the sense
that they only look inward and toward their own structure.&nbsp; One would
have hoped a debate over restructuring would include your suggestions above.&nbsp;
I must say it is reflective of a US centric conceit.&nbsp; The world is
where it is at and connecting up differently established domains is where
the proper course lies.&nbsp; Be they "alternative", inclusive, ccs' or
Martian. (look how television uses the word network and how easy it is
to find your favorite, although that VCR still gives me fits ;-})
<p>As your next post with references makes clear and our recent debacle
in AU has illustrated take-overs become quite a queer dog.&nbsp; As a matter
of point I find that countries that have the management/administration
lodged originally in academia to be in more serious problems unless they
can get some marketing and business perspective into said ivory towers.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>It's much easier to simply setup a national TLD - or several national
tlds
<br>- and then the various interested governments can develop those resources
<br>as they deem fit to do.&nbsp; Start with a clean slate and move forward.
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
Until the great ICON Icon falls I suggest a dual model of both the Legacy
and a clean slate.&nbsp; As a practical matter militaries should be setting
their own up anyhow and if they do it in a modular fashion they can then
duplicate for in/out country commercial viability.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>Frankly it has never been the business of a cc tld administrator to
<br>explore or implement more reliable sources of inter connectivity.&nbsp;
The way
<br>this show has been run is do as you please and carry on.&nbsp; Thats
the nature
<br>of how the assignments were made.
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
You should be ashamed of your cynical nature.&nbsp; That is why our group
works with countries and that is to break this mold for the benefit of
the people.&nbsp; Internet and technicians and scholars and lawyers should
be our tools and not our masters.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>If a government is concerned about it's security and securing access
to
<br>namespace by it's own nationals - then it would be prudent for it to
run
<br>it's own national root servers and tlds.&nbsp; I think this is a much
better
<br>proactive approach then begging the US Government for a scrap here
and
<br>there.
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
I would like to be enlightened as to why they should really go the root
server model.&nbsp; As I am sure you are aware there are now other models.&nbsp;
Like an overly centralized location of power is dangerous so is an overly
centralized Internet. I should think by their total lack of active involvement
themselves the DoC would welcome such activity.
<p>Sincerely,
<br>Eric
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>regards
<br>joe
<p>> Routing around IANA problems should be of paramount importance and
security considerations.
<br>>
<br>> ICANN rooted situational remedies should be but one weapon in an
arsenal meant to provide a stable
<br>> and usable internet and resource for any country.&nbsp; Alternative
methodology and inclusive allocations
<br>> should also be a part of a realistic global strategy for any country.
<br>>
<br>> I am hardly waiting for someone to press the point that ICANN standards
are International standards
<br>> within a WTO or USBTA agreement.&nbsp; I believe the DoC will back
off any such outlandish position and
<br>> admit to a void in ISO.
<br>>
<br>> Thank you for your insistence on smelling the roses and reality of
the unreal.
<br>>
<br>> Eric
<br>>
<br>> Joe Baptista wrote:
<br>>
<br>> > <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020607/wr_nm/tech_internet_safrica_dc_1">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;u=/nm/20020607/wr_nm/tech_internet_safrica_dc_1</a>
<br>> >
<br>> > On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
<br>> >
<br>> > > Dear YJ,
<br>> > >
<br>> > > Don't even sink to WXWs silly level. Why are they called "Country"
Codes.
<br>> > >
<br>> > > I know that people love to saintify Postel, but in fact he gave
some of the ccTLDs to the wrong
<br>> > > folk.
<br>> > > They were designed and will always remain to be Country Codes
and by and through that a Country
<br>> > > Resource.
<br>> >
<br>> > well - lets not get our nickers in a twist here.
<br>> >
<br>> > now postel did not have the benefit of hindsight - not that hindsight
has
<br>> > any significance here.&nbsp; all that happened was that postel
needed a means
<br>> > of assigning countries identifiable namespace - he choose the iso
<br>> > designation and he gave the assignments to the people who where
there and
<br>> > were offering their services.&nbsp; they rightfully belong to these
people.
<br>> > that is the nature of the dns.&nbsp; the za administrator may do
as he pleases.
<br>> >
<br>> > now the fact the south african government are about to make fools
of
<br>> > themselves on the international telecommunications stage is the
fault of
<br>> > the US dept of commerce who have kept these people ignorant of
the fact
<br>> > that they can run their own zone infrastructure and not only take
control
<br>> > of their namespace but also increase their national security through
the
<br>> > operation of a south african root server network.
<br>> >
<br>> > the australian aboriginals secure their own zones - i see no reason
why
<br>> > the south africans can't follow in the same path.
<br>> >
<br>> > and we all know the security implications of relying on insecure
root
<br>> > infrastructure - don't we?
<br>> >
<br>> > regards
<br>> > joe baptista
<br>>
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>
</html>

- --------------951AA68AD9A57A3872DCC450--

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

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

Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 11:48:05 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] TLDs

I wonder why the Domain Name Support Organization spends 99% of its'
time on less than two percent of the TLDs.  Wow that kind of sounds
Commercialized US interested to me.

Shouldn't the GA be more concerned with inclusives that outnumber ORG,
NET and COM three to one and ccTLDs that outnumber them over one hundred
to one.

The WLS is a startling example of this pomposity that exists.  The US
Congress pulling in Auerbach and Victory shows us the lack of clue they
have in development.  Why no ccTLD people or Inclusives?

When you argue shear numbers you further show stupidity - that is caused
by this stupidity and builds stupidity upon stupidity.

I am now battling with ISPs and ASPs to get them to modernize, it is
commercialization versus what is right.
Our Root server structure will soon be a rediscovered woolly mammoth,
frozen in time and extinct.

Eric

- --
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 #1267
*************************