Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1336
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, July 22 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1336

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 10:11:42 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Tucows letter, was RE: [ga] Re: .info LR2 process ...

> ICANN ought to adhere solely to those technical matters that directly
> pertain to the ability of the Internet to reliably, accurately, and
> promptly move packets from one IP address to another and for the
> ICANN/NTIA DNS root to reliably, accurately, and promptly return answers
> DNS queries.

While convenient to our position concerning sunrises regimes etc., this
extremely narrow definition doesn't sufficiently deal with a far more
important factor - that of competition.

The problem in dealing with the issues raised by competition is that this
opens up a door sufficiently far to let other, less relevant, issues through
the door.

- -rwr

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 17:37:07 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] Reforming the GA. (from: [email-masked])

- --zx4FCpZtqtKETZ7O
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

FYI.  Please note that we have tried to avoid beating dead horses.  =20
- --=20
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- ----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> =
- -----

From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 17:33:11 +0200
Subject: Reforming the GA.
Mail-Followup-To: [email-masked]
Organization: Palpatine's office.

Please find attached some notes from Alexander and myself on what we=20
believe to be important principles in reforming the General =20
Assembly.

Abstract: We do not believe that it makes much sense to reserve the =20
GA to cross-constituency dialogue, and leave the dialogue with the =20
public to some other, unspecified mechanism.  The cost of that =20
approach may quite easily outweigh the benefit.  What the GA needs =20
is not less participation from the outside, but more participation =20
from the inside.

Kind regards,
- --=20
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- ----- End forwarded message -----

- --zx4FCpZtqtKETZ7O
Content-Type: application/pdf
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ga-reform.pdf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

- --zx4FCpZtqtKETZ7O--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 11:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Tucows letter, was RE: [ga] Re: .info LR2 process ...

On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> > ICANN ought to adhere solely to those technical matters that directly
> > pertain to the ability of the Internet to reliably, accurately, and
> > promptly move packets from one IP address to another and for the
> > ICANN/NTIA DNS root to reliably, accurately, and promptly return answers
> > DNS queries.
> 
> While convenient to our position concerning sunrises regimes etc., this
> extremely narrow definition doesn't sufficiently deal with a far more
> important factor - that of competition.

Dealing with competition is easy: allow it.

Allowing competition is something that ICANN has never tried.  Instead 
ICANN has imposed itself as a very expensive, very slow, and very 
incapable gatekeeper.

ICANN should allow hundreds, even thousands of new TLDs to be established
yearly.

ICANN should cease micromanagement of new TLDS - Those who set up new TLDs
ought to be allowed to define their own businesses.  They ought to be
permitted to suceed or fail on their merits and abilities.

As a technical matter the root zone can contain millions of entries with 
no performance degredation.

ICANN's new TLD "experiment" is a snow job.  There is no experiment - new
TLDs can be installed ino the root zone in a matter of minutes with no
more technical risk than is involved when adding a new user to a Windows
box.

Beyond requiring that the operations comport with relevant technical
standards it is none of ICANN's concern how those new TLDs operate or what
their policies are.

> The problem in dealing with the issues raised by competition is that this
> opens up a door sufficiently far to let other, less relevant, issues through
> the door.

It is not for ICANN to define what constitutes fraudulant or deceptive
practices.  That is a matter for legislatures and law enforcement; they've 
dealt with shysters in the past, they can deal with e-shysters in the 
present and future.

ICANN's proper job is to merely make sure that the technical nuts and
bolts of IP address allocation and root zone creation/operation are
technically sound.  That is the extent and limit of ICANN's role.

For ICANN to pretend to be capable of dealign with issues arising out from
competive and anti-competitive practices would be to vastly expand its
scope and make it into an Internet Commerce Commission.

Nor should ICANN be a body that protects the consumer from new TLD 
behaviour.[*]

ICANN is competent neither to be a trade-practices regulatory body nor to
be a consumer protection agency.  ICANN's rejection of its obligation to
include the public in its decisions renders ICANN particularly unfit for
either of these roles.

Let us be extremely hesitant about assigning to ICANN any powers beyond
the minimal set attached to the technical concerns of IP address
allocation and the operation of the NTIA root zone and root servers.

		--karl--

[*] The whole issue of the degree to which ICANN ought to be a consumer
protection body with regard to the preexisting .com/.net/.org TLDs is
something that has been under-discussed.

 

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 21:13:23 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] REMINDER! Public comments on WLS

REMINDER!

If you have not yet sent in your comments, please do so now, as the public
comment period closes at 13:00 UTC Monday July 22, 2002.

DNSO.Secretariat

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

[ http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020714.TFtransfer-WLS-report.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

   Call for comments on final report of Transfer T.F. on WLS proposal
                     Wait Listing Service Proposal
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

15 July  2002

22 April 2002 The ICANN Board Resolution 2.53 below
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-22apr02.htm#02.53
Requested the Names Council to ensure a comprehensive review of issues
concerning the deletion of domain names, possible solutions and the WLS.

At the NC teleconference held on 24 April 2002
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.NCteleconf-minutes.html
the Names Council referred the review of WLS to the Transfer Task Force.

On 11 July 2002, the Transfer Task Force submitted its final report to
the Names Council on the Wait Listing Service (WLS) proposal.

   * http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020714.TFtransfer-WLS-report.html
   * http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020711.TransferTF-WLS-update.ppt

The Task Force Final Report is open for 8 days for public comments,
starting today 15 July 2002, ending 22 July 2002.

All comments should be sent to [email-masked]

no later than 22 July 2002.

The archives for comments on the Transfer TF Report on the WLS proposal
are on line at:

   * http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-deletes/Arc01/

The full archives of the Transfer Task Force are on line at:

   * http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/

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

           Information from: © DNSO Secretariat

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:19:53 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Tucows letter, was RE: [ga] Re: .info LR2 process ...

- --=======18E5599=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-45344601; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Karl,
as you probably know we worked out now most of the details of the 
Tymnet/APRANET technical talks of 83/84 and the delegation of the ".arpa" 
namespace to ARPANET, the support of their ccTLD delegation and our support 
of our "com", "net" usage by them, the use of the ".", their use of our 
"root name" concept etc.. What resulted in the RFC 920 in Oct 1984 I fully 
agree with. and the earlier RFC 883 etc... We still miss the name of the 
Tymnet people to know the detail of who proposed what and who were the 
Internet people.

What is impressive is that actually we (Tymnet) stroke a moral deal with 
them they did respect for now 18 years (we were operating under a FCC filed 
rate and we provided them with non charged additional value - at least for 
International access and for the naming). So they had a moral obligation 
not to create us any conflict. As I suppose they agreed the same with 
Telenet people. (Tymnet and Telenet were the two public nets : "com" and 
"net" in Tymnet world).

They certainly forgot quickly about the exact deal, but they respected the 
status quo very nicely. The "czar" used the name space to control his 
sub-name space and not to create conflicts (in Tymnet's approach conflicts 
where not a major problem but did not permit to build consistent naming 
patterns).

So now the status quo has become a culture that many support without 
knowing really why. Some 18 years old fossil religion. Nothing happened in 
16 years until Vint Cerf decided to collide with .biz.

Oh! I know status quo is also worth some millions of dollars to some.

But I prefer to believe that it is just sticking to one's word. As it has 
certainly been for a few years.
jfc

At 20:39 21/07/02, Karl Auerbach wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
> > > ICANN ought to adhere solely to those technical matters that directly
> > > pertain to the ability of the Internet to reliably, accurately, and
> > > promptly move packets from one IP address to another and for the
> > > ICANN/NTIA DNS root to reliably, accurately, and promptly return answers
> > > DNS queries.
> >
> > While convenient to our position concerning sunrises regimes etc., this
> > extremely narrow definition doesn't sufficiently deal with a far more
> > important factor - that of competition.
>
>Dealing with competition is easy: allow it.
>
>Allowing competition is something that ICANN has never tried.  Instead
>ICANN has imposed itself as a very expensive, very slow, and very
>incapable gatekeeper.
>
>ICANN should allow hundreds, even thousands of new TLDs to be established
>yearly.
>
>ICANN should cease micromanagement of new TLDS - Those who set up new TLDs
>ought to be allowed to define their own businesses.  They ought to be
>permitted to suceed or fail on their merits and abilities.
>
>As a technical matter the root zone can contain millions of entries with
>no performance degredation.
>
>ICANN's new TLD "experiment" is a snow job.  There is no experiment - new
>TLDs can be installed ino the root zone in a matter of minutes with no
>more technical risk than is involved when adding a new user to a Windows
>box.
>
>Beyond requiring that the operations comport with relevant technical
>standards it is none of ICANN's concern how those new TLDs operate or what
>their policies are.
>
> > The problem in dealing with the issues raised by competition is that this
> > opens up a door sufficiently far to let other, less relevant, issues 
> through
> > the door.
>
>It is not for ICANN to define what constitutes fraudulant or deceptive
>practices.  That is a matter for legislatures and law enforcement; they've
>dealt with shysters in the past, they can deal with e-shysters in the
>present and future.
>
>ICANN's proper job is to merely make sure that the technical nuts and
>bolts of IP address allocation and root zone creation/operation are
>technically sound.  That is the extent and limit of ICANN's role.
>
>For ICANN to pretend to be capable of dealign with issues arising out from
>competive and anti-competitive practices would be to vastly expand its
>scope and make it into an Internet Commerce Commission.
>
>Nor should ICANN be a body that protects the consumer from new TLD
>behaviour.[*]
>
>ICANN is competent neither to be a trade-practices regulatory body nor to
>be a consumer protection agency.  ICANN's rejection of its obligation to
>include the public in its decisions renders ICANN particularly unfit for
>either of these roles.
>
>Let us be extremely hesitant about assigning to ICANN any powers beyond
>the minimal set attached to the technical concerns of IP address
>allocation and the operation of the NTIA root zone and root servers.
>
>                 --karl--
>
>[*] The whole issue of the degree to which ICANN ought to be a consumer
>protection body with regard to the preexisting .com/.net/.org TLDs is
>something that has been under-discussed.
>
>
>
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 01/07/02

- --=======18E5599=======--

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:07:20 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Working Paper on At Large Advisory Committee

Dear all,

a Working Paper on the At Large Advisory Committee (remember?
its creation was "considered" in Bucharest) has been published.
This is not an ICANN/E+RC document; I've written it.

Please have a look at http://www.alac.info -- read the documents,
look at the slides, send comments (and endorsements). According
to the proposal, an ALAC should be used as an interface between
user organizations and ICANN.

The Evolution and Reform Committee had called for initial 
suggestions from the At Large Organizing Committee by July 26 and 
detailed recommendations by August 16.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:57:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Working Paper on At Large Advisory Committee

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Please have a look at http://www.alac.info -- read the documents,

Can you have these documents published at another web site address.  .info
is an icann collider and is not recognized.

regards
joe

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 07:24:10 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .info LR2 process and failure of ICANN to heed warnings

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Jim Archer" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .info LR2 process and failure of ICANN to heed
warnings

> Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 2:47:18 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > hi-jacking the best names or "buying" a whole registrar's list. In my
> > opinion, every participating registrar should have an online interface
open
> > to the internet public. And I think registrars should only be allowed to
> > submit one list. I don't blame the registrars who submitted more than
one
> > list. I blame the Registry and ICANN for allowing it to happen.
>
> I disagree that Registrars should be required to have a public
> interface. A registrar is a privately owned business, who they choose
> to or choose not to do business with is really none of anyone's
> concern.

I disagree William - Any registrar that does business with the public should
be constrained to a set of normal rules. Private registrars, and its likley
that there will be some, operate to their own drum...

>
> What I Think the problem is...is that once again, people thought they
> could come up with a system that is more fair than the most simple
> first come first served.  They failed, miserably, in every single one
> of these cases to do that.
>
> Stick to first come first served, the most simple, and the most fair
> way of handling business.
>
> (Jeff Williams like excessive CC line removed, because all it does is
> contribute to unnecessary noise and the further filtering of incoming
> email by those persons who unnecessarily end up on these excessive CC
> lines by people who believe that they have something much more
> important to say than they really do)
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
> Save Internet Radio!
> CARP will kill Webcasting!
> http://www.saveinternetradio.org/
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
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 #1336
*************************