Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1343
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, July 28 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1343

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 09:35:22 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

William - your comment regarding my public understanding of the issues is
not the real issue here. It is your attitude, which bluntly sucks. Further I
would take it, that is to say your garbage responses, a lot more if you
refuted my commentary rather than slamming me personally, but you don't.

And since you don't, and that I am very tired of listening to your childish
whining, I now have no choice but to take actions to have you removed from
this effort.

"Bluntly you are a sleeper - a registrar. That is to say you operate a
registry for a number of people as per your own commentary to me on this
list, and as such it should make it impossible for you to participate in the
At Large group since your financial incentives those of a Registrar rather
than an Individual Domain Owner/Operator, and as to WLS in particular, to
forward it so that you can make more money on your domain names.

With that in mind I would propose to the chair that this organization is
about the Domain Name Owners and that Registrars have other direct
representation into ICANN and that since William has operated his private
commercial registrar's service in conflict for this groups ideals and goals,
that the long standing conflict of interest paints a larger picture of an
alleged intentional impropriety, and that based on that impropriety there
are grounds for removing him permanently from this organization.

Chair - please take this first part as an official motion to the standing
board.

Todd Glassey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

> Friday, July 26, 2002, 11:51:42 AM, todd glassey wrote:
>
> > Jeff- lets take this a step farther...
>
> No, the only thing your post does is show that you have no
> understanding of what the WLS is, and what the true issues are.
>
> But I am seeing this as a pattern with you about most issues here
> it seems, Todd.
>
>

- --
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, 27 Jul 2002 09:17:42 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....WLS spin by proponents

To demonstrate how little control over the Internet that ICANN actually has,
the response would be for a few million domain owners to all contribute a
dollar and start up a new root. All ICANN has going for it now is that they
have the first-mover advantage which means that they grew out of what was
left over when the old not-for-profit NSFNet went commercial in 1992...Which
is why so many of their processes and infrastructure is in the shape its in.

As to WLS though. This is the first registrar's attempt at being able to
consummately screw the Domain Owners and it needs to be stopped cold.

It is my humble opinion that WLS is of itself not only likely to be a cause
for a lawsuit, but rather is also a harassment to the end user, the person
ultimately paying the bill for the Domain's Publication Services (from the
Registrar) and that's the key. The Registrar's participating in WLS from my
standpoint should likely be shut down since they are intentionally acting as
agent provocateur and as reception/publication agent in respect to the same
piece of IP. And that clearly is a serious conflict of interest.

WLS conceptually is so devious a transaction model that no one in their
right mind would ever register for WLS except with the Registrar who would
be  the one to expire the domain(s) in question. Because the absolute
instant the domain expired there is no other registrar that can reregister
that domain as fast. So what WLS is really all about is facilitating that
the same registrar keeps all the good names. And as such, retains the
follow-on royalties from the registration of said same domain name.

WLS is then a process to allow a registrar to most-likely keep the same name
off the market and so it is a lie that it release and makes more names
available. It allows a single Registrar to retain publications control over
its domain names, by instantly transferring the domain name in question, at
expiry to an already prearranged "owner" (or in this case 'lessor') and this
is a real problem since it now implies that an Internet Marque is very
different than a Trade Mark or Service Mark in that once it expires and the
wait period elapses, that ***ANY*** claim to the underlying IP is forfeited.

And unless I am stupid too, it lets those Registrars that operate Domain
Names for Sale operations (Squatters) that can also through funny money,
sidestep the IP ownership question while increasing their portfolio... No in
all cases the WLS Services DO NOT MAKE more domain names available, they
just allow presales against someone else's registered and published IP's...
And that's not smart for us as Domain Owners, just for the registrars.

Personally I think that the registrars need to hear from us on what we think
of them trying to be adversarial to us rather than our partners. And this is
the most important letter we need to draft. This is all about making
ourselves a credible organization and having the ability to speak with one
voice. - Something to date we have been pretty poor at.

Todd Glassey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....WLS spin by proponents

>
> Sheesh that post from Ms Crawford is full of so much B.S. that I am
> absolutely amazed that she can make those statements.
>
> I wonder if she would make them under oath.
>
> Friday, July 26, 2002, 8:42:49 PM, George Kirikos wrote:
>
> > Hello,
>
> > In a last ditch attempt to influence the outcome of the ICANN Board's
> > decision on WLS, we've got the post by Susan Crawford at:
>
> > http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?wls;3D41DE6D00000358
>
> > All of Susan's arguments have been made ad nauseum in the past, and had
> > been responded to. It seems that they simply want to get in "the last
> > word" (or "the last spin"), as a desperate last move to put lipstick on
> > the pig named WLS.
>
> > Louis Touton, in his analysis of April 17th, at:
>
> > http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm
>
> > gave us the ground rules, "it is my judgment that the Board should not
> > seek to decide how to deal with this request without invoking the
> > formal consensus development processes currently established within
> > ICANN." The overwhelming consensus is that WLS be denied, as an
> > unwanted intrusion on an existing competitive marketplace that is
> > thriving at the registrar level. ICANN's mission is to foster
> > competition, and that has been its major success, as it has stated on
> > more than one occasion. The double-speak that WLS will actually
> > increase competition is simply preposterous. I and many others would
> > echo Susan's statement that "The Board's obligation is to take steps
> > that maximally favor competition." Rejection of the monopolistic WLS
> > definitely accomplishes that goal. Indeed, it is the Board's only
> > choice, given that acceptance of WLS will cause a challenge by affected
> > Registrars, as I noted at:
>
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00303.html
>
> > a challenge which the registrars would win easily, since ICANN can not
> > show consensus for this new policy affecting domain name allocations.
> > Indeed, more powerfully, not only can ICANN not show consensus FOR WLS,
> > there is consensus AGAINST WLS.
>
> > The fact of the matter is that there is intrinsic demand for the domain
> > names themselves, not WLS as a mechanism to acquire them. We currently
> > have numerous means to acquire those names, and WLS seeks to monopolize
> > that marketplace not because it is a "better offering", but instead
> > because it gets first dibs on all the names, leaving everyone else with
> > the table scraps that no one else wanted. If NameWinner had done such a
> > deal with Verisign, instead of SnapNames, we'd see the exact opposite
> > spin by SnapNames, I'm sure, that it's anti-competitive, etc.
>
> > I find it amusing that proponents of WLS refused to take my "Cookie
> > Challenge", posted on the DNSO GA list multiple times, to answer the
> > questions posed at:
>
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02855.html
>
> > among other places, regarding the "Effects Test" of WLS. However, Susan
> > has taken up the "Cheese Challenge". Where do I send the cheese, to go
> > along with her whine? :)
>
> > Sincerely,
>
> > George Kirikos
> > http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> > http://health.yahoo.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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 10:33:00 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

LOL - you just keep proving me right, Todd.

Saturday, July 27, 2002, 9:35:22 AM, todd glassey wrote:

> William - your comment regarding my public understanding of the issues is
> not the real issue here. It is your attitude, which bluntly sucks. Further I
> would take it, that is to say your garbage responses, a lot more if you
> refuted my commentary rather than slamming me personally, but you don't.

> And since you don't, and that I am very tired of listening to your childish
> whining, I now have no choice but to take actions to have you removed from
> this effort.

> "Bluntly you are a sleeper - a registrar. That is to say you operate a
> registry for a number of people as per your own commentary to me on this
> list, and as such it should make it impossible for you to participate in the
> At Large group since your financial incentives those of a Registrar rather
> than an Individual Domain Owner/Operator, and as to WLS in particular, to
> forward it so that you can make more money on your domain names.

> With that in mind I would propose to the chair that this organization is
> about the Domain Name Owners and that Registrars have other direct
> representation into ICANN and that since William has operated his private
> commercial registrar's service in conflict for this groups ideals and goals,
> that the long standing conflict of interest paints a larger picture of an
> alleged intentional impropriety, and that based on that impropriety there
> are grounds for removing him permanently from this organization.

> Chair - please take this first part as an official motion to the standing
> board.

> Todd Glassey

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
> To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

>> Friday, July 26, 2002, 11:51:42 AM, todd glassey wrote:
>>
>> > Jeff- lets take this a step farther...
>>
>> No, the only thing your post does is show that you have no
>> understanding of what the WLS is, and what the true issues are.
>>
>> But I am seeing this as a pattern with you about most issues here
>> it seems, Todd.
>>
>>

> --
> 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

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 10:35:02 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....WLS spin by proponents

Saturday, July 27, 2002, 9:17:42 AM, todd glassey wrote:
> WLS conceptually is so devious a transaction model that no one in their
> right mind would ever register for WLS except with the Registrar who would
> be  the one to expire the domain(s) in question. Because the absolute
> instant the domain expired there is no other registrar that can reregister
> that domain as fast.

See, Todd, it is paragraphs like the above that show you have not
taken the little time necessary to educate yourself about how the
system works, or you would understand why the above comment is based
on a completely faulty understanding of the process for deleted domain
domains.

Perhaps you should ask some questions before jumping to conclusions,
you might get more respect for your opinions, and be able to make more
educated ones to boot.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 13:51:08 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....WLS spin by proponents

William,

You berate Todd Glassey for a "faulty understanding of the process",  yet you 
do little to educate those that could benefit from your expertise.  Instead 
of zippy one-liners all the time, why not provide a service to the 
participants in this forum by thoroughly detailing the process?  I am sure 
that we would all place a high value on such a contribution.
- --
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, 27 Jul 2002 11:05:49 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....WLS spin by proponents

Saturday, July 27, 2002, 10:51:08 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> William,

> You berate Todd Glassey for a "faulty understanding of the process",  yet you 
> do little to educate those that could benefit from your expertise.  Instead 
> of zippy one-liners all the time, why not provide a service to the 
> participants in this forum by thoroughly detailing the process?  I am sure 
> that we would all place a high value on such a contribution.

Perhaps you could do the same, as an ex-registrar employee.

Or perhaps Todd could have simply asked people or done some research
as most of the other contributors to this thread have done in the
past.

I've written to Todd off list in the past, trying to inform him about
his faulty understanding of process.  It does no good.  So now I will
simply point it out  for him, and perhaps eventually he will get the
clue.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 14:22:35 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....

I guess the real issue is the degree to which we, the GA, have an obligation 
to become an educational instrument that provides sufficient background 
material for newcomers on any issue to rapidly come up to speed...

This would probably call for a major user-friendly re-design of our website, 
and a commitment on the part of our current leadership to pursue such an 
educational reform initiative.  What do you think?  Is such a project 
worthwhile?  Can it be accomplished?
- --
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, 27 Jul 2002 12:52:05 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

At 09:35 AM 27/07/02 -0700, todd glassey wrote:

>"Bluntly you are a sleeper - a registrar. That is to say
>you operate a registry for a number of people as per your
>own commentary to me on this list,

Todd, I pointed you to google to do a "spam faq" search
a few weeks ago on the GA list regarding WHOIS datamining
because you didn't seem to grasp some basic facts. You
didn't take too kindly to that but I'll try again. Again
please do some basic research before pontificating.

I don't know of a definitive site that could explain for
you the differences between a registrar and a registry,
but your lack of understanding that there are differences
makes just about anything else you say suspect.

>and as such it should make it impossible for you to
>participate in the At Large group since your financial
>incentives those of a Registrar rather than an Individual
>Domain Owner/Operator,

Looks. Um, this is the GA list Todd.

>and as to WLS in particular, to forward it so that
>you can make more money on your domain names.

I'm almost afraid to ask what you think this means.
I have no idea, but I think it likely if you were
to try further explanation it would only get worse.

>With that in mind I would propose to the chair that this organization is
>about the Domain Name Owners

The GA is not about the Domain Name Owners.
For that matter, neither is the AtLarge.
Are you thinking of IDNO? Of anything?

>Chair - please take this first part as an official
>motion to the standing board.

Which chair? Which standing board? And what is a
standing board? And what is official? And what are
the other parts of the motion? Does one wait for
the other parts before seconding it (not that
anyone would, well actually that could happen)?
Again I'll probably be sorry I asked. -g

- --
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, 27 Jul 2002 12:48:44 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....

> I guess the real issue is the degree to which we, the GA, have an
obligation
> to become an educational instrument that provides sufficient background
> material for newcomers on any issue to rapidly come up to speed...

Actually for us its an act of survival. That we as a collective, have
specific needs in the operations of this "thing" that we are paying for...

>
> This would probably call for a major user-friendly re-design of our
website,
> and a commitment on the part of our current leadership to pursue such an
> educational reform initiative.  What do you think?  Is such a project
> worthwhile?  Can it be accomplished?

yes, it can.The key goals of the website should be the transfer of
information and the ease of which that happens (one would think that this
would be the goal of all web sites but one wonders).

> --
> 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: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 22:27:38 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....

On 2002-07-27 14:22:35 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>This would probably call for a major user-friendly re-design of  
>our website, and a commitment on the part of our current  
>leadership to pursue such an educational reform initiative.  What  
>do you think?  Is such a project worthwhile?  Can it be  
>accomplished?

In my opinion, the GA should be a forum where those who have the  
necessary understanding can discuss issues _without_ having to  
re-iterate the basics in every posting.  It should be open to both  
interested members of the public and the members of the  
{DNSO,GNSO}'s constituencies.  

Note that this doesn't mean that the GA can't be educational:  
Reading it can clearly help newcomers to pick up many pieces of the  
puzzle as the discussion goes along - and, at some point, they'll  
see the picture.  

But that's certainly not enough - you'll have to read a lot more.

Read Milton Mueller's "ruling the root" (I still didn't find the  
time to read more than a couple of pages).  Read Michael Froomkin's  
"Wrong turn in cyberspace" (somewhat old, but it tells quite a bit  
of history).  Read minutes from earlier meetings.  Read the bylaws  
and articles on the ICANN web site (and their change history!), and  
so on.

Finally, and most importantly, read Bret Fausett's excellent  
ICANN.blog.us.  Read it daily.  If you're new, read the archives.

(Note that it's not the only blog looking at ICANN, though - I've  
been taking notes at <http://log.does-not-exist.org/> for some time, 
and Ross Rader has started to blog "random bytes" at  
<http://www.byte.org/blog/>.  If you understand German, you may also 
wish to look at Alexander Svensson's relaunched www.icannchannel.de  
site.  www.ICANNwatch.org is, at times, also worth reading.)

Mh.  Maybe it's time for an "ICANN reading list" site.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 13:48:32 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....

Saturday, July 27, 2002, 1:27:38 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-07-27 14:22:35 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>>This would probably call for a major user-friendly re-design of  
>>our website, and a commitment on the part of our current  
>>leadership to pursue such an educational reform initiative.  What  
>>do you think?  Is such a project worthwhile?  Can it be  
>>accomplished?

> In my opinion, the GA should be a forum where those who have the  
> necessary understanding can discuss issues _without_ having to  
> re-iterate the basics in every posting.  It should be open to both  
> interested members of the public and the members of the  
> {DNSO,GNSO}'s constituencies.

Which is supported by the section of the ICANN Bylaws that define the
GA:

The participants in the GA should be individuals who have a knowledge
of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas for which the
DNSO has primary responsibility

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 17:09:16 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....

William ,

anyone coming to to this forum has a knowledge of the issues.  If you've been 
burned by a bad transfers situation, you surely know what the issue is, and 
clearly you have an interest in the issue... but that doesn't mean that you 
have a full understanding of relevant contracts or registrar processes.  I 
would like to think that there should be some other manner by which 
participants can be brought up to speed other than merely pointing them to 
the registrar's list, for example, and telling them to review the last three 
thousand comments spread over two years.

We have the capability of becoming a resource center that can aggregate 
background materials and documents to rapidly facilitate the learning 
process.  This will become highly important when the policy-development 
process moves into high gear -- the 30-45 day cycle proposed by the ERC.  If 
such preparatory work is not done, then no task force or working group to be 
convened will ever be sufficiently informed to get the job done, and this 
organization will become no more than a collection of a few knowledgable 
technocrats making decisions for the rest of the world.

- --
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, 27 Jul 2002 14:15:15 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....

It's about personal responsibility, Danny, not hand holding.

That could take many forms, including asking questions, especially
before jumping to conclusions and making strong statements regarding
policy as the individual in question here has been doing.

Saturday, July 27, 2002, 2:09:16 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> William ,

> anyone coming to to this forum has a knowledge of the issues.  If you've been 
> burned by a bad transfers situation, you surely know what the issue is, and 
> clearly you have an interest in the issue... but that doesn't mean that you 
> have a full understanding of relevant contracts or registrar processes.  I 
> would like to think that there should be some other manner by which 
> participants can be brought up to speed other than merely pointing them to 
> the registrar's list, for example, and telling them to review the last three 
> thousand comments spread over two years.

> We have the capability of becoming a resource center that can aggregate 
> background materials and documents to rapidly facilitate the learning 
> process.  This will become highly important when the policy-development 
> process moves into high gear -- the 30-45 day cycle proposed by the ERC.  If 
> such preparatory work is not done, then no task force or working group to be 
> convened will ever be sufficiently informed to get the job done, and this 
> organization will become no more than a collection of a few knowledgable 
> technocrats making decisions for the rest of the world.

> --
> 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

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:40:19 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

- --=======418A4A6D=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-51A366D0; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Todd,
You rise an important issue. It has however a long legal, technical and 
political roots and experience we are trying to build upon right now. You 
might be interested to join as some other serious people about the 
international stability, security and development of the network (see below).

On 17:28 27/07/02, todd glassey said:
>I still think that ICANN's biggest political and technical hurdle to leap 
>is really what to do about other ROOT's.This may seem like a simple 
>business question but it has far reaching ramifications that stretch 
>throughout the entirety of what we know as the Internet.
>
>Further - it needs to be noted that ICANN can develop whatever it wants 
>internally but if its processes are too oppressive and too painful to deal 
>with, then these other ROOTS will certainly gain significant numbers of 
>ICANN's existing customers and that is a serious issue to deal with.
>
>ICANN's trying to stop the operations of these other ROOTS is equally 
>problematic since it ***will*** result in law suits and like restraining 
>orders against ICANN, its officers and its agents (the Registrars and the 
>ASO members) from prohibiting these other roots from functioning. 
>Restraint of Trade is a pretty easy claim to prove here under today's 
>circumstances.

A root is the plug of a sub namespace into the global namespace. So .arpa 
is the ARPANET plug into the global namespace. The plug of the global 
namespace into itself (the inclusive root) is the "." alone.

This notation comes from the fact that the DNS to support the Internet 
current practice and parallel internal access and public service access had 
to reverse the current global namespace semantic (ucla.arpa standing for 
ARPAUCLA). This is the same as in ENUM. It created a confusion between IP 
and X.121 naming schemes: the IP 12.34.56.78 could be confused with X121 
78563412. Hence the global root sign at the end of the names. It meant the 
string (even numeric) was part of the namespace and not from the IP 
addressing. This way 90077.3106 from Internet was 301690077 (Dialog on 
Tymnet). That reversing method at a "." has become quite universal in the 
DNS (look at ENUM support). You will find echoes of this in the initial 
RFCs using "root" (general) and "roots" (TLDs) wording.

The "." or global namespace was initially coordinated by Tymnet under FCC 
valued added network services license through its IRC agreements with the 
foreign monopoly services. All of them together formed the International 
data network services system ("Intlnet"). This Intlnet delegated the 
".arpa" sub namespace to the Internet team, the same it delegated many 
other root names to others countries and organizations (this was only 
providing a password to that name into the Tymnet validation system,  under 
standard FCC approved Tymcom or Tymnet/Tymnet rated services). Further on 
it became also regulated by the ITU through the X.121 and E.164 standards.

Tymnet (Telenet and Uninet, the other public system Arpa connected) also 
accepted the transit/access of calls from/to other sub namespaces, as per 
the normal practice of open subnetworks. This is where com (Tymnet), net 
(Telenet) come from.

All this was under rates, licenses, public interconnect agreements subject 
to ITU and to international laws and rules and FCC licences for the US 
parts. The constraints on the Internet and the possibilities for the 
Internet community have been globally summarized in the RFC 920 by Jon 
Postel in Oct 1984. This RFC has been strictly respected (in a restrictive 
way) by the IANA up to now, so even if all this is 18 years old, it is the 
current rule and the basis of the DNS: ICP-3 is wrong on many points, but 
it is absolutely legitimate because it intends to describe the permanent 
IANA policy. If it was not sticking to the 1984 agreement, it would have 
needed a review by the DNSO, what the BoD denied. When Kent, Roberto oppose 
the "alternative roots" they are right: there cannot be other roots within 
he ".arpa" sub-namespace.

But there can be as many other non".arpa" roots in use (and the agreement 
was that they would be respected) in the ".arpa" IP address system. To 
understand that you have to recall that ARPA were the machines associated 
into the US ARPA project. Yet among the identified users groups there were 
the foreign Local Internet communities (ccTLDs) as /customers of the local 
monopoly services.

These people were by no means local operators, but local customers of their 
telecom services and connected registrants communities. They therefore were 
only subject to the local association or university laws, with the task of 
validating usernames with the local PTT (physical connections) and 
registering names into the global naming system though the .arpa 
sub-namespace. This means that if I wanted in France to access "inria.fr", 
I had to connect Transpac, go into an Internet US gateway, and through an 
Internet channel (may be using Transpac) to reach the INRIA system. Many 
suffered from that limitations!

The ccTLD names were accepted as the ISO 3166 2 letters code because usage 
on the namespace was to root local monopolies either/both in ISO 3166 3 
letters codes and 4 numerics (DNIC) from the X.121 list. The RTC 920 
mentions that ccTLDs and multiorganization TLDs (.arpa groups of 
registrants wanting to form their own TLDs) were only registered and not 
administered. This because their names had to be included into the global 
TLD list (root names on the Tymnet supervisor or in the X.121 ITU list) and 
because they could maintain relations outside of the control of Jon 
Postel's team..

You have to realize that all this had much to do with rights, but with 
billing. Root names were introduced to make sure we could easily bill the 
issuer (registry) of the name in sorting the statistics. Anyway, this means 
that ICANN is perfectly entitled to manage its root the way it does, to 
support its own naming system except that it should include the roots into 
the other sub namespaces - that was the deal - instead of refusing the 
interconnects.

A part from being in an old forgotten deal, the reason why is that the 
reasons of the deal are still here. And in not taking care, it leads to a 
conflict with the ITU, NGO, Govs, Business communities it will lose.

The situation we face comes from changes in the situation:

1. the public systems deregulated, so national authority is no more with 
PTT but with States. Mike and Stuart were technically correct in calling on 
States but wrong in asking them to do what they should have imposed on them.

2. the ARPANET is no more, and there is now an IP system infrastructure 
never paid by the ARPA or the USG, IANA still consider as its own - 
creating an usurpation feeling.

3. the Tymnet supervisor is no more acting as the global root ".", the 
".arpa", "gbr", ".fra" etc.. could plug into.

4. the national root names have been using their DNIC as a name (".fra" is 
currently ".2080" +++) but due to the success of TCP/IP the ITU members are 
interested in reusing them with most of their legitimate holders ignoring 
their rights (borne from stability), creating confusion, uncertainty. 
Example: obviously the EEC has nothing to do ask the ICANN about ".eu". 
Just to inform it.

5. the telephone access which was included in the initial deal (Out-Dial 
service) was not supported by the DNS until the ENUM project.

This calls for a lot adaptations. During the last 18 years the respect of 
the RFC 920 created the "status quo" which benefits to the main Internet 
providers. But the system is a 18 years old system shaped to serve 100 
times less users, and expanding. Either its administrators get real and 
reform the system accordingly or the system (which is a distributed 
consensus) will reform itself (as China started doing).

IMHO the only way to do it in good order is to rebuild the Supervisor (the 
global root system) so there is a stable and secure namespace reference 
again (the "dot"). And the ".arpa" root may keep going the way it does 
now.  We have several good technical, operational, political, commercial 
reasons to do that now. The ccTLDs, China, EEC, Govs, etc. have major 
interests in it being done. Or already have started.

What is urgent IMHO is that we make sure it is done "a la Internet", by a 
voluntary effort and not by on an ITU or USG managed budget. This is why we 
are launching the "dot-root" project for a three parallel asynchronous root 
servers systems next generation DNS+ experimentation. We call on who wants 
to participate, sharing his DNS competence and one on-line machine. The 
target is to experiment and then consensually implement a DNS.2 
architecture, operations, policy, at root and user system level - able to 
support the full "." namespace. Do you want to join?

>As a simple example, I allege that it is possible that ICANN is playing 
>antitrust by locking out other Internet Standards Processes and 
>organizations. This is simply demonstrated by that IANA will not issue a 
>system port except to an organization that has an IETF RFC number. So no 
>one from ITU or any of the other standards orgs can submit anything for 
>the issuance of a System Port on the Global Internet unless they play 
>ICANN's PSO Game and that is clearly anti-trust since ICANN does not own 
>the Internet. Which simply says, that without the IETF/IESG/IAB processes 
>in place, nothing gets codified as an Internet Standard and personally 
>that is the largest load of BS anywhere.

May be we can have it another way. ICANN manages the Status Quo because 
sticking to the RFC 920 and alleging that no one is now in charge of the 
namespace, but the ITU which did not really took over yet, is helping some 
to make stable returns. So it does not lead people to go ahead with major 
innovations and make them better organize a technical status quo. And 
freeze innovation.

Exemple: the key development to free the Internet from ICANN is a Windows 
dns-resolver plug-in. No one on sourceforge even proposed it.

>Another concept here is that the Domain Owners are more the friend of the 
>Registrars than ICANN is, and if you don't believe me, then ask Verisign 
>how many bodies to GoDaddy they lost because GoDaddy is more friendly to 
>end users at the wallet level. And most of the Domain Registrars don't 
>realize this yet because we spend so much time arguing about personal sh*t 
>and not the goals of the group.

May be the main thing is that we do not need the Registrars at all nor to 
pay for DNs. It is surprising that no one works on the necessary development.

The "root intox" works well. This is brainware: what counts is not the way 
the network is, but the way the peole believe it is to be used.
jfc

- --=======418A4A6D=======--

- --
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 #1343
*************************