Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1344
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, July 29 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1344

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 15:47:41 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....

At 05:09 PM 27/07/02 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>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.

Quite true. However, whose responsibility is it to
organize and maintain that resource center? Should it be
the Chair/Alt Chair? A new and separate position? Elected?

One could make the case that those responsible could do
so in such a way as to be misleading, or promote certain
viewpoints. Factual information is neutral, its human
manager(s) may not be.

I am thinking along the lines of Usenet where there are
numerous newsgroup FAQs made available. In some cases
this is done by the newsgroup originator or moderator,
in others, some one or few individuals take it upon
themselves to do so. There are all sorts of models but
in general I suspect that the less formal the newsgroup,
for example in unmoderated ones and/or in alt., the
more likely the FAQ is maintained by some one or few
who have just taken the initiative to do so, and other
than hopefully having some history and good reputation,
with the group, they're just regular members. Wouldn't
this latter model be preferable for what you are
suggesting? Of course there are often arguments over
who should maintain these FAQs and many newsgroups have
two or more often dueling FAQs, but hey, it's Usenet. -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 17:39:37 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....

I tend to agree.

The statements and conclusions in the post in question made absolutely
no sense. Rather, it screamed that the writer didn't possess a
rudimentary understanding of the very basic elements of WLS.

There is a wealth of pertinent information already published and
readily available on the web, including VeriSign's proposal and
amendments, MP3s and written minutes of meetings and the TTF's
several published works, et al. The archives of the GA list
also contain extensive information accumulated over the past several
months. Many of those posts and publications include links to
supporting information, as well.

I don't think a new/different web site will cure what ails the writer
in question. Initiative is a more compelling prescription, but only
he can help himself with that.

Thanks,

Saturday, July 27, 2002, 4:15:15 PM, William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

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

WXW> 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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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, 28 Jul 2002 05:02:45 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

- --=======6C7E1A1F=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-1D29A09; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 21:23 26/07/02, William X Walsh said:
>A domain name is a service,

????
A domain name is an alphanumeric pointer ( a shadow) to a set of network 
entities (domain) belonging to someone.

>paid for, for a fixed period of time.

what is paid is the registration and the housing of the corresponding data 
into the Registry systems.

Some greedy people having permited to sell shadows the habit has 
developped. WLS is a system where by you rent your shadow .2 cent/hour but 
another fellow can rent it too for .5 cent an hour, but he can use it only 
if you forget to pay for it next year.

The beauty is that he cannot do anything with the DN, but he can do 
whatever he wants with the TM in case you have one (except competing with 
you) since you permitted him to potentially use it in the future, should he 
show that he  planned to do it in good faith. Whatever he does for that is OK.

NB. He can UDRP you, but you cannot UDRP him.

Obviously WLS will never happen with any serious Registry: one may sell 
domain but not domain names.

jfc

PS. Todd, do not get confuse by WXW. There is no alternative roots.

There are alternative root administrators. The most famous is ICANN.
There are global root files supported by their own root server systems: 
they support all the ICANN TLDs plus many others. Their users are in the 
same position as others irt WLS, except that they get more non WLSed TLDs.

What WXW refers to as "alternative root" are non ICANN listed TLDs. A 
difficulty some in here seem to share with him is, also, to understand that 
by nature a root service is free.

BTW you can perfecly use the net all the day long an never use any root 
server at all. What is important is not the root: it is the IP of the TLD 
nameservers. You can obtain them in different ways: the root servers system 
is one of them. It is for those who do not know the net enough, so they may 
still use it (this is because of this charity service that ICANN claims for 
tax exemption). It is late in being updated, non backed-up, non mirrored, 
using a old piece of code and can afford only 262 TLDs.

- --=======6C7E1A1F=======--

- --
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, 28 Jul 2002 15:27:15 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

At 12:23 p.m. 26/07/2002 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>Get it through your head, Todd.
>
>Let me spell it out very slowly for you:
>
>D-o-m-a-i-n   n-a-m-e-s   a-r-e   n-o-t   a-u-t-o-m-a-t-i-c-a-l-l-y
>i-n-t-e-l-l-e-c-t-u-a-l   p-r-o-p-e-r-t-y.
>
>Do you understand that now, Todd?

What a briliant example of argument by bullying. :-)
How relevant is this "not automatically" or "intellectual" anyway?

The important issue is that Domain Names do carry *a* property aspect.

>A domain name is a service, paid for, for a fixed period of time.

Repeating the mantra of the registration industry does not create law.
There is a lot more to our Domain Names.

Property rights in Domain Names are currently sub judice in a Federal 
Appeals court.

Until this issue comes back from the Supreme Court, the battle isn't over.

And then there are the ccTLD's..., national laws, jurisdictions outside the 
U.S....

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:50:24 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

Todd and all assembly members,

todd glassey wrote:

> 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.

  ICANN and the other root structures have two choices really.
They can either work together and co-exist and still compete, or
they can be totally diverse.

>
>
> 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.

  Agreed.

>
>
> 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.

  Also agreed.

>
>
> 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.

  Yes this is an ever increasing problem that many seemed to have missed
to date.

> 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.
>
> --
>
> 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.
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 12:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process
>
> > Danny and all assembly members,
> >
> >   Yes it was very interesting reading in light of recent events, and
> > ongoing events.  I hope you took the liberty of passing this
> > response of yours on to the DOC/NTIA.  ??
> >
> > [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > A document entitled "Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group:
> > > Preliminary Framework" has been released by the ERC's select Task Force:
> > > http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/npdpag-report-26jul02.htm
> > >
> > > This task force consists of Rita A. Rodin (chair), Marilyn Cade,
> Guillermo
> > > Carey, Caroline Chicoine, Bret Fausett, Jeff Neuman, Bruce Tonkin and
> Philip
> > > Sheppard -- basically the same bunch of folks that have provided us with
> such
> > > wonderful policy guidance so far.
> > >
> > > We have already had the benefit of Working Group D... unfortunately, no
> one
> > > on the Council ever gave its recommendations anything more than lip
> service,
> > > and of course they have completely eliminated all working groups.
> > >
> > > We have already had the benefit of "Rules of Procedures for the DNSO
> Names
> > > Council" to govern policy development processes within task forces and
> > > working groups... unfortunately, no one on the Council even remembers
> these
> > > procedures, or what they're supposed to do when they convene a task
> force --
> > > they only write these rules to prove that they are busy doing something.
> > >
> > > And now we have the benefit of even more empty words regarding
> "timelines"
> > > and "opportunities for public input" by the very same people that have
> spent
> > > 10 months in a transfers task force accomplishing nothing related to
> > > transfers, that won't publish a timeline, and that have used every means
> at
> > > their disposal to keep interested parties out of their closed task
> forces.
> > >
> > > This document is just another sham to continue to foist these
> illegitimate,
> > > non-productive, and hardly-attended task forces upon us.   The phrase
> > > "working group" isn't even mentioned.  Open, bottom-up, and fully
> transparent
> > > is being replaced by closed, top-down, and non-transparent task force
> > > teleconferences where minutes aren't even posted.
> > >
> > > The only thing this group is accomplishing is preservation of the
> horribly
> > > failed status quo... and of course, they create the pretense that ICANN
> is
> > > actually involved in evolutionary reform so that the DoC will be
> pacified.
> > >
> > > Same old pretty-sounding words that we've all heard before, written with
> such
> > > a high level of generality as to be totally useless -- just like the
> current
> > > Names Council, and equally not surprising as almost every committee
> member is
> > > or was a Council rep.
> > >
> > > Garbage in, Garbage out.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >

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: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 17:03:47 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....

At 03:47 p.m. 27/07/2002 -0700, Gary Osbourne wrote:
>At 05:09 PM 27/07/02 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Quite true. However, whose responsibility is it to
>organize and maintain that resource center? Should it be
>the Chair/Alt Chair? A new and separate position? Elected?

Elected would probably be the best idea. It would transfer some of the 
responsibility of  that single maintainer to those who have elected him.
Under election rules, it would also be possible to remove one who no longer 
satisfies or for one who is burned out to retire in peace.

>One could make the case that those responsible could do
>so in such a way as to be misleading, or promote certain
>viewpoints. Factual information is neutral, its human
>manager(s) may not be.

A valid point. The idea below has value too.

>I am thinking along the lines of Usenet where there are
>numerous newsgroup FAQs made available. In some cases
>this is done by the newsgroup originator or moderator,
>in others, some one or few individuals take it upon
>themselves to do so. There are all sorts of models but
>in general I suspect that the less formal the newsgroup,
>for example in unmoderated ones and/or in alt., the
>more likely the FAQ is maintained by some one or few
>who have just taken the initiative to do so, and other
>than hopefully having some history and good reputation,
>with the group, they're just regular members. Wouldn't
>this latter model be preferable for what you are
>suggesting? Of course there are often arguments over
>who should maintain these FAQs and many newsgroups have
>two or more often dueling FAQs, but hey, it's Usenet. -g

An open webforum would enable any subscriber to post his/her own 
FAQ's.  The net effect would be similar.
A bit chaotic , but in aggregate a good set of sources to get informed.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 11:39:22 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....

On 2002-07-27 15:47:41 -0700, Gary Osbourne wrote:

>One could make the case that those responsible could do so in such 
>a way as to be misleading, or promote certain viewpoints. Factual 
>information is neutral, its human manager(s) may not be.

The answer to that problem is not "elections."

>I am thinking along the lines of Usenet where there are
>numerous newsgroup FAQs made available.

... and sometimes you have FAQs which contradict each other, for 
good reason.  That's the approach to take.

Writing FAQs is essentially a volunteer's job.  If the information 
is useless or wrong or misleading, someone else will speak up.  If 
the information is good, you end up as being "the authoritative 
source" about some topic area.

- -- 
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: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 09:28:54 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

Jeff -
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

> Todd and all assembly members,
>
> todd glassey wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>   ICANN and the other root structures have two choices really.
> They can either work together and co-exist and still compete, or
> they can be totally diverse.

OK but on who's address space, and how could one bridge lookups between the
two DNS Roots?. My take is that DNS and BIND fail this clearly but that the
Search Engines may hold some hope if they can get their bad links cut to a
minimum and provides regularly pruned lookup services.

>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>   Agreed.

Thanks.

>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>   Also agreed.
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>   Yes this is an ever increasing problem that many seemed to have missed
> to date.
>
> > 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.
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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.

This last comment is really important to building a domain owners and
registrars constituency since the best interests of the Domain Owners are
almost always directly atop those of the Registrars. Especially since the
registrars andregistries only have one commercial customer, and that is the
individual requesting the publishing of the name's address.

> >
> > Todd Glassey
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 12:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process
> >
> > > Danny and all assembly members,
> > >
> > >   Yes it was very interesting reading in light of recent events, and
> > > ongoing events.  I hope you took the liberty of passing this
> > > response of yours on to the DOC/NTIA.  ??
> > >
> > > [email-masked] wrote:
> > >
> > > > A document entitled "Names Policy Development Process Assistance
Group:
> > > > Preliminary Framework" has been released by the ERC's select Task
Force:
> > > >
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/npdpag-report-26jul02.htm
> > > >
> > > > This task force consists of Rita A. Rodin (chair), Marilyn Cade,
> > Guillermo
> > > > Carey, Caroline Chicoine, Bret Fausett, Jeff Neuman, Bruce Tonkin
and
> > Philip
> > > > Sheppard -- basically the same bunch of folks that have provided us
with
> > such
> > > > wonderful policy guidance so far.
> > > >
> > > > We have already had the benefit of Working Group D... unfortunately,
no
> > one
> > > > on the Council ever gave its recommendations anything more than lip
> > service,
> > > > and of course they have completely eliminated all working groups.
> > > >
> > > > We have already had the benefit of "Rules of Procedures for the DNSO
> > Names
> > > > Council" to govern policy development processes within task forces
and
> > > > working groups... unfortunately, no one on the Council even
remembers
> > these
> > > > procedures, or what they're supposed to do when they convene a task
> > force --
> > > > they only write these rules to prove that they are busy doing
something.
> > > >
> > > > And now we have the benefit of even more empty words regarding
> > "timelines"
> > > > and "opportunities for public input" by the very same people that
have
> > spent
> > > > 10 months in a transfers task force accomplishing nothing related to
> > > > transfers, that won't publish a timeline, and that have used every
means
> > at
> > > > their disposal to keep interested parties out of their closed task
> > forces.
> > > >
> > > > This document is just another sham to continue to foist these
> > illegitimate,
> > > > non-productive, and hardly-attended task forces upon us.   The
phrase
> > > > "working group" isn't even mentioned.  Open, bottom-up, and fully
> > transparent
> > > > is being replaced by closed, top-down, and non-transparent task
force
> > > > teleconferences where minutes aren't even posted.
> > > >
> > > > The only thing this group is accomplishing is preservation of the
> > horribly
> > > > failed status quo... and of course, they create the pretense that
ICANN
> > is
> > > > actually involved in evolutionary reform so that the DoC will be
> > pacified.
> > > >
> > > > Same old pretty-sounding words that we've all heard before, written
with
> > such
> > > > a high level of generality as to be totally useless -- just like the
> > current
> > > > Names Council, and equally not surprising as almost every committee
> > member is
> > > > or was a Council rep.
> > > >
> > > > Garbage in, Garbage out.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >
>
> 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
>

- --
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, 28 Jul 2002 12:07:44 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

> 
> > Todd and all assembly members,
> >
> > todd glassey wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >   ICANN and the other root structures have two choices really.
> > They can either work together and co-exist and still compete, or
> > they can be totally diverse.
> 
> OK but on who's address space, and how could one bridge lookups between the
> two DNS Roots?. My take is that DNS and BIND fail this clearly but that the
> Search Engines may hold some hope if they can get their bad links cut to a
> minimum and provides regularly pruned lookup services.
> 

We were working something called MULTI-BIND, a version of BIND that
would allow a server operator to do just that. It would even allow the selection
of a particular version of a TLD over another one. This way, a server operator
could still use the USG root by default and then add in the non-colliding contents
of another root server network, or just specific TLDs by specifying name servers
for them.

Alas, we got sidetracked onto other projects. Point is, its possible and another way
around ICANN.

- --
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, 28 Jul 2002 10:26:34 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....

At 11:39 AM 28/07/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>>Factual information is neutral, its human manager(s)
>>may not be.
>
>The answer to that problem is not "elections."

I was suggesting only that, *if* there was a FAQ
maintainer position, then that position *could*
be elected.

>... and sometimes you have FAQs which contradict
>each other, for good reason.  That's the approach
>to take.

I pointed out that there are often dueling Usenet FAQs.
I have seen that done well, and done badly. If the
intent is to bring newbies up to speed, one doesn't
want a situation where they just become further
confused.

Of course most good FAQs urge newbies to lurk awhile.
I was on the netsol domain policy list for a year
before I said anything. Approximately ditto for here,
I think. Most folks shouldn't require anywhere near
that long to be able to post without looking clueless,
some might argue I required more. :)

>Writing FAQs is essentially a volunteer's job.

Agreed. And hopefully someone or few could take
it on, either collaboratively, complementarily,
or even competitively. There are already various
good sources out there, perhaps a compendium along
the lines of a list of lists might be a good
starting point.

>If the information is useless or wrong or misleading,
>someone else will speak up.  If the information is
>good, you end up as being "the authoritative source"
>about some topic area.

I agree completely. I think in general the internet
works better as a meritocracy than a democracy. For
example, I could care less about the existence of
elected BoD positions if ICANN had earned merit. -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: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 14:18:43 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Court Order  in verisign descrimination suit

Sunday, July 28, 2002, 1:20:24 PM, Bad Business Practice wrote:

> A very informative post here:

> http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?newtldevaluationprocess;3D44144100000F86

I figured out who wrote this post to the GA list, anyone with a
smidgen of technical ability will be able to as well. It is a long
time list participant, and in fact, someone who works for one of
Verisign's competitors.

I find this post cowardly, and while it may or may not be true, it is
certainly presented from a FALSE perspective when you take into
account how the article was written and who the actual writer is.

Don't bother writing me off list asking who the author is, if you have
the technical ability, you will figure it out as quickly as I did, if
you don't, then just move on.  He knows that I know who he is, and he
knows what I think of his post.  And other than to point out that it
was simple to discover, I have nothing else to say about it.

- -- 
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: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 20:39:20 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

Respectfully I disagree that there is an either/or concept here.
There are many shades of diversity and that is what makes life interesting.
It is the concept that "you are either in or out" that causes most of our
problems.
A little less absolutism and a little more interaction would be a good thing.
Sincerely,
Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Todd and all assembly members,
>
> todd glassey wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>   ICANN and the other root structures have two choices really.
> They can either work together and co-exist and still compete, or
> they can be totally diverse.
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>   Agreed.
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>   Also agreed.
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>   Yes this is an ever increasing problem that many seemed to have missed
> to date.
>
> > 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.
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Todd Glassey
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 12:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process
> >
> > > Danny and all assembly members,
> > >
> > >   Yes it was very interesting reading in light of recent events, and
> > > ongoing events.  I hope you took the liberty of passing this
> > > response of yours on to the DOC/NTIA.  ??
> > >
> > > [email-masked] wrote:
> > >
> > > > A document entitled "Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group:
> > > > Preliminary Framework" has been released by the ERC's select Task Force:
> > > > http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/npdpag-report-26jul02.htm
> > > >
> > > > This task force consists of Rita A. Rodin (chair), Marilyn Cade,
> > Guillermo
> > > > Carey, Caroline Chicoine, Bret Fausett, Jeff Neuman, Bruce Tonkin and
> > Philip
> > > > Sheppard -- basically the same bunch of folks that have provided us with
> > such
> > > > wonderful policy guidance so far.
> > > >
> > > > We have already had the benefit of Working Group D... unfortunately, no
> > one
> > > > on the Council ever gave its recommendations anything more than lip
> > service,
> > > > and of course they have completely eliminated all working groups.
> > > >
> > > > We have already had the benefit of "Rules of Procedures for the DNSO
> > Names
> > > > Council" to govern policy development processes within task forces and
> > > > working groups... unfortunately, no one on the Council even remembers
> > these
> > > > procedures, or what they're supposed to do when they convene a task
> > force --
> > > > they only write these rules to prove that they are busy doing something.
> > > >
> > > > And now we have the benefit of even more empty words regarding
> > "timelines"
> > > > and "opportunities for public input" by the very same people that have
> > spent
> > > > 10 months in a transfers task force accomplishing nothing related to
> > > > transfers, that won't publish a timeline, and that have used every means
> > at
> > > > their disposal to keep interested parties out of their closed task
> > forces.
> > > >
> > > > This document is just another sham to continue to foist these
> > illegitimate,
> > > > non-productive, and hardly-attended task forces upon us.   The phrase
> > > > "working group" isn't even mentioned.  Open, bottom-up, and fully
> > transparent
> > > > is being replaced by closed, top-down, and non-transparent task force
> > > > teleconferences where minutes aren't even posted.
> > > >
> > > > The only thing this group is accomplishing is preservation of the
> > horribly
> > > > failed status quo... and of course, they create the pretense that ICANN
> > is
> > > > actually involved in evolutionary reform so that the DoC will be
> > pacified.
> > > >
> > > > Same old pretty-sounding words that we've all heard before, written with
> > such
> > > > a high level of generality as to be totally useless -- just like the
> > current
> > > > Names Council, and equally not surprising as almost every committee
> > member is
> > > > or was a Council rep.
> > > >
> > > > Garbage in, Garbage out.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >
>
> 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

- --
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 #1344
*************************