Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1345
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, July 29 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1345

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 20:42:10 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

My feeling is that a Root Zone Protocol as a top layer of a DNS resolution
model might be also functional. The idea would be that if there was a Root
Zone specified in the URI/URL then it would be used otherwise the default
set would be (i.e. the ICANN set).

The real win as I have said would be properly outfitted search engines since
these are really the next generation resolution services anyway.

Todd Glassey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ga" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 10:07 AM
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
>

- --
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 23:13:44 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

Todd and all assembly members,

todd glassey wrote:

> 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?.

  This is a rather large question to answer on this forum in a single post,
Todd.  But the answers have already been provided before on these
same debates and discussions before you started participating and
are a matter of record.  In any event Todd, this question, and others
in a similar vain are still worth asking again and reviewing.

  This being said and ask again now, the very short answer would be
that already tested and somewhat deployed Whois's are readily
available.  Do a search on Google yourself and see...  BindPlus(s)
are deployed or are being tested to handle resolution concerns
between different or diverse Roo structures.  SROOTS (Shared Roots)
is also being used also to in a different way address the answer to your
question..

> 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.

  Search engines are a different animal if yo will.  Yes indeed they too
will need to change as well, and some are in process.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.

  Well they should be, but it doesn't seem that the ICANN staff and
BoD are in agreement with you on this.

> Especially since the
> registrars andregistries only have one commercial customer, and that is the
> individual requesting the publishing of the name's address.

  Good point.

>
>
> > >
> > > 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
> >

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 23:40:17 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

Eric and all stakeholders or other interested parties,

  Being "IN" rather than "Out" is in fact interaction, Eric.  In fact
Interaction is a derivative of the word "IN".

  Therefore the comment I made below, applies both ways or in
both directions.  ICANN has thus far chosen to be singular as
far as Root structures and IP addressing/registrys are concerned.

[email-masked] wrote:

> 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

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 23:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

Todd,

you should propose thins in the IETF discussing these proposasl here does
no good because all the work to define URIs or URLs is done in the IETF.

- -rick

On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, todd glassey wrote:

> My feeling is that a Root Zone Protocol as a top layer of a DNS resolution
> model might be also functional. The idea would be that if there was a Root
> Zone specified in the URI/URL then it would be used otherwise the default
> set would be (i.e. the ICANN set).
>
> The real win as I have said would be properly outfitted search engines since
> these are really the next generation resolution services anyway.
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Ga" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 10:07 AM
> 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
> >
>
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 00:09:43 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

Sunday, July 28, 2002, 8:42:10 PM, todd glassey wrote:

> My feeling is that a Root Zone Protocol as a top layer of a DNS resolution
> model might be also functional. The idea would be that if there was a Root
> Zone specified in the URI/URL then it would be used otherwise the default
> set would be (i.e. the ICANN set).

> The real win as I have said would be properly outfitted search engines since
> these are really the next generation resolution services anyway.

All your proposal does is essentially create a network of third level
domain registries, and solves none of the problems.  Who then gets to
decide what "roots" (which are really TLDs, and TLDs become second
level domains) get into the master dns?

Or do you not understand how the hierarchy in the dns works, and why
it works that way?

- -- 
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: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:42:18 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

- --=======69431B4A=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7E2EB70; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

At 05:42 29/07/02, todd glassey wrote:

>My feeling is that a Root Zone Protocol as a top layer of a DNS resolution
>model might be also functional. The idea would be that if there was a Root
>Zone specified in the URI/URL then it would be used otherwise the default
>set would be (i.e. the ICANN set).

There is a root zone indicated in the URI: this is the TLD. Roots are the 
registered name of a sub-namespace into the global namespace and in the 
orther sub-namespaces. In Internet words this translates to ".arpa" (for 
the arpa-sub namespace) and in "." (for the global namespace).

As per constant practice (recalled in RFC 920) the TLD (sub-namespaces) may 
originate from one sub-namespace which administers it (as its referent 
gTLDs, sTLDs), or from another sub-namespace or from the global namespace, 
you then only register it (ccTLDs, moTLDs).

 From the very begining (1977) the ITU has been the place were the root 
names and TLD names got their legimacy from, through the respect of the 
International rules by FCC and by soverign states, and through X.121, E.164 
standards. The special case from the Internet comes from the size taken by 
the its brainware development (people think they use it all over the place) 
and from its lack of support of X.121 and E.164 until now. Things would 
have been quite easier to understand and manage otherwise.

So called "alternate roots" are only an extension of the ".arpa" root as 
far as I read them, except China. China is legitimately taking advantage 
from its national root. Leah ".biz" is claiming legitimacy from ".arpa" in 
comparing to the ".com" extended use.
jfc

- --=======69431B4A=======--

- --
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, 29 Jul 2002 07:26:17 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Court Order  in verisign descrimination suit

At 02:18 PM 28/07/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>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.

The GA list with rules may have a smidgen of technical
ability, as it seems to have filtered the post you are
responding to, so far it has only appeared on GA full:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc10/msg04444.html

Care to post the full headers? -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: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:23:42 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ga" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 3:42 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

> At 05:42 29/07/02, todd glassey wrote:
>
> >My feeling is that a Root Zone Protocol as a top layer of a DNS
resolution
> >model might be also functional. The idea would be that if there was a
Root
> >Zone specified in the URI/URL then it would be used otherwise the default
> >set would be (i.e. the ICANN set).
>
> There is a root zone indicated in the URI: this is the TLD. Roots are the
> registered name of a sub-namespace into the global namespace and in the
> orther sub-namespaces. In Internet words this translates to ".arpa" (for
> the arpa-sub namespace) and in "." (for the global namespace).

And .China in their namespace?

>
> As per constant practice (recalled in RFC 920) the TLD (sub-namespaces)
may
> originate from one sub-namespace which administers it (as its referent
> gTLDs, sTLDs), or from another sub-namespace or from the global namespace,
> you then only register it (ccTLDs, moTLDs).

Who said that this practice was sane? Its not, and using a RFC from the IETF
is hardly a way of legitamixing something. Their practices are so corrupt
and flawed that itis my personal opinion  that anyone that relies on
anything from the IETF gets what they deserve.

>
>  From the very begining (1977) the ITU has been the place were the root
> names and TLD names got their legimacy from, through the respect of the
> International rules by FCC and by soverign states, and through X.121,
E.164
> standards.

yes -this is true - but here even the ITU is braindead to some extent.

> The special case from the Internet comes from the size taken by
> the its brainware development (people think they use it all over the
place)
> and from its lack of support of X.121 and E.164 until now. Things would
> have been quite easier to understand and manage otherwise.

AMEN to that. If people understood the actual fabric of the Internet and how
it got there.

>
> So called "alternate roots" are only an extension of the ".arpa" root as
> far as I read them, except China.

I disagree here - the alternate roots are just that in most cases. Alternate
sets of root servers. Some of them resolve a common ubset of thinggs and
then their own native extensions and that is a problem since most all of
that happens in what was considered the ICANN root.

> China is legitimately taking advantage
> from its national root. Leah ".biz" is claiming legitimacy from ".arpa" in
> comparing to the ".com" extended use.
> jfc

And Jefsey, that is the point.  And I am aware of the Multi-root facilities
but they take buyin to operate and that has not been forth coming. The
reality if that if NAT had been invented twn years earlier the DNS services
would have evolved vert differently as would the WWW.

>
>

- --
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, 29 Jul 2002 09:00:10 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

William -

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Ga" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 12:09 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

> Sunday, July 28, 2002, 8:42:10 PM, todd glassey wrote:
>
> > My feeling is that a Root Zone Protocol as a top layer of a DNS
resolution
> > model might be also functional. The idea would be that if there was a
Root
> > Zone specified in the URI/URL then it would be used otherwise the
default
> > set would be (i.e. the ICANN set).
>
> > The real win as I have said would be properly outfitted search engines
since
> > these are really the next generation resolution services anyway.
>
> All your proposal does is essentially create a network of third level
> domain registries, and solves none of the problems.

Sorry - this is simply not true. My RZP allows for multiple root domains to
exist together in any number of models. These clearly are not Domain
Registries but rather a simple LDAP infrastructure listing which sets of
Registries are attached to which sets of  domains. And it does solve the
Domain Collission and IP issues without any major hurdles. Thats why this
would actually work - becuase it does not do as you claim, create a third
tier of registries.

> Who then gets to
> decide what "roots" (which are really TLDs, and TLDs become second
> level domains)

WRONG - no William, the root zones are not new TLD's in and of
themselves, they are collections of TLD's that are resolved by any
specific stated number of servers that make up that ROOT's top-level
of DNS servers.

> get into the master dns?

What are you referring to, in the ICANN Root? (dot ARPA), if that's the case
then ICANN would, just like it does now. As to the China Root, the Chinese
government likely would, one would think.

>
> Or do you not understand how the hierarchy in the dns works, and why
> it works that way?

William - I am tired of your verbal harassment to justify your position. Not
only is it wrong but its par for the course for you - that's what you do-
you verbally abuse people and the records speak for themselves. Look at the
archives over the past few years and what's there - your unhealthy slamming
of everything that offers anything that is different from your opinion. So
that means you must be the only right person here - eh...

Todd Glassey

>
> --
> 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 #1345
*************************