Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1367
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, August 10 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1367

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

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 11:51:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NeuStar letter to Department of Commerce

the .biz address provided is not seen in most of the alternative
namespace.  would love to read it but can't.

but with respect to something completely different - are you aware of the
court decisions regarding the ARNI .biz - and the fact those decision will
also apply to .biz customers possibly resulting in some of them loosing
their domain in future.  And have you provided your domain owners with
disclosure on this.

regards
joe

On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> FYI, the following letter was sent by us to the Department of Commerce
> yesterday in support of ICANN reform.  You can also access it at:
> http://www.neustar.biz/pressroom/announcements/press_release.cfm?press_id=39
> 2
> <http://www.neustar.biz/pressroom/announcements/press_release.cfm?press_id=3
> 92>

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

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

Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:55:55 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

Can someone clarify what we're doing here? I'm a bit confused. By the time
the new Director elected pursuant to the just announced process would be
seated, the Reform process will have been completed. I'm assuming that the
Blueprint, or something very close to it, will be in place at that point,
which would give the GNSO only two Board seats.

In the likely event the Blueprint passes, the GNSO then will need to hold
*new* elections for its two Board seats. Existing DNSO Board representatives
might be reelected, but I wouldn't favor allowing them to retain their seats
without standing for election, as that wouldn't account for the GNSO's new
status (which will have a new make-up to the constituencies) or its new
priorities. 

Is there a way to compress this process so we don't waste time and effort by
holding redundant elections?

        -- Bret

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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 12:34:07 -0500
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NeuStar letter to Department of Commerce

Joe

Where are the court decisions regarding the ARNI .biz?  Please provide
links.

Best regards,

Jeff

- --
jeff field
952-848-7626
952-848-7627 fax
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
- -----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joe
> Baptista
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:52 AM
> To: Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
> Subject: Re: [ga] NeuStar letter to Department of Commerce
>
>
>
> the .biz address provided is not seen in most of the alternative
> namespace.  would love to read it but can't.
>
> but with respect to something completely different - are you aware of the
> court decisions regarding the ARNI .biz - and the fact those decision will
> also apply to .biz customers possibly resulting in some of them loosing
> their domain in future.  And have you provided your domain owners with
> disclosure on this.
>
> regards
> joe
>
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>
> > FYI, the following letter was sent by us to the Department of Commerce
> > yesterday in support of ICANN reform.  You can also access it at:
> >
> http://www.neustar.biz/pressroom/announcements/press_release.cfm?p
ress_id=39
> 2
>
<http://www.neustar.biz/pressroom/announcements/press_release.cfm?press_id=3
> 92>

- --
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: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:44:38 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

Bret,

On August 1, Phil Sheppard sent this note to Louis Touton:  "at the NC 
meeting today it was agreed that unless we hear argument to the contrary the 
DNSO will go ahead with the election of a board director according to the 
usual timetable. I would be grateful for any comment you have in this 
regard."  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00409.html

Apparently, no argument to the contrary or comment was received, as a week 
later there are still no messages from ICANN management posted to the NC 
list.  

Is it stupid to move forward along these lines?  Obviously.  The issue of 
DNSO/GNSO elections has previously been raised with Vint Cerf who referred 
the matter to the ERC for clarification.  We haven't heard from the ERC 
either...  I guess that they're too preoccupied digging the grave for the 
At-Large to pay attention to mundane details regarding the DNSO.

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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 14:36:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NeuStar letter to Department of Commerce

jeff is looking them up.  i sent him directions.

Cheers
Joe Baptista

- --
Planet Communications & Computing Facility
a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited

On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Jeff Field wrote:

> Joe
>
> Where are the court decisions regarding the ARNI .biz?  Please provide
> links.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jeff
>
> --
> jeff field
> 952-848-7626
> 952-848-7627 fax
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> -----
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joe
> > Baptista
> > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:52 AM
> > To: Neuman, Jeff
> > Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
> > Subject: Re: [ga] NeuStar letter to Department of Commerce
> >
> >
> >
> > the .biz address provided is not seen in most of the alternative
> > namespace.  would love to read it but can't.
> >
> > but with respect to something completely different - are you aware of the
> > court decisions regarding the ARNI .biz - and the fact those decision will
> > also apply to .biz customers possibly resulting in some of them loosing
> > their domain in future.  And have you provided your domain owners with
> > disclosure on this.
> >
> > regards
> > joe
> >
> > On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> >
> > > FYI, the following letter was sent by us to the Department of Commerce
> > > yesterday in support of ICANN reform.  You can also access it at:
> > >
> > http://www.neustar.biz/pressroom/announcements/press_release.cfm?p
> ress_id=39
> > 2
> >
> <http://www.neustar.biz/pressroom/announcements/press_release.cfm?press_id=3
> > 92>
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 21:09:49 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

Bret,

Today Bylaws set up obligations on each SOs, one of them is to proceed
on time and to elect ICANN Board directors.

Until we receive the clear implementation schedule and timeline
for ICANN 2 (whatever it is, as amended in Bucharest, work in progress,
letters to DoC in progress, see your own blog), we have to follow rules.
Otherwise it is anarchy.

Elisabeth Porteneuve

- --
> From [email-masked] Fri Aug  9 18:56 MET 2002
> User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006
> Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:55:55 -0700
> Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director
> 	candidates
> From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
> To: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Mime-version: 1.0
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> 
> Can someone clarify what we're doing here? I'm a bit confused. By the time
> the new Director elected pursuant to the just announced process would be
> seated, the Reform process will have been completed. I'm assuming that the
> Blueprint, or something very close to it, will be in place at that point,
> which would give the GNSO only two Board seats.
> 
> In the likely event the Blueprint passes, the GNSO then will need to hold
> *new* elections for its two Board seats. Existing DNSO Board representatives
> might be reelected, but I wouldn't favor allowing them to retain their seats
> without standing for election, as that wouldn't account for the GNSO's new
> status (which will have a new make-up to the constituencies) or its new
> priorities. 
> 
> Is there a way to compress this process so we don't waste time and effort by
> holding redundant elections?
> 
>         -- Bret
> 
> --
> 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: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 14:36:36 -0500
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NeuStar letter to Department of Commerce

FYI, I am looking up nothing.  I have received no directions (links?).  If
you have links, Joe, please post them to the list.

Best regards,

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joe
> Baptista
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:37 PM
> To: Jeff Field
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Neuman, Jeff
> Subject: RE: [ga] NeuStar letter to Department of Commerce
>
>
> jeff is looking them up.  i sent him directions.
>
> Cheers
> Joe Baptista
>
> --
> Planet Communications & Computing Facility
> a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
>
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Jeff Field wrote:
>
> > Joe
> >
> > Where are the court decisions regarding the ARNI .biz?  Please provide
> > links.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > --
> > jeff field
> > 952-848-7626
> > 952-848-7627 fax
> > [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> > -----
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joe
> > > Baptista
> > > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:52 AM
> > > To: Neuman, Jeff
> > > Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] NeuStar letter to Department of Commerce
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > the .biz address provided is not seen in most of the alternative
> > > namespace.  would love to read it but can't.
> > >
> > > but with respect to something completely different - are you
> aware of the
> > > court decisions regarding the ARNI .biz - and the fact those
> decision will
> > > also apply to .biz customers possibly resulting in some of
> them loosing
> > > their domain in future.  And have you provided your domain owners with
> > > disclosure on this.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > joe
> > >
> > > On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> > >
> > > > FYI, the following letter was sent by us to the Department
> of Commerce
> > > > yesterday in support of ICANN reform.  You can also access it at:
> > > >
> > > http://www.neustar.biz/pressroom/announcements/press_release.cfm?p
> > ress_id=39
> > > 2
> > >
> >
<http://www.neustar.biz/pressroom/announcements/press_release.cfm?press_id=3
> > 92>
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 12:40:43 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NeuStar letter to Department of Commerce

Friday, August 09, 2002, 12:36:36 PM, Jeff Field wrote:

> FYI, I am looking up nothing.  I have received no directions (links?).  If
> you have links, Joe, please post them to the list.

> Best regards,

> Jeff

Don't waste your time going around in circles with Joe, Jeff.  It's an
exercise in futility.  Almost as bad as debating with Jeff Wiliams.

- -- 
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: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:59:41 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

On 8 Aug 2002, at 20:32, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:

> At 18:21 08/08/02, L. Gallegos wrote:
> >Adding "registrars" to the mix forced price reductions, yes.
> 
> no. The registry kept $6, but with more customers paid by the inverstors in
> the registrars which tried to "buy market shares" at discounted rates. Once
> thay had no more money VRSN purchased them back. And all the unecessary DNs
> purchased because cheaper are not renewed. jfc
> 

Jefsey, I was referring to price reductions to the registrant overall.  The 
monopoly still exists and the registry still gets the $6, but the registrant 
can now register for under $10 as opposed to the $35 demanded by 
Verisign when there were no alternatives available.

Leah

> 
> 
> 

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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:09:09 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:212     BIZ

0:212     BIZ
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc10/msg04827.html
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>

"the .biz address provided is not seen in most of the alternative
namespace.  would love to read it but can't."
=====

Joe,

Another way to "coach" novice users is to point out that there
are TWO .BIZ 32-bit DNS Proof-of-Concept Registries and
they have to be properly registered with BOTH Registries to
make sure they have a reliable configuration. You might also
want to point out that the new 128-bit DNS software, checks
and cross-checks both 32-bit Registries to verify a proper
configuration to make sure that only the "best-of-breed" .BIZ
names are supported in the commercial version of the .BIZ
Registry and the Next Generation Internet.

.BIZ is .BIZ and the collective will of the SLD.BIZ owners
as customers for all three of the .BIZ Registries will determine
the fate of .BIZ. If the people create a mess, .BIZ will be a mess.
All the Registries can do is try to help make sure that does not
happen and at the same time deploy reliable infrastructure which
is immune from a single-point-of-corporate-failure.

Note, .ORG will have two parallel 32-bit DNS operations soon
and will certainly be a likely candidate for the investment required
to deploy a serious 128-bit DNS service for .ORG users.

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
0:212     BIZ

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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:24:18 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:212 IPv8 Recommended .BIZ Registras

http://www.thepricedomain.com/index.php?domainlist=biz
http://www.Powerpipe.com  $7.99 
http://www.10-Domains.com  $9.00 
http://www.WebHero.com  $9.95 
http://www.RegisterFly.com  $9.99 
http://www.iaregistry.com  $11.95 
http://www.totalregistrations.com  $12.00 
http://www.namesecure.com  $12.00 
http://www.domaininvestigator.com  $12.47

Registra...Registry...Registrar...Reseller...Webmaster...Customer

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

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

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

Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 14:39:04 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

There's more than one way to do this...without throwing ourselves into
anarchy. Here are just three alternatives, each possible under the current
bylaws:

(1) Ask each of the DNSO-elected Directors to resign now but effective at
the close of the Board meeting on 31 October 2002. Hold elections now for
two replacements (plus one alternate in the event that three Directors are
required under ICANN 2.0). The current bylaws permit the DNSO to fill a
vacancy under Article V, Section 12.

(2) Vote now to remove the sitting DNSO Directors under Article V, Section
11 effective at the close of the Board meeting on 31 October 2002. Then, as
described in (1), hold new elections.

(3) Have the Council vote to extend the term of Mr. Pisanty, with the
blessing of the Board, for a period of 90 days, which ought to be sufficient
to finalize reform and hold new elections within the new GNSO.

Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> Today Bylaws set up obligations on each SOs, one of them is to proceed
> on time and to elect ICANN Board directors.
> 
> Until we receive the clear implementation schedule and timeline
> for ICANN 2 (whatever it is, as amended in Bucharest, work in progress,
> letters to DoC in progress, see your own blog), we have to follow rules.
> Otherwise it is anarchy.

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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:11:14 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

The problems with making this (the selling and resolving of DNS Services) a
free market type solution, is that registrars and their registry friends
will go out of business, just like all other competitive businesses, and
today this would be fatal for that registry's paid customers and that of the
registrars. Especially since ICANN has no plans about to do in this case.

Todd

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Brown" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

> Competition, innovation, progress, no monopoly and lower registration
> costs for consumers, to name a few . . .
>
> Thursday, August 8, 2002, 8:35:21 AM, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> JFCJM> yes. but what is the need for a registrar (as understood today)?
> JFCJM> jfc
>
> JFCJM> On 13:05 08/08/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
> >>Any number of them. The very existence of registrars in this namespace
> >>is, in itself, an innovation. The myriad of business models they employ
> >>represent an innovation, the technology that they use, in many cases,
> >>represent an innovation...the list does go one, but the specifics are
> >>well-documented and not really important to this discussion.
> >>                       -rwr
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
> 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
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:27:02 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

Leah you brought out some real issues. I think some of them should be
painted differently than you portrayed, and my spin on them is below.

Todd

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

>
>
> On 8 Aug 2002, at 10:11, Don Brown wrote:
>
> > Competition, innovation, progress, no monopoly and lower registration
> > costs for consumers, to name a few . . .
>
> If there were thousands of TLDs, or even hundreds, the monopoly issue
> would be put to rest.  The market would take care of pricing.

Same is true of operating multiple root sets.

>  In the
> case of VRSG, it is an issue simply because it was the only game in
> town for so long that every commercial enterprise was forced to register
> in that registry, providing a scenario where it was easy to gauge
> consumers.  Adding "registrars" to the mix forced price reductions, yes.
>  However, it is still a monopoly in the sense that VRSG still fixes the
> registry fee.
>
> Had there been a hundred gTLDs added early on, consumers would
> have been registering in many regsitries and NSI would have had to
> compete in a fair market.  Every registry is a monoply, but that is no
> different from every insurance company being a monopoly.  If you don't
> like the practices, terms and conditions or policies of one company,
> choose another.
>
> A great many of the issues driving people crazy today could go away
> with hundreds of TLDs being made available in the USG root.  I doubt
> we will see it because the IP interests will do all they can to prevent
it.

I dont think anyone really (commercially speaking) wants billions of TLD's;
only people in these types of forums are pro millions and billions of
TLD's - The real issue is making namespace as easy to remember as possible
and that isnt with adding yet another TLD. It would be much simplier to add
another root and replicate .com, .net, and .org and restructure how the
address space is split up amoungst the Registries and their Registrar
front-ends.

>
> There is nothing wrong with having a single registrar for a regsitry if
there
> are many registries - small, large and in-between.  As with the problems
> surrounding ICANN's elimination of the at-large, the artificial scarcity
of
> TLDs prevents the public's having a choice in the most basic areas of
> the internet - the DNS.

The same is true of a multi-root scenario as well.

>
> All the talk of confusion raised by having a multitude of TLDs is also
> pure FUD.

I actually  think that the opposite is true, that having a multitude of Root
Domains is not a problem. Otherwise telephone numbers would have broken
uears ago.

What this is, is all about following the proven model that the telco people
have laid out and the listening of ICANN and IETF executives jump up and
down proletizing on how this wont work... But the reality is that just
adding TLD after TLD is insane and really shows the problems with the folks
currenly trying to "paint themselves" as the managers of the Internet.

> People have become accustomed to changing area codes
> constantly, as well as having to use more digits in phone numbers, dial
> around codes, etc.  The public would become accustomed to a variety
> of TLD extensions in the same manner and more companies would
> spring up to index them.

Leah I disagree here - the problem is not one that can be compared with Area
Codes by your model. AC's preface a number not post-pend it. The intent is
to use a smaller set of possible network address instances, and then
replicate that set over any number of areas by prefacing the station and
network address with the zone or area code. As to DNS there is an obvious
parallel. A root zone idetifier to preface the station address.

Futher there is no play between the registrars and the search engines as
there should be, also a failing of ICANN's current operations models as
well.

>
> Registries could succeed or fail.  People and companies would then
> have to make changes just as they do when they move and change
> phone numbers or an area code is changed forcing companies and
> individuals to adjust.

Thats if the average customer could do this. I assure you that most cannot
wade through the mire her and their domains would be crashed until something
happened to pick up the services of said registry.

> It's a pain, but we all do it.  A worse scenario
> would be to not allow new area codes and have an artificial scarcity of
> phone numbers.  I see no difference with the lack of TLDs in the USG
> root, especially when there are thousands of TLDs already in existence,
> many of which actively accept registrations.  It's no longer an
> experiment in the sense that it can be done.  It's been done.  So what is
> ICANN's excuse?
>
> Leah
>
> >
> > Thursday, August 8, 2002, 8:35:21 AM, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin
> > <[email-masked]> wrote: JFCJM> yes. but what is the need for a
> > registrar (as understood today)? JFCJM> jfc
> >
> > JFCJM> On 13:05 08/08/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
> > >>Any number of them. The very existence of registrars in this namespace
> > >>is, in itself, an innovation. The myriad of business models they
employ
> > >>represent an innovation, the technology that they use, in many cases,
> > >>represent an innovation...the list does go one, but the specifics are
> > >>well-documented and not really important to this discussion.
> > >>                       -rwr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> > 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-full" 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: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 17:34:20 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Changes to IPv6 Addressing Architecture Draft

Has the ICANN Board and staff approved this ?

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Hinden" <[email-masked]>
To: "IPv6 List" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 5:27 PM
Subject: Changes to IPv6 Addressing Architecture Draft

> 
> At the IPv6 working group sessions at the Yokohama IETF two changes to the 
> IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture draft
> 
>    <draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-08.txt>
> 
> were discussed.  These changes were proposed based on feedback received 
> from our area director and email discussion on the mailing list.  A summary 
> of the AD comments is include at the end of the email.
> 
> The changes that were proposed at the meeting were to relax the interface 
> identifier uniqueness requirements (from the link to subnet prefix) and to 
> change the definition of Site-Local addresses to make the subnet field 
> 54-bits (and eliminate the 38-bit zero field).
> 
> After discussing the proposed changes, a consensus was reached at the 
> Yokohama meeting to make them.  The purpose of this email is to validate 
> that consensus on the mailing list and to review the specific changes to 
> the internet draft.
> 
> The proposed changes (changed lines marked by "|") to the ID are as follows:
> 
> Change to second sentence in the first paragraph of section 2.5.1:
> 
>   Interface identifiers in IPv6 unicast addresses are used to identify
>   interfaces on a link.  They are required to be unique within a subnet  |
>   prefix.  They may also be unique over a broader scope.  In some cases  |
>   an interface's identifier will be derived directly from that
>   interface's link-layer address.  The same interface identifier may be
>   used on multiple interfaces on a single node, as long as they are
>   attached to different links.
> 
> and from section 2.5.6 where site-local is defined:
> 
>   Site-Local addresses have the following format:
> 
>   |   10     |
>   |  bits    |         54 bits         |         64 bits            |
>   +----------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
>   |1111111011|        subnet ID        |       interface ID         |    |
>   +----------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
> 
>   Site-local addresses are designed to be used for addressing inside of
>   a site without the need for a global prefix.  Although a subnet ID may |
>   be up to 54-bits long, it is expected that most globally-connected     |
>   sites will use the same subnet IDs for site-local and global prefixes. |
> 
> 
> If there is agreement with these changes I will submit a new draft (-09) 
> that the area directors can proceed with.
> 
> Bob
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Comments from Thomas Narten:
> 
> >1) The -07 ID contains the wording:
> >
> > >    Interface identifiers in IPv6 unicast addresses are used to identify
> > >    interfaces on a link.  They are required to be unique on that link.
> >
> >Given the on-going issues surrounding DAD vs DIID, I felt it
> >appropriate to check with the WG whether this wording was indeed what
> >the WG believed the architecture should require.
> >
> >2) The -07 ID contains the wording:
> >
> > >    Site-Local addresses have the following format:
> > >
> > >    |   10     |
> > >    |  bits    |   38 bits   |  16 bits  |         64 bits            |
> > >    +----------+-------------+-----------+----------------------------+
> > >    |1111111011|    0        | subnet ID |       interface ID         |
> > >    +----------+-------------+-----------+----------------------------+
> >
> >Given that the fixed 16-bit subnet ID in global addresses was changed
> >to one having a flexible boundary, the subnet ID in site-locals should
> >also not have a fixed boundary.  Note that other parts of the document
> >showing addresses were updated to use generic "m" bits, rather than
> >fixing the field at 16 bits, under the concern that implementations
> >*might* somehow hardcode the boundary in their implementations.
> >
> >Also, it might be good to clarify that the middle bits are undefined
> >and should be 0. I.e., implementors could interpret the above words as
> >saying the bits are defined to always be zero (as opposed to just
> >reserved for future use and MUST be zero), which could lead
> >implementations to somehow check that those bits are 0, and if not, do
> >something incorrect (like signal an error).
> >
> >The specific text that was proposed and discussed at the Yokohama
> >meeting addresses the main concern I had.
> >
> >At the meeting, there were still some folks that seemed unhappy with
> >the proposed change. I'd be interested in understand why. Only itojun
> >spoke up on this point, and he stated this would make site-local
> >addresses more attractive, which he didn't consider a feature. :-)
> >
> >Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

- --
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 #1367
*************************