Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #139
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, September 4 2000          Volume 01 : Number 139

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

Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 16:46:59 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [icann-candidates] Re: [ga] bodacious-tata[s].NET 

At 05:07 3/09/00 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:

>
>I can be fast, yes, let us keep that possibility open for new domains :-))
>

Marc,

I'm afraid you are uncomfortably close to the mark here. You are still free
to quickly get that name. For Now.

The TATA case seems to be a typical instance of "DN-policing" in the guise
of  a  TM dilution case. 
Interesting is the "non-US famous name" aspect of the case. 

If we look further out to the future, we can expect two broad attitudes
(constituencies?) to emerge, those who will want to expand the URDP into
more wide-ranging DN policing and those, like yourself,  who will want to
protect freedom of speech in DN registration.

As more and more registrants will use the full potential of "speech" in a
64 alphanumeric string, more and more names will emerge that will be
considered hate speech, obscene speech, political speech and other forms of
addressing that many powers-that-be (and ordinary citizens) across
different languages and cultures will want banned.  

Indeed, different cultures and language groups will want to be able to
control their own policing.
How about hitler_hatteRecht.com, weloveAnwar_ibrahim.com   or DN that
insult political leaders or religious sensitivities in languages other than
English?

When more restrictively oriented cultures realize that  blocking  access to
such sites doesn't work, they will demand their own policing rights, to
"take down" such domains under the ICANN flag. 

When regionally elected directors will be questioned on their stance on
Freedom of Speech, we are going to see some surprises.

Whatever Europeans  may have against North Americans dominating the current
ICANN process, on Free Speech issues the "regional representativeness"
structure of ICANN is going to have a decidedly  unAmerican effect.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.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,  3 Sep 2000 15:28:47 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Louise,

>
>The review is due November. November is also when she leaves, so with 
the
>changeover at the top, this whole process may end up getting pushed 
back

I may be wrong, but with the election of 5 AtLarge members, only 5 out 
of 9 of the initial Board Directors will be replaced.
Maybe somebody has better info or rumors, but I did not see anywhere 
evidence that Esther will be leaving. On the contrary, there have been 
far less active Directors that maybe have exhausted their motivation to 
serve.

Regards
Roberto
- --
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, 3 Sep 2000 16:40:02 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Roberto,

> I may be wrong, but with the election of 5 AtLarge members, only 5 out
> of 9 of the initial Board Directors will be replaced.
> Maybe somebody has better info or rumors, but I did not see anywhere
> evidence that Esther will be leaving.

she has said so herself:
Cf. http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/00/154046.html
and http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,17052,00.html

Best regards,
/// Alexander

_______________________________________________________
  ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de
- --
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, 03 Sep 2000 19:57:45 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 13:24 03/09/00, Roberto wrote:
>The main thing I am worried about is that two alt.roots have different
>name servers for the same TLD.
>And this I don't like.

1. alternate root are not about different name servers but additional
     name servers.
2. alternate root/nameservers is a built in possibilibty of the DNS
     anyone may use today. This is a private decision of the User.

The target is not to block market demand for alternative root, so
it ispossible to conduct an orderly opening of new TLD and
extended services. So everyone is informed enough of what he
gets and whet he does. Blocking it as ICANN does leads to
a blunt "deregulation" with a bug fight between Verisign, AOL,
MS and others. I would prefer avoiding that Internet War.
Jefsey

- --
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, 03 Sep 2000 21:53:30 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Roberto,

At 15:14 03/09/00, you wrote:
>Jefsey,
> >IMHO this is as saying that flying Alitalia will never make me sure
> >to land in NY and this is why I should stay with Delta.
>Unfortunately, this is exactly what will happen with alternate roots.

This is what may happen. Unfortunate is another question: IMHO
it will really depends on us at the present time (in coming two or
three weeks because of the TLDs affair by ICANN).

>If you have two alternate roots that refer to two different DN servers
>as authoritative for the same TLD, you think you will land on one site,
>while in reality you are on a different one.

Yes. We had that conflict with ".sys" at the ORSC. We concluded
in my buying the TLD which is rising interesting but probably very
important issues for the future. The point is not un buying the TLD
per se but to determine clearly a date at which the cedant is no more
involved. The risk is that the cedant in getting a payment endorse
responsibilties towards my comity where I maybe replaced by
Bill Gates some day with a lot of lawyers. So we want to be carefull.

>Take .web, for instance.
>There are half a dozen claims to manage it.
>Different alt.roots could elect different operators to manage it. And
>then we will have a mess.

The web hates the mess. This will quickly resolve to one winner and
to losers, or most probably to one master and clones. IMHO I do
prefer this kind of situation between a few ".web" alternative manager
than a TLD war where .web will be claimed seriously by MS and AOL
what will be the case, unless .web is endorsed by the ICANN. Then
there will be .web clones too.

>Don't expect different alt.roots to coordinate among themselves. Because
>the purpose, exactly as for PABXes, is to have a shortcut (Domain Name)
>to point to a complex number. But the shortcut cannot be "global" (in
>the sense of "universal" that is commonly attached to the word). Hence
>the confusion on the global level.

I think that what people want are :
- -  a good mnemonic corresponding to what they are so users may access
    them intuitively.
- -  some routing services. A shortcut can be qualified as such, but it is
    expansive to make a name known that what they really want is that
    their mnemonic is short an clear. As http://roberto.gaetano is easier
    and clearer to memorize than http://voila.fr/member/robertog as your
    address might be.
    True routing services at that levem are through semantics (formats,
    rules, final protection against UDRP - name/route cannot be changed,
    search and access engine attractive solutions, etc...).
    NB. I am using not widespread notions studied within .WIZ which
    show the way the market is probably heading to. But I feel you will
    understand them.

>The PTT interconnect the telephone services based on a partition of the
>E164 "address space" based on international telephone prefixes, managed
>by a coordinated authority (in the specific case, the ITU), that acts
>like a "telephone root".

This is true. But remember that the correspondance to X121 data,
telex and telephone addressing plan is the IP addressing plan and
I am much more interested in an ASO rebuild with a real IPv6 oriented
plan, including concerns for privacy protection as IP addresses may
turn out throught portable and online payment in a worldwide personnal
identification number. I am also very much concerned by the recent
ARIN decision which IMHO may have modified a lot of things in
confirming CNAMEs (hence in fact domain names of 2,3 etc level)
into the IP addressing plan. I would happy reading a competent
comment on this.
Jefsey

- --
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, 03 Sep 2000 09:50:13 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 01:24 PM 9/3/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >>How would you call a root that does not use the ICANN root as baseline?
> >
> >I'd call it a "Private Root" since it does not reflect the publicly

The term alternate root has been used to cover any DNS hierarchies that is 
administered independently of the IANA name root.

This is not affected by the choice of some independent administrations to 
incorporate other name administrative assignments.  In other words, the 
fact that some alternative roots incorporate the IANA/ICANN assigned names 
is entirely irrelevant.

> >viewable internet name space (anything less than the ICANN baseline is a
> >private name space). It would not be an "Alternative Root" (alt.root) to
> >the "IANA/ICANN root" in the publicaly-viewable sense.

This bit of nomenclature subtlety might be helpful to the logic of those 
running an alternative root service, but is irrelevant to the public 
discussion, now and in the past.

>The main thing I am worried about is that two alt.roots have different
>name servers for the same TLD.

The ability to have the name space assignments be different is the key.

> >We all saw what John Postel and Paul Vixie (at John Gilmore's prompting)
> >did a couple of years ago in splitting the root servers up into US
> >Gov-controlled and non-USG-controlled groups by changing the
> >non-USG-controlled root servers to pull their root zone from an IANA
>server instead of a.root. What they actually did was attempt to create an
>alt.root out of the non-USG-controlled root servers. Had no-one noticed the
>change of root authority then the 7 CORE TLDs would have been added to half

I don't know how Simon came by these bits of fantasy, but they are 
factually wrong in every respect.

John was testing the ability to switch to a new root server.  At the time, 
there was some concern that NSI might turn rogue and he was exploring the 
ability to remedy the problems that would cause.  In addition, the idea for 
a "stealth master", that is finally being deployed now, was developed back 
then.

The view that it was a surreptitious resulted from people who had never 
before been involved deciding, after the fact, that they should have 
been.  Those who were regularly part of DNS root operations, and some of us 
who had not been, were well aware of the plan.  (I did not know the planned 
timing, but John described the effort to me some weeks beforehand.)

Addition of the IAHC/POC-specified new gTLDs -- CORE did not create the 
list -- was an entirely public sequence and the test of a new root server 
administration had nothing at all to do with adding new names.

The fact that the DNS root had always been under the direction of IANA and 
that it was IANA performing the test makes the claim that it was an 
"alternative" root particularly silly.

Since IANA had always made the decisions about top-level domains, and since 
IANA supported addition of the new IAHC/POC gTLDs, the additions would 
merely have been continued enhancement of the IANA DNS.  There would have 
been nothing "alternative" or "independent" or "rogue" about it.

Lastly is the fact that the test "master" root got all of its data from the 
NSI 'a' root.  There was no independent name administration.

d/

- --
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, 03 Sep 2000 10:04:31 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] new TLDs

At 05:29 PM 9/1/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>IMHO, the only reason for adding TLDs is to add diversity of models.
>...
>If the models are diversified, it will make no sense (and in some cases
>...
>If, OTOH, the ICANN Board selects just some clones of .com (like .firm, 
>biz, or whatever), I agree that we are in trouble.But why should they?

The original reasons for pursuing additional gTLDs were to increase the 
amount of name space and to increase competition among those supplying 
registration services.  The focus on formally "different models" -- and 
especially the idea of enforced restriction on registrations under 
"chartered" TLDs -- are of rather recent vintage.

The idea behind having different kinds of gTLD strings was the hope that 
they would have different appeal, not that there would be any difference in 
the legal basis for resolving a trademark conflict.  Indeed it is difficult 
to imagine the courts producing differential outcomes unless the assignment 
process has differential enforcement rules.

The mere fact that the TLD string is different and, perhaps, has a 
different description associated with it sounds like a pretty weak legal 
argument, on its own.  The counterpoints are that a) the mere fact that the 
strings IS different and therefore that two different domain names really 
are different, and b) well-established base of industry practise supporting 
the difference, such as between .com and .org.

d/

- --
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, 3 Sep 2000 22:35:38 +0200 (MEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] AMAZON

Roberto,

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Jamie,
> 
> >
> >   Just how broad is Amazon.com's claim to all uses the word Amazon on
> >the Internet?
> 
> 
> They do register each and every variation just because their claim is 
> weak.
> 
> In other words, they are putting everybody in a de-facto situation, 
> where they own the names (and make it difficult for everybody to take 
> the names away from them).

So one could say they are cybersquatting on their own TM ?

- --
Marc Schneiders ------- Venster - http://www.venster.nl 
 [email-masked] - [email-masked] - [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

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

Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 22:57:39 +0200 (MEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [icann-candidates] Re: [ga] bodacious-tata[s].NET 

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Joop Teernstra wrote:

[...]
> Marc,
> 
> I'm afraid you are uncomfortably close to the mark here. You are still free
> to quickly get that name. For Now.
> 
> The TATA case seems to be a typical instance of "DN-policing" in the guise
> of  a  TM dilution case. 
> Interesting is the "non-US famous name" aspect of the case. 

This is interesting indeed and raises all sorts of questions. Is it to
their advantage, because denying an Indian company their TM might look
imperialistic?

> If we look further out to the future, we can expect two broad attitudes
> (constituencies?) to emerge, those who will want to expand the URDP into
> more wide-ranging DN policing and those, like yourself,  who will want to
> protect freedom of speech in DN registration.
> 
> As more and more registrants will use the full potential of "speech" in a
> 64 alphanumeric string, more and more names will emerge that will be
> considered hate speech, obscene speech, political speech and other forms of
> addressing that many powers-that-be (and ordinary citizens) across
> different languages and cultures will want banned.  
> 
> Indeed, different cultures and language groups will want to be able to
> control their own policing.
> How about hitler_hatteRecht.com, weloveAnwar_ibrahim.com   or DN that
> insult political leaders or religious sensitivities in languages other than
> English?

I would say anything goes, including Stalin_loved_Russia.ORG. There is no
way we can censor sensibly. It is too much a matter of taste. So none of
it at all. That is my position. If people want to use tasteless names, let
them. They may find the names I choose an insult.
I do not promote being insensitive to the feelings of others, on the
contrary. But I do promote the right to say what others may not like.

> When more restrictively oriented cultures realize that  blocking  access to
> such sites doesn't work, they will demand their own policing rights, to
> "take down" such domains under the ICANN flag. 
> 
> When regionally elected directors will be questioned on their stance on
> Freedom of Speech, we are going to see some surprises.
> 
> Whatever Europeans  may have against North Americans dominating the current
> ICANN process, on Free Speech issues the "regional representativeness"
> structure of ICANN is going to have a decidedly  unAmerican effect.

This may certainly become an issue. We will just have to fight them. There
is no other option. We may loose. I am already experimenting with Freenet
(http://freenet.sourceforge.net/), which addresses blocking issues among
other things.

- --
Marc Schneiders ------- Venster - http://www.venster.nl 
 [email-masked] - [email-masked] - [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

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

Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 14:12:43 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

I specifically refuse to open an argument with Dave Crocker
on his factually incorrect posts. I have pointed out his inaccuracies
in the past, and choose not to re-open the issue other than to
remind our kind readers that many of Dave's statements in his
previous post have been shown to be misleading at best, and
incorrect on numerous occasions.

Dave, if you would like to argue in private, I'm more than
willing to do so. I gave my word I wouldn't argue these issues
on the lists. I suspect it would be too much to ask that you 
would give your word to stop posting these inaccuracies and
let the old issue be.

Christopher Ambler

- --
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, 03 Sep 2000 23:40:39 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] new TLDs

At 19:04 03/09/00, you wrote:
>At 05:29 PM 9/1/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>IMHO, the only reason for adding TLDs is to add diversity of models.
>>...
>>If the models are diversified, it will make no sense (and in some cases
>>...
>>If, OTOH, the ICANN Board selects just some clones of .com (like .firm, 
>>biz, or whatever), I agree that we are in trouble.But why should they?
>
>The original reasons for pursuing additional gTLDs were to increase the 
>amount of name space and to increase competition among those supplying 
>registration services.  The focus on formally "different models" -- and 
>especially the idea of enforced restriction on registrations under 
>"chartered" TLDs -- are of rather recent vintage.

The Yokohama resolution and the TLD filing documents insists on innovation.
I head to comities for innovative TLDs (the nature of the DN and management
is enhanced without modifying the DNS but adding "plug-ins" to neameservers.

This has obviously no interest for ICANN: what has is:
- - please send your K$50 check
- - please demonstrate us that we will make $.33 per annum/DN
- - please sign that you will not claim any industrial property on your concepts
- - please sign we may take over management from you

Problems:
- -  the management is collaborative among registrants
- -  we permit registering an unlimited number of dynamic DNs for $1000/year
- -  we retain property - even under GNU licence - for R&D to be possible

>The idea behind having different kinds of gTLD strings was the hope that 
>they would have different appeal, not that there would be any difference 
>in the legal basis for resolving a trademark conflict.  Indeed it is 
>difficult to imagine the courts producing differential outcomes unless the 
>assignment process has differential enforcement rules.

We do not accept TM conflicts. Because we want them to be solved
upfront both by DN registrant and by TM registrant. We will possibly
incorporate the service under a state giving us that protection. Also,
our approach is not about TM but about intellectual property.

>The mere fact that the TLD string is different and, perhaps, has a 
>different description associated with it sounds like a pretty weak legal 
>argument, on its own.  The counterpoints are that a) the mere fact that 
>the strings IS different and therefore that two different domain names 
>really are different, and b) well-established base of industry practise 
>supporting the difference, such as between .com and .org.

Jon Postel's position (RFC) is that it is very unlikely that there are noew 
gTLDs.

Jefsey

- --
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, 03 Sep 2000 23:40:55 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Dave,

At 18:50 03/09/00, you wrote:
>At 01:24 PM 9/3/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> >>How would you call a root that does not use the ICANN root as baseline?
>> >I'd call it a "Private Root" since it does not reflect the publicly
>The term alternate root has been used to cover any DNS hierarchies that is 
>administered independently of the IANA name root.
>This is not affected by the choice of some independent administrations to 
>incorporate other name administrative assignments.  In other words, the 
>fact that some alternative roots incorporate the IANA/ICANN assigned names 
>is entirely irrelevant.

The age of the term does not preclude it to be tuned to meet
current realities, nor new terms to be coined. Historicaly
Alternate root corresponds also to an attitude and to a root
management philosopy. This attitude and philosopy is not
the one of everybody, specially of the ventures disapointed by
what they consider as a mismanagement by ICANN and look
not for an alternative, but for a solution.

>> >viewable internet name space (anything less than the ICANN baseline is a
>> >private name space). It would not be an "Alternative Root" (alt.root) to
>> >the "IANA/ICANN root" in the publicaly-viewable sense.
>
>This bit of nomenclature subtlety might be helpful to the logic of those 
>running an alternative root service, but is irrelevant to the public 
>discussion, now and in the past.

IMHO a large number of Internet related discussions would
be eased by a dictionnary and a model. So people could
understand what others are talking about and we would not
be constantly obliged to update others on present or past
researches.

>>The main thing I am worried about is that two alt.roots have different
>>name servers for the same TLD.
>The ability to have the name space assignments be different is the key.

I do not think this is a thread as paying people would certainly
address it quick. The value added is filtering.

>John was testing the ability to switch to a new root server.  At the time, 
>there was some concern that NSI might turn rogue and he was exploring the 
>ability to remedy the problems that would cause.

NSI turn rogue? AT least it is independant minded.

>Since IANA had always made the decisions about top-level domains, and 
>since IANA supported addition of the new IAHC/POC gTLDs, the additions 
>would merely have been continued enhancement of the IANA DNS.  There would 
>have been nothing "alternative" or "independent" or "rogue" about it.

GNU asked a $10 a piece ".gnu" TLD, it is all what it should cost
for the IANA to register the TLD and put in the root.

>Lastly is the fact that the test "master" root got all of its data from 
>the NSI 'a' root.  There was no independent name administration.

Amen.
Jefsey

- --
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, 03 Sep 2000 23:43:07 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 16:40 03/09/00, you wrote:
>Roberto,
> > I may be wrong, but with the election of 5 AtLarge members, only 5 out
> > of 9 of the initial Board Directors will be replaced.
> > Maybe somebody has better info or rumors, but I did not see anywhere
> > evidence that Esther will be leaving.
>she has said so herself:
>Cf. http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/00/154046.html
>and http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,17052,00.html

If this last one is true, Dyson, Burr and Roberts (?) would go. This would
leaves us with Touton, WorldCom and ccTLDs unrest. Frankly these internal
issues to an US establishment structure do not concern me as a user and
an investor. I just want to use the internet in spite of their problems. For
that I just need an alternate root of quality and a widespread way to make
it used by OSes. Our duty is to protect the users, and I do not see any
other way (I wish there would be one easier and cheaper: $10 said the
".gnu" group).
Jefsey

- --
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, 03 Sep 2000 23:44:39 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .sys and .wiz IP protection current approach

At 13:10 03/09/00, you wrote:
>Marc, Jefsey,
>
>The 30-days waiting time was widely discussed at the IAHC timem few
>years ago - gee, it is only three years, in fact, but it seems another
>millennium ;>).
>The public enquiry clearly rejected it.
>Thios said, why could not different Registries implement different
>policies? In a TLD where TMs are stricly enforced, this would make sense
>, while in a TLD for strictly individualm or non-commercial use this
>would not maker sense.
>Regards
>Roberto

Roberto,
I did not propose that solution for every TLD. I just said that two
TLD comities out of three I participate in have decided to study:

- -  UDRP enforcement after the matter defintion is included
    (definition of the DN or what is quivalently used by these TLDs)
- -  TLD rules:
    -  resale of domain name authorized, transfer authorized
       between affiliates. So DN may be invested in projects.
    -  provisional yet immediate operations granted for a new
       domain name. UDRP authorized within the first 30 days
       for TM owned having registered their TM during the last
       30 days before the DN registration.
   -   initial period: no registration for 3 months. At the end
       of the 3 months, DN requested by a single registrants
       are granted; DN requested by several registrants are
       subject to an UDRP to determine the winner.

The desired target is to create a de facto group of TLD of
worldwide internet sub-classes. The DN notion is to be
carefully though about as we introduce new concepts as
formats (".sys") or rules (".wiz") which are more intellectual
that industrial property oriented.
Jefsey

PS. FYI .SYS and .WIZ are to comities for the management
by the registrants of respectively the ".sys" and ".wiz" TLDs
incorporated under the French non-profit law.

- --
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, 03 Sep 2000 15:11:08 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 09:50 AM 9/3/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:

>> >We all saw what John Postel and Paul Vixie (at John Gilmore's prompting)
>> >did a couple of years ago in splitting the root servers up into US
>> >Gov-controlled and non-USG-controlled groups by changing the
>> >non-USG-controlled root servers to pull their root zone from an IANA
>>server instead of a.root. What they actually did was attempt to create an
>>alt.root out of the non-USG-controlled root servers. Had no-one noticed the
>>change of root authority then the 7 CORE TLDs would have been added to half
>
>I don't know how Simon came by these bits of fantasy, but they are 
>factually wrong in every respect.

Since you are well know to the internet community as a purveyor of 
disinformation, I'll take that under advisement. The press published 
another opinion:

"Postel had asked NSI for permission to conduct the test last month. 
However, NSI had said that in accordance with its government contract it 
had to get official clearance. But Postel went ahead even without that 
clearance."
[..]
"For some in the 'Net community, Postel's actions brought to mind Eugene 
Kashpureff, who is facing federal charges of computer and wire fraud for 
last year hijacking NSI's InterNIC Web site where users register their 
domain names."
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0204postel.html

Note the reasons cited to justify the experiment were because Postel wasn't 
happy with the US proposal. The "experiment" resulted in separate root 
authorities for USG-controlled and IANA-controlled root servers. That is a 
fragmentation of the root.

>John was testing the ability to switch to a new root server.  At the time, 
>there was some concern that NSI might turn rogue and he was exploring the 
>ability to remedy the problems that would cause.  In addition, the idea 
>for a "stealth master", that is finally being deployed now, was developed 
>back then.

The stealth server was old news even then. Jon and I had discussed the 
possibilities at least two years before the event.

See my message to Roberto for the rest. The rest of your reply wasn't even 
rational enough to comment on. The timing for this was IMMEDIATELY after 
the gTLD-MoU was defeated by overwhelming common sense:
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0123dns.html

Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

- --
It's a feature not a bug...

- --
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, 03 Sep 2000 15:22:02 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Roberto,

> >>How would you call a root that does not use the ICANN root as
> >>baseline?
> >
> >I'd call it a "Private Root" since it does not reflect the publicly
> >viewable internet name space (anything less than the ICANN baseline
> >is a private name space). It would not be an "Alternative Root"
> >(alt.root) to the "IANA/ICANN root" in the publicaly-viewable sense.
> >
> >>(BTW, I assume that you cannot make sure that an alternate root
> >>does not point to different name servers for the TLDs that are also
> >>in ICANN's root)
> >
> >While it's possible, what incentive is there at the end user level
> >to use a zone missing any TLDs? Maybe an organization can set it's
> >DNS servers up to boycott a ccTLD (think about protesting .ZA
> >during Apartheid), but it's localized to those organizations end
> >users, and can easily be circumvented by anyone knowledgeable.
> >
> >Thinking about it some more, there's an inherent trust given to all
> >DNS server operators by the end users served. There's nothing
> >stopping the glue records for any domain name or TLD from being
> >changed on any server anywhere on the planet. You can do this at
> > any level - it is not restricted to root servers.
>
>The main thing I am worried about is that two alt.roots have different
>name servers for the same TLD.
>
>And this I don't like.

I agree. But certain facts of life are here to stay:

1. Alt.roots have been created as a direct result of:
    a. Network Solutions being granted a for-profit monopoly on the
       most popular gTLDs (COM/NET/ORG)
    b. IANA's inability to introduce competition to NSI by way of
       new registries and TLDs
    c. The .US registry's total failure to address the .US space
    d. Internet community dissatisfaction with subsequent processes
       (i.e. IAHC/gTLD-MoU/ICANN)
    e. ICANN's obligation to prevent economic harm to NSI from
       introducing competition
2. Reserved TLDs (BCP32) exist which immediately create an alt.root
3. Private corporations use Alternate Roots internally which often
    duplicates the name space outside of the USG-root - normally to
    secure the identity of internally used servers
4. Private Roots exist which for whatever reason do not have a full
    set of USG-root TLDs

There is no guidance to establish checks and balances in any DNS server 
which has been altered from the vanilla USG-root. I'm halfway through an 
Internet Draft to try and ensure that there is a minimum supported baseline 
(the USG root zone). Also I'm addressing discrepancies between RFC2826 and 
BCP32, as well as other variations. The point is to provide a common 
meeting ground and prevent a serious root fragmentation from happening.

> >We all saw what John Postel and Paul Vixie (at John Gilmore's
> >prompting) did a couple of years ago in splitting the root
> >servers up into US Gov-controlled and non-USG-controlled groups
> >by changing the non-USG-controlled root servers to pull their
> >root zone from an IANA server instead of a.root. What they
> >actually did was attempt to create an alt.root out of the
> >non-USG-controlled root servers. Had no-one noticed the change
> >of root authority then the 7 CORE TLDs would have been added to
> >half the root servers and the root would have been fragmented
> >from that point on. As a POC member you were supposed to oversee
> >and prevent this from happening. Instead the USG intervened.
>
>First of all, the intention was not at all to fragment the root and to
>start an alt.root.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It doesn't matter what the 
intent is if the end result is undesirable. Forcing the 7 CORE TLDs into 
the root without accountability to the internet community was undesirable. 
Splitting the IANA root into two distinct authorities like the 
IAHC/gTLD-MoU/CORE folk did was worse than starting a separate alt.root. 
Users of an alt.root make the choice to use the alt.root. Users of the 
ICANN root are not given that choice, and their queries for the CORE TLDs 
would have failed 50% of the time because the USG-controlled servers would 
not have supported them causing instant root fragmentation.

>As for the overseeing role of POC, I will not argue, just notice that I
>was not a POC member at that time.
>
>For the record, I spoke against the "experiment" at the CORE Assembly in
>  Washington, DC, that was ongoing when the events happened. I assume I
>would have had the same attitude in POC ;>).

OK, I'll let that slide. ;-)

Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

- --
It's a feature not a bug...

- --
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, 3 Sep 2000 15:39:10 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 03:11:08PM -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
[...]
> >I don't know how Simon came by these bits of fantasy, but they are 
> >factually wrong in every respect.
> 
> Since you are well know to the internet community as a purveyor of 
> disinformation, I'll take that under advisement. The press published 
> another opinion:

The press publishes many opinions.  Thanks for the entertaining pointer. 
For some reason it reminds me of one of my favorite headlines of all
times:

 WHAT THE US GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT THE ANTI-CHRIST!!

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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, 3 Sep 2000 15:57:35 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

> > >I don't know how Simon came by these bits of fantasy, but they are 
> > >factually wrong in every respect.
> > 
> > Since you are well know to the internet community as a purveyor of 
> > disinformation, I'll take that under advisement. The press published 
> > another opinion:
> 
> The press publishes many opinions.  Thanks for the entertaining pointer. 
> For some reason it reminds me of one of my favorite headlines of all
> times:
> 
>  WHAT THE US GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT THE ANTI-CHRIST!!

Of course. What you can't refute with facts, you ridicule with distraction.

Nobody's fooled.

Christopher

- --
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 #139
************************