Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1399
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, August 29 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1399

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

Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:59:19 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS policy primer

(cc's snuffed)

I really don't have any concern about suppressing publication of the
Registrant's address, e-mail and telephone/fax numbers, on an opt-out
basis.

The loss of utility would be nominal, if any at all, and that should
satisfy the concerns expressed WRT potential stalking, Spam, etc.

The name of the Registrant, a valid Technical Contact with full
information and the DNS information should still be public.  There is
utility in that.

I don't know a good reason why the billing contact information needs
to be public, though.

An opt-out with an associated fee, similar to getting an unlisted
telephone number, is probably the best approach, since some (maybe
most - look at the white pages) don't really care if their information
is published.

Thanks,

Wednesday, August 28, 2002, 12:11:41 AM, L. Gallegos <[email-masked]> wrote:

LG> On 27 Aug 2002, at 23:50, Don Brown wrote:

>> 
>> If the availability of the WhoIs data has caused some harm to anyone,
>> then it should be a point of concern.  Automobiles have also caused
>> some harm, but that's a different subject.

LG> We all have been told of harm caused.  It is an issue, but one that is 
LG> ignored.  As for autos, your analogy would be like saying that the DNS 
LG> has caused harm.  No one is saying get rid of the DNS.  If you want to 
LG> find the owner of an auto, most states now will not just hand out the 
LG> database information to any individual who asks.  Most states also do 
LG> not use SSN#'s for driver's licenses and won't simply provide you with a 
LG> driver's license number.  If you provide your SSN# or drivers' license 
LG> number for ID purposes, you have the right to insist it not be shared by 
LG> third parties.

>> 
>> Perhaps regulation of the users of the data is better and more
>> absolute than revoking access to all.  Maybe that idealistic and not
>> very pragmatic, but here has to be a coming together somewhere.
>> 

LG> If that were feasible, given the reasons for the existence of the Whois 
LG> currently, I might agree.  It is not feasible, however.  First, every 
LG> registrar and registry would have to cooperate.  Second, every country 
LG> would have to cooperate.  ICANN and its backers are certainly NOT 
LG> going to agree to keep the information private, are they.  Restricting 
LG> users of the data is the same as requiring a legal order to obtain it, IMO. 
LG>  Other than a tech contact, what would you "need" the data for?

LG> If your use of the WHOIS is for pursuit of domain name holders, then 
LG> you should not have access to it any more than you do for telco 
LG> customers.  If your use is for technical admin contact, then there are 
LG> tons of web based dig tools and always command line tools for tracing 
LG> via IP address.  IP whois info is more accurate anyway.

LG> Leah

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

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:41:52 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS policy primer

- --=======13736679=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-359F40BF; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 21:13 27/08/02, todd glassey said:
>becuase there MUST be some way of registering a data base wherein the owner
>operators of domains are accessible. If not WHOIS, then what?

Todd,
never though that such a database does exist?

It is named the DNS.

If you say that mails between registrars and registrants will only go to 
[email-masked] and that it is the responsibility of the registrant to 
maintain the forward, you have the most secure way to get it.

And you know that the spaming on that mail comes from the Registrar :-)

If people fail to update, they de facto lose the DN, since they cannot 
update the name server, etc..
The real joke is to make people believe that because there is a Whois and 
an entry in the Whois, even accurate, the destinee will get the mail, will 
read it, and will respond it :-)

If the target is to document the owner, do you really believe that 
http://name.tld is not easier and will always be more updated with more 
relevant info than http://whois.com?blabla=name.tld ?

jfc

- --=======13736679=======--

- --
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: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:38:40 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS policy primer

On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:24:04AM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
[...]
> Domain names are more like bagpipes than they are like guns

Actually, they are more like guns.

- --
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: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:28:27 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Mueller (sort of) pro WLS

- --=======2D203BE1=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-359F40BF; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 10:32 28/08/02, Alexander Svensson said:
>"Mueller speaks out on WLS (Warning: here be heresy)"
>http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=921&mode=&order=0

I think Milton is only describing what ICANN wants - get rid of the 
Registrars.... they are of no more use the way they are. jfc

- --=======2D203BE1=======--

- --
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: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:14:40 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "...who found their address in DNS records..."

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc10/msg05409.html
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
"...who found their address in DNS records..."
=====

Do you mean "found their address in *whois records* or DNS records" ?

Are you aware that the whois database is normally separate from the DNS database ?

Are you aware that information in the whois could be totally incoherent but the DNS can continue
because it may have data which is different ?

Are you aware that you can make queries directly to the DNS servers without ever consulting whois servers ?

http://www.analogx.com/cgi-bin/cgidig.exe?DNS=205.214.45.10&Query=miami.edu&Type=255&submit=Lookup

Are you aware that you do not need to ask root servers where TLD clusters are ?

Are you aware that you can ask TLD servers who the members of their cluster are ?

Have you looked for the TLD clusters for the new .INFO TLD ?
http://www.analogx.com/cgi-bin/cgidig.exe?DNS=205.214.45.10&Query=info&Type=255&submit=Lookup
http://www.analogx.com/cgi-bin/cgidig.exe?DNS=209.48.2.11&Query=info&Type=255&submit=Lookup
Who operates .INFO ?...this month...

Continuing....do you believe that a person (or computer) could take the following line and
select a random IP address (instead of 209.48.2.11) and provide a list of thousands of TLDs (instead of .INFO)
and they could eventually locate and lock onto all of the TLDs that are operational....?
http://www.analogx.com/cgi-bin/cgidig.exe?DNS=209.48.2.11&Query=info&Type=255&submit=Lookup

Once locked on to those TLDs, then, could a person remember the IP addresses for those TLD servers
and use those IP addresses, instead of random addresses, to make future queries to refresh information about
the TLD clusters ?

Once a popular TLD is located, like .INFO, could other TLD clusters be located by asking the .INFO
servers about other TLDs in a "neighborhood" ?...or a ring of 9 TLDs...
3:215     BALLOON
3:216     SVK  (SLOVAKIA-(Slovak-Republic))
3:217     DNK  (DENMARK)
3:218     GRC  (GREECE)
3:219     INFO
3:220     PUNK
3:221     SVN  (SLOVENIA)
3:222     FLAT
3:223     STOCKHOLM

Do you agree that these queries to the working DNS servers (not the whois servers) represent the most
up-to-date view of what is in the DNS and could bear no relationship to contractual agreements or other
marketing spin coming from I* society members or U.S. Government employees ?

Considering another approach, are you aware that people "vote" for their most desired extensions via
their selection of Dash-Level-Domains (DLDs) in .COM ?

http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/icann-current/msg00342.html
10514 INC
9264 ONLINE
7288 NET
6472 USA
4481 GROUP
4101 WEB
3891 TECH
3077 UK
2762 DESIGN
2570 SYSTEMS
=========

Have you considered how little information is needed to find 32-bit DNS servers for a TLD like .ONLINE ?
http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=online
http://www.analogx.com/cgi-bin/cgidig.exe?DNS=209.48.2.11&Query=online&Type=255&submit=Lookup
http://www.analogx.com/cgi-bin/cgidig.exe?DNS=199.5.157.2&Query=online&Type=255&submit=Lookup

Have you considered how the new 128-bit DNS servers can be added to do the above location and to
build around the edges of the 32-bit DNS to add new services to the existing [SLD].ONLINE users and
no central body needs to attempt to regulate or legislate away the truth that is located directly from the
DNS servers, which are easy to find, if one starts with the right neighborhood and works their way in all
directions from there.

The Top 2,048 TLDs can be located and summarized via totally automated systems. No root name servers
are needed. Once a few TLDs are located, they can lead the software to the other ones. The makeup of the
TLD Clusters does not change all that often. In the cases where there are two TLD Clusters providing
reliable and redundant service for a TLD, automatic fail-over mechanisms can be used to detect the failure
of the cluster and the IP addresses can be switched to the backup cluster. Humans can simulate the various
services and server configuration with some simple tools (some shown above). No "whois" servers need to
be queried and no root servers. Like an organism constantly searching for the Top 2,048 TLDs, the
software can work tirelessly behind the scenes, tracking the TLDs. All that is really needed is a list of the
most likely or most desired TLDs. Finding the TLD Clusters then becomes a simple task. From there,
finding the key SLD names, such as IN-ADDR.[TLD] becomes very simple, because those queries can
be sent directly to one of the servers for the TLD Cluster. No root servers are needed. No top-down,
central committee is needed to approve or accredit what is in the DNS. What is in the DNS is what is in
the DNS, and anyone can find it...if they "dig" a little....

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
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: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:04:17 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "...who found their address in DNS records..."

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 6:14 PM
Subject: [ga] "...who found their address in DNS records..."

> 
> Are you aware that you can make queries directly to the DNS servers without ever consulting whois servers ?
> 
> http://www.analogx.com/cgi-bin/cgidig.exe?DNS=205.214.45.10&Query=miami.edu&Type=255&submit=Lookup

The correct WHOIS server for .BIZ is www.adns.net/whois.php
The primary master zone server for .BIZ is NS1.ADNS.NET

The above link returns incorrect information.

- --
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: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:02:58 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: 0:212     BIZ.....Re: [ga] "...who found their address in DNS records..."

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
> 
> The correct WHOIS server for .BIZ is www.adns.net/whois.php
> The primary master zone server for .BIZ is NS1.ADNS.NET
> 

Once the .BIZ TLD Clusters are located, those 32-bit IPv4 addresses can be saved
and used to directly locate the .BIZ Clusters without ever going back to "root servers".

209.173.53.162
209.173.57.162
209.173.60.65
213.86.51.129
209.173.58.65
209.173.58.66
199.5.157.3
81.17.45.198
199.5.157.2

Using no whois servers, and only DNS dig tools, one can use the above 32-bit IPv4 addresses
to discover that there appear to be two 32-bit DNS .BIZ Clusters in operation. Once the .BIZ
TLD Clusters are located, then they can be used to locate other TLDs in the .BIZ neighborhood.
A consensus can be quickly reached, by checking the actual DNS servers and not some central
committee that has no interest in expanding the TLD name space.

Once the .BIZ clusters are located, one can send [SLD].BIZ queries to either cluster and see
if the answers are coherent. If not, then that individual [SLD].BIZ name can be considered
broken, in dispute, not fully operational, etc. and it can be rejected for consideration in the
128-bit .BIZ DNS Registry. This allows for the Proof-of-Concept testing to be done on the
legacy 32-bit Internet and for [SLD].BIZ names to evolve, on a name-by-name basis to the
128-bit DNS services.

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
0:208     BALE
0:209     DINING
0:210     LODGE
0:211     BALL
0:212     BIZ
0:213     SODA
0:214     ESTATE
0:215     GOAT
0:216     MIND

================================================================

http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=biz

.biz - NS Resource Records.

ANIC : AlterNIC : 160.79.129.192
VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 3. 
biz. 6D IN NS f.gtld.biz.
biz. 6D IN NS a.gtld.biz.
biz. 6D IN NS b.gtld.biz.
biz. 6D IN NS c.gtld.biz.
biz. 6D IN NS d.gtld.biz.
biz. 6D IN NS e.gtld.biz.

BORN : Business Oriented Root Network : 213.70.103.18
VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 6. 
biz. 2D IN NS B.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS C.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS D.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS E.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS F.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS A.GTLD.biz.

CINICS : Common Interest Network Information Center Society : 216.15.192.130
Result = No Response

iDNS : i-DNS.net International : 208.184.174.7
VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 6. 
biz. 2D IN NS A.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS B.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS C.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS D.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS E.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS F.GTLD.biz.

LRS : Legacy Root Servers : 198.41.0.4
VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 6. 
biz. 2D IN NS E.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS F.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS A.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS B.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS C.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS D.GTLD.biz.

NSpace : Name.Space : 209.48.2.11
VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 1 : Additional = 0. 
.biz not found.

Nnet : New.net Inc : 206.132.100.42
VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 6. 
biz. 1D IN NS B.GTLD.biz.
biz. 1D IN NS C.GTLD.biz.
biz. 1D IN NS D.GTLD.biz.
biz. 1D IN NS E.GTLD.biz.
biz. 1D IN NS F.GTLD.biz.
biz. 1D IN NS A.GTLD.biz.

ONIC : The OpenNIC Project : 131.161.247.226
VueDig Results : Answer = 4 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 4. 
biz. 2D IN NS ns1-pacroot.opennic.glue.
biz. 2D IN NS ns2-pacroot.opennic.glue.
biz. 2D IN NS ns3-pacroot.opennic.glue.
biz. 2D IN NS ns4-pacroot.opennic.glue.

ORSC : Open Root Server Confederation : 199.166.24.1
VueDig Results : Answer = 3 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 3. 
biz. 1H IN NS NS.ROOTFIX.NET.
biz. 1H IN NS NS1.ADNS.NET.
biz. 1H IN NS NS2.ADNS.NET.

ORSN : Open Root Server Network : 217.146.140.67
VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 6 : Additional = 6. 
biz. 2D IN NS A.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS B.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS C.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS D.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS E.GTLD.biz.
biz. 2D IN NS F.GTLD.biz.

TINC : The Internet Namespace Cooperative : 64.6.65.10
Result = No Response

TPR : The PacificRoot : 204.107.129.2
VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2. 
biz. 2D IN NS ns1.adns.net.
biz. 2D IN NS ns2.adns.net.

TUR : The Universal Registry : 66.38.220.12
Result = No Response
===================================

- --
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: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:11:59 -0400
From: Allan Liska <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "...who found their address in DNS records..."

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: MD5

Hello John,

Wednesday, August 28, 2002, 8:04:17 PM, you wrote:

JP> ----- Original Message -----
JP> From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
JP> To: <[email-masked]>
JP> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 6:14 PM
JP> Subject: [ga] "...who found their address in DNS records..."

>>
>> Are you aware that you can make queries directly to the DNS servers without ever consulting whois servers ?
>>
>> http://www.analogx.com/cgi-bin/cgidig.exe?DNS=205.214.45.10&Query=miami.edu&Type=255&submit=Lookup

JP> The correct WHOIS server for .BIZ is www.adns.net/whois.php
JP> The primary master zone server for .BIZ is NS1.ADNS.NET

JP> The above link returns incorrect information.

Since this is an ICANN-sponsored list, the root servers for .biz are
maintained by Neustar (http://www.neustar.biz/).  NS1.ADNS.NET is the
master zone server for the alternate .BIZ domain which is recognized
by a very small fraction of the Internet.

Please discuss alternate .BIZ domains on the appropriate mailing
lists.

allan
- - --
Allan Liska
[email-masked]
http://www.allan.org

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAwUAPW104X+n87oa5a9VAQHYlwQA2LKKxLU3LdKXr4dypa3+UJxReVvS2/16
We+5TyPW8Z+Ynu8TsDuitUZcrulIN1tOtZkfPHPcYZLTO8Yy6+nvE+4ivWiFNyIm
63BkomgjBhrqARfVfnw6ZcmfPNdCtuE7zdSJfxuK4xBz6xwIpmqTC8Cj0s5KJa4u
1MD0ifaBN1o=
=4RP4
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
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: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:54:54 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 0:212     BIZ.....Re: [ga] "...who found their address in DNS records..."

Hey, John.  With all due respect.  We all get the point.  Please
don't continue to rub sand paper on it . . . .

Wednesday, August 28, 2002, 8:02:58 PM, Jim Fleming <[email-masked]> wrote:
JF> ----- Original Message ----- 
JF> From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
>> 
>> The correct WHOIS server for .BIZ is www.adns.net/whois.php
>> The primary master zone server for .BIZ is NS1.ADNS.NET
>> 

JF> Once the .BIZ TLD Clusters are located, those 32-bit IPv4 addresses can be saved
JF> and used to directly locate the .BIZ Clusters without ever going back to "root servers".

JF> 209.173.53.162
JF> 209.173.57.162
JF> 209.173.60.65
JF> 213.86.51.129
JF> 209.173.58.65
JF> 209.173.58.66
JF> 199.5.157.3
JF> 81.17.45.198
JF> 199.5.157.2

JF> Using no whois servers, and only DNS dig tools, one can use the above 32-bit IPv4 addresses
JF> to discover that there appear to be two 32-bit DNS .BIZ Clusters in operation. Once the .BIZ
JF> TLD Clusters are located, then they can be used to locate other TLDs in the .BIZ neighborhood.
JF> A consensus can be quickly reached, by checking the actual DNS servers and not some central
JF> committee that has no interest in expanding the TLD name space.

JF> Once the .BIZ clusters are located, one can send [SLD].BIZ queries to either cluster and see
JF> if the answers are coherent. If not, then that individual [SLD].BIZ name can be considered
JF> broken, in dispute, not fully operational, etc. and it can be rejected for consideration in the
JF> 128-bit .BIZ DNS Registry. This allows for the Proof-of-Concept testing to be done on the
JF> legacy 32-bit Internet and for [SLD].BIZ names to evolve, on a name-by-name basis to the
JF> 128-bit DNS services.

JF> Jim Fleming
JF> 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
JF> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
JF> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
JF> 0:208     BALE
JF> 0:209     DINING
JF> 0:210     LODGE
JF> 0:211     BALL
JF> 0:212     BIZ
JF> 0:213     SODA
JF> 0:214     ESTATE
JF> 0:215     GOAT
JF> 0:216     MIND

JF> ================================================================

JF> http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=biz

JF> .biz - NS Resource Records.

JF> ANIC : AlterNIC : 160.79.129.192
JF> VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 3. 
JF> biz. 6D IN NS f.gtld.biz.
JF> biz. 6D IN NS a.gtld.biz.
JF> biz. 6D IN NS b.gtld.biz.
JF> biz. 6D IN NS c.gtld.biz.
JF> biz. 6D IN NS d.gtld.biz.
JF> biz. 6D IN NS e.gtld.biz.

JF> BORN : Business Oriented Root Network : 213.70.103.18
JF> VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 6. 
JF> biz. 2D IN NS B.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS C.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS D.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS E.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS F.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS A.GTLD.biz.

JF> CINICS : Common Interest Network Information Center Society : 216.15.192.130
JF> Result = No Response

JF> iDNS : i-DNS.net International : 208.184.174.7
JF> VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 6. 
JF> biz. 2D IN NS A.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS B.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS C.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS D.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS E.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS F.GTLD.biz.

JF> LRS : Legacy Root Servers : 198.41.0.4
JF> VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 6. 
JF> biz. 2D IN NS E.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS F.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS A.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS B.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS C.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS D.GTLD.biz.

JF> NSpace : Name.Space : 209.48.2.11
JF> VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 1 : Additional = 0. 
JF> .biz not found.

JF> Nnet : New.net Inc : 206.132.100.42
JF> VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 6. 
JF> biz. 1D IN NS B.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 1D IN NS C.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 1D IN NS D.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 1D IN NS E.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 1D IN NS F.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 1D IN NS A.GTLD.biz.

JF> ONIC : The OpenNIC Project : 131.161.247.226
JF> VueDig Results : Answer = 4 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 4. 
JF> biz. 2D IN NS ns1-pacroot.opennic.glue.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS ns2-pacroot.opennic.glue.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS ns3-pacroot.opennic.glue.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS ns4-pacroot.opennic.glue.

JF> ORSC : Open Root Server Confederation : 199.166.24.1
JF> VueDig Results : Answer = 3 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 3. 
JF> biz. 1H IN NS NS.ROOTFIX.NET.
JF> biz. 1H IN NS NS1.ADNS.NET.
JF> biz. 1H IN NS NS2.ADNS.NET.

JF> ORSN : Open Root Server Network : 217.146.140.67
JF> VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 6 : Additional = 6. 
JF> biz. 2D IN NS A.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS B.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS C.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS D.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS E.GTLD.biz.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS F.GTLD.biz.

JF> TINC : The Internet Namespace Cooperative : 64.6.65.10
JF> Result = No Response

JF> TPR : The PacificRoot : 204.107.129.2
JF> VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2. 
JF> biz. 2D IN NS ns1.adns.net.
JF> biz. 2D IN NS ns2.adns.net.

JF> TUR : The Universal Registry : 66.38.220.12
JF> Result = No Response
JF> ===================================

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

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:04:03 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: "Then it gets kind of interesting," Cerf says....Re: [ga] "...who found their address in DNS records..."

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Allan Liska" <[email-masked]>
>
> Since this is an ICANN-sponsored list, the root servers for .biz are
> maintained by Neustar (http://www.neustar.biz/).

"root servers for .biz"....??...do you mean .BIZ TLD servers ?

Are you familiar with the DNS and how it works ?
Also, are you familiar with making sure that a single-point-of-corporate failure does not result
in people losing their DNS service and their domain names ?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2002-08-26-worldcom-house-divided_x.htm
Internal rifts threaten WorldCom
"Rivalries ensued between the divisions. "It was not just MCI or UUNet vs. WorldCom. It was also UUNet vs. Digex, UUNet vs. MCI,"
says Allan Liska, a former UUNet worker who was laid off in June."

....

"Sidgmore, who took over for ousted CEO Bernie Ebbers in April, has since led the company through one bad news announcement after
another. Aside from the first disclosure of alleged fraud, which Sidgmore blamed on Sullivan, WorldCom has since revealed an
additional $3.3 billion in accounting misdeeds."

======

What is the relationship of ICANN, WorldCom, Vinton Cerf and John Sidgmore ?

http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0206/msg00155.html

http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9909/msg00035.html

Do people who used to work for WorldCom now plan to move to become ICANN employees ?

http://www.bizforward.com/wdc/issues/2002-07/forward40/myforward40.shtml

My Forward Forty
by Vint Cerf
Senior vice president of Internet Architecture and Technology,
WorldCom

1. John Sidgmore, CEO, WorldCom
2. Mario Morino, founder, the Morino Institute
3. Steve Case, Chairman, AOL Time Warner
4. Mark Warner, Governor, Virginia
5. Michael Powell, Chairman, FCC
6. Dick Clark, special assistant to the President, U.S. Office of Cyber-Security
7. John Hager, Chairman, Virginia Secure Initiative

"This is hard," says Cerf, as he works his way through his list of the most important people in local business. "Sometimes you have
to put people on the list with whom you don't agree." Cerf, who co-designed the TCP/IP protocol, the communications system that
created the Internet, says the top of his list is (his boss) John Sidgmore, "but then again, I'm biased." Cerf doesn't line up with
FCC Chairman Michael Powell, but he can't deny that he's influential.

"Then it gets kind of interesting," Cerf says, "because the set of people having a lot of influence right now are not the same ones
that had influence years ago. It gets hard to pick out people who have a lot of impact. The people who have money left [are
important]."

===========================================

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
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: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:27:22 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Mueller (sort of) pro WLS

Alex and all assembly members,

  O personally didn't gather from Miltons article that he was even
"Sort of" pro WLS.  In fact quite the contrary...

  In any event Milton did a pretty good job here...

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> "Mueller speaks out on WLS (Warning: here be heresy)"
> http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=921&mode=&order=0
>
> Interesting read!
> /// Alexander
>
> --
> 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 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:33:50 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .cu Assessment

Can anyone point me at the most recent ICANN ccTLD assessment figures, or
otherwise access the figure assessed by ICANN for operation of the .cu
ccTLD?

- --
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: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:14:08 -0400
From: Allan Liska <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: "Then it gets kind of interesting," Cerf says....Re: [ga] "...who found their address in DNS records..."

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: MD5

Hello Jim,

Wednesday, August 28, 2002, 10:04:03 PM, you wrote:

JF> ----- Original Message -----
JF> From: "Allan Liska" <[email-masked]>
>>
>> Since this is an ICANN-sponsored list, the root servers for .biz are
>> maintained by Neustar (http://www.neustar.biz/).

JF> "root servers for .biz"....??...do you mean .BIZ TLD servers ?

JF> Are you familiar with the DNS and how it works ?

Yes I am.  Every TLD has a series of root nameservers.  These root
nameservers maintain the database of domains within that TLD.  In
addition, there are the root nameservers used by recursive nameservers
to find information about various TLDs.

The root nameservers for the .BIZ TLD supported by ICANN are:

A.GTLD.biz.             315874  IN      A       209.173.53.162
B.GTLD.biz.             466355  IN      A       209.173.57.162
C.GTLD.biz.             460739  IN      A       209.173.60.65
D.GTLD.biz.             471986  IN      A       213.86.51.129
E.GTLD.biz.             476147  IN      A       209.173.58.65
F.GTLD.biz.             464256  IN      A       209.173.58.66

JF> Also, are you familiar with making sure that a single-point-of-corporate failure does not result
JF> in people losing their DNS service and their domain names ?

Not sure what this has to do with the conversation.  However, I would
suggest that your logic is flawed.  The vast majority of companies do
not feel the need to register domains within multiple roots.  However,
feel free to point me to credible evidence which backs up your
assertion.

allan
- - --
Allan Liska
[email-masked]
http://www.allan.org

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAwUAPW2fkn+n87oa5a9VAQGZvAP9ExZu8sdWS9dmiM/YJv+Mto7b4o1TTPYu
YP9j/UPzZKCuFr9SL+T3943/ndoEQ6fA3+Ok2acLR88qCexViyqKnCg9+VBEcVyH
NQ0rY6jH1g3iwjU56FMnPdvKsJ4MtwIqTS5jEIqLdib+vzqcjDwyKu79gqLJ8q9c
9i4EoUFSRLM=
=vrwG
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
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: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:07:37 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Government of Canada Seeking Comments on ICANN

Attention all Canadians:

The Government of Canada is seeking comments on ICANN.
Industry Canada has initiated a public consultation on the structure of 
ICANN. Comments are due by September 10, 2002.

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/sf05973e.html

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:21:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS policy primer

Well the gig is up!

Anything requiring Whois disclosure is ludicrous.

There is absolutely no need for this blasphemous intrusion on privacy and 
further inroads should be stopped summarily.
e

- --
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 #1399
*************************