Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1402
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, August 30 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1402

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:01:12 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212     BIZ.....going out of BIZness ?

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Allan Liska" <[email-masked]>
> 
> JF> Will .BIZ survive past the Proof-of-Concept phase ?
> 
> Since there are no viable alternatives, lets hope so.
> 

There are thousands of new TLDs. Check out http://www.NameSlinger.com

Also, you might want to consider these unique names...

2002 0:201 IN-ADDR.COM
http://www.thepricedomain.com/index.php?domainlist=com
2002 1:158 IN-ADDR.CLUB 
2002 2:143 IN-ADDR.FAMILY
http://www.New.Net
2002 3:219 IN-ADDR.INFO
http://www.Name-Space.com
http://www.thepricedomain.com/index.php?domainlist=info
2002 4:58 IN-ADDR.LLC
2002 5:194 IN-ADDR.INC
http://www.New.Net
2002 6:171 IN-ADDR.TV
http://www.TV
2002 7:186  IN-ADDR.GOD
http://www.dot-god.com
http://www.dot.god

Do people who used to work for WorldCom now plan to move to become ICANN employees ?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2002-08-26-worldcom-house-divided_x.htm
http://www.bizforward.com/wdc/issues/2002-07/forward40/myforward40.shtml
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0206/msg00155.html
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9909/msg00035.html
What do ICANN employees do all day ?

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: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."

Dear Jonathan,

(I've trimmed the cc list)

- --- Jonathan Cohen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> please explain more clearly what decisions or policies of ICANN are
> troubling and why.What alternative do you propose and why is it
> better.I do

Let's start with the most recent ICANN decision over WLS. The Board
ignored the consensus against WLS that exists in the DNSO (via the
Names Council vote), and instead voted to approve it. Why?

Just as an aside,I'd like to know if you (and other Board members)
actually took any time to read the Names Council recommendations, or
whether instead you relied upon the filtered information provided by
ICANN Staff. Did you take the time to read even a few of the 800+
comments against WLS at the official ICANN WLS Forum (now closed) at:

http://forum.icann.org/wls/

or the 3,400+ petition comments at:

http://www.petitiononline.com/antiwls/

Why is it that ICANN's WLS Forum was closed? Don't you think further
comments by stakeholders are warranted, especially if the WLS is a
work-in-progress, a "test"??

I've proposed the Status Quo as an alternative, as it ensures that
consumers have choice, and it preserves competition at the registrar
layer, instead of allowing Verisign to leverage their monopoly to
corner the market for expired names. It's better because it offers
consumers choice, and allows registrars to innovate. I'd be prepared to
accept a vote in the DNSO, Status Quo vs WLS -- how about it?

Dotster has prepared a good summary of the issues, at:

http://web.dotster.com/resources/wlsresponse.php

and will be challenging the Board's decision by the end of next week,
as you might be aware.

Personally, it boggles my mind that ICANN can ignore the consensus, and
force through such an anti-competitive proposal. But, I'd like to hear
your justification, and the pros and cons that were weighed. To many,
it seems like the Board of Directors really fumbled the ball on this
one, and court action will be required in order to set things right.
ICANN often is criticized by professional troublemakers, but this isn't
the case where WLS is concerned -- the Business Constituency, for
example, was against WLS (as were the ISPs, Registrars, and others in
the consensus). It's one thing to ignore an overly vocal minority, but
this time you've ignored an overwhelming majority, if not the
anti-trust laws themselves, and the contractual obligations with
registrars, per consensus policies.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
- --
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 19:26:35 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Cohen" <[email-masked]>
>  There ''are ''and ''will be'' a significant number of Board  Members who
> will be At Large.They will be ''''appointed ''and it is there that the
> question/issue needs to be debated. Who should decide who is an At Large
> Board Member and How should they reach the Board.For now it is the wisdom of
> this Board ,that it should be through a nominating Ctee.,..lets see how it
> works.......

You likely were not around and volunteering to waste your time with ICANN in the
years 1995, 1996, 1997, and much of 1998. You also likely were not one of the
I* society insiders who told people to "see how it comes out", when people's efforts
were de-railed and they were mislead into thinking that the U.S. Government would
"fix everything in a few months". People and companies have now witnessed those
people changing their stories after arriving at the party with their nine hundred pound
gorilla, called the U.S. Government, and packaged as clerks from the U.S. Department
of Commerce. People trusted people and companies and have been betrayed. Look at
the people who extended their helping hands in 1997 and 1998 only to turn and stab
the Internet community in the back and profit from the trust people placed in them.
Americans have been betrayed on a global scale. The I* society should be ashamed
and would not be able to spend the rest of their natural lives repairing the damage.

http://www.bizforward.com/wdc/issues/2002-07/forward40/myforward40.shtml
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0206/msg00155.html
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9909/msg00035.html

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: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:57:45 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dotster to appeal WLS

Grorge and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested
parties,

  The ICANN BOD and staff should not be surprised at this appeal
and possibly legal action should such and appeal fail.  Indeed the ICANN
BoD and staff cannot show or prove that any consensus existed or exists
now that their recent WLS decision.  It is my understanding that
a number of other parities are planning such appeals and potential
legal action.  I will await their "Official" announcements of such
however.

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> See:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg03049.html
>
> "Should our appeal to ICANN be rejected, we are fully prepared to
> exercise other legal remedies to stop the implementation of the WLS."
>
> Methinks ICANN should not take this lightly. It can't prove WLS was a
> consensus policy, so instead of wasting resources that it can ill
> afford, should reverse its decision now.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.GlobalDomination.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
> http://finance.yahoo.com
> --
> 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: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:23:40 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."

> Dear Jonathan,
> 
> (I've trimmed the cc list)
> 
> --- Jonathan Cohen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > please explain more clearly what decisions or policies of ICANN are
> > troubling and why.What alternative do you propose and why is it
> > better.I do
> 
> Let's start with the most recent ICANN decision over WLS. The Board
> ignored the consensus against WLS that exists in the DNSO (via the
> Names Council vote), and instead voted to approve it. Why?
> 

There are likely several reasons....

1. They are likely too busy congratulating each other about the great jobs they did
to pay attention to the opinions from people who do not send them money.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00006.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00005.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00004.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00003.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00002.html

2. The entire shape of the DNS landscape is changing with the expansion into
the 128-bit DNS services. If the Board had said no, they would have been ignored
sooner rather than later. By saying yes, with conditions, it makes them *think* they
had some impact, and the funding continues. Follow the money. Check out who pays
them to sit and watch the paint dry all day.

3. The real money is in the management of 0:0 .ARPA. With a potential 6 billion dollar
per year source of revenue from address space leasing, compared to the $50,000,000
revenue from domain name fees, the focus needs to continue to be placed on *distracting*
people from the .ARPA allocations. The entire self-manufactured "reform process" and
the emotionally charged debates generated between parties who lose when they argue,
help to distract people away from the 0:0 .ARPA management and into debates that zap
their energy and resources. Behind the scenes, the incumbents work on entrenching their
monopoly. The general public is distracted and kept in the dark.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

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: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:37:31 -0400
From: Allan Liska <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212     BIZ.....going out of BIZness ?

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

Hello Jim,

Thursday, August 29, 2002, 8:01:12 PM, you wrote:

JF> ----- Original Message -----
JF> From: "Allan Liska" <[email-masked]>
>>
>> JF> Will .BIZ survive past the Proof-of-Concept phase ?
>>
>> Since there are no viable alternatives, lets hope so.
>>

JF> There are thousands of new TLDs. Check out http://www.NameSlinger.com

Interesting.  You are of course welcome to offer whatever piddly
little TLDs you want, but the truth is you know they won't ever be
successful, and are a rip-off designed to prey on novices to domain
registration.  You know this is true, otherwise you would direct me to
a site in that name space, rather than to a .com domain.

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

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

iQCVAwUAPW7MXn+n87oa5a9VAQGkPgP/c2uxeIIQr7J4Y6IDmj02C44wDc4V6Jil
vl9w8V9lu1g6gyCxJn+lj1YI2Lj/KDWLWKacocAYTKZHhMJzQ3IKH71TFGPT+REE
8vWoQLJ1itILx50wZ3wciRso7bLm4xdoX6rlsnhnQQiKTjTHVj5YbBof/7lPX5vb
+BFzJgxWu3w=
=EIc1
- -----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 23:00:03 +0200
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] 2002 3:219 .INFO...."root servers for .biz"....??...do you mean .BIZ TLD servers ?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ga" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] 2002 3:219 .INFO...."root servers for .biz"....??...do you
mean .BIZ TLD servers ?

> Simon,
>
> Have you seen many .BIZ or .INFO names in use yet ?
- --> Not that many.
>
> What are your favorite TLDs  besides .PRO ?
- --> .BIZ, .SHOP and .INFO if .info would be managed by a better registry.
Afilias = poor management.

> Who owns IN-ADDR.PRO ?
- --> it is still available in the name-süace registry. it is a domain that
fits to your IN-ADDR.TLD-collection

Simon

- --
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 22:39:41 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212     BIZ.....going out of BIZness ?

I see your point. The registrants are the ones that are the "paying customers"
and the ones most affected by root servers, gtld servers and the follks who 
make policies about them.

Remember: ICANN created the collision of up to 3500 SLDs by allowing
duplicate SLDs to be created. There are potentially 3500 "victims"

John
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212 BIZ.....going out of BIZness ?

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 9:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212 BIZ.....going out of BIZness ?
> 
> 
> > The other .BIZ has been in existence since 1995 and is still going.
> > 
> ===================================================
> 
> John,
> 
> With all due respect, there are not two .BIZ TLDs.
> .BIZ is three letters. It is only spelled one way....B...I...Z...
> 
> All that really matters, moving forward, is the list of [SLD].BIZ owners.
> Apparently, the I* society insiders have helped to do some market research
> and Proof-of-Concept testing, to bring these potential customers to light.
> Someone should thank them for their efforts, but not pay them anything.
> They are non-profit, public benefit, volunteer organizations, or supposed to be.
> 
> If there are enough serious .BIZ owners to move past the market trial phase,
> then commercial companies will likely deploy 128-bit DNS services for the
> .BIZ owners. How many serious .BIZ owners are there ? 50,000 ? 80,000 ?
> 
>

There is no such thing as "128-bit DNS". If so, where are the RFCs for the technical
standards?

John

- --
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 21:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212     BIZ.....going out of BIZness ?

I had a buddy write me a letter, when i was running a rig down the inner 
gorge of the Grand canyon.  The letter was to the point.  he called me crazy 
 because I gave up a law career to go back to river running.
I make this point because, understand that free enterprize is the right to 
fail and nothing more.
Those of us that do good in life are those of us that care.

be good to one another,
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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:00:06 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] One technical question.

I wonder if anyone might be able to direct me to a table chart depicting 
current/up to date Network Number Class Allocations?  [I'm looking for a 
breakdown similar to the one of page 23 of RFC 990]  

Jim Fleming, perhaps you can help? or someone else?

Thanks in Advance,

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: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:12:01 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212     BIZ.....going out of BIZness ?

On 29 Aug 2002, at 21:37, Allan Liska wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: MD5
> 
> Hello Jim,
> 
> Thursday, August 29, 2002, 8:01:12 PM, you wrote:
> 
> JF> ----- Original Message -----
> JF> From: "Allan Liska" <[email-masked]>
> >>
> >> JF> Will .BIZ survive past the Proof-of-Concept phase ?
> >>
> >> Since there are no viable alternatives, lets hope so.
> >>
> 
> JF> There are thousands of new TLDs. Check out http://www.NameSlinger.com
> 
> Interesting.  You are of course welcome to offer whatever piddly
> little TLDs you want, but the truth is you know they won't ever be
> successful, and are a rip-off designed to prey on novices to domain
> registration.  You know this is true, otherwise you would direct me to a
> site in that name space, rather than to a .com domain.

http://chrono.faq
http://pysmatic.etc/
http://rockon.this/
{HYPERLINK "http://the.earth"}http://the.earth
http://www.benison.socal/
http://www.deltronix.biz/public/default.htm
http://www.freebie.biz/

There are, of course, tons more, but I'm sure this list is not interested.  You 
asked for some samplings.  As for pointing to .com, it is common practice to 
point sites to an existing .com from any TLD.  It's no different in any part of the 
name space.

Leah

> 
> allan
> - --
> Allan Liska
> [email-masked]
> http://www.allan.org
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6
> 
> iQCVAwUAPW7MXn+n87oa5a9VAQGkPgP/c2uxeIIQr7J4Y6IDmj02C44wDc4V6Jil
> vl9w8V9lu1g6gyCxJn+lj1YI2Lj/KDWLWKacocAYTKZHhMJzQ3IKH71TFGPT+REE
> 8vWoQLJ1itILx50wZ3wciRso7bLm4xdoX6rlsnhnQQiKTjTHVj5YbBof/7lPX5vb
> +BFzJgxWu3w=
> =EIc1
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> --
> 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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:24:09 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS policy primer

> [email-masked]
> 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.

Which doesn't negate Karl's point (not even guns are always on publicly
accessible ledgers).
Score: Karl 1, Kent 0.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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, 30 Aug 2002 00:29:11 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: 0:242   SHOP.....Re: [ga] 2002 3:219 .INFO...."root servers for .biz"....??...do you mean .BIZ TLD servers ?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
> >
> > What are your favorite TLDs  besides .PRO ?
> --> .BIZ, .SHOP and .INFO if .info would be managed by a better registry.

.BIZ and .INFO have been in development a long time...

.SHOP seems to be more popular than .STORE...market forces at work...
0:242     SHOP
http://www.new.net
http://www.name-space.com

http://www.iahc.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.html
      .firm
      .store
      .web
      .arts
      .rec
      .info
      .nom
      ===============
     for businesses, or firms
      for businesses offering goods to purchase
      for entities emphasizing activities related to the WWW
      for entities emphasizing cultural and entertainment activities
      for entities emphasizing recreation/entertainment activities
      for entities providing information services
      for those wishing individual or personal nomenclature

It looks like there are some serious .SHOP owners....

http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/114371.htm
PARTIES
Complainant is Von Eric Lerner Kalaydjian, Los Angeles, CA ("Complainant") represented by Michael R. Diliberto, of Kleinberg &
Lerner.  Respondent is Simon Steinle, Allmendingen, GERMANY ("Respondent").
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <sex.shop>, registered with New.net, Inc.

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

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

.SHOP - NS Resource Records.

ANIC : AlterNIC : 160.79.129.192
Result = No Response

BORN : Business Oriented Root Network : 213.70.103.18
VueDig Results : Answer = 3 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 3.
SHOP. 2D IN NS uk.universalroot.com.
SHOP. 2D IN NS hk.universalroot.com.
SHOP. 2D IN NS us.universalroot.com.

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 = 0 : Authority = 1 : Additional = 0.
.SHOP not found.

LRS : Legacy Root Servers : 198.41.0.4
VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 1 : Additional = 0.
.SHOP not found.

NSpace : Name.Space : 209.48.2.11
VueDig Results : Answer = 10 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 10.
SHOP. 1D IN NS NS10.AUTONO.NET.
SHOP. 1D IN NS MEDIAFILTER.ORG.
SHOP. 1D IN NS NS12.AUTONO.NET.
SHOP. 1D IN NS NS00.ROOT-ZONE.NET.
SHOP. 1D IN NS ROOT8.AUTONO.NET.
SHOP. 1D IN NS NS1.AUTONO.NET.
SHOP. 1D IN NS NS11.AUTONO.NET.
SHOP. 1D IN NS ROOT3.AUTONO.NET.
SHOP. 1D IN NS C.TLD-SERVERS.NET.
SHOP. 1D IN NS NS.AUTONO.NET.

Nnet : New.net Inc : 206.132.100.42
VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2.
SHOP. 1D IN NS tld1.newdotnet.net.
SHOP. 1D IN NS tld2.newdotnet.net.

ONIC : The OpenNIC Project : 131.161.247.226
VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 1 : Additional = 0.
.SHOP not found.

ORSC : Open Root Server Confederation : 199.166.24.1
VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 1 : Additional = 0.
.SHOP not found.

ORSN : Open Root Server Network : 217.146.140.67
VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 1 : Additional = 0.
.SHOP not found.

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

TPR : The PacificRoot : 204.107.129.2
VueDig Results : Answer = 3 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 3.
SHOP. 2D IN NS us.universalroot.com.
SHOP. 2D IN NS uk.universalroot.com.
SHOP. 2D IN NS hk.universalroot.com.

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

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
0:242     SHOP

- --
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, 30 Aug 2002 00:58:09 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS policy primer

Joanna and all assembly members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> > [email-masked]
> > 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.
>
> Which doesn't negate Karl's point (not even guns are always on publicly
> accessible ledgers).

  Good point here Joanna.  As a avid gun collector myself, I know
that your and Karls statement here is quite correct.  None of my
guns are registered, nor will they ever be.  However I preferred
Karls comparison to bagpipes much better for some obvious
reasons.  None the less, guns, bagpipes or Whois records
for Domain Names, the facts that Karl previously stated
remain the same...

>
> Score: Karl 1, Kent 0.

  Yes.  And in Kent's missive, he as a ICANN Employee, has
added to the tarnish on it's already badly tarnished Rep...

>
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:15:08 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] One technical question.

Jim Fleming wrote:

>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 12:00 AM
>Subject: [ga] One technical question.
>
>
>  
>
>>I wonder if anyone might be able to direct me to a table chart depicting 
>>current/up to date Network Number Class Allocations?  [I'm looking for a 
>>breakdown similar to the one of page 23 of RFC 990]  
>>
>>Jim Fleming, perhaps you can help? or someone else?
>>
>>Thanks in Advance,
>>
>>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>>
>>    
>>
>RFC 990                                                    November 1986
>Network Numbers
>
>
>   Network Totals
>
>      Assigned for the ARPA-Internet and the DDN-Internet
>
>         Class         A         B         C     Total
>
>         Research     13        92       775       880
>
>         Defense       9        19        45        73
>
>         Government    1        15        97       113
>
>         Commercial    3         4         5        12
>
>         Total        26       130       922      1078
>
>      Allocated for Internet and Independent Uses
>
>         Class         A         B         C     Total
>
>         Research     14       105      1681      1800
>
>         Defense       9        20        47        76
>
>         Government    1        17        98       116
>
>         Commercial    3        12      3974      3989
>
>         Total        27       154      5800      5981
>
>      Maximum Allowed
>
>         Class         A         B         C     Total
>
>         Research      8      1024     65536     66568
>
>         Defense      24      3072    458752    461848
>
>         Government   24      3072    458752    461848
>
>         Commercial   74      9214   1114137   1123394
>
>         Total       126     16382   2097150   2113658
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Reynolds & Postel                                              [Page 23]
>====
>
>This page ?
>
>Classes no longer apply...but one could analyze these allocations
>to greater depth and see that ISPs have a very small percentage of the space...
>http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
>
Thanks Jim.  Loud and clear.  I now understand that it's CIDR or 
"supernetting" these days.  FYI, I have been doing some homework on this 
topic and I just read an excellent paper on the "Development of the 
Regional Internet Registry System" in the Internet Protocol Journal:
 http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/759/ipj_4-4/ipj_4-4_regional.html
I think it should be required reading for all participants/spectators in 
and around the ICANN.  Concise and punctillious.

The following excerpts caught my attention:
- ------------------
"Internationalization
While the engineering-driven need for topological address space 
assignment was becoming clear, there was also an emerging recognition 
that the administrative mechanisms of address space distribution needed 
further development. A central system just would not scale for numerous 
reasons, including:

Sheer volume
Distance from the address space consumers
Lack of an appropriate global funding structure
Lack of local community support

The need to change administrative procedures was formally recognized by 
August 1990, when the Internet Activities Board published a message it 
had sent to the U.S. Federal Networking Council, stating "it is timely 
to consider further delegation of assignment and registration authority 
on an international basis" (RFC 1174 -drafted by Vinton G. Cerf : 
http://www.armware.dk/RFC/rfc/rfc1174.html)."
<snip- and then a little further on>
"Following the examples of RIPE NCC and APNIC, it was recommended that 
management of IP address space then administered by the InterNIC should 
be under the control of, and administered by, those that use it, 
including ISPs, end-user organizations, corporate entities, 
universities, and individuals."
- -------------------
Now that ICANN at-large membership is now no longer an option... those 
of us in North and South America can always become "individual" members 
of ARIN for a mere $500 annual membership fee (sans IP allocations, of 
course) see: http://www.arin.net/membership/index.html  

Enough reading for one night.

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: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:18:46 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ENDORSEMENTS: ICANN Board Member

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To:[email-masked] ; [email-masked]]

The ICANN Board Member nomination period is closed.
Now you are called upon to endorse the candidates according to the procedure
set out in:
 http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-nomination-proc.html

Each candidate requires 10 endorsements.

The result of the nomination process is as follows:
List of nominations:
http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-nomination-proc.html
2002/08/09 Roberto Gaetano Europe
2002/08/09 Grant Forsyth Asia/Pacific
2002/08/09 Alejandro Pisanty Latin America and Caribbean
2002/08/14 James Love North America
2002/08/14 Youn Jung Park Asia/Pacific
2002/08/21 Erick Iriarte Ahon Latin America and Caribbean
2002/08/25 Vivek Durai Asia/Pacific
2002/08/27 Peter Dengate Thrush Asia/Pacific

 Accepted their nomination
2002/08/28 Vivek Durai Asia/Pacific
2002/08/29 Alejandro Pisanty Latin America and Caribbean
2002/08/30 Youn Jung Park Asia/Pacific

 Declined their nomination
2002/08/11 Roberto Gaetano Europe
2002/08/13 Grant Forsyth Asia/Pacific
2002/08/19 James Love North America
2002/08/29 Peter Dengate Thrush Asia/Pacific
2002/08/29 Erick Iriarte Ahon Latin America and Caribbean

ENDORSEMENTS are open from Friday 30 August to Friday 20 September
 2002 at 16:00 UTC (18:00 Paris).
 For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

 Each candidate requires 10 endorsements.

 Please post endorsements to
       [email-masked]

 using the following template for endorsement:

3a. Full name of the endorser:
3b. E-mail address of the endorser:
3c. Full name of the accepted nominee you wish to endorse:
       (specific statements of endorsements  may also be submitted and are
encouraged)

The list of nominations, acceptances and endorsements
is permanently updated in:
http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-nominees.html.

The whole election process is described in
http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-election.html

DNSO Secretariat.

- --
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 #1402
*************************