Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #141
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, September 5 2000          Volume 01 : Number 141

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

Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:17:06 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:57:53PM +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
[...]

> IMHO the problem is not only consistency of the alt.root with a.root, 
> but also consistency between alt1.root and alt2.root, which is, still 
> IMHO, much more difficult to achieve.

It's worse than that.

One of the fundamental design criteria in the Internet is scaling -- you
always must ask the question "does the design scale well by a few orders
of magnitude".  Talking about consistency between alt1.root and
alt2.root is one thing.  Talking about consistency between alt2587.root
and alt40673.root is something else again.

Note that it is implicit in the alternate root proponents libertarian
fundamentalist position that there should be many alternate roots, and
that the market will choose among them.  But it is also clear that it is
so cheap and easy to set up alternate roots that people can do it for
purely vanity reasons, so we can safely assume that in the alternate 
root utopia there would indeed be thousands of them.  [In fact, in one 
related proposal (the "grass roots servers" proposal) *everybody* was 
supposed to run their own root zone...]

Of course, since none of the alternate root proponents go through the
rigor of getting their proposals vetted through the internet engineering
community, scaling isues are ignored.

- -- 
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: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 12:28:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: UDRP bad decisions (RE: [ga] Candidate positions on UDRP)

Methinks you've left out a category or three...

- - decisions that are obviously "bad"

- - decisions where we can't tell if they are bad or not because the
respondent didn't reply (in some cases by choice, in others due to lack of
adequate notice)

- - decisions that are either obviously or questionably bad but not
challenged in court because the respondent doesn't have the funds or
access to good legal representation.

On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> At 00:22 01/09/2000 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >If it is even one, it's bad news. However, I count more than 10, on a
> >cursory count.
> 
> I think one of the missing pieces in the UDRP ruleset is a procedure for 
> the independent review of dispute resolution providers' track record, and 
> the resulting removal of a resolution service provider from ICANN's list if 
> the track record is not found satisfactory.
> 
> Decisions come in 3 classes, I think:
> 
> - Decisions that no reasonable person would challenge or call "bad"
> - Decisions that some reasonable persons would challenge or call "bad"
> - Decisions that are subsequently reversed in a court of law.
> 
> The count of cases in the middle category is not small, I think, and varies 
> very much with the eye of the beholder.
> Do you have a count of cases in the last category?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:37:15 -0700 
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Harald,

You are confusing TLD root servers with root-zone servers here.
Root-zone servers only answer for the root-zone and redirect TLD queries
to TLD root servers, which only the TLD registry can run. Which is
precisely what root-zone servers should do. As a result, "of course"!
None of us, using ORSC root-zone, resolve for any other TLD but our own
(if we even have one) and we will point to other TLD root servers, as
well as the legacy TLD root servers (firewalls permitting).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 3:55 AM
> To: Simon Higgs; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member
> 
> 
> At 15:22 03/09/2000 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
> >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).
> 
> I would not see great harm in an "alternate" root where the 
> owners would 
> automatically vacate within 24 hours any domain that was 
> subsequently added 
> to the ICANN roots; if changes to the baseline automatically 
> meant that the 
> alternate roots were changed to conform, most of the 
> potential harm of 
> alternate roots would be alleviated.
> 
> Neither would I see much point in such a construction.
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 10:12:36 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Clarification w/r/t Jonathan Cohen's Involvement inWorking Group B

On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 12:00:38PM -0400, Dennis Schaefer wrote:
[...]
> In addition, after weeks of lively discourse, with some clear
> cleavages developing, votes were called with little notice, followed by
> a stampede of what I came to call "sleeper voters" -- people who never
> participated in the dialogue, never contributed.  They only showed up to
> vote, converting what had been a consensus-building process into the
> tyranny of the majority. 
>
> Industry can provide busloads of sleepers to a process such as this --
> indeed this is how trade associations routinely operate.  Individuals
> cannot do this.     

*Any* organized group can do this, not just industry.  Governments,
political parties, religions and religious groups, trade unions, trade
associations, standards bodies, schools, fraternities, clubs, etc.  And
the fact that organized groups of individuals can provide more
individual votes than a single individual is simply a tautology.

- -- 
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: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 10:20:18 -0700 
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

> From: Alf Hansen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 10:50 PM

> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Simon
> > Higgs
> > Sent: 4. september 2000 00:22

> > >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:
> ...
> 
> Alt.roots should not be created unless they follow the specs 
> defined by the
> IETF and the IAB. If Alt. roots have been created for other 
> reasons, f.ex.
> because some people disagree to certain aspects of 
> ICANN/IANA, the Alt.
> roots should be abandoned.

I will remind all and sundry that the three most useless phrases in the
English language are "could've", "should've", and "would've",since they
are all variations of reality denial. Following that, the most useless
words are "could", "should", and "would", since they are all variations
of wish petitioning or impotent opnionizing, unless one has direct power
to follow through on them immediately. The ONLY thing that counts is
what is happening RIGHT NOW! 

Other root-zones exist, with various flavors of success and
implementation completion, right now. Wishing them away, won't make them
go away. One must look at, and appreciate, the reality that caused them
to exist in the first place.

If you believe that the Alt.roots should not be created then stop them
now, or quit your complaining, don't use them, or ignore them. Impotent
venting of opinion is what we've had entirely too much of, these past
four years.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 10:54:02 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:20:18AM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> Other root-zones exist, with various flavors of success and
> implementation completion, right now.

Right.  And they are totally irrelevant to our purposes here.  The only 
thing this forum can do anything at all about is the ICANN root, and it 
is an utter waste of time to discuss alternates.

- -- 
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: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 18:14:35 +0100
From: "Dr. Nii Quaynor" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Weikers position on UDRP

Louise Ferguson wrote:
>
> Agreed. But there is nothing in the rules or regs that I know of providing
> for such a possible court of action in situations of 'size of the case',
> only where the complaint is deemed inappropriate for UDRP in terms of it
> being a commercial conflict (and in any case the document pack is
delivered
> to the panellist weeks after the complaint is formally accepted by WIPO).
> Again, I really think there needs to be a filter mechanism before the case
> goes to a panellist.
> For a case to get a panellist hearing the complainant only has to
> a) write a cheque for $1,500
> b) provide a name, address and e-mail
> c) write a complaint making a claim under the 3 criteria (could be 1/2
page
> and then cut and paste the 'formal stuff').

one wishes the process does not exclude legimate claims of poorer companies
in developing countries by the requirement of a  check. Does the model of a
"court appointed lawyer" help in this situation ie. under what circumstances
would WIPO accept the complaint even when there is no check provided?

Nii

Nii

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

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

Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 19:47:23 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: UDRP bad decisions (RE: [ga] Candidate positions on UDRP)

At 12:28 04/09/2000 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>Methinks you've left out a category or three...
>
>- decisions that are obviously "bad"
>
>- decisions where we can't tell if they are bad or not because the
>respondent didn't reply (in some cases by choice, in others due to lack of
>adequate notice)
>
>- decisions that are either obviously or questionably bad but not
>challenged in court because the respondent doesn't have the funds or
>access to good legal representation.

I lumped all of them into "Decisions that some reasonable persons would 
challenge or call "bad"" - I guess there are relatively few cases where the 
panelist doesn't agree with himself, so there's usually at least a single 
person who doesn't want to call the decision "bad".

You and I probably agree on "obvious" in a lot of cases.
The question is how to get from there to the point where we (or our 
somehow-selected representatives through ICANN) tell a panelist that his 
services are not wanted because we disagree with him too often.
And that's the place I don't have a good suggestion on at the moment.

This is my fifth GA message of the day. Time to be quiet for a while.

               Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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: Mon,  4 Sep 2000 21:18:10 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Root [Was: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member]

Roeland,

This is how I understood Harald's message.
WHen he sais "domain" he means "TLD".
If ICANN delegates a TLD that is already included in an alt.root, would 
the root operator switch within 24H to be consistent with the a.root.

Which is still something, but I maintain that it does not solve the 
problem of different alt.roots pointing to different TLD root servers 
for the same TLD.

Roberto

>Harald,
>
>You are confusing TLD root servers with root-zone servers here.
>Root-zone servers only answer for the root-zone and redirect TLD 
queries
>to TLD root servers, which only the TLD registry can run. Which is
>precisely what root-zone servers should do. As a result, "of course"!
>None of us, using ORSC root-zone, resolve for any other TLD but our own

>(if we even have one) and we will point to other TLD root servers, as
>well as the legacy TLD root servers (firewalls permitting).
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 3:55 AM
>> To: Simon Higgs; [email-masked]
>> Cc: [email-masked]
>> Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member
>> 
>> 
>> At 15:22 03/09/2000 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
>> >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).
>> 
>> I would not see great harm in an "alternate" root where the 
>> owners would 
>> automatically vacate within 24 hours any domain that was 
>> subsequently added 
>> to the ICANN roots; if changes to the baseline automatically 
>> meant that the 
>> alternate roots were changed to conform, most of the 
>> potential harm of 
>> alternate roots would be alleviated.
>> 
>> Neither would I see much point in such a construction.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>> 
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon,  4 Sep 2000 21:28:06 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Hi.

>> > 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
>

For Esther, thanks to Alex, I stand corrected.

>If this last one is true, Dyson, Burr and Roberts (?) would go. This 
would
>leaves us with Touton, WorldCom and ccTLDs unrest.

Becky Burr will indeed go (US elections).
The selection of a new CEO, to replace Mike Roberts, is ongoing.
I am assuming that the name will be announced at the latest in the 
November meeting.

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: Mon,  4 Sep 2000 21:30:56 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re: [ga] AMAZON

Marc,

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

Exactly.

Let's see if they are suing (sp?) themselves.

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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 16:28:00 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Symmetry, anyone?

Some quotes from NSI's :

http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/service-agreement.jhtml
 
> 8. DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE POLICY. If you reserved or registered a
>  domain name through us, you agree to be bound by our current domain
>  name dispute policy that is incorporated herein and made a part of this
>  Agreement by reference. The current version of the dispute policy may be
>  found at our Web site:
>  http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/dispute-policy.html. Please take the
>  time to familiarize yourself with that policy.

This is a link to UDRP documents.

If this contract forces the domain holder to be bound by that policy. my
first question is whether the complainant is also bound by it. It seems
to me that a fairly basic criterion of fairness in any dispute resolution
must be that it is binding on an even number of parties, zero or both.

A mechanism that binds one party but not the other is hopelessly flawed.
Is the flaw in UDRP or at NSI?

>  9. DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE POLICY MODIFICATIONS. You agree that
>  we, in our sole discretion, may modify our dispute policy. ...
>  ... You agree that, by maintaining the
>  reservation or registration of your domain name after modifications to the
>  dispute policy become effective, you have agreed to these modifications.
>  You acknowledge that if you do not agree to any such modification, you
>  may terminate this Agreement. We will not refund any fees paid by you if
>  you terminate your Agreement with us.

Good grief. Methinks if they modify their stated policy during a contract,
and expect modifications I find unacceptable to apply to me, then at a
minimum they owe me a full refund. The only questions should be whether they
owe me damages for the disruption as well, and whether I can sue for breach
of contract.

Yes, I know I likely couldn't sue for breach of this one. Their lawyers
wrote it. That's one reason I wouldn't sign it.

This would be acceptable if I had a choice about accepting modifications
made after I signed, had the option of continuing with the original terms.
It might also be OK if it required both them and me to comply with policies
set by a third party, e.g. ICANN. 
 
>  10. DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES. You agree that, if your use of our domain
>  name registration services is challenged by a third party, you will be
>  subject to the provisions specified in our dispute policy in effect at the
>  time of the dispute. You agree that in the event a domain name dispute
>  arises with any third party, you will indemnify and hold us harmless
>  ...

So I'm obligated to comply with this policy, I don't think the other party
is, and I'm expected to agree in advance not to sue the people I have a
contract with if they mess this up. 
 
>  11. AGENTS. You agree that, if your agent ... you are
>  nonetheless bound as a principal by all terms and conditions herein,
>  including the dispute policy.

So does this apply if i register through another registry? Does NSI
consider them 'agents'?

I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on the Internet, but it
seems to me a contract like this is sufficiently flawed that you'd
be crazy to sign it. Other opinions?

Is it part of ICANN's role to ensure that contractors such as NSI
who administer parts of the net act fairly toward reistrants? If
so, would getting this policy revised be a good starting point?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:40:47 -0700 
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Root [Was: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member]

Hello Roberto,

To answer this modified question. MHSC has automated process in place to
fetch the legacy root-zone intact and incorporates TLDs from the ORSC
root-zone automatically and then incorporates MHSC TLDs as the last
step. I believe that is what Richard does manually, for the ORSC. At the
moment, there are no known remaining conflicts.

Currently in development, at MHSC, is to feed all this data into an
Oracle database and auto-generate the MHSC root-zone and whois registry
data (services pending).

The ORSC has an infomal conflict resolution mechanism in place that was
last used to resolve the conflict in SYS. It worked admirably, ask
Jefsey for details. All involved parties were satisfied.

If you were to ask me if I thought that this would scale, I would have
to answer in the negative. There is a critical process that is currently
not automated (the ORSC root-zone creation process, TINC has a similar
problem). However, this is a problem with well-known solutions, it
mainly requires implementation.

I am worried about the wrong-headedness of certain parties to ignore the
ORSC efforts, as being irrelevant. ICANN could create a conflict in WEB
or SYS, for example, and refuse to resolve/negotiate the conflict,
leaning on apparent authority. The problem is that this authority does
not resolve in law, international or otherwise. This could cause a
fracture in the legacy root-zone that would end up in US Federal court,
with USG/DOC/NTIA/ICANN on the losing end. Counter to what some may
deperately want to believe, MHSC does not desire such an outcome and is
the main reason that MHSC has participated, to the extent it has, in the
ICANN process.

Please consider this; Contrary to what we are taught from childhood, it
does not require two to create a conflict. Rather the reverse, it
requires two to create peace (the conflict is inherent), with
willingness to compromise ON BOTH SIDES. If either party refuses to
negotiate/compromise, in good faith, then the remaining party has only
two choices, fight or capitulate. ICANN is not strong anough to force
capitulation, IMHO. Therefore, in order to prevent a fight (and
resultant root-zone fracture) ICANN must come to terms with what some
call the alternate roots. This is a classic three-corner problem with
the third corner absent.

- ---
R O E L A N D  M .  J .  M E Y E R
CEO, Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
An eCommerce and eBusiness practice
providing products and services for the Internet.
Tel: (925)373-3954
Fax: (925)373-9781
Cell: (925)352-3615

> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 12:18 PM
> 
> Roeland,
> 
> This is how I understood Harald's message.
> WHen he sais "domain" he means "TLD".
> If ICANN delegates a TLD that is already included in an 
> alt.root, would 
> the root operator switch within 24H to be consistent with the a.root.
> 
> Which is still something, but I maintain that it does not solve the 
> problem of different alt.roots pointing to different TLD root servers 
> for the same TLD.
> 
> Roberto
> 
> 
> >Harald,
> >
> >You are confusing TLD root servers with root-zone servers here.
> >Root-zone servers only answer for the root-zone and redirect TLD 
> queries
> >to TLD root servers, which only the TLD registry can run. Which is
> >precisely what root-zone servers should do. As a result, "of course"!
> >None of us, using ORSC root-zone, resolve for any other TLD 
> but our own
> 
> >(if we even have one) and we will point to other TLD root servers, as
> >well as the legacy TLD root servers (firewalls permitting).
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 3:55 AM
> >> To: Simon Higgs; [email-masked]
> >> Cc: [email-masked]
> >> Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member
> >> 
> >> 
> >> At 15:22 03/09/2000 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
> >> >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).
> >> 
> >> I would not see great harm in an "alternate" root where the 
> >> owners would 
> >> automatically vacate within 24 hours any domain that was 
> >> subsequently added 
> >> to the ICANN roots; if changes to the baseline automatically 
> >> meant that the 
> >> alternate roots were changed to conform, most of the 
> >> potential harm of 
> >> alternate roots would be alleviated.
> >> 
> >> Neither would I see much point in such a construction.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> --
> >> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >> 
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 22:38:03 +0200
From: "Alf Hansen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Roeland,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland M.J. Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 4. september 2000 19:20
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member
>
>
> > From: Alf Hansen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 10:50 PM
>
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Simon
> > > Higgs
> > > Sent: 4. september 2000 00:22
>
> > > >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:
> > ...
> >
> > Alt.roots should not be created unless they follow the specs
> > defined by the
> > IETF and the IAB. If Alt. roots have been created for other
> > reasons, f.ex.
> > because some people disagree to certain aspects of
> > ICANN/IANA, the Alt.
> > roots should be abandoned.
>
> I will remind all and sundry that the three most useless phrases in the
> English language are "could've", "should've", and "would've",since they
> are all variations of reality denial. Following that, the most useless
> words are "could", "should", and "would", since they are all variations
> of wish petitioning or impotent opnionizing, unless one has direct power
> to follow through on them immediately. The ONLY thing that counts is
> what is happening RIGHT NOW!
>
> Other root-zones exist, with various flavors of success and
> implementation completion, right now. Wishing them away, won't make them
> go away. One must look at, and appreciate, the reality that caused them
> to exist in the first place.
>
> If you believe that the Alt.roots should not be created then stop them
> now, or quit your complaining, don't use them, or ignore them. Impotent
> venting of opinion is what we've had entirely too much of, these past
> four years.
>

I have very limited power in this context. I will work for the establishment
of a contract between someone (probably ICANN) and the TLDs (perhaps an
identical contract for both gTLDs and ccTLDs) where operation an management
of the ICANN root servers will be included. In the contract(s) there should
("should" is all I can say for the moment...) be at least an identification
of the (13) ICANN root servers. And also some definition of quality of
service, responsibilities, contact points etc.

I can then use my power as the manager of the .no ccTLD to sign this
contract (if the terms are acceptable), and thereby add some quality for the
general public in Norway using the .no domain. If other cc- and gTLDs do the
same, we will all have a better Internet service, because we are using the
unique a.root, as the IAB specifies.

Using alt.roots should be abandoned in the contract. Unless otherwise agreed
between both parties.

Is this unfair? I don't think so.

Best regards,
Alf H

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

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

Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 14:27:49 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 12:54 PM 9/4/00 +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>At 15:22 03/09/2000 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
>>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).
>
>I would not see great harm in an "alternate" root where the owners would 
>automatically vacate within 24 hours any domain that was subsequently 
>added to the ICANN roots; if changes to the baseline automatically meant 
>that the alternate roots were changed to conform, most of the potential 
>harm of alternate roots would be alleviated.

That's the idea. Prior-use has never been successfully challenged in court 
by IANA or ICANN. Prior-use claims have, however, prevented the insertion 
of conflicting TLDs into the IANA root (I'm using the root names 
historically).

Contrary to what past-IAHC membership would have you believe, the first IOD 
lawsuit achieved it's primary purpose in spite of a negative ruling from 
the judge. The suit was designed to prevent IANA from inserting .WEB into 
the root delegated to anyone else but IOD. It was a badly thought out suit, 
which is why it didn't achieve the second goal of .WEB being delegated to 
IOD. It did, however, indicate to the USG that there was a lack of 
consensus in the gTLD-MoU process.

There is no .WEB in the USG root today, but even more importantly, since 
the USG intervened there is no gTLD-MoU. This is especially significant 
because the IOD lawsuit was considered a failure by the gTLD-MoU supporters.

>Neither would I see much point in such a construction.

Think newsgroups. That's exactly what has happened with new newsgroup 
prefixes being created. There was no hierarchy to provide a single point of 
control. It was all down to the responsibility of the local newsgroup admin 
whether or not the carry a newsgroup. Whether it was a good thing or a bad 
thing, it happened.

Someone, somewhere, is/has/will use a TLD outside the USG-root. Even BCP32 
documents valid reasons to do so. A sensible set of guidelines should exist 
to create "rough consensus and running code" and avoid a major root 
fracture. I have a draft half finished. "Real soon now".

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: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 15:27:02 -0700 
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Alf,

Yes, you can do that. But this only prevents the signatories from using
something other than ICANN root-servers. It has no effect on
non-signatories, such as MHSC. Within NO, right now, there are companies
using their onwn internal root-zone servers, if they have any sort of
effective firewall at all. That they are using the legacy root-zone, is
incidental. Such a prohibition as you  contemplate would casue either
much consternation within NO, or simply be ignored, in favor of
security. In addition, some NO servers are currently using NS1.MHSC.NET
to resolve root (No, I will not say whom, that is MHSC proprietary
information).

Unless I am grossly mistaken, the mechanism that you propose is neither
binding, or simply will not work. For one thing, no contract between NO
and an NO ISP is binding on that ISP's customer. For another, An
independent host, in Norway, can provide DNS services for any non-NO
domain that they want, you can't shut them down, either in law, or
otherwise. Running a independent name server is not a criminal activity,
by any stretch of the imagination. No one has, to date, been arrested
and charged for this.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alf Hansen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 1:38 PM
> To: Roeland M.J. Meyer; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member
> 
> 
> Roeland,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roeland M.J. Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: 4. september 2000 19:20
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member
> >
> >
> > > From: Alf Hansen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 10:50 PM
> >
> > > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On 
> Behalf Of Simon
> > > > Higgs
> > > > Sent: 4. september 2000 00:22
> >
> > > > >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:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Alt.roots should not be created unless they follow the specs
> > > defined by the
> > > IETF and the IAB. If Alt. roots have been created for other
> > > reasons, f.ex.
> > > because some people disagree to certain aspects of
> > > ICANN/IANA, the Alt.
> > > roots should be abandoned.
> >
> > I will remind all and sundry that the three most useless 
> phrases in the
> > English language are "could've", "should've", and 
> "would've",since they
> > are all variations of reality denial. Following that, the 
> most useless
> > words are "could", "should", and "would", since they are 
> all variations
> > of wish petitioning or impotent opnionizing, unless one has 
> direct power
> > to follow through on them immediately. The ONLY thing that counts is
> > what is happening RIGHT NOW!
> >
> > Other root-zones exist, with various flavors of success and
> > implementation completion, right now. Wishing them away, 
> won't make them
> > go away. One must look at, and appreciate, the reality that 
> caused them
> > to exist in the first place.
> >
> > If you believe that the Alt.roots should not be created 
> then stop them
> > now, or quit your complaining, don't use them, or ignore 
> them. Impotent
> > venting of opinion is what we've had entirely too much of, 
> these past
> > four years.
> >
> 
> I have very limited power in this context. I will work for 
> the establishment
> of a contract between someone (probably ICANN) and the TLDs 
> (perhaps an
> identical contract for both gTLDs and ccTLDs) where operation 
> an management
> of the ICANN root servers will be included. In the 
> contract(s) there should
> ("should" is all I can say for the moment...) be at least an 
> identification
> of the (13) ICANN root servers. And also some definition of quality of
> service, responsibilities, contact points etc.
> 
> I can then use my power as the manager of the .no ccTLD to sign this
> contract (if the terms are acceptable), and thereby add some 
> quality for the
> general public in Norway using the .no domain. If other cc- 
> and gTLDs do the
> same, we will all have a better Internet service, because we 
> are using the
> unique a.root, as the IAB specifies.
> 
> Using alt.roots should be abandoned in the contract. Unless 
> otherwise agreed
> between both parties.
> 
> Is this unfair? I don't think so.
> 
> Best regards,
> Alf H
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #141
************************