Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #142
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, September 5 2000          Volume 01 : Number 142

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

Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 16:00:20 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Roberto,

> >>The main thing I am worried about is that two alt.roots have different
> >>name servers for the same TLD.
> >>
> >>And this I don't like.
> >
> >I agree. But certain facts of life are here to stay:
> >
> >1. Alt.roots have been created as a direct result of:
> >    a. Network Solutions being granted a for-profit monopoly on the
> >       most popular gTLDs (COM/NET/ORG)
> >    b. IANA's inability to introduce competition to NSI by way of
> >       new registries and TLDs
> >    c. The .US registry's total failure to address the .US space
> >    d. Internet community dissatisfaction with subsequent processes
> >       (i.e. IAHC/gTLD-MoU/ICANN)
> >    e. ICANN's obligation to prevent economic harm to NSI from
> >       introducing competition
> >2. Reserved TLDs (BCP32) exist which immediately create an alt.root
> >3. Private corporations use Alternate Roots internally which often
> >    duplicates the name space outside of the USG-root - normally to
> >    secure the identity of internally used servers
> >4. Private Roots exist which for whatever reason do not have a full
> >    set of USG-root TLDs
> >
> >There is no guidance to establish checks and balances in any DNS server
> >which has been altered from the vanilla USG-root. I'm halfway through
> >an Internet Draft to try and ensure that there is a minimum supported
> >baseline (the USG root zone). Also I'm addressing discrepancies
> >between RFC2826 and BCP32, as well as other variations. The point is
> >to provide a common meeting ground and prevent a serious root
> >fragmentation from happening.
>
>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 not as hard as you think. The main incentive is to provide the best 
service for your customers. Therefore you provide the best name space. Most 
serious conflicts have already been resolved, and TLDs have even changed 
designated manager without problem.

> >>First of all, the intention was not at all to fragment the root and to
> >>start an alt.root.
> >
> >The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It doesn't matter what
> >the intent is if the end result is undesirable. Forcing the 7 CORE TLDs
>into the root without accountability to the internet community was
>undesirable.
>
>Do you have any evidence of the CORE TLDs having been in the root?

Not the USG-controlled root servers. No-one will ever know about the IANA 
"stealth root server". But they have been in the alt.roots at the request 
of John Gilmore (CORE didn't have a way of testing their claimed TLDs).

I do recall a conversation with one of the participants after the event who 
openly admitted what was planned out. First hand info is usually reliable, 
and it was a very reliable source. I'm not naming them because there's been 
enough mud slung here. Basically what stopped the root from splitting was 
Iva Magaziner getting on the phone and reading out the riot act. In the 
interests of everyone losing face at the time, IANA declined to insert the 
new TLDs, and the issue was passed off as an "experiment".

"Magaziner had just arrived in Davos, Switzerland, at 8pm on 29 January 
when he learned of the root server reconfiguration. He immediately 
contacted officials at the Department of Commerce, National Science 
Foundation, the Department of Defense's Advance Research Projects Agency, 
and others, "to find out what was going on - to understand what the 
technical ramifications were," he said. By 3.30am he had organized a 
conference call "with all the relevant players," he added, including 
Postel, who volunteered to end the test."
http://www.totaltele.com/cwi/199/199news11.html

> >Splitting the IANA root into two distinct authorities like the
> >IAHC/gTLD-MoU/CORE folk did was worse than starting a separate
> >alt.root. Users of an alt.root make the choice to use the
> >alt.root. Users of the ICANN root are not given that choice,
> >and their queries for the CORE TLDs would have failed 50% of
> >the time because the USG-controlled servers would not have
> >supported them causing instant root fragmentation.
>
>Exactly.
>
>That's exactly why it has not been attempted, in spite of what some
>believe.

The splitting of the root authority is well documented. The insertion of 
new TLDs in half the root servers was prevented as a result of the 
intervention by the USG (see above). There was even a thread called 
"rewriting Bind to resolve the new split root" in 
comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains around 25-May-97 
(http://www.newdom.com/archive/newdom.9706.txt).

Of greater concern, I also notice that the IAHC-discuss archive which 
documents this time period (29-JAN-97 to 13-MAY-1997) is now conveniently 
missing from both the IAHC and gTLD-MoU sites:
http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss - 404 Not Found
http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/datedir.html - 29-JAN-97 
to 13-MAY-1997 missing

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, 04 Sep 2000 16:37:37 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 10:38 PM 9/4/00 +0200, Alf Hansen wrote:

OK. You will force all .NO domain name holders to host their domains on 
USG-root DNS servers (that's the most you can ever hope to do). It's likely 
that those DNS servers will also host additional TLDs as they are outside 
your direct control. You will police those DNS servers and remove all .NO 
domains that are not hosted "properly". Everyone who doesn't agree with you 
is forced to go elsewhere and use another TLD. If they choose a 
non-USG-root TLD you have successfully managed to create new alt.root 
customers.

Yeah, it sounds just like Europe in 1939. It makes me wonder what will 
happen in Norway to all those using the .KOSHER TLD.

>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

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 19:43:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: UDRP bad decisions (RE: [ga] Candidate positions on UDRP)

On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 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.
> 

    ICANN's policy statement on the UDRP *should* be more clear.  It
should give examples of cases where domains are *not* confusingly
similar, it should tell panels that criticism, parody and rights to
associate are legitimate uses of a domain, that different TLDs can give
enough distinction to domains that they need not only look at the 2LD,
and they should do something about the fact that panels often ignore the
bad faith criteria.  

   Also, and this is going a bit further, ICANN's policy statement on
the UDRP should make it clear that merely having a service mark will not
give a firm the right to stop anyone else from using the same string in
a domain name, and give several examples to illustrate this.   

   If ICANN did all of this and probably some more, it could make the
UDRP something that the Internet community would support, because it
would be percieved as more fair and more balanced than it is now.  

   The trademark community should be satisfied with a UDRP that limits
itself more than it does now, and recognizes the public's legitimate
rights to use words that have been subject to a trade mark somewhere.  

  Jamie

=============================================
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology    
P.O. Box 19367        | http://www.cptech.org 
Washington, DC 20036  | [email-masked]       
Voice 202/387-8030    | Fax 202/234-5176     
=============================================

- --
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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 11:16:50 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Free Speech Using Domain Names

Hi Joop

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

Too true.   But with another paragraph:

> How about hitler_hatteRecht.com, weloveAnwar_ibrahim.com . . .

I don't believe underscores ("_") are permitted in domain names just dashes
("-").  In a long domain name, dashes are very effective as in:

            things-go-better-with-coca-cola.com
            rock-around-the-clock.com
            keep-the-red-flag-flying.com
            etc.

I can see such slogans being a huge part of the internet in future.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
To: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>; Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [icann-candidates] Re: [ga] bodacious-tata[s].NET

> At 05:07 3/09/00 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> >
> >I can be fast, yes, let us keep that possibility open for new domains
:-))
> >
>
> Marc,
>
> I'm afraid you are uncomfortably close to the mark here. You are still
free
> to quickly get that name. For Now.
>
> The TATA case seems to be a typical instance of "DN-policing" in the guise
> of  a  TM dilution case.
> Interesting is the "non-US famous name" aspect of the case.
>
> If we look further out to the future, we can expect two broad attitudes
> (constituencies?) to emerge, those who will want to expand the URDP into
> more wide-ranging DN policing and those, like yourself,  who will want to
> protect freedom of speech in DN registration.
>
> As more and more registrants will use the full potential of "speech" in a
> 64 alphanumeric string, more and more names will emerge that will be
> considered hate speech, obscene speech, political speech and other forms
of
> addressing that many powers-that-be (and ordinary citizens) across
> different languages and cultures will want banned.
>
> Indeed, different cultures and language groups will want to be able to
> control their own policing.
> How about hitler_hatteRecht.com, weloveAnwar_ibrahim.com   or DN that
> insult political leaders or religious sensitivities in languages other
than
> English?
>
> When more restrictively oriented cultures realize that  blocking  access
to
> such sites doesn't work, they will demand their own policing rights, to
> "take down" such domains under the ICANN flag.
>
> When regionally elected directors will be questioned on their stance on
> Freedom of Speech, we are going to see some surprises.
>
> Whatever Europeans  may have against North Americans dominating the
current
> ICANN process, on Free Speech issues the "regional representativeness"
> structure of ICANN is going to have a decidedly  unAmerican effect.
>

> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
> the Cyberspace Association and
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org

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

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

Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 04:05:41 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

I accept that Alf has a real problem in understanding 2000:
we should show him the way in understanding 1939: at that
time and ever before and ever since Norway was on our side
and I am sure that Simon realizes he went too far.

But, Alf, this terribly wrong remark of Simon, show you up
where exasperation of people may go in front of a systematic
denial of reality. You realize how your position leads people
towards alt.root?

Let assume things go the way you want, will you send a cop
to every family in Norway to check they do use Windows
default root address? Will you stop avery Linux machine now
the $10 ".gnu" TLD has been refused and will be soon installed.
Will you call on teachers, parents, police and army to stop
youths when the ".mp3" becomes operational?

Then what happens when Bill Gates decides that default is
now the MS-Root? Will you commit suicide? We would not
like that, Alf! Please stay with us...
Jefsey

At 01:37 05/09/00, you wrote:
>At 10:38 PM 9/4/00 +0200, Alf Hansen wrote:
>
>OK. You will force all .NO domain name holders to host their domains on 
>USG-root DNS servers (that's the most you can ever hope to do). It's 
>likely that those DNS servers will also host additional TLDs as they are 
>outside your direct control. You will police those DNS servers and remove 
>all .NO domains that are not hosted "properly". Everyone who doesn't agree 
>with you is forced to go elsewhere and use another TLD. If they choose a 
>non-USG-root TLD you have successfully managed to create new alt.root 
>customers.
>
>Yeah, it sounds just like Europe in 1939. It makes me wonder what will 
>happen in Norway to all those using the .KOSHER TLD.
>
>>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
>
>
>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

- --
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: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 04:05:16 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Kent,
I am sorry. I think you made a dream.

May be you know DNSO is part of the ICANN and ICANN has
initiated a process (of which the DNSO is no part) to open new
TLDs. I joined here because I have two TLDs to open, as you
know .sys and .wiz. with innovative concepts and real market

1) ICANN tells me "give me everything plus $ 50.000 a piece".
     Which is not acceptable, while we still consider it.

2) our other option is to start operating
      -  as an ULD, ie an upper level domain (any one can do it,
         as com.uk for example)
     -   as an alternative root
     (I see no technical difference beut a big marketing one).

3) while we studied this, NSI annouced they had created scores
     of de facto international TLDs (in a marketing sense), that they
     will use an excluive protocol with companies supposed to be our
     registrars, and they copied our concepts and well known name
     in their annoucement. We do not feel protected by ICANN and
     we do not understand (as ccTLD don't either) what ICANN can
     brings us for the price.

Our concern is not old academic histories, but real operations,
business and development.I love poetry, I compose classic music
and I can talk religion and philosophy for hours, but here we are in
a real world with WWW (web world war) at hands.

Please understand that Jon Postel days are *over*. That Ester
Dyson, Mke Roberts, Beky Burr, Jon Sims days are *over*. They
know it it, they said they go. What lies ahead are the professionnal
days. Next chairman is said to be from WorldCom, not anymore a
gentle venture capitalist. Verisgn/NSI made the fest move. Who is
next?. May be we know this week. You have to decide: either
you join force with us the people or if you join forces with them
the big ones. Your decision, not mine.

- -  if only a few TLDs they will be expansive and be own by banks,
    air lines, geneal  stores, hotel chains... and forget about small
    companies making business on the web. Rules will change.

- -  if TLDs are plenty, ".aol", ".air", ".bank" etc. will still be around,
    we will still have WWW in other fields but the current web will
    still be here. May be the present web will survive.

I am sorry I did not chose the alternative root option: you did in
being trapped in so few TLDs. Giving them a so high value. You
just left me/all of us with the alternative root option. Either you
help us through that situation in explaining around that opening
a new TLD is three words per line on an ascii file or you kill the
web you like.
Again, your decision.
Jefsey

At 19:54 04/09/00, you wrote:
>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

- --
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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 00:05:34 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Collegues:

Since this thread "RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member" really seems to be
about alternate roots, etc, and windows and microsoft's name was called,
allow me to interject this:

How and why do we, as "The Global Internet Community" continue to tolerate a
situation where if one type a name like "ford" or "volvo" into MS Internet
explorer, or Netscape, the browser tries all combinations of www.volvo.com,
www.volvo./net, and www.volvo.org, and does not try such logical combos as
www.volvo.co.se or www.ford.co.uk, etc.

What is going to happen when the new gTLDs come out? will the browsers try
www.ford.law  or www.ford.airline  and STILL NOT try www.volvo.se ?

Isn't it time we work on changing what is already there, before we work on
setting policy on what is not yet there?

peter de Blanc
.vi

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jefsey
Morfin
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 10:06 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

I accept that Alf has a real problem in understanding 2000:
we should show him the way in understanding 1939: at that
time and ever before and ever since Norway was on our side
and I am sure that Simon realizes he went too far.

But, Alf, this terribly wrong remark of Simon, show you up
where exasperation of people may go in front of a systematic
denial of reality. You realize how your position leads people
towards alt.root?

Let assume things go the way you want, will you send a cop
to every family in Norway to check they do use Windows
default root address? Will you stop avery Linux machine now
the $10 ".gnu" TLD has been refused and will be soon installed.
Will you call on teachers, parents, police and army to stop
youths when the ".mp3" becomes operational?

Then what happens when Bill Gates decides that default is
now the MS-Root? Will you commit suicide? We would not
like that, Alf! Please stay with us...
Jefsey
(snip)

- --
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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 06:24:36 +0200 (MEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: UDRP bad decisions (RE: [ga] Candidate positions on UDRP)

On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, James Love wrote:

[...]
>    The trademark community should be satisfied with a UDRP that limits
> itself more than it does now, and recognizes the public's legitimate
> rights to use words that have been subject to a trade mark somewhere.  

Absolutely. Especially if the TM involved is very short, like LOVE or EASY
or TATA.

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 00:51:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Peter, are you suggesting ICANN become involved in Internet navigation
issues?  I know that ICANN has been approached by persons who are
involved in the Microsoft work on this, but I had not heard that ICANN
was interested in getting involved.   This would seem to be an expansion
of ICANN's current mission. Jamie

On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Collegues:
> 
> Since this thread "RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member" really seems to be
> about alternate roots, etc, and windows and microsoft's name was called,
> allow me to interject this:
> 
> How and why do we, as "The Global Internet Community" continue to tolerate a
> situation where if one type a name like "ford" or "volvo" into MS Internet
> explorer, or Netscape, the browser tries all combinations of www.volvo.com,
> www.volvo./net, and www.volvo.org, and does not try such logical combos as
> www.volvo.co.se or www.ford.co.uk, etc.
> 
> What is going to happen when the new gTLDs come out? will the browsers try
> www.ford.law  or www.ford.airline  and STILL NOT try www.volvo.se ?
> 
> Isn't it time we work on changing what is already there, before we work on
> setting policy on what is not yet there?
> 
> peter de Blanc
> .vi
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jefsey
> Morfin
> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 10:06 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member
> 
> 
> I accept that Alf has a real problem in understanding 2000:
> we should show him the way in understanding 1939: at that
> time and ever before and ever since Norway was on our side
> and I am sure that Simon realizes he went too far.
> 
> But, Alf, this terribly wrong remark of Simon, show you up
> where exasperation of people may go in front of a systematic
> denial of reality. You realize how your position leads people
> towards alt.root?
> 
> Let assume things go the way you want, will you send a cop
> to every family in Norway to check they do use Windows
> default root address? Will you stop avery Linux machine now
> the $10 ".gnu" TLD has been refused and will be soon installed.
> Will you call on teachers, parents, police and army to stop
> youths when the ".mp3" becomes operational?
> 
> Then what happens when Bill Gates decides that default is
> now the MS-Root? Will you commit suicide? We would not
> like that, Alf! Please stay with us...
> Jefsey
> (snip)
> 
> --
> 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
> 

- -------------
James Love  mailto:[email-masked] http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology, Voice 1.202.387.8030  Fax 1.202.234.5176     

- --
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: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:56:34 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Harald's comment discussed on the EU list

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
> The constituency structure is a failure and should be abandoned.
> 
>               Harald
> --------------------- end of quote------------------------------
> 
> According to the ga-dnso list, many people seem to agree with 
> Harald's view. 
> Thus, if the very structure of the DNSO turns out to be in itself a 
> failure, would it be a good idea to cement this structure by proceeding 
> to establish the constituency of individual domain name holders at this 
> point? Or should this effort be temporarely deferred because the 
> whole structure has been called into question? 
> This is a tricky question. As far as I see there is no easy answer 
> available at present. 
> 
> jeanette 

Such structure will not be cemented by adding a new constituency. If it is 
fragile by itself it will became even more weak by adding another different 
voice. If it will collapse by adding the IDNO it will simply mean it was
wrong 
because it was intended to hold any new constituency by petition. 
The important thing to look at, instead, is to not 'protect' DNSO from its 
faults by preventing a new well supported constituency being added in by 
taking the excuse 'this way the DNSO will collapse'. 
If it will collapse it will be a DNSO fault not a IDNO one.
About Harald comment I just think that is not possible to reach 'pure' 
representations anyway (whatever structure one may have in mind) and that 
the big fault is keeping out significative points of view because they will 
average and compensate for 'impurity' of representation. 
If this will bring or not DNSO to have a more or less IP (Int. Prop.) and 
business polarization is a completely another matter.

Best regards
Giorgio Griffini

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  

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

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

Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 22:07:52 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 04:05 AM 9/5/00 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

Jefsey has a point. I apologize to anyone I've offended. I am European too 
which is why I used the analogy. The point was not to offend, but to ensure 
that period of history was never repeated by what is being done here.

However, I strongly reiterate that wrong answers to questions now can lead 
(even innocently) to a wrong conclusion - and that will have a profound 
consequence in the future if not properly checked.

The IAB have attempted to check the alt.root movement by publishing 
RFC2826, but it falls short. I'll explain why soon.

>I accept that Alf has a real problem in understanding 2000:
>we should show him the way in understanding 1939: at that
>time and ever before and ever since Norway was on our side
>and I am sure that Simon realizes he went too far.
>
>But, Alf, this terribly wrong remark of Simon, show you up
>where exasperation of people may go in front of a systematic
>denial of reality. You realize how your position leads people
>towards alt.root?
>
>Let assume things go the way you want, will you send a cop
>to every family in Norway to check they do use Windows
>default root address? Will you stop avery Linux machine now
>the $10 ".gnu" TLD has been refused and will be soon installed.
>Will you call on teachers, parents, police and army to stop
>youths when the ".mp3" becomes operational?
>
>Then what happens when Bill Gates decides that default is
>now the MS-Root? Will you commit suicide? We would not
>like that, Alf! Please stay with us...
>Jefsey
>
>At 01:37 05/09/00, you wrote:
>>At 10:38 PM 9/4/00 +0200, Alf Hansen wrote:
>>
>>OK. You will force all .NO domain name holders to host their domains on 
>>USG-root DNS servers (that's the most you can ever hope to do). It's 
>>likely that those DNS servers will also host additional TLDs as they are 
>>outside your direct control. You will police those DNS servers and remove 
>>all .NO domains that are not hosted "properly". Everyone who doesn't 
>>agree with you is forced to go elsewhere and use another TLD. If they 
>>choose a non-USG-root TLD you have successfully managed to create new 
>>alt.root customers.
>>
>>Yeah, it sounds just like Europe in 1939. It makes me wonder what will 
>>happen in Norway to all those using the .KOSHER TLD.
>>
>>>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
>>
>>
>>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
>
>--
>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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #142
************************