Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1420
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Tuesday, September 17 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1420

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 00:25:39 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Slamming:  An Industry Out of Control

Hot dang Danny,

Can the courts figure this out?
Nope because by the time they do the playing field will change.
What was the name of that organization before the U.N.?
ICANN?
I know it seems simple and then complicated but how do we get a group together
that can help?
e

[email-masked] wrote:

> Register.com v. Domain Registry of Canada
> By ComputerWire
> Posted: 13/09/2002 at 07:22 GMT
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/27101.html
>
> Register.com Inc is suing a competitor for allegedly using deceptive tactics
> to lure away its domain name registration customers. But defendant Domain
> Registry of Canada Inc seems to think Register.com is using very similar
> tactics itself, Kevin Murphy writes.
>
> Register.com sued DROC in its native New York this week, alleging unfair
> competition, false advertising, breach of contract and misappropriation of
> trade secrets. The larger firm alleges DROC engages in a "deceptive and
> misleading scheme" - a marketing practice known as "domain slamming" - that
> is costing it thousands of customers.
>
> Slamming is the name given to the practice when a registrar sends a
> solicitation to a customer of a competitor, asking them to transfer their
> business, but makes the solicitation look like a renewal notice or an
> expiration notice, to confuse them into making the switch.
>
> "These solicitations do not mention that it was Register.com, and not any of
> the defendants, that originally registered the customers' domain names," the
> complaint reads. "Nor do they explain that customers who accept defendants'
> solicitation will actually be transferring their domain name registrations to
> a direct competitor of Register.com."
>
> The company said that in a sample week this August, about 15% of all the
> customers that transferred from Register.com to another registrar transferred
> to DROC, which is a reseller for Washington-based eNom Inc and also trades as
> Domain Registry of America Inc.
>
> This is a large percentage, considering there are 122 accredited registrars
> and thousands of resellers on the market currently. Register.com says it has
> already lost thousands of customers, each of whom pay around $30 a year for a
> domain, and is in danger of losing thousands more if DROC continues its
> mailshots.
>
> A copy of a DROC letter sent to a rival's customer, seen by ComputerWire, is
> entitled "Important Notice" and encourages the registrant to "renew" their
> domain with the company. It does not use the word "transfer", but explicitly
> says that it is not an invoice, and alludes to the fact that other registrars
> are available.
>
> But DROC says that it is doing nothing wrong. The company is suing Tucows
> Inc, another rival, for defamation over claims Tucows told customers its
> mailers were misleading and could not be trusted (Tucows is countersuing,
> alleging slamming). DROC also says Register.com engages in similar practices.
>
> "They were the first company that ever did it," a DROC spokesperson said.
> "This is nothing new."
>
> A copy of a Register.com mailer seen by ComputerWire is entitled "Domain
> Expiration Notice", and invites the registrant to "renew and transfer" their
> name to Register.com. Like the DROC mailer, it does not mention the original
> registrar by name, but it does use the word "transfer".
>
> "All the mailers sent out make it very clear it's a transfer," a Register.com
> spokesperson said. "We make sure there are a certain amount of references to
> 'transfer'."
>
> While this may be true, the Register.com notice looks very similar to direct
> mail that VeriSign Inc was enjoined from sending out two months ago, after it
> was sued by two rivals. The notice from VeriSign, the market leader, made
> less references to "transferring" domains to another registrar than the
> Register.com letter.
> --
> 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, 16 Sep 2002 04:57:15 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: ICANN Reform?  To: Re: [ga] Slamming:  An Industry Out of Control

Danny and all assembly members,

  Again and on the eve of DOC/NTIA potentially extending ICANN's
contract's, we have yet another example of the ICANN's Staff's lack
of proper and mandated oversight of it's "Accredited Registrars".
One could be wondering with so many of these occurrences, how
extending ICANN's contracts could be seriously considered and
if because of the ICANN Self  Reform effort, "Blueprint" is underway
how does it address these sorts of reoccurring practices of it's
own Registrars?

[email-masked] wrote:

> Register.com v. Domain Registry of Canada
> By ComputerWire
> Posted: 13/09/2002 at 07:22 GMT
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/27101.html
>
> Register.com Inc is suing a competitor for allegedly using deceptive tactics
> to lure away its domain name registration customers. But defendant Domain
> Registry of Canada Inc seems to think Register.com is using very similar
> tactics itself, Kevin Murphy writes.
>
> Register.com sued DROC in its native New York this week, alleging unfair
> competition, false advertising, breach of contract and misappropriation of
> trade secrets. The larger firm alleges DROC engages in a "deceptive and
> misleading scheme" - a marketing practice known as "domain slamming" - that
> is costing it thousands of customers.
>
> Slamming is the name given to the practice when a registrar sends a
> solicitation to a customer of a competitor, asking them to transfer their
> business, but makes the solicitation look like a renewal notice or an
> expiration notice, to confuse them into making the switch.
>
> "These solicitations do not mention that it was Register.com, and not any of
> the defendants, that originally registered the customers' domain names," the
> complaint reads. "Nor do they explain that customers who accept defendants'
> solicitation will actually be transferring their domain name registrations to
> a direct competitor of Register.com."
>
> The company said that in a sample week this August, about 15% of all the
> customers that transferred from Register.com to another registrar transferred
> to DROC, which is a reseller for Washington-based eNom Inc and also trades as
> Domain Registry of America Inc.
>
> This is a large percentage, considering there are 122 accredited registrars
> and thousands of resellers on the market currently. Register.com says it has
> already lost thousands of customers, each of whom pay around $30 a year for a
> domain, and is in danger of losing thousands more if DROC continues its
> mailshots.
>
> A copy of a DROC letter sent to a rival's customer, seen by ComputerWire, is
> entitled "Important Notice" and encourages the registrant to "renew" their
> domain with the company. It does not use the word "transfer", but explicitly
> says that it is not an invoice, and alludes to the fact that other registrars
> are available.
>
> But DROC says that it is doing nothing wrong. The company is suing Tucows
> Inc, another rival, for defamation over claims Tucows told customers its
> mailers were misleading and could not be trusted (Tucows is countersuing,
> alleging slamming). DROC also says Register.com engages in similar practices.
>
> "They were the first company that ever did it," a DROC spokesperson said.
> "This is nothing new."
>
> A copy of a Register.com mailer seen by ComputerWire is entitled "Domain
> Expiration Notice", and invites the registrant to "renew and transfer" their
> name to Register.com. Like the DROC mailer, it does not mention the original
> registrar by name, but it does use the word "transfer".
>
> "All the mailers sent out make it very clear it's a transfer," a Register.com
> spokesperson said. "We make sure there are a certain amount of references to
> 'transfer'."
>
> While this may be true, the Register.com notice looks very similar to direct
> mail that VeriSign Inc was enjoined from sending out two months ago, after it
> was sued by two rivals. The notice from VeriSign, the market leader, made
> less references to "transferring" domains to another registrar than the
> Register.com letter.
> --
> 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: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 14:02:52 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] The 30-Day Task Force

Marilyn,

You were a member of the Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group 
that recommended a thirty-day timeframe between the day a task force 
initially holds its first meeting and the day of the final meeting of the 
Task Force.  You have also chaired two separate task force efforts, transfers 
and whois, both of which (after more than ten times the length of this 
proposed timeframe) have still not finished their work.  

In your capacity as Chair of these TF's, can you advise if it is possible to 
complete the work of both TF's within the next thirty days, or is the 
proposed policy development process as currently outlined an unworkable 
proposition?  

- --
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, 16 Sep 2002 16:05:26 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ICANN & Stability

Stuart,

Having read the text of Elisabeth Porteneuve's proposed resolution on name 
server updates (reprinted below), I can't help but get the impression that 
either ICANN/IANA staff is thoroughly incompetent or that you are engaged in 
the process of blackmailing the ccTLD community.  It would seem to me that 
some discussion on this topic is warranted as the assertion has been made 
that ICANN itself has threatened the stability of the Internet (a subject 
that I presume you would take seriously).  As the President and Chief 
Executive Officer of this Corporation, that ostensibly deems the stability of 
the Internet to be its highest priority, can you comment on why your staff 
has failed to process these updates?

Best regards,
Danny

Whereas the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) has published 
its second implementation report,
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/draft-mission-core-values-02sep02.

htm

Whereas the stability of the universal Internet has been part of 
permanent preoccupations since the White Paper document, 
http://www.icann.org/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm

Whereas on 28 November 1998, both the USG and the ICANN committed 
to abide by the principle of Internet stability in the MoU,
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm

Whereas the ccTLD Managers has been awaiting since years
for correct IANA ccTLD database services, as explicitly specified 
in the Amendment 2 to the MoU of 11 September 2000, requesting
for "Documentation of IANA procedures for root zone editing, 
root zone generation, and root zone WHOIS service".

Whereas the ccTLD IANA Service Requirements has been restated
once more in Bucharest on 25 June 2002 and approved unanimously,
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/cctld/ccTLDbucharest-communique.html 

Whereas the ERC reaffirms that "Preserve and enhance the operational 
stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of 
the Internet" is on top of the list of ICANN Core's values,

Whereas the global interoperability and stability of Internet depends 
on the TLD name servers,

Whereas the recent bankruptcy of KPNQwest, providing secondary 
services to several ccTLD Registries requested for prompt actions 
on IANA side to update the name servers records as requested by 
the ccTLD Managers,

Whereas there is widespread dissatisfaction of ccTLD Managers about 
the ICANN failing to its IANA Function duty, and several name servers 
updates pending since three months (since June 2002),

The NC therefore resolves that:
The stability of universal Internet is in danger and request 
ICANN to take immediate actions to update ccTLD name servers entries.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00035.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, 16 Sep 2002 16:01:41 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN & Stability

Danny, Stuart and all assembly members,

  It is now and has been clear for sometime that due to ICANN's funding
woes many tasks that have been and are underway, have lacked the
proper ongoing attention that they need or deserve.  Is this a aspect of
incompetence on the part of the ICANN staff?  I would have to say,
partly yes.  However, given the severe and growing lack of trust that
the stakeholder/user community has in ICANN in it's present or
proposed form, this process problem will continue if not become
even more acute.

[email-masked] wrote:

> Stuart,
>
> Having read the text of Elisabeth Porteneuve's proposed resolution on name
> server updates (reprinted below), I can't help but get the impression that
> either ICANN/IANA staff is thoroughly incompetent or that you are engaged in
> the process of blackmailing the ccTLD community.  It would seem to me that
> some discussion on this topic is warranted as the assertion has been made
> that ICANN itself has threatened the stability of the Internet (a subject
> that I presume you would take seriously).  As the President and Chief
> Executive Officer of this Corporation, that ostensibly deems the stability of
> the Internet to be its highest priority, can you comment on why your staff
> has failed to process these updates?
>
> Best regards,
> Danny
>
> Whereas the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) has published
> its second implementation report,
> http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/draft-mission-core-values-02sep02.
>
> htm
>
> Whereas the stability of the universal Internet has been part of
> permanent preoccupations since the White Paper document,
> http://www.icann.org/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm
>
> Whereas on 28 November 1998, both the USG and the ICANN committed
> to abide by the principle of Internet stability in the MoU,
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm
>
> Whereas the ccTLD Managers has been awaiting since years
> for correct IANA ccTLD database services, as explicitly specified
> in the Amendment 2 to the MoU of 11 September 2000, requesting
> for "Documentation of IANA procedures for root zone editing,
> root zone generation, and root zone WHOIS service".
>
> Whereas the ccTLD IANA Service Requirements has been restated
> once more in Bucharest on 25 June 2002 and approved unanimously,
> http://www.dnso.org/constituency/cctld/ccTLDbucharest-communique.html
>
> Whereas the ERC reaffirms that "Preserve and enhance the operational
> stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of
> the Internet" is on top of the list of ICANN Core's values,
>
> Whereas the global interoperability and stability of Internet depends
> on the TLD name servers,
>
> Whereas the recent bankruptcy of KPNQwest, providing secondary
> services to several ccTLD Registries requested for prompt actions
> on IANA side to update the name servers records as requested by
> the ccTLD Managers,
>
> Whereas there is widespread dissatisfaction of ccTLD Managers about
> the ICANN failing to its IANA Function duty, and several name servers
> updates pending since three months (since June 2002),
>
> The NC therefore resolves that:
> The stability of universal Internet is in danger and request
> ICANN to take immediate actions to update ccTLD name servers entries.
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00035.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

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: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 16:07:27 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Slamming:  An Industry Out of Control

Eric and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Hot dang Danny,
>
> Can the courts figure this out?

  Sure they can!  But the more important question is do we want them to?

>
> Nope because by the time they do the playing field will change.
> What was the name of that organization before the U.N.?
> ICANN?

  Given the UN's already perceived problem as perhaps being "Irrelevant"
in the current Bush administration, some concern on other matters such
as ICANN will eventually become or be perceived irrelevant as well.

>
> I know it seems simple and then complicated but how do we get a group together
> that can help?

  The WHite Paper and the MoU did a pretty good job of outlining how.
The problem almost from the start of ICANN was and remains, that
the ICANN staff and BoD did not like or wish to adhere to those
contracts to the stakeholder/users adequately...

>
> e
>
> [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Register.com v. Domain Registry of Canada
> > By ComputerWire
> > Posted: 13/09/2002 at 07:22 GMT
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/27101.html
> >
> > Register.com Inc is suing a competitor for allegedly using deceptive tactics
> > to lure away its domain name registration customers. But defendant Domain
> > Registry of Canada Inc seems to think Register.com is using very similar
> > tactics itself, Kevin Murphy writes.
> >
> > Register.com sued DROC in its native New York this week, alleging unfair
> > competition, false advertising, breach of contract and misappropriation of
> > trade secrets. The larger firm alleges DROC engages in a "deceptive and
> > misleading scheme" - a marketing practice known as "domain slamming" - that
> > is costing it thousands of customers.
> >
> > Slamming is the name given to the practice when a registrar sends a
> > solicitation to a customer of a competitor, asking them to transfer their
> > business, but makes the solicitation look like a renewal notice or an
> > expiration notice, to confuse them into making the switch.
> >
> > "These solicitations do not mention that it was Register.com, and not any of
> > the defendants, that originally registered the customers' domain names," the
> > complaint reads. "Nor do they explain that customers who accept defendants'
> > solicitation will actually be transferring their domain name registrations to
> > a direct competitor of Register.com."
> >
> > The company said that in a sample week this August, about 15% of all the
> > customers that transferred from Register.com to another registrar transferred
> > to DROC, which is a reseller for Washington-based eNom Inc and also trades as
> > Domain Registry of America Inc.
> >
> > This is a large percentage, considering there are 122 accredited registrars
> > and thousands of resellers on the market currently. Register.com says it has
> > already lost thousands of customers, each of whom pay around $30 a year for a
> > domain, and is in danger of losing thousands more if DROC continues its
> > mailshots.
> >
> > A copy of a DROC letter sent to a rival's customer, seen by ComputerWire, is
> > entitled "Important Notice" and encourages the registrant to "renew" their
> > domain with the company. It does not use the word "transfer", but explicitly
> > says that it is not an invoice, and alludes to the fact that other registrars
> > are available.
> >
> > But DROC says that it is doing nothing wrong. The company is suing Tucows
> > Inc, another rival, for defamation over claims Tucows told customers its
> > mailers were misleading and could not be trusted (Tucows is countersuing,
> > alleging slamming). DROC also says Register.com engages in similar practices.
> >
> > "They were the first company that ever did it," a DROC spokesperson said.
> > "This is nothing new."
> >
> > A copy of a Register.com mailer seen by ComputerWire is entitled "Domain
> > Expiration Notice", and invites the registrant to "renew and transfer" their
> > name to Register.com. Like the DROC mailer, it does not mention the original
> > registrar by name, but it does use the word "transfer".
> >
> > "All the mailers sent out make it very clear it's a transfer," a Register.com
> > spokesperson said. "We make sure there are a certain amount of references to
> > 'transfer'."
> >
> > While this may be true, the Register.com notice looks very similar to direct
> > mail that VeriSign Inc was enjoined from sending out two months ago, after it
> > was sued by two rivals. The notice from VeriSign, the market leader, made
> > less references to "transferring" domains to another registrar than the
> > Register.com letter.
> > --
> > 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

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: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 16:14:02 -0700
From: "M. Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

You are assuming, Danny, that the assumptions that underlie 
Elisabeth's proposed resolution are correct. They are not. Perhaps 
you might be interested in the facts before forming your 
"impressions".

There is no threat to Internet stability.  Soon after KPNQwest 
announced its suspension of operations, RIPE NCC agreed to assume 
operation of the ns.eu.net nameserver (which had formerly been 
operated by KPNQwest), and has committed to continue that operation 
for as long as necessary to migrate secondary nameservice to other 
nameservers. That nameserver has been operating for quite some time 
in a sound and stable manner.  The IANA has given priority to 
handling requests to migrate from the KPNQwest nameservers, and as it 
happens 38 of the 41 requests that have been received to migrate 
nameservice from ns.eu.net have been satisfactorily completed. 
(Incidentally, 37 of the 38 ccTLDs that have been migrated have no 
contractual relationship with ICANN.) There are several other ccTLDs 
that have not yet requested to migrate, and the IANA is in the 
process of suggesting that they move along to suitable substitute 
nameservice as well.  Three of the ccTLD requests for migration have 
not yet been completed because the ccTLD operators have (despite 
repeated requests) failed to cooperate in allowing the IANA to 
perform technical checks as provided by longstanding IANA policy. 
See the FAQs at <http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm> 
for a description that we recently posted summarizing for ccTLD 
managers the policy, its longstanding basis (documented back to RFC 
1591 in March 1994), and the means by which those seeking to change 
the policy should proceed.

To reiterate, however, there no threat whatsoever to Internet 
stability, since the ns.eu.net nameserver continues to function 
perfectly.

Stuart

At 4:05 PM -0400 9/16/02, [email-masked] wrote:
>Stuart,
>
>Having read the text of Elisabeth Porteneuve's proposed resolution on name
>server updates (reprinted below), I can't help but get the impression that
>either ICANN/IANA staff is thoroughly incompetent or that you are engaged in
>the process of blackmailing the ccTLD community.  It would seem to me that
>some discussion on this topic is warranted as the assertion has been made
>that ICANN itself has threatened the stability of the Internet (a subject
>that I presume you would take seriously).  As the President and Chief
>Executive Officer of this Corporation, that ostensibly deems the stability of
>the Internet to be its highest priority, can you comment on why your staff
>has failed to process these updates?
>
>Best regards,
>Danny
>
>
>Whereas the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) has published
>its second implementation report,
>http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/draft-mission-core-values-02sep02.
>
>htm
>
>Whereas the stability of the universal Internet has been part of
>permanent preoccupations since the White Paper document,
>http://www.icann.org/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm
>
>Whereas on 28 November 1998, both the USG and the ICANN committed
>to abide by the principle of Internet stability in the MoU,
>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm
>
>Whereas the ccTLD Managers has been awaiting since years
>for correct IANA ccTLD database services, as explicitly specified
>in the Amendment 2 to the MoU of 11 September 2000, requesting
>for "Documentation of IANA procedures for root zone editing,
>root zone generation, and root zone WHOIS service".
>
>Whereas the ccTLD IANA Service Requirements has been restated
>once more in Bucharest on 25 June 2002 and approved unanimously,
>http://www.dnso.org/constituency/cctld/ccTLDbucharest-communique.html
>
>Whereas the ERC reaffirms that "Preserve and enhance the operational
>stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of
>the Internet" is on top of the list of ICANN Core's values,
>
>Whereas the global interoperability and stability of Internet depends
>on the TLD name servers,
>
>Whereas the recent bankruptcy of KPNQwest, providing secondary
>services to several ccTLD Registries requested for prompt actions
>on IANA side to update the name servers records as requested by
>the ccTLD Managers,
>
>Whereas there is widespread dissatisfaction of ccTLD Managers about
>the ICANN failing to its IANA Function duty, and several name servers
>updates pending since three months (since June 2002),
>
>The NC therefore resolves that:
>The stability of universal Internet is in danger and request
>ICANN to take immediate actions to update ccTLD name servers entries.
>
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00035.html

- -- 

__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
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: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 02:20:04 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, at 16:14 [=GMT-0700], M. Stuart Lynn wrote:

> There is no threat to Internet stability.

What about .DE? They think otherwise. See:

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/anw-16.09.02-000/

> Three of the ccTLD requests for migration have
> not yet been completed

Meaning that nothing happened on a technical level (in the zone).

> because the ccTLD operators have (despite
> repeated requests) failed to cooperate in allowing the IANA to
> perform technical checks as provided by longstanding IANA policy.

One of the three is .DE, one of the largest TLDs in the world, bigger than
NET and ORG. The others are .AT (Austria) and .GR (Greece).

> See the FAQs at <http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm>
> for a description that we recently posted summarizing for ccTLD
> managers the policy, its longstanding basis (documented back to RFC
> 1591 in March 1994), and the means by which those seeking to change
> the policy should proceed.

Yes, well, not everyone reads these texts as you do, to put it in a
friendly way. And whosoever approved this so-called ICP? Nobody. Not even
the Board of ICANN.

> To reiterate, however, there no threat whatsoever to Internet
> stability, since the ns.eu.net nameserver continues to function
> perfectly.

It seems to me that .DE has (according to the ICANN root zone) a
nameserver on a KPNQwest IP still. It is no longer in the .DE zone (as
published by DE) among its nameservers. In fact there are 4 new
nameservers for .DE, spread over the globe, that ICANN also refuses to
add to the root-zone. Great for stability!

But below all this lies the question, whether it is a good thing to
endanger stability by blackmailing ccTLDs into following ICANNs
interpretation of bottom up concensus policies? Even if ICANN is right,
should it block the greater stability of .DE?

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 17:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

Stuart,

From a technical management perspective ICANN does not appear to be doing
its job of managing the root (.) zone. Please update the ccTLD zones per
their requests.

- -rick

Rick Wesson
CEO, Alice's Registry, Inc.
CTO, ICANN/DNSO Registrars Constituency
Member, ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee

On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, M. Stuart Lynn wrote:

> You are assuming, Danny, that the assumptions that underlie
> Elisabeth's proposed resolution are correct. They are not. Perhaps
> you might be interested in the facts before forming your
> "impressions".
>
> There is no threat to Internet stability.  Soon after KPNQwest
> announced its suspension of operations, RIPE NCC agreed to assume
> operation of the ns.eu.net nameserver (which had formerly been
> operated by KPNQwest), and has committed to continue that operation
> for as long as necessary to migrate secondary nameservice to other
> nameservers. That nameserver has been operating for quite some time
> in a sound and stable manner.  The IANA has given priority to
> handling requests to migrate from the KPNQwest nameservers, and as it
> happens 38 of the 41 requests that have been received to migrate
> nameservice from ns.eu.net have been satisfactorily completed.
> (Incidentally, 37 of the 38 ccTLDs that have been migrated have no
> contractual relationship with ICANN.) There are several other ccTLDs
> that have not yet requested to migrate, and the IANA is in the
> process of suggesting that they move along to suitable substitute
> nameservice as well.  Three of the ccTLD requests for migration have
> not yet been completed because the ccTLD operators have (despite
> repeated requests) failed to cooperate in allowing the IANA to
> perform technical checks as provided by longstanding IANA policy.
> See the FAQs at <http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm>
> for a description that we recently posted summarizing for ccTLD
> managers the policy, its longstanding basis (documented back to RFC
> 1591 in March 1994), and the means by which those seeking to change
> the policy should proceed.
>
> To reiterate, however, there no threat whatsoever to Internet
> stability, since the ns.eu.net nameserver continues to function
> perfectly.
>
> Stuart
>
>
> At 4:05 PM -0400 9/16/02, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Stuart,
> >
> >Having read the text of Elisabeth Porteneuve's proposed resolution on name
> >server updates (reprinted below), I can't help but get the impression that
> >either ICANN/IANA staff is thoroughly incompetent or that you are engaged in
> >the process of blackmailing the ccTLD community.  It would seem to me that
> >some discussion on this topic is warranted as the assertion has been made
> >that ICANN itself has threatened the stability of the Internet (a subject
> >that I presume you would take seriously).  As the President and Chief
> >Executive Officer of this Corporation, that ostensibly deems the stability of
> >the Internet to be its highest priority, can you comment on why your staff
> >has failed to process these updates?
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Danny
> >
> >
> >Whereas the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) has published
> >its second implementation report,
> >http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/draft-mission-core-values-02sep02.
> >
> >htm
> >
> >Whereas the stability of the universal Internet has been part of
> >permanent preoccupations since the White Paper document,
> >http://www.icann.org/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm
> >
> >Whereas on 28 November 1998, both the USG and the ICANN committed
> >to abide by the principle of Internet stability in the MoU,
> >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm
> >
> >Whereas the ccTLD Managers has been awaiting since years
> >for correct IANA ccTLD database services, as explicitly specified
> >in the Amendment 2 to the MoU of 11 September 2000, requesting
> >for "Documentation of IANA procedures for root zone editing,
> >root zone generation, and root zone WHOIS service".
> >
> >Whereas the ccTLD IANA Service Requirements has been restated
> >once more in Bucharest on 25 June 2002 and approved unanimously,
> >http://www.dnso.org/constituency/cctld/ccTLDbucharest-communique.html
> >
> >Whereas the ERC reaffirms that "Preserve and enhance the operational
> >stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of
> >the Internet" is on top of the list of ICANN Core's values,
> >
> >Whereas the global interoperability and stability of Internet depends
> >on the TLD name servers,
> >
> >Whereas the recent bankruptcy of KPNQwest, providing secondary
> >services to several ccTLD Registries requested for prompt actions
> >on IANA side to update the name servers records as requested by
> >the ccTLD Managers,
> >
> >Whereas there is widespread dissatisfaction of ccTLD Managers about
> >the ICANN failing to its IANA Function duty, and several name servers
> >updates pending since three months (since June 2002),
> >
> >The NC therefore resolves that:
> >The stability of universal Internet is in danger and request
> >ICANN to take immediate actions to update ccTLD name servers entries.
> >
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00035.html
>
>
> --
>
> __________________
> Stuart Lynn
> President and CEO
> ICANN
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Tel: 310-823-9358
> Fax: 310-823-8649
> 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
>

- --
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, 16 Sep 2002 18:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, M. Stuart Lynn wrote:

> .. Three of the ccTLD requests for migration have not yet been completed
> because the ccTLD operators have (despite repeated requests) failed to
> cooperate in allowing the IANA to perform technical checks as provided
> by longstanding IANA policy.  See the FAQs at
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> <http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm> for a description
> that we recently posted summarizing for ccTLD managers the policy, its
> longstanding basis (documented back to RFC 1591 in March 1994), and the
> means by which those seeking to change the policy should proceed.

Longstanding? No. By-ICANN fiat? Yes.  Technical foundation: Absent.

This so-called "longstanding" policy appeared as if by magic from
ICANN/IANA (can you tell the difference? I guess is that the ICANN label
means that there is a least a pretense, albeit usually merely a pretense,
of public comment.)

RFC 1591 says nothing about requiring zone transfer access so that
ICANN/IANA may dredge to an unlimited degree in the subsidiary zone's
data.

The extremely limited validation that is needed to check that a DNS
delegation works can easily be done by running actual DNS queries rather
than by demanding the right to rummage through a ccTLD (or gTLD's) entire
database.

It inconsistent for ICANN to claim on one hand that net stability (a term
never defined by ICANN) requires that ICANN intrude into the zone files of
ccTLDs to evaluate the "quality" of that zone data while on the other hand
that that apparently long delays (such as have occurred with .nz) have no
such impact on net stability.

I would like to know the *precise* techical basis for the assertions made
in http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm that flaws in
subsidiary zones (such as a ccTLD) can have a negative impact on the
parent zone.  (A variation of this same assertion has been made with
regard to the euphonically named NTEPPTF report.)  As far as I can tell,
such claims are specious and without merit.

If DNS were as feeble and weak as ICANN asserts then the net would be open
to a vast denial of service attack - bad people could bring down the net
simply by building incorrect zone files.  But for more than a decade
people have been building bad zone files, creating lame delegations, and
pointing NS and glue records into never-never land.  Yet DNS and the net
still run.  Why?  Because in DNS, the flow of control is from the top down
(the way ICANN likes) rather than from the bottom up.  Errors in
incorrectly configured subsidiary zones do not propogate upwards.

The limit to ICANN's needs for quality in root data is merely to ensure 
that the delegation records for a subsidiary zone (e.g. a ccTLD) are 
correct and that any glue records are valid.

As usual, ICANN looks for reasons to tread where ICANN ought not be
treading - ICANN is like a telephone repairman who insists that repairing
your home telephone requires that he have unlimited ability to inspect the
bedroom and other private living quarters.

To withhold updates to ccTLD delegation information because the ccTLD
operators refuse to acceed to unjustifiable and excessive intrusions from
ICANN is improper.

		--karl--

- --
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 #1420
*************************