Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #143
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, September 6 2000         Volume 01 : Number 143

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

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 11:26:55 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Offense

Request to the GA Chair's:

I hereby publicly object to the odious offense to each and
every human, when targetting Norwegians.

Elisabeth Porteneuve
born in Poland
- --

> From [email-masked] Tue Sep  5 09:26 MET 2000
> X-Sender: [email-masked] (Unverified)
> Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 22:07:52 -0700
> To: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
> From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> 
> 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
> 
> 
- --
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 04:12:39 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Harald's comment discussed on the EU list

Hello Joop,

Monday, September 04, 2000, 8:56:34 PM, you wrote:

> 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 

The IDNO should not be added.  It is not a constituency, and as it
stands it should not be eligible to be a constituency.

No "organization" should have constituency status bestowed on it.
That is not what a constituency is or how a constituency should be
setup.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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 06:48:51 -0700 
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

This is a posting from NANOG, a forum that I follow regularly. Most of
you know what NANOG is. In this case, it brings a point home; The IESG
and the IAB has been getting further and further away from practical
network operations. From following the NANOG discussions, neither body
is held in very much esteem by the NetOps folks. Why is that? Maybe it
is a too large dose of theoretical politicking? ... something along the
lines of RFC2826 or the IAB comments to the ICANN, which had zero
technical merit?

Folks don't generally discuss these things unless they perceive a
problem. I actually agree with Sean here, in that, the IAB et al, need
to get back to having a clue, or at least half of one. The last bunch of
emanations from the IAB were pure politics, with zero operational
content.

What is significant here is that, for the first time since I've been on
the NANOG list (some four years), the senior members are promoting a
campaign to get NANOG members to volunteer participation in the IETF.
This is so far out of normal character that I almost couldn't believe
it. But, this thread is some 10 postings long and growing.

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 6:16 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: bring sense to the ietf - volunteer for nomcom
> 
> | I don't know
> | if operators are finding the IETF less useful
> 
> The IETF has at least since CIDRD not really been on the best
> of terms with operators.   It is very clear that there is essentially
> no conversation happening between operators and the IPNGWG, 
> for example,
> and there are other working groups which are nearly as 
> out-of-touch with
> operators' realities.
> 
> Moreover, the IESG and the IAB have generally also been bereft
> of much operator input.
> 
> Volunteering for NOMCOMM and making sure operators have a chance
> to influence the selection of the IESG and IAB may help bring
> at least those bodies half a clue, and ideally help make the IETF
> a little more relevant to those of us actually building the Internet
> that those bodies seek to "standardize" and "architect".
> 
> The other alternative is to maintain a running P.R. war between
> the I* organization which is simply wrong, and those of us who
> have to explain to our investors why they are wrong.  That 
> takes work too.

- --
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 16:11:15 +0200
From: "Alf Hansen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Simon,

I am sorry, I have presented my view in a way that can easily be
misunderstood.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Higgs [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 5. september 2000 01:38
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Roeland M.J. Meyer; [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).

My intention was not to force anybody. The .no ccTLD registry is not an ISP.
We are just managing a domain name space. What I mean is that the .no ccTLD
will recognize the ICANN unique a.root and not rcognize alt.roots, unless
specificly agreed with both parties.

This means that if someone uses our DN servers, they can be sure that
uniquness in the Global Internet is taken care of. This is what I meant with
"adding some quality".

I am sorry that I expressed myself unclear.

> 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.

Quote from the IAB-document:

"This does not preclude private networks from operating their own private
name spaces, but if they wish to make use of names uniquely defined for
the global Internet, they have to fetch that information from the global
DNS naming hierarchy, and in particular from the coordinated root servers
of the global DNS naming hierarchy."

Anyone can of course use whichever DN server they like, but if they use
ours, they can be certain that they fetch the information from "the global
DNS naming hierarchy, and in particular from the coordinated root servers
of the global DNS naming hierarchy".

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

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: Tue,  5 Sep 2000 19:01:43 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: UDRP bad decisions (RE: [ga] Candidate positions on UDRP)

Jamie,

I just replied to a similar post on NonCom arguing that maybe the 
expertise to provide examples and criteria is in the DNSO.
Maybe the way to go is a WG to prepare recommandations to be forwarded 
to ICANN.

Maybe this is also a chance for DNSO to get propositive again ;>).

Regards
Roberto

>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
>
>
>
>
- --
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 19:26:43 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Root [Was: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member]

Roeland,

I still think that we are talking about two different things, here, 
because if there are in the world two TLD Registries that manage the 
same TLD string, thinking that they are the authoritative one, the root 
server managers have the option of choosing one or the other. Eventually
, not all will choose the same.

Anyway, I give up.

Since there may be only four or five of us still interested in pursuing 
the matter, and hundreds of others held hostage of this conversation, I 
propose we continue it in Marina del Rey next November, drinking the 
beer I missed a couple of years ago not having been able to participate 
in the "California meeting" with Esther.

Regards
Roberto

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

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

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 05:10:01 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Free Speech Using Domain Names

Hi Again

I just noticed that somebody named Jack Weigand is the registrant of the
following domain name:

Domain Name: things-go-better-with-coke.com

Administrative Contact:
Weigand, John (JW102-AWR) [email-masked]
14 Basswood Dr.
Mountaintop, PA 18707
US
Ph: 570-868-8358 FAX: 570-868-5218

He runs a business called Weigand Combat Handguns, Inc at:

http://www.jackweigand.com/

Hm . .

 Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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 14:12:47 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: UDRP bad decisions (RE: [ga] Candidate positions on UDRP)

The creation of a working group to address this seems like a good idea
to me.  In the working group B discussions, there seemed to be
recognition that there were important limitations on the trademark
owners rights in the use of a string in a domain.  Many of the panel
members show very little recognition of this.  I am somewhat optimistic
that we could have agreement on some important points, or at least,
frame the issues better.   If ICANN is going to have a policy on
trademarks and domains (and it does with the UDRP policy), it might as
well be a good one. 

 Jamie

Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> Jamie,
> 
> I just replied to a similar post on NonCom arguing that maybe the
> expertise to provide examples and criteria is in the DNSO.
> Maybe the way to go is a WG to prepare recommandations to be forwarded
> to ICANN.
> 
> Maybe this is also a chance for DNSO to get propositive again ;>).
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >

- -- 
James Love  mailto:[email-masked] http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
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 11:18:04 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Alf,

>I am sorry, I have presented my view in a way that can easily be
>misunderstood.

Me too. Let's move on. ;-)

> > 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).
>
>My intention was not to force anybody. The .no ccTLD registry is not an ISP.
>We are just managing a domain name space. What I mean is that the .no ccTLD
>will recognize the ICANN unique a.root and not rcognize alt.roots, unless
>specificly agreed with both parties.

OK. I'll try and make this simple. You are a publisher of information. That 
information is the .NO TLD zone file. This information is available to 
anyone who queries your TLD servers. Any DNS Server/Client that queries the 
.NO zone is similar to a consumer/subscriber/reader. From the standpoint of 
the publisher, your goal is make sure that everyone can view your 
publication, regardless of whomever is the distributor. It just happens 
that your distributor of choice is ICANN and the USG-root, and you want to 
give them a monopoly (it may not be in your best interest, but it is 
definitely in their best interest).

 From the consumer's perspective, other distributors exist. These 
distributors also subscribe to the USG-root. They get your publication 
(.NO) included with that subscription, and then they add in their own 
content and distribute that. The consumer (the DNS Server/Client) picks the 
best, most reliable, distributor to provide them publication service. Do 
you see anything here that parallels real life here?

The oldest distributor is the USG-root. It has the market share. It appears 
to most people to be unable to move into the 21st Century. Some new 
distributors have decided to enter the distribution market and provide 
competition because they see a market need remaining unfulfilled.

The IAB's official response is to say there is only one distributor, and 
the consumer's needs are irrelevant - consequently there is no need to 
address or rectify the underlying problem. As a result, the competition 
continue to gain market share everyday.

Jon Postel's goal was to introduce competition to enhance the reliability 
and utility of the DNS. Our goal is to prevent it from fracturing from the 
competitive interests of that new competition.

>This means that if someone uses our DN servers, they can be sure that
>uniquness in the Global Internet is taken care of. This is what I meant with
>"adding some quality".

Unfortunately, this only applies to your TLD servers (or DNS servers within 
your control). It does not apply to those who are just querying your 
published zones.

Look at it from another perspective. The .NO ccTLD (the same is true for 
any other TLD) has absolutely no choice in who recognizes it and who 
doesn't. It can make agreements with any set of root servers. You may think 
it prudent to only deal with ICANN for inclusion in the USG-root. Right 
now, the only organization charging a fee to you is ICANN. It might be 
prudent for you to make agreements with other "distributors" who will 
guarantee in writing to distribute the .NO zone without such a fee. Your 
obligation in that agreement should be limited to informing the other party 
of any changes to the ns glue for the .NO zone. Build stability.

> > 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.
>
>Quote from the IAB-document:
>
>"This does not preclude private networks from operating their own private
>name spaces, but if they wish to make use of names uniquely defined for
>the global Internet, they have to fetch that information from the global
>DNS naming hierarchy, and in particular from the coordinated root servers
>of the global DNS naming hierarchy."

That's ambiguous. It just describes how DNS works. Each alt.root could be 
considered a unique name space and it would apply equally in that context. 
RFC2826 provides almost as much clarity for operators of non-unique name 
spaces as RFC1591's famous "It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs 
will be created."

>Anyone can of course use whichever DN server they like, but if they use
>ours, they can be certain that they fetch the information from "the global
>DNS naming hierarchy, and in particular from the coordinated root servers
>of the global DNS naming hierarchy".

So then they get a limited sub-set of all the possible published zones. 
What do you think will happen when the public find this out?

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: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 23:43:27 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Simon,
At 20:18 05/09/00, you wrote:
>Alf,
>>This means that if someone uses our DN servers, they can be sure that
>>uniquness in the Global Internet is taken care of. This is what I meant with
>>"adding some quality".
>
>Unfortunately, this only applies to your TLD servers (or DNS servers 
>within your control). It does not apply to those who are just querying 
>your published zones.

This is not even true. Let me explain what I plan to install in Stavanger, 
sometime next spring:

I operate "parallel clusters" in my technology jargon. This means that we 
use groups of machines duplicating their web sites (tow or three). Each 
group has a master nameserver targeting hosts in his "cluster" (group). 
This means that no one really knows which cluster a call will hit. If one 
cluster fails, the other provides transparent hot stand-by. This allows us 
to work on a machine in just stopping its "named" (the nameserver).

When I install a parallel cluster in Stavanger, I will get a norwegian 
domain name and I will operate two name servers: DNS1.JEFSEY.NO and 
DNS2.JEFSEY.NO.

It is my priviledge to decide when and if I update my sites. Right?  If I 
stop DNS1.JEFSEY.NO, DNS2.JEFSEY.NO will take over and reroute the calls to 
different pages of may be different content.

While I am in your zone. Actually it will be *your* DNS passing information 
to *your* switcher which will make it to route calls to different IP addresses.

Alf, this is the way the DNS is designed. You can try as mauch as you want: 
Internet is not a centrally operated network. This is why no one owns 
Internet, not even Jon Postel or the ICANN, but the users.

The money trick is to make the user to ignore it: otherwise why would he 
pay?  BTW you have been the first to rise the question: do ccTLD pay the 
ICANN bills?  No because they say we did not *delegate* a job to the ICANN: 
who is the owner, onlythe owner can *delegate*.

ccTLD's clear attitude shows us the way.
BTW if ICANN says "you do not pay, you go out of the root", be sure you 
will get accepted on alt.root for Norwegian to still use Internet.

The day you accept that, you may the address the real question: "if the 
user may use the internet the way he wants, how will I get my money?"
This is a more important since you provide him with other services. But 
should solve it since you start thinking on sound basis.
Jefsey

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

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

Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 09:48:02 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Admin] Re: [ga] Offense

At 11:26 05/09/2000 +0200, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
>Request to the GA Chair's:
>
>I hereby publicly object to the odious offense to each and
>every human, when targetting Norwegians.

The list monitor has considered the matter.
The remark that triggered the complaint,

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

failed to observe a minimum of decorum; implied accusations of potentially 
aiding and abetting in mass murder is neither in good taste nor relevant to 
the business of the GA.

However, the offender promptly apologized for his offense:

> > 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.

The list monitor is willing to assume for now that the offender has 
realized that this argument was inconsistent with a civilized discourse on 
the issues,
and will not take any further action at this time.

             Harald Tveit Alvestrand
             List monitor

- --
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 #143
************************