Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1431
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Sunday, September 22 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1431

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

Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 09:55:49 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Business Constituency

>
> On a more serious note, would folks support an individual domain name
> holders constituency, where voting weight was determined by:
>
> [a formula]

It is a certainty that domain name holders would, since they are the ones
most directly impacted by ICANN policies.  I've never understood the entire
mindset that divides the world into registries and registrars on the one
side, and then IP holders and "businesses" on the other side, and leaves out
domain registrants.  Domain registrants, contrary to this ridiculous notion
that there is some nebulous and unorkable body of "internet users" are THE
end users of significance, and as you point out, they are readily defined
and identified by the domain registration data.  And if that data is somehow
insufficient to figure out who they are, then how on earth are they parties
to domain registration contracts?

Of course it makes sense that domain registrants are a natural part of any
process relating to the terms of domain registration contracts.  The fact
that it makes sense is one reason to believe that no participant in the
"ICANN process" will ever understand it.

- --
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: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 11:40:46 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: in response to a question about a letter  regarding ICANN reform

Joanna, since the link didn't resolve, and I couldn't see the letter to be sure it was the 
one I thought it was... etc. 

However, I can only speak for one company who signed on. We have an internal policy review process and the letter was reviewed through that process and agreed to. 

Each of the other authorizers is responsible for their own process.  They apparently agreed with the concepts in the letter. 

What else is in question?

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 12:02 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: in response to a question about a letter regarding ICANN
reform

Marilyn,
I take that as a yes to my question about your authorship of the letter.
Apologies for the earlier bad link. Please answer Danny's questions about
how each organization was authorized by its members to arrive at the
decision to support the contents of the letter.

Thanks,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 3:27 PM
> To: Joanna Lane; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: in response to a question about a letter regarding ICANN reform
>
>
> Joanna, couldn't get the link to resolve. But, I'd like to be
> responsive to your question.
>
> I changed the subject because I don't agree with the
> interpretation conveyed by the former subject line. :-) It seemed
> better to have a more neutral subject line so that we can
> facilitate an open discussion about any questions.
>
> SO, I will note that if you are asking about a letter which
> includes the names of several companies and associations
> addressed to Sec. Donald Evans, DOC, regarding views on the
> Evolution and Reform process,  and has AT&T's name along with
> several companies, associations, etc. and it involved AT&T's view
> and position on ICANN issues, then I would be the appropriate contact.
>
> The letter from these groups was a joint collaboration by the
> parties who signed it.  So, many parties contributed to the
> concepts of the initial drafting, and edits to achieve a  final
> version which could reflect the views of such a wide group of parties.
>
> I'm interested though in your thought that is was strange not to
> have names of individuals. In my experience, it is not strange at
> all for organizations to lend their organizational names, since
> really, when it comes down to positions, they are the positions
> of a company, organization, or group, not just a private view of
> an individual employee of such a group.
>
> So, even though some  of us might  have a private view, it is
> really the view of a business, or organization or association
> that gets conveyed in such a letter.
>
> Does that help? Let  me know if you have further questions. Marilyn
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 5:07 AM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN, The Troika & Fraud
>
>
> Marilyn,
> Did you write this letter?. If not, do you know who did? It seems odd that
> it is not signed by any individual.
>
> > Upon taking a closer look at the private sector letter (posted at
> > http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/private-sector-organiz
> > ations-to-us
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
>

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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 09:23:11 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] hardware problems with forum machine

The forum machine (http://forum.icann.org) is experiencing serious
hardware problems, and will be taken offline today.  We will have it
back up as soon as possible.

Kent

- -- 
Kent Crispin, Technical Systems Manager, ICANN       [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: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 10:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: in response to a question about a letter  regarding ICANN reform

"Jeff",

- --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
>   Yes Marilyn, it would seem that Danny's questions do demand a
> direct answer so as to verify the varsity of your letter as you
> were speaking in the names of stakeholders in said letter.

<snip>

> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)

This cuts both ways. You purport to speak in the names of 127K
stakeholders in all of your correspondences, yet that "organization"
appears to have no website, no way to join, no newsletter, no real
members, no domain names, nada.

Why don't you provide some direct answers, without delay, to verify for
us that which you insist upon Marilyn? (I'm 100% confident that Marilyn
is a real person, and represents AT&T!; can't say the same about you 
and "INEGroup"). Namely:

1. What's the website of INEGroup?
2. How does one join INEGroup?
3. Who are some real members of INEGroup, excluding yourself?
4. Does INEGroup own any domain names? If so, provide 1 example.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.GlobalDomination.com/ <<-- yes, I own this ;)

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 15:18:00 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Pigheadedness

Dear Stuart and Vint,

Thank you for conveying the impression that the ICANN Board is being 
responsive to the concerns of the community by way of the message you posted 
to the Names Council on the development of policy regarding nameserver 
updates, posted at: 
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cerf-lynn-letter-to-names-council-20sep02.

htm

I have noted that you have not declared your intent to immediately resolve 
the problem at hand, and have instead proposed the stalling tactic of 
claiming a need to explore the broader issues while awaiting an interim 
recommendation from the Committee on Security and Stability and/or from the 
DNSO Name Council before you authorize the IANA to update the name servers as 
requested.

You have already been advised by respected and concerned members of the 
technical community that your refusal to implement these changes constitutes 
a threat to the stability of the Internet (both in recent messages and 
through the unanimous Bucharest Communique of the ccTLD Managers).  

As you have not demonstrated any harm or inordinately grave risk associated 
with making these name server updates, why not end this infantile standoff 
and make the requested changes immediately?  We can all debate these other 
matters at a later point when ICANN ceases to threaten the stability of the 
Internet through its willful inaction.

Best regards,
Danny

- --
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: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 15:55:36 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: in response to a question about a letter  regarding ICANN reform

Geroge and all assembly members,

George Kirikos wrote:

> "Jeff",
>
> --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >   Yes Marilyn, it would seem that Danny's questions do demand a
> > direct answer so as to verify the varsity of your letter as you
> > were speaking in the names of stakeholders in said letter.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
>
> This cuts both ways. You purport to speak in the names of 127K
> stakeholders in all of your correspondences, yet that "organization"
> appears to have no website, no way to join, no newsletter, no real
> members, no domain names, nada.

  Hummm?  I am at a loss as to how you came to such an incorrect
conclusion.  It is true that INEGroup has no ONE web site.  We
share web space with a number of or members that provide that
web presence.  I have posted those on a number of occasions to this
forum.  Perhaps you didn't take particular note...

  As to joining, I am not directly involved with that, but if you or
anyone is interested just send me a post via E-Mail and either I
or one of our area recruiting folks will take it from there.  I also have
stated this on this forum a number of times before as well.  For the
ICANN forums that are interactive such as the DNSO GA list,
I usually handle interested stakeholders that are interested in joining.

>
>
> Why don't you provide some direct answers, without delay, to verify for
> us that which you insist upon Marilyn? (I'm 100% confident that Marilyn
> is a real person, and represents AT&T!; can't say the same about you
> and "INEGroup"). Namely:

  I don't know Marilyn personally.  I have never met her or you for that
matter.  So as a matter of literal fact I cannot say that either of you
exist.
But I except that you do regardless.  Like most of the participants on this

and other ICANN forums, many have never physically met.  This in no
way indicates that they do not exist however.  To purport such is
frankly inconsistent with reality, George.

>
>
> 1. What's the website of INEGroup?

See above and archives of this forum..

>
> 2. How does one join INEGroup?

Again see above and archives of this forum

>
> 3. Who are some real members of INEGroup, excluding yourself?

  I don't know all of them of course.  But they are all registered with the

Federal election commission (FEC.gov) please submit, as I would have to
a FOIA request to obtain all of the members names and other non-private
and personal information.

>
> 4. Does INEGroup own any domain names? If so, provide 1 example.

  INEGroup is not a corporation, which I have informed all the members
of this the DNSO GA forum several times before.  We are a legal
association,
like several of the BC's member organizations, the IETF and so forth...
All of our US members are registered voters in their respective states.
Most of our EU members are also registered voters, but not all.  As is
part of our charter I nor any specific member or directors may provide
any personal or private information regarding other members with our a
court order from the proper jurisdiction or similar in other countries
and/or jurisdictions.

  INEGRoup is not now nor has ever been a ICANN Constituency
as the BC is.  Yet we do represent our members in many areas
of their interests in Internet affairs.

  I hope this answers your questions or anyone else's on this forum.  If
not please feel free to ask me whatever you feel you wish to know
and I will do all I can to answer your questions.  I would suggest
that you do so offlist as such may be considered off topic and I do not
wish to use up my 5 post limit in answering what I have already answered
several times before, and again here in this response.

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.GlobalDomination.com/ <<-- yes, I own this ;)
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com

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: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 16:58:28 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Wilful disregard? Was Danny's: Re: [ga] Pigheadedness

Danny, Stuart, and all assembly members or other interested parties,

  I have changed the subject line of this post in my response here
so as to lesson the "emotiveness" of Danny's original subject line
in hopes that a more productive exchange can be achieved.

  Indeed Danny's question (See below) is of relevance in a number
of aspects.  Some of those aspects are obvious, or should be, others
may not be so obvious.

  Danny refers to: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/ and possibly,
http://www.icann.org/presentations/crocker-bucharest-27jun02.pps
in his question as to the recommendations he and the Bucharest Communiqué of the
ccTLD Managers suggested.  Yet these suggested recommendations have yet to
be vetted to the Stakeholder/user community.  Why has this not occurred?

  In you letter which Danny kindly provided the UL for below, you Stuart
state: "Considering that this examination has until now tended to be done
by the IANA only when a TLD    nameserver is being transferred to a
new operating site, we believe it is appropriate to ask the Committee
on Security and Stability (SAC) to look into the matter and to develop
a longer-term recommendation as to what would be the most sound
technical practices to follow to promote better DNS    stability; and
to provide an interim recommendation while the broader issues are
being explored. Since    this, however, involves domain names, we
would want to inquire whether the DNSO concurs with this
approach before asking the SAC to undertake this analysis."

  As this situation does involve Domain Names and the registrants of
those Domain names as well as the users indirectly of those domain names,
would it not be necessary as a matter of transparency that they as
stakeholders should play an important role in deciding what long term
approach or practice to be made as policy?

And further  you state Stuart...

"Historically, the goal of the practice has been to improve the quality
of data in the DNS. Pursuing the RFC 1591 policy that the IANA
should make checks to verify nameserver "operational status and
database accuracy", the IANA follows the practice of obtaining
and technically reviewing TLD zone files as part of the technical
checks it performs when nameserver changes are requested.
Although checks for the most severe database misconfigurations
can be performed by other means, many less severe errors have
 been detected through this review. The ordinary result of finding
one or more of these less severe errors is to proceed with the
root-zone change, to alert the ccTLD manager of the error,
and to request that it be remedied."

  Isn't it true, that APNIC is undergoing a ICANN generated project
to re-wright RFC1591?  ( I noticed that the announcement on this recently
disappeared from the APNIC.NET web site )...
Could you elaborate on this event a bit Stuart or Vint?

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Stuart and Vint,
>
> Thank you for conveying the impression that the ICANN Board is being
> responsive to the concerns of the community by way of the message you posted
> to the Names Council on the development of policy regarding nameserver
> updates, posted at:
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cerf-lynn-letter-to-names-council-20sep02.
>
> htm
>
> I have noted that you have not declared your intent to immediately resolve
> the problem at hand, and have instead proposed the stalling tactic of
> claiming a need to explore the broader issues while awaiting an interim
> recommendation from the Committee on Security and Stability and/or from the
> DNSO Name Council before you authorize the IANA to update the name servers as
> requested.
>
> You have already been advised by respected and concerned members of the
> technical community that your refusal to implement these changes constitutes
> a threat to the stability of the Internet (both in recent messages and
> through the unanimous Bucharest Communique of the ccTLD Managers).
>
> As you have not demonstrated any harm or inordinately grave risk associated
> with making these name server updates, why not end this infantile standoff
> and make the requested changes immediately?  We can all debate these other
> matters at a later point when ICANN ceases to threaten the stability of ths:e
> Internet through its willful inaction.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny
>
> --
> 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: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 17:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: in response to a question about a letter  regarding ICANN reform

"Jeff",

- --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
>   Hummm?  I am at a loss as to how you came to such an incorrect
> conclusion.  It is true that INEGroup has no ONE web site.  We
> share web space with a number of or members that provide that
> web presence.  I have posted those on a number of occasions to this
> forum.  Perhaps you didn't take particular note...

My crack team of one thousand monkeys are at their keyboards just ready
to visit some of those websites. All we need is a *single* example...in
the meantime, I suppose they'll have to continue working on the next
great play...
 
>   As to joining, I am not directly involved with that, but if you or
> anyone is interested just send me a post via E-Mail and either I
> or one of our area recruiting folks will take it from there.  I also

You are much too humble, Jeff! "Not directly involved"? It is my
sincere belief that none of the machinations of INEGroup go on without
you knowing about them. Without you, it would simply crumble, like a
cookie that's been dipped into milk. Don't underestimate your pivotal
role to the ongoing success of INEGroup!

> But I except that you do regardless.  Like most of the participants
> on this
> and other ICANN forums, many have never physically met.  This in no
> way indicates that they do not exist however.  To purport such is
> frankly inconsistent with reality, George.

I think no one in this forum has thought more about the nature of
reality than yourself, Jeff. If someone is to be considered an 'expert'
on being able to tell the difference between reality and delusion, I
can think of no one else more qualified. I must defer to your learned
opinion on this matter.

> > 1. What's the website of INEGroup?
> 
> See above and archives of this forum..

Here's a kind suggestion: Register INEGroup.com! (it's unregistered as
I write this; our friend Ross of Tucows already has the .net ;) ).
Someone lend Jeff $10, to give them a focal point for their
organization...before some evil cybersquatter or porn-napper takes
their .com. You might even want to use http://www.domainsbyproxy.com/
(I had to slip in some domain stuff to this creative writing...) to
maintain your privacy...

> > 2. How does one join INEGroup?
> 
> Again see above and archives of this forum
> 
> >
> > 3. Who are some real members of INEGroup, excluding yourself?
> 
>   I don't know all of them of course.  But they are all registered
> with the
> Federal election commission (FEC.gov) please submit, as I would have
> to
> a FOIA request to obtain all of the members names and other
> non-private
> and personal information.

Freedom of Information Act? I thought only the government responds to
that.... A-HA! I understand now, INEGroup, government, it all makes so
much sense now, yes!....is your organization behind the black
helicopters that fly above my house?? Eeeeeek! Yikes!! I shall need to
tread more carefully....

While I have your attention, please ask the pilots of those helicopters
to say above 2500 feet. GlobalDomination.com's fleets of flying monkeys
(the ones who graduated from the typing pool) and carrier pidgeons have
been complaining about the gusts lately. Failure to do so would impact
communications with our 285,693.439 members (some of our members are
pregnant, so we count each fetus in fractions of the gestation period,
rounded to three decimal places for convenience). Don't mess with our
monkeys, as they have control of http://www.NuclearBomb.com/ !!!

> > 4. Does INEGroup own any domain names? If so, provide 1 example.
> 
>   INEGroup is not a corporation, which I have informed all the
> members

Hmmm, perhaps your signature needs revision:

> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.

I note there is an "INC." there. Perhaps it stands for "Incredulous",
though.

> Most of our EU members are also registered voters, but not all.  As
> is
> part of our charter I nor any specific member or directors may
> provide
> any personal or private information regarding other members with our
> a
> court order from the proper jurisdiction or similar in other
> countries
> and/or jurisdictions.

I believe I saw similar charters in the movie "Fight Club". "The first
rule of fight club is, you do not talk about fight club."
 
Tongue in cheek, eating bananas,

Head Monkey,

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

P.S. My apologies to gentle readers for feeding the trolls...couldn't
resist. :) As http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame29.html suggests,
though, one day Jeff will fulfill his destiny, and seek out new
waters... :) 

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 20:16:56 -0400
From: Allan Liska <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: in response to a question about a letter  regarding ICANN reform

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

Hello Jeff,

Saturday, September 21, 2002, 6:55:36 PM, you wrote:

JW>   Hummm?  I am at a loss as to how you came to such an incorrect
JW> conclusion.  It is true that INEGroup has no ONE web site.  We
JW> share web space with a number of or members that provide that
JW> web presence.  I have posted those on a number of occasions to this
JW> forum.  Perhaps you didn't take particular note...

Incorrect, wrong, and a lie.  I searched through the GA archives this
afternoon to see if you have ever provided a single URL that is
representative of you, or the INEGroup, and there is none -- although,
feel free to prove me wrong.  Also, if the INEGroup is an "INC", in
other words a corporation, why do you not have a D&B number?  All
corporations have a D&B number after all.

There are some urls mentioned, but these seem to be domains registered
by other people to mock the INEGroup.

JW> and other ICANN forums, many have never physically met.  This in no
JW> way indicates that they do not exist however.  To purport such is
JW> frankly inconsistent with reality, George.

No, but you are quite inconsistent with reality, Jeff.

>> 3. Who are some real members of INEGroup, excluding yourself?

JW>   I don't know all of them of course.  But they are all registered with the

JW> Federal election commission (FEC.gov) please submit, as I would have to
JW> a FOIA request to obtain all of the members names and other non-private
JW> and personal information.

Why would they have to be registered with the FEC?  That does not make
any sense.  The FEC only oversees campaign finance, it does not
oversee voters themselves.  When a voter registers it is at the state
level only...each maintains an independent database of voters within
that state.

>>
>> 4. Does INEGroup own any domain names? If so, provide 1 example.

JW>   INEGroup is not a corporation, which I have informed all the members
JW> of this the DNSO GA forum several times before.

Interesting, and yet your sig says:

"Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC."

INC = incorporation.  You may be a non-profit corporation, but you are
still a corporation.  Or, you are not a non-profit corporation, and
your signature is incorrect, which is it?

JW>  We are a legal
JW> association,
JW> like several of the BC's member organizations, the IETF and so forth...
JW> All of our US members are registered voters in their respective states.
JW> Most of our EU members are also registered voters, but not all.  As is
JW> part of our charter I nor any specific member or directors may provide
JW> any personal or private information regarding other members with our a
JW> court order from the proper jurisdiction or similar in other countries
JW> and/or jurisdictions.

A legal association?  So, are you a BAR?  What do you mean by legal
association -- one comprised of members of the legal community, or one
that is legally registered.  I am pretty sure it is not the latter
option...

Also, what the hell does being a registered voter have to do with anything?
How do you know that all members of your organization are registered
voters?

Jeff -- there are real problems with ICANN, and things that need to be
changed.  The problem is there are too many nutcases, like yourself,
screaming from the ceiling about things which are either irrelevant
or which you have no real technical grasp.  People like you hurt the
cause of people who are really trying to make honest changes, and
attempting to engage ICANN in honest debate.

You should do yourself, and the members of this list a favor and
unsubscribe.  Perhaps then a serious debate can be held.

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

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

iQCVAwUAPY0L+n+n87oa5a9VAQEJ8wP/UC3f+X0/DKEk3tks3N0gF9Com4vm3Ai5
Z6KlAJq1/i7KdOQUBfB2wxrO17drrny6jgHMcxTuTJ7e++ts6K8PVkgf7IdCJTA7
bdRGxv2cQZ+S4bbt3iZ5NZd/Sm/s6sCo66VNAWoQx5db94AQIZffOWj+oDMfHRQF
efc/gWQXNuM=
=3ac6
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 21:44:52 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: "Historically, the goal of the practice has been to improve the quality of data in the DNS."

Jim and all assembly members,

  Jim , it would seem that despite your particular style, you are quite
correct here.  >;)

Jim Fleming wrote:

> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cerf-lynn-letter-to-names-council-20sep02.htm
> "Historically, the goal of the practice has been to improve the quality of data in the DNS. Pursuing the RFC 1591 policy that the
> IANA should make checks to verify nameserver "operational status and database accuracy", the IANA follows the practice of obtaining
> and technically reviewing TLD zone files as part of the technical checks it performs when nameserver changes are requested. Although
> checks for the most severe database misconfigurations can be performed by other means, many less severe errors have been detected
> through this review. The ordinary result of finding one or more of these less severe errors is to proceed with the root-zone change,
> to alert the ccTLD manager of the error, and to request that it be remedied."
>
> =======
>
> It should not take a rocket scientist to understand that the entire process can be highly automated with software.
>
> Adding layer upon layer of committees to perform a task, best done by computers, is absurd.
>
> One would hope that the new "adult supervision" being brought into the picture by the U.S. Government,
>
> would be able to see this in an instant and direct the root server operators under their control to bring their
>
> servers up to date. In fact, the TLD Managers can communicate directly to ALL root server operators to
>
> signal any changes, in case those TLD Managers do not have the simple software that is able to check TLD
>
> clusters on an ongoing basis, and report changes. Various web-based tools are available to check and
>
> confirm the results, for people that insist that humans have to be paid $250,000 per year to do this. This is
>
> likely a precursor to how the .ORG TLD will be managed. With $18,000,000 per year in revenue, there
>
> can be 72 people sitting around debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and all be
>
> very well-paid to do that, while the rest of the world asks, What do they do again ?
>
> http://root-dns.org/vuedig.htm
> http://www.analogx.com/contents/dnsdig.htm
>
> Jim Fleming
> 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer...
> http://www.netfilter.org/
> http://ipv8.dyndns.tv
> http://ipv8.yi.org
> http://ipv8.dyns.cx
> http://ipv8.no-ip.com
> http://ipv8.no-ip.org
> http://ipv8.no-ip.biz
> http://ipv8.no-ip.info
> http://ipv8.myip.us
> http://ipv8.dyn.ee
> http://ipv8.community.net.au
> http://ipv8.ods.org

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: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 23:44:27 -0400
From: Allan Liska <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: in response to a question about a letter  regarding ICANN reform

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

Hello Jeff,

Sunday, September 22, 2002, 1:00:29 AM, you wrote:

>>
>> Incorrect, wrong, and a lie.  I searched through the GA archives this
>> afternoon to see if you have ever provided a single URL that is
>> representative of you, or the INEGroup, and there is none -- although,
>> feel free to prove me wrong.

JW> See again you silly fool, here is the NTIA listing yet again:
JW> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/ineginc/ineginc.htm
JW> You can also do a search on Wired, and INternet.com as well...

JW>   So you are just again casting false aspersions a la WXW.

There are no domains that represent you, or the INEGroup in that
document. Not one, not a single solitary one.  Obviously you do not
even understand the concept of a domain name.  Let me explain it to
you:

A domain name consists of two parts, the TLD and the domain.  For
example, you could combine .COM TLD and a domain such as inegroup, to
create inegroup.com.

Once again Jeff, I would ask that if you cannot even grasp a concept
as simple as a domain perhaps you should buy a copy of O'Reilly's DNS
and BIND and read it...until then, please consider unsubscribing from
the list.

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

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

iQCVAwUAPY08nn+n87oa5a9VAQHqIAQA35M/eeuLeTw0o9VeynFnFMaBpId3zux6
Bi/5/fFp6sdm69XFHNt2rrettspLf7yy7Kl1tSTw5+dB6L2mWmfUZKMyfJnUnvlK
WTWZJM8F+GsqsfqVyfYqSidCJ3QVXH8U2WrBse6aCSglbDiLgjQKRn9HAT1BoSAr
3ct9+ilRbiA=
=qJrA
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 20:26:25 -0700
From: "M. Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

Dear Thomas:

Thank you for your note and your concern.

You may be aware of the note (appended) that Vint Cerf and I have 
sent to the Names Council. We believe it is important to have a 
considered technical review of this issue that takes all viewpoints 
into consideration.

Stuart
_____________

Dear Names Council:

Over the past few weeks, questions have arisen regarding the IANA
practice of obtaining and reviewing TLD zone files at the time of
changes in the nameservers listed for the TLD in the root zone. The
various points of view expressed suggest to us that it would be
productive to re-examine the objectives for this practice and to
consider alternative means by which those objectives might be reached.
The principal motivation for this practice has been to improve the
quality of the DNS service by validating the format of the
TLD zone files to ensure correct configuration.

Considering that this examination has until now tended to be done by
the IANA only when a TLD nameserver is being transferred to a new
operating site, we believe it is appropriate to ask the Committee on
Security and Stability (SAC) to look into the matter and to develop a
longer-term recommendation as to what would be the most sound technical
practices to follow to promote better DNS stability; and to provide an
interim recommendation while the broader issues are being explored.
Since this, however, involves domain names, we would want to enquire
whether the DNSO concurs with this approach before asking the SAC to
undertake this analysis.

Historically, the goal of the practice has been to improve the
quality of data in the DNS.  Pursuing the RFC 1591 policy that the
IANA should make checks to verify nameserver "operational status and
database accuracy", the IANA follows the practice of obtaining
and technically reviewing TLD zone files as part of the technical checks
it performs when nameserver changes are requested. Although checks for
the most severe database misconfigurations can be performed by other
means, many less severe errors have been detected through this review.
The ordinary result of finding one or more of these less severe errors
is to proceed with the root-zone change, to alert the ccTLD manager of
the error, and to request that it be remedied.

DNS data accuracy continues to be an important, and by some measures
increasingly urgent, goal.  Recent "Domain Health" surveys conducted
by Men & Mice <http://menandmice.com/6000/6350_eu_survey.html> and
<http://menandmice.com/6000/61_recent_survey.html> have reported
surprisingly high performance error rates in reviews of subdomains
within various TLDs.  While DNS quality at the TLD level appears to
be much better, discussions at the November 2001 ICANN security
meeting and the Domain Health surveys have demonstrated that it is
important that the community work continuously to maintain and improve
DNS quality.  Particularly with increasing requirements from the broader
society for security and trustworthiness within the DNS, it is important
for the ICANN community to develop and implement practices that promote
high-quality DNS data at all levels, and with a higher frequency than
only at times when nameserver changes are contemplated.

Although with cooperation from the TLD managers (which has historically
been quite high) the current IANA practice has served to locate and
allow correction of many DNS errors, recently four TLD managers have
denied the IANA download access to the zone files for their TLDs.
Without having the zone files, there is no reasonably practical method
for a third party to perform some checks of database accuracy.  This
disagreement has resulted in an unfortunate standoff situation that,
perversely, frustrates attempts to locate and correct TLD configuration
errors, and at the same time potentially introduces additional DNS data
errors through configuration mismatches between the DNS data in the root
zone (which remains unchanged) and the affected TLD zones (assuming the
TLD manager proceeds to change the TLD zone).

This debate has prompted some very helpful initial ideas from the
community regarding possible changes in practices that might be better
suited to achieve the goal of improved DNS data accuracy.  As pointed
out by Thomas Roessler
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg00206.html>, the current
timing of technical checks may not be optimally suited to the goal
of improving DNS data quality.  As one of us (Stuart) has pointed
out, a strong argument can be made that TLD integrity checks would
be more effective, and the process for making root-zone updates
streamlined, by developing a possibly distributed and delegated process
for performing TLD zone-file reviews on a periodic basis
rather than as part of technical checks performed at the time of
nameserver changes.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg00210.html>

It appears to us that the issues about what practices should be
followed by the IANA, TLD managers, and other participants in the
ICANN process to promote improved DNS data quality is one that is ripe
for examination.  We believe that technical focus of these issues
makes it appropriate to have at least the initial examination and
analysis conducted by the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory
Committee.

Because the issues also concern domain names (the focus of the DNSO),
however, we would like feedback about whether the Names Council believes
for any reason that it is inappropriate that they be referred to the
Security and Stability Advisory Committee.  Because an early resolution
of these issues would be helpful to all concerned, we would appreciate
your considering the appropriateness of the referral at your earliest
convenience.

Our mutual interest is to take the opportunity occasioned by these
discussions to encourage the development of more effective methods for
improving DNS data quality at all levels in the system.

Regards,

Vint Cerf
Chairman

Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
_______________
- --

At 3:49 PM +0200 9/19/02, Thomas Keller wrote:
>This mail is being sent on behalf of the Technical Advisory Council of
>DENIC (TACD) which represents the .de registrar community.
>
>Dear Stuart,
>
>with dismay the TACD has noticed that the crucial and long awaited
>changes of the root name servers for the zone .de have not taken place to the
>current day. It even appears that the whole process has come to a stop due to
>misunderstandings between ICANN in fulfillment of its IANA functions and  
>the Board of DENIC as well as other ccTLD registries.
>
>To judge about the reasons of the current misunderstanding is out of the
>scope of the TACD but the TACD strongly believes that a mere dispute can not
>be a reason for ICANN to deny a simple technical implementation for any ccTLD
>registry as long as this registry is acting in favor of the local internet
>community.
>
>Therefore the TACD would like to emphasize DENICs request to perform the
>necessary steps as soon as possible.
>
>Please note that not performing the requested changes is not only a
>severe political issue but also jeopardizes the german Internet related and
>Internet dependent industries. All internet business, not only in Germany, is
>built on a foundation of trust that all Internet services are 
>reliable and dealt
>with in a highly responsible manner. For the DNS as one of these 
>services, if not
>the most important one, not updating the root name servers is endangering this
>trust and might lead to cutbacks of Internet related business, 
>impacting  guiltless
>companies and employees. This is a situation which cannot be tolerated by
>TACD nor by the DENIC community which TACD represents.
>
>Out of the above mentioned reasons the TACD wants to urge ICANN to rethink its
>position on this issue and move their political playing field towards a ground
>where no uninvolved party may be harmed.
>
>Tom Keller on behalf of the Technical Advisory Council of DENIC
>
>-
>
>Thomas Keller
>
>Domain Services
>Schlund + Partner AG
>Erbprinzenstr. 4 - 12                                    Tel. 
>+49-721-91374-534
>76133 Karlsruhe, Germany                                 Fax 
>+49-721-91374-215
>http://www.schlund.de                                    [email-masked]     
>
>
>
>
>Am 16.09.2002 schrieb M. Stuart Lynn:
>>  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
>>
>
>gruss
>
>tom 
>        O /  
>       /|    o  
>       / \  \|/
>     wenn ein kind eine blume pflueckt ist das schoen.
>  wenn alle kinder eine blume pfluecken ist die wiese leer.
>
>
>
>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Untitled (????/----) (000738DB)

- -- 

__________________
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1431
*************************