Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1432
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Monday, September 23 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1432

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 14:01:41 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:57:45 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>On a more serious note, would folks support an individual domain name
>holders constituency, where voting weight was determined by: (...)
>
>So, a single member with, say, 100 domains would have 10 times the
>voting weight of a single member with 1 domain. This would prevent it
>from being controlled by large firms.

The issue is that firms should go to the Business Constituency - in my view,
the Individual Domain Name Holders should only be for true individuals, ie
people who have at least one domain registered to them (not to a company for
which they figure as the admin-c or other contact).

Said this, if you aim at true individuals, then there's no reason why one
individual owning more than one domain should weigh more than the others.
This also because in a number of ccTLDs individuals are limited to owning
one domain and no more (well, in many ccTLDs individuals can't even own a
domain).

About the relationship between ccTLD memberships and ICANN membership...
well, I guess that any organization wishing to represent individuals in
ICANN - domain name owners or simply users - should make deals with ccTLD
registries that already have individual memberships to exchange personal
data and offer free or almost-free registration to their members.
- -- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
- --------> http://bertola.eu.org/ - Archivio FAQ e molto altro... <--------
- --
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: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 13:18:26 -0400
From: "Steve Crocker" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [dnssac-comment] Wilful disregard? Was Danny's: Re: [ga]

Jeff,

We acknowledge your message to dnssac-comment re "Wilful disregard? Was
Danny's: Re: [ga] Pigheadedness."

Our committee is working on technical analyses and recommendations for
improving the security and stability of the DNS and address systems, and our
primary focus is on the technical structure.  It looks like the primary
focus on your message is relationships with the stakeholders, and that's
best addressed by others on your address list.

Steve Crocker
Chair, ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee

- --
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: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 15:05:30 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] hardware problems with forum machine

Dear Kent,

Thank you for letting us know of the hardware problems that you are 
experiencing with the Public Forum.  If my memory serves, the last time that 
we had a similar problem was when ICANN announced that they were killing the 
At-Large, and the ALSC forum mysteriously went down for at least three days.  
Now, the MoU extension is announced and the public can't immediately express 
its revulsion through the Public Forum process.  

How very strange that we didn't have these type of difficulties before you 
joined the ICANN Staff.  It must, however, just be pure coincidence that your 
hardware fails on each such occasion.  I'm sure none of us would deem you 
responsible, would we?   

- --
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: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 15:27:06 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

Vittorio and all assembly members,

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:57:45 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
>
> >On a more serious note, would folks support an individual domain name
> >holders constituency, where voting weight was determined by: (...)
> >
> >So, a single member with, say, 100 domains would have 10 times the
> >voting weight of a single member with 1 domain. This would prevent it
> >from being controlled by large firms.
>
> The issue is that firms should go to the Business Constituency - in my view,
> the Individual Domain Name Holders should only be for true individuals, ie
> people who have at least one domain registered to them (not to a company for
> which they figure as the admin-c or other contact).

  Well what about single propriortership businesses?

>
>
> Said this, if you aim at true individuals, then there's no reason why one
> individual owning more than one domain should weigh more than the others.

  Agreed.

>
> This also because in a number of ccTLDs individuals are limited to owning
> one domain and no more (well, in many ccTLDs individuals can't even own a
> domain).
>
> About the relationship between ccTLD memberships and ICANN membership...
> well, I guess that any organization wishing to represent individuals in
> ICANN - domain name owners or simply users - should make deals with ccTLD
> registries that already have individual memberships to exchange personal
> data and offer free or almost-free registration to their members.

  The problem in part with this Vittorio is that most ccTLD's doe not have
membership's so to speak...  Hence such an approach would be skewed
on this point alone...

>
> --
> vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> --------> http://bertola.eu.org/ - Archivio FAQ e molto altro... <--------
> --
> 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: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 15:37:35 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [dnssac-comment] Wilful disregard? Was Danny's: Re: [ga]

Steve and all assembly members or other interested parties,

Indeed!  Well Steve, the message/post that danny sent, was indirectly
dealing with the technical issues with respect to security
as they effect stakeholders.  One cannot simply separate the
two in many instances.  Hence the purpose in part for my post.

  Perhaps a more broad view as ICANN is suppose to do under the new
MoU would be advisable for the security and stability of the DNS and address
systems,
committee...  I hope that no offense is taken in my response here in it's
abrupt manner...

Steve Crocker wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> We acknowledge your message to dnssac-comment re "Wilful disregard? Was
> Danny's: Re: [ga] Pigheadedness."
>
> Our committee is working on technical analyses and recommendations for
> improving the security and stability of the DNS and address systems, and our
> primary focus is on the technical structure.  It looks like the primary
> focus on your message is relationships with the stakeholders, and that's
> best addressed by others on your address list.
>
> Steve Crocker
> Chair, ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee

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, 23 Sep 2002 02:39:16 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] hardware problems with forum machine

On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, at 15:05 [=GMT-0400], [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Kent,

> How very strange that we didn't have these type of difficulties before you
> joined the ICANN Staff.

Now, Danny, you haven't forgotten how badly the server for the atlarge
elections worked, back in 2000, have you? That was before Kent came on the
Staff.

- --
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: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 18:22:47 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] hardware problems with forum machine

I just work for a little iddy biddy little company.
but this one cracks me up.
How funny.
Who ever runs this program must be a totally incompetent boob.
I feel really bad for Kent to have to put up with such stupidity.
I bet Cerf is just beside himself with security dilemmas.
I hope they will sue the hardware provider and get compensated.
Oh my! just think they are running the Internet but cannot run a list server.  I
certainly hope the man in charge does not commit suicide, think of the disgrace
to his/family.
I feel so bad for them.
hihihihihihi
e

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, at 15:05 [=GMT-0400], [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Dear Kent,
>
> > How very strange that we didn't have these type of difficulties before you
> > joined the ICANN Staff.
>
> Now, Danny, you haven't forgotten how badly the server for the atlarge
> elections worked, back in 2000, have you? That was before Kent came on the
> Staff.
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 18:46:48 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] censoreship

The GA is again engaging in censorship.

I believe it is time to call for the beginning of new elections to we
are not late like last year.

Sincerely,
Eric

- --
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: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 20:40:48 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] hardware problems with forum machine

Eric and all assembly members,

  I got to think that there should have been a hot backup for this forum
Box.  Perhaps however as it is not critical, there is none.  But I really
don't know.  Perhaps Kent could enlighten us on that point..  Kent?

  In any event ICANN's technical expertise on a practical level has
been less than adequate for some time as Marc points out.  The very
fact that ICANN has had quite a number of incidents in keeping
their main Web site up also points this problem up.  Given that,
however how can we as stakeholders have or give any confidence
to ICANN in its technical roles when the basics seem to be
difficult for them too often?

[email-masked] wrote:

> I just work for a little iddy biddy little company.
> but this one cracks me up.
> How funny.
> Who ever runs this program must be a totally incompetent boob.
> I feel really bad for Kent to have to put up with such stupidity.
> I bet Cerf is just beside himself with security dilemmas.
> I hope they will sue the hardware provider and get compensated.
> Oh my! just think they are running the Internet but cannot run a list server.  I
> certainly hope the man in charge does not commit suicide, think of the disgrace
> to his/family.
> I feel so bad for them.
> hihihihihihi
> e
>
> Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, at 15:05 [=GMT-0400], [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Kent,
> >
> > > How very strange that we didn't have these type of difficulties before you
> > > joined the ICANN Staff.
> >
> > Now, Danny, you haven't forgotten how badly the server for the atlarge
> > elections worked, back in 2000, have you? That was before Kent came on the
> > Staff.
> >
> > --
> > 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, 23 Sep 2002 04:14:28 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, at 20:26 [=GMT-0700], M. Stuart Lynn wrote:

> 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.

The website you mention, offers a FREE download of a trial version of "DNS
Expert", which checks DNS zones for errors. I love everything free, so I
got myself the tool. Since I could not quickly think of any other domain
to check, I tried icann.org. The result:

8 (eight) errors.

And 1 (one) warning.

[Honesty compels me to add, that not all 8 errors constitute necessarily
faulty configurations in the zone file. Some are of the 'host is
unreachable' type. I guess these could be on the same segment of the ICANN
network on which the machine that does the public forum website (reported
down for a while) also lives.]

> errors through configuration mismatches between the DNS data in the root
> zone (which remains unchanged) and the affected TLD zones

This is exactly one of the errors in the ICANN.ORG zone... Pot, kettle,
black, blacker.

> 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.

ICANN could start with repairing its own zone? And then consider whether
it has any right to claim oversight over those of others, even if it does
the thing right itself?

- --
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: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 19:53:30 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

Double check your access protocol and you will find that only one of your
eight
have anything other than faulty configuration.
You are too charitable.  What the hell is an "expert" any ways?
Funny but the down site of the forum seems to be wrong.  it just does not take
anything in.
Hardware problem?  I think not, brainware problem more likely!
e

ps  Happy Children's' Tet to all our children. We all enjoy our Moon cake and
lucky money.

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, at 20:26 [=GMT-0700], M. Stuart Lynn wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> The website you mention, offers a FREE download of a trial version of "DNS
> Expert", which checks DNS zones for errors. I love everything free, so I
> got myself the tool. Since I could not quickly think of any other domain
> to check, I tried icann.org. The result:
>
> 8 (eight) errors.
>
> And 1 (one) warning.
>
> [Honesty compels me to add, that not all 8 errors constitute necessarily
> faulty configurations in the zone file. Some are of the 'host is
> unreachable' type. I guess these could be on the same segment of the ICANN
> network on which the machine that does the public forum website (reported
> down for a while) also lives.]
>
> > errors through configuration mismatches between the DNS data in the root
> > zone (which remains unchanged) and the affected TLD zones
>
> This is exactly one of the errors in the ICANN.ORG zone... Pot, kettle,
> black, blacker.
>
> > 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.
>
> ICANN could start with repairing its own zone? And then consider whether
> it has any right to claim oversight over those of others, even if it does
> the thing right itself?
>
> --
> 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, 23 Sep 2002 09:02:07 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 15:27:06 -0700, you wrote:

>> About the relationship between ccTLD memberships and ICANN membership...
>> well, I guess that any organization wishing to represent individuals in
>> ICANN - domain name owners or simply users - should make deals with ccTLD
>> registries that already have individual memberships to exchange personal
>> data and offer free or almost-free registration to their members.
>
>  The problem in part with this Vittorio is that most ccTLD's doe not have
>membership's so to speak...  Hence such an approach would be skewed
>on this point alone...

Of course this should not be the only approach to gather members - but it
could be a good one to save much outreach and management work in countries
where someone else is already doing it. And perhaps it could also push those
ccTLDs that still don't have individual memberships to create them.
- -- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
- --------> http://bertola.eu.org/ - Archivio FAQ e molto altro... <--------
- --
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, 23 Sep 2002 09:04:25 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] hardware problems with forum machine

On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 15:05:30 EDT, you wrote:

>How very strange that we didn't have these type of difficulties before you 
>joined the ICANN Staff.  It must, however, just be pure coincidence that your 
>hardware fails on each such occasion.  I'm sure none of us would deem you 
>responsible, would we?   

Generally speaking, one would imagine that an organization with the level of
exposure and budget that ICANN has would use at least n+1 redundant
facilities to avoid going offline with any service. One more web server is
not a significant cost for a budget measured in million dollars...
- -- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
- --------> http://bertola.eu.org/ - Archivio FAQ e molto altro... <--------
- --
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, 23 Sep 2002 10:06:38 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] IAB on ICANN Mission

Excerpt from IAB Response to ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee Second 
Interim Report:

IETF Protocol Parameters:

In its previous response the IAB disputed the assertion in the ICANN mission 
statement that the role of coordination of the allocation and assignment of 
protocol port and parameter numbers, and policy-development reasonably and 
appropriately related to these technical functions, forms an integral part of 
ICANN's mission.

The IAB notes that the interim report makes no mention of the stated IAB 
concerns regarding this component of the ICANN mission statement. The IAB 
remains deeply concerned that the role of the management of protocol 
parameter assignments for IETF Internet-Standard protocols is not being 
adequately distinguished from the deeper issues concerning the role of ICANN 
with respect to the operation of the domain name system and unicast IP 
address assignment.

As indicated in the previous response, this situation is not acceptable to 
the IAB.

Leslie Daigle.
Chair, Internet Architecture Board
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/iab-statement-20sep02.htm
- --
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 #1432
*************************