Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1433
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Tuesday, September 24 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1433

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

Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:12:17 -0400
From: Steve Metalitz <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: IPC on ALAC

I gleaned from Danny's post below that something was wrong with the IPC
members list archive.  I am not sure what it was but it has now been fixed,
and the postings since July now appear at
http://ipc.songbird.com/members-archive/.  I do not think the use of this
list constitutes much of a metric for representativeness but in any case it
is now functioning again.  Thanks to Danny for bringing this glitch to our
attention.   

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 12:55 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPC on ALAC

Hello Steve,

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the "metric for representativeness" 
along with other matters.  As I review the mailing list archives for 
different At-Large structures over the course of the last six months, I note

thousands upon thousands of postings by hundreds and hundreds of active 
involved members.  On the other hand, when I review the mailing list
archives 
of the IPC, I see only 16 postings in total by only eight members in the
last 
half year.  

Clearly though, list discussion is only one metric by which the viability of

a group may be measured, and I am pleased to note that while your list 
traffic is inordinately low (not even one post in the last two and a half 
months), you somehow manage to convey the position of your entire 
constituency without the benefit of any such discussion.  It must be a 
tribute to your excellent leadership to be able to issue these position 
papers without any recourse to the actual opinions or vote of your
membership.

But before we begin establishing threshhold metrics designed to keep others 
from participating, why don't we first review whether your own organization 
even deserves to remain a part of the GNSO.  I see little value in your 
continued participation while other interest groups (ranging from privacy 
coalitions to individual domain name holders) are denied an equal
opportunity 
to be a member of the Council.  Why should policy decisions regarding the
DNS 
continue to be skewed by intellectual property owners when those in 
opposition to your interests should rightfully command an equal voice and 
counterbalance in the process?  

It would be far better to remove your constituency from the process until 
such time as parity and balance is achieved, wouldn't you agree?  After all,

you do support the notion of fairness, don't you?

- --
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 13:19:30 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] IANA Function Contract Renewed?

Stuart,

has the Contract Between ICANN and the United States Government for 
Performance of the IANA Function been renewed?  I note that it was scheduled 
to expire March 31, 2002 and have not noted any new amendments posted that 
would indicate that the contract is still in force.  
- --
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 20:26:03 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Pigheadedness

On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, at 15:18 [=GMT-0400], [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Stuart and Vint,

> 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?

The ORSC (warning it carries the older .BIZ and .INFO) and the ORSN (which
copies in principle ICANN's zone) have made the changes. So perhaps change
your hints file to point to one of these?

http://open-rsc.org/
http://orsn.org/

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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:23:01 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] IANA Function Contract Renewed?

Stuart,

I just found the link posted on the ERC page entitled "IANA Functions 
Purchase Order, including Modifications and Extensions" which points to
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/SB1335-01-W-0650-0001.h

tm

This seems to indicate that the contract was renewed for a six-month term, 
and that it expires 09/30/2002.  Perhaps in the future, you could post these 
documents in the area of the website where people actually look for these 
major agreements and related reports?  
- --
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 14:49:53 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IANA Function Contract Renewed?

You published a classified document. They've removed it now!!

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 14:23
Subject: Re: [ga] IANA Function Contract Renewed?

> Stuart,
> 
> I just found the link posted on the ERC page entitled "IANA Functions 
> Purchase Order, including Modifications and Extensions" which points to
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/SB1335-01-W-0650-0001.h
> 
> tm
> 
> This seems to indicate that the contract was renewed for a six-month term, 
> and that it expires 09/30/2002.  Perhaps in the future, you could post these 
> documents in the area of the website where people actually look for these 
> major agreements and related reports?  
> --
> 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, 24 Sep 2002 07:52:02 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IAB on ICANN Mission

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:06:38 EDT, [email-masked] wrote:

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

So the RIRs, the IAB and the ccTLDs are all saying that ICANN is not
listening and trying to impose decisions top-down.

Is there anyone left for ICANN to piss off?  

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 13:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IANA Function Contract Renewed?

Hello,

- --- John Palmer <[email-masked]> wrote:
> You published a classified document. They've removed it now!!

It's still there. One just has to make sure that the entire link
(including the .htm at the end) is clicked, as it was too long to fit
into 1 line:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/SB1335-01-W-0650-0001.htm

It's poor website management to have such long URLs. Better would be
something like:

http://www.domain.com/document.php?12345

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
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: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:27:37 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] hardware problems with forum machine

Vittorio and all assembly members,

  Yes, you right t of course here Vittorio.  This is what I suggested yesterday
on this thread and I believe that Danny was hinting at in his start of this
thread as well.  Thank you none the less for confirming...

  To me and it would seem yourself and others this incident, amongst
a host of past problems and Marc's post on "ICANN & Stability"
as to the errors in the ICANN.ORG  zone listing, that the ICANN
staff either has allot of work ahead of it to correct in house
problems or has been neglecting those technical inconsistencies.
As such for Stuart Lynn to suggest how other registries should
handle their Name Servers and zone listings is akin to the pot
calling the kettle black...

  Does this lead us as stakeholders/users to be concerned as to
ICANN's technical competency?  I don't really know.  But it
certainly could be viewed that way...

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> 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

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 23:13:07 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fwd: LACTLD comments on Zone Transfers

Good evening.

Louis Touton pointed out to me, in a private message, that the following 
paragraph of my previous message was incorrect.

>
>The subject of escrow has been brought up by a different post. That reminds 
>me the initial meeting with the 5 .com testbed registrars, in Washington 
>DC, when Louis Touton announced that one of the conditions was escrow of 
>data to ICANN or other trusted third party *in the US*. Two Registrars were 
>vehemently opposed, and also Melbourne IT was not happy. After much 
>discussion the requirement was watered down (in fact, it is still under 
>discussion).

Thanks to Louis for spotting the incorrect statement.
The sentence, as written, could give the impression that it was a 
requirement for the trusted third party to be in the US.
Formally, it was not.
The point was that in its initial formulation ICANN was the sole authority 
to decide who was the trusted third party. Discussion at the meeting led to 
the conclusion that, for practical reasons more than by design, the third 
party was likely to be in the US.
Later ICANN accepted the principle of agreeing the third party (and 
therefore its location) with the Registrar ("the requirement was watered 
down", in my expression above). The matter is still under discussion, but it 
seems that the principle of "agreement" will be kept.
Louis further quotes agreements with ccTLDs that accept the same principle 
for escrow of Registry data, to show ICANN´s willingness to meet the other 
party´s needs. I do believe that this is indeed the case, as European ccTLDs 
could not accept export of confidential data outside EU because of EU law.

Nevertheless, I maintain the point, which is that this affair is another 
chess game, where each of the contendents is trying to gain some territory: 
ICANN to force controls on ccTLDs, ccTLDs to reject obligations. I also 
maintain that ICANN, being a US corporation, moreover under contract with 
USG (OK, OK, MoU not contract), has a problem in dealing with ccTLDs, who 
are subject to their national law, because there is no international treaty 
on the matter.
The problem is not only the contractual relationship, which is already hard, 
but the international political relations.
I bet that the matter of the zone files will end up before the GAC (if it 
did not already so).

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.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: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:49:06 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IAB on ICANN Mission

David Farrar wrote:

>
>So the RIRs, the IAB and the ccTLDs are all saying that ICANN is not
>listening and trying to impose decisions top-down.
>
>Is there anyone left for ICANN to piss off?
>

IPC? BC?

More seriously, what do RIRs, IAB and ccTLDs have in common?
The first thing that comes to my mind is that they were working reasonably 
well *before* ICANN, and therefore their first concern is how to continue 
working *in spite of* ICANN.
The point is that ICANN was created for solving problems that were mostly 
related to gTLDs: expansion of the namespace, introduction of competition, 
dispute resolution, and so on. They are all basically saying that ICANN 
should fix the things that are broken, and not the ones that are not.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.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: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 19:06:52 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fwd: LACTLD comments on Zone Transfers

Does it really matter if it's in the U.S., Romania or elsewhere? The
only thing that really matters is the ability to recover and how to
best achieve that goal. Sometimes we trip over dollars to pick up
pennies . . .

Monday, September 23, 2002, 6:13:07 PM, Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]> wrote:
RG> Good evening.

RG> Louis Touton pointed out to me, in a private message, that the following 
RG> paragraph of my previous message was incorrect.

>>
>>The subject of escrow has been brought up by a different post. That reminds 
>>me the initial meeting with the 5 .com testbed registrars, in Washington 
>>DC, when Louis Touton announced that one of the conditions was escrow of 
>>data to ICANN or other trusted third party *in the US*. Two Registrars were 
>>vehemently opposed, and also Melbourne IT was not happy. After much 
>>discussion the requirement was watered down (in fact, it is still under 
>>discussion).

RG> Thanks to Louis for spotting the incorrect statement.
RG> The sentence, as written, could give the impression that it was a 
RG> requirement for the trusted third party to be in the US.
RG> Formally, it was not.
RG> The point was that in its initial formulation ICANN was the sole authority 
RG> to decide who was the trusted third party. Discussion at the meeting led to 
RG> the conclusion that, for practical reasons more than by design, the third 
RG> party was likely to be in the US.
RG> Later ICANN accepted the principle of agreeing the third party (and 
RG> therefore its location) with the Registrar ("the requirement was watered 
RG> down", in my expression above). The matter is still under discussion, but it 
RG> seems that the principle of "agreement" will be kept.
RG> Louis further quotes agreements with ccTLDs that accept the same principle 
RG> for escrow of Registry data, to show ICANN´s willingness to meet the other 
RG> party´s needs. I do believe that this is indeed the case, as European ccTLDs 
RG> could not accept export of confidential data outside EU because of EU law.

RG> Nevertheless, I maintain the point, which is that this affair is another 
RG> chess game, where each of the contendents is trying to gain some territory: 
RG> ICANN to force controls on ccTLDs, ccTLDs to reject obligations. I also 
RG> maintain that ICANN, being a US corporation, moreover under contract with 
RG> USG (OK, OK, MoU not contract), has a problem in dealing with ccTLDs, who 
RG> are subject to their national law, because there is no international treaty 
RG> on the matter.
RG> The problem is not only the contractual relationship, which is already hard, 
RG> but the international political relations.
RG> I bet that the matter of the zone files will end up before the GAC (if it 
RG> did not already so).

RG> Regards
RG> Roberto

RG> _________________________________________________________________
RG> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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 19:28:06 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fwd: LACTLD comments on Zone Transfers

Roberto and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested parities,

  Thanks for this update Roberto.

  The real problems here are two fold.  1.) Why in the first place some
1 1/2 year ago didn't the ICANN legal staff, including Louis, not recognize
after so much debate back than, didn't back than that what ICANN
was and has recently required for zone file info and handling, was
never going to fly due to legal jurisdictional reasons.  2.) How can
the ICANN staff even now have the audacity to make such a requirement
upon ccTLD's with a straight face when ICANN has trouble keeping
it's own forum hardware up and running, web site accessible and
unfixed zone information on it's own DN???  To me and I am sure
many of the ccTLD's it is unimaginable to reasonably consider
seriously...

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Good evening.
>
> Louis Touton pointed out to me, in a private message, that the following
> paragraph of my previous message was incorrect.
>
> >
> >The subject of escrow has been brought up by a different post. That reminds
> >me the initial meeting with the 5 .com testbed registrars, in Washington
> >DC, when Louis Touton announced that one of the conditions was escrow of
> >data to ICANN or other trusted third party *in the US*. Two Registrars were
> >vehemently opposed, and also Melbourne IT was not happy. After much
> >discussion the requirement was watered down (in fact, it is still under
> >discussion).
>
> Thanks to Louis for spotting the incorrect statement.
> The sentence, as written, could give the impression that it was a
> requirement for the trusted third party to be in the US.
> Formally, it was not.
> The point was that in its initial formulation ICANN was the sole authority
> to decide who was the trusted third party. Discussion at the meeting led to
> the conclusion that, for practical reasons more than by design, the third
> party was likely to be in the US.
> Later ICANN accepted the principle of agreeing the third party (and
> therefore its location) with the Registrar ("the requirement was watered
> down", in my expression above). The matter is still under discussion, but it
> seems that the principle of "agreement" will be kept.
> Louis further quotes agreements with ccTLDs that accept the same principle
> for escrow of Registry data, to show ICANN´s willingness to meet the other
> party´s needs. I do believe that this is indeed the case, as European ccTLDs
> could not accept export of confidential data outside EU because of EU law.
>
> Nevertheless, I maintain the point, which is that this affair is another
> chess game, where each of the contendents is trying to gain some territory:
> ICANN to force controls on ccTLDs, ccTLDs to reject obligations. I also
> maintain that ICANN, being a US corporation, moreover under contract with
> USG (OK, OK, MoU not contract), has a problem in dealing with ccTLDs, who
> are subject to their national law, because there is no international treaty
> on the matter.
> The problem is not only the contractual relationship, which is already hard,
> but the international political relations.
> I bet that the matter of the zone files will end up before the GAC (if it
> did not already so).
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.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

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 20:44:56 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fwd: LACTLD comments on Zone Transfers

I don't think it's a matter of dollars vs pennies, Don.  It sound to me 
more like jurisdictional law and autonomy where the ccTLDs are 
concerned.  With registrars for the gTLDs, it would still fall under 
jurisdictional law, such as in the EU.  In a thin registry, where the 
registrar is the keeper of the information, that registrar must abide by its 
own country's law.   Can another country impose its criteria and law on 
a contracted entity if that criteria would break the law in that 
jurisdiction?  

Escrow becomes complex under those circumstances.  

Leah

On 23 Sep 2002, at 19:06, Don Brown wrote:

> Does it really matter if it's in the U.S., Romania or elsewhere? The
> only thing that really matters is the ability to recover and how to
> best achieve that goal. Sometimes we trip over dollars to pick up
> pennies . . .
> 
> 
> Monday, September 23, 2002, 6:13:07 PM, Roberto Gaetano
> <[email-masked]> wrote: RG> Good evening.
> 
> RG> Louis Touton pointed out to me, in a private message, that the
> following RG> paragraph of my previous message was incorrect.
> 
> >>
> >>The subject of escrow has been brought up by a different post. That
> >>reminds me the initial meeting with the 5 .com testbed registrars, in
> >>Washington DC, when Louis Touton announced that one of the conditions was
> >>escrow of data to ICANN or other trusted third party *in the US*. Two
> >>Registrars were vehemently opposed, and also Melbourne IT was not happy.
> >>After much discussion the requirement was watered down (in fact, it is
> >>still under discussion).
> 
> RG> Thanks to Louis for spotting the incorrect statement.
> RG> The sentence, as written, could give the impression that it was a RG>
> requirement for the trusted third party to be in the US. RG> Formally, it
> was not. RG> The point was that in its initial formulation ICANN was the
> sole authority RG> to decide who was the trusted third party. Discussion at
> the meeting led to RG> the conclusion that, for practical reasons more than
> by design, the third RG> party was likely to be in the US. RG> Later ICANN
> accepted the principle of agreeing the third party (and RG> therefore its
> location) with the Registrar ("the requirement was watered RG> down", in my
> expression above). The matter is still under discussion, but it RG> seems
> that the principle of "agreement" will be kept. RG> Louis further quotes
> agreements with ccTLDs that accept the same principle RG> for escrow of
> Registry data, to show ICANN´s willingness to meet the other RG> party´s
> needs. I do believe that this is indeed the case, as European ccTLDs RG>
> could not accept export of confidential data outside EU because of EU law.
> 
> RG> Nevertheless, I maintain the point, which is that this affair is
> another RG> chess game, where each of the contendents is trying to gain
> some territory: RG> ICANN to force controls on ccTLDs, ccTLDs to reject
> obligations. I also RG> maintain that ICANN, being a US corporation,
> moreover under contract with RG> USG (OK, OK, MoU not contract), has a
> problem in dealing with ccTLDs, who RG> are subject to their national law,
> because there is no international treaty RG> on the matter. RG> The problem
> is not only the contractual relationship, which is already hard, RG> but
> the international political relations. RG> I bet that the matter of the
> zone files will end up before the GAC (if it RG> did not already so).
> 
> RG> Regards
> RG> Roberto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RG> _________________________________________________________________
> RG> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
> 
> RG> --
> RG> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> RG> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> RG> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> RG> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> [email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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, 24 Sep 2002 04:18:00 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN is watching me (No I did not go mad)

ICANN does not seem to be satisfied with having the zones of ccTLDs. They
are also after the zones of simple domains. Like mine: bijt.net.

It popped up in my log: an attempted zone transfer. Someone wants to know
how many computers (or IP numbers) I have. Since I am always curious who
is interested in me, I looked up where the IP number in the log belonged
to.

192.0.35.90 is tagus.icann.org.

Now what does ICANN want to know about me?

The evidence:

Sep 24 02:56:02 pan named[xx]: denied AXFR from [192.0.35.90].1989 for
"bijt.net" IN (acl)

- --
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, 24 Sep 2002 04:39:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Has ICANN departments? (NOT about alt roots)

Tonight I was playing a bit, and discovered by sheer accident another
little weirdness in how ICANN handles DNS. This one is really funny. It
seems to indicate that ICANN by now already has departments. Departments,
moreover, that do not communicate with each other.

Quite recently we could read here a joint letter from Vint Cerf and Stuart
Lynn about the fight between ICANN and 3 ccTLDs, which refuse to allow
ICANN to do a zone transfer. As a result ICANN refuses to update the
nameservers of these ccTLDs in the root.

Now, here comes the funny part. One of the three naughty ccTLDs, Greece,
has a new nameserver, but ICANN refuses to add that to the root zone. Now
guess where this nameserver (sort of blackholed by ICANN) is?

For security and stability reasons it is far away from Greece. In Marina
del Rey. And guess who runs this new nameserver for Greece? Yes, yes, yes,
ICANN.

So some Dept of ICANN sets up and maintains a nameserver for Greece, a lot
of work, and another Dept of ICANN refuses to put this nameserver in the
root zone, which takes a minute?

Is this an apt example of the different functions of ICANN and
ICANN-acting-as-IANA?

- --
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 22:50:36 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Has ICANN departments? (NOT about alt roots)

Marc and all assembly members or other interested parties,

  Isn't interdepartmental bureaucracy laugh!  ROFLMAO!

  Looks allot like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing
doesn't it?  Why am I not surprised?  Well the answer is pretty simple
and based in IANA history.  Some of us here know that history
from the NSF days....  Others here don't.  And that is a way
is a shame...

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Tonight I was playing a bit, and discovered by sheer accident another
> little weirdness in how ICANN handles DNS. This one is really funny. It
> seems to indicate that ICANN by now already has departments. Departments,
> moreover, that do not communicate with each other.
>
> Quite recently we could read here a joint letter from Vint Cerf and Stuart
> Lynn about the fight between ICANN and 3 ccTLDs, which refuse to allow
> ICANN to do a zone transfer. As a result ICANN refuses to update the
> nameservers of these ccTLDs in the root.
>
> Now, here comes the funny part. One of the three naughty ccTLDs, Greece,
> has a new nameserver, but ICANN refuses to add that to the root zone. Now
> guess where this nameserver (sort of blackholed by ICANN) is?
>
> For security and stability reasons it is far away from Greece. In Marina
> del Rey. And guess who runs this new nameserver for Greece? Yes, yes, yes,
> ICANN.
>
> So some Dept of ICANN sets up and maintains a nameserver for Greece, a lot
> of work, and another Dept of ICANN refuses to put this nameserver in the
> root zone, which takes a minute?
>
> Is this an apt example of the different functions of ICANN and
> ICANN-acting-as-IANA?
>
> --
> 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 21:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN is watching me (No I did not go mad)

On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> 192.0.35.90 is tagus.icann.org.
> 
> Now what does ICANN want to know about me?

What you may be observing is a normal survey that has been occurring for
years - Every now and then Bill Manning (ISI) runs a survey of the domain
name space.  That is a useful thing to do. He publishes the source address
that he will be using and asks people to allow him to do zone transfers.

I'm not sure that this is what you are seeing, but it might be.

		--karl--

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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 08:57:30 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN is watching me (No I did not go mad)

On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 09:35:01PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> 
> > 192.0.35.90 is tagus.icann.org.
> > 
> > Now what does ICANN want to know about me?
> 
> What you may be observing is a normal survey that has been occurring for
> years

No, actually it was me.  Mr Schneiders kindly sent us a reference to the
Mice & Men dns tool, and I finally had an opportunity to try it out. 
His domain was in the email, and I used it as one of my many test cases. 
It requires a zone transfer to do its job, and that is what his log
showed. 

The Tool is quite useful, though it flags a number of things one might
consider false positives -- for example, it checks whether a zone has
multiple A records for a given label. 

Kent
- --
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 #1433
*************************