Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1463
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, October 10 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1463

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

Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 11:03:08 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

Rodrigo and all assembly members,

  Yes!  And such cases, and there have been many clearly show
that in most instances the UDRP filings are so inept and negatively
motivated as to be ridiculous.

[email-masked] wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Karl Auerbach'" <[email-masked]>; "'Rodrigo Orenday Serrato'"
> <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 4:01 PM
> Subject: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz
>
> > If you do not like a domain name in a TLD, you invoke a UDRP procedure,
> > and unless the defendant is brilliant, get it.
> >
>
> Then I was brilliant in the SEX.SHOP case ;-)
>
> http://sex.shop.steinle.biz
> http://www.steinle.law.pro
>
> Simon
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 11:30:32 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA & the Steady State Future

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> The ERC's recommendations do not mean that this list is going to be
> shut down.  It's going to continue, first as a GNSO-sponsored
> discussion forum, and then as a forum sponsored by ALAC. "Moderated"
> can mean a lot, and I would not interpret it as meaning moderation
> in the technical sense.

  Same thing, different verbiage Thomas.  Nice try as spin though...

>
>
> And just in case you are afraid that this list is going to share the
> fate of the ALSC forum: I'm pretty sure that this is not going to
> happen...
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/
>
> On 2002-10-09 01:21:13 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> >From: [email-masked]
> >Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:21:13 EDT
> >Subject: [ga] GA & the Steady State Future
> >To: [email-masked]
> >Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
> >       [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
> >       [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
> >       [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
> >       [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
> >       [email-masked], [email-masked]
> >
> >Dear Alejandro and members of the Board,
> >
> >Our entire consensus process is predicated on the understanding that an
> >effort must be made to consult with those whom are to be affected by ICANN's
> >decisions -- yet at no time has the ERC ever consulted with the General
> >Assembly membership prior to rendering its decision to terminate ICANN's only
> >open Public Discussion Forum for domain name issues.  I would appreciate the
> >opportunity to hear your views on this matter.   Please advise if you are
> >amenable to such a discussion on this forum.
> >
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Danny Younger
> >--
> >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: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:38:49 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] GA & the Steady State Future

Thomas, you write:

"The ERC's recommendations do not mean that this list is going to be  
shut down.  It's going to continue, first as a GNSO-sponsored  
discussion forum, and then as a forum sponsored by ALAC."

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:39:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ct

On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > This is a very helpful note.  Please could you clarify one thing for me,
> > though: when were the first ccTLD delegations? 
> > In particular, were they before or after 1988?
> 
> 60 [28] ccTLD has been designated (not delegated) before the end of 1988
> (and all started in 1985).

	On the "was it IANA that made the delegations" issue in Michael's
question:  Tony Rutkowski told me once that before 1991 Postel and
Reynolds were uninvolved in the ccTLD delegation process.  That, he said,
was all handled by the SRI NIC (where the hostmaster during the late '80s
was Mary Stahl).  I asked Mary Stahl whether she could confirm this.  She
wrote back that her memory of the period was hazy, but that the criteria
for assigning ccTLDs were arrived at by discussion between ISI and SRI.  
She added that during the early period ccTLDs were generally registered by
researchers with connections to ARPA at universities in the countries in
question.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[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: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:13:27 -0500
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] .ct

To this regard, NIC-Mexico (the administrator for the .MX ccTLD) has stated
that the criteria for assigning the administration of said TLDs followed
sort of a "land rush" criteria: that the first institution in each country
to log on to the Internet got to be appointed as administrator for the
corresponding ccTLD.

In the case of Mexico, it was the Instituto Tecnologico de Estudios
Superiores de Monterrey (the Technological Institute of Higher Learning of
Monterrey, the "Tec de Monterrey"), whose NIC-Mexico has been performing
said duties since 1989, as per appointment of SRINic, successively ratified
by IANA and ICANN.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Jonathan
Weinberg
Enviado el: Miercoles, 09 de Octubre de 2002 12:39 PM
Para: Elisabeth Porteneuve
CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Asunto: Re: [ga] .ct

On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > This is a very helpful note.  Please could you clarify one thing for me,
> > though: when were the first ccTLD delegations?
> > In particular, were they before or after 1988?
>
> 60 [28] ccTLD has been designated (not delegated) before the end of 1988
> (and all started in 1985).

	On the "was it IANA that made the delegations" issue in Michael's
question:  Tony Rutkowski told me once that before 1991 Postel and
Reynolds were uninvolved in the ccTLD delegation process.  That, he said,
was all handled by the SRI NIC (where the hostmaster during the late '80s
was Mary Stahl).  I asked Mary Stahl whether she could confirm this.  She
wrote back that her memory of the period was hazy, but that the criteria
for assigning ccTLDs were arrived at by discussion between ISI and SRI.
She added that during the early period ccTLDs were generally registered by
researchers with connections to ARPA at universities in the countries in
question.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 20:15:51 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ct

> On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> > "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > This is a very helpful note.  Please could you clarify one thing for me,
> > > though: when were the first ccTLD delegations? 
> > > In particular, were they before or after 1988?
> > 
> > 60 [28] ccTLD has been designated (not delegated) before the end of 1988
> > (and all started in 1985).
> 
> 	On the "was it IANA that made the delegations" issue in Michael's
> question:  Tony Rutkowski told me once that before 1991 Postel and
> Reynolds were uninvolved in the ccTLD delegation process.  That, he said,
> was all handled by the SRI NIC (where the hostmaster during the late '80s
> was Mary Stahl).  I asked Mary Stahl whether she could confirm this.  She
> wrote back that her memory of the period was hazy, but that the criteria
> for assigning ccTLDs were arrived at by discussion between ISI and SRI.  
> She added that during the early period ccTLDs were generally registered by
> researchers with connections to ARPA at universities in the countries in
> question.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> Jonathan Weinberg
> [email-masked]
> 

Jon,

Yes, during the early period ccTLDs were registered by researchers,
and most of cases I know about was related to programs supported
by the National Science Foundation, who was very proactive in
connecting countries, and giving a shape to initial NSFnet.

Below is a copy of one of old NSF documents on connectivity.
To connect the countries, it was necessary they have names.

The list of 18 connected to the NSFnet backbone in 1988-89 (extract
from document below):
    CA  Canada           4795       2     271    4453      69   07/88   *
    FR  France           2003       0     111    1755     137   07/88   *
    US  United States   28470      26    3612   22968    1864   07/88   *
    DK  Denmark            48       0       9      35       4   11/88
    FI  Finland           643       0      35     575      33   11/88
    IS  Iceland            31       0       2      29       0   11/88
    NO  Norway            214       1      42     166       5   11/88
    SE  Sweden            415       0      40     297      78   11/88
    NL  Netherlands       406       0      73     303      30   01/89
    MX  Mexico            126       0      46      76       4   02/89
    NZ  New Zealand       356       0      36     315       5   04/89
    GB  United Kingdom   1436       0     183    1128     125   04/89
    AU  Australia        1875       0     150    1703      22   05/89
    IL  Israel            217       0      21     194       2   08/89
    IT  Italy             506       0      63     380      63   08/89
    JP  Japan            1847       0     331    1294     222   08/89
    DE  Germany          1750       1     259    1376     114   09/89
    PR  Puerto Rico         9       0       3       4       2   10/89

Best,
Elisabeth
- --

<NIC.MERIT.EDU> /nsfnet/statistics/nets.by.country 

                          NSFNET Networks by Country

                               01 May 1995

       	             	Total		Prefix Length		 Initial
   Code	Country     	Nets=	  */8 +	 */16 +	 */24	/Other	Connection
   ----	-------     	------	------	------	------	------	----------
    DZ 	Algeria        	    3	    0	    0	    3	    0	04/94 
    AR 	Argentina      	   27	    0	    7	   18	    2	10/90 
    AM 	Armenia        	    3	    0	    0	    3	    0	06/94 
    AU 	Australia      	 1875	    0	  150	 1703	   22	05/89 
    AT 	Austria        	  408	    0	   33	  353	   22	06/90 
    BY 	Belarus        	    1	    0	    0	    1	    0	02/95 
    BE 	Belgium        	  138	    0	   20	  104	   14	05/90 
    BM 	Bermuda        	   20	    0	    0	   17	    3	03/94 
    BR 	Brazil         	  165	    0	   24	  137	    4	06/90 
    BG 	Bulgaria       	    9	    0	    2	    7	    0	04/93 
    BF 	Burkina Faso   	    2	    0	    0	    2	    0	10/94 
    CM 	Cameroon       	    1	    0	    0	    1	    0	12/92 
    CA 	Canada         	 4795	    2	  271	 4453	   69	07/88	*
    CL 	Chile          	  102	    0	   13	   81	    8	04/90 
    CN 	China          	    8	    0	    4	    2	    2	04/94 
    CO 	Colombia       	    5	    0	    2	    2	    1	04/94 
    CR 	Costa Rica     	    6	    0	    1	    5	    0	01/93 
    HR 	Croatia        	   31	    0	    1	   30	    0	11/91 
    CY 	Cyprus         	   25	    0	    0	   20	    5	12/92 
    CZ 	Czech Republic 	  459	    0	   16	  357	   86	11/91 
    DK 	Denmark        	   48	    0	    9	   35	    4	11/88 
    DO 	Dominican Repub	    1	    0	    0	    0	    1	04/95 
    EC 	Ecuador        	   85	    0	    1	   84	    0	07/92 
    EG 	Egypt          	    7	    0	    1	    6	    0	11/93 
    EE 	Estonia        	   49	    0	    1	   48	    0	07/92 
    FJ 	Fiji           	    1	    0	    1	    0	    0	06/93 
    FI 	Finland        	  643	    0	   35	  575	   33	11/88 
    FR 	France         	 2003	    0	  111	 1755	  137	07/88	*
    PF 	French Polynesi	    1	    0	    0	    1	    0	10/94 
    DE 	Germany        	 1750	    1	  259	 1376	  114	09/89 
    GH 	Ghana          	    1	    0	    0	    1	    0	05/93 
    GR 	Greece         	  105	    0	    9	   74	   22	07/90 
    GU 	Guam           	    5	    0	    0	    4	    1	10/93 
    HK 	Hong Kong      	   95	    0	   13	   70	   12	09/91 
    HU 	Hungary        	  164	    0	    6	  156	    2	11/91 
    IS 	Iceland        	   31	    0	    2	   29	    0	11/88 
    IN 	India          	   13	    0	    4	    9	    0	11/90 
    ID 	Indonesia      	   46	    0	   10	   34	    2	07/93 
    IE 	Ireland        	  168	    0	   14	  150	    4	07/90 
    IL 	Israel         	  217	    0	   21	  194	    2	08/89 
    IT 	Italy          	  506	    0	   63	  380	   63	08/89 
    JM 	Jamaica        	   16	    0	    0	   14	    2	05/94 
    JP 	Japan          	 1847	    0	  331	 1294	  222	08/89 
    KZ 	Kazakhstan     	    2	    0	    0	    2	    0	11/93 
    KE 	Kenya          	    1	    0	    0	    1	    0	11/93 
    KR 	Korea, South   	  476	    0	   44	  379	   53	04/90 
    KW 	Kuwait         	    8	    0	    3	    5	    0	12/92 
    LV 	Latvia         	   22	    0	    1	   19	    2	11/92 
    LB 	Lebanon        	    1	    0	    0	    0	    1	06/94 
    LI 	Liechtenstein  	    3	    0	    0	    2	    1	06/93 
    LT 	Lithuania      	    1	    0	    0	    0	    1	04/94 
    LU 	Luxembourg     	   59	    0	    6	   49	    4	04/92 
    MO 	Macau          	    1	    0	    1	    0	    0	04/94 
    MY 	Malaysia       	    6	    0	    3	    3	    0	11/92 
    MX 	Mexico         	  126	    0	   46	   76	    4	02/89 
    MA 	Morocco        	    1	    0	    0	    1	    0	10/94 
    MZ 	Mozambique     	    6	    0	    0	    3	    3	03/95 
    NL 	Netherlands    	  406	    0	   73	  303	   30	01/89 
    NC 	New Caledonia  	    1	    0	    0	    1	    0	10/94 
    NZ 	New Zealand    	  356	    0	   36	  315	    5	04/89 
    NI 	Nicaragua      	    1	    0	    1	    0	    0	02/94 
    NE 	Niger          	    1	    0	    0	    1	    0	10/94 
    NO 	Norway         	  214	    1	   42	  166	    5	11/88 
    PA 	Panama         	    1	    0	    1	    0	    0	06/94 
    PE 	Peru           	   44	    0	    1	   41	    2	11/93 
    PH 	Philippines    	   46	    0	    1	   43	    2	04/94 
    PL 	Poland         	  131	    0	   14	  115	    2	11/91 
    PT 	Portugal       	   92	    0	    5	   79	    8	10/91 
    PR 	Puerto Rico    	    9	    0	    3	    4	    2	10/89 
    RO 	Romania        	   26	    0	    1	   24	    1	04/93 
    RU 	Russian Federat	  405	    0	    7	  384	   14	06/93 
    SN 	Senegal        	   11	    0	    0	   11	    0	10/94 
    SG 	Singapore      	  107	    0	    8	   98	    1	05/91 
    SK 	Slovakia       	   69	    0	    5	   63	    1	03/92 
    SI 	Slovenia       	   46	    0	    5	   40	    1	02/92 
    ZA 	South Africa   	  419	    0	   45	  312	   62	12/91 
    ES 	Spain          	  257	    0	   27	  224	    6	07/90 
    SZ 	Swaziland      	    1	    0	    0	    1	    0	05/94 
    SE 	Sweden         	  415	    0	   40	  297	   78	11/88 
    CH 	Switzerland    	  324	    0	   60	  229	   35	03/90 
    TW 	Taiwan         	  575	    0	   15	  548	   12	12/91 
    TH 	Thailand       	  107	    0	    5	   99	    3	07/92 
    TN 	Tunisia        	   19	    0	    0	   19	    0	05/91 
    TR 	Turkey         	   97	    0	    5	   83	    9	01/93 
    UA 	Ukraine        	   60	    0	    0	   55	    5	08/93 
    AE 	United Arab Emi	    3	    0	    0	    3	    0	11/93 
    GB 	United Kingdom 	 1436	    0	  183	 1128	  125	04/89 
    US 	United States  	28470	   26	 3612	22968	 1864	07/88	*
    UY 	Uruguay        	    1	    0	    1	    0	    0	04/94 
    UZ 	Uzbekistan     	    1	    0	    0	    1	    0	12/94 
    VE 	Venezuela      	   11	    0	    6	    4	    1	02/92 
    VN 	Vietnam        	    1	    0	    0	    0	    1	04/95 
    VI 	Virgin Islands,	    4	    0	    1	    3	    1	03/93 
   ----	-------      	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----
    93 	Total        	50766	   30	 5742	41790	 3204

  * Merit began managing the NSFNET backbone in July, 1988.

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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 22:54:05 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ct

- --=======C77D58=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2D571C2A; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 20:15 09/10/02, Elisabeth Porteneuve said:
>Below is a copy of one of old NSF documents on connectivity.
>To connect the countries, it was necessary they have names.

Long before the need was to support the foreign hackers trying to get into 
Arpanet at the lowest cost with the strangest devices. From a joke about 
Jordan we got accustomed to name that Hacker groups using the 2 letters 
telex code. Also because "pirate telex services" were everywhere at that 
time and were good hackers. We could mostly support them in using Telex or 
"odd telex" or even Teletex systems (I registered a Telex e-mailbox on ITT 
probably early 1984 (?) to be able to support them). I had a Telex/Mail 
operator with WUI in Cupertino who was very good at all that (named IEMS). 
They helped people a lot during the Mexico earthbreak (what was the year?). 
I carried several projects with them. Also with C&W and their HK operators 
(they had a large processor there: we even studied an international 
chess/go sever to develop traffic with Saudia :-)

Using the 2 letters ISO codes permitted us not to confuse them as a 
usergroup with the paying regular users from the state monopolies who were 
named after the ISO 3166 3 letters codes (FRA for France).

By the way I suppose the eldest stable and profesional user was Ichbia we 
connected to the Phoenix Multics for the development of Adda. I do not 
recall if his root name was "BULL" or "FRB" (I will ask him, he leaves next 
door), but he could certainly be labeled as the first early ".fr". We had 
proposed to interconnect Cyclades in may 1978: that did not go through 
(however the ESA network was connected and permitted very "strange" 
international relations).

so you see, Michael, IANA is a very young invention. As such it has no real 
value : look at the ICANN contract over IANA functions. They got it for 
less than $ 10.000 (I accept that they had to pay for the table, the chais 
and the screens...:-).

jfc

- --=======C77D58=======--

- --
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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:13:41 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 08:41:52 -0700 (PDT), George Kirikos
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I came across the following today:
>
>http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/dbiz2002-00270.html
>
>It was quite a strange matter, and the Respondent basically wanted it
>transferred to the New Zealand government.

It appears from inquiries I have made locally that the application was
not made by the NZ Government but by Trade New Zealand - a government
owned organisation, presumably with the consent of their Minister as
his name was used.  Other sections of the Government with an interest
in these things were not in the loop on this.

In fact official NZ government policy on the issue of country names as
domain names is that they should not be precluded.  This can be found
in the submission at
http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/sct/comments/0009.html.  

"New Zealand law, custom or practice does not preclude the use of
country names under any circumstances. New Zealand does not see any
reason why the domain names should be excepted from this general
rule."

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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 01:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

Hello,

- --- DPF <[email-masked]> wrote:
> In fact official NZ government policy on the issue of country names
> as
> domain names is that they should not be precluded.  This can be found
> in the submission at
> http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/sct/comments/0009.html.  

Great link and research, thanks.

I wonder if they'll try to go after the NewZealand.com now? It's owned
by a company that has several other country names. Interestingly, they
keep a disclaimer of:

"This site is owned and operated by Virtual Countries, Inc. and is not
affiliated with any government entity associated with a name similar to
the site domain name."

to protect themselves, however I personally don't think that *should*
be necessary. That disclaimer doesn't appear at the bottom of
www.Canada.com (although info does appear in a FAQ), or www.USA.com, so
perhaps visitors to those sites are more sophisticated? There shouldn't
be a presumption that they are run by or associated with the
governments or other entities that might happen to have a similar name.
A few folks presume that the earth is flat, but we don't need to have
disclaimers on maps saying "For non-flat earth society users only."

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:55:05 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] [council] IANA Handling of Root-Zone Changes (from: [email-masked])

FYI.

Checking the root zone, both .GR and .AT no longer list NS.EU.NET as 
nameservers.  DE still has DNS.NIC.XLINK.NET listed - Xlink is the  
name under which the German branch of KPNQwest used to be known  
before being bought by them.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/

- ----- Forwarded message from Louis Touton <[email-masked]> -----

From: Louis Touton <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 22:23:50 -0700
Subject: [council] IANA Handling of Root-Zone Changes
Envelope-to: [email-masked]
Delivery-date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 07:26:37 +0200
X-No-Spam: whitelist

To the Names Council:

Recently, the Names Council has been discussing the KPNQwest
bankruptcy, and its consequences for the IANA's handling of root-
zone changes (i.e. changes to the listed nameservers for top-level
domains).   The IANA has pulled together some data on these effects,
which I would like to share with you.

In May, KPNQwest (a large ISP in Europe) announced that it was
shutting down operations.  These operations included a nameserver,
named ns.eu.net, that provided DNS service to thousands of DNS domains.
Among the domains KPNQwest served were 67 ccTLDs that had ns.eu.net
listed as a secondary nameserver (as well as a much smaller number of
instances of ccTLDs served by other KPNQwest-operated nameservers).

Changing the nameservers for a ccTLD requires revisions to both the root
zone and ccTLD zone itself.  Ideally, these changes should be
implemented as simultaneously as possible, so as to minimize data
mismatches.  (The DNS's design is very forgiving of minor data
mismatches between parent and child zones, but as the extent of mismatch
increases performance problems will become increasingly apparent, so it
is good practice to minimize data mismatches and other data
inaccuracies.)

Because the extent of the changes required to eliminate ns.eu.net from
all the domains it served, RIPE NCC agreed to take over the operation of
the ns.eu.net nameserver for a transition period, to allow the many
zones affected (including the 67 ccTLDs) to be migrated to other
nameservers in an orderly manner.  RIPE NCC is still operating that
nameserver, but has indicated that it wishes to conclude the transition
period within approximately one month.

The need to change nameserver assignments for 67 ccTLDs has
significantly increased the number of root-zone change requests the IANA
has received.  Of the 135 TLD nameserver change requests that the IANA
has received during 2002, 43 have been related to the upcoming
discontinuance of nameservice by ns.eu.net.  Of these 43 requests to
change ccTLD nameservers from ns.eu.net, 41 changes have been completed
and 2 changes are in progress.  (The handling of nameserver-change
requests involves steps to authenticate that the request comes from
authorized TLD personnel, to confirm that the requested new nameserver
is functioning, and to verify that the sequence of changes requested
will not involve an interruption of service.)

To ensure that the nameserver changes involving ns.eu.net can be
completed before the end of the transition period, the IANA and US
Department of Commerce (which must approve the changes) have prioritized
these requests.

As the transition period for ns.eu.net nears its conclusion, there
remain 24 TLDs listing that nameserver where the managers have not yet
submitted requests.  Although the change process is ordinarily triggered
by a TLD manager submitting a request, to address the ns.eu.net
situation the IANA has been actively suggesting to managers for these
TLDs that the listing of ns.eu.net for their TLDs be removed.  Of the 24
remaining TLDs, the IANA has prompted 8 to submit change requests, and
expects to prompt the managers of the other remaining TLDs within the
next week.  Although at times it is difficult to reach some ccTLD
managers, the IANA's goal is to complete changes to all the affected
TLDs by the time that ns.eu.net's operation is finally concluded.

One of the two pending nameserver-change requests involving ns.eu.net
(this is in addition to one non-ns.eu.net-related nameserver change
request) involves a difference of views between the ccLTD manager and
the IANA over the application of an IANA procedure for checking data
accuracy through a zone-file review.  We have suggested a resolution of
the matter to that ccTLD manager and expect that a mutually satisfactory
resolution will be implemented in the next several days, thereby
allowing a coordinated migration of that ccTLD (both in the root zone
and in the ccTLD zone) off of ns.eu.net well in advance of the
termination of service from ns.eu.net.

Since I understand that the orderly migration from nameservice
previously provided by KPNQwest is of special interest to the Names
Council, we will report again to you on the status when termination of
that nameserver's operation becomes imminent.

Best regards,

Louis Touton

- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 04:40:08 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Further Review

After even further review and research I have come to the adulterated
clear opinion that;

IPv6 sucks raw eggs like a weasel, and one should be most cautious of
any person selling it.

e

- --
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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:13:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Further Review

the real crime is the highway robbery thats going on with the IPv6 and
IPv4 fee structure.  No wonder the RIR's are threatening to leave ICANN.
Were watching another NSI on the run.

Cheers
Joe Baptista

- --
Planet Communications & Computing Facility
a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> After even further review and research I have come to the adulterated
> clear opinion that;
>
> IPv6 sucks raw eggs like a weasel, and one should be most cautious of
> any person selling it.
>
> e
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 16:17:09 +0200
From: ADD-CT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA & the Steady State Future

dear assembly members,

excuse my ignorance: I arrived to this list searching the way to 
belongs or participate  in ICANN. If you click on "participate in 
ICANN" (www.icann.org), you will go to www.dnso.icann.org and, from 
there, to "mailing lists". At this point, I don't know what to think. 
Am I a member of the ICANN? Or a member of DNSO? Or only a member of 
this mailing list?

Thanks!

>> The ERC's recommendations do not mean that this list is going to be
>> shut down.  It's going to continue, first as a GNSO-sponsored
>> discussion forum, and then as a forum sponsored by ALAC. "Moderated"
>> can mean a lot, and I would not interpret it as meaning moderation
>> in the technical sense.
>>

Ricard Vaqué
- -------------------------------------------
ADD.CT, Associació en defensa del domini CT
http://www.domini-ct.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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 22:43:30 +0800
From: "James Seng" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat

From: <[email-masked]>
> Get it straight I do not care what Dr. Joe says.  The system is flawed and
insecure.

One question: why?

Justify your 'flawed and insecure'. if not, *beep* thanks for playing.

From: "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
> I agree - my main concern in the IPv6 or IPv4 debate/issues is a recent
> attempt by the RIR to charge fees for allocations.  It basically works out
> to $2,500 per allocation /19 in IPv4 or /48 in IPv6.

Took about 3 years for someone to notice other registry beyond NSOL :-)

Next question: What has this, an ASO issue, has to do with the GA of DNSO?

ps: Anyone who quote Jim Fleming probably need a reality check himself.

- -James Seng

- --
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: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 16:58:07 +0200
From: ADD-CT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ct

Replying all your comments (large, I'm sorry):

[email-masked] says:
> If you are autonomous then you are a nation.

we think so, but we don't want to convert .ct in a politic subject 
(difficult thing, like you can see)

- ---

Jeff Williams says:
>   Thank you RIcard for chiming it, although you are very late in doing 
> so
> as ICANN is seeking to shut this forum and the DNSO GA down.

Very late, I'm sorry. This is a very difficult area to understand for 
one who is not directly related with IANA, ICANN, ISO... with IP, DNS, 
networks... that doesn't understand english very well... that doesn't 
belong to government and doesn't like politics... I've need 6 years to 
understand it only a little!  ;)

> But the ICANN BoD and especially the ICANN staff do want to change or 
> control ISO 3166

I know it, but we are not in a hurry. Will ICANN be the same after 1 
year, 10 years, 50 years?
Moreover, perhaps ICANN will not change the references to ISO 3166. And 
neither ISO will change his policy (to be a true standard it cannot be 
changed every day). But perhaps ISO or/and UNO can see some day the 
requirement of a new standard about cultures and ethnographies. Not 
now, of course. I understand that the international situation is not 
the best, at this moment, to talk about those questions. But we are not 
in a hurry ;)

>> or the kurds, or the palestinians, or the lakotas. Why not? Where is
>> the problem? Would this to be a critical problem for the DNS?
>
>   Also a good point here.  Why not indeed...

but we don't know the way to take. ISO? UNO? ICANN? Brussels?
Is basic to collect all possibles enterprises like ours in the word. 
When all of them can see a big inquiry perhaps, only perhaps, will 
change their mind.

>   My state, the great state of Texas is doing just this...
>
really? Some webpage to see?

> In case you didn't know ICANN rejected Scotland a TLD of it's own.

I didn't know it. ISO also rejected the application sended by our 
government because Catalonia does not belongs to UNO. Well, rightly. 
But they also says that the application must be send by the state 
government. Perhaps they don't know that our constitution says that the 
autonomous government is representative of the state government (anyway 
this is another problem not related with the net).

- ---

Roberto Gaetano says:
> Your Ministry for Industry is unfortunately right.

that's what he thinks. My slate thinks just the opposite ;-)))

> If you check the purpose for ISO-3166, (...). The first part, 
> ISO-3166-1, contains, inter alia, the 2-char country codes used by 
> ICANN as the basis for the delegation of ccTLDs. ISO's current policy 
> is not to add (please note the verb "add") to this list administrative 
> subdivisions of countries: these are placed in ISO-3166-2 (...).
> So, CT will *not* be added to ISO-3166-1 by ISO, and the Ministry of 
> Industry knows this.

We knew it, but we had to do it as a first step.

> As for ISO-3166-2, Catalunya *is already* part of the list.

Yes, it is, and this can be dangerous for us. NIC-ES can have the 
temptation to create second level domains for all the spanish 
autonomous regions (domain.ct.es) :(

> ICANN (...) you can imagining getting into the business of defining 
> which part of a country is autonomous enough to get a specific ccTLD.

It would be the same problem that have now to decide next gTLD. Or to 
define ISO 3166-2. Not more than this. And they would be happy many 
people :)
Moreover, they (ISO or ICANN) can consult governments to define those 
regions.
"Very" easy.

> it would be an enormous problem for ICANN, who all of a sudden will 
> have political responsibilities rather than technical coordination 
> tasks.

good point of view. I think ICANN cannot only be a technical 
organization. If internet needs something like a net "government" 
(please, note the quotation), someone must to take political decisions. 
Internet is NOT only a network of machines. Internet is done by people, 
too, and this people have sentibilities that cannot be forgotten.

> You might also vote with unanimity a resolution to get the sun to rise 
> from west, but it does not necessarily follow that the sun will 
> recognise the consensus, and obey the resolution.

would to god god grant!  :-D

>> (excuse my english)
> Since being you Catalan, English is your third language, if not more,

third and a half ;-) I live very close to France.
But I have a nice tool: http://www.ultralingua.com

- ---

Jonathan Weinberg says:
> during the early period ccTLDs were generally registered by
> researchers with connections to ARPA at universities in the countries 
> in
> question.

Elisabeth says:
> Yes, during the early period ccTLDs were registered by researchers,

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin says:
> Using the 2 letters ISO codes permitted us not to confuse them as a 
> usergroup with the paying regular users from the state monopolies who 
> were named after the ISO 3166 3 letters codes (FRA for France).

this one explains many things.

- ---

Thanks to all of you for your explanations and advices. Nice support 
for my doubts.
I hope some day ICANN can be what I said before: the representation of 
the people and their sensibilities, not only a technical office.

Warmly,

Ricard Vaqué
- -------------------------------------------
ADD.CT, Associació en defensa del domini CT
http://www.domini-ct.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1463
*************************