Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1475
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, October 17 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1475

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

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 21:47:51 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The future of IDN in .ORG

Marc and all assembly members,

  I am not sure if there is any other info (Pardon the pun) on this
as my german is not so good anymore.  Do you have an English
version of this story available Marc?  I didn't find one on the
English version of this Web site...

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On a German news site, it says, that a speakesperson from Afilias, called
> Carle, stated that the future of multilingual domain names in .ORG was
> uncertain after the take over. And, I now quote, "they aren't really used
> now anyway". So, bye, bye?
>
> Anyone seen any official news about this? Good rumours?
>
> (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-15.10.02-001/)
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 21:53:54 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The future of IDN in .ORG

Karl and all assembly members,

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Ram Mohan wrote:
>
> > Afilias is evaluating various solutions, but will act in registrant's best
> > interests, while making sure that the DNS system remains stable.
>
> Might I remind you that IDN's in .org are not Afilias' choice.  PIR is
> supposed to call the shots and Afilias is merely to do PIR's bidding.
>
> We picked PIR yesterday, not Afilias.

  Good point here Karl.  However I would venture a guess that
the PIR will do whatever Afilias recommends.  Somewhat like a
self perpetuating "duopoly" or vicious/misleading circle...

  In any event, given Afilias's history thus far, I would not, and do
not yet, trust anything that Afilias does.

>
>
>                 --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

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, 16 Oct 2002 10:34:05 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The future of IDN in .ORG

On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 08:36:35PM +0200,
 Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 15 lines which said:

> Carle, stated that the future of multilingual domain names in .ORG was
> uncertain after the take over. And, I now quote, "they aren't really used
> now anyway". So, bye, bye?

I'm certain that you know that IDN is far from being official (the RFC
is not issued, the prefix for the ASCII encoding is not yet choosen)
and therefore no registry can seriously register multiscript (and not
multilingual, which means nothing) domain names.

- --
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, 16 Oct 2002 11:12:05 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS INTERIM REPORT OPEN for PUBLIC COMMENT

Dear Task Force,

while reading your Interim Report, I noticed inside it the following summary
of my previous comments:

>·        August 28, 2002: Comments of Vittorio Bertola
>
>Could not access the comments.  The attached document was encrypted in Bin-Hex format which my computer was unable to decrypt.  

Unfortunately, no one from the Task Force ever contacted me to check what
happened to the file, or ask to resubmit my comments in a different format.
Moreover, I had also sent the comments to the GA list in plain text format:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03717.html

While I understand that members of the Task Force are busy and occupied in
lots of other activities, and that they don't necessarily read all the posts
on the GA list, and that in the future I should limit myself to plain text
rather than Word documents, it is a little frustrating to spend some hours
in reviewing and commenting a document only to discover after two months
that your comments were never even opened - especially when the lack of
participation in policy-making processes by members of the user community is
often used as an instrument to justify the ongoing reduction of their weight
inside ICANN.

I hope that you will now be able to load the aforementioned URL in your
browser and give a chance to my comments too (and to any updated comments
which I may submit in the next days).

Thanks,
- -- 
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: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:16:39 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Agenda for the Shanghai GA

An extended agenda for the Shanghai GA (including background  
information and links on WHOIS and Deletes) is available at  
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/ga-shanghai/>.

Backgground information for the (new) zone file access session is  
currently in draft state, and will hopefully be posted before the  
week-end.

Also, I hope we'll have a web-archived submission address for public 
comments and questions for those who can't participate in person.
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/
- --
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, 16 Oct 2002 23:47:12 +0800
From: "James Seng" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: ITU press release on IDN resolution

In IETF, we work on running codes and rough consensus.

We dont vote and we dont expect 100% consensus.

Dont like it? Too bad.

- -James Seng

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Seng" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "General Assembly of the DNSO" <[email-masked]>;
"Don Evans" <[email-masked]>; "Nancy J. Victory" <[email-masked]>;
"cathy Handley" <[email-masked]>; "Clyde Ensslin"
<[email-masked]>; "francis gurry" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: ITU press release on IDN resolution

> James and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested parties,
>
> James Seng wrote:
>
> > IDNA has went thru the working group last call, and also IETF wide last
> > call. The co-chairs has already submit it to the IESG for consideration
for
> > publication as RFC.
> > So as far as "rough consensus" is concern, we are already done with
that.
>
>   Well "Rough Consensus" is no consensus at all.  It is simply a guess.
> This of course is one of several problems that the IETF/IAB have,
> and have had for some time now.  None the less any kind of closed
> consensus without the vote of the stakeholders/users to which such
> a possible RFC (Request for comments) is not legitimate to the
> broad internet stakeholder/user community...
>
> >
> >
> > The latest revision includes some changes requested by the IESG. I
suspect
> > there will be one (or two) more revision before it is finalized.
> >
> > -James Seng
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: "General Assembly of the DNSO" <[email-masked]>; "Don Evans"
> > <[email-masked]>; "Nancy J. Victory" <[email-masked]>; "cathy
> > Handley" <[email-masked]>; "Clyde Ensslin"
<[email-masked]>;
> > "francis gurry" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 9:15 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: ITU press release on IDN resolution
> >
> > > Richard,
> > >
> > >   Ok thank you for this frank and more honest reply, Richard.
> > > You could have said most of this in you first response however.
> > >
> > >   The only reference that Danny Younger pointed out to me,
> > > which I had read some time ago now and had forgotten about
> > > from the IETF is a "Memo".  See:
> > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-idna-13.txt
> > > Interesting that it is dated october 4th of this year though...
> > > Hence, hardly a consensus document!
> > >
> > > [email-masked] wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you do a search on the IETF site, you will find lots of
references to
> > > > IDN.  It is my understanding that the resolution mentioned in the
press
> > > > release refers to the IETF work on IDN.  I agree that the press
release
> > does
> > > > not say that.  I am not evading your answers, I simply do not have
the
> > > > information required to answer them.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Richard
> > > >
> > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > Richard Hill
> > > > Counsellor, ITU-T SG2
> > > > International Telecommunication Union
> > > > Place des Nations
> > > > CH-1211 Geneva 20
> > > > Switzerland
> > > > tel: +41 22 730 5887
> > > > FAX: +41 22 730 5853
> > > > Email: [email-masked]
> > > > Study Group 2 email: [email-masked]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 14 October 2002 23:05
> > > > > To: [email-masked]
> > > > > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> > > > > [email-masked];
> > > > > francis gurry; Don Evans; Nancy J. Victory; cathy Handley; Clyde
> > > > > Ensslin; atlarge discuss list
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: ITU press release on IDN resolution
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard and all,
> > > > >
> > > > > [email-masked] wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Please note that the resolution refers to
> > > > > "Internationalized Domain Names
> > > > > > (IDN)", not to "international" domain names.
> > > > >
> > > > >   Ah I see.  Ok.  Well none the less this did not answer my
questions
> > > > > regarding either "Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)" or
> > > > > "International Domain Names" to you Richard.  Hence it would
> > > > > seem that you are evading answering the questions I put to you.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You'll have to address your questions to the people who defined
> > > > > > "Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)".  I guess that is
> > > > > IETF, but I may be
> > > > > > wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > >   The IETF as far as I am aware, does not have any such
distinction
> > > > > regarding Domain Names in any policy statement or documentation.
> > > > > As this press release was an ITU press release, and therefore a
ITU
> > > > > initiative, it would seem appropriate and reasonable that the ITU
> > > > > or yourself could or should address the questions I ask.   There
is
> > > > > no indication or language in the press release indicating that
> > > > > the IETF made or has made such a designation as stated
> > > > > in the ITU press release.
> > > > > See the ITU press release again at:
> > > > > http://www.itu.int/newsroom/pp02/Highlights/1010.html
> > > > >
> > > > >   My questions rephrased to you Richard are as follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard, can you explain or define the difference between
> > > > > and Internationalized Domain Name "IDN" and a "General
> > > > > Domain Name"? Would for instance fuubar.co.uk be an
> > > > > Internationalized Domain Name or not?  Or would foobar.net
> > > > > or foobar.org be Internationalized domain names or not?  Would
> > > > > for instance foobar.eu be an internationalized Domain Name?
> > > > > And, if only Domains in .INT are international Domain Names, are
all
> > > > > other domains in other name spaces or TLD's, not
internationalized?
> > > > > Please elaborate in your answer...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Richard
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > > > Richard Hill
> > > > > > Counsellor, ITU-T SG2
> > > > > > International Telecommunication Union
> > > > > > Place des Nations
> > > > > > CH-1211 Geneva 20
> > > > > > Switzerland
> > > > > > tel: +41 22 730 5887
> > > > > > FAX: +41 22 730 5853
> > > > > > Email: [email-masked]
> > > > > > Study Group 2 email: [email-masked]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, 14 October 2002 12:31
> > > > > > > To: [email-masked]
> > > > > > > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Don Evans; cathy
> > > > > > > Handley; Nancy
> > > > > > > J. Victory; Clyde Ensslin; atlarge discuss list; francis gurry
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: ITU press release on IDN resolution
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard and all assembly members, stakeholders or other
> > > > > > > interested parties,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Thank you Richard for this interesting update to ITU's IDN
> > > > > > > resolution.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   This update brings up some  interesting questions that were
> > > > > > > not addressed
> > > > > > > in this ITU IDN resolution.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Richard, can you explain or define the difference between
> > > > > > > and International
> > > > > > > Domain Name and a "General Domain Name"?
> > > > > > >  Would for instance fuubar.co.uk be and international Domain
Name
> > > > > > > or not?  Or would foobar.net or foobar.org be an
> > > > > > > international domain names
> > > > > > > or not?  Would for instance foobar.eu be an international
> > > > > Domain Name?
> > > > > > > And, if only Domains in .INT are international Domain
> > > > > Names, are all
> > > > > > > other domains in other name spaces or TLD's, not
international?
> > > > > > > Please elaborate in your answer...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [email-masked] wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please note that the title of the ITU Press highlight has
> > > > > > > been corrected.
> > > > > > > > It now reads:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Internet names: a matter for both government and
> > > > > private sector"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The second sentence has also been corrected, it reads:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "This resolution aims at helping promote the role of Member
> > > > > > > States in the
> > > > > > > > internationalization of domain names and addresses of their
> > > > > > > respective
> > > > > > > > languages"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also please note that this Press highlight refers to a
> > > > > > > resolution concerning
> > > > > > > > Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) specifically and not
> > > > > > > domain names in
> > > > > > > > general.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The corrected press highlight is at:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   http://www.itu.int/newsroom/pp02/Highlights/1010.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > Richard Hill
> > > > > > > > Counsellor, ITU-T SG2
> > > > > > > > International Telecommunication Union
> > > > > > > > Place des Nations
> > > > > > > > CH-1211 Geneva 20
> > > > > > > > Switzerland
> > > > > > > > tel: +41 22 730 5887
> > > > > > > > FAX: +41 22 730 5853
> > > > > > > > Email: [email-masked]
> > > > > > > > Study Group 2 email: [email-masked]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Alexander Svensson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, 11 October 2002 21:35
> > > > > > > > > To: DNSO General Assembly
> > > > > > > > > Subject: [ga] FYI: ITU press release on IDN resolution
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >ITU stakes claim on Internet names
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >The Working Group of the Plenary approved a resolution on
> > > > > > > > > the management
> > > > > > > > > >of internationalized multilingual domain names. This
> > > > > > > > > resolution aims at
> > > > > > > > > >promoting the role of Member States in the
> > > > > > > > > internationalization of domain
> > > > > > > > > >names and addresses of their respective languages. This
will
> > > > > > > > > be increasingly
> > > > > > > > > >important in the coming years as a majority of Internet
> > > > > > > > > users is expected
> > > > > > > > > >to prefer to conduct online activities in their own
> > > > > > > > > language. It is also
> > > > > > > > > >important because the current Domain Names System (DNS)
> > > > > > > > > mapping does not
> > > > > > > > > >reflect the growing language needs of all. The resolution
> > > > > > > > > stresses that
> > > > > > > > > >the registration and allocation of Internet domain names
and
> > > > > > > > > addresses
> > > > > > > > > >should reflect the geographical and functional nature of
the
> > > > > > > > > Internet with
> > > > > > > > > >an equitable balance of interests of all stakeholders. It
> > > > > > > > > also emphasizes
> > > > > > > > > >that the non-discriminatory access to Internet domain
names
> > > > > > > > > and addresses,
> > > > > > > > > >and more generally to the Internet, should be available
to
> > > > > > > > > all citizens
> > > > > > > > > >and that the management of Internet Domain Names and
> > > > > > > addresses is of
> > > > > > > > > >concern to both governments and the private sector. It
also
> > > > > > > > > reiterates
> > > > > > > > > >the need to fully maintain country code numbering plans
and
> > > > > > > > > addresses as
> > > > > > > > > >in ITU-T recommendation E.164 which defines the
> > > > > > > international public
> > > > > > > > > >telecommunication numbering plan. Under this resolution,
> > > > > > > ITU will be
> > > > > > > > > >providing assistance to its Member States to promote the
use
> > > > > > > > > of their
> > > > > > > > > >languages for domain names and addresses and will
> > > > > > > cooperate with the
> > > > > > > > > >World Intellectual Property Organization whose role
includes
> > > > > > > > > protection
> > > > > > > > > >against misuse of intellectual property rights in the use
of
> > > > > > > > > countries'
> > > > > > > > > >languages for domain names and addresses.
> > > > > > > > > (http://www.itu.int/newsroom/pp02/Highlights/1010.html)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > /// Alexander
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
>
> 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, 16 Oct 2002 18:11:19 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

Dear all,

Bret Faussett asked:
>If I were more adept at reading government-speak,
>I'm sure I'd see the deeper meaning, but on its face, I don't read this as a
>change over the status quo. Did I miss something?

I have prepared a red-lined document comparing the old and
new version of Resolution 102:

    http://www.icannchannel.de/res102-comp.pdf (54 kB PDF)
 or http://www.icannchannel.de/res102-comp.htm (13 kB HTML/CSS)

The differences between the ITU Resolution 102 from the Minneapolis 
Plenipotentiary Conference 1998 and the Marrakesh 2002 version 
which Elisabeth Porteneuve forwarded are sometimes subtle, and 
sometimes not so subtle.

E.g. in the last sentence, when the Plenipotentiary now encourages 
member states' participation "in the management of Internet domain 
names and addresses" instead of participation "in the entities 
managing" them.

E.g. in the "emphasizing" section, the differentiation between
"technical and coordination tasks, for which technical private
bodies can be responsible" and "public interest matters" -- and
the latter include stability and security. 

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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, 16 Oct 2002 18:20:15 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

Oops... sorry, but I just discovered that my HTML+CSS
version renders differently in Mozilla, missing some
of the sections. You have to stick with:

    http://www.icannchannel.de/res102-comp.pdf (54 kB PDF)

Best, 
/// Alexander

- --
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, 16 Oct 2002 13:52:19 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

> >If I were more adept at reading government-speak,
> >I'm sure I'd see the deeper meaning, but on its face, I don't read this
as a
> >change over the status quo. Did I miss something?
>
> I have prepared a red-lined document comparing the old and
> new version of Resolution 102:

Someone more versed in the matter might want to correct me, but a layperson
could simply read the resolution thusly;

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Local Telco Monopoly & ITU Member" <[email-masked]>
To: "Local Goverment" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 10:20 AM amongst other times
Subject: Regulatory Oversight

> Dear Local Government;
>
> We wish to bring a potential oversight to your attention. The Internet is
> important. Too important to be left to the decentralized control of the
> common Internet user and certainly too important to continue to be
> controlled by the DOC, ICANN and the IETF. Regulation of other forms of
> communication are regulated by local governments, why should the Internet
> be any different. Please fulfill your mandate and take a stronger role in
> Regulating the Internet. The ITU would love to help you do this. Someone
> from the ITU will be in touch with you shortly.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Local Telco Monopoly & ITU Member

If you're interested in getting a better read on where the ITU is coming
from, spend a few minutes at http://www.itu.int

Their interest in "the matter of ICANN' becomes painfully clear very
quickly. For instance, the secretary-general of the ITU has this to say:

"Over the last 135 years, the Union's mandate has expanded to cover the
invention of voice telephony, the development of radiocommunications, the
launch of the first communications satellites, and, most recently, the
technological convergence that heralds the dawn of a new,
telecommunications-based information age.

With a membership which includes almost all the world's countries and over
500 private members from the telecommunication, broadcasting and information
technology sectors, ITU can boast a long and highly successful track record
in developing and managing our telecommunication resources. An international
organization which is, at heart, a community of its members, today's ITU
remains unsurpassed in its ability to combine an impartial, global
perspective and cooperative approach with a solid technical foundation built
on the expertise of hundreds of leading manufacturers, carriers and service
providers. "

See the problem here? Over the last 20 years, the telco's of the world were
too focused on the problems that the roll-out of the "Information
Superhighway" and the "5000 channel universe" presented. They were
blindsided by the Internet. The organization that is responsible for
overseeing "the planet's largest man-made artifact" has negligble influence
over the planet's most important technical infrastructure. There's no easy
money in the Internet for them - the e2e principle almost ensures this.
These monopolists and their industry attendants need an easy way to get
their hooks into the new markets created by this "new" technology and urging
their local government to regulate the heck out of it is the most convenient
way to achieve this.

Take another read of 102 and in each case where it says "private industry"
or "private sector" insert "Local Telco Monopoly". Where it says
"appropriate interests" or "appropriate entities" or similar insert "Local
Telco Monopoly" or "Well-connected Telco Industry Player" and where it says
"management" simply insert "regulation".

Someone please tell me that I'm wrong - I really don't want to be "right" on
this one.

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
To: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 12:11 PM
Subject: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

>
>
> Dear all,
>
> Bret Faussett asked:
> >If I were more adept at reading government-speak,
> >I'm sure I'd see the deeper meaning, but on its face, I don't read this
as a
> >change over the status quo. Did I miss something?
>
> I have prepared a red-lined document comparing the old and
> new version of Resolution 102:
>
>     http://www.icannchannel.de/res102-comp.pdf (54 kB PDF)
>  or http://www.icannchannel.de/res102-comp.htm (13 kB HTML/CSS)
>
> The differences between the ITU Resolution 102 from the Minneapolis
> Plenipotentiary Conference 1998 and the Marrakesh 2002 version
> which Elisabeth Porteneuve forwarded are sometimes subtle, and
> sometimes not so subtle.
>
> E.g. in the last sentence, when the Plenipotentiary now encourages
> member states' participation "in the management of Internet domain
> names and addresses" instead of participation "in the entities
> managing" them.
>
> E.g. in the "emphasizing" section, the differentiation between
> "technical and coordination tasks, for which technical private
> bodies can be responsible" and "public interest matters" -- and
> the latter include stability and security.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> --
> 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, 16 Oct 2002 16:42:00 +0200
From: DNSO secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] TRANSFER INTERIM REPORT OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021016.NCTransfertTF-interim-report.html
submitted by the Names Council Transfer Task Force

The Interim report is open for public comment from:
OCTOBER 16 to NOVEMBER 8, 2002,

Please send all comments to:
[email-masked]

The Task Force looks forward to your comments and questions.
- -- 
DNSO Secretariat

- --
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, 16 Oct 2002 18:53:21 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: ITU press release on IDN resolution

James and all,

James Seng wrote:

> In IETF, we work on running codes and rough consensus.

  As a participating IETF member for a number of years now,
I don't know of any "Running Code" that the IETF has actually
created to date.  Perhaps you could point some of that
actual IETF created code out?  >;)

  Rough consensus means absolutely nothing.  Never has.

>
>
> We dont vote and we dont expect 100% consensus.

  That's right.  Yet unless it is measured, consensus cannot
actually exist.  it is therefore a guess, nothing more.
 100%/unanimous consensus rarely ever occurs.
And I have never suggested that any considered policy or
RFC have 100%/unanimous consensus either!

Don't like it, too bad also!  >;)  But it is clear
that the stakeholders/users don't like it in increasing
numbers.  So you had better get used to liking change,
because it has arrived.  And if you don't like that, to bad
also!  >;)

>
>
> Dont like it? Too bad.
>
> -James Seng
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> To: "James Seng" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; "General Assembly of the DNSO" <[email-masked]>;
> "Don Evans" <[email-masked]>; "Nancy J. Victory" <[email-masked]>;
> "cathy Handley" <[email-masked]>; "Clyde Ensslin"
> <[email-masked]>; "francis gurry" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 12:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: ITU press release on IDN resolution
>
> > James and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested parties,
> >
> > James Seng wrote:
> >
> > > IDNA has went thru the working group last call, and also IETF wide last
> > > call. The co-chairs has already submit it to the IESG for consideration
> for
> > > publication as RFC.
> > > So as far as "rough consensus" is concern, we are already done with
> that.
> >
> >   Well "Rough Consensus" is no consensus at all.  It is simply a guess.
> > This of course is one of several problems that the IETF/IAB have,
> > and have had for some time now.  None the less any kind of closed
> > consensus without the vote of the stakeholders/users to which such
> > a possible RFC (Request for comments) is not legitimate to the
> > broad internet stakeholder/user community...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The latest revision includes some changes requested by the IESG. I
> suspect
> > > there will be one (or two) more revision before it is finalized.
> > >
> > > -James Seng
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> > > To: <[email-masked]>
> > > Cc: "General Assembly of the DNSO" <[email-masked]>; "Don Evans"
> > > <[email-masked]>; "Nancy J. Victory" <[email-masked]>; "cathy
> > > Handley" <[email-masked]>; "Clyde Ensslin"
> <[email-masked]>;
> > > "francis gurry" <[email-masked]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 9:15 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: ITU press release on IDN resolution
> > >
> > > > Richard,
> > > >
> > > >   Ok thank you for this frank and more honest reply, Richard.
> > > > You could have said most of this in you first response however.
> > > >
> > > >   The only reference that Danny Younger pointed out to me,
> > > > which I had read some time ago now and had forgotten about
> > > > from the IETF is a "Memo".  See:
> > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-idna-13.txt
> > > > Interesting that it is dated october 4th of this year though...
> > > > Hence, hardly a consensus document!
> > > >
> > > > [email-masked] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If you do a search on the IETF site, you will find lots of
> references to
> > > > > IDN.  It is my understanding that the resolution mentioned in the
> press
> > > > > release refers to the IETF work on IDN.  I agree that the press
> release
> > > does
> > > > > not say that.  I am not evading your answers, I simply do not have
> the
> > > > > information required to answer them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Richard
> > > > >
> > > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > > Richard Hill
> > > > > Counsellor, ITU-T SG2
> > > > > International Telecommunication Union
> > > > > Place des Nations
> > > > > CH-1211 Geneva 20
> > > > > Switzerland
> > > > > tel: +41 22 730 5887
> > > > > FAX: +41 22 730 5853
> > > > > Email: [email-masked]
> > > > > Study Group 2 email: [email-masked]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, 14 October 2002 23:05
> > > > > > To: [email-masked]
> > > > > > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> > > > > > [email-masked];
> > > > > > francis gurry; Don Evans; Nancy J. Victory; cathy Handley; Clyde
> > > > > > Ensslin; atlarge discuss list
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: ITU press release on IDN resolution
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard and all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [email-masked] wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please note that the resolution refers to
> > > > > > "Internationalized Domain Names
> > > > > > > (IDN)", not to "international" domain names.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   Ah I see.  Ok.  Well none the less this did not answer my
> questions
> > > > > > regarding either "Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)" or
> > > > > > "International Domain Names" to you Richard.  Hence it would
> > > > > > seem that you are evading answering the questions I put to you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You'll have to address your questions to the people who defined
> > > > > > > "Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)".  I guess that is
> > > > > > IETF, but I may be
> > > > > > > wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   The IETF as far as I am aware, does not have any such
> distinction
> > > > > > regarding Domain Names in any policy statement or documentation.
> > > > > > As this press release was an ITU press release, and therefore a
> ITU
> > > > > > initiative, it would seem appropriate and reasonable that the ITU
> > > > > > or yourself could or should address the questions I ask.   There
> is
> > > > > > no indication or language in the press release indicating that
> > > > > > the IETF made or has made such a designation as stated
> > > > > > in the ITU press release.
> > > > > > See the ITU press release again at:
> > > > > > http://www.itu.int/newsroom/pp02/Highlights/1010.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   My questions rephrased to you Richard are as follows:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard, can you explain or define the difference between
> > > > > > and Internationalized Domain Name "IDN" and a "General
> > > > > > Domain Name"? Would for instance fuubar.co.uk be an
> > > > > > Internationalized Domain Name or not?  Or would foobar.net
> > > > > > or foobar.org be Internationalized domain names or not?  Would
> > > > > > for instance foobar.eu be an internationalized Domain Name?
> > > > > > And, if only Domains in .INT are international Domain Names, are
> all
> > > > > > other domains in other name spaces or TLD's, not
> internationalized?
> > > > > > Please elaborate in your answer...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > Richard Hill
> > > > > > > Counsellor, ITU-T SG2
> > > > > > > International Telecommunication Union
> > > > > > > Place des Nations
> > > > > > > CH-1211 Geneva 20
> > > > > > > Switzerland
> > > > > > > tel: +41 22 730 5887
> > > > > > > FAX: +41 22 730 5853
> > > > > > > Email: [email-masked]
> > > > > > > Study Group 2 email: [email-masked]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, 14 October 2002 12:31
> > > > > > > > To: [email-masked]
> > > > > > > > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Don Evans; cathy
> > > > > > > > Handley; Nancy
> > > > > > > > J. Victory; Clyde Ensslin; atlarge discuss list; francis gurry
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: ITU press release on IDN resolution
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Richard and all assembly members, stakeholders or other
> > > > > > > > interested parties,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   Thank you Richard for this interesting update to ITU's IDN
> > > > > > > > resolution.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   This update brings up some  interesting questions that were
> > > > > > > > not addressed
> > > > > > > > in this ITU IDN resolution.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   Richard, can you explain or define the difference between
> > > > > > > > and International
> > > > > > > > Domain Name and a "General Domain Name"?
> > > > > > > >  Would for instance fuubar.co.uk be and international Domain
> Name
> > > > > > > > or not?  Or would foobar.net or foobar.org be an
> > > > > > > > international domain names
> > > > > > > > or not?  Would for instance foobar.eu be an international
> > > > > > Domain Name?
> > > > > > > > And, if only Domains in .INT are international Domain
> > > > > > Names, are all
> > > > > > > > other domains in other name spaces or TLD's, not
> international?
> > > > > > > > Please elaborate in your answer...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [email-masked] wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please note that the title of the ITU Press highlight has
> > > > > > > > been corrected.
> > > > > > > > > It now reads:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Internet names: a matter for both government and
> > > > > > private sector"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The second sentence has also been corrected, it reads:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "This resolution aims at helping promote the role of Member
> > > > > > > > States in the
> > > > > > > > > internationalization of domain names and addresses of their
> > > > > > > > respective
> > > > > > > > > languages"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also please note that this Press highlight refers to a
> > > > > > > > resolution concerning
> > > > > > > > > Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) specifically and not
> > > > > > > > domain names in
> > > > > > > > > general.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The corrected press highlight is at:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   http://www.itu.int/newsroom/pp02/Highlights/1010.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > Richard Hill
> > > > > > > > > Counsellor, ITU-T SG2
> > > > > > > > > International Telecommunication Union
> > > > > > > > > Place des Nations
> > > > > > > > > CH-1211 Geneva 20
> > > > > > > > > Switzerland
> > > > > > > > > tel: +41 22 730 5887
> > > > > > > > > FAX: +41 22 730 5853
> > > > > > > > > Email: [email-masked]
> > > > > > > > > Study Group 2 email: [email-masked]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Alexander Svensson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, 11 October 2002 21:35
> > > > > > > > > > To: DNSO General Assembly
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: [ga] FYI: ITU press release on IDN resolution
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >ITU stakes claim on Internet names
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >The Working Group of the Plenary approved a resolution on
> > > > > > > > > > the management
> > > > > > > > > > >of internationalized multilingual domain names. This
> > > > > > > > > > resolution aims at
> > > > > > > > > > >promoting the role of Member States in the
> > > > > > > > > > internationalization of domain
> > > > > > > > > > >names and addresses of their respective languages. This
> will
> > > > > > > > > > be increasingly
> > > > > > > > > > >important in the coming years as a majority of Internet
> > > > > > > > > > users is expected
> > > > > > > > > > >to prefer to conduct online activities in their own
> > > > > > > > > > language. It is also
> > > > > > > > > > >important because the current Domain Names System (DNS)
> > > > > > > > > > mapping does not
> > > > > > > > > > >reflect the growing language needs of all. The resolution
> > > > > > > > > > stresses that
> > > > > > > > > > >the registration and allocation of Internet domain names
> and
> > > > > > > > > > addresses
> > > > > > > > > > >should reflect the geographical and functional nature of
> the
> > > > > > > > > > Internet with
> > > > > > > > > > >an equitable balance of interests of all stakeholders. It
> > > > > > > > > > also emphasizes
> > > > > > > > > > >that the non-discriminatory access to Internet domain
> names
> > > > > > > > > > and addresses,
> > > > > > > > > > >and more generally to the Internet, should be available
> to
> > > > > > > > > > all citizens
> > > > > > > > > > >and that the management of Internet Domain Names and
> > > > > > > > addresses is of
> > > > > > > > > > >concern to both governments and the private sector. It
> also
> > > > > > > > > > reiterates
> > > > > > > > > > >the need to fully maintain country code numbering plans
> and
> > > > > > > > > > addresses as
> > > > > > > > > > >in ITU-T recommendation E.164 which defines the
> > > > > > > > international public
> > > > > > > > > > >telecommunication numbering plan. Under this resolution,
> > > > > > > > ITU will be
> > > > > > > > > > >providing assistance to its Member States to promote the
> use
> > > > > > > > > > of their
> > > > > > > > > > >languages for domain names and addresses and will
> > > > > > > > cooperate with the
> > > > > > > > > > >World Intellectual Property Organization whose role
> includes
> > > > > > > > > > protection
> > > > > > > > > > >against misuse of intellectual property rights in the use
> of
> > > > > > > > > > countries'
> > > > > > > > > > >languages for domain names and addresses.
> > > > > > > > > > (http://www.itu.int/newsroom/pp02/Highlights/1010.html)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > /// Alexander
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1475
*************************