Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1479
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, October 20 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1479

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

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 00:09:24 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Profit = Tax (was ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later)

Ray - there is no shortage of names. You can imagine a shortage as big as
you want, but it still doesn't mean that consumers are being "penalized" on
the secondary market or that there is an actual scarcity of choice or that
the registry operators don't have a monopoly on the supply of names within a
TLD.

And finally, each of the price caps, save Verisign's, was picked by the
registry operator when they put in a proposal to run a TLD. Verisigns was
negotiated during the early days of ICANN. There is no mission creep in this
area - its business as usual. The policy gets perpetuated because it isn't
reasonable to have different rules for different operators.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Fassett" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 23:46 Moo!
Subject: Re: Profit = Tax (was ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later)

> "You are being penalized because there is a secondary market?"
>
> A secondary market exists.  The heated WLS debate is proof.  It is held up
> artificially.  People pay well over "retail" for a domain name in this
> artificial market place.  They pay a penalty for doing so. I am not sure
> what else you can call it.
>
> "Last time I checked, there were more than 250 alternatives to dotCOM."
>
> I do not know of anyone that is a citizen in every country of the world
> whereby they could then pick from 250 ccTLD's.  A handful of ccTLD's have
> re-positioned themselves as a gTLD (why?).  ICANN expanded the space with
2
> (if you include .biz).  The secondary market exists for a reason. People
> that purchase in the secondary market are penalized.  Your argument is
> circular.
>
> "If you are paying $1000 for domain names because there are no reasonable
> alternatives, one might be inclined to think that you aren't looking hard
> enough."
>
> The secondary market exists.  The WLS debate is proof.  People are
choosing
> this option and, obviously, must find what I term as a penalty to be of
> value...that's not the point.  It is artificial and there is no technical
> reason for it to exist.  A few parties benefit, the majority do not.
>
> "Would you prefer that the price of domain names were solely priced by the
> monopoly providers?
>
> ICANN has claimed competition as one of its accomplishments for the
> community.  The drastic evaporation of VRSN valuation in 2002 is being
> attributed to it no longer having a monopoly position.  It is not easy to
> port away, but it is possible if options were made available.  Many
> newcomers are forced to the secondary market where they then either pay
the
> penalty or walk away because options are not available.  An environment
> that would influence members of the community to walk away for no
technical
> reason is a disgrace to anyone that in any way allows it to exist.
>
> "I'm sure that VGRS would *love* to reprice their inventory at "market"
> prices."
>
> and is the same as saying that Verisign is not able to price their
> inventory at market pricing in a competitive environment.  I fail to
> understand this logic.  Yes, Verisign stands to gain big in the short term
> because they - and only they - have the .com contract.  Achieving
> competition was supposed to be the "proof of concept".  You can't wipe out
> the dominance of .com overnight.  But, you can't say you want to introduce
> a competitive environment and then regulate one contract holder because it
> had the huge headstart. It's part of the process.  Again, the argument is
> circular (under the capitalistic umbrella).
>
> "Sometimes, in order to ensure a free and fair market, certain checks and
> balances need to be artificially introduced. The price cap is a perfectly
> reasonable market control."
>
> Now here is where the argument totally falls apart.  Exactly who in the
> entire realm of the non-profit, private ICANN (currently under drastic
> reform) is qualified to make this "perfectly reasonable" determination?
> The idea is for ICANN to be a technical body that merely coordinates the
> existence of numerous gTLD choices for the community such that DNS remains
> stable.  The problem is that this entity has chosen to play gatekeeper
> rather than following through with the proof of concept in any efficient
> sort of way.  It needs to regulate the wholesale price cap in order to
> maintain this gatekeeper role and is what you describe as a check and
> balance.  For who?  And for what technical reason?  What you describe is
> Top-Down.  It is mission creep.  Some agree with mission creep.  I do not.
> I do not believe in trading mission creep so that Versign can be regulated
> at $6...but I admit to being in the minority.
>
> Ray
> --
>
>
>

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

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

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 23:47:21 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS INTERIM REPORT OPEN for PUBLIC COMMENT

Jeff, as co-chair of the WHOIS Task Force, I wish to provide a clarification regarding your comments. The Interim Report has just been published. Vittorio's comments were on the Final Report on the Survey Results. It appears that you have the two confused. The Interim Report was just published adn is open for comment for just over three weeks. 

One of the TF members is contacting him regarding getting a clear copy of his previous comments  on the earlier document for the link into the TF report. 

In the meantime, comments on the Interim Report are welcomed.  Please address your input to the comment site so that the TF, and other interested parties are able to benefit from your review and comments. I am sure that the TF will find your comments, after you read the Interim Report, of interest. 

Regards, Marilyn Cade
- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 9:33 PM
To: [email-masked]; Don Evans; Nancy J. Victory; cathy Handley;
Robin Layton
Cc: Vittorio Bertola; DNSO Secretariat; [email-masked]; Clyde Ensslin
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS INTERIM REPORT OPEN for PUBLIC COMMENT

Vittorio and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested parties,

  Thank you for again pointing to you comments/suggestions regarding
the WHOIS INterim Report.  They were interesting re-reading.  I for
one did read them originally as well as filed them in my database
for future reference.

  As has been the ICANN BoD's and Staff's long standing practice
of being very selective in the suggestions/comments and questions submitted
via their "Black Hole" public comment E-Mail addresses, you nor
any other stakeholders/user should be very surprised as to the
lack of good policy in considering public stakeholder/user input
from ICANN.

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> 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

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 00:16:43 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS INTERIM REPORT OPEN for PUBLIC COMMENT

Marilyn and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested parties,

  Thank you Marilyn for this hopefully honest change in attitude regarding
comments and suggestions to the Whios Interim Report coming from
myself or others which have time and time again filed or sent in comments
on the Whois issue over the past 3 years.  As I have myself done
so in my own behalf and also in the behalf of our [INEGroup]
members on this go around (BTW seemingly very much over
redundant).  My personal comments and suggestions are, and should
still be pretty well understood and known.  In addition those
suggestions/comments of INEGroup's collective position, are
very much in line with mine with some notable exceptions, also
a number of times posted to the several and various "Black Hole"
E-Mail addresses for these purposes.
See for instance, the Than required E-Mail address for such comments
 mailto:[email-masked]  to which I cannot find any reference
to a Archive for these comments on the DNSO.ORG web site
any longer but were requested to be sent to this E-Mail address
from here: http://www.icann.org/committees/whois/

  In addition to this obvious seemingly purposefully confusing
fiasco, I also noticed that the comments are responses on this
very thread do not appear in the archives of this E-Mail list
forum did not, John Berryhills dated Oct. 15.  These
archives are located supposedly at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/

  So Marilyn I am again finding it very difficult to believe that
you are very sincere in your contention as to my or any comments,
given the veracity of John Barryhill's, regarding comments and/or suggestions
that do not fit into this Task Forces perhaps cookie-cutter desires...

  This iteration of lengthening or stretching out of the WHOIS issue
by the creation of the so called "Task Force" which is of questionable
legitimacy in the first place, is yet again another of ICANN's process
finagling that fails to reach a reasonable cross section of stakeholders
that make up the Task Forces members.  Hence it is clear yet again
that such an approach without concerted oversight, which is seemingly
absent, does not now, and cannot in the future, even begin to approach a
method of arriving at any remote sort of "Consensus" based policy
determination.

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Jeff, as co-chair of the WHOIS Task Force, I wish to provide a clarification regarding your comments. The Interim Report has just been published. Vittorio's comments were on the Final Report on the Survey Results. It appears that you have the two confused. The Interim Report was just published adn is open for comment for just over three weeks.
>
> One of the TF members is contacting him regarding getting a clear copy of his previous comments  on the earlier document for the link into the TF report.
>
> In the meantime, comments on the Interim Report are welcomed.  Please address your input to the comment site so that the TF, and other interested parties are able to benefit from your review and comments. I am sure that the TF will find your comments, after you read the Interim Report, of interest.
>
> Regards, Marilyn Cade
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 9:33 PM
> To: [email-masked]; Don Evans; Nancy J. Victory; cathy Handley;
> Robin Layton
> Cc: Vittorio Bertola; DNSO Secretariat; [email-masked]; Clyde Ensslin
> Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS INTERIM REPORT OPEN for PUBLIC COMMENT
>
> Vittorio and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested parties,
>
>   Thank you for again pointing to you comments/suggestions regarding
> the WHOIS INterim Report.  They were interesting re-reading.  I for
> one did read them originally as well as filed them in my database
> for future reference.
>
>   As has been the ICANN BoD's and Staff's long standing practice
> of being very selective in the suggestions/comments and questions submitted
> via their "Black Hole" public comment E-Mail addresses, you nor
> any other stakeholders/user should be very surprised as to the
> lack of good policy in considering public stakeholder/user input
> from ICANN.
>
> Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> 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: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 13:56:23 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

- --=======3D815CB9=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-337933DF; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Always fun when we discover that free entrepise means right to steel :-)

At 23:50 19/10/02, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>Even then, the cost of registrations was only established to cover the 
>cost of providing the registration services - a model that persists until 
>today.

How could it then drop from 50 to 9 in one day :-)
How bad it is they removed the General Accountant document from the ICANN site.

>Your perception sharply differs from mine. I'm not aware of any time that
>the Internet has been governed democratically - scratch that, I'm not aware
>of any time that the Internet has been governed.

hmmmm. everything is governed or drifting.

>The DNS != the Internet.
>The registration services provided by SRI, GSI, NSI, SAIC, Verisign etc. !=
>the DNS. The revenue generated from the registration of names has nothing to
>do with the operation of anything except the registration of names.

I just wander why there is any revenue over the name, and not only over the 
registration act. What is the renewal task which justifies the same amount 
of revenue as the registration.

> > I was probably too much accustomed to the European notion of "public
> > service". So, if I read you correctly "to foster competition" is the same
> > as "to enforce capitalism"? If you say so I will accept it (a costly
>lesson
> > of English -).
>
>I view it slightly differently - there is a healthy tension between the
>public good and the needs of a free market.

To be a market there must be a product to sell. Names belongs to people.
The only service is registering.

>Fostering competition is a
>vastly different exercise than enforcing capitalism - the latter would
>likely require an army of soldiers, where the former likely requires an army
>of lawyers. I fully believe that the market created through the
>re-regulation processes that ICANN has implemented has furthered the public
>good.

So you agree that the market deos not result from the availability of a 
product or a service, but has been built by ICANN.

>Things could certainly be more streamlined and efficient, but that is
>where a healthy policy development process becomes key. Without that healthy
>process, the tension between the public good and the needs of the capitalist
>players can become imbalanced.

In this case it creates the imbalance. Would simply market forces apply I 
would propose free DNs and I would make a good business from it. We will do 
that in a near future hopefully but ICANN delayed the Internet and 
therefore the world's developpment; killed the new eceonomy momentum, 
created a lot of furstration round the world. I agree with your Senator who 
wants to have Joe Sims tried for War Crimes. All that for a few business to 
sell what belongs to all.

VRSN is a protected monopoly with a limited deregulation extending that 
monopoly to a few other ones. This is not a stable situation and you know 
it. What would be stable would have been - accrding to capitalism - to 
leave market forces applying. There would have been an unbalance: lower 
SAIC benefits over the NSI deal. No Registrars. A few more registries as 
small performing servcies. Much more TLDs and a growing new-economy after a 
far earlier self-deflation.

Built on the wind.

>                      -rwr
>
>
>
>
>Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
>
>"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
>thought which they seldom use."
>  - Soren Kierkegaard
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 3:15 PM
>Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later
>
>
> > On 17:32 19/10/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
> > >It has never been a dotcom world and its certainly not a gTLD world.
> >
> > This would be a good point enough should the domain name had not be
> > confused with the mnemonic. You perfectly know that everyone around the
> > world first resolves a mnemonic into mnemonic.com as a domain name.
> >
> > That would be a good point should that confusion did not result from
> > ICANN's policy though the lack of new TLDs.
> >
> >
> > Now, Ross, what is the capitalism to do with this? I have allways been
> > explained that Internet was an academic network of military origin and
>that
> > names had a rate helping to support the cost of managing and developping
> > the network?  I certainly observed that bluntly a fee became a discounted
> > price but if was after I started using that domain names of mine. I
> > genuinely believed when I started that Internet was democraticaly managed
> > (I even rad the bylaws of ICANN) and that $100/two years was the real cost
> > of the Internet operations under the control of the USG.
> >
> > I was probably too much accustomed to the European notion of "public
> > service". So, if I read you correctly "to foster competition" is the same
> > as "to enforce capitalism"? If you say so I will accept it (a costly
>lesson
> > of English -).
> >
> > But may I ask a question? What was the capital investment?
> > If you go on the ICANN site, you will find the IANA agreement where the
>USG
> > sells the IANA function to ICAN for less than $ 10.000. Means that I have
> > paid 7 times the price Internets. Even by tough capitalistic standard it
> > would be a good deal for the seller :-)
> >
> > As an US tax payer, are not surprised that the USG Might sell for such a
> > low price something generating so much revenue. I really think WRSN could
> > thank Mr. DeWitt from Eindhoven, who I suppose never got a cent for having
> > initially coined "com".
> > jfc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.401 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 09/10/02

- --=======3D815CB9=======--

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

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

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 19:31:41 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Future of .su

Dear all,

It seems ICANN has to deal with the former Soviet Union's
.su ccTLD -- it's no longer on the ISO 3166-1 list
(http://shorl.com/bustypugyleju), but it's on the list of 
"reserved code elements" since September 1992.
(http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/iso3166-res.pdf - 632 kB)

 From a Wired News article :
> (...)
>When ICANN spokesman Herbert Vitzthum announced at the Moscow conference 
>in late September that dot-su would be revoked, the situation got stickier.
>
>While it was reported in some Russian media outlets that it was an 
>unofficial -- and therefore unbinding -- statement, Vizthum made it clear 
>at the time that ICANN's position would not change.
>
>Later, however, Vitzthum denied making any official statement. And Mary 
>Hewitt, ICANN's director of communications, wrote that the future of 
>dot-su as a top-level domain is still under consideration.
>
>Those involved await a decision on dot-su's fate, which will likely 
>be announced at the ICANN meeting in Shanghai at the end of October.

("Russia May Say 'See Ya' to Dot-Su", 
http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,55687,00.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

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

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 11:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Future of .su

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> >Later, however, Vitzthum denied making any official statement. And Mary 
> >Hewitt, ICANN's director of communications, wrote that the future of 
> >dot-su as a top-level domain is still under consideration.

If it is "under consideration" that "consideration" is not happening at 
the board level.

Apart from the utter elimination of public participation in ICANN, the
thing that most irks me about ICANN's so-called "reform" is that it does
absolutely nothing to redress the fact that in ICANN all the real
decisionmaking is done by "staff", secretly from both the public and the
board; without notes, minutes, or other records; subject to unknown and
unreviewable whims and influences; and perhaps associated with unknown 
quid pro quos.

		--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: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 12:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Future of .su

Hello,

- --- Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> ("Russia May Say 'See Ya' to Dot-Su", 
> http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,55687,00.html)

I propose that they add an 'e' at the end, to make it .sue -- the
official TLD of lawyers! :)

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.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: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 12:14:25 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Future of .su

I'd be interested in hearing views on what *should* happen with the .su
ccTLD. Once a country, always a ccTLD? Or should ccTLD delegations bear some
more precise relationship to national identities?

Alexander Svensson wrote:
> It seems ICANN has to deal with the former Soviet Union's
> .su ccTLD -- it's no longer on the ISO 3166-1 list
> (http://shorl.com/bustypugyleju), but it's on the list of
> "reserved code elements" since September 1992.
> (http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/iso3166-res.pdf - 632 kB)

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

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

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:29:50 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Future of .su

Karl, thank you very much for clarifications from Board side.

The IANA function performed by ICANN is subject to the Purchase
Order from the US Government, issued on 9 February 2000,
http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-09feb00.htm
with provision for performance progress reports each 3 months.
The initial Purchase Order has been modified on 21 March 2001,
http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-21mar01.htm
with provision for performance progress reports each 6 months.
The corresponding NTIA page is
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/iana.htm

The March 2001 IANA function purchase order reads:
    2.1.1.2 Perform administrative functions associated with 
    root management. This function involves facilitation and 
    coordination of the root zone of the domain name system. 
    It includes receiving requests for and making routine updates 
    of the country code top level domain (ccTLD) contact and 
    nameserver information. It also includes receiving delegation 
    and redelegation requests, investigating the circumstances 
    pertinent to those requests, and reporting on the requests. 
    This function, however, does not include authorizing 
    modifications, additions, or deletions to the root zone file 
    or associated information that constitute delegation or 
    redelegation of top level domains. 

This statement is clear.

Besides, I recall John Klensin explaining several times that 
country codes such as .SU or .GB will remain preserved in the 
DNS for stability purposes.
John ?

Elisabeth

- --------------Original Message---------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 11:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
To: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
cc: DNSO General Assembly <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Future of .su
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> >Later, however, Vitzthum denied making any official statement. And Mary 
> >Hewitt, ICANN's director of communications, wrote that the future of 
> >dot-su as a top-level domain is still under consideration.

If it is "under consideration" that "consideration" is not happening at 
the board level.

Apart from the utter elimination of public participation in ICANN, the
thing that most irks me about ICANN's so-called "reform" is that it does
absolutely nothing to redress the fact that in ICANN all the real
decisionmaking is done by "staff", secretly from both the public and the
board; without notes, minutes, or other records; subject to unknown and
unreviewable whims and influences; and perhaps associated with unknown 
quid pro quos.

		--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

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

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

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 19:44:14 GMT
From: David Farrar <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Future of .su

Bret Fausett wrote:
> I'd be interested in hearing views on what *should* happen with the .su
> ccTLD. Once a country, always a ccTLD? Or should ccTLD delegations bear some
> more precise relationship to national identities?

This is a fascinating area.  Just a couple of days ago I said that no 
registrant operating in good faith should lose their domain name due to policy 
changes etc.

However if a country changes it name and hence its ISO3166-1 code it does 
create problems.  An argument *could* be made that as all the businesses and 
individuals will have to be spending money changing their physical and postal 
addresses that the same burden should apply to their internet address.

If you went down this path you would want registrants to be able to go from 
(for example) domainname.su to domainname.ru.  However if the new domain name 
has been operating at the same time as the old one you may end up with 
collisions.  Also the two ccTLDs may have different managers and hence 
different naming policies.

So overall I think it is fairer not to close down a ccTLD just because the 
country disappears.  Close it down for new registrations but allow current 
registrants to stay there as legacy.

The exception may be if the renamed country wants it old TLD deleted.  So if 
New Zealand became Aotearoa and went from .nz to .ao it might one day decide to 
delete .nz.  But when a country splits rather than is renamed such as 
Czechoslovakia and USSR then it is not clear if anyone can speak for the old 
ccTLD.  I suppose the government of whereever the old registry is physically 
located could pass a law closing it down if it really wanted.

DPF

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

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

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 13:03:07 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Future of .su

Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> Besides, I recall John Klensin explaining several times that
> country codes such as .SU or .GB will remain preserved in the
> DNS for stability purposes.

I don't believe that's IANA's current practice:

"When an alpha-2 code for a country is changed on the ISO 3166-1 list, the
IANA's historical practice has been to set up a top-level domain with the
new code and to delegate it to the same manager as the existing top-level
domain, with the expectation that a transition will occur and that the
deprecated top-level domain will be deleted once the migration is
completed."

http://www.iana.org/reports/zr-report-20jun01.htm

     -- Bret

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

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

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 10:50:25 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS INTERIM REPORT OPEN for PUBLIC COMMENT

Jeff, as you know, only the TF members have posting privileges to the TF archives. When requested, I do post for anyone who asks me, IF their post is on topic to the TF's work.

However, regardless of that usual practice, I see no reason to forward now, since the comments site is open. 

In particular, I wouldn't forward emails addressed as above to the WHOIS TF just because I am the addressee. It would seem both impolite and without authorization to presume to do so.

However, comments which are about the substance of the Interim Report are welcomed at [email-masked].  I note that you are directing your comments there. Thanks. 

Regards, Marilyn Cade

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 3:17 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Don Evans; Nancy J. Victory; cathy Handley;
Robin Layton; Vittorio Bertola; DNSO Secretariat; [email-masked]; Clyde
Ensslin
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS INTERIM REPORT OPEN for PUBLIC COMMENT

Marilyn and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested parties,

  Thank you Marilyn for this hopefully honest change in attitude regarding
comments and suggestions to the Whios Interim Report coming from
myself or others which have time and time again filed or sent in comments
on the Whois issue over the past 3 years.  As I have myself done
so in my own behalf and also in the behalf of our [INEGroup]
members on this go around (BTW seemingly very much over
redundant).  My personal comments and suggestions are, and should
still be pretty well understood and known.  In addition those
suggestions/comments of INEGroup's collective position, are
very much in line with mine with some notable exceptions, also
a number of times posted to the several and various "Black Hole"
E-Mail addresses for these purposes.
See for instance, the Than required E-Mail address for such comments
 mailto:[email-masked]  to which I cannot find any reference
to a Archive for these comments on the DNSO.ORG web site
any longer but were requested to be sent to this E-Mail address
from here: http://www.icann.org/committees/whois/

  In addition to this obvious seemingly purposefully confusing
fiasco, I also noticed that the comments are responses on this
very thread do not appear in the archives of this E-Mail list
forum did not, John Berryhills dated Oct. 15.  These
archives are located supposedly at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/

  So Marilyn I am again finding it very difficult to believe that
you are very sincere in your contention as to my or any comments,
given the veracity of John Barryhill's, regarding comments and/or suggestions
that do not fit into this Task Forces perhaps cookie-cutter desires...

  This iteration of lengthening or stretching out of the WHOIS issue
by the creation of the so called "Task Force" which is of questionable
legitimacy in the first place, is yet again another of ICANN's process
finagling that fails to reach a reasonable cross section of stakeholders
that make up the Task Forces members.  Hence it is clear yet again
that such an approach without concerted oversight, which is seemingly
absent, does not now, and cannot in the future, even begin to approach a
method of arriving at any remote sort of "Consensus" based policy
determination.

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Jeff, as co-chair of the WHOIS Task Force, I wish to provide a clarification regarding your comments. The Interim Report has just been published. Vittorio's comments were on the Final Report on the Survey Results. It appears that you have the two confused. The Interim Report was just published adn is open for comment for just over three weeks.
>
> One of the TF members is contacting him regarding getting a clear copy of his previous comments  on the earlier document for the link into the TF report.
>
> In the meantime, comments on the Interim Report are welcomed.  Please address your input to the comment site so that the TF, and other interested parties are able to benefit from your review and comments. I am sure that the TF will find your comments, after you read the Interim Report, of interest.
>
> Regards, Marilyn Cade
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 9:33 PM
> To: [email-masked]; Don Evans; Nancy J. Victory; cathy Handley;
> Robin Layton
> Cc: Vittorio Bertola; DNSO Secretariat; [email-masked]; Clyde Ensslin
> Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS INTERIM REPORT OPEN for PUBLIC COMMENT
>
> Vittorio and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested parties,
>
>   Thank you for again pointing to you comments/suggestions regarding
> the WHOIS INterim Report.  They were interesting re-reading.  I for
> one did read them originally as well as filed them in my database
> for future reference.
>
>   As has been the ICANN BoD's and Staff's long standing practice
> of being very selective in the suggestions/comments and questions submitted
> via their "Black Hole" public comment E-Mail addresses, you nor
> any other stakeholders/user should be very surprised as to the
> lack of good policy in considering public stakeholder/user input
> from ICANN.
>
> Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1479
*************************