Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1492
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, October 30 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1492

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 23:24:12 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: GAC Secretariat 

Dear all,

Heise Online reports that the European Commission will
run the GAC Secretariat from November on -- a decision
apparenly taken at the GAC meeting:
http://heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-29.10.02-004/

The Heise Online article also points to an earlier story
about rumours that outgoing GAC Chairman Paul Twomey
might become Stuart Lynn's successor as ICANN President.
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-14.10.02-003/

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, 30 Oct 2002 00:12:18 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RIRs: Competition?

I just read once more that the RIRs (ARIN, APNIC, RIPE, etc.) want to make
more policy themselves and be less 'under' ICANN. Great, I thought at
first. But then, do these RIRs not have even more of a monopoly than
Networksolutions once had? Nobody ever had to do business with NSI to be
able to connect to the internet. There were ccTLDs, and you do not even
have to have a domain name at all for a lot of services (even email can do
without a domain). But you do need an IP number. And you can get it only
from one source.

Should this source be completely free from public control or influence?

- --
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, 30 Oct 2002 00:37:01 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Do the gtld-servers.net run Bind?

In a press release about their take over of the DNS for ORG, UltraDNS
claims that ORG now runs of nameservers that use Bind. Is this true? I
thought Verisign used their own software. Asked for its name it says it is
"VGRS1".

The UltraDNS press release is at

http://www.ultradns.com/news/021028.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, 30 Oct 2002 02:10:33 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Do the gtld-servers.net run Bind?

More important, how was the Pujiang River Night Tour? I don't know how those
of us who could not afford the trip can possibly claim to represent the
public interest in the reformed ICANN without the benefit of these kinds of
experiences.
Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Marc
> Schneiders
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 6:37 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Do the gtld-servers.net run Bind?
>
>
> In a press release about their take over of the DNS for ORG, UltraDNS
> claims that ORG now runs of nameservers that use Bind. Is this true? I
> thought Verisign used their own software. Asked for its name it says it is
> "VGRS1".
>
> The UltraDNS press release is at
>
> http://www.ultradns.com/news/021028.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
>

- --
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, 29 Oct 2002 23:24:12 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: GAC Secretariat 

Dear all,

Heise Online reports that the European Commission will
run the GAC Secretariat from November on -- a decision
apparenly taken at the GAC meeting:
http://heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-29.10.02-004/

The Heise Online article also points to an earlier story
about rumours that outgoing GAC Chairman Paul Twomey
might become Stuart Lynn's successor as ICANN President.
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-14.10.02-003/

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, 30 Oct 2002 03:51:49 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: GAC Secretariat 

Alex, a quick note:  The EC will provide an Interim Secretariat, as I understand this.
:-)

- -----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Svensson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 5:24 PM
To: DNSO General Assembly
Subject: [ga] FYI: GAC Secretariat 

Dear all,

Heise Online reports that the European Commission will
run the GAC Secretariat from November on -- a decision
apparenly taken at the GAC meeting:
http://heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-29.10.02-004/

The Heise Online article also points to an earlier story
about rumours that outgoing GAC Chairman Paul Twomey
might become Stuart Lynn's successor as ICANN President.
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-14.10.02-003/

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

- --
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, 30 Oct 2002 10:24:00 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: GAC Secretariat 

At 30.10.2002 03:51, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>Alex, a quick note:  The EC will provide an Interim Secretariat, as I understand this.
>:-)

Thanks, yes. Here's the link to the GAC Communique:

http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/GAC/CommuniqueXIV-Shanghai.pdf

However, it seems unclear what exactly "interim" means here.
Paul Twomey has reportedly said that was meant in the sense of 
being reviewed. Now, what /that/ means, remains to be seen. :)

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, 30 Oct 2002 17:45:43 +0800
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: GAC Secretariat

On 2002-10-30 10:24:00 +0100, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> However, it seems unclear what exactly "interim" means here. Paul
> Twomey has reportedly said that was meant in the sense of being
> reviewed.

Yes, that was his comment when asked what it means.
- -- 
Thomas Roessler	(mobile)	<[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, 30 Oct 2002 03:30:21 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Fundamental Question

Is ICANN a regulatory body with authority over Verisign?

The Answer is simple no.  It is a "blue ribbon" panel that allows the US
DoC to claim openness, transparency and representativeness, in its'
decision making process.  Is it bullshit?  Yes; we all see that now.
Are the folks in the DoC perpetrating a fraud?  Maybe.  Are ICANN and
their lawyers perpetrating a fraud?

But if we have the elements of a fraud we must have injury/damage, who
has been damaged?  Who are the rightful claimants to such malfeasance?
Interesting.

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: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 03:44:28 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: GAC Secretariat

In the English language you do not have literary license to use a word and then redefine
it.
Interim does not in any way mean under review.  This is pure crap.
Interim in this sense, should mean "until duly appointed or elected" ICANN has never done
either. How can they without an at-large membership?
The GAC is a token given by the USG to pretend legitimacy.  To date it is a nonchalant body
that has no efficacy.  The secretariat is as worthless as a note taker in a poker parlor.
The money is taken before anyone sees it.
e

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> At 30.10.2002 03:51, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> >Alex, a quick note:  The EC will provide an Interim Secretariat, as I understand this.
> >:-)
>
> Thanks, yes. Here's the link to the GAC Communique:
>
> http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/GAC/CommuniqueXIV-Shanghai.pdf
>
> However, it seems unclear what exactly "interim" means here.
> Paul Twomey has reportedly said that was meant in the sense of
> being reviewed. Now, what /that/ means, remains to be seen. :)
>
> 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, 30 Oct 2002 04:23:41 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] fiction

So the story outline goes like this;

There was this guy and he was smart enough to get some other guys
together to form a corp to basically control the internet.  He got the
contracts with the USG. but in doing so he relied on some lawyer type
firm and when they saw the potential and that he wanted to turn over
control to the users, they whacked him. Of course they had insinuated
into handling his estate.  Then they kind of partner up with the corp
that controls - oh lets say dotCOM just for fantasy- and then they run
meetings from - oh lets say bucharest to MDR to Shanghai and they
convince the USG that everything is bottoms up.  Meanwhile they have
their finger in every internet pie from Texas to Argentina.  Well they
sure couldn't turn over their books and they cannot allow open and
transparency so they influence the -Oh just for fun say the DoC, but let
us call it the CIA for flavor-.  Oh yea they call themselves the
"Staff", kind of a cool name.  Oh yea and we have these great
characters; like an executive that works for a company that has
criminally defrauded their stockholders and a lady behind the scenes
that works out of country from some wild place like Hungary.
WOW what a book of fiction!
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: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:35:13 -0500
From: Allan Liska <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Do the gtld-servers.net run Bind?

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: MD5

Hello Marc,

Tuesday, October 29, 2002, 6:37:01 PM, you wrote:

MS> In a press release about their take over of the DNS for ORG, UltraDNS
MS> claims that ORG now runs of nameservers that use Bind. Is this true? I
MS> thought Verisign used their own software. Asked for its name it says it is
MS> "VGRS1".

VeriSign is in the process of replacing BIND with software developed
in house, the new software will be called ATLAS:

http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2002/133242_06-10-2002.html

They were not scheduled to go live until the fall, so UltraDNS may
have assumed they were still running BIND, or the press release writer
may have been lazy and not done their research :).

allan
- - --
Allan Liska
[email-masked]
http://www.allan.org

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAwUAPb/uJCkg6TAvIBeFAQHXYQP9EYWUzGJihWds7n1bqmLrVfD9jkObtjG6
UCj43zzWS6edxvViyjpBEnrzLegWj0jEcKwkEzVbdAuJDl9Gwqy+JZBLsAwlfWsT
iFqtb3exWy2xZCpb9sPTb0/9YJLhecuVcDo7bJj+2jHoyxlpZ7dVWetxoBnsWcOr
ST/cLrflfe4=
=lvl3
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
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, 30 Oct 2002 18:05:35 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Nuclear Threat from the ccTLDs

From the ccTLD communique from Sjanghai:

"2.3     In view of the continuing failures by ICANN in conducting its
stewardship of the IANA function, particularly in relation to ccTLD
database updates, managers agreed to set up a Working Group to develop
a plan to set up a system of independent management of the DNS root
entries and database entries. It is expected this plan will be
developed in parallel with attempts to create an acceptable ccSO, and
to be available in the event that is unsuccessful."

That would be the end of the ICANN root. The ccTLDs have never, I
think, been so clear before.

If you treat it like an enemy, it will behave like one.

- --
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, 31 Oct 2002 06:59:43 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nuclear Threat from the ccTLDs

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:05:35 +0100 (CET), Marc Schneiders
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>From the ccTLD communique from Sjanghai:
>
>"2.3     In view of the continuing failures by ICANN in conducting its
>stewardship of the IANA function, particularly in relation to ccTLD
>database updates, managers agreed to set up a Working Group to develop
>a plan to set up a system of independent management of the DNS root
>entries and database entries. It is expected this plan will be
>developed in parallel with attempts to create an acceptable ccSO, and
>to be available in the event that is unsuccessful."
>
>That would be the end of the ICANN root. The ccTLDs have never, I
>think, been so clear before.

It is certainly a sign that ICANN's tactics of using their
guardianship of the IANA function to try and force contracts and new
policies on ccTLDs has really peeved people off.  There are few thing
more reprehensible that refusing to update the root zone when you know
information is manifestly incorrect.

What the above could imply (I am guessing as I was not there) is that
if ICANN continues down the same path, then ccTLDs could apply to DOC
to take over the IANA function.  ICANN could still remain as the gTLD
policy body but the IANA function can be removed from them quite
easily.

DPF
- --
E-mail: [email-masked]
ICQ:    29964527
MSN:    [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, 30 Oct 2002 19:23:07 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nuclear Threat from the ccTLDs

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:05:35 +0100 (CET), you wrote:

>That would be the end of the ICANN root. The ccTLDs have never, I
>think, been so clear before.
>
>If you treat it like an enemy, it will behave like one.

It is also true that in the public forum there were different
statements from different ccTLD people, which appeared to be somewhat
contrasting one with the other. People from some ccTLDs stood up to
say that the wording of the communique was a little excessive and
partly due to misunderstandings, and that they didn't mean to put
things that way.
- -- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
- ----------------------> http://bertola.eu.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: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 19:48:26 +0100
From: Loïc Damilaville <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nuclear Threat from the ccTLDs

well, I'm not sure that DoC is thinking about ccTLDs (CENTR for instance?)
as an alternative to ICANN to take over the IANA function.

Maybe we might suggest ITU to make this alternative acceptable? :-)))

Loic

DPF a écrit :

> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:05:35 +0100 (CET), Marc Schneiders
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >From the ccTLD communique from Sjanghai:
> >
> >"2.3     In view of the continuing failures by ICANN in conducting its
> >stewardship of the IANA function, particularly in relation to ccTLD
> >database updates, managers agreed to set up a Working Group to develop
> >a plan to set up a system of independent management of the DNS root
> >entries and database entries. It is expected this plan will be
> >developed in parallel with attempts to create an acceptable ccSO, and
> >to be available in the event that is unsuccessful."
> >
> >That would be the end of the ICANN root. The ccTLDs have never, I
> >think, been so clear before.
>
> It is certainly a sign that ICANN's tactics of using their
> guardianship of the IANA function to try and force contracts and new
> policies on ccTLDs has really peeved people off.  There are few thing
> more reprehensible that refusing to update the root zone when you know
> information is manifestly incorrect.
>
> What the above could imply (I am guessing as I was not there) is that
> if ICANN continues down the same path, then ccTLDs could apply to DOC
> to take over the IANA function.  ICANN could still remain as the gTLD
> policy body but the IANA function can be removed from them quite
> easily.
>
> DPF
> --
> E-mail: [email-masked]
> ICQ:    29964527
> MSN:    [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, 30 Oct 2002 19:53:04 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: China no longer claims Chinese script gTLD domains?

From an AP article on the Chinese IDN approach published 
by CNN as "China drops plan for Chinese-script web address"
(http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/10/30/china.internet.script.ap/)

  Two years after threatening to split the online world by issuing 
  its own set of Chinese-script Web addresses, China appears to have 
  quietly dropped such plans. 
 
  [...]
  
  Hu Qiheng, chairwoman of the state-run Internet Society of China, 
  said Beijing would only exercise authority over Chinese-script 
  addresses registered with China's ".cn" country suffix.

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: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 20:16:10 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nuclear Threat from the ccTLDs

- --=======7B8E47A9=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-35551BCD; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 18:05 30/10/02, Marc Schneiders said:
> >From the ccTLD communique from Sjanghai:
>
>"2.3     In view of the continuing failures by ICANN in conducting its
>stewardship of the IANA function, particularly in relation to ccTLD
>database updates, managers agreed to set up a Working Group to develop
>a plan to set up a system of independent management of the DNS root
>entries and database entries. It is expected this plan will be
>developed in parallel with attempts to create an acceptable ccSO, and
>to be available in the event that is unsuccessful."
>
>That would be the end of the ICANN root. The ccTLDs have never, I
>think, been so clear before.
>
>If you treat it like an enemy, it will behave like one.

This is a step further to the "nuclear arsenal".
The real problem is they will have now to agree without being opposed to ICANN.
The next step is to have it proven in operational test for at least six months.

This leads to next year DoC decision. Will they give the Internet to 
Verisign or to the world. IMHO the  decison is taken for a long. It will go 
where Staff has it prepared, according to Plan B and Stuart's call alibi: 
where the money has been gathered. ISOC will be ready by then as a true 
@large organization.

jfc

- --=======7B8E47A9=======--

- --
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, 30 Oct 2002 21:05:34 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nuclear Threat from the ccTLDs

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, at 19:23 [=GMT+0100], Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:05:35 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
>
> >That would be the end of the ICANN root. The ccTLDs have never, I
> >think, been so clear before.
> >
> >If you treat it like an enemy, it will behave like one.
>
> It is also true that in the public forum there were different
> statements from different ccTLD people, which appeared to be somewhat
> contrasting one with the other. People from some ccTLDs stood up to
> say that the wording of the communique was a little excessive and
> partly due to misunderstandings, and that they didn't mean to put
> things that way.

Great, but that isn't "printed". And what percentage of ccTLDs are you
talking about, and are they important ones? So far what you tell is
anecdotal. That is OK if you want to promote a certain political position.
Are you?

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:09:24 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: China no longer claims Chinese script gTLD domains?

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, at 19:53 [=GMT+0100], Alexander Svensson wrote:

> >From an AP article on the Chinese IDN approach published
> by CNN as "China drops plan for Chinese-script web address"
> (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/10/30/china.internet.script.ap/)
>
>   Two years after threatening to split the online world by issuing
>   its own set of Chinese-script Web addresses, China appears to have
>   quietly dropped such plans.

What would be the difference between a DNS governed by ICANN and one by
the Chinese government? Perhaps we should mourn this Chinese drop of
claims?

- --
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, 30 Oct 2002 21:23:51 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nuclear Threat from the ccTLDs

On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, at 06:59 [=GMT+1300], DPF wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:05:35 +0100 (CET), Marc Schneiders
> <[email-masked]> wrote:

> >From the ccTLD communique from Sjanghai:

> >"managers agreed to set up a Working Group to develop
> >a plan to set up a system of independent management of the DNS root
> >entries and database entries."

> >That would be the end of the ICANN root. The ccTLDs have never, I
> >think, been so clear before.

> What the above could imply (I am guessing as I was not there) is that
> if ICANN continues down the same path, then ccTLDs could apply to DOC
> to take over the IANA function.

Why would they do that? Does DoC have any authority over .NL or .MG or
.EU or .JP or .NZ? They could apply to the ITU, or to ... themselves?

- --
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, 31 Oct 2002 09:33:18 +1300
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Nuclear Threat from the ccTLDs

> > It is also true that in the public forum there were different
> > statements from different ccTLD people, which appeared to 
> be somewhat
> > contrasting one with the other. People from some ccTLDs stood up to
> > say that the wording of the communique was a little excessive and
> > partly due to misunderstandings, and that they didn't mean to put
> > things that way.
> 
> Great, but that isn't "printed". And what percentage of ccTLDs are you
> talking about, and are they important ones? So far what you tell is
> anecdotal. That is OK if you want to promote a certain 
> political position.
> Are you?

Thomas Roessler reported this on his http://notebook.does-not-exist.org blog
that .ca said Leaving ICANN is plan B. Not complete consensus behind every
point of the communiqué.

Also I find PDT's comment about ITU just plain weird... but then again PDT
said similar things about 18 months ago in Chile about breaking away from
the root server. 

Steven Heath
www.nznews.org.nz
- --
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, 30 Oct 2002 20:54:42 GMT
From: David Farrar <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nuclear Threat from the ccTLDs

> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, at 06:59 [=GMT+1300], DPF wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:05:35 +0100 (CET), Marc Schneiders
> > <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> > >From the ccTLD communique from Sjanghai:
> 
> > >"managers agreed to set up a Working Group to develop
> > >a plan to set up a system of independent management of the DNS root
> > >entries and database entries."
> 
> > >That would be the end of the ICANN root. The ccTLDs have never, I
> > >think, been so clear before.
> 
> > What the above could imply (I am guessing as I was not there) is that
> > if ICANN continues down the same path, then ccTLDs could apply to DOC
> > to take over the IANA function.
> 
> Why would they do that? Does DoC have any authority over .NL or .MG or
> ..EU or .JP or .NZ? They could apply to the ITU, or to ... themselves?

The simple answer is yes.  DoC have policy control of Root Server A and hence 
do have ultimate control over all TLDs.  Now they don't actually want this 
control (as exercising it is politically very dangerous) which is why they set 
up ICANN to do it for them but ICANN is failing so they still have control.

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: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:09:53 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Video Replay of Public Forum

A video replay of the ICANN Shanghai Public Forum is available at:
http://www.dnso.com/myth/

It moves, just very slowly.

- --
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, 30 Oct 2002 15:25:25 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nuclear Threat from the ccTLDs

Jefsey and all assembly members,

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> On 18:05 30/10/02, Marc Schneiders said:
> > >From the ccTLD communique from Sjanghai:
> >
> >"2.3     In view of the continuing failures by ICANN in conducting its
> >stewardship of the IANA function, particularly in relation to ccTLD
> >database updates, managers agreed to set up a Working Group to develop
> >a plan to set up a system of independent management of the DNS root
> >entries and database entries. It is expected this plan will be
> >developed in parallel with attempts to create an acceptable ccSO, and
> >to be available in the event that is unsuccessful."
> >
> >That would be the end of the ICANN root. The ccTLDs have never, I
> >think, been so clear before.
> >
> >If you treat it like an enemy, it will behave like one.
>
> This is a step further to the "nuclear arsenal".

  I disagree and this language is overly paranoid in nature as well.

  I ti and has been clear for sometime that a large number of the ccTLD's have
been very concerned and feel disenfranchised with respect to ICANN.  They
have clearly stated on a number of occasions through various ad-hoc groups
as well as independently in a few cases, that much of what they are
requesting or requiring, is basically reasonable.  However the ICANN BoD
and staff in particular have at every turn treated the ccTLD's and most
especially their registrants/users/stakeholders shabbily.  Hence it is quite
evident that ICANN's attitude and policy process is tainted in some
respects to force policies upon ccTLD's that are in some if not
many instances less than legal in their respective positions.  Hence
also ICANN has made an enemy of the ccTLD's not the other way
around.

  Yet there is middle ground.  But as we have repeatedly seen, for those
of us that have been around for awhile the ICANN BoD and staff
for the most part is entrenched in intractable positions already long ago
pre-determined as Karl once noted.  Therefore is is long past due for
the respective individual governments to weigh in and do so wisely.
Such will take at this juncture uncommon wisdom I believe if
future disruptiveness emanating from ICANN is to be avoided.

>
> The real problem is they will have now to agree without being opposed to ICANN.
> The next step is to have it proven in operational test for at least six months.

  Why?

>
>
> This leads to next year DoC decision.

  Agreed that this will likely be the end game gambit..

> Will they give the Internet to
> Verisign or to the world.

  Huh???

> IMHO the  decison is taken for a long. It will go
> where Staff has it prepared, according to Plan B and Stuart's call alibi:
> where the money has been gathered. ISOC will be ready by then as a true
> @large organization.

  The ISOC has moved in the complete opposite direction of late by
eliminating individuals from being voting members.  Hence I fail to see
them now or in the long term again do a 180...

>
>
> jfc

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, 30 Oct 2002 16:53:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nuclear Threat from the ccTLDs

ICANN was in principle a promise to not fracture the internet - or cause
harm.  I suspect that the cctld communique is an example of the continued
harm we can't support.

regards
joe baptista

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> >From the ccTLD communique from Sjanghai:
>
> "2.3     In view of the continuing failures by ICANN in conducting its
> stewardship of the IANA function, particularly in relation to ccTLD
> database updates, managers agreed to set up a Working Group to develop
> a plan to set up a system of independent management of the DNS root
> entries and database entries. It is expected this plan will be
> developed in parallel with attempts to create an acceptable ccSO, and
> to be available in the event that is unsuccessful."
>
> That would be the end of the ICANN root. The ccTLDs have never, I
> think, been so clear before.
>
> If you treat it like an enemy, it will behave like one.
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1492
*************************