Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1499
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, November 7 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1499

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 21:24:06 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] who are the root server operators?

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 10:53:03AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 07:07:11PM -0500,
>  Joe Baptista <[email-masked]> wrote 
>  a message of 33 lines which said:
> 
> > > Are there any plans to expand the list of root-servers, maybe to 26
> > > from 13, for greater internet stability?
> > 
> > they can't.  the limit is 13 mainly due to protocol limitations.
> 
> I'm not aware of any such limitation in the DNS protocol. Read RFC
> 1035. 

From RFC1035:
    "4.2.1. UDP usage

    "Messages sent using UDP user server port 53 (decimal).

    "Messages carried by UDP are restricted to 512 bytes (not counting the IP
    or UDP headers).  Longer messages are truncated and the TC bit is set in
    the header."

> If you refer to the 512-bytes limit of UDP packets (you can check the
> size of the current root with 'dig . ns' and read the MSG SIZE field:
> there is room for two more servers),

The record of interest is the soa record, not ns records.

> I do not regard it as a good
> reason:
> 
> * with DNSSEC (cryptographical signatures in the DNS replies) and IDN
>   (long labels), the DNS will have to move to TCP anyway,

The DNS protocol will have to change (and is changing) to deal with new
requirements.  That is obviously true, but has nothing really to do 
with the current reality, which is that the root servers have to deal 
with all currently deployed infrastructure.

> * there is never a DNS query for the root name servers: they are
>   hardwired in the hints file (/etc/bind/db.root or something like
>   that).

That is not true.  The hints file is just a hints file, and can easily
be badly out of date.  Bind, at least, uses it look for root servers,
and when it finds one, gets a copy of the current set of root servers. 
The hints file is basically a bootstrap, and does not replace the
authoritative records which come from the dns. 

n
> Unlike the TLD name servers (which ICANN limit to 13 per
>   TLD),

ICANN has absolutely nothing to do with it.

>  there is no good technical reason to limit the number of root
>   name servers.

There are numerous technical reasons.
- --
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, 05 Nov 2002 23:52:06 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: ensuring that your voice and input is heard on open comment sites

Marilyn and all assembly members or other interested parties,

  As you know the "Appointed" in you comments below was never
excepted by the DNSO GA members, only by the ICANN BoD
and NC.  Hence in part, my comments below.  Therefore, yet again
it seem necessary to point out the obvious where it should not be so.
In addition, and also, no DNSO GA member is "Represented"
legitimately, nor are any stakeholders/users.  Yet again rendering
your response in part below Marilyn inconsistent with the facts
and still upholding Michael's previous comments and concern.

  It is therefor obvious beyond any reasonable doubt that the
implied statement in your previous response as Michael, myself and
others including Kristy, have either in the recent past, or
in this thread, expressed the lack of consideration for
"Interested Parties" in such issues of policy, of which Whois is
one in impaired by this TF or other TF's and committees on
other issues ergo the history of the Transfer TF, and the .ORG
fiasco's.

  ICANN, the DNSO NC or the ICANN STAFF, continuing to
use these methods, cannot and will not ever begin to attain
any "Consensus" on any issue.  How can a stakeholder/user
that may be a Domain Name holder, small business person
in the IT or ecommerce business that has been shut/censored out
from the DNSO GA, the IPC, the BC, or any other
ICANN constituency, and may soon not have the opportunity
of ever participating in the DNSO in any fashion be
"Represented" by any "Authoritive" person, persons or
other undefined  entity?

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Jeff, the GA has representatives on the WHOIS Task Force. Three representatives: Kristy McGee, Thomas Roessler, and Abel Wisman.  The Registrars, where Mike Palage is represented, also have three reps. Thanks for acknowledging that you have posted already. I wanted only to be sure that you are aware that you also have the option of input through your appointed reps, and that the authoriative posting site was the comments site.
>
> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 1:44 AM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; DNSO Whois comments list
> Cc: Antonio Harris; Michael D. Palage; [email-masked]; Don Evans; cathy
> Handley; Nancy J. Victory; Robin Layton
> Subject: Re: ensuring that your voice and input is heard on open comment
> sites
>
> Marilyn, Antonio and all assembly members or other interested parties,
>
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > Dear Mike, Jeff and others
> >
> > This  is a reminder: the WHOIS TF public comment period closes 11/8.
> > We welcome your postings to the site.
>
>   Postings to the site?  I wasn't aware of any such interface.  Postings
> usually go to a E-mail address.  Hence I an forced and/or compelled to
> ask, do you know what you ar talking about or otherwise suggesting?
>
> >  You can post at www.icann.org, click on Announcements, or on www.dnso.org -- you'll see the site to click on for WHOIS comments.
>
>   Did that already.
>
> >
> >
> > We can make one comment: the TF members have noted that they will turn to the public comment site for the "authoritative" input.
>
>   Define what is considered "Authoritative".  As I recall there is not such
> definition that is applicable, and such a term has been argued and debated
> for some time now on and off.  Hence this comment inclusive of this
> term is delinquent of intelligence in this context.
>
> > If you are unable to post to that site, please let Marilyn or Tony know, or better yet, communicate with your reps on the TF. They will help you.
>
>   Reps?  What Reps?  We have no reps...  Again do you know what you
> are talking about her?  Seem not.
>
> >
> >
> > That way, we can ensure that your inputs and comments are reviewed by the full TF.
>
>   Why would some "Rep", which does not exist, be needed to insure
> any input is reviewed?  To even suggest such a thing, directly or indirectly
> implies that input such as I commented upon along with Michael, is
> again going to be intentionally ignored or "Not Reviewed".  Hence again
> supporting Michael's contention and follow on question...
>
> >
> >
> > Marilyn Cade                    Antonio Harris
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Antonio Harris [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 1:26 PM
> > To: Jeff Williams; Michael D. Palage
> > Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked]; Don Evans; Nancy J. Victory;
> > cathy Handley; Robin Layton
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force
> > Recommendations
> >
> > Jeff,
> >
> > If the term "noise" bothers you, the solution is simple:
> >
> > Send your comments to:
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021015.NCWhoisTF-interim-report.html
> >
> > Attacking people who do volunteer work (a lot of it, by the way),
> > would not appear to serve any useful purpose. If you have better
> > ideas, then submit them ! What more would we want as a task
> > force than to receive them ? As far as what, as co-chair, I "want to
> > hear or read about" thats simply hilarious ! Just try this for an
> > exercise: read the 3300 responses to the Whois survey and
> > see what you can come up with...
> >
> > Tony Harris
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Antonio Harris
> > (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>; "Don Evans" <[email-masked]>; "Nancy J.
> > Victory" <[email-masked]>; "cathy Handley" <[email-masked]>;
> > "Robin Layton" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force Recommendations
> >
> > > Michael and all assembly members,
> > >
> > >   Michael, you again bring up yet another good point of concern
> > > that has and continues to plague and discredit the "ICANN Process".
> > >
> > >   As you likely know, I amongst a number other GA participants
> > > have long worried and been frankly quite aware that the "TF method"
> > > of determining policy is a poor one for a number of reasons of which
> > > you again have brought up one.
> > >
> > >   As you also likely also know anything I as spokesman for INEGroup
> > > have put forward to the Whois, and Transfer Task Force has by
> > > Marilyn been, as she herself has stated only considered "Noise"
> > > in her opinion, which is questionable at best.  Hence any public input
> > > through these skewed Task Force Methods or processes is
> > > only what the members or chair's of those task forces WANT to
> > > hear or read about, nothing else.  Hence no good or reasonable
> > > policy can be derived adequately.
> > >
> > >   So unless as you indicate in your comments and observations below,
> > > Michael, a transparent and open discussion and debate for specific
> > > issues such as Whois can be entertained or "Allowed" we as
> > > stakeholders/users will continue to see inadequate or inappropriate
> > > policy for these issues to continue.  For the life of me, I cannot
> > > understand such utter nonsensical approaches of dealing with
> > > issues to policy.
> > >
> > >   I guess this is why just last friday AT&T announced a 5 for 1 Reverse
> > > stock split, Worldcom is in deeper trouble than first even imagined,
> > > and ICANN seeks to choose its BoD members now by and election
> > > committee.
> > >
> > > Michael D. Palage wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Marilyn:
> > > >
> > > > After three years I think we have moved beyond the formality of
> > addressing
> > > > each other on a last name basis :-)
> > > >
> > > > As you can see from my email header below, I did submit these comments
> > on
> > > > the "record" to the Whois Task Force on Friday, November 1st. The fact
> > that
> > > > they were not received raises the question of what other submissions may
> > > > have also been lost in the mail.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:18 PM
> > > > To: [email-masked]
> > > > Subject: Michael Palage's Proposed Recommendations
> > > >
> > > > Attached please find my proposed recommendations for the Whois Task
> > Force
> > > > based upon my earlier comments to the Task Force,
> > > > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00012.html
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Michael D. Palage
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 12:08 AM
> > > > To: Michael D. Palage; [email-masked]
> > > > Cc: Antonio Harris (E-mail)
> > > > Subject: RE: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force
> > > > Recommendations
> > > >
> > > > Dear Mr. Palage,
> > > >
> > > > May we have your permission to post this particular email to the WHOIS
> > TF?
> > > >
> > > > Also, as you are aware there is an open comment site. We urge you, IF
> > you
> > > > are interested in having your comments included in the TF documentation,
> > to
> > > > post to that site. It can be found at dnso.org, or icann.org, click on
> > > > announcements.  While we post to the WHOIS TR site, WHEN requested, we
> > make
> > > > it pretty clear that individuals should take responsibility for their
> > own
> > > > postings, to open sites.  We urge you to follow the procedures to ensure
> > > > that your comments are included and available to others.  The TF is
> > > > committed to reading the open comments site.  We have and will continue
> > to
> > > > advise that we cannot guarantee reading of other lists. We know that you
> > > > understand the need to ensure a centralized posting site.
> > > >
> > > > We also wish to thank you for attending the public meeting with the
> > > > Registrars/Registries, Sunday in Shanghai. As committed in that meeting,
> > the
> > > > TF is working toward follow up with the registrars, especially, shortly.
> > > >
> > > > We hope that you will join that call, as well.
> > > >
> > > > Your thoughtful insights should be part of the "record". We hope you
> > will
> > > > chose to submit your comments [below]  through the formal comment
> > process.
> > > > And, we look forward to your further participation.
> > > > Best Regards, Marilyn Cade                      Antonio Harris=
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:25 PM
> > > > To: [email-masked]
> > > > Subject: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force Recommendations
> > > >
> > > > On October 23rd I submitted my personal comments to the Whois Task
> > Force,
> > > > see
> > > >
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00012.html.
> > > > Listed below are my personal recommendations for the Whois Task Force
> > based
> > > > upon my earlier comments.
> > > >
> > > > Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Michael D. Palage
> > > >
> > > > Recommendations Preamble
> > > >
> > > > The current Whois system fails to adequately meet the needs and concerns
> > of
> > > > governments, intellectual property owners, domain name registration
> > > > authorities, as well as consumer and privacy advocacy groups. Although
> > one
> > > > can attempt to solve certain aspects of the current problems in a
> > piecemeal
> > > > fashion, only a comprehensive bottoms-up review and overhaul is likely
> > to
> > > > succeed.
> > > >
> > > > ICANN's role in this and other potential global policy issues should be
> > to
> > > > identify and bring to the table those individuals and parties
> > potentially
> > > > impacted by its processes, particularly those in developing countries
> > that
> > > > may not have their voices and concerns heard in the current structure,
> > as
> > > > well as registration authorities that are signatories to bi-lateral
> > > > contracts with ICANN. ICANN's role is not, nor should it be, to
> > artificially
> > > > manufacture consensus under the auspices of Task Forces.
> > > >
> > > > The ICANN Names Council Whois Task Force (Task Force) should be
> > commended
> > > > for its pioneering efforts in starting a constructive dialogue on some
> > of
> > > > the complex issues surrounding Whois.  However, the Task Force's failure
> > to
> > > > address certain fundamental issues directly bears upon the validity of
> > the
> > > > Task Force's ultimate recommendations. In light of these shortcomings,
> > the
> > > > following recommendations are submitted.
> > > >
> > > > Recommendation 1
> > > >
> > > > Whereas, the Task Force has endeavored over the last twenty (20) months
> > to
> > > > undertake an analysis of various Whois issues;
> > > >
> > > > Whereas, the Task Force has published an interim report dated October
> > 14,
> > > > 2002 in which four (4) interim recommendations were put forth for public
> > > > comment;
> > > >
> > > > Whereas, despite the best efforts undertaken by the Task Force volunteer
> > > > members, there are certain fundamental aspects that were not properly
> > > > addressed and which directly bear upon the validity of the Task Force's
> > > > recommendations, including but not limited to, applicability of natural
> > and
> > > > local law and their impact on registration authorities that are
> > signatories
> > > > to bi-lateral contracts with ICANN; new market conditions (.NAME);
> > evolving
> > > > technical standards (CRISP); international domain name considerations;
> > and
> > > > ICANN's Evolution and Reform  Committee calling for more input from the
> > > > public sector (governments).
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, it is resolved that the Names Council:
> > > >
> > > > Extend it heartfelt appreciation to the members of the Task Force for
> > their
> > > > diligent and tireless efforts to date;
> > > >
> > > > Immediately dissolve the Task Force;
> > > >
> > > > Reject implementing the proposed recommendation at this time until
> > further
> > > > review can be conducted incorporating those data points not properly
> > > > considered by the Task Force;
> > > >
> > > > Respectfully submit to the ICANN Board that it create a Blue Ribbon
> > Global
> > > > Whois Panel (Panel) to ensure that the viewpoints and concerns of all
> > > > Internet stakeholders are addressed, with such Panel ideally being
> > composed
> > > > of the following representatives:
> > > >
> > > > GAC Representative: This representative shall provide the Panel with the
> > > > various viewpoints (consensus if possible) regarding governmental
> > positions
> > > > regarding access and accuracy of Whois data (i.e. data privacy, law
> > > > enforcement, consumer protection, etc.)
> > > >
> > > > ITU Representative: Although the ITU is currently a participating member
> > in
> > > > the GAC, their experience in two areas would be of particular value to
> > the
> > > > Panel: (i) in the area of soliciting and representing the viewpoints of
> > > > emerging countries and economies that may not have a representative
> > voice in
> > > > the current process and (ii) in the area of promoting the role of ITU
> > Member
> > > > States in the internationalization of domain names and addresses of
> > their
> > > > respective languages.
> > > >
> > > > ICANN Registry Representative: This representative would be tasked with
> > > > soliciting input from all ICANN accredited registry operators to provide
> > the
> > > > Panel with firsthand operational considerations.
> > > >
> > > > ICANN Registrar Representative: This representative would be tasked with
> > > > soliciting input from all ICANN accredited registrars to provide the
> > Panel
> > > > with a better understanding of the legal and technical dynamics of the
> > > > domain name registration marketplace.
> > > >
> > > > ccTLD Registry Operator/Administrator: This representative would be
> > tasked
> > > > with soliciting input from the ccTLD registry operator/administrator
> > > > regarding Whois policies and national laws.
> > > >
> > > > Civil Libertarian: This representative would be tasked with representing
> > the
> > > > interests of individual domain name registrants, specifically with
> > regard to
> > > > a wide range of privacy issues.
> > > >
> > > > IETF/IAB Technical Representative: This representative would be able to
> > > > provide the Panel with insight regarding standards efforts currently
> > > > underway in connection with Whois (CRISP) and international domain
> > names.
> > > >
> > > > Multi-National Business Representative: This individual would be tasked
> > with
> > > > soliciting input from large multi-national businesses regarding concerns
> > > > about diverse and divergent Whois practices and the importance of Whois
> > in
> > > > law enforcement and intellectual property rights.
> > > >
> > > > SME Business Representative: This representative would be required to
> > > > solicit and provide the viewpoint of small and medium enterprises
> > regarding
> > > > Whois considerations.
> > > >
> > > > Respectfully submit to the ICANN Board that ICANN extend invitations to
> > > > potential Panel participants to prevent any partisan politics that may
> > exist
> > > > within the various ICANN constituencies. In the alternative, ICANN
> > should
> > > > also consider outsourcing the coordination of this Panel to a neutral
> > third
> > > > party organization with expertise in this subject matter similar to the
> > work
> > > > undertaken by the World Intellectual Property Organization in connection
> > > > with the initial draft of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).
> > One
> > > > potential neutral third party with expertise in this area would be the
> > > > Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
> > > >
> > > > Recommendation 2
> > > >
> > > > Whereas, the Task Force has endeavored over the last twenty (20) months
> > to
> > > > undertake an analysis of various Whois issues;
> > > >
> > > > Whereas, the Task Force has published an interim report dated October
> > 14,
> > > > 2002 in which four (4) interim recommendation were put forth for public
> > > > comment;
> > > >
> > > > Whereas, despite the best efforts undertaken by the Task Force volunteer
> > > > members, there are certain fundamental aspects that were not properly
> > > > addressed and which directly bear upon the validity of the Task Force's
> > > > recommendations, including but not limited to, applicability of natural
> > and
> > > > local law and their impact on registration authorities that are
> > signatories
> > > > to bi-lateral contracts with ICANN; new market conditions (.NAME);
> > evolving
> > > > technical standards (CRISP); international domain name considerations;
> > and
> > > > ICANN Evolution and Reform  Committee calling for more input from the
> > public
> > > > sector.
> > > > Whereas, notwithstanding the aforementioned shortcoming of the Task
> > Force's
> > > > efforts, there were several concepts would could be implemented in the
> > short
> > > > term that would increase the accuracy of the Whois data.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, it is resolved that the Names Council respectfully request
> > that
> > > > the ICANN Board take the following actions:
> > > >
> > > > ICANN approve a standardize Whois Accuracy Inquiry Notice (WAIN)
> > prepared by
> > > > ICANN accredited registrars in consultation with domain name
> > representatives
> > > > regarding inquires about false or inaccurate Whois data;
> > > >
> > > > ICANN assist in translating the WAIN into as many languages as possible;
> > > >
> > > > ICANN require that registrars shall send the standardized WAIN to their
> > > > domain name registrant after receiving a notification of potentially
> > false
> > > > or inaccurate Whois data from ICANN's Internic.net whois portal (or
> > > > equivalent);
> > > >
> > > > ICANN accredited registrars shall be required to send any WAIN in the
> > > > language(s) of the registration agreement, along with links to
> > translations
> > > > of the WAIN in other languages;
> > > >
> > > > The current 15 day time frame for registrants to respond to inquiries
> > > > regarding the accuracy of the Whois data shall be extended to 30 days to
> > > > provide the registrant and registrar adequate time to investigate and
> > > > respond to inquiries;
> > > >
> > > > Registrars shall be required to comply with ICANN instructions regarding
> > the
> > > > docketing software maintained in connection with the Internic.net whois
> > > > portal (or equivalent);
> > > >
> > > > Registrars that are unable to verify the accuracy of the Whois data or
> > fail
> > > > to receive instructions from the registrant within thirty (30) days
> > shall
> > > > place the domain name of hold (i.e. the name is removed from the zone
> > file
> > > > and it will not resolve) indefinitely;
> > > >
> > > > Registrar shall not remove the domain name from hold status or renew the
> > > > domain name until registrant has provided documented proof which the
> > > > registrar shall be required to retain;
> > > >
> > > > In the situation where the registrar receives a secondary inquiry
> > regarding
> > > > the accuracy of Whois data for a specific domain name, the Registrar
> > shall
> > > > require documented proof from the domain name registrant within the 30
> > day
> > > > time frame or have the domain name places on indefinite hold in
> > accordance
> > > > with the process described above;
> > > >
> > > > ICANN shall immediately modify the Internic.net Whois portal to require
> > > > third parties submitting Whois accuracy inquiries to acknowledge that
> > the
> > > > submission is not intended to interfere with the lawful operations of
> > the
> > > > domain name registrant or registrar;
> > > >
> > > > ICANN shall immediately modify the Internic.net Whois portal to require
> > that
> > > > third parties provide additional contact information to allow the domain
> > > > name registrant or registrar to initiate legal action against the third
> > > > party if such submission was designed to tortuously interfere with their
> > > > legal activity.
> > > >
> > > > ICANN's General Counsel and Staff are instructed to move forward with
> > > > implementation of the above referenced recommendations as follows:
> > > >
> > > > Option 1:
> > > >
> > > > A bi-lateral amendment to the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement
> > (RAA)
> > > > executed by ICANN and every accredited registrar. However, if one or
> > more
> > > > registrars fail to execute this bi-lateral amendment proceed to Option 2
> > > > below.
> > > >
> > > > Option 2:
> > > >
> > > > Establish a dialog with the registrar community to see if consensus
> > exists
> > > > among the accredited registrars about adopting the above referenced
> > > > recommendations within the context of a Code of Conduct. If there is
> > > > consensus among the registrars about adopting this proposal as a Code of
> > > > Conduct, this Code of Conduct would then be unilaterally enforced
> > against
> > > > all ICANN accredited registrars in accordance with the terms of the RAA.
> > If
> > > > the registrars refuse or are unable to adopt a Code of Conduct, then
> > proceed
> > > > to Option 3 below.
> > > >
> > > > Option 3:
> > > >
> > > > If ICANN is unable to implement the above referenced recommendations
> > under
> > > > either Option 1 or 2, ICANN General Counsel and Staff are instructed to
> > > > enter into individual bi-lateral amendments to the RAA with registrars
> > > > incorporating these procedures.
> > > >
> > > > For those registrars that execute the bi-lateral amendment to the RAA,
> > ICANN
> > > > will provide that domain name registrar and its registrants with an
> > extend
> > > > time window (30 days total) to investigate and respond to Whois data
> > > > accuracy inquires. ICANN also agrees to not publicly disclose any
> > > > statistical information on that registrar's compliance with Internic,net
> > > > Whois portal inquiries.
> > > >
> > > > For those registrars that refuse not to enter into a bi-lateral
> > amendment to
> > > > the RAA, ICANN will continue to enforce the shorter 15 notice and
> > deletion
> > > > policy instead of the more flexible 30 day notice and hold policy.
> > > > Additionally, ICANN will publicly disclose statistical information on
> > that
> > > > registrars' compliance with Internic.net Whois portal inquiries.
> > > 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

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

Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 05:09:19 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Elections

Why is there no call for elections yet?

Oh don't tell me AS and TR are king for a decade?

What to hell are you two thinking?

Your time is up.  Step aside and let somebody increase participation
rather than kill it.

Sincerely,
eric

- --
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, 6 Nov 2002 10:56:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] anyone have louis tutons email address

I writing an article for circleid on the recent root server fiasco - the
DDOS attack.

I need to touch base with louis tuton who i understand is now el
presidente de icann.

Just respond to me privately.

Cheers
Joe Baptista

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

- --
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, 06 Nov 2002 17:38:59 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Serious: is there a professional pilot in this GA?

- --=======6470274A=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4E20650A; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Are there competent air pilots being Internet pros in here?

I am interested to check about IFF and hi-jacking. I saw no mention that 
Sept/11 flights had indicated being hi-jacked? Yet some mention about USAF 
reaction might lead to think they did? I also wander about the perfect 
trajectories to hit the WTC towers at the right place and to land so 
precisely on the Pentagon (what Aircraft Carriers pilots have difficulties 
to learn with specially built airplanes and being assisted all the way down 
the flying deck).

The reason why I ask is that if the Sept/11 pirates were computer assissted 
in a way or another, this might be repeated and enlight Internet security 
in a different way, as well as Richard Clarke's report. I am not interested 
in the actual facts: I am interested in professionnal comments. We are 
dealing with security and therefore with risks borne from potentialities, 
incertitudes and social beliefs - not with "I know this" or "I know better".

Thank you.
jfc

- --=======6470274A=======--

- --
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, 6 Nov 2002 16:49:29 -0500 
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .us TLD Seeks Comments on Proposed Changes to Nexus Dispute Polic y and Rules

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C285DE.622E4A70
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

FYi.
 
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO NEXUS DISPUTE POLICY AND RULES
<http://www.neustar.us/policies/docs/ustld_nexus_requirements.pdf> 
Notice of Proposed Changes. On October 8, 2002, the
<http://www.neustar.us/policycouncil/index.html> .US Policy Council voted to
post the following proposed changes to the .US Nexus Dispute Policy and
Rules enabling a Complainant to recover a domain name if that domain name is
registered by a person or entity that fails to meet the
<http://www.neustar.us/policies/docs/ustld_nexus_requirements.pdf> usTLD
Nexus Requirements and such failure to meet the requirements is not cured
within thirty (30) days. 

Public Comment Invited. Public comment is invited on the proposed changes to
the Nexus Dispute Policy and Rules below. Comments should be sent by e-mail
to
 <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked] no later than
November 20, 2002. 

See  <http://www.neustar.us/policies/nexus_changes.html>
http://www.neustar.us/policies/nexus_changes.html to link to the Proposed
Changes.
 
As a reminder, the .us TLD has its own public list forum.  For more
information, please go to http://www.neustar.us/forum/index.html
<http://www.neustar.us/forum/index.html> .
 
Thanks.
 
Jeff Neuman

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C285DE.622E4A70
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4919.2200" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=636454221-06112002><FONT face=Arial 
size=2>FYi.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=636454221-06112002><FONT face=Arial 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><SPAN 
class=115424820-05112002><B class=nvy_head><FONT face=Arial size=2>NOTICE OF 
PROPOSED CHANGES TO NEXUS DISPUTE POLICY AND RULES </FONT></B><A target=_blank 
href="http://www.neustar.us/policies/docs/ustld_nexus_requirements.pdf"><BR></A><FONT 
face=Arial size=2>Notice of Proposed Changes. On October 8, 2002, the </FONT><A 
href="http://www.neustar.us/policycouncil/index.html"><FONT face=Arial 
size=2>.US Policy Council </FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>voted to post the 
following proposed changes to the<B> .US </B>Nexus Dispute Policy and Rules 
enabling a Complainant to recover a domain name if that domain name is 
registered by a person or entity that fails to meet the </FONT><A target=_blank 
href="http://www.neustar.us/policies/docs/ustld_nexus_requirements.pdf"><FONT 
face=Arial size=2>usTLD Nexus Requirements</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2> 
and such failure to meet the requirements is not cured within thirty (30) days. 
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Public Comment Invited. Public comment is invited on 
the proposed changes to the Nexus Dispute Policy and Rules below. Comments 
should be sent by e-mail to<BR></FONT><A 
href="mailto:[email-masked]"><FONT face=Arial 
size=2>[email-masked]</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2> no later 
than <STRONG>November 20, 2002</STRONG>. </FONT></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=115424820-05112002><FONT face=Arial size=2>See </FONT><A 
href="http://www.neustar.us/policies/nexus_changes.html"><FONT face=Arial 
size=2>http://www.neustar.us/policies/nexus_changes.html</FONT></A><FONT 
face=Arial><FONT size=2>&nbsp;to link to the Proposed Changes<SPAN 
class=636454221-06112002>.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=115424820-05112002><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN 
class=636454221-06112002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=115424820-05112002><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN 
class=636454221-06112002>As a reminder, the .us TLD has its own public list 
forum.&nbsp; For more information, please go to <A 
href="http://www.neustar.us/forum/index.html">http://www.neustar.us/forum/index.html</A>.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=115424820-05112002><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN 
class=636454221-06112002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=115424820-05112002><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN 
class=636454221-06112002>Thanks.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=115424820-05112002><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN 
class=636454221-06112002></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=115424820-05112002><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN 
class=636454221-06112002>Jeff Neuman</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=636454221-06112002><FONT face="Courier New" 
color=#800000></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=636454221-06112002><FONT face="Courier New" 
color=#800000></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C285DE.622E4A70--
- --
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, 7 Nov 2002 01:51:58 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Non-existing registrar?

A registrar that says its own domain does not exist. Very promising.

Please, note, that I am not complaining about non-working whois. The whois
is working.

Whois Server Version 1.3

Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

   Domain Name: DODORA.NET
   Registrar: DODORA UNIFIED COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
   Whois Server: whois.dodora.net
   Referral URL: http://www.dodora.net
   Name Server: AUTH62.NS.UU.NET
   Name Server: DNS1.DODORA.NET
   Name Server: DNS3.DODORA.NET
   Updated Date: 06-nov-2002

>>> Last update of whois database: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:59:02 EST <<<

The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and
Registrars.

WHOIS-ERROR-RESPONSE
WHOIS-QUERY :
domain dodora.net
ERROR-MESSAGE :
The domain dodora.net does not exist.

- --
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, 06 Nov 2002 19:18:34 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: On-Line Copy of the ICANN - LACNIC Contract ?

Jim and all assembly members, or other interested parties,

  Yes where is this contract with LACNIC?  NO LACNIC announcement
prior to such a contract has been made.  As a LACNIC member
myself, along with a number of other interested Latin American
stakeholders/users, such contract considerations should have been
vetted before such a contract is let, I would think?

Jim Fleming wrote:

> http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-31oct02.htm
>
> "Whereas on 30 October 2002 at the ICANN Shanghai meeting, the President of ICANN and Chair of LACNIC signed the Joinder of Regional
> Latin-American and Caribbean IP Address Registry (LACNIC) into RIR-ICANN Memorandum of Understanding;"
>
> ===
>
> Is there an On-Line Copy of the ICANN - LACNIC Contract ?
>
> Jim Fleming
> 128-bit DNS is closer than you think...
> COM...DE...NET...ORG...INFO...BIZ...US...ONLINE
> http://ipv8.dyndns.tv
> http://ipv8.dyns.cx
> http://ipv8.no-ip.com
> http://ipv8.no-ip.biz
> http://ipv8.no-ip.info
> http://ipv8.myip.us
> http://ipv8.dyn.ee
> http://ipv8.community.net.au

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 #1499
*************************