Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #151
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, September 17 2000          Volume 01 : Number 151

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

Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:36:52 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the ICANN Board

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]
[ To: [email-masked]]

15 September 2000

The Names Council noted and confirmed the election of Jonathan
Cohen from Canada, North America region,
as the ICANN Board member to serve for three years term.

The full results including individual ballots will be made public
at the end of the election process.

The year 2000 selection of the ICANN Board member is described in 
http://www.dnso.org/elections/2000.DNSO-ICANN-election.html

The NC members verified that the votes cast had been correctly counted.

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

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

Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:40:45 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Review

Folks,

I summarize below what has been said in these days in the GA list.
I will report to the Task Force accordingly.

Best regards
Roberto

======================================================

Constituency structure
- ----------------------

Some people have expressed concerns at the Constituency structure 
altogether.

Others, while they consider that there are at the moment no practical 
alternatives to the Constituency structure, propose some modifications. 
Proposal include:
- - the reformulation of the Constituencies, aggregating the present 
groups in fewer categories;
- - to improve the representativity (some groups are underrepresented, 
some overrepresented, some misrepresented);
- - to define better the balance of power between groups (i.e. not to 
allow one "alliance" among some Constituencies to rule);
- - to allow dynamic rules as, for instance, some provisions in the Paris 
Draft.

Individuals
- -----------

A special case is a Constituency for Individuals.
There is rough consensus that such a constituency should be added, but 
there is divergence of opinions on whether:
- - the Constituency should be limited to Individual Domain Name Holders 
or have a wider charter;
- - is IDNO the core of the Individual Constituency, or should other 
groups join in;
The issue of ICANN having not responded to the IDNO proposal for 
Constituency has been raised.

Other issues
- ------------

It has been noticed that DNSO is in a peculiar situation, because the 
other Supporting Organization had already existing working structures 
(IETF, RIRs).
The relationship between DNSO and AtLarge has to be defined (but this 
concerns probably only - or primarily - the GA).
The consensus building mechanism seems to need improvement. Suggestions 
include:
- - let the GA discuss of the results of the WGs before forwarding them to
 the NC;
- - improve the debate in the GA (common discussion point among 
Constituencies).

Conclusion
- ----------

There seem to be consensus for a WG to start, addressing at least the 
point of creating a Constituency for individuals.
Other points raised are more controversial, and should be addressed by 
the Working Group.
- --
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: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:57:51 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Secure DNS

Rick and al.
I suppose that as part of their published plan towards the
"privatization of the Internet" GRS will propose a Verisign
solution testbed soon.
- - do you think they could keep that solution optionnal?
- - do you think that solution could be made fully transparent to the
   DNS operations?
Jefsey

At 16:38 15/09/00, you wrote:

>Harald,
>
>On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > Once the technology is ready, ICANN needs to decide on the procedures for
> > generating keys, signing the root zone and so on.
> > I *hope* these procedures are relatively uncontroversial; the biggest
> > practical question is probably who shall hold the pieces of the root key,
> > and how it should be secured against compromise and accidental loss.
>
>ICANN, the registries and registrars are going to have to work out how the
>protocols (currently only RRP 1.1.0) will be updated to manage the keys,
>if they are to be put into the root, the keys will have to be sent to the
>registry somehow. The discussions on how to do this have not even begun.
>
>-rick
>
>
>--
>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: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:17:44 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the ICANN Board

To Jamie Love,
since this is probably true, I thank you for your candidacy and
your help to understand what the ICANN is about. Real life has
more oxygen. Keep in touch. All the best to you.
Jefsey

At 16:36 15/09/00, you wrote:

>[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]
>[ To: [email-masked]]
>
>15 September 2000
>
>The Names Council noted and confirmed the election of Jonathan
>Cohen from Canada, North America region,
>as the ICANN Board member to serve for three years term.
>
>The full results including individual ballots will be made public
>at the end of the election process.
>
>The year 2000 selection of the ICANN Board member is described in
>http://www.dnso.org/elections/2000.DNSO-ICANN-election.html
>
>The NC members verified that the votes cast had been correctly counted.
>
>Elisabeth Porteneuve
>DNSO Secretariat
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:52:35 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Review

At 05:40 PM 9/15/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>Conclusion
>----------
>
>There seem to be consensus for a WG to start, addressing at least the
>point of creating a Constituency for individuals.
>Other points raised are more controversial, and should be addressed by
>the Working Group.

Start a Working Group? To spend time on more useless, time-wasting, 
non-productive administration issues? To be once again ignored by the Names 
Council?

Create the individuals constituency and be done with it.

ICANN are calling for TLD applications - a function that the DNSO was 
created to "specialize in" - and the DNSO have no role at all in that.

What's wrong with this picture?

Best Regards,

Simon

- --
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity

- --
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: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:14:01 -0700
From: Kristy <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the ICANN Board

This is the saddest news I've read today.

I don't know whom the decision makers really are; but they should feel ashamed
right now, if not because they ought to; then because it is the feeling that
will be with them from here on out.

~k

At 07:37 AM 9/15/2000 , you wrote:
>
>[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]
>[ To: [email-masked]]
>
>15 September 2000
>
>The Names Council noted and confirmed the election of Jonathan
>Cohen from Canada, North America region,
>as the ICANN Board member to serve for three years term.
>
>The full results including individual ballots will be made public
>at the end of the election process.
>
>The year 2000 selection of the ICANN Board member is described in 
><http://www.dnso.org/elections/2000.DNSO-ICANN-election.html>http://www.dn
so.org/elections/2000.DNSO-ICANN-election.html
>
>The NC members verified that the votes cast had been correctly counted.
>
>Elisabeth Porteneuve
>DNSO Secretariat
>  
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:00:04 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

Hello Kristy,

Friday, September 15, 2000, 1:14:01 PM, you wrote:

> This is the saddest news I've read today.

> I don't know whom the decision makers really are; but they should feel ashamed
> right now, if not because they ought to; then because it is the feeling that
> will be with them from here on out.

Did anyone really expect any other result?  The DNSO is a captured
body, and Cohen is their virtual poster boy.

His "election" was a given I thought.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:58:50 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Review

Uh ... this means that ICANN considers DNSO irrelevant?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Higgs [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 9:53 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Review
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> At 05:40 PM 9/15/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> >Conclusion
> >----------
> >
> >There seem to be consensus for a WG to start, addressing at least the
> >point of creating a Constituency for individuals.
> >Other points raised are more controversial, and should be 
> addressed by
> >the Working Group.
> 
> Start a Working Group? To spend time on more useless, time-wasting, 
> non-productive administration issues? To be once again 
> ignored by the Names 
> Council?
> 
> Create the individuals constituency and be done with it.
> 
> ICANN are calling for TLD applications - a function that the DNSO was 
> created to "specialize in" - and the DNSO have no role at all in that.
> 
> What's wrong with this picture?
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Simon
> 
> --
> Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
> 
> --
> 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: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:25:06 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Review

At 21:58 15/09/00, Roeland wrote:
>Uh ... this means that ICANN considers DNSO irrelevant?

Only the GA DNSO Members.

- --
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: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:26:20 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

Roberto,
this "election" is also something I name ridicule. And hurting
for the majority of the GA Members. Can we agree on that?
Jefsey

At 21:00 15/09/00, you wrote:
>Hello Kristy,
>Friday, September 15, 2000, 1:14:01 PM, you wrote:
> > This is the saddest news I've read today.
> > I don't know whom the decision makers really are; but they should feel 
> ashamed
> > right now, if not because they ought to; then because it is the feeling 
> that
> > will be with them from here on out.
>Did anyone really expect any other result?  The DNSO is a captured
>body, and Cohen is their virtual poster boy.
>His "election" was a given I thought.
>Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:[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: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 15:37:39 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Review

> From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> At 21:58 15/09/00, Roeland wrote:
> >Uh ... this means that ICANN considers DNSO irrelevant?
> 
> Only the GA DNSO Members.

Nahhh! They wouldn't dare .... would they?
- --
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: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Secure DNS

Bob,

hmmm, I guess you have an answer because the "experts" that have written
DNSSEC software stated at the ICANN meeting in Japan ( in a tutorial on
DNSSEC) that is a "difficult problem to solve."

If you have s suggestion to the solution I would like to see a I-D on it,
or a post to the appropiate forum on your solution. I may have some
suggestions for solving DNSSEC registrar requirements but lack the crypto
backgroud for developing a solution.

best regards,

- -rick

On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Bob Davis wrote:

> > ICANN, the registries and registrars are going to have to work out how the
> > protocols (currently only RRP 1.1.0) will be updated to manage the keys,
> > if they are to be put into the root, the keys will have to be sent to the
> > registry somehow. The discussions on how to do this have not even begun.
> 
>   As you I am sure know, this is not a difficult problem to solve.
> 

- --
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, 16 Sep 2000 11:17:17 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the ICANN Board

At 16:36 15/09/00 +0200, DNSO Secretariat wrote:

>
>The NC members verified that the votes cast had been correctly counted.
>

And this is the simple reason why the NC needs at least 3 more members who
represent the interests of Domain Name holders.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.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: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Constituency Definitions

Bob Davis writes:
 > Joe and everyone,
 > 
 >   The "Noncom" is an organization and a constituency is it not?

The NCDNHC as an organization was formed by the confluence of at least
four groups of interested parties who got together and proposed the
group.  After the group was chartered, they became an organization in
their own right.

However, the purpoted IDNO which Joop purports to represent is nothing
like the assemblage of interested parties who put together the NCDNHC.
There is nothing in the Joop organization which is at all attractive to
an individual, except someone who wants to subjugate their ideas to
someone else.

As an individual domain name holder, I want to express my self in my own
words, not ever allow some spokesperson to put words into my mouth.  To
me, that is the founding principle of the IDNO--no spokes people, no
dictator, just individuals gathered together.  Organized groups
PROHIBITED.

However, I realize that many people may see that as somewhat of an
extreme position.  I am willing to listen to alternatives, but the
primary focus has to be on individuals and there must be something in
the charter to severely limit the power of outside groups taking over.

/Joe
- --
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: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:55:33 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Secure DNS

You are aware that even in the current relaxed crypto atmosphere, none
of us in the USA can help with this?

BTW, I'm begining to be sorry that I ever mentioned the idea.

http://www.dnso.net/mhsc-tld.htm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 4:33 PM
> To: Bob Davis
> Cc: Harald Alvestrand; Kent Crispin; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Secure DNS
> 
> 
> 
> Bob,
> 
> hmmm, I guess you have an answer because the "experts" that 
> have written
> DNSSEC software stated at the ICANN meeting in Japan ( in a 
> tutorial on
> DNSSEC) that is a "difficult problem to solve."
> 
> If you have s suggestion to the solution I would like to see 
> a I-D on it,
> or a post to the appropiate forum on your solution. I may have some
> suggestions for solving DNSSEC registrar requirements but 
> lack the crypto
> backgroud for developing a solution.
> 
> best regards,
> 
> -rick
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Bob Davis wrote:
> 
> > > ICANN, the registries and registrars are going to have to 
> work out how the
> > > protocols (currently only RRP 1.1.0) will be updated to 
> manage the keys,
> > > if they are to be put into the root, the keys will have 
> to be sent to the
> > > registry somehow. The discussions on how to do this have 
> not even begun.
> > 
> >   As you I am sure know, this is not a difficult problem to solve.
> > 
> 
> --
> 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: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:16:59 -0300
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the ICANN Board

Thank you, members of the GA who endorsed my candidacy and support(ed) my
ideas and suggestions about ICANN, its funding, and the development of
Internet Policy.

Thank you to members of the Names Council who voted for me, and, by
extension, voted for a shift in the current political line-up.

Rest assured that I will continue to work within and without ICANN for the
development of the Internet, and the (consensus-based) policies in a way
that is fair to all concerned, as well as beneficial to all concerned.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of DNSO
Secretariat
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:37 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the ICANN Board

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]
[ To: [email-masked]]

15 September 2000

The Names Council noted and confirmed the election of Jonathan
Cohen from Canada, North America region,
as the ICANN Board member to serve for three years term.

The full results including individual ballots will be made public
at the end of the election process.

The year 2000 selection of the ICANN Board member is described in
http://www.dnso.org/elections/2000.DNSO-ICANN-election.html

The NC members verified that the votes cast had been correctly counted.

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

- --
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, 16 Sep 2000 00:37:30 -0300
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Non for profit TLDs - CINICs

Perhaps another way to develop this idea, would be to have a .TEST TLD

You're right, it is not a non-profit TLD, but it may be a way to get
something new into the root without politics- just so we could all see what
would happen, what load was placed on the global infrastructure, etc.

This TLD could be used for testing divergent multi-lingual domain names, dns
sec systems, and internally by the second-level domain holders for other
types of testing.

By agreement, search engines would NOT crawl the content of webs in this
space.
Maybe the manager of the domain could be the IETF. registrations could be
done on a cost recovery basis, say for $ 5.00 US or less.

we might find that the introduction of new TLDs is a much "bigger deal"
politically than technically. ;-)

peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Marc
Schneiders
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 11:23 AM
To: Jefsey Morfin
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Non for profit TLDs - CINICs

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> At 08:01 13/09/00, you wrote:
> >On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > It is theoretically possible, if the ccTLD is set up as a co-operative
of
> > > the registrants/name holders.
> >You are right. Do you know if such a registry exists? If not, why do we
> >not set one up and apply for a TLD with ICANN *now*? I'm serious. There
> >would be so many advantages to a cooperative registry. For one it
wouldn't
> >make profit. The domains would be as inexpensive as possible. It could
> >limit the number of domains one could hold. It could do its own UDRP :-)
>
> Marc,
> I incorporated two TLD non profit associations for common management
> of the ".sys" and ".wiz" TLDs by the name of .SYS and .WIZ.. (We joke
> at this common interest NICs as "CINIC") These two TLDs correspond
> also to specific addressing semantics:
>
> -  .sys is for registering formats.
>
>     like http://*-schneiders*.sys or http://ibm-.sys allowing the
Schneiders
>     family to freely manage nameservers accepting from:
>           http://marc-shneiders.sys to http://ted-schneiders-Jr.sys
>     and IBM to freely set-up
>          http://ibm-france.sys, http://ibm-uk.sys etc...

Jefsey, I am not at all an expert on DNS. I doubt, however, that your
system would work with the present "canonical" nameservers, as you seem to
indicate yourself further down. Since it will take a while to change
things, necessarily, I presume, on the RFC level, it is hardly a good idea
to spend $50,000 now to get a TLD(-system) that will not work until 2005.

Moreover, half of what you propose (adding something in front of the
domain name) is already done since DNS was born. Is the other half really
worth the trouble?

>      This has been documented on the ICANN site before Yokohama (this
>      was proposition #3). The user target spans site and machine systems;
>      local portal chains like mine, product lines, multinational groups,
>      families, NGO with many local sites on different servers, VPN, etc...
>
>      The rules for Membership are simple:
>
>      -  yearly Membership is $ 1000 (to be reviewed by GA
>      -  participation to management cost in proportion to traffic
>      -  UDRP during the 30 first days only and open to TM having
>         registered in class 42 less than 30 days ago. If a TM owner is
>         serious about protecting his TM in that TLD he has 30 days after
>         registering its TM to register it. (The delay extends to 3 month
and
>         to every class 42 TM during the bootstrap period)
>      -  commercial Members must have at least 100 DNs in other TLDs
>         according to that format.
>      -  in case of format conflict, the priority goes to the Member having
>         first registered his 100th DN in other TLDs
>      -  to jointly promote the ".sys" TLD (with a monthly award) and
>         actions. The launching action was to donate $10.000 to the
>         @large effort: for 150.000 pros around the world knowing us.

I find the barier rather high. My idea (which is no more than just an
idea) was one with a much lower level of entry, one that anyone in
the first world in any case, could afford. And firmly within the
present implementation of DNS.

>      The development required is a modification of our nameservers
>      software to accept a default character semantic (still to be
>      finalized). There is no change in the user nameserver software.

Yes, I would imagine any resolver believes what the nameserver tells
it. But to work globally your sys-named should be used by all nameservers
around. Or do I not understand you correctly?

 >       The management is extremely limited. The office is ready. The
> line is ordered.
>
> -  .wiz is a rule oriented system.
>
>      Its purpose is to open a real service on a test basis first and
>      then to be an operational test bed for all technical and legal
>      issues involved.
>
>      We are studying a system where the Members could set
>      up and check the rules dynamically, there would therefore be
>      no management.

This sounds interesting. I wonder how you avoid that I e.g. would claim an
awful lot of names, if there is no management and it is virtually free, as
you say below.

>      The purpose of the rules would only be to lead to an URL and
>       the format of the entries would be url compatible, so there
>       would be no change in the DNS.
>
>       http://marc.schneiders.wiz or http://schneiders.marc.wiz
>       or http://father.son.marc.scheneiders.wiz would lead to
>       the same http://marc.venster.nl

And email?

>       The system would be open to Members only and for a fee
>       voted by the GA. The idea is to have it at the lowest cost or
>       free (for some or for all or on choice) so we may study the
>       largest panel of users and of TM/intellectual propriety cases.
>
> I have asked the WIPO questions about the semantic of the URL.

Don't wait for the answer. I have never received one from them.

> BTW these two TLDs show that the DN concept is to be legally
> defined. In both TLDs the Registry do not know about the DN
> being really used. The owner is free to add and remove: this is

What third (or higher) level domains are used in the present system is
also free.

> freedom of speech and intellectual property. If I chose an URL
> which quotes a famous line, can the author of the line make
> an UDRP? It is well accepted that a line is free for quote, if
> you say who wrote it. If the line is famous everyone is
> supposed to know who wrote it, if it is not how do you know
> if the user known the writer ... billions of lines are produced
> every years....
>
> 1. Unlimited number of by the book TLDs
>
>     In using these two TLDs (different ways) we planned opening an
>     unlimited number of "ULD" ie. TLD-to-be SLDs. Example:
>     ".txu" is the Texas TLD as per the extension of the ISO 3 letter
>     list proposed in 1969 by the Library of Congress. The ULD is
>     ".txu.sys" used to register http://domain_name.txu.sys until
>     a ".TXU CINIC" is created, accepting http://domain_name.txu

I find this very complicated. Why not have .txu immediately, if it is
something useful (which I think it is not)?
>
> 2. Worldwide ring of nameservers
>
>      As a non profit association we consider that TLDs may
>      help countries to develop and support local cultures. We
>      want to support regional ULDs, but we want also to develop
>      local top level operations in developing countries to support
>      that TLDs. The idea was to start with the French overseas
>      territories with a nameserver physically installed in each
>      one for a "non stop 24/365 world ring service" providing on
>      the spot training to young local engineers.

O, please, no, do not put any critical nameservers on little islands in
the Pacific. Doing that is just a polictical statement using something
that is hardly interesting to most people. Sure, I am "proud" that I run a
little nameserver, but I am clever enough not to put it in my apartment on
an ISDN line.

> >If 5000 people would each "bet" $10, and pledge another $25 when the
> >application is approved, it could be done.
>
> I had not so many people!

But you would need only 50, isn't it?

> But I had made the amount until yesterday. I suppose now that
> I will go without asking anything more to the ICANN (thx!!!), or
> that some big money will pick my ideas (my/our [*] only protection
> was to make it public today in here and for you to discuss them,
> so it becomes full common knowledge).

This is not clear to me. Are you going to apply? Did you get the money
together? Or not?

- --
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Marc Schneiders ------- Venster - http://www.venster.nl %
%* [email-masked] - [email-masked] - [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: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:35:08 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Constituency Definitions

At 18:21 15/09/00 -0700, Joe Kelsey wrote:

>
>As an individual domain name holder, I want to express my self in my own
>words, not ever allow some spokesperson to put words into my mouth.  To
>me, that is the founding principle of the IDNO--no spokes people, no
>dictator, just individuals gathered together.  Organized groups
>PROHIBITED.
>
It seems then the GA is the place of choice for you.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.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: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:29:44 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Non for profit TLDs - CINICs

Peter;
Thank you for your interest. The concept I propose is simple and I think
there is a simple alternative to .TEST. Let me quickly review it.

- - a group of people creates a CINIC (common interest network
   information center) as a non profit organization. That CINIC has the
   purpose to maintain a general information site and to validate DNs
   for its Members using the group's TLD

- - the CINIC has therefore to face the cost of setting up that TLD
   whatever it may be (including or not or in part the $ 50.000). The
   only possibility for it is to propose validations under ULD. ULD
   (upper level directory) is the word we coin to define a temporary
   SLD becoming a TLD, a double support being maintained for a
   while.

Therefore  ULD = future TLD . hosting TLD.

The CINIC members and the public is made aware that when the
test is completed the hosting TLD will be removed and the two
registrations will coexist only for a while.

What you propose is the .TEST TLD to be created to that end.
But do not think this can be done easily. You also think about
the operations terms. IMHO:

- -  the CINICs must perform their registrations:

    - the test is also about CINIC management
    - the test is also about cost management and I do not want to
      prevent anyone to propose free DNs
    - the test is also about innovations where domain names may
      be differently handled (.sys) or event disappear (.wiz).
    - doing otherwise would bring a business to a central registry
      while such CINICs could cooperate with local NICs

- -  search engines must crawl them because

    - there would be no interest in using an ULD
    - the test would not represent real traffic/user interest
    - I object to interdictions on the net.

- - there is an alternative:

   to use existing specializing ccTLD(s) against some compensation.
   If you consider that VeriSign's endorsement to .tv, .cc, .to has
   transformed these ccTLDs into de facto gTLDs, I think that one
   ccTLD could specialize into that. It would de facto coordinate the
   choice of the new TLD names and build experience in initiating
   new TLDs.

   We plan using ".sys.ws" for .SYS and ".wiz.ws" for .WIZ.

   Let say the considered ccTLD is "aa".

   .sys addresses would be:  http://format.sys.aa
   .wiz addresses would be: http://anything.you.want.wiz.aa

   This however can be proposed only by a ccTLD of low marketing
   interest able to invest into a long list and not having yet registered
   too many 3 letters DNs nor ORSC TLDs (most of them fitting the
   CINIC concept).

   Otherwise ULDs will use any available hosting TLD (as we will
   use ".ws") and will coordinate their naming through OSRC.

Jefsey

At 05:37 16/09/00, you wrote:
>Perhaps another way to develop this idea, would be to have a .TEST TLD
>
>You're right, it is not a non-profit TLD, but it may be a way to get
>something new into the root without politics- just so we could all see what
>would happen, what load was placed on the global infrastructure, etc.
>
>
>This TLD could be used for testing divergent multi-lingual domain names, dns
>sec systems, and internally by the second-level domain holders for other
>types of testing.
>
>By agreement, search engines would NOT crawl the content of webs in this
>space.
>Maybe the manager of the domain could be the IETF. registrations could be
>done on a cost recovery basis, say for $ 5.00 US or less.
>
>we might find that the introduction of new TLDs is a much "bigger deal"
>politically than technically. ;-)
>
>peter de Blanc
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Marc
>Schneiders
>Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 11:23 AM
>To: Jefsey Morfin
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] Non for profit TLDs - CINICs
>
>
>On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > At 08:01 13/09/00, you wrote:
> > >On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > > It is theoretically possible, if the ccTLD is set up as a co-operative
>of
> > > > the registrants/name holders.
> > >You are right. Do you know if such a registry exists? If not, why do we
> > >not set one up and apply for a TLD with ICANN *now*? I'm serious. There
> > >would be so many advantages to a cooperative registry. For one it
>wouldn't
> > >make profit. The domains would be as inexpensive as possible. It could
> > >limit the number of domains one could hold. It could do its own UDRP :-)
> >
> > Marc,
> > I incorporated two TLD non profit associations for common management
> > of the ".sys" and ".wiz" TLDs by the name of .SYS and .WIZ.. (We joke
> > at this common interest NICs as "CINIC") These two TLDs correspond
> > also to specific addressing semantics:
> >
> > -  .sys is for registering formats.
> >
> >     like http://*-schneiders*.sys or http://ibm-.sys allowing the
>Schneiders
> >     family to freely manage nameservers accepting from:
> >           http://marc-shneiders.sys to http://ted-schneiders-Jr.sys
> >     and IBM to freely set-up
> >          http://ibm-france.sys, http://ibm-uk.sys etc...
>
>Jefsey, I am not at all an expert on DNS. I doubt, however, that your
>system would work with the present "canonical" nameservers, as you seem to
>indicate yourself further down. Since it will take a while to change
>things, necessarily, I presume, on the RFC level, it is hardly a good idea
>to spend $50,000 now to get a TLD(-system) that will not work until 2005.
>
>Moreover, half of what you propose (adding something in front of the
>domain name) is already done since DNS was born. Is the other half really
>worth the trouble?
>
> >      This has been documented on the ICANN site before Yokohama (this
> >      was proposition #3). The user target spans site and machine systems;
> >      local portal chains like mine, product lines, multinational groups,
> >      families, NGO with many local sites on different servers, VPN, etc...
> >
> >      The rules for Membership are simple:
> >
> >      -  yearly Membership is $ 1000 (to be reviewed by GA
> >      -  participation to management cost in proportion to traffic
> >      -  UDRP during the 30 first days only and open to TM having
> >         registered in class 42 less than 30 days ago. If a TM owner is
> >         serious about protecting his TM in that TLD he has 30 days after
> >         registering its TM to register it. (The delay extends to 3 month
>and
> >         to every class 42 TM during the bootstrap period)
> >      -  commercial Members must have at least 100 DNs in other TLDs
> >         according to that format.
> >      -  in case of format conflict, the priority goes to the Member having
> >         first registered his 100th DN in other TLDs
> >      -  to jointly promote the ".sys" TLD (with a monthly award) and
> >         actions. The launching action was to donate $10.000 to the
> >         @large effort: for 150.000 pros around the world knowing us.
>
>I find the barier rather high. My idea (which is no more than just an
>idea) was one with a much lower level of entry, one that anyone in
>the first world in any case, could afford. And firmly within the
>present implementation of DNS.
>
> >      The development required is a modification of our nameservers
> >      software to accept a default character semantic (still to be
> >      finalized). There is no change in the user nameserver software.
>
>Yes, I would imagine any resolver believes what the nameserver tells
>it. But to work globally your sys-named should be used by all nameservers
>around. Or do I not understand you correctly?
>
>  >       The management is extremely limited. The office is ready. The
> > line is ordered.
> >
> > -  .wiz is a rule oriented system.
> >
> >      Its purpose is to open a real service on a test basis first and
> >      then to be an operational test bed for all technical and legal
> >      issues involved.
> >
> >      We are studying a system where the Members could set
> >      up and check the rules dynamically, there would therefore be
> >      no management.
>
>This sounds interesting. I wonder how you avoid that I e.g. would claim an
>awful lot of names, if there is no management and it is virtually free, as
>you say below.
>
> >      The purpose of the rules would only be to lead to an URL and
> >       the format of the entries would be url compatible, so there
> >       would be no change in the DNS.
> >
> >       http://marc.schneiders.wiz or http://schneiders.marc.wiz
> >       or http://father.son.marc.scheneiders.wiz would lead to
> >       the same http://marc.venster.nl
>
>And email?
>
> >       The system would be open to Members only and for a fee
> >       voted by the GA. The idea is to have it at the lowest cost or
> >       free (for some or for all or on choice) so we may study the
> >       largest panel of users and of TM/intellectual propriety cases.
> >
> > I have asked the WIPO questions about the semantic of the URL.
>
>Don't wait for the answer. I have never received one from them.
>
> > BTW these two TLDs show that the DN concept is to be legally
> > defined. In both TLDs the Registry do not know about the DN
> > being really used. The owner is free to add and remove: this is
>
>What third (or higher) level domains are used in the present system is
>also free.
>
> > freedom of speech and intellectual property. If I chose an URL
> > which quotes a famous line, can the author of the line make
> > an UDRP? It is well accepted that a line is free for quote, if
> > you say who wrote it. If the line is famous everyone is
> > supposed to know who wrote it, if it is not how do you know
> > if the user known the writer ... billions of lines are produced
> > every years....
> >
> > 1. Unlimited number of by the book TLDs
> >
> >     In using these two TLDs (different ways) we planned opening an
> >     unlimited number of "ULD" ie. TLD-to-be SLDs. Example:
> >     ".txu" is the Texas TLD as per the extension of the ISO 3 letter
> >     list proposed in 1969 by the Library of Congress. The ULD is
> >     ".txu.sys" used to register http://domain_name.txu.sys until
> >     a ".TXU CINIC" is created, accepting http://domain_name.txu
>
>I find this very complicated. Why not have .txu immediately, if it is
>something useful (which I think it is not)?
> >
> > 2. Worldwide ring of nameservers
> >
> >      As a non profit association we consider that TLDs may
> >      help countries to develop and support local cultures. We
> >      want to support regional ULDs, but we want also to develop
> >      local top level operations in developing countries to support
> >      that TLDs. The idea was to start with the French overseas
> >      territories with a nameserver physically installed in each
> >      one for a "non stop 24/365 world ring service" providing on
> >      the spot training to young local engineers.
>
>O, please, no, do not put any critical nameservers on little islands in
>the Pacific. Doing that is just a polictical statement using something
>that is hardly interesting to most people. Sure, I am "proud" that I run a
>little nameserver, but I am clever enough not to put it in my apartment on
>an ISDN line.
>
> > >If 5000 people would each "bet" $10, and pledge another $25 when the
> > >application is approved, it could be done.
> >
> > I had not so many people!
>
>But you would need only 50, isn't it?
>
> > But I had made the amount until yesterday. I suppose now that
> > I will go without asking anything more to the ICANN (thx!!!), or
> > that some big money will pick my ideas (my/our [*] only protection
> > was to make it public today in here and for you to discuss them,
> > so it becomes full common knowledge).
>
>This is not clear to me. Are you going to apply? Did you get the money
>together? Or not?
>
>--
>%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>% Marc Schneiders ------- Venster - http://www.venster.nl %
>%* [email-masked] - [email-masked] - [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

- --
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 #151
************************