Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1640
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, March 21 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1640

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:49:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IANA renewal

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 [email-masked] wrote:

> 1.  Have Board members yet seen the CRADA report detailing the root server 
> system's status (due date of November 30, 2002) or the enhanced architecture 
> proposal (due date of December 31, 2002), both required under the terms of 
> Amendment 5 to the MOU?

It has just been posted -- see 
http://www.icann.org/general/crada-report-summary-14mar03.htm

And see my comments on it at:

	http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog/

		--karl--

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:37:57 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]

actually, there are competing yellow pages delivered to my house.  could
be a generic term?  (One goes by the trademarked term "the _Real_ Yellow
Pages")

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Gene Marsh wrote:

> Yes, Michael, but if I publish a book of numbers in the US and call it "The
> Yellow Pages" I would have a fight on my hands.  Consider the name of the
> book as the TLD, with addresses within.
> 
> Gene...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Michael
> Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 10:51 AM
> To: [email-masked]'
> Cc: Joe Baptista; Steven Heath
> Subject: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt that US law would find a copyright interest in a TLD
> database, as it doesn't find it in the phone book.
> 
> I am unaware of any published decisions relating to TLD databases
> elsewhere, and would welcome references to them.  Other countries are more
> friendly to a claim of 'compilation copyright' so it's certainly possible
> that such decisions exist.
> 
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Joe Baptista wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Steven Heath wrote:
> >
> > > What right did these companies have to operate their own TLD's and/or
> > > alternative root(s)?
> > >
> > > None.
> >
> > TLD databases are covered by copyright law ... we've defended in the past
> > successfully - and we will defend again if necessary.
> >
> > regards
> > joe baptista
> >
> > Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god
> >
> >  Old Time Radio http://OTR.ind |
> >                                | on the inclusive namespace
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
> 
> --
> 		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's warm here.<--
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 14:38:23 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

Joe and all former DNSO GA members,

  Joe, Doug may just need to get up to speed and be made aware of
the history of this ongoing debate and festering problem which ICANN
has compounded...

Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Doug Mehus wrote:
>
> > Well said, Steve. I'm not a fan of ICANN either, but I strongly oppose alternate roots even more. They have no legitimate right to operate a domain name Registry, only ICANN does -- like it or not. Dr. Mueller's white paper gets my full support.
>
> Can you provide us with supporting documentation of this right you think
> ICANN has?
>
> You'll find has has no rights - just claims and not much more.  And lets
> not forget ICANN does not control the dns - that control resides with the
> end users.  ICANN's current monopoly is not founded on law - it is founded
> on user ignorance.
>
> Of course user ignorance is changing - as users become more informed ICANN
> loses market share - it evident to those who understand the situation.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29185.html
>
> regards
> joe baptista
>
> Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god
>
>      .scifi domain registration http://www.register.scifi
>
> >
> > Best,
> > Doug
> >
> > --
> > Doug Mehus
> > [email-masked]
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steven Heath" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:55 PM
> > Subject: RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released
> >
> > If a person or company decides to enter a heavily controlled market and
> > spend money so be it.
> >
> > It is called 'Business Risk'. No one said in business if you spend X you get
> > X +15%.
> >
> > What right did these companies have to operate their own TLD's and/or
> > alternative root(s)?
> >
> > None.
> >
> > They decided to do it. Now, one would hope they went in with their eyes wide
> > open knowing
> > that if they did not get 'access' to the 'master root' then they were sh*t
> > out of luck.
> >
> > The thing I could never understand that if I did .money (or .web, or .store
> > or .smallfurryanimal) what stopped others from also doing it? What if my
> > .money was in New Zealand and the 'upstart' .money was in Spain?
> >
> > A gentlemen's agreement or would you use the courts to stop them?
> >
> > As far as I can see a number of companies rolled the dice and appeared to
> > have lost...
> >
> > This has nothing to do with ICANN. It has all to do with companies rushing
> > and doing things to try and gain a competitive advantage for their own gain.
> >
> > I am not a big fan of ICANN but whinging about them and saying 'but it's not
> > fair' is worthless. Your right, it's not fair, but no one TOLD you to do
> > this.
> >
> >
> > Steven Heath
> > .nz news & views
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 14:41:40 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

John and all former DNSO GA members,

  Until RFC 1591 was modified not too long ago, I could not agree with
you take on the John.

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> >
> > Karl, try to answer this for me.  Is it in the best interests of the
> > economy to undermine entrepreneurial efforts by simply taking the unique
> > product of small businesses and organizations by fiat?
>
> What is it that is proposed to be "taken" here?  If the DoC root does not
> have an entry for .foo, then putting .foo in the DoC root does not "take"
> anything from anyone.  Nobody is compelled to use the DoC root if they do not
> want to use it, and nobody is prevented from operating another root system.
> If you want to run your own root, then run your own root.  The day after a
> collider is put into the ICANN root, you can still run your own root, and
> users can decide which one they want to use.  What gives you the right to
> force others to use yours?  Nobody is forcing anybody to use ICANN's.
>
> > Please tell me
> > what incentive there might be for small businesses to start up if
> > somewhere down the road the government will elect to just destroy them at
> > will, with no recourse.
>
> What rule is there that says the government cannot open a refreshment stand
> inside a national park, even if there are food vendors situated nearby
> outside the park?  More accurately, if I sell hot dogs outside of the
> entrance to Yellowstone, then what principle gives me first dibs on any hot
> dog concession that the government might decide to run inside Yellowstone?
> Why would the government owe me that?
>
> Now, experience in selling hot dogs might be a good consideration in deciding
> who gets to sell hot dogs in the park, but I can't see how having operated a
> private business with private resources somehow confers a right to be
> enshrined in a government-controlled environment.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 16:35:01 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting Suspension(s)

Every time this happens, I remind everyone that
there is an alternative: [email-masked]

http://lair.lionpost.net/mailman/ga

Its still there....

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 13:54
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting Suspension(s)

> Perhaps someone can tell me who died and made RWR list monitor?
> e
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Regarding http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc12/msg00770.html
> > Per the published list moderation guidelines Joe Baptista's
> > [[email-masked]] posting rights will be suspended from March 20,
> > 2003 until April 3, 2003.
> > 
> > Regarding http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc12/msg00795.html
> > Per the published list moderation guidelines Joe Baptista's
> > [[email-masked]] posting rights will be suspended an additional
> > 30 days from April 3, 2003 until May 3, 2003.
> > 
> > Rules of Order; 
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
> > 
> > General GNSO Mailing List Information;
> > http://www.dnso.org/mailinglists.html
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > 
> >            -rwr
> > 
> > --
> > 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: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:18:44 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, at 15:37 [=GMT-0500], Michael Froomkin - U.Miami...:

> actually, there are competing yellow pages delivered to my house.  could
> be a generic term?  (One goes by the trademarked term "the _Real_ Yellow
> Pages")

If "Yellow Pages" is a generic term (I have this vague recollection of
some court case about it somewhere won by the 'owner' of the term, UK?),
that still does not mean, that if I start a competiting directory, and
call it the Pink Pages, that you can start one using the same name, or
even one called the Pinky Pages and print them on fuchsia coloured paper.

In Holland, where I live, there is a yellow pages directory called the
Gouden Gids ("golden guide"). It is on yellow paper. The telecom company
(formerly state monopoly) now also publishes yellow pages in their
directories. But they are pink. This cannot be accidental or indicate a
favour for the colour pink.  Black on yellow is much more readable than
black on pink, I think.

It is complicated. So is the alt root business.

- --
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, 21 Mar 2003 00:39:16 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, at 10:26 [=GMT-0500], John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> What rule is there that says the government cannot open a refreshment stand
> inside a national park, even if there are food vendors situated nearby
> outside the park?  More accurately, if I sell hot dogs outside of the
> entrance to Yellowstone, then what principle gives me first dibs on any hot
> dog concession that the government might decide to run inside Yellowstone?
> Why would the government owe me that?

I do not know. I do know I would vote against such a government and for
one that refrains from selling hot dogs (or licenses for the hot dog
business) completely. State intervention in business is not favoured much
anywhere today, is it? I think they tried that in Eastern Europe for some
40 years. The US did not have to throw out bombs there to change that type
of government. It didn't work. People found out by themselves.

The main problem with a government hot dog agency is that they have such
advantages and resources that they will likely put others out of business.
Some call that unfair competition. Of course, civil servants have little
incentive to keep making tasty hot dogs if the competition is more
expensive, for reasons mentioned already, or much further away or put into
prison or send to camps in Alaska. At a certain stage the hot dogs (by
then commonly known as bush coughs) will be so horrible, that people will
get disgusted. And they will not merely stop buying and eating them. They
will turn against those who kept the weird hot dog system in place.

It is a matter of time.

- --
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, 21 Mar 2003 00:54:43 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, at 14:41 [=GMT-0500], Gene Marsh wrote:

> Yes, Michael, but if I publish a book of numbers in the US and call it "The
> Yellow Pages" I would have a fight on my hands.  Consider the name of the
> book as the TLD, with addresses within.

With TLDs there is one complication. The first set of them did not evolve
from competiting businesses getting market share. They were 'invented'
(nearly) all in one go by a group of people doing research paid by US
government funds. Some of these TLDs were subsequently licensed to
companies to administer and a bit later to make money from. Domains did
not start in a free market. They started when nobody knew there would be a
market for them.

Who puts up road signs saying go left here for Amsterdam? In my country
this is done by a member organization, which is large and powerful. I
assume they get government money to do it. It won't work to say to people
who are uncomforatble about the way the road signs are handled to start
their own competiting road sign business. Really not.

Which is why, if I am honest, I think there should be, if possible, one
and only one holy root. Next question is how it is governed or rather
administered. And who pulls the strings on the (member?) organization
ultimately.

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 19:16:24 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]

Yup, and it's copyrighted. :)  At least the last time I subscribed to it 
it was.

Leah

On 20 Mar 2003 at 5:43, [email-masked] wrote:

> btw. is there a phone book on CD for the US?

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 18:24:13 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]

Rodrigo and all former DNSO GA members,

  I am sorry but you are not quite right here Rodrigo.  The Phone Book
Directory is contained in it's entirety in a Database for the US.  I believe
this is also true for France, Great Britain, and several other EU Countries.

Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:

> Just a minor observation to that regard; for copyright purposes, the phone
> book is not a database, it's a directory.
>
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Michael
> Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> Enviado el: Jueves, 20 de Marzo de 2003 09:51 AM
> Para: [email-masked]'
> CC: Joe Baptista; Steven Heath
> Asunto: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]
>
> I seriously doubt that US law would find a copyright interest in a TLD
> database, as it doesn't find it in the phone book.
>
> I am unaware of any published decisions relating to TLD databases
> elsewhere, and would welcome references to them.  Other countries are more
> friendly to a claim of 'compilation copyright' so it's certainly possible
> that such decisions exist.
>
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Joe Baptista wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Steven Heath wrote:
> >
> > > What right did these companies have to operate their own TLD's and/or
> > > alternative root(s)?
> > >
> > > None.
> >
> > TLD databases are covered by copyright law ... we've defended in the past
> > successfully - and we will defend again if necessary.
> >
> > regards
> > joe baptista
> >
> > Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god
> >
> >  Old Time Radio http://OTR.ind |
> >                                | on the inclusive namespace
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's warm here.<--
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 19:25:04 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

On 20 Mar 2003 at 13:14, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> The problem lies with real duplication - ie - putting two identical
> strings with different nameservers into the same root. Putting identical
> strings with different nameservers into different roots has absolute no
> negative impact on the specific users of each root unless of course the
> user has configured their machine to look for authoritative results from a
> non-authoritative source.
> 
You mean there is no problem with nameservers running with recursion on 
and queries to different nameservers?  There is no problem with the 
confusion that arises when there are two second level domains that are 
identical?  There is no problem with email going to the wrong recipient?  
There is no problem with identical host names for nameservers?  There is 
no problem with two different hosting providers hosting the same domain 
string on two different sets of IP addresses?  There are no nameservers 
that may be miscofigured in the world?  There is no cache poisoning?

Leah

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 18:30:44 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]

At 12:18 AM +0100 3/21/03, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>In Holland, where I live, there is a yellow pages directory called the
>Gouden Gids ("golden guide"). It is on yellow paper. The telecom company
>(formerly state monopoly) now also publishes yellow pages in their
>directories. But they are pink. This cannot be accidental or indicate a
>favour for the colour pink.  Black on yellow is much more readable than
>black on pink, I think.

IIRC, the TM holder for "yellow pages" in New Zealand (Teelcom NZ Ltd)
usccessfully sued to get an web-based on-line directory to change their
background colour from yellow.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, madrid.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Follow the money: http://www.icannwatch.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: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:38:41 -0600
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]

Could be copyrighted as a literary work. It would be valuable if you could
put forth any further insight on its registration.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de L. Gallegos
Enviado el: Jueves, 20 de Marzo de 2003 06:16 PM
Para: [email-masked]
Asunto: Re: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]

Yup, and it's copyrighted. :)  At least the last time I subscribed to it
it was.

Leah

On 20 Mar 2003 at 5:43, [email-masked] wrote:

> btw. is there a phone book on CD for the US?

- --
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: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:48:40 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]

On 21 Mar 2003 at 0:54, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Who puts up road signs saying go left here for Amsterdam? In my country
> this is done by a member organization, which is large and powerful. I
> assume they get government money to do it. It won't work to say to people
> who are uncomforatble about the way the road signs are handled to start
> their own competiting road sign business. Really not.

Ah, but if someone in the US put up a roadsign on their own property and 
it did not mislead anyone, would it be illegal?  Are road signs 
manufactured by the government?  Not here.  Is there only one company that 
makes road signs?  No.  

The government does not "own" the dns or the networks that use it for the 
most part, nor is it controlled by the US government.  It is controlled by 
users with a majority choosing to use the USG root.

I don't disagree that the utopian answer would be a single root in terms 
of a master list, but that is not about to happen as long as DoC and ICANN 
will not even recognize anyone else's existance.  With countries now 
choosing to operate their own roots, the best we can hope to work toward 
is agreement to not duplicate existing TLDs.  So far, that has been 
totally negated by ICANN per their statements that they will do as please. 
 With their outright refusal to even make simple nameserver changes for 
ccTLDs, can't you see the possibility that some will go toward other roots 
who will take care of technical issues in a timely fashion and without 
argument and without heavy fees for a five minute administrative task?

Leah

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 19:54:05 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

> You mean there is no problem with nameservers running with recursion on
> and queries to different nameservers?  There is no problem with the
> confusion that arises when there are two second level domains that are
> identical?  There is no problem with email going to the wrong recipient?
> There is no problem with identical host names for nameservers?  There is
> no problem with two different hosting providers hosting the same domain
> string on two different sets of IP addresses?  There are no nameservers
> that may be miscofigured in the world?  There is no cache poisoning?

You tell me - I keep being told that there is no reason for a unique
authoritative root.

You can't have it both ways.

                     -rwr

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

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 20:28:46 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]

On 20 Mar 2003 at 18:38, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:

> Could be copyrighted as a literary work. It would be valuable if you could
> put forth any further insight on its registration.
> 

http://www.infousa.com/homesite/licensing.html

This is just one of hundreds if you do a google search.   I don't know of 
any company that provides a database without copyrights attached to it.  
If you purchase CD's they have usage restrictions as well.

Leah

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 19:32:12 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Regarding copyright of TLD's - Notice from Canada on .NEWS

All former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

Joe B. was kind enough to provide the following regarding
.News TLD copyrights.
See:
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/cipo/copyrights/cdd?fileNum=413791&type=1&lang=e

  Note:  Perhaps Rodrigo could develope some of his own investigative
skills and proceedures.  Also perhaps ICANN could and should do the
same...

=============  Copy of Joes post follows =============

Subject: RE: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]
   Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:09:59 -0500 (EST)
   From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
   To:  Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>

Jeff - you might want to forward this to the group

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/cipo/copyrights/cdd?fileNum=413791&type=1&lang=e

the .news TLD - simon seems to understand copyright.

cheers
joe baptista

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

          .book domain registration http://www.register.book/

                 ... is your .book domain name registered
                 .book an inclusive namespace provider

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:

> Could be copyrighted as a literary work. It would be valuable if
you could
> put forth any further insight on its registration.
>
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de L.
Gallegos
> Enviado el: Jueves, 20 de Marzo de 2003 06:16 PM
> Para: [email-masked]
> Asunto: Re: Copyright [was RE: [ga] New TLD White Paper released]
>
>
> Yup, and it's copyrighted. :)  At least the last time I subscribed
to it
> it was.
>
> Leah
>
>
> On 20 Mar 2003 at 5:43, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > btw. is there a phone book on CD for the US?
>
>
>
> --
> 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 Joes post =========

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 20 Mar 2003 20:55:01 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

On 20 Mar 2003 at 19:54, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> > You mean there is no problem with nameservers running with recursion on
> > and queries to different nameservers?  There is no problem with the
> > confusion that arises when there are two second level domains that are
> > identical?  There is no problem with email going to the wrong recipient?
> > There is no problem with identical host names for nameservers?  There is
> > no problem with two different hosting providers hosting the same domain
> > string on two different sets of IP addresses?  There are no nameservers
> > that may be miscofigured in the world?  There is no cache poisoning?
> 
> You tell me - I keep being told that there is no reason for a unique
> authoritative root.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.

Now you're being obtuse.  Cooperation is not a unique authoritative root.  
Agreeing to not duplicate existing TLDs is cooperation.  Providing a 
master list for reference is not demanding a unique "authoritative" root, 
but does imply that a standard is being provided that the community can 
refer to, much the same as RFC's are used.  There is no law that says 
anyone "must" adhere to the RFC's, but most do  to a large degree because 
it makes life easier.  Betcha the roots would be willing to refer to such 
a master list if it were reasonably complete.  

At any rate, for DoC and ICANN to simply refuse to recognize what is 
already in existance is just plain wrong.  It does not foster good 
relations with anyone else in the world and does not promote DNS stability 
either.  It just makes more of a mess and sets a standard that it's 
perfectly okay to just do as one pleases without regard for anyone else 
anywhere.  Now, that's a great way to make friends, right?  Well, the 
result is just what one might expect.  Others have begun duplicating as 
they darned well please, so why not just exacerbate the situation and do 
it on a larger scale.  Oh well.

Leah

- --
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 #1640
*************************