Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1667
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, April 16 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1667

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:40:54 +0100
From: "Dr Eberhard W. Lisse" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_Re:_[ga]_Re:_[centr-ga]_Re:_[nc-deletes]_FW:_[council]_Concerns_Regarding_Report_of_DeletesTask_Force?= 

Eric,

In message <[email-masked]>, Eric Dierker
 writes:

> (by the way what does a Gyaecologist do ;-) is that a gynocoligist for 
> guys)
> 
> Eric Dierker

No, I am just dyslexic. 

If I could have done any better than multiple choice tests, I would of
course have studied law. :-)-O

el

- --
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, 15 Apr 2003 09:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_[ga]_Re:_[centr-ga]_Re:_[nc-deletes]_FW:_[council]_Concerns_Regarding_Report_of_DeletesTask_Force?=

So it is simply a service contract for a given duration as are all.
But is not there an ownership of IP addresses?
e

> From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
>>
>> What you have written here suggests that the registrar owns a domain
>> name
> as
>> something seperate from an IP address.  I find this illusive if not
>> down right wrong.
> 
> I have no idea how you get that out of what I wrote.
> 
> The point here is that a domain name is whatever the registration
> contract defines it to be.  And presently, contracts for .com domain
> names define them as having a fixed term of registration.
> 
> It's very simple.  If I agree to feed your dog every day for a term of
> one year beginning on May 1, 2003, then on May 2, 2004, I will not show
> up to feed your dog.  How hard is that to understand?
> 

- --
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, 15 Apr 2003 17:00:36 +0100
From: "Dr Eberhard W. Lisse" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] What is a domain name?

Eric,

now that we have had fun :-)-O, it is a really interesting topic.

I have always considered a domain a region of authority and
responsibility for naming and name-to-address-translation. (And if
pressed I can even look up which RFC defines this :-)-O)

And then came ICANN...

Actually, I would really like to see a working and understandeable
definition of "domain".

By the way, I do not think that the cybersquatting act or the opinion
of different US courts apply anywhere outside the US. 

Hmm, other than in the Iraq, maybe...

greetings, el
- -- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \   *    /        Managing Member, NA-NiC (cc) 
<[email-masked]> el108    /       | NA-NiC is the the .NA ccTLD Registry
Private Bag X5501       \     /           NA-NiC, Not Just Like That!
Oshakati, Namibia       ;____/     Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
Please send DNS/NA-NiC related e-mail to [email-masked] only
- --
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, 15 Apr 2003 12:03:02 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Domains are not the equivalent of DNS.

<cc: universe trimmed>

> So warehousing is simply a function of using your IP 
> addresses for the 
> wrong reason.

Eric - would it surprise you to learn that there are several registrars
that do not assign IP addresses to registrants in any way shape or form?
The connection that seems so obvious to you does not actually exist in a
meaningful way.

Domains are not the equivalent of DNS, they are but one component of the
domain name system.

This is where, dare I digress, those that point out that ENUM is not a
question that falls within ICANN's scope of responsibility are wrong.

Domains are a way of mapping alpha-numeric labels to hosts/endpoints
(x). DNS is the resolution mechanism (y).
ENUM is a way of mapping numeric labels to hosts/endpoints (z). DNS is
the resolution mechanism.
(x+2y+z) = the domain name system (for as long as x and z remain
dependent on y.)

ICANN's mandate, at least as I understand it is specifically concerned
with the domain name system and less about the specifics of DNS or
domain names - and we are rightly concerned with anything that attempts
to map to that system.

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.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: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_Domains_are_not_the_equivalent_of_DNS.?=

Very well sir,

Perhaps I misspoke again.
My point is that the right to access at a level we are referring to 
creates a right within the registrars to control the existance, or lack 
there of, of domain names.

Long standing Kofeltian logic tells us with this right there should be a 
corresponding duty.  I only commented upon Dr. John's posts as I worry 
about wiggle room for those who abuse public trust.
e

> <cc: universe trimmed>
> 
>> So warehousing is simply a function of using your IP 
>> addresses for the 
>> wrong reason.
> 
> Eric - would it surprise you to learn that there are several registrars
> that do not assign IP addresses to registrants in any way shape or
> form? The connection that seems so obvious to you does not actually
> exist in a meaningful way.
> 
> Domains are not the equivalent of DNS, they are but one component of
> the domain name system.
> 
> This is where, dare I digress, those that point out that ENUM is not a
> question that falls within ICANN's scope of responsibility are wrong.
> 
> Domains are a way of mapping alpha-numeric labels to hosts/endpoints
> (x). DNS is the resolution mechanism (y).
> ENUM is a way of mapping numeric labels to hosts/endpoints (z). DNS is
> the resolution mechanism.
> (x+2y+z) = the domain name system (for as long as x and z remain
> dependent on y.)
> 
> ICANN's mandate, at least as I understand it is specifically concerned
> with the domain name system and less about the specifics of DNS or
> domain names - and we are rightly concerned with anything that attempts
> to map to that system.
> 
> 
>                        -rwr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
> 
> Get Blog... http://www.byte.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: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:48:09 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Domain Names: What are they? DNDEF

A couple years back, some of us on this list began to detail attributes of
Domain Names towards the efecting of a definition. Here are the some of the
relevant links:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg03557.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg03562.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg03586.html

and

http://www.democracy.org.nz/domainnames.htm
- --
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
 Toronto, Canada
- --
"The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making
from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes,
priestly castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern
corporations."

- -- Noam Chomsky

"Laws to suppress tend to strengthen what they would prohibit. This is the
fine point on which all the legal professions of history have based their job
security."
                                         --Frank Herbert, from his novel
"Chapterhouse Dune"

- --
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, 15 Apr 2003 10:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_Domain_Names:_What_are_they=3F_DNDEF?=

Sotiris,

In your opinion, have the relavances of these concepts, evolved through 
time.
Have we gotten closer to a definition.
e

> A couple years back, some of us on this list began to detail attributes
> of Domain Names towards the efecting of a definition. Here are the some
> of the relevant links:
> 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg03557.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg03562.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg03586.html
> 
> and
> 
> http://www.democracy.org.nz/domainnames.htm
> --
> Sincerely,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>  Toronto, Canada
> --
> "The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer
> decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions:
> kings and princes, priestly castes, military juntas, party
> dictatorships, or modern
> corporations."
> 
> -- Noam Chomsky
> 
> "Laws to suppress tend to strengthen what they would prohibit. This is
> the fine point on which all the legal professions of history have based
> their job security."
>                                          --Frank Herbert, from his
>                                          novel
> "Chapterhouse Dune"

- --
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, 15 Apr 2003 13:24:36 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Domain Names: What are they? DNDEF

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Sotiris,
>
> In your opinion, have the relavances of these concepts, evolved through
> time.
> Have we gotten closer to a definition.

They are just as relevant today as they were two years ago.  Indeed, the need
for a standard definition is as important today as it ever was.  Which is
probably why ICANN and the IETF shy away from establishing a fixed
definition.  As log as the ontology of domain names remains unfixed, those
who have power/influence over the DNS and its management can do pretty much
what they like...

Are we closer to a definition?  Not if "we" leave it up to ICANN.

- --Sotiris

- --
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, 15 Apr 2003 12:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] What is a domain name?

Eric Dierker wrote:
Well,
> Sotiris,
>
> In your opinion, have the relavances of these concepts, evolved through
> time.
> Have we gotten closer to a definition.

They are just as relevant today as they were two years ago.  Indeed, the 
need
for a standard definition is as important today as it ever was.  Which is
probably why ICANN and the IETF shy away from establishing a fixed
definition.  As log as the ontology of domain names remains unfixed, those
who have power/influence over the DNS and its management can do pretty much
what they like...

Are we closer to a definition?  Not if "we" leave it up to ICANN.

- --Sotiris

> Eric,
> 
> now that we have had fun :-)-O, it is a really interesting topic.
> 
> I have always considered a domain a region of authority and
> responsibility for naming and name-to-address-translation. (And if
> pressed I can even look up which RFC defines this :-)-O)
> 
> And then came ICANN...
> 
> 
> Actually, I would really like to see a working and understandeable
> definition of "domain".
> 
> 
> By the way, I do not think that the cybersquatting act or the opinion
> of different US courts apply anywhere outside the US. 
> 
> Hmm, other than in the Iraq, maybe...
> 
> greetings, el
> -- 
> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \   *    /        Managing Member, NA-NiC (cc) 
> <[email-masked]> el108    /       | NA-NiC is the the .NA ccTLD Registry
> Private Bag X5501       \     /           NA-NiC, Not Just Like That!
> Oshakati, Namibia       ;____/     Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
> Please send DNS/NA-NiC related e-mail to [email-masked] only
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domains are not the equivalent of DNS.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> Domains are a way of mapping alpha-numeric labels to hosts/endpoints
> (x).

I don't quite agree.

Fully qualified domain names (FQDN) are more than simply alpha-numeric.  
The relevant RFC's define the character set as being all 256 possible
patterns in 8-bit octets.  The alphanumeric limitation only applies when
the name is somehow associated with a "hostname".  Various applications
and library routines (e.g. sendmail and gethostbyname()) have drifted into
this ambiguity and created a deployed base anchor that, as a practical
matter, nullifies the 8-bit clean aspect of DNS that is found in the
actual DNS standards.)

In addition, the result of the mapping from a FQDN isn't necessary a 
referent to a host/endpoint.  Rather, the result is to a set of records, 
possibly of multiple types with possibly multiple instances of each type.

There are many different record types.  They range from simple text
records (TXT) to more complex things, like regex expressions in NAPTR
records or latitude/longitude/elevation coordinates in LOC records.

IP Address related records comprise only a small portion of the possible
DNS record types that are defined.

And for each type there may be multiple results.  It is not atypical for a
single FQDN query for address-related records (PTR, CNAME, A) to result in
more than one record coming back.  A good example of this is to do a look
for "any" type of record on "www.whitehouse.gov".

ENUM is an interesting case.  I find it easiest to think of ENUM as a 
directory layered *on top of DNS* that itself is constructed using DNS 
components.  That way I can analyse the top part of ENUM - the NAPTR 
records, the application of the regular expressions, and the selection 
among the resulting URI's as a directory - and analyse the use the use of 
the domain name part of the selected URI as a classical DNS matter.

For fun, I have a DNS zone that has virtually no address related records.  
Rather it contains the text of the Magna Carta.  You can view it via the 
command:

	dig @npax.cavebear.com mc.cavebear.com axfr

(I'm not sure whether "dig" is widely available to folks who use those
proprietary "operating systems". ;-)

		--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: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domains are not the equivalent of DNS.

[snip]

> 	dig @npax.cavebear.com mc.cavebear.com axfr

dig @npax.cavebear.com mc.cavebear.com axfr
;; Connection to 192.203.17.71#53(npax.cavebear.com) for mc.cavebear.com
failed: host unreachable.

- -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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:11:27 -0700
From: "Jay Westerdal" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Domains are not the equivalent of DNS.

Karl,
I receive a connection refused as well....

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Rick
Wesson
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 1:26 PM
To: Karl Auerbach
Cc: Ross Wm. Rader; 'Eric Dierker'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Domains are not the equivalent of DNS.

[snip]

> 	dig @npax.cavebear.com mc.cavebear.com axfr

dig @npax.cavebear.com mc.cavebear.com axfr
;; Connection to 192.203.17.71#53(npax.cavebear.com) for mc.cavebear.com
failed: host unreachable.

- -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: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domains are not the equivalent of DNS.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Rick Wesson wrote:

> > 	dig @npax.cavebear.com mc.cavebear.com axfr
 
> dig @npax.cavebear.com mc.cavebear.com axfr
> ;; Connection to 192.203.17.71#53(npax.cavebear.com) for mc.cavebear.com
> failed: host unreachable.

Oops, I've just reorganized my nets and firewalls and forgot that I
blocked zone transfers except to my designated secondaries.

However I do have a server on my dmz net that ought to give the desired 
result:

 	dig @p2.cavebear.com mc.cavebear.com axfr

		--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: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 17:22:28 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domains are not the equivalent of DNS.

me too.

- --Sotiris

Jay Westerdal wrote:

> Karl,
> I receive a connection refused as well....
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Rick
> Wesson
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 1:26 PM
> To: Karl Auerbach
> Cc: Ross Wm. Rader; 'Eric Dierker'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Domains are not the equivalent of DNS.
>
> [snip]
>
> >       dig @npax.cavebear.com mc.cavebear.com axfr
>
> dig @npax.cavebear.com mc.cavebear.com axfr
> ;; Connection to 192.203.17.71#53(npax.cavebear.com) for mc.cavebear.com
> failed: host unreachable.
>
> -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

- --
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, 15 Apr 2003 23:39:52 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domains are not the equivalent of DNS.

Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> However I do have a server on my dmz net that ought to give the desired 
> result:
> 
>  	dig @p2.cavebear.com mc.cavebear.com axfr
> 
> 		--karl--

Yes.
;; Received 1 answer (517 records).
;; FROM: balsa to SERVER: 199.184.128.35
;; WHEN: Tue Apr 15 23:36:43 2003

Elisabeth Porteneuve

- --
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, 15 Apr 2003 20:11:16 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domains are not the equivalent of DNS.

Got it this time :)
;; XFR size: 518 records
Leah

On 15 Apr 2003 at 14:14, Karl Auerbach wrote:

> dig @p2.cavebear.com mc.cavebear.com axfr

- --
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, 16 Apr 2003 00:36:57 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] =?iso-8859-1?Q?0:190_____ORG...O=AEG...O%aeG?=

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
0:190     ORG
====

The new 128-bit DNS software...supports characters such as ®

http://www.ICANN.ORG
http://www.ICANN.O®G
http://www.ICANN.O%aeG

Note:
...whois is not the DNS, whois is a separate protocol and database...
...the 128-bit DNS is backward compatible with the 32-bit DNS...
...ICANN and the 32-bit .ORG Registry do not appear to have any licenses to use 128-bit DNS technology...

®egister early and often ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

- --
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, 16 Apr 2003 00:54:29 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Call for comments: WIPO recommendations on IGOs

Dear Milton,

Thanks for the reminder on the need for commentary relative to the WIPO 
recommendations that the Council will be considering at its session on the 
17th.

I have posted some initial thoughts on the matter of the IGO recommendation 
at http://www.babybows.com/IGO.htm

Best regards,
Danny

- --
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, 16 Apr 2003 09:25:23 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RISKS: Changing Domain Registration info without verification

- ----- Forwarded message from RISKS List Owner <[email-masked]> -----

To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:51:07 PDT
Subject: [risks] Risks Digest 22.69

RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest  Tuesday 15 April 2003  Volume 22 : Issue 69

   FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS (comp.risks)
   ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 16:41:51 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Changing Domain Registration info without verification

I found a reference to a USPS Web site allowing anyone to issue a change of
address via the web in a 1997 issue of RISKS.
  [Actually, it allowed you to print a form that you could mail in.
  See RISKS-19.18 to 19.20.  PGN]

Here's a twist I recently noticed, as conveyed in a message I just sent
Network Solutions:

  I just tried to login to my ******** account for the first time in a long
  time, and it is trying to force me to accept a service agreement before I
  can access my account.

  I don't know if it was in the previous service agreement, but this
  provision is UNACCEPTABLE:

  #  4) You agree that VeriSign is authorized, but not obligated,
  #  to use Coding Accuracy Support System (CASS) certified software
  #  and/or the National Change of Address program (and/or such other
  #  systems or programs as may be recognized by the United States
  #  Postal Service or other international postal authority for
  #  updating and/or standardizing address information) to change
  #  any address information associated with your account (e.g.,
  #  registrant address, billing contact address, etc.), and you agree
  #  that VeriSign may use and rely upon any such changed address
  #  information for all purposes in connection with your account
  #  (including the sending of invoices and other important account
  #  information) as though such changes had been made directly by you. 

  This USPS change-of-address can be done BY ANYBODY WITHOUT VERIFICATION at
  https://moversguide.usps.com/

  I DO NOT authorize that my contact information be changeable by anyone via
  this process. (The USPS site even lets the e-mail address be changed.)

  If you cannot remove this clause from my agreement to service, I will
  transfer my registration to Register.com, which does not have this
  provision.

- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
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, 16 Apr 2003 00:45:30 -0700
From: "Jay Westerdal" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Domains with no Name Servers listed

In the Verisign RRP is it not a requirement to have a minimum of 1 name
server but no more then 13. This is how I read it. But yet I find domains
with no name servers listed. So my question is how do registrars do this? Do
they some how get around the business logic of the Verisign GRS? Would that
mean they have another way into the system other then the RRP logic? I am
very curious how come egret.com has no name servers listed and there is no
history of this domain ever being in the .COM zonefile?

Anyone know how this works?

Jay

- --
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, 16 Apr 2003 08:54:29 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WIPO recommendations on IGOs and Country Names

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C303F5.CAAFDE20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

HelpWhile I understand the desire to "control" sites that resolve to the =
name of a sovereign state, I still regard this as a matter of "control" =
- - part of a process which closes down the variety and freedoms of the =
net.

For example, here in UK we have a long-established supermarket chain =
called Iceland. They're legitimate, they're trademarked, they are bona =
fide.

It does not seem just to me that they will be excluded from using or =
acquiring the name Iceland.[various endings] if they wish to use the =
internet in this way.

I personally think it would be preferable to dedicate a TLD for national =
governments, and let that TLD identify their sites as the official site =
for that country. In this way, you broaden out the options instead of =
narrowing them down. So the nation of Iceland's site could be found at: =
Iceland.state (or whatever ending was designated).

It's the same with the whole IP issue. If businesses have a trademark =
and want to identify their official site, then it would be better to =
designate a TLD which identified their official status. So: Ford.reg =
(where .reg was used to identify a trademarked site). Again, this would =
have the effect of broadening out the freedoms of the net, and allowing =
Mr. Nobody Ford the right to have a homepage at Ford.com if he managed =
to get the domain name.

It would also benefits countries and companies, in that they would not =
have to defensively register domain names in an ever-increasing range of =
TLDs.

At the heart of this is "control" and the narrowing down of the =
internet. I oppose the annexing of swathes of addresses, just because =
people claim a TM (and the same applies to country names). Thousands of =
generic words are annexed by companies just because of a trademark - and =
yet a domain name is not meant to be a trademark at all.

As I say, it would be much better to designate purpose-driven TLDs which =
identified eg: official country site; trademarked sites etc etc.

Take the word "Apple". There must be hundreds of companies with =
trademarks on this name all over the world in different jurisdictions. =
What gives one specific company the right to "annex" the name Apple, =
say, in the Sunrise of a New TLD names release? What about the other 99 =
companies who also use that name? But more importantly, what about the =
millions of people all over the world for whom the word "Apple" is part =
of their day to day vocabulary, part of their language.

I am unhappy with the closing off of any part of our language, with the =
restriction of access to DNS which should be available to all users on a =
first come first served basis.

The annexing of our language, the "control" instinct, is contrary to the =
spirit of the internet.

Of course, if bad faith is demonstrable - if someone tries to pass =
themselves off as the United States government at UnitedStates.com - =
then that is a different matter. And then, that person should be pursued =
through the courts. But if I am a 90 year old woman and American =
patriot, and just happen to get the name UnitedStates.com when it drops, =
and if I choose to do a great site all about my country and its history =
at my site, then I should be allowed to... because an unknown =
90-year-old woman is just as entitled as the President of the United =
States to write about her country and run a site that is relevant to =
her, and maybe many others, at an easy and recognisable domain name =
address.

With the proliferation of New TLDs, we should be designating =
purpose-driven endings which clearly identify official sites for: =
countries, places, trademarked companies, etc etc.

To a large extent, the obsession with defensive registrations results =
from having such a limited number of TLDs, and so conflicting parties =
scrabble for 'ownership' of the limited namespace.

We should broaden choice, not narrow it down. We should keep addresses =
open to the many, not annex them for the few.

yrs,

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----=20
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; =
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 6:40 AM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] WIPO recommendations on IGOs and Country =
Names

> I hate to break into the reverie of election preparations with =
something as=20
> mundane as a domain name issue, but the Names Council will be meeting =
in=20
> session on the 17th during which time they will take up the recent =
WIPO=20
> recommendations which have already been endorsed by the GAC -- the =
WIPO=20
> letter is posted at=20
> =
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-letter-to-cerf-lynn-21feb03.htm=

>=20
> I have posted comments on the recommendation regarding International=20
> Inter-governmental Organizations at the following URL: =20
> http://www.babybows.com/IGO.htm
>=20
> You may wish to contact your constituency representatives (if you are =
a=20
> constituency member) or perhaps the Board-appointed members of the =
ALAC with=20
> your own thoughts on this topic.  The ICANN Board has requested final =
input=20
> by May 12:
>=20
> Resolved [03.22] that Board hereby requests the President to
>     inform the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Supporting
>     Organizations, and the other Advisory Committees of the 21
>     February 2003 letter from WIPO; to provide those bodies with
>     a copy of the text of the letter; and to invite them to
>     provide, no later than 12 May 2003, any comments they may
>     formulate, according to their processes, concerning the
>     matters discussed in the WIPO letter.
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]
>=20

- ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C303F5.CAAFDE20
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Help</TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><BASE=20
href=3Dfile://C:\WINDOWS\>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV>While I understand the desire to "control" sites that resolve to =
the name=20
of a sovereign state, I still regard this as a matter of "control" - =
part of a=20
process which closes down the variety and freedoms of the net.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>For example, here in UK we have a long-established supermarket =
chain called=20
Iceland. They're legitimate, they're trademarked, they are bona =
fide.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>It does not seem just to me that they will be excluded from using =
or=20
acquiring the name Iceland.[various endings] if they wish to use the =
internet in=20
this way.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I personally think it would be preferable to dedicate a TLD for =
national=20
governments, and let that TLD identify their sites as the official site =
for that=20
country. In this way, you broaden out the options instead of narrowing =
them=20
down. So the nation of Iceland's site could be found at: Iceland.state =
(or=20
whatever ending was designated).</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>It's the same with the whole IP issue. If businesses have a =
trademark and=20
want to identify their official site, then it would be better to =
designate a TLD=20
which identified their official status. So: Ford.reg (where .reg was =
used to=20
identify a trademarked site). Again, this would have the effect of =
broadening=20
out the freedoms of the net, and allowing Mr. Nobody Ford the right to =
have a=20
homepage at Ford.com if he managed to get the domain name.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>It would also benefits countries and companies, in that they would =
not have=20
to defensively register domain names in an ever-increasing range of =
TLDs.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>At the heart of this is "control" and the narrowing down of the =
internet. I=20
oppose the annexing of swathes of addresses, just because people claim a =
TM (and=20
the same applies to country names). Thousands of generic words are =
annexed by=20
companies just because of a trademark - and yet a domain name is not =
meant to be=20
a trademark at all.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>As I say, it would be much better to designate purpose-driven TLDs =
which=20
identified eg: official country site; trademarked sites etc etc.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Take the word "Apple". There must be hundreds of companies with =
trademarks=20
on this name all over the world in different jurisdictions. What gives =
one=20
specific company the right to "annex" the name Apple, say, in the =
Sunrise of a=20
New TLD names release? What about the other 99 companies who also use =
that name?=20
But more importantly, what about the millions of people all over the =
world for=20
whom the word "Apple" is part of their day to day vocabulary, part of =
their=20
language.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I am unhappy with the closing off of any part of our language, with =
the=20
restriction of access to DNS which should be available to all users on a =
first=20
come first served basis.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>The annexing of our language, the "control" instinct, is contrary =
to the=20
spirit of the internet.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Of course, if bad faith is demonstrable - if someone tries to pass=20
themselves off as the United States government at UnitedStates.com - =
then that=20
is a different matter. And then, that person should be pursued through =
the=20
courts. But if I am a 90 year old woman and American patriot, and just =
happen to=20
get the name UnitedStates.com when it drops, and if I choose to do a =
great site=20
all about my country and its history at my site, then I should be =
allowed to...=20
because an unknown 90-year-old woman is just as entitled as the =
President of the=20
United States to write about her country and run a site that is relevant =
to her,=20
and maybe many others, at an easy and recognisable domain name =
address.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>With the proliferation of New TLDs, we should be designating =
purpose-driven=20
endings which clearly identify official sites for: countries, places,=20
trademarked companies, etc etc.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>To a large extent, the obsession with defensive registrations =
results from=20
having such a limited number of TLDs, and so conflicting parties =
scrabble for=20
'ownership' of the limited namespace.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>We should broaden choice, not narrow it down. We should keep =
addresses open=20
to the many, not annex them for the few.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>yrs,</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Richard Henderson</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message -----=20
<DIV>From: &lt;<A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>&gt;</DIV>
<DIV>To: &lt;<A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]=
g.de</A>&gt;</DIV>
<DIV>Cc: &lt;<A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>&gt;; =
&lt;<A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>&gt;; &lt;<A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">roessler-mobile@does-n=
ot-exist.net</A>&gt;</DIV>
<DIV>Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 6:40 AM</DIV>
<DIV>Subject: [atlarge-discuss] WIPO recommendations on IGOs and Country =

Names</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>&gt; I hate to break into the reverie of election =
preparations=20
with something as <BR>&gt; mundane as a domain name issue, but the Names =
Council=20
will be meeting in <BR>&gt; session on the 17th during which time they =
will take=20
up the recent WIPO <BR>&gt; recommendations which have already been =
endorsed by=20
the GAC -- the WIPO <BR>&gt; letter is posted at <BR>&gt; <A=20
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-letter-to-cerf-lynn-21f=
eb03.htm">http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-letter-to-cerf-lynn-2=
1feb03.htm</A><BR>&gt;=20
<BR>&gt; I have posted comments on the recommendation regarding =
International=20
<BR>&gt; Inter-governmental Organizations at the following URL:&nbsp; =
<BR>&gt;=20
<A=20
href=3D"http://www.babybows.com/IGO.htm">http://www.babybows.com/IGO.htm<=
/A><BR>&gt;=20
<BR>&gt; You may wish to contact your constituency representatives (if =
you are a=20
<BR>&gt; constituency member) or perhaps the Board-appointed members of =
the ALAC=20
with <BR>&gt; your own thoughts on this topic.&nbsp; The ICANN Board has =

requested final input <BR>&gt; by May 12:<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Resolved =
[03.22] that=20
Board hereby requests the President to<BR>&gt; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; inform =
the=20
Governmental Advisory Committee, the Supporting<BR>&gt; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
Organizations, and the other Advisory Committees of the 21<BR>&gt;=20
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; February 2003 letter from WIPO; to provide those =
bodies=20
with<BR>&gt; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a copy of the text of the letter; and to =
invite=20
them to<BR>&gt; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; provide, no later than 12 May 2003, =
any=20
comments they may<BR>&gt; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; formulate, according to =
their=20
processes, concerning the<BR>&gt; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; matters discussed =
in the=20
WIPO letter.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;=20
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>=
&gt; To=20
unsubscribe, e-mail: <A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">atlarge-discus=
[email-masked]</A><BR>&gt;=20
For additional commands, e-mail: <A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">atlarge-discuss-help@=
lists.fitug.de</A><BR>&gt;=20
</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C303F5.CAAFDE20--

- --
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 #1667
*************************