Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1688
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 7 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1688

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

Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 23:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Touton responds to Dotster

See:

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/

for the May 6 letter from Louis Touton to Kevin Brannon.

It looks like June 26th's meeting in Montreal is now the date by which
the results of the appeals will be available. Hopefully they'll do the
right thing and give WLS a proper burial.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/
- --
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, 07 May 2003 08:59:32 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC on ccNSO 

On Tue, 6 May 2003 16:34:55 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>I personally give a lot of credit to the cc assertion that the country
>code operators themselves tend to represent the citizens of their
>respective nations and that obviates the need for a separate user channel
>into ICANN's cc mechanisms.  

I agree too - especially, battles for proper user representation in
ccTLD management should be held at the national level for each ccTLD,
not at the international one (this is what we have been doing in Italy
in the last years, by the way, where the situation is different:
policies have been traditionally developed by a self-formed bottom-up
group of ISPs and users with almost-open membership, and now the
Government would like to move policy making to a new State-owned
top-down appointed entity, see http://na.bertola.eu.org/en.php). And
you certainly cannot imagine a single model of participation and
policy-making process that fits the needs of all ccTLDs, so each one
should determine locally which is the best, by discussions among the
community and with the government.

But I still think that there are some interactions and
interdependences between what ccTLDs do and what the other types of
registries do, and this is why some interactions and discussions at
the ICANN level between ccTLDs and the rest of the community are
highly desirable. They should not end up in the production of top-down
binding policies (except perhaps when the root is involved), but they
should end up in building awareness and consensus around best
practices that, being the best, will be naturally adopted by most
ccTLDs.
- -- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 10:31:31 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC on ccNSO

On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 08:59:32AM +0200,
 Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 37 lines which said:

> But I still think that there are some interactions and
> interdependences between what ccTLDs do and what the other types of
> registries do, and this is why some interactions and discussions at
> the ICANN level between ccTLDs and the rest of the community are
> highly desirable.

It is very desirable to have fora (mailing lists, physical meetings,
etc), where registries met and discuss on issues like technical
matters (anycast, IDN, nameserver software, etc) or legal/political
matters (contracts, privacy, IDN, UDRP, etc). Wether the ICANN is the
appropriate umbrella for these discussions is another matter.

There are already several such fora, which are completely independant
of ICANN. The CENTR <URL:http://www.centr.org/> for the European ccTLD
for instance. Or ad hoc mailing lists such as idn-reg-policy
<URL:http://www.imc.org/idn-reg-policy/> for IDN registration.

- --
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, 7 May 2003 10:36:12 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Even Handed Application of The Rules (Yes or No? - We shall see)  (was Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for 14 days).

On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 11:05:02AM +1200,
 Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 26 lines which said:

> BTW, as a matter of interest, a poll among icannatlarge listmembers 
> revealed that more than 63% are in favor of a mailing list with Rules.
> The comments are of interest.
> http://www.icannatlarge.com/results-may4a.htm

It may be interesting also to read the attached Internet-Draft which
is proposed to the IETF (background: anyone can write an
Internet-Draft, as its name suggest, they have no official value) to
deal with jerks. Since some are common to the IETF and to the GA
mailing list (Jim Fleming...), it is interesting reading:

Network Working Group                                            M. Rose
Internet-Draft                              Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
Expires: November 2, 2003                                    May 4, 2003

      A Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to IETF mailing lists
                      draft-mrose-ietf-posting-02

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
   www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 2, 2003.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   All self-governing bodies have ways of managing the scope of
   participant interaction. The IETF uses a consensus-driven process for
   developing computer-communications standards in an open fashion. An
   important part of this consensus-driven process is the pervasive use
   of mailing lists for discussion. Notably, in a small number of cases,
   a participant has engaged in a "denial-of-service" attack to disrupt
   the consensus-driven process. Regrettably, as these bad faith attacks
   become more common, the IETF needs to establish a practice that
   reduces or eliminates these attacks. This memo recommends such a
   practice for use by the IETF.

Rose                    Expires November 2, 2003                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       May 2003

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2. A Revocation Practice  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3. Q & A  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
      Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
      Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
      Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . .  11

Rose                    Expires November 2, 2003                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       May 2003

1. Introduction

   All self-governing bodies have ways of managing the scope of
   participant interaction. For example, deliberative assemblies often
   employ "rules of order" for determining who gets to speak, when, and
   for how long. Similarly, there is widespread agreement in so-called
   "liberal" societies that the right to free speech is not absolute,
   e.g., political speech is given more leeway than commercial speech,
   and some forms of speech (e.g., egregious libel or incitement to
   violence) are considered unacceptable.

   The IETF uses a consensus-driven process for developing
   computer-communications standards in an open fashion. An important
   part of this consensus-driven process is the pervasive use of mailing
   lists for discussion. Unlike many other organizations, anyone may
   post messages on those IETF mailing lists, and in doing so,
   participate in the IETF process. Historically, this approach has
   worked very well in the IETF, as it fosters participation from a wide
   range of stakeholders.

   Notably, in a small number of cases, a participant has engaged in a
   "denial-of-service" attack to disrupt the consensus-driven process.
   Typically, these attacks are made by repeatedly posting messages that
   are off-topic, inflammatory, or otherwise counter-productive. In
   contrast, good faith disagreement is a healthy part of the
   consensus-driven process.

   For example, if a working group is unable to reach consensus, this is
   an acceptable, albeit unfortunate, outcome; however, if that working
   group fails to achieve consensus because it is being continuously
   disrupted, then the disruption constitutes an abuse of the
   consensus-driven process. Interactions of this type are fundamentally
   different from "the lone voice of dissent" in which a participant
   expresses a view that is discussed but does not achieve consensus. In
   other words, individual bad faith should not trump community
   goodwill.

   Guidelines have been developed for dealing with abusive behavior
   (c.f., Section 6.1 of [1] and [2]). In practice, the application of
   those guidelines has included the temporary suspension of posting
   rights to a specific mailing list. If necessary, the length of the
   suspension has been increased with each successive suspension. In
   many cases, applying those guidelines will produce the desired
   modification in behaviour. However, as these bad faith attacks become
   more common and the desired modification in behaviour fails to be
   forthcoming, the IETF needs to establish a practice that directly
   reduces or eliminates these attacks.

Rose                    Expires November 2, 2003                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       May 2003

2. A Revocation Practice

   Please refer to [3] for the meaning conveyed by the uppercase words
   in this section.

   As a part of its activities, the Internet Engineering Steering Group
   (IESG) votes on "actions". Typically, an action refers to the
   publication of a document on the standards-track, the chartering of a
   working group, and so on. This memo recommends that the IESG also
   undertake a new type of action, termed a PR-action.

   A PR-action identifies one or more individuals, citing messages
   posted by those individuals to an IETF mailing list, that appear to
   be abusive of the consensus-driven process. If approved by the IESG,
   then:

   o  those identified on the PR-action have their posting rights to
      that IETF mailing list removed; and,

   o  maintainers of any IETF mailing list may, at their discretion,
      also remove posting rights to that IETF mailing list.

   Once taken, this action remains in force until explicitly nullified
   and MUST remain in force for at least one year.

   One year after the PR-action is approved, a new PR-action MAY be
   introduced which restores the posting rights for that individual. The
   IESG SHOULD consider the frequency of nullifying requests when
   evaluating a new PR-action. If the posting rights are restored the
   individual is responsible for contacting the owners of the mailing
   lists to have them restored.

   Regardless of whether the PR-action revokes or restores posting
   rights, the IESG follows the same algorithm as with its other
   actions:

   1.  it is introduced by an IESG Area Director (AD), who, prior to
       doing so, may choose to inform the interested parties;

   2.  is is published as an IESG last call on the IETF general
       discussion list;

   3.  it is discussed by the community;

   4.  it is discussed by the IESG; and, finally,

   5.  it is voted upon by the IESG.

Rose                    Expires November 2, 2003                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       May 2003

   Of course, as with all IESG actions, the appeals process outlined in
   [4] may be invoked to contest a PR-action approved by the IESG.

   Finally, working groups SHOULD ensure that their associated mailing
   list is manageable. For example, some may try to circumvent the
   revocation of their posting rights by changing email addresses.

Rose                    Expires November 2, 2003                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       May 2003

3. Q & A

   Q: Isn't a year too long?

   A: No.

      An initial PR-action is not undertaken lightly. It is approved
      only after a period of substantive consideration and community
      review. If a PR-action is approved, then this indicates that a
      serious situation has arisen.

   Q: Why not require one PR-action per IETF mailing list?

   A: To do so would enable a prolonged series of denial-of-service
      attacks.

      If someone is poorly-behaved on one IETF mailing list, but
      well-behaved on another, then the maintainer for the second IETF
      mailing list needn't revoke posting rights. However, the more
      likely scenario is that someone who behaves poorly on one IETF
      mailing list is unwilling to be well-behaved on any IETF mailing
      list.

   Q: Should the initiation of a PR-action come from outside the IESG?

   A: Informally, sure; formally, no.

      Under the IETF's consensus-driven process, IESG actions are always
      formally initiated by an IESG Area Director (AD). In practice, the
      motivation for an IESG member to initiate an action almost always
      comes from outside the IESG. For example, when a working group
      (WG) reaches consensus on a document, the WG chair informs the
      relevant AD that the document is ready for the AD to consider it
      for a document action. In the case of this document -- an IETF
      individual submission -- the author will iteratively circulate the
      document for wide discussion and make revisions. At some point,
      the author will contact an AD and ask for a document action to
      publish this document as a Best Current Practice (BCP).

   Q: Is this censorship?

   A: Only if you believe in anarchy.

      What is important is that the rules surrounding PR-actions exhibit
      the same properties used by the rest of the consensus-based
      process.

Rose                    Expires November 2, 2003                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       May 2003

   Q: C'mon! You really are a closet fascist.

   A: No, I'm a libertarian.

      Frankly, I would prefer that people behave reasonably and act in
      good faith. Since my first involvement with the IETF (nee GADS,
      circa 1983), everyone understood that reasonable behavior was a
      good thing. After 20 years, I regret to inform you that this step
      is inevitable.

Rose                    Expires November 2, 2003                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft    Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       May 2003

4. Acknowledgements

   The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of: Brian
   Carpenter, Jim Galvin, Jeff Haas, and Bert Wijnen.

Rose                    Expires November 2, 2003                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft    Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       May 2003

5. Security Considerations

   This memo deals with matters of process, not protocol.

Rose                    Expires November 2, 2003                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft    Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       May 2003

Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP
        25, RFC 2418, September 1998.

   [2]  Harris, S., "IETF Discussion List Charter", BCP 45, RFC 3005,
        November 2000.

   [3]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [4]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
        9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

Author's Address

   Marshall T. Rose
   Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
   POB 255268
   Sacramento, CA  95865-5268
   US

   Phone: +1 916 483 8878
   EMail: [email-masked]

Rose                    Expires November 2, 2003               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft    Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       May 2003

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
   licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
   obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION

Rose                    Expires November 2, 2003               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft    Revocation Practice: IETF Mailing Lists       May 2003

   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Rose                    Expires November 2, 2003               [Page 12]

- --
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, 7 May 2003 08:43:30 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:242 IN-ADDR.SHOP

The new 128-bit DNS software uses certain key "infrastructure" names. IN-ADDR.[TLD] is one such name.

As the .SHOP TLD grows and the .SHOP owners develop their own (democratic) tibe in cyberspace,
they may want to make sure that they have PK (redundant, clustered) servers operating in the .SHOP address space.
That will help to ensure independence from the 0:0 .ARPA regime, and expand the address space management
to allow more people to have a voice. While it is true that some people and groups will attempt to censor and to
do ethnic cleansing of people and ideas that they do not like, the community of .SHOP owners can prevail.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
0:242     SHOP

http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg01542.html
"After extensive public review, there was clear consensus to change .store to .shop."
====

http://dot.com.shop
http://dot.com.shop.new.net

http://domain.shop
http://domain.shop.new.net

http://new.chat
http://new.chat.new.net/viewtopic.php?t=118
DAY 10 (Monday 05/05/03) 
.SHOP
=================

http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=shop
NSpace : Name.Space : 209.48.2.11
VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 6. 
shop. 1D IN NS NS10.ROOT-ZONE.NET.
shop. 1D IN NS A.TLD-SERVERS.NET.
shop. 1D IN NS B.TLD-SERVERS.NET.
shop. 1D IN NS NS.AUTONO.NET.
shop. 1D IN NS NS10.AUTONO.NET.
shop. 1D IN NS ROOT3.AUTONO.NET.

Nnet : New.net Inc : 206.132.100.42
VueDig Results : Answer = 4 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 4. 
shop. 5M IN NS tld1.newdotnet.net.
shop. 5M IN NS tld2.newdotnet.net.
shop. 5M IN NS tld3.newdotnet.net.
shop. 5M IN NS tld4.newdotnet.net.
==========================================

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
0:242     SHOP

- --
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, 7 May 2003 17:33:47 +0200
From: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GNSO Council teleconference agenda - 22 May 2003

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

ICANN/DNSO

            GNSO Council Teleconference on 22 May 2003 - agenda

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

Proposed GNSO Council Agenda Thursday , May 22 2003

This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the DNSO
Names Council
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020418.NCprocedures-v7.0.html

Coordinated Universal Time UTC 12:00 - see below for local times

Bruce Tonkin will be chairing the GNSO Council teleconference.
Scheduled time for meeting - 120 mins.

Dial-in number sent individually to each Council member.

     1. Approval of Agenda

     2. Summary of last meetings
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030417.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html

     3. Ratify email vote on ICANN Board seat #13 resolution [15 mins]

     4. Process to elect GNSO Council chair [10 mins]

     5. Final report on structure new gtld space [20 mins]
     - council to approve report for forwarding to the ICANN Board

     6. Discussion of staff manager's report on privacy [30mins]
     - council to decide whether to initiate the next step in the policy
development process
     - council to decide whether to appoint a task force

     7. Motion to recommend to the ICANN Board to adjust the quorum
     requirements for the GNSO Council in the ICANN Bylaws [15 mins]:

     "Council recommends that the ICANN Board change the ICANN by-law
     relating to quorum in the GNSO (Article X, section 3(8)) from the
present text:

     "Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes of
GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business...."
     with
     "A majority of the total number of Council members in office, provided
that those members are entitled to cast a majority of the total number of
votes of GNSO Council, shall constitute a quorum".

     9. Update on the deletes implementation committee [10 mins]

     10. Budget update: [15 mins]
     - status of constituency payments for 2003
     - balance of account

     11. Updated GNSO rules of procedure [5 mins]
     - no comments have been received
     - schedule for vote at the June meeting

     12. Any other business

     Agenda topics for next meeting (24 June 2003)
     o UDRP policy development
     o ratify election for GNSO Chair
     o approve GNSO rules of procedure
     o approve deletes task force recommendations
     o budget update

     (5:00 LA, 8:00 New York, 14:00 Paris, 21:00 Japan/Korea, 22:00
     Melbourne)
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------

     Local time between April and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere

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

     Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 12:00
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
     California, USA UTC-8+1DST 5:00
     Monterrey, Mexico UTC-6+1DST 7:00
     Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 8:00
     Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 9:00
     London, United Kingdom UTC+0+1DST 13:00
     Brussels, Belgium (CET) UTC+1+1DST 14:00
     Barcelona, Spain (CET) UTC+1+1DST 14:00
     Karlsruhe, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 14:00
     Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+1DST 14:00
     Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 14:00
     Jerusalem, Israel UTC+2+1DST 15:00
     Seoul, Korea UTC+9+0DST 21:00
     Melbourne, Australia UTC+10+0DST 22:00
     Auckland, New Zealand UTC+12+0DST 24:00
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------

     The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2003, 2:00 or 3:00 local
time (with exceptions)
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------

     For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

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

- --
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 #1688
*************************