Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1704
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, May 22 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1704

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

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 20:13:55 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: you have missed the point (was RE: [ga] UDRP dead?...)

So how would you grade the wildcard issue? Is there any reason that end users should care? (I`m hard-pressed for a good reason to care.)

     -- Bret 

> It seems like the at-large/general network user may take issue with how
> icann/iana are preforming their primary function "technical administration
> of the contracted gTLDs"
> 
> Its time we started grading icann on its ability to manage technical
> things, thats its mandate with DoC.
> 

~~
Bret Fausett    http://www.lextext.com/
Hancock, Rothert & Bunshoft, LLP
(via Sharp Zaurus Linux PDA)

- --
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, 21 May 2003 00:09:43 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: you have missed the point (was RE: [ga] UDRP dead?...)

- --------------090703070403010308010900
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Brett,

The reason expressed by Karl Auerbach is reason enough IMO.  If a speedy 
new registration and resolution for a given domain is required, the use 
of the 'wildcard' forwarding technique would indeed hamper timely 
propogation.  

As an end user, that makes me care enough to make sure you and others 
know about it.  

- --Sotiris

Bret Fausett wrote:

>So how would you grade the wildcard issue? Is there any reason that end users should care? (I`m hard-pressed for a good reason to care.)
>
>     -- Bret 
>
>  
>
>>It seems like the at-large/general network user may take issue with how
>>icann/iana are preforming their primary function "technical administration
>>of the contracted gTLDs"
>>
>>Its time we started grading icann on its ability to manage technical
>>things, thats its mandate with DoC.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>~~
>Bret Fausett    http://www.lextext.com/
>Hancock, Rothert & Bunshoft, LLP
>(via Sharp Zaurus Linux PDA)
>
>--
>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
>
>  
>

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

"The science of jurisprudence regards the state and power as the
ancients regarded fire- namely, as something existing absolutely.
But for history, the state and power are merely phenomena, just as for
modern physics fire is not an element but a phenomenon.

From this fundamental difference between the view held by history
and that held by jurisprudence, it follows that jurisprudence can tell
minutely how in its opinion power should be constituted and what
power- existing immutably outside time- is, but to history's questions
about the meaning of the mutations of power in time it can answer
nothing."
				     --Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"

- --------------090703070403010308010900
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <title></title>
</head>
<body>
Brett,<br>
<br>
The reason expressed by Karl Auerbach is reason enough IMO. &nbsp;If a speedy
new registration and resolution for a given domain is required, the use of
the 'wildcard' forwarding technique would indeed hamper timely propogation.
&nbsp;<br>
<br>
As an end user, that makes me care enough to make sure you and others know
about it. &nbsp;<br>
<br>
- --Sotiris<br>
<br>
Bret Fausett wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email-masked]">
  <pre wrap="">So how would you grade the wildcard issue? Is there any reason that end users should care? (I`m hard-pressed for a good reason to care.)

     -- Bret 

  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">It seems like the at-large/general network user may take issue with how
icann/iana are preforming their primary function "technical administration
of the contracted gTLDs"

Its time we started grading icann on its ability to manage technical
things, thats its mandate with DoC.

    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->

~~
Bret Fausett    <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.lextext.com/">http://www.lextext.com/</a>
Hancock, Rothert &amp; Bunshoft, LLP
(via Sharp Zaurus Linux PDA)

- --
This message was passed to you via the <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> list.
Send mail to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a>

  </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="$mailwrapcol">-- 
- -----------

"The science of jurisprudence regards the state and power as the
ancients regarded fire- namely, as something existing absolutely.
But for history, the state and power are merely phenomena, just as for
modern physics fire is not an element but a phenomenon.

From this fundamental difference between the view held by history
and that held by jurisprudence, it follows that jurisprudence can tell
minutely how in its opinion power should be constituted and what
power- existing immutably outside time- is, but to history's questions
about the meaning of the mutations of power in time it can answer
nothing."
				     --Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"
</pre>
<br>
</body>
</html>

- --------------090703070403010308010900--

- --
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, 20 May 2003 23:23:40 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: you have missed the point (was RE: [ga] UDRP dead?...)

Also, web archives such as archive.org would cache whatever page(s) was 
displayed by Neustar.

A suitably nasty TM holder and a well-picked UDRP panel could used that 
against the owner of a brand new name (yes even though it pre-dated the 
registration) as "evidence of bad faith".

- --
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, 20 May 2003 23:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Yue You Fidget <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] jerfy williams wher you

Oh Jeefey

Why you stay in Texas so much?  It lonely here.  Baby Jefeey cry for you from both mouths.  He want to hear your voice and laugh twice at big talk.  Me too.  Mother getting worried.  She start to say you not what you think.  She say you talk one thing and always do other.  I tell her she jealous of you friend of President Bush and Pope and have job as Left Hand of God and director of FBI but she not listen only complain that you not send money.  I tell her what you say that you have enemies but she say all enemies in your head but I not listen mostly.  Thank you for toy for baby Jeffy.  It fold out from envelope almost perfect.  Guess what it Made in China!  Sent all way from Texas.  How come it have address from city only 40 mile from here?

I try to fix creases in toy.  Maybe send money soon husband?

Your wife,  Yue You Fidget (Mrs. Jeff Williams)  (am I sign this OK?)

_____________________________________________________________
Get email for your site --->
http://mail.netcityhk.com http://mail.netcitycn.com
http://mail.netcitytw.com
http://mail.netcityjp.com
http://mail.sharonleung.net

_____________________________________________________________
Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get [email-masked] w/No Ads, 6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag
- --
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, 21 May 2003 00:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: you have missed the point (was RE: [ga] UDRP dead?...)

On Tue, 20 May 2003, Bret Fausett wrote:

> So how would you grade the wildcard issue? Is there any reason that end
> users should care? (I`m hard-pressed for a good reason to care.)

Here's how I see it:

1. If search engines or censorware engines start to accumulate a portfolio
of names that they think are registered but are really simply wildcarded
the names might be labeled (possibly permanently) as being marketing hype
(or, should a cracker take over the redirected-to site) be placed on a
censor-ware banned list.  In other words those companies that use wildcard
services are running a risk of damaging their inventory of unsold names,
rendering them either of less value or flat out unmarketable.

(I find it incredible to see an otherwise rational company risk
destruction or damage to what amounts to its entire business inventory.  
One set of bad circumstances could render NewLevel's entire DNS asset in
unsold names in .biz or .us to worthless cinders.  And for what?  A test
that could otherwise be performed in an off-line, safe sandbox?)

2. A customer who buys a name that was wild carded will discover that 
there is a period of time - at least a week, perhaps much longer, in which 
the cached material from the wildcard days lingers on.  This damages the 
front-end usability of the name, i.e. it reduces the marketability and 
market value of those unsold names because they will be encumbered with a 
history for a period of time.

3. Search engines (such as google) will become gorged on material from 
wildcarded sites - this will simply be a waste of space and a nuisance for 
as long as that material clogs the search engines' databases.

4. Those who are troubleshooting the network may find life harder because 
now virtually every name will appear at first glance to be a valid, 
registered, operational name.

5. The balance of control over who gets to handle typos will move from the 
user's end to the DNS operator.   This reduces the control the user has to 
control his/her own internet experience.  In addition, it will tend to 
clog web browser caches with even more useless garbage.

6. The cost of informing the user that he/she has mis-entered a name will
increase from today's total of two UDP packets (one UDP query packet and
one UDP response packet) to at least twice that (one packet pair to query
the TLD servers, one packet pair to query the
DOES-NOT-EXIST.default-redirect.biz. server, then at least one TCP
session, and possibly many TCP sessions, each involving at typicially 8 or
more packets, to fetch a web page that is useless to the user.  In other 
words, the traffic costs borne by users and ISPs will increase by an order 
of magnitude or more.  This doesn't include the user's wasted time while 
all of this occurs.

As I look forward to internationalized domain names I see the rate of 
typos increasing, thus multiplying the effects described above.

		--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: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:18:13 +0200
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: you have missed the point (was RE: [ga] UDRP dead?...)

- ----- Original Message -----

> (I find it incredible to see an otherwise rational company risk
> destruction or damage to what amounts to its entire business inventory.
> One set of bad circumstances could render NewLevel's entire DNS asset in
> unsold names in .biz or .us to worthless cinders.  And for what?  A test
> that could otherwise be performed in an off-line, safe sandbox?)

A test? That's only an excuse of them.
New.net is doing that for a long time --> www.quick.search.new.net ....some
New.net critics hoped they would go out of business, but with that
"technology" that will never happen....they even don't have to sell any
domain names.
Btw. if doing it the right way this "technology" could benefit the Registry
and the Registrants. New.net offers their Domain Name Registrants to list
their Domain Name on those error traffic/search engine sites for free. This
boosts traffic.
I have about 300 unique visitors on www.telecom.shop and 15 visits on
www.telecom.biz . Surprised? ;-)

- ---
Simon
http://steinle.law.pro

the dotPRO registry
http://nic.pro.xs2.net

- --
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, 21 May 2003 08:32:30 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Does http://Toys.R.US exist ?

Does http://Toys.R.US exist ?

Jim Fleming

http://www.DOT-BIZ.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, 21 May 2003 08:44:56 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "...safe sandbox?..."

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>
> 
> (I find it incredible to see an otherwise rational company risk
> destruction or damage to what amounts to its entire business inventory.  
> One set of bad circumstances could render NewLevel's entire DNS asset in
> unsold names in .biz or .us to worthless cinders.  And for what?  A test
> that could otherwise be performed in an off-line, safe sandbox?)
> 

The 32-bit, toy, aging, legacy Internet...IS...the sandbox...that is what Proof-of-Concept is all about...

With the new 128-bit DNS software, **wild-card** look-ups become very interesting.
The Premium Registrars/Resellers/RegistryPartners are **randomly selected** to fairly spread the BIZness around.

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.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, 21 May 2003 08:58:01 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:201 COM...Wild-Cards, etc.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
0:201     COM
======

With the new 128-bit DNS software, it is important to have REDUNDANT 32-bit TLD Clusters
to help ensure stability and to allow for one Registry to enter as another leaves. Even though it is large,
the current .COM TLD Cluster is SIMPLEX. One easy solution is to deploy the second 32-bit .COM
Cluster (with the added fees). Another approach is to have the 8 Premium Registrar/RegistryPartners
become the .COM Wild-Card recipients, thus, spreading the traffic to more companies and clouding the
real issue which is that there is one company (one=simplex) at the heart of .COM. Those 8 companies
then make themselves **look like** a duplex or tri-plex 32-bit DNS solution, for the 128-bit .COM
DNS software. Eventually, the simplex .COM core, can be removed, leaving the 8 PremiumPartners.
From the point of view of the new 128-bit DNS software, it does not matter what charade or wild-carding
is used. The entire aging 32-bit DNS appears as a large Proof-of-Concept sand-box...

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, 21 May 2003 10:28:21 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP dead? Is the dot-biz registry typosquatting on AT&T 's trademarks?

One beneficial side effect is that it reduces load on the TLD zone server.

Figure, most queries - 98% - to the root zone are for TLD's that don't exist.
If there were 'answers' for these queries cached upstream, then the load
would be reduced considerably.

The same may be true for an unpopular, and unpopulated, TLD like .biz.  If a
substantial amount of the traffic consists of queries for non-existent names,
then this mechanism would distribute the load around the caches instead of
hammering the zone server.

- --
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, 21 May 2003 09:35:13 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:201 .COM...Wild-Cards and Virtual ISPs...

      The opportunity in the DNS to provide a user with an A-Record (32-bit DNS) when a .COM name is not registered makes it
possible to spread the traffic around to other companies. Some think that the Top 8 PremiumPartners should be randomly selected,
others think that the Top 8 **incumbents** should be selected. Those lists would clearly be different.

      http://www.registrarstats.com/
      ===================================
      GoDaddy.com
      eNom.com
      Wild West Domains
      INWW.com
      DirectNic.com
      China-Channel.com
      Schlund.de
      000Domains.com

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

Another school of thought is that the new Virtual ISPs (vISP)
will direct the wild-cards to THEIR servers to capture the Registration
opportunity of their customers. They can then send the registration to the
partner they select. This follows the Cable TV evolution model. Imagine
a person with a Cable Box surfing to an unused channel and then being
given a chance to buy that channel space or to vote locally on what they
think should be on that channel. That may be viewed as "better" then getting
static snow on the TV screen. With that approach, ALL channels are used,
some, just have more content than others.

Since a key component of the new 128-bit DNS software is the "Cable Box"
or InterNAT box, that is the point where that box can help decide what the
final result is for the consumer in using the DNS.

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.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, 21 May 2003 10:01:17 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proof-of-Concept testing...http://www.dot.museum

Proof-of-Concept testing...

http://www.dot.museum

Jim Fleming
http://www.dot-biz.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, 21 May 2003 12:18:08 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP dead? Is the dot-biz registry typosquatting on AT&T 's trademarks?

At 10:28 AM 5/21/2003 -0400, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

>One beneficial side effect is that it reduces load on the TLD zone server.
>Figure, most queries - 98% - to the root zone are for TLD's that don't exist.

(Actually, and FWIW, that's not right.  Recent CAIDA figures indicate that 
98% of queries to the root zone are bad, but a relatively small proportion 
of those bad queries are for nonexistent TLDs.  The vast bulk of them 
present other problems -- most importantly, repeated queries for TLDs that 
*do* exist, where a misconfigured resolver, instead of accepting the answer 
and going away, keeps on hammering the root server over and over with the 
same query.)

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 19:52:30 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] UDRP dead? Is the dot-biz registry typosquatting on AT&T 's trademarks?

At 23:24 20/05/03, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
>Is this the beginning of the end of Internet?

It would be good news :-)

Elisabeth, wild card were first used fist to call ".arpa" from outside.
Does anyone recall "please login: ARPA"...
then FRAARPA. You should ask Michel Feuvrier. He probably left FT a  long ago?

One has sometimes to accept that the DNS is not what STD013 says (naming, 
name server and resolver systems) but a query protocol which needs a 
version 2. In particular to support reasonable pattern matching and not 
only stupid wild cards. Do you recall my dispute with Mike about 
".sys"  (documented somewhere in ICANN files before Yokohama). Delaying 
will never address the needs.

You know what? May be in a couple of years, ICANN will realize how a 
business and a service network works :-) ... jfc

- --
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, 22 May 2003 09:23:41 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 1:46 US   (UNITED-STATES)...IN-ADDR.US exists ?...via a .BIZ Wild-Card

One of the things that wild-carding does, is it potentially confuses software, which may rely on
the notion of a domain zone existing or not. As one example, the zone IN-ADDR.US is apparently
not allowed to be sold to anyone, there has been no explanation why. In the past, that zone would
show up as NXDOMAIN, does not exist. Now, it appears to have some nameservers (NS) serving
it. That can give a false impression to the new 128-bit DNS software. The allocation of address space
for 1:46 would remain, even though it may not be used, and there may be no owner of IN-ADDR.US.
Serving the IN-ADDR.US zone via the **simplex** .BIZ TLD cluster, on the same sub-net, helps to
illustrate why the 32-bit legacy Internet is just a Proof-of-Concept sand-box, with toy configurations.

; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> in-addr.us any
;; global options:  printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 8092
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 3, AUTHORITY: 3, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;in-addr.us. IN ANY

;; ANSWER SECTION:
in-addr.us. 1 IN NS b.gtld.biz.
in-addr.us. 1 IN NS c.gtld.biz.
in-addr.us. 1 IN NS a.gtld.biz.

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
in-addr.us. 1 IN NS b.gtld.biz.
in-addr.us. 1 IN NS c.gtld.biz.
in-addr.us. 1 IN NS a.gtld.biz.

;; Query time: 1 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.0.1#53(192.168.0.1)
;; WHEN: Thu May 22 08:50:32 2003
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 126
====

http://Toys.R.Us ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
1:46 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1704
*************************