Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #370
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, April 11 2001          Volume 01 : Number 370

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:29:22 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

> That makes absolutely no sense at all.  You assume that this move
> would be positive, but in fact, one of the key components in a healthy
> environment for an industry is the existence of such speculative
> efforts.

Hm.  Why don't you tell us how these "speculative efforts" are helping this "industry".

- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 16:34:06 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

If you take a look at the posts, try reading the one that starts with "great points".  It sounds like support to me, but maybe a lifetime of English isn't sufficient.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 3:39 PM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:29 PM

> Thanks to everyone for jumping on that one.  I expected a 
> boatload of objections, and some support.  So far we see 
> both.  

Funny, I didn't see any support...

> But how about simply 
> disallowing resale of domains by anyone but a registrar, at a 
> standard price?  The complexities of this (based on transfer 
> of trademarks and what have you) are probably far less 
> significant than determining "hoarding."

Not hardly... There are so many ways to sell something, especially an
intangible good, that it is virtually impossible, at least not
cost-effective, to even try.

> That said, let's talk about the juvenile responses.

Let's not...

> I typed a few into my browser; 
> some worked, and some didn't.  And I still say, use it or 
> lose it.  They should lose any of them that they don't use, 
> but admittedly this may be impossible to enforce.

You obviously have no idea how easy it is to make a domain name appear "in
use", for various definitions of "in use". I can do this, for over 10,000
names, on a single Linux box.

> And what about misuse of NET and ORG?  I sent a message to 
> Network Solutions last year asking them why they were 
> suggesting ORG and NET domains to everyone, when you're 
> supposed to be a non-profit organization or a 
> network-services provider to use those domains.  They said 
> they don't enforce those anymore, because they couldn't.  

If you'd read the drelevent RFCs, you'd see for yourself how unenforcible
those charter definitions are. They are REALLY vague. They sound good on the
surface, but you don't have to scratch very deep to see where they start to
overlap.

> So, if you want to keep this organization from being a bigger 
> joke than it already is in the minds of many (thanks to 
> recent press coverage), stop making fun of people's E-mail addresses.

*That* I can agree with.
- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 16:37:10 -0700
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kent
> Crispin
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:28 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...
>
> > like ICECREAM.COM, or LEATHERCARE.COM in there.  I typed a few into my
> > browser; some worked, and some didn't.  And I still say, use it or lose
> > it.  They should lose any of them that they don't use, but admittedly
> > this may be impossible to enforce.
>
> The most interesting and original post in a long time on this topic was
> made by, I think Michael McNulty(?), discussing the similarities between
> concerning water rights in arizona and rights concerning domain names.
> Water rights have a "use it or lose it" character -- if you don't use
> the water that flows through your property, you obviously lose it.
> It isn't so obvious that you lose the *right* to use it, but if the
> person downstream does start to use it, then *they* develop a right to
> the water that flows through *your* property.
>
> The basic point of Mr McNulty's post, I believe, was that there is
> indeed a well-developed body of law that operates on a "use it or lose
> it" basis, and that it might be profitably studied.

If I register a vehicle for use on the road and never drive it, as long as I
pay my registration fee, I retain the right to drive the car at any time.  I
also have the right to sell my car at any time.  Should we have a law that
bans "carsquatting"?  IMHO, the answer is no.

Regards,

Jeff
- --
jeff field
925-283-4083
[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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:37:23 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 04:19:34PM -0700, [email-masked] wrote:
> Hi Kent.
> 
> That is an interesting comparison.  In terms of selling a company
> along with its domain (or any domain-ownership transfer), this could be
> addressed by handling the transfer through the original registrar, at
> the standard price for domain registration. 

Sure.  What you describe is precisely the current situation.  But the
problem is what you have to pay the person to get them to agree to the
transfer in the first place, and the registrar doesn't enter into that
transaction.  These side transactions are in fact what people are
referring to when they say "sell a domain".  The registrar can't
possibly be expected to police such side transactions.  So basically, I 
think it is simply impossible to effectively prevent the selling of 
domains.

Instituting a "use it or lose it" policy essentially requires that it be
part of the "charter" of the domain.  The charter of the domain would
have to define "use".  Obviously this isn't somthing that is going to 
happen immediately...

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 16:56:51 -0700
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:00 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituenc>
> .BIZ belongs to Leah Gallagos and AtlanticRoot - Reassignment by DoC is a
> violation of the APA and
> a violation of the 5th Amendment Takings Clause.

While we're on this topic, can anyone define what seems to be the popular
term "collision" when referring to .biz and the presence of two .biz's on
the Internet?  Is there a technical collision that will actually occur if we
have two .biz's?  Or can both reside, each listed in different roots,
without affecting the other?  If that's the case, then it seems to me that
what we have here is more a marketing collision than a technical one.
Anyone?

Regards,

Jeff
- --
jeff field
925-283-4083
[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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:23:53 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

At 03:36 PM 4/10/2001, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > The basic point of Mr McNulty's post, I believe, was that there is
> > indeed a well-developed body of law that operates on a "use it or lose
> > it" basis, and that it might be profitably studied.
>
>Wow... someone tell Leah that Kent agrees with her use of .biz!

of course, if someone tells Leah that, they will be misrepresenting Kent.

Chris, please stop inventing interpretations, especially ones you know to 
be false.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 17:48:06 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Hello gavin,

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 4:16:09 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> "Sounds like johnny-come-lately whining and snivelling to me.  Take it like a man, son!  So, you missed the boat on .COM...  Don't worry, there will be others."

> You've got to be kidding.  First of all, this statement is dead wrong.  In case you weren't paying attention, the proposal for the new TLDs called for something like a 30-day grace period in which
> holders of current domains could snap up the same URL in the new domains "to avoid confusion".  Give me a break.  The net result?  The very same shortage of domain names, thanks to hoarding.

That's not what the policies say, Gavin.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:50:05 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Hello Jeff,

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 4:37:10 PM, Jeff Field wrote:
> If I register a vehicle for use on the road and never drive it, as long as I
> pay my registration fee, I retain the right to drive the car at any time.  I
> also have the right to sell my car at any time.  Should we have a law that
> bans "carsquatting"?  IMHO, the answer is no.

Yes, and of course you can only sell the car at its original value.

One of my neighbor's has a very old jag that he never drives, and I'd
sure like to force him to get rid of it at what it originally sold for
so long ago  :)

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:16:13 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

The policy proposals for the new TLDs may have been misreported; I wouldn't be surprised.

What did they actually say?

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 5:48 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Hello gavin,

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 4:16:09 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> "Sounds like johnny-come-lately whining and snivelling to me.  Take it like a man, son!  So, you missed the boat on .COM...  Don't worry, there will be others."

> You've got to be kidding.  First of all, this statement is dead wrong.  In case you weren't paying attention, the proposal for the new TLDs called for something like a 30-day grace period in which
> holders of current domains could snap up the same URL in the new domains "to avoid confusion".  Give me a break.  The net result?  The very same shortage of domain names, thanks to hoarding.

That's not what the policies say, Gavin.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> > That makes absolutely no sense at all.  You assume that this move
> > would be positive, but in fact, one of the key components in a healthy
> > environment for an industry is the existence of such speculative
> > efforts.
>
> Hm.  Why don't you tell us how these "speculative efforts" are helping this
> "industry".

Perhaps because they generate revenue for the industry. What economic
incentives could you point to that are gained from the prevention of
speculation?

Why is speculation in real estate a long-practiced tradition and
considered "good business" while people are trying to cast domain
speculation as "bad?"

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 18:34:33 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

How about shortage?  How about inflation?

There are many commercial laws in this country designed to prevent things that "harm the consumer", and generally that harm is financial.  Look at the Microsoft case.  I'm not saying that's a good case.  And I'm not saying that these are always any more practicable than the idea I brought up.

Last year we had congressional action when the price of gas in Chicago went above $2 for no good reason.  Ineffectual, sure.  But this idea isn't foreign.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 6:21 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> > That makes absolutely no sense at all.  You assume that this move
> > would be positive, but in fact, one of the key components in a healthy
> > environment for an industry is the existence of such speculative
> > efforts.
>
> Hm.  Why don't you tell us how these "speculative efforts" are helping this
> "industry".

Perhaps because they generate revenue for the industry. What economic
incentives could you point to that are gained from the prevention of
speculation?

Why is speculation in real estate a long-practiced tradition and
considered "good business" while people are trying to cast domain
speculation as "bad?"

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 19:01:53 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Let's see... you answer the first line and ignore the rest. Is that how you
read "great points" too?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 4:34 PM
> 
> If you take a look at the posts, try reading the one that 
> starts with "great points".  It sounds like support to me, 
> but maybe a lifetime of English isn't sufficient.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 3:39 PM
> 
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:29 PM
> 
> > Thanks to everyone for jumping on that one.  I expected a 
> > boatload of objections, and some support.  So far we see 
> > both.  
> 
> Funny, I didn't see any support...
> 
> > But how about simply 
> > disallowing resale of domains by anyone but a registrar, at a 
> > standard price?  The complexities of this (based on transfer 
> > of trademarks and what have you) are probably far less 
> > significant than determining "hoarding."
> 
> Not hardly... There are so many ways to sell something, especially an
> intangible good, that it is virtually impossible, at least not
> cost-effective, to even try.
> 
> > That said, let's talk about the juvenile responses.
> 
> Let's not...
> 
> > I typed a few into my browser; 
> > some worked, and some didn't.  And I still say, use it or 
> > lose it.  They should lose any of them that they don't use, 
> > but admittedly this may be impossible to enforce.
> 
> You obviously have no idea how easy it is to make a domain 
> name appear "in
> use", for various definitions of "in use". I can do this, for 
> over 10,000
> names, on a single Linux box.
> 
> > And what about misuse of NET and ORG?  I sent a message to 
> > Network Solutions last year asking them why they were 
> > suggesting ORG and NET domains to everyone, when you're 
> > supposed to be a non-profit organization or a 
> > network-services provider to use those domains.  They said 
> > they don't enforce those anymore, because they couldn't.  
> 
> If you'd read the drelevent RFCs, you'd see for yourself how 
> unenforcible
> those charter definitions are. They are REALLY vague. They 
> sound good on the
> surface, but you don't have to scratch very deep to see where 
> they start to
> overlap.
> 
> > So, if you want to keep this organization from being a bigger 
> > joke than it already is in the minds of many (thanks to 
> > recent press coverage), stop making fun of people's E-mail 
> addresses.
> 
> *That* I can agree with.
> --
> 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, 10 Apr 2001 21:53:05 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency

There is a technical collision in the name space.  

Even though it is quite possible to have the same TLD in different 
roots, there will be a nightmare for hosting companies who will have 
no idea which is which, whether they already have a zone set up 
for an identical domain name...

It also fragments the net irrevocably because you will then HAVE 
TO choose one root over another and keep switching to see each 
version of .BIZ.  Now it doesn't matter which root you point to. 
They all carry the USG root TLDs as well as their additional non-
colliding TLDs.  If DoC enters a dupe, then there is no way to do 
this any more.  Roots will then have to choose which .BIZ to carry.  
The name space is fractured, period.  

In addition, how will it be determined who's domain name is the 
legitimate one?  (hint:  both).  So how do businesses market their 
sites/names?  Will the roots always carry the same version of the 
TLD?  

DoC will introduce not only a collider, but will be instrumental in 
wreaking havoc on the ISP industry as well as the TLD industry - all 
because ICANN has decided these TLDs don't matter and the only 
root is the DoC root.  The precedent is set.  The US government 
can just take your business product if it chooses to not 
acknowledge you.  Great.  This is maintaining the stability of the 
net? 

Leah

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> > [email-masked]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:00 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituenc>
> > .BIZ belongs to Leah Gallagos and AtlanticRoot - Reassignment by DoC
> > is a violation of the APA and a violation of the 5th Amendment
> > Takings Clause.
> 
> While we're on this topic, can anyone define what seems to be the
> popular term "collision" when referring to .biz and the presence of
> two .biz's on the Internet?  Is there a technical collision that will
> actually occur if we have two .biz's?  Or can both reside, each listed
> in different roots, without affecting the other?  If that's the case,
> then it seems to me that what we have here is more a marketing
> collision than a technical one. Anyone?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jeff
> --
> jeff field
> 925-283-4083
> [email-masked]
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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, 10 Apr 2001 19:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> How about shortage?  How about inflation?

The shortage is completely artificial. The inflation is due largely to the
artificial scarcity.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 19:19:44 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: On voting and appeals - Was: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Eric,
>
> And with Mr.
> >Crispin refreshed after coming off his election watchdog committee post,
> >wherein he
> >only contributed to three substantive changes to rules during one voting
> >in an election while
>
> Which three substantive changes?
>

Let us ignore the first nomination which was proceeding along before, the
procedure edict from the secretariat and Harald.
1. A startling announcement that 10 nominations were required.
2. The apparent though not formally announced overturn of that decision.
3. Alteration of rules after JW pulled out.

This is a slippery rock.  I was asked to stand on it I can live with
slippery, things are never quite as sure footed as you would like them to
be.  But you did not tell me that you were also going to be shaking that
rock, that is cheating.  If this group as a whole had not just suffered the
outcomes and irregularities of the AT Large elections this would not be so
painful. Had the WG-Review report not been so altered before being presented
this would be easier.

To add insult to injury there is a proposal that would put the same people
who did the above in charge of correcting those problems.

Yes at this time I object and appeal the decision and the election, it is my
contention that this election was illegitimate. It is further my contention
that the people who voted for me were denied their rights as netizens and all
that that confers.  If my right to appeal is not honored and handled with
dignity I will file a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, San Diego,
Downtown District to enforce my rights and seek injunction and other
appropriate remedies.

Sincerely,

>
> >Mr. Crocker was busy getting his suspension overturned. (buy the way has
> >anyone
> >ever seen that happen before?).
>
> It sure happened before.
> Whenever an appeal to the decision of the List Monitor is accepted by the
> Chairman.
>
> Incidentally, that's why we have appeals. If there were no possibility to
> overturn the previous decision, why bother having appeals?
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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

- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 22:00:39 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

> At 03:36 PM 4/10/2001, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > > The basic point of Mr McNulty's post, I believe, was that there is
> > > indeed a well-developed body of law that operates on a "use it or
> > > lose it" basis, and that it might be profitably studied.
> >
> >Wow... someone tell Leah that Kent agrees with her use of .biz!
> 
> of course, if someone tells Leah that, they will be misrepresenting
> Kent.

Not really.  It is or it ain't.  If use is criteria, it is.  If it ain't it ain't.  
We've been registering names, using the TLD in commerce.  It's 
real.  It works.  It's in use and has been for quite a while.  Before 
our management, it was in use under another company's name - in 
a pubic root.  Before that it was for usenet.  Long history of use.

Leah

> 
> Chris, please stop inventing interpretations, especially ones you know
> to be false.
> 
> d/
> 
> 
> ----------
> Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:05:37 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > How about shortage?  How about inflation?
> 
> The shortage is completely artificial. The inflation is due largely to the
> artificial scarcity.

Technically there is almost no difference between creating a domain at one
level vs. at another. It doesn't matter much whether you're creating

	a new top level domain, .xyz
	a second level domain, xyz.com
or 	third level, xyz.example.com.

In all cases you have to:

1)	either set up one or more nameservers for the new domain
	or add the domain's info to some existing nameservers

2)	add a pointer record on the nameserver for the parent domain
	  that says where to find records for the child domain

That's it.

Part 1 may be considerable work, depending on how the domain is to be organised,
but it is done by the domain holder or his ISP.

Part 2 is basically pretty simple. Any competent DNS administrator can do it,
for a third or fourth level domain within his organisation, in a few of minutes.

However, if you need it done reliably and consistently for large numbers of
domains, with the information replicated to multiple servers, then it is a 
fairly complex job. Also, if it is near the top of the hierarchy, then having
it work reliably becomes important.

Basically, the registries and registrars exist to deal with the issues in the
previous paragraph.

The only technical difference between creating xyz.com and creating a new TLD
.xyz are:

	where you put the pointer to it, in records for .com or in the root
	whether people can find it directly from the root or root->.com->.xyz.com

So there is no technical reason we cannot create new TLDs as fast as we are
currently creating .com domains.

Nor is there any technical reason for a price difference between a TLD (for
which it costs $50,000 just to apply) and a second level domain you can
register for $20 or so. The work involved is nearly identical.

Arguably there are economic, political, historical, business, ... reasons not
to create new TLDs wholesale, but there's certainly no technical obstacle.
- --
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, 10 Apr 2001 21:15:13 -0700
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JandL [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 6:53 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency
>
>
> There is a technical collision in the name space.

I respectfully disagree.  I can only conclude from your comments below that
it is a marketing collision (or problem), if anything.  Here's why I believe
this to be so:

Anyone that has registered a .biz domain name has been forewarned that "the
new top-level domains require that either you or your ISP have UPGRADED from
the functionally obsolete ICANN Legacy Namespace to the ORSC INCLUSIVE
NAMESPACE in order for you and your visitors to see the domains you are
about to register!". (http://www.pacificroot.com/register.shtml)

Of course, I would suggest that the use of the term "UPGRADED" in the quote
above is rather misleading to the consumer (FTC anyone?), but putting that
aside for the moment, it seems to me that all the alternative roots have to
do is merely convince all the ISPs, etc. to point to their root.  And, if
all the ISPs, etc. want to do that, fine.  If half want to point to ICANN's
root and the other half want to point to an alternative root, fine again.  I
see this as a marketing problem for the alternative roots, not a technical
one for the entire Internet.  And, unless someone can convince me that there
is indeed a technical problem here, I believe the term "collision" is
inappropriate in this context.  It conjures up images of failed
transmissions, data packets colliding, etc., none of which seem to be at
stake here.

As for creating problems for the ISP and keeping track of two different .biz
names they might be hosting, well, tough...the ISPs are just going to have
to pick a horse to ride.  Do they want to ride the one that currently has
the most viewers or do they want to ride the new kid on the block with
potential but less viewers.  IMHO, it's a business decision for the ISPs,
etc., plain and simple.  It might even be likened to the VHS/Betamax dilemma
for VCR manufacturers, tape manufacturers, etc. a couple decades ago.  Did
they want to ride the less used but supposedly more technically advanced
Betamax horse or did they want to ride the more popular but less technically
advanced VHS horse. (Note: My comment on whether VHS or Betamax was more
technically advanced should not be construed as a comment on the technical
capabilities of either the ICANN root or the alternative roots.)

Anyway, my suggestion to the alternative roots is to think and do marketing,
marketing, marketing.  And if they don't get busy real soon, somebody new
with deep marketing pockets just might show up right around the corner,
steal all the thunder, and create a third .biz.  Oops, too late!  They
already did!  New.Net, anyone?  (Okay, okay...so new.net isn't offering
.biz...yet!  Sorry to scare some of you out there.  But there is not a thing
in the world preventing them from doing so if they wanted to.)

Anyway, I think I proved my point...I have way too much time on my hands
these days.  Phew!

Regards,

Jeff
- --
jeff field
925-283-4083
[email-masked]

> Even though it is quite possible to have the same TLD in different
> roots, there will be a nightmare for hosting companies who will have
> no idea which is which, whether they already have a zone set up
> for an identical domain name...
>
> It also fragments the net irrevocably because you will then HAVE
> TO choose one root over another and keep switching to see each
> version of .BIZ.  Now it doesn't matter which root you point to.
> They all carry the USG root TLDs as well as their additional non-
> colliding TLDs.  If DoC enters a dupe, then there is no way to do
> this any more.  Roots will then have to choose which .BIZ to carry.
> The name space is fractured, period.
>
> In addition, how will it be determined who's domain name is the
> legitimate one?  (hint:  both).  So how do businesses market their
> sites/names?  Will the roots always carry the same version of the
> TLD?
>
> DoC will introduce not only a collider, but will be instrumental in
> wreaking havoc on the ISP industry as well as the TLD industry - all
> because ICANN has decided these TLDs don't matter and the only
> root is the DoC root.  The precedent is set.  The US government
> can just take your business product if it chooses to not
> acknowledge you.  Great.  This is maintaining the stability of the
> net?
>
> Leah
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> > > [email-masked]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:00 PM
> > > To: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituenc>
> > > .BIZ belongs to Leah Gallagos and AtlanticRoot - Reassignment by DoC
> > > is a violation of the APA and a violation of the 5th Amendment
> > > Takings Clause.
> >
> > While we're on this topic, can anyone define what seems to be the
> > popular term "collision" when referring to .biz and the presence of
> > two .biz's on the Internet?  Is there a technical collision that will
> > actually occur if we have two .biz's?  Or can both reside, each listed
> > in different roots, without affecting the other?  If that's the case,
> > then it seems to me that what we have here is more a marketing
> > collision than a technical one. Anyone?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jeff
> > --
> > jeff field
> > 925-283-4083
> > [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, 11 Apr 2001 00:11:35 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Sandy,

I've always said that the only real difference between a TLD and an 
SLD is the responsibility at the top level.  As far as I am concerned, 
being assured that the technical operational reliability is what ICANN 
should be concerned with and not the business model and certainly 
not the mnemonics of it.  Along with that technical operational 
reliability comes the financial capability of performance.  However, 
even that is not too much of a concern.  If a registry can set it up, 
they have the means to do it.

For that matter, in a free market, businesses do fail.  It should not 
be up to ICANN to ensure the financial success or failure of a 
registry.  The only contingency should be a portable database that 
can be used by an interim manager in case of failure and enough 
notice to be able to transport it.

I truly believe that if DoC had risen off its collective rear and added 
TLDs years ago, we would not have had a fraction of the 
controversy we see now.  It's just ridiculous.

Leah

> Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 [email-masked] wrote:
> > 
> > > How about shortage?  How about inflation?
> > 
> > The shortage is completely artificial. The inflation is due largely
> > to the artificial scarcity.
> 
> Technically there is almost no difference between creating a domain at
> one level vs. at another. It doesn't matter much whether you're
> creating
> 
>  a new top level domain, .xyz
>  a second level domain, xyz.com
> or 	third level, xyz.example.com.
> 
> In all cases you have to:
> 
> 1)	either set up one or more nameservers for the new domain
>  or add the domain's info to some existing nameservers
> 
> 2)	add a pointer record on the nameserver for the parent domain
>    that says where to find records for the child domain
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Part 1 may be considerable work, depending on how the domain is to be
> organised, but it is done by the domain holder or his ISP.
> 
> Part 2 is basically pretty simple. Any competent DNS administrator can
> do it, for a third or fourth level domain within his organisation, in
> a few of minutes.
> 
> However, if you need it done reliably and consistently for large
> numbers of domains, with the information replicated to multiple
> servers, then it is a fairly complex job. Also, if it is near the top
> of the hierarchy, then having it work reliably becomes important.
> 
> Basically, the registries and registrars exist to deal with the issues
> in the previous paragraph.
> 
> The only technical difference between creating xyz.com and creating a
> new TLD .xyz are:
> 
>  where you put the pointer to it, in records for .com or in the root
>  whether people can find it directly from the root or
>  root->.com->.xyz.com
> 
> So there is no technical reason we cannot create new TLDs as fast as
> we are currently creating .com domains.
> 
> Nor is there any technical reason for a price difference between a TLD
> (for which it costs $50,000 just to apply) and a second level domain
> you can register for $20 or so. The work involved is nearly identical.
> 
> Arguably there are economic, political, historical, business, ...
> reasons not to create new TLDs wholesale, but there's certainly no
> technical obstacle. -- This message was passed to you via the
> [email-masked] list. Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message). Archives at
> http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #370
************************