Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #373
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, April 11 2001          Volume 01 : Number 373

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

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:22:27 -0700
From: "Michael F. McNulty" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Question No. 1

Who does the domain name space _belong to_?

- --
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 07:16:01 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say "there's no shortage of dotcoms"

On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 07:49:28PM +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:

[...]

> (1) I said "dotcoms" because the general thrust of some people's
> argument is that there is a shortage in that gTLD.  Certainly there is
> no shortage of domain names at the second level. 
>
> (2) You say that "people disagree with me".  People who understand the
> subject don't.  From memory 67 characters are allowed including the .com
> which is four characters.  That means you can have 63 alphanumerics
> before the dot. 
>
> Since there are 26 alphabetics, ten numerics and a hyphen, that's a
> BIG number. 

Irrelevant.  When people say "shortage" they mean "shortage of *good*
names", and currently, that means "short, meaningful, clever names",
not "long meaningless random strings".  Indeed, there is an abundant
supply of names that people don't want, but that doesn't in any way 
negate the fact that there is a "shortage".

The "shortage", in short, is a (fascinating) sociological phenomenon,
not a technical one, and a good argument could be made that the shortage
is a PERMANENT PHENOMENON, a function of the psychology of group 
preferences.  If so, then conventional supply/demand economic analysis 
is largely worthless.

- -- 
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: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:18:40 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say stick to the topic

On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 03:35:16AM -0700, [email-masked] wrote:
> Again, Robin, read.

Look, Gavin: Robin is hounding you because of an absolutely irrelevant
personal detail (your email address).  There is no point in replying to
her any further. 

- -- 
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: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:26:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

It belongs to more or less the same people to whom the "naming children
space" belongs to.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Michael F. McNulty wrote:

> Who does the domain name space _belong to_?
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:56:53 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

Excellent comparison.  It highlights fundamental misunderstandings about 
domain names:

         Children's names are assumed NOT to be unique.

         Domain names MUST be unique.

Hence domain name assignment requires a mechanism for ensuring uniqueness.

d/

At 08:26 AM 4/11/2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>It belongs to more or less the same people to whom the "naming children
>space" belongs to.
>
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Michael F. McNulty wrote:
>
> > Who does the domain name space _belong to_?

- ----------
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: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:12:32 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell, PhD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

Apples and Oranges. Michael's point I believe is clearly that the
domain-naming space does not "belong" to anyone anymore than the
children-naming space does. I dont think he meant you to take him literally
and compare the act of naming one with naming the other.

That said, domain names (SLDs) are not unique in the real sense that even
now there can be a given SLD registered under .com, .net, .org, and any
ccTLD ... with of course several more TLDs coming soon. If you mean that a
domain name is unique when one takes into its account the entire SLD.TLD
string, then of course you are correct .... unless you take in to account
the fact of all the altTLDs/roots whereupon even that statement is clearly
incorrect. And what one has is rather like TV channels where "Channel 7"
could be ABC in one city and NBC in another that has a different cable
provider ...

From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Michael F. McNulty" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

> Excellent comparison.  It highlights fundamental misunderstandings about
> domain names:
>
>          Children's names are assumed NOT to be unique.
>
>          Domain names MUST be unique.
>
> Hence domain name assignment requires a mechanism for ensuring uniqueness.
>
> d/
>
>
> At 08:26 AM 4/11/2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> >It belongs to more or less the same people to whom the "naming children
> >space" belongs to.
> >
> >On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Michael F. McNulty wrote:
> >
> > > Who does the domain name space _belong to_?
>
> ----------
> 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
>
>

- --
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 10:17:39 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

Certainly the Countries that I have had the great pleasure of working
with consider their ccTLD a public resource.  It seems that the U.S.A.
considers .us a public resource.
It is my limited understanding that toll-free numbers are a public
resource. I also understand that they have very well defined rules
regarding - warehousing and buying and selling the numbers.

If the space is not considered a public resource then the contract
between ICANN and the DoC is null and void.

A fun thing about a public resource in the United States of America is
that there can be no discrimination in it's use.  That would mean that
the NC hearings have to be broadcast and disseminated in such a way that
my 89 year old father has equal access to it as does a techie.

It brings into play such things as the Americans with Disabilities Act,
all of the Veterans Rights, Civil Rights and as we all know the APA.

There is no doubt that the "space" is owned by the "American People".
Don't even think about whether the people want to share it in a good way
with all of the world, of course we do. And we want all of you to help
show us how to make it better for you too. From my dad to my daughter
away at college, to my twelve year old at home we love the net, because
of what it allows you to bring to us and us to bring to you. Granted it
is not always good news but don't kill the messenger. (The net told me
last week that a good friend died while I was in Hong Kong, today it
told me that China and the U.S. found a way to get along)

Now it is time that we dispensed with our bureaucrats and let the will
of "We The People" start running our net.

Sincerely
Jeff Williams wrote:

> Michael and all remaining assembly members,
>
> Michael F. McNulty wrote:
>
> > Who does the domain name space _belong to_?
>
>   Well it is supposed to be a public resource....
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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 13:37:46 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Do we need TLDs at all?

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Maybe this is a technical question, but the collision discussion prompted it:
> 
> Is there a reason that we can't have any old string as the last component of
> a domain name?

There are length and character set restrictions.

Changing the character set restrictions to allow "international" domain names
has been discussed in the IETF technical groups and documents on how to do it
drafted. Some sort of experimental implementation based on those drafts was
announced last year by NSI. I haven't been paying attention to the details,
so I know neither how far the drafts have progressed toward standards status
nor how the NSI experiment works.

Other than those simple restrictions, "any old string" is technically allowed.

The complications are mostly non-technical. .biz or .smut might be marketable.
.xfdwqyy probably isn't. .ibm would have trademark problems unless IBM ran
it, and it isn't clear they need that since they already have ibm.com.

500 new domains this month is certainly technically possible in theory, but
in practice it might break various bits of software and therefore much of
the net infrastructure. Also, it would certainly confuse quite a few users,
and upset various people's business plans.

> Does the administration of various name servers require a finite collection
> of TLDs?

Finite, of course. Small, not necessarily.

It is easier to manage servers, in particular to get good performance, if
each level of the database is small. A small database fits in memory, even
of a fairly limited server. For a large database, you either need huge
memory (expensive server) or you have to use disk (much slower).

There are currently, I think, roughly 200 TLDs, mostly two-letter country
codes plus .com, .org, .net, .int, .gov, .mil, the new ones, .arpa for
reverse lookups and likely a few I've forgotten. 

Increasing that to 300, or even 500 or 1000, would make administration
harder, but not intractable. The difference might not even be noticeable
since automated procedures work as well for 1000 entries as for 200.

Technically, the hard problem is how do you support .com with its several
million registered domains?

If the only concern were making management of DNS servers easy, and we had
the authority to fix the problem, then we'd open at least a few dozen new
TLDs tommorrow and start kicking people out of .com.

   Tell all the companies that registered 100 different names in .com
   that "there can be only one". Force Autodesk, for example, to give up
   3dstudio.com and either use 3dstudio.autodesk.com or register a
   3dstudio domain elsewhere.

   Enforce a charter; boot non-commercial entites out of .com.

   Kill unused domains.

Of course, that is far from the only concern, it is doubtful that ICANN
has the authority for such measures, there would be serious difficulties
defining the terms in the above proposals, and none of them would fly
politically.   

Still, it is interesting that the only solutions we even discuss are new
TLDs or charter enforcement in other domains, like .org, when the obvious
problem is how to handle the over-used and over-marketed .com.

Hell, we don't even discuss obvious steps like just cutting off .com
registration as soon as some new TLDs are up, or setting up a price
differential.

Registrations of second level domains in the global TLDs currently
cost about $20. ICANN happily imposed a $50,000 fee just to apply
for a new TLD. There's absolutely no technical reason for that.
Arguably, a more useful move would be to bump .com registration to
perhaps $500 to get people out of there, of course with some sort
of grace period to let domain owners plan for change.
 
> If the intended meaning of many TLDs is not being enforced (or isn't enforceable),
> why have a limited set of them?

Good question.
- --
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 12:14:22 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

>>> Who does the domain name space _belong to_?<<<

Everyone and no one has a claim. But the USG thinks it does!

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Michael F. McNulty" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

Excellent comparison.  It highlights fundamental misunderstandings about
domain names:

         Children's names are assumed NOT to be unique.

         Domain names MUST be unique.

Hence domain name assignment requires a mechanism for ensuring uniqueness.

d/

At 08:26 AM 4/11/2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>It belongs to more or less the same people to whom the "naming children
>space" belongs to.
>
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Michael F. McNulty wrote:
>
> > Who does the domain name space _belong to_?

- ----------
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 10:45:28 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

At 10:14 AM 4/11/2001, Bruce James wrote:
>Everyone and no one has a claim. But the USG thinks it does!

There are some Congress-folk who either do not understand the global nature 
of the DNS, or worse, believe that the US Gov't really does "own" the thing.

However the reasoned, responsible view is that the US Gov't is providing 
stewardship and oversight for a process that is moving the DNS (and IP) 
administrative structure into a long-term, non-governmental framework.

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: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:31:09 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

It is this simple Mr. Crocker: If your position here is correct then the DoC has
nothing to contract with ICANN about.  If this is true the subject of the
contract is not a valid one, and therefor the contract is void or voidable at
least.

Sincerely,

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 10:14 AM 4/11/2001, Bruce James wrote:
> >Everyone and no one has a claim. But the USG thinks it does!
>
> There are some Congress-folk who either do not understand the global nature
> of the DNS, or worse, believe that the US Gov't really does "own" the thing.
>
> However the reasoned, responsible view is that the US Gov't is providing
> stewardship and oversight for a process that is moving the DNS (and IP)
> administrative structure into a long-term, non-governmental framework.
>
> 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

- --
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 11:35:53 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

> However the reasoned, responsible view is that the US Gov't is providing 
> stewardship and oversight for a process that is moving the DNS (and IP) 
> administrative structure into a long-term, non-governmental framework.

I think it takes a lot of chutzpah to presume that *your* view is the
"reasoned, responsible" view. It is not. It is your view, and it is not
shared by other reasoned, responsible people.

Call it like it is, Nero.

Christopher

- --
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 12:00:26 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Question No. 1

> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 10:18 AM
> 
> Certainly the Countries that I have had the great pleasure of working
> with consider their ccTLD a public resource.  It seems that the U.S.A.
> considers .us a public resource.

> If the space is not considered a public resource then the contract
> between ICANN and the DoC is null and void.

There is a serious disconnect here. When dealing with finite physical
resources, these distinctions make sense. OTOH, when dealing with abstract
resources these distinctions make absolutely no sense. I am sorry to see
that some have managed to rat-hole the discussion into "argument by
analogy". There are no definitive analogies that matter. We need to grasp
the concepts directly and deal with them ... directly.

The facts are that names are simply labels. I may label a spherical rubber
object a "ball" and you may label a square steel cube a "ball". Both are
equally valid within their context. A third-party would have to deal with
each of us, within our own context, and use the labels appropriately, when
discussing those things within the given context.

The fundimental problem here is that labels are not resources at all. They
are a meta-object, a means for organizing a universe of entities such that
we can distinguish one from another. They are a reusable tag. We can change
the object that we place the label on. We can also place the label on
another object ... at the same time. The problem here is that the contexts
that the labels are valid within ... can also be labeled, which is valid
within a meta-context. This is a recursive phenomenon. I submit that, the
only other place we have this problem is in object-oriented design and
analysis (OOD and OOA). Analogies don't work, for defining the problem,
there either. Further, OOD and OOA technologies weren't available when the
DNS system was designed.

This is the fundimental theoretical problem that the original designers of
the DNS system ran into. Thair answer was that, they drew the line in the
sand, at the root-zone level, and said "we'll stop here, for now". The line,
while occuring at a natural demarcation point, is still arbitrary. This
reduced the problem to managable proportions, such that they could build the
initial DNS system (the decendent of which is ISC BIND 8.2.3). 

What we have here, as a direct result, is a system which is, intentionally,
context-limited. However, for labeling hosts on the Terabit project, it
worked. The problems we are dealing with today are a direct resultant of
applying the DNS system, out of its contextual referent, to problems that
really have their own context rules. Refering to my previous example, my
definition of "ball" differs from yours and unless we make an effort to
define the context of "ball" we will never understand each other. In the DNS
context, the label "ball" is a name space collision unless the relevant
context is defined. The key is that, understanding the context matters and
we'll never resolve this until we start dealing with context and
acknowleging that there are other contexts.

The practical application is that;

ICANN cannot ignore the contextual referents of the other root-zone
publishers. 
Trademark and IP interests cannot apply thier restrictions without also
understanding the contextual references.
The software needs to apply to a larger contextual scope than it has ever
had to heretofore (the MultiBIND project has been announced).
- --
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 12:05:10 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 07:09:05PM +1000, Dassa wrote:
[...]
> |> There were attempts to expand the scope of the UDRP but they were -- very
> |> wisely -- resisted.
> 
>It would seem to me that there exists a serious flaw in the thinking behind the
>UDRP and what led up to it.  Any initial resolution policy should have been
>implemented to deal with internal matters.  By that, I mean domain name disputes
>between existing holders.

? sorry, that doesn't compute.  1) barring technical screwups in the 
registry-registrar interactions, there is only one registrant for a 
particular name.  So for any given name, if there is a dispute, one disputant
holds the domain and the other doesn't; 2) if we are talking about 
different domains registered by different parties, then the udrp deals 
with disputes between existing holders.

>At the present time with the UDRP, we have a
>concentration allowing resolution on external issues.  Any experimental process
>should have been initiated on very specific internal issues.  This
>"experimental" UDRP was also initiated against one of the larger and more
>problematic issues.  Not a sound procedure.
> 
> It is also a process that is being continously expanded without improvements
> being implemented against the known flaws.  Again not a sound procedure.
> 
> I would say the UDRP has attempted to start off running and is picking up speed
> without going through any of the normal auditing and review processes.

?? There was a very long and large scale review process, international in 
scope, and with multiple revisions along the way.

- -- 
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: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:20:17 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Do we need TLDs at all?

Sandy Harris wrote:

> Registrations of second level domains in the global TLDs currently
> cost about $20. ICANN happily imposed a $50,000 fee just to apply
> for a new TLD. There's absolutely no technical reason for that.
> Arguably, a more useful move would be to bump .com registration to
> perhaps $500 to get people out of there, of course with some sort
> of grace period to let domain owners plan for change.

About the only effect this would have would be to concentrate the onwership of names in
the hands of those with enough money to buy them up at this price.  This would not
affect the after-market deals in any way, except of course to drive the prices up even
further...

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual

- --
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 12:33:43 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: software costs

> From: Robin Miller [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 2:48 AM

> But still - I see no reason to use software that costs more 
> than my computer
> does. Its against my philosophy on buying software. I know 
> how development
> costs are. I have enough programmer friends, most with their 
> own businesses.

At one time, like you, I refused to pay inflated software prices. I still
do. At one time, Borland had a reasonable licensing policy...no longer.

Recent SW expenditures;

DreamWeaver UtltraDev 	-   $600
Jbuilder Enterprise 	- $3,000
Rational Rose		- $6,000
Oracle Enterprise		- $2,500
Win2Kserver			- $1,500
MS-Exchange			- $1,000
Total				 $14,600

The machines this all runs on;
3 Linux hosts	$1500
2 Win2K hosts	$2500
1 Win2K laptop	$3000
Total			$7000

- --
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 12:36:21 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Hello Kent,

Wednesday, April 11, 2001, 12:15:01 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 12:23:41AM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> Hello Kent,
>> 
>> Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 10:57:48 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
>> > Right.  But .com is popular, and sld registries are not.  Moreover,
>> > other TLDs are not popular -- people constantly forget that there are
>> > 240 odd other TLDs out there.
>> 
>> > That is, the popularity of .com is a sociological phenomenon.
>> 
>> This argument doesn't stand.  There has been a stigma against those

> "stigma" isa "sociological phenomenon".

> Thanks for agreeing with me.

I didn't.

- -- 
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: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:32:02 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

At 12:05 pm -0700 4/11/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
>>At the present time with the UDRP, we have a
>>concentration allowing resolution on external issues.  Any experimental
>>process
>>should have been initiated on very specific internal issues.  This
>>"experimental" UDRP was also initiated against one of the larger and more
>>problematic issues.  Not a sound procedure.
>>
>> It is also a process that is being continously expanded without improvements
>> being implemented against the known flaws.  Again not a sound procedure.
>>
>> I would say the UDRP has attempted to start off running and is picking
>>up speed
>> without going through any of the normal auditing and review processes.
>
>?? There was a very long and large scale review process, international in
>scope, and with multiple revisions along the way.

Very good Kent.

Now show us (within those multiple revisions, after the very long and large
scale review process) which part of the UDRP allows complaints to be filed
- - and investigated -  against providers that contravene the UDRP rules, or
panelists that ignore the rules AND law in their findings.

ICANN managed to get "all care, no responsibility" clauses in to the rules
for both itself, the providers, and the panelists. So there's no safety net
whatsoever for anyone else involved.

How surprising.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.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, 11 Apr 2001 15:37:50 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

This will be my last post in this thread, as it seems to be going 
nowhere.

It appears that the basic argument is the same one that ICANN 
uses.  They are responsible for only "their root" and all others can 
do as they please.  The fallacy here is due to the fact that there is 
a singular name space which makes the technical argument one of 
fragmentation of that name space.  Once ICANN divides it with a 
collider, it is a done deal.  Then it's a free-for-all.  Technically, 
there cannot be duplicates of any dn at any level in the tree.  Since 
the goal should be that anyone can point to any root and not have 
to wonder which version of a domain they will see, and that ICANN 
is tasked with maintaining that stability, their deliberate entry of a 
collider defeats that task or mandate.

I will agree that one can make a choice to point to any root or TLD 
they choose, but if the goal is a unified name space, ICANN is about 
to defeat that in a big way.  

As for multiple .com's or any other TLD, it doesn't take VC to 
accomplish it.  I takes as much money and effort as it does to set 
up any TLD.  I'd bet that if someone does it (perhaps outside the 
US), it will become populated simply because it's there.  I would go 
a bit further and bet that it would be VERY popular and there would 
be no end to problems in the legal arena among registrants, 
businesses, even to the point of disrupting the global economy.  
Just take an ICANN/new.net approach to it and you have a mess.  

The intent behind the DNS was to make the net singular and unified. 
 If this is defeated by blatant ignorance of the existence of the 
purpose of the DNS, we do have a problem, Houston.  

As for upgrading DNS settings, it is not, IMO misleading to suggest 
that moving from a deprecated legacy version of a rootzone or any 
other outdated root is an upgrade.   ICANN's root is exclusive.  I 
choose to upgrade to an inclusive one (there are more than one).  

Years ago, there were several versions of word processing 
software, but two were the most used.  I upgraded from WordStar 
to WordPerfect because it offered more features and was easier to 
use.  WordStar was still there, of course, for a while anyway.  
However, there was a gradual move toward WordPerfect until 
WordStar just faded away.  They never did get away from their 
legacy base enough to keep the public happy.  It was an upgrade 
to a more useful piece of software, although both were written for 
the same purpose and worked on the same platforms.

The DoC rootzone is maintained in its legacy state because 
ICANN/DoC is reluctant to provide what the public wants - an 
abundance of TLDs.  There is a gradual movement toward other 
roots as a result.  Upgrading to a more modern version of a 
rootzone that offers more to the public is a natural progression.  
The task at hand for those roots, IMO, is to continue to work 
toward a non-colliding situation, regardless of how many TLDs are 
carried.  None should collide in the end.  Carrying a subset is fine.

There may be an upgrade available for BIND users as well - 
MultiBind.  This could be a very interesting turn.  Would you say 
that it would not be an upgrade?  I would most assuredly call it an 
upgrade.  If you choose to take your PC into the service center to 
switch to a larger hard drive, is that an upgrade?  Yes.  It's the 
same platform, larger capacity.

The present situation is exacerbated by the ICANN decision to 
duplicate the .BIZ TLD.  That sent a message to the community 
saying it's okay because their's is a separate name space.  As a 
result, companies like New.net pop up with colliders, making the 
efforts of the other roots to eliminate colliders rather more difficult, 
if not moot.  Name.space did much the same thing by allowing TLDs 
to be randomly added without regard to existing TLDs.  It also uses 
a 4LD (adding .xs2.net to a domain name) to allow resolution for 
those who don't point to specific servers.  It's a totally different 
model from all other roots.  Perhaps that is where all of this will go 
now that ICANN has set that precedent.  I hope not, but time will 
tell.

OTOH, if DoC chooses the path that preserves the name space and 
avoids a duplication/collision, then a different message will have 
been sent and the community can continue to work toward that 
goal.  Having the largest market share infers a great responsibility 
to the pubilc.  They can either stabilize or fragment the Internet as 
we know it.

Of course, the simplest solution is for DoC to include all TLDs, as 
the inclusive roots do.  It's not difficult to do.  Then the multiple 
root system would be what it is meant to be - a distributed system 
of roots, carrying the same TLDs or subsets of those TLDs.  It 
would balance the load and provide that much more stability.  And 
ISP in Australia could use a local server instead of one in Asia.  It is 
technically sound.  Based on statements coming from ICANN, I 
doubt we'll see this any time soon.  The special interests will not 
allow it.  

Regards,

Leah

> Comments below...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of JandL
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 9:49 PM To: [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?),
> >
> > It is an upgrade.  The legacy root is old and lacking.  Too access
> > all the TLDs you do have to upgrade one way or another.
> 
> I disagree with your calling this an upgrade.  Here's why:
> 
> If you have five alternative roots, each containing all the ICANN
> TLDs, but each containing a different set of additional TLDs, which
> alternative root is the upgrade?  Seems to me it's more akin to the
> many different "flavors" of UNIX in the marketplace, Solaris, Linux,
> BSDI, etc.  You really can't call each of these flavors an upgrade to
> the original version of UNIX.  To call the "ORSC INCLUSIVE NAMESPACE"
> an "upgrade" to the "ICANN Legacy Namespace" is simply misleading. 
> And, frankly, it is just this sort of misleading marketing that would
> keep me away from having anything to do with a company that promotes
> their service this way.
> 
> > 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.
> >
> > That's fine, as long as making that choice doesn't cause a problem.
> > With a collider, it will.
> 
> What exactly is a collider and what is the problem that will be
> created?
> 
> >Marketing the root in this context is not
> > the issue at all.  If it were the choice it is today, the marketing
> > is simply to add to what you get from the ICANN root.  Nothing wrong
> > there.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > What you have is a fractured internet where that choice must be
> > made.  As I said, up to now, carrying the DoC root intact has been
> > standard.  With a duplicate TLD, it will now have to be a choice
> > between versions of the TLD and duplicate domain names throughout
> > the entire tree.  (however, if an ISP wanted to carry the
> > PacificRoot and still carry the ICANN duplicate of .BIZ, it is easy
> > to do so.  They just could not carry both).  The choice should not
> > have to be made, however, and that is the problem.
> 
> I like choice.  For now I point my DNS to the ICANN root.  But I could
> still be swayed to make another choice at some point in the future if
> there's a compelling reason to do so.
> 
> > Consider a half dozen .coms throughout the world.  Shoot, why not a
> > dozen?  He with the bucks for marketing causes the most confusion.
> > Heck, why not?  ICANN is responsible for only the one root, right?
> > And DoC has authority for only its versions of .com/net/org.  If
> > they can duplicate .BIZ, I guess anyone can duplicate .com -
> > multiple times.  Sheesh.
> 
> Yes, there is nothing to prevent someone from setting up a different
> root with a different version of .com.  And, on the surface, that
> might sound like a good idea.  I mean, heck, the ICANN .com has more
> than 20 million registered names...if someone could get even 10% the
> size, that's still a lot of registrations and still a lot of money.  I
> believe there is only one thing preventing attempts at such a business
> model.  There's no VC money around to fund it.  Why?  Ever hear of a
> snowball's chance in hell?
> 
> > I agree, though, that there is every chance that DoC will defy
> > stability, Congress and everyone else and duplicate the TLD.  When
> > things start getting messy and there is a lot of screaming, it will
> > be too late.
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > If it were quite that simple, fine.  Let the ISPs scream bloody
> > murder, I guess.  ( I don't really feel that way)  If I were an ISp
> > and my cost for customer service went through the roof over it, I'd
> > scream loud.  When they start with the lawsuits, it'll get more
> > interesting, I'm sure.  You see, it's not the root choice that they
> > will be fighting.  It's the mass confusion over how to host the
> > domains.  Most domain name holders haven't a clue and many ISPs
> > don't either.
> 
> And to that I say, nobody ever said this was a simple business.  Let
> the market forces drive out the clueless ISPs.
> 
> > 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.)
> >
> > This is true - today.  After all, New.net did it in abundance with
> > 17 colliding TLDs.  We haven't seen too much trouble yet, but wait
> > until .biz is duplicated in the root with the 90 % market share. 
> > That's when we might see it hit the fan in a big way.  Marketing is
> > important for the Inclusive Name Space, for sure.  However, the
> > collisions will become apparent if DoC does its thing.
> 
> The .biz domain names that are invisible to 99% (or whatever the
> correct percentage happens to be) Internet population will still be
> invisible to 99% of the Internet population after the "DoC does its
> thing".  There will be no technical collisions.  The world will go on.
>  And, for the relatively few .biz domain name registrants that will be
> more or less left holding the bag, well...they were warned (or perhaps
> not given the above misleading marketing statement).
> 
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #373
************************