Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #376
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, April 12 2001           Volume 01 : Number 376

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

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:53:45 +0800
From: "McMeikan, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Collisions in .au Trademark space

Mostly of interest to Aussies but informative to everyone anyway.

The auDA report is in and available from http://www.auda.org.au/

media release http://www.auda.org.au/docs/name-final.html
states
"
The Panel has presented its final report to the auDA Board. The report
recommends a number of changes to domain name policies, including: 
*	no limit on the number of domain names per entity; 
*	a renewal period for all domain names; 
*	inclusion of trade marks as eligibility criteria for a domain name; 
*	a close and substantial connection between a domain name and its
licensee; 
*	creation of a 'reserved list' for domain names that may not be
licensed. 
"

Full text of report at
http://www.auda.org.au/panel/name/papers/finalreport.html

one glimmer is this bit
"
A number of panelists have disagreed with the recommendations allowing an
application for registration of an Australian trademark to form the basis
for registration of a domain name. The dissenting views come from Rowan
Groves representing the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, Tony
Hill (ISOC-AU), Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Leanne Schultz (connect.com.au).
Dissent on this point affects several recommendations under 3.3, most
notably b. and c., and 3.4b. 
The minority comments are informed by the belief that the .au DNS is
primarily an addressing system, that there should be no hierarchy attached
to rights to a domain name beyond 'first come, first served', and the
understanding that any relaxation of a framework such as the .au DNS opens
the door to practices which have not been enabled to any great degree before
now. The possibility may now exist that the benefits to be gained from
greater ease of, and flexibility in licence registration may be more than
offset by unnecessarily increasing the ease with which equitable access to
new domain names may be denied. In particular, the trademark system might be
used to hoard names or otherwise block access to names. 
"

other bits of interest are the ideas of auctioning or distributing by
lottery some of the (mainly geographic) reserved 2LD's

	cya,	Andrew...
- --
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 23:50:21 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] vote appeal

Hello Joanna,

Wednesday, April 11, 2001, 9:01:25 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
>> I can't say for certain that those rules were adopted by a vote of the
>> GA, you have to understand that the entire concept that the GA CAN
>> vote on issues like that is rather new.

> No they do not. I can say for certain that NO such rule was adopted by a
> vote of the GA. I voted for the rules and I did not, and would not vote for
> multiple ballots. The rules that were adopted were not intended to
> supplememt other rules, but rather to *replace* them. We discussed all this
> already when the so called "rule of ten" cropped up.
> You are implying that old rules should be interpreted as if they are "case
> law", available to overturn stated terms of a legal contract. That is not
> the case here. Old rules, whatever they may be, cannot be enforced, because
> they have not been agreed by consensus of the current GA. New rules can.
> That's the difference. The old rules no longer have any legitimacy.

Well, first of all Joanna, new rules do not always totally supplant
existing rules.  Secondly, there were no multiple ballots.  It was the
same ballot sent more than once, which many organization do during an
election to remind people to vote.

The rule is generally the last one counts.  This is true when
balloting is done in our US Congress, for instance, where until the
voting is closed, members are free to recast their vote and have any
prior votes by them on that question invalidated as a result.

> Oh please. The ballot was different because the votes cast on it were not
> the same.

Joanna, those members were already free to recast their ballots in
that way.  The ballot was not different because some members elected
to change their vote (for what it is worth, my own ballot stayed the
same.  I was content to let me original vote stand for the candidate I
felt best suited to the job, even if he had made the decision not to
fulfill his position if selected).

> I repeat, the DNSO Secretariat cannot be faulted in this election.
> I agree the rules should make provision for such an eventuality, but you are
> muddying the waters. Jonathan's "withdrawal" was not a technical failure.
> The failure was on the part of those who had not voted for anybody else and
> wanted a revote.

Anyone who didn't follow the instructions, and RANKED the candidates
by preference, didn't follow instructions anyway.  The sour grapes I
am seeing from Eric over this issue are really much ado about nothing.

There was no fault or failure here at all, for anyone except those
voters who didn't vote correctly at all.

- -- 
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:47:41 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Collisions in RFC 1535 space

THE FOLLOWING IS MY PERSONAL OPINION - NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT
THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF TLDA, auDA, ICANN OR ANY OTHER BODY

On Thursday, April 12, 2001 3:53 PM (AEST)
Andrew McMeikan <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: [ga] Collisions in .au Trademark space

> The auDA report is in and available from http://www.auda.org.au/
I think more properly the Names Panel report to auDA.

One bit that might interest the techos out there is the following
recommendation:

"Domain names that match TLDs are not allowed.

The Panel notes RFC 1535, which points out that domain names with two alpha
characters (eg. au.com.au) could 'trick' some types of client software, thereby
giving rise to possible security problems where the domain name is the same as a
ccTLD.  Potentially, a domain name that is the same as a gTLD (eg. com.net.au)
could be misused in the same manner.  The Panel therefore recommends a
prohibition on domain names that match TLDs.

The Panel suggests that domain name licence applicants should be advised that if
they license a domain name that is subsequently allocated as a TLD, then the
licence may be revoked."

Regards
Patrick Corliss
Member, auDA Board
(speaking as an 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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 04:16:25 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Do we need TLDs at all?

Sotiris wrote:
> 
> 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...

Perhaps, but if the price went up only in .com and plenty of alternatives
were available, then perhaps not.

Most of my recent posts are an attempt to get people questioning assumptions,
"thinking outside the box".

My point above isn't that $500 fees in .com (or my other suggstions which
you snipped) would be a good idea, only that they'd make more sense in terms
of solving the real problem (overuse and over-marketing of .com) than the
ludicrous $50,000 to apply for a TLD. That is an obstacle, not a step toward
solution.

If we can get a conversation going about (what I see as) the real problem,
then better solutions than I've proposed will likely pop up.
- --
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, 12 Apr 2001 01:29:16 -0700
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Note:  This reply contains portions that have been reprinted from a personal
email with permission from the author.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JandL [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 5:52 PM
> To: Jeff Field
> Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)
>
> Suffice it to say that www.vitamins.biz is one of many e-commerce
> sites published under the TLD.

I checked out the site.  It appears that although vitamins.biz does indeed
get you to a site, the company is actually doing business under the name,
"bodyRight.com".  Further, if you use the bodyright.com domain name, you end
up at a site that looks identical to the vitamins.biz site.

IMHO, I would say this company has attempted to hedge or extend its
e-commerce bet by registering the vitamins.biz name in the hopes that, 1)
the alternative root .biz would be the .biz to eventually end up in the
ICANN root system, and 2) the company would then perhaps be able to utilize
a better domain name than, or an additional domain name to, bodyright.com.
In any case, it would appear obvious (to me, at least) that this is hardly a
site that will be irreparably harmed if their .biz name doesn't make it into
the ICANN root.

Any others while I have my DNS temporarily (unless I find a compelling
reason to stay) pointing to the alternate root?

> Some registrants are hoping they will be able to secure identical
> names in the ICANN .biz if it is entered into the root so they won't
> be killed by them.  Many are concerned that ICANN will "cancel"
> their registrations because they do not understand the process.
> This is where most of the damage occurs - they don't understand,
> so they panic and think we will cut them off somehow or that ICANN
> will take their names from them.

Are you the operator of the alternative root .biz registry?  I didn't know
that (I apologize for my ignorance, if that's the case.  I'm relatively new
to this list.)!  Then you of all people should certainly have known the
risks involved when you entered this business!

I have sympathy for some of your customers, the one's that registered .biz
names in your system because of the misleading copy on the registration
site.  I have *very* little sympathy for the one's that registered names
they thought might be worth something if their .biz name ever made it into
ICANN's root.  They knew what they were doing, they've taken the risk, they
may (IMO, will) lose...but that's the nature of speculation.  Some you win,
some you lose.

> The point is, though, that if you register a domain name, you rely
> on its being there.

The .biz domains that have been registered *are* there...they're visible to
the 1 or 2 percent (or whatever the number is) of the Internet users that
point their DNS to the alternate root that contains .biz.  And anyone that
registers a .biz domain name with the alternate root .biz registry should
know that...at least if the registrar or registry makes that perfectly clear
ahead of time.  And, as mentioned, I personally don't believe that is being
done (I refer this time to the website copy, "they are real domains....these
are all active domains".  NOTE: Yes, I know they are "real"; yes, I know
they are "active".  But nowhere, at least that I could find, does it state
anything to the effect that 98%, or whatever the number is, of the Internet
population is not currently set up to access websites with a .biz address.).

> Irreparable harm has been done to our registry
> since the ICANN selection, certainly.  It is  pretty easy to track the
> fall off of registrations to that time.

IMHO, it's not up to ICANN to save your business merely because one of the
risks you should have known about before going down this path might come to
fruition.  But please, keep fighting!  This is just the sort of thing that
makes life interesting.  I just wish you'd be more forthright to your
customers and potential customers by cleaning up your website copy.

> As far as substantial sites, there are many registrants who are just
> waiting before they put mega dollars into development of their sites
> due to the controversy and fear of losing their names.  ICANN has
> done considerable damage to their business plans.

Frankly, if anyone wrote a business plan based on the assumption that the
alternative root .biz would end up being placed in the ICANN root system
ought not to be writing business plans...unless, of course, this particular
risk was duly noted in the risk assessment portion of the plan.  And if it
was, well, they know/knew the risk.

Regards,

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

>
> Leah
>
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of JandL
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 12:38 PM To: [email-masked];
> > > [email-masked] Cc: [email-masked] Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in
> > > namespace (was gTLD Constituency)
> > <--- snip --->
> > > 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.
> > <--- snip --->
> >
> > The statement above, "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", got me wondering...
> >
> > Can anyone name a site, a site of substance, better yet a public
> > company, that currently operates their main business or provides their
> > main content utilizing (advertising, promoting, etc.) a domain name in
> > either .biz or .web, and *not* the .biz or .web alternative root
> > registry itself, that will be irreparably harmed if the alternative
> > root .biz or .web TLDs never make it into the ICANN root?  I'm just
> > wondering if there's anything of substance happening over there in
> > alternative root country.  Perhaps it's time to take a look?
> >
> > 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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:02:24 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Collisions in RFC 1535 space

> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 12:48 AM

> On Thursday, April 12, 2001 3:53 PM (AEST)
> Andrew McMeikan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Subject: [ga] Collisions in .au Trademark space
> 
> > The auDA report is in and available from http://www.auda.org.au/
> I think more properly the Names Panel report to auDA.
> 
> One bit that might interest the techos out there is the following
> recommendation:
> 
> "Domain names that match TLDs are not allowed.
> 
> The Panel notes RFC 1535, which points out that domain names 
> with two alpha
> characters (eg. au.com.au) could 'trick' some types of client 
> software, thereby
> giving rise to possible security problems where the domain 
> name is the same as a
> ccTLD.  Potentially, a domain name that is the same as a gTLD 
> (eg. com.net.au)
> could be misused in the same manner.  The Panel therefore recommends a
> prohibition on domain names that match TLDs.

The panel is stoned, or should be. Both the decision and the reason are pure
horseshit. CERT (www.cert.org) has never documented an exploit of that
nature, nor has anyone else, AFAICT. If I had any part of whatever they've
been smoking, I couldn't do my job. Apparently, they can't either. You can
quote me, verbatum.

> The Panel suggests that domain name licence applicants should 
> be advised that if
> they license a domain name that is subsequently allocated as 
> a TLD, then the licence may be revoked.

I hope that no one is listening to them (other than to find their source of
"supply").

There is a well known principle in the software business. Programs should
meet the requirements. If it doesn't, you fix the program, not the
requirements.
- --
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, 12 Apr 2001 02:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Hi Jeff :)

On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Jeff Field wrote:

> I checked out the site.  It appears that although vitamins.biz does indeed
> get you to a site, the company is actually doing business under the name,
> "bodyRight.com".  Further, if you use the bodyright.com domain name, you end
> up at a site that looks identical to the vitamins.biz site.
> 
> IMHO, I would say this company has attempted to hedge or extend its
> e-commerce bet by registering the vitamins.biz name in the hopes that, 1)
> the alternative root .biz would be the .biz to eventually end up in the
> ICANN root system, and 2) the company would then perhaps be able to utilize
> a better domain name than, or an additional domain name to, bodyright.com.
> In any case, it would appear obvious (to me, at least) that this is hardly a

> 
> > Some registrants are hoping they will be able to secure identical
> > names in the ICANN .biz if it is entered into the root so they won't
> > be killed by them.  Many are concerned that ICANN will "cancel"
> > their registrations because they do not understand the process.
> > This is where most of the damage occurs - they don't understand,
> > so they panic and think we will cut them off somehow or that ICANN
> > will take their names from them.
> 
> point their DNS to the alternate root that contains .biz.  And anyone that
> registers a .biz domain name with the alternate root .biz registry should
> know that...at least if the registrar or registry makes that perfectly clear
> ahead of time.  And, as mentioned, I personally don't believe that is being
> done (I refer this time to the website copy, "they are real domains....these
> are all active domains".  NOTE: Yes, I know they are "real"; yes, I know
> they are "active".  But nowhere, at least that I could find, does it state

Actually, there are plenty of references which, correctly state - and
quite prominently so, That if your ISP hasn't already upgraded their DNS
from that of the deprecated ICANN legacy system you need to do so. 

Our Hostmaster team deals very little with any lack of understanding on
this issue, due in part to the prominent placement of notices to upgrade,
but more specifically because it is not the public's average joe that is
having dificulty grasping this concept. It's easy for them to understand.
Most of our tech support hours lies in the area of lost passwords and what
to put in for nameservers - the same thing that takes most of the support
time with all providers.

It seems the people who find the most difficulty with this concept are the
people whom we would least likely suspect - people such as yourself.

Why is that Jeff? are you just being resistant to public demand? The ISPs
are eating it up and selling websites like crazy:)

Finally, I personaly very little time to waste worrying  about what you
think - especially considering you wouldn't be bothering to argue this
point unless we were garnering such phenominal public support and
acceptance in the first place ;)

Why don't you register a free domain with us? They're really free you
know. Or would that be against your religion?

I promise we don't bite ;)

Kindest regards,

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:22:10 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [wg-review] Straw Poll: IC Recommendation

|> Dear WG Members,
|>
|> Please indicate either your support or rejection of the following:
|>
|> 1) The current proposal for recommendation of an Individual's
|> Constituency in response to Resolutions 01.28 & 01.29 is
|> generally an adequate reflection of widespread sentiment within the
WG Review to
|> date.
|> [X ]Support
|> [  ]Reject
|> [  ]Abstain
|> Comments:
|>
|>
|> 2) The recommendation for "dissolution" of the DNSO should
|> supercede the recommendation calling for an Individual's
Constituency at
|> this point in
|> time.
|> [  ]Support
|> [X ]Reject
|> [  ]Abstain
|> Comments:

Dassa

- --
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, 12 Apr 2001 05:19:31 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] vote appeal

on 4/12/01 2:50 AM, William X. Walsh at [email-masked] wrote:

> Well, first of all Joanna, new rules do not always totally supplant
> existing rules.  

Well, William, the fact is that the rules we actually adopted were version
0.2, which clearly state "(Superseed Version 0.1)" By your logic, this would
not be true, since any old rule can be dragged and dropped into play when it
suits. With respect, those days would seem to have passed.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html

Secondly, there were no multiple ballots.  It was the
> same ballot sent more than once, which many organization do during an
> election to remind people to vote.
> 
> The rule is generally the last one counts.  This is true when
> balloting is done in our US Congress, for instance, where until the
> voting is closed, members are free to recast their vote and have any
> prior votes by them on that question invalidated as a result.

I didn't know that about the US system but have no reason to doubt what you
say. However, that certainly is not the British system. Based on literally
hundreds of votes cast in numerous gov. elections, associations, mutual
societies and shareholder postal ballots, I have never ever been offered
multiple ballots, not once. Last time I voted in a British polling booth, I
was given one piece of paper and a pencil to mark an X against selected
names. If a mistake is made whilst in the booth, tough, the vote is
considered spoilt and discarded. There is no replacement ballot under any
circumstances. That is the British way.

One point of this exchange has been to highlight the dangers of making
assumptions about people's cultural understanding and of their willingness
to accept the US interpretation of events.

Personally, I am constantly making adjustments to the US ways of doing
things and it's not always easy. The hardest part is not learning the new
way, it's unlearning the old way. What causes the most trouble is having to
discard a system that is proven to work and replace it with something that
is known to be flawed, simply because it's the accepted way.

Each society excels at something and to be honest, I would not look to the
US for the best electoral system in the world, given the choice. However, I
could not say what obligations ICANN may be under in that respect, being a
Californian corporation.

> Anyone who didn't follow the instructions, and RANKED the candidates
> by preference, didn't follow instructions anyway. (Irrelevant personal comment
deleted).

I don't know which instructions you read, but these are the ones I
followed:-

"Each member of the General Assembly roster receives *one* (my emphasis)
ballot listing all candidate names.

He/she then marks a preference, using "1" for the most favored candidate,
"2" for the second, and so on."

I understand that to be RANKING. If it does not mean that, I need a
translation.

> There was no fault or failure here at all, for anyone except those
> voters who didn't vote correctly at all.

I agree there was no fault, but I do believe there was a failure. At best,
the rules need clarification and I have identified aspects that need work in
an earlier post. Hopefully, you will take an interest in that endeavor.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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, 12 Apr 2001 05:22:32 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Unfortunately, IMO, you have totally distorted what I wrote you. 

First, The PacificRoot is contracted by AtlanticRoot Network, Inc. to 
Provide registration services for .BIZ and The PacificRoot site as 
well as our own site clearly state that these TLDs are NOT ICANN 
TLDs.  No one has ever been mislead.  We have no problem stating 
that we did not apply to ICANN and that ICANN accepted 
applications for duplicates of existing TLDs, choosing to ignore their 
existence.  Our website also states that we are not going anywhere.

Second, we did not apply to ICANN and have stated that numerous 
times on many lists.  Our registrants have known this from day one.

Third, we were taking registrations long before there was any 
mention of anyone applying for the .BIZ string with ICANN.

Fourth, ICANN did not select .WEB for award to Afilias due to the 
fact that it was an operational registry...

Fifth, the point is that ICANN should not be duplicating any pre-
existing TLD and that is what is causing the damage.

It is not up to us to track which businesses have published 
websites, although we do suggest they let us know so that we can 
publish the URLs. There is no reason to project how much money 
will be lost by each domain name holder.  None of them should have 
to be concerned about anyone else using their domain name, which 
is precisely what will occur with a duplication.  The fact is that they 
are losing money and will lose money due to fear and a lack of 
understanding of the process.  

As for market share, I can tell you that it is growing daily.  There 
were darned few websites in .com in 1995 when I first registered a 
domain name.  There is also no reason to think that TLDs in the 
inclusive name space will not flourish.  At this time, there appears 
to be something like 11% market share.  That's a great deal more 
than two years ago when it was around 1%.  There is actually 
better response outside the US at the moment, which is to be 
expected.  

As for risk, there should be no risk in registration of a domain name 
in any TLD, at least not the risk of the government co-opting it and 
giving it to another entity.  Tell me how you would react if you had 
a business - any business - and the government just took it from 
you and gave your business product to your competitor, causing 
you great damage.  That is what will happen if DoC acts on the 
recommendation from ICANN to enter .BIZ into the USG root for 
Neulevel.

You must realize that .BIZ was created many years ago.  It is not a 
new TLD and ICANN should not have accepted applications for any 
pre-existing operational TLDs.  It was wrong.  No business should 
have to look at that kind of damage because another entity covets 
it. They were notified.  They ignored it.

Regards,

Leah

> Note:  This reply contains portions that have been reprinted from a
> personal email with permission from the author.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: JandL [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 5:52 PM
> > To: Jeff Field
> > Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)
> >
> > Suffice it to say that www.vitamins.biz is one of many e-commerce
> > sites published under the TLD.
> 
> I checked out the site.  It appears that although vitamins.biz does
> indeed get you to a site, the company is actually doing business under
> the name, "bodyRight.com".  Further, if you use the bodyright.com
> domain name, you end up at a site that looks identical to the
> vitamins.biz site.
> 
> IMHO, I would say this company has attempted to hedge or extend its
> e-commerce bet by registering the vitamins.biz name in the hopes that,
> 1) the alternative root .biz would be the .biz to eventually end up in
> the ICANN root system, and 2) the company would then perhaps be able
> to utilize a better domain name than, or an additional domain name to,
> bodyright.com. In any case, it would appear obvious (to me, at least)
> that this is hardly a site that will be irreparably harmed if their
> .biz name doesn't make it into the ICANN root.
> 
> Any others while I have my DNS temporarily (unless I find a compelling
> reason to stay) pointing to the alternate root?
> 
> > Some registrants are hoping they will be able to secure identical
> > names in the ICANN .biz if it is entered into the root so they won't
> > be killed by them.  Many are concerned that ICANN will "cancel"
> > their registrations because they do not understand the process. This
> > is where most of the damage occurs - they don't understand, so they
> > panic and think we will cut them off somehow or that ICANN will take
> > their names from them.
> 
> Are you the operator of the alternative root .biz registry?  I didn't
> know that (I apologize for my ignorance, if that's the case.  I'm
> relatively new to this list.)!  Then you of all people should
> certainly have known the risks involved when you entered this
> business!
> 
> I have sympathy for some of your customers, the one's that registered
> .biz names in your system because of the misleading copy on the
> registration site.  I have *very* little sympathy for the one's that
> registered names they thought might be worth something if their .biz
> name ever made it into ICANN's root.  They knew what they were doing,
> they've taken the risk, they may (IMO, will) lose...but that's the
> nature of speculation.  Some you win, some you lose.
> 
> > The point is, though, that if you register a domain name, you rely
> > on its being there.
> 
> The .biz domains that have been registered *are* there...they're
> visible to the 1 or 2 percent (or whatever the number is) of the
> Internet users that point their DNS to the alternate root that
> contains .biz.  And anyone that registers a .biz domain name with the
> alternate root .biz registry should know that...at least if the
> registrar or registry makes that perfectly clear ahead of time.  And,
> as mentioned, I personally don't believe that is being done (I refer
> this time to the website copy, "they are real domains....these are all
> active domains".  NOTE: Yes, I know they are "real"; yes, I know they
> are "active".  But nowhere, at least that I could find, does it state
> anything to the effect that 98%, or whatever the number is, of the
> Internet population is not currently set up to access websites with a
> .biz address.).
> 
> > Irreparable harm has been done to our registry
> > since the ICANN selection, certainly.  It is  pretty easy to track
> > the fall off of registrations to that time.
> 
> IMHO, it's not up to ICANN to save your business merely because one of
> the risks you should have known about before going down this path
> might come to fruition.  But please, keep fighting!  This is just the
> sort of thing that makes life interesting.  I just wish you'd be more
> forthright to your customers and potential customers by cleaning up
> your website copy.
> 
> > As far as substantial sites, there are many registrants who are just
> > waiting before they put mega dollars into development of their sites
> > due to the controversy and fear of losing their names.  ICANN has
> > done considerable damage to their business plans.
> 
> Frankly, if anyone wrote a business plan based on the assumption that
> the alternative root .biz would end up being placed in the ICANN root
> system ought not to be writing business plans...unless, of course,
> this particular risk was duly noted in the risk assessment portion of
> the plan.  And if it was, well, they know/knew the risk.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jeff
> --
> jeff field
> 925-283-4083
> [email-masked]
> 
> >
> > Leah
> >
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> > > > JandL Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 12:38 PM To: [email-masked];
> > > > [email-masked] Cc: [email-masked] Subject: RE: [ga] collisions
> > > > in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)
> > > <--- snip --->
> > > > 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.
> > > <--- snip --->
> > >
> > > The statement above, "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", got me wondering...
> > >
> > > Can anyone name a site, a site of substance, better yet a public
> > > company, that currently operates their main business or provides
> > > their main content utilizing (advertising, promoting, etc.) a
> > > domain name in either .biz or .web, and *not* the .biz or .web
> > > alternative root registry itself, that will be irreparably harmed
> > > if the alternative root .biz or .web TLDs never make it into the
> > > ICANN root?  I'm just wondering if there's anything of substance
> > > happening over there in alternative root country.  Perhaps it's
> > > time to take a look?
> > >
> > > 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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:32:51 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Another sweetheart deal

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of Dave  Crocker
|> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 2:09 PM
|> Subject: Re: Another sweetheart deal
|>
|>
|> At 08:47 PM 4/11/2001, Milton Mueller wrote:
|> ><Note: it's great to get EDU away from Verisign, but why
|> does US Dept of Commerce always have to offer exclusive contracts
to
|> people they have favored relations with? Haven't they ever heard of
competition?>
|>
|>
|> Because, unlike some people, the NTIA was more interested
|> in handling the matter simply and efficiently -- as the situation
|> warranted -- rather than treating it as yet another political
footbal.

The government bodies I deal with put all such contacts out to tender
as a matter of course and the best candidate is selected from those
who have applied.  Handling the awarding of the contract simply
doesn't imply it was efficient.  The converse is apparant as the best
candidate is unlikely to have been awarded the contract.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 12 Apr 2001 19:45:12 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Another sweetheart deal

My apologies to Dave Crocker and the List.  It appears I have sent two
messages through to the GA that were intended for other lists.  An
honest mistake and not intentional.  Sorry.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked]
|> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|> Dassa
|> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 7:33 PM
|> To: Ga
|> Subject: [ga] RE: Another sweetheart deal
|>

- --
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, 12 Apr 2001 02:56:06 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Another sweetheart deal

> From: Dassa [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 2:33 AM
> 
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> On Behalf Of Dave  Crocker
> |> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 2:09 PM
> |> Subject: Re: Another sweetheart deal
> |>
> |>
> |> At 08:47 PM 4/11/2001, Milton Mueller wrote:
> |> ><Note: it's great to get EDU away from Verisign, but why
> |> does US Dept of Commerce always have to offer exclusive contracts
> to
> |> people they have favored relations with? Haven't they ever heard of
> competition?>
> |>
> |>
> |> Because, unlike some people, the NTIA was more interested
> |> in handling the matter simply and efficiently -- as the situation
> |> warranted -- rather than treating it as yet another political
> footbal.
> 
> The government bodies I deal with put all such contacts out to tender
> as a matter of course and the best candidate is selected from those
> who have applied.  Handling the awarding of the contract simply
> doesn't imply it was efficient.  The converse is apparant as the best
> candidate is unlikely to have been awarded the contract.

The entire mess is in violation of a number of regulations wrt Federal
acquisitions.
- --
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 #376
************************