Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #379
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, April 13 2001            Volume 01 : Number 379

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

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:36:10 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

DOC thought and Adnrew Pincus opinion is one thing, an actual vote and
action is another. Please, do not under-cut the significance of this BoD
action. My reading of the Verign contract did not reveal many of the
conditions that Pincus recommended, FWIW. Further, it is a legal document
defining specific terms. Being the first such document, it is also the model
from which all other TLD registry contracts should be modeled. It sets the
precedent. The ICANN BoD should have a difficult time nullifying that
precedent. Policies, both implied and explicit, are now set within that
document.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 7:55 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD 
> Constituency)
> 
> 
> Roeland Meyer wrote:
> 
> > What you ought to notice is that the precedent has now been 
> set that the same
> > entity can now be both registry and registrar.
> 
> The U.S. Dept. of Commerce has thought for some time that this was
> acceptable -- with proper precautions, such as the separation 
> of revenue and
> assets. This is Andrew Pincus' testimony from July, 1999:
> 
>    "The operations of a registry and of a registrar,
>     if conducted by the same entity, should be
>     separated so revenues and assets of the registry
>     are not utilized to financially advantage registrar
>     activities to the detriment of other registrars."
> 
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/blileyrsp.htm
> 
>     -- Bret
> 
> P.S. Of course, he also wrote: "The Department of Commerce 
> also expects the
> ICANN Board to move expeditiously to establish a process and 
> time-line for
> electing At-Large Directors. This task must be ICANN's 
> highest priority.
> Indeed, we can think of very little that is more important to 
> the success of
> this experiment in self-ordering than the prompt 
> establishment of a fully
> elected Board of Directors."
> 
> --
> 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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:59:22 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Collisions in Namespace

At 08:16 PM 4/12/2001, Joanna Lane wrote:
>on 4/12/01 7:45 PM, Dave Crocker at [email-masked] wrote:
> > At 01:33 PM 4/12/2001, babybows.com wrote:
> >> I ask that a formal working group be convened to
> >> allow for the full and unfiltered expression of all views on this topic.
> >
> > 1.  Presumably your request is being made as a member of the GA, rather
> > than on behalf of the entire GA?
>
>Neither. Danny is Chair of the GA. This is a position to which he has been
>elected and from which he speaks.

The chair is supposed to speak on behalf of the GA when there has been a 
group decision process directing such speech.  Where was the GA consensus 
process requesting the effort he describes?

> > 2.  Would you please state a specific question or issue to be considered,
> > since your note did not define a specific problem or issue.
>
>Since when did the GA Chair agree to take instructions from a member?

1.  You mean the chair of the GA is not accountable to members of the GA?  Wow!

2.  In case you did not notice, my request was designed to move his request 
from vague, general and ambiguous, over to focused and practical.  As such, 
it should not matter where the request came from.

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: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:24:59 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Collisions in Namespace

On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 23:16:56 -0400, you wrote:

>on 4/12/01 7:45 PM, Dave Crocker at [email-masked] wrote:
>
>> At 01:33 PM 4/12/2001, babybows.com wrote:
>>> I ask that a formal working group be convened to
>>> allow for the full and unfiltered expression of all views on this topic.
>> 
>> Danny,
>> 
>> 1.  Presumably your request is being made as a member of the GA, rather
>> than on behalf of the entire GA?
>
>Neither. Danny is Chair of the GA. This is a position to which he has been
>elected and from which he speaks.

The Chair is not elected to put his or her own views forward.  The
Chair's job is to represent the views of the GA.  The Chair needs to
be very careful when he puts personal views forward that he is seen to
be speaking in an individual capacity only.

>> 2.  Would you please state a specific question or issue to be considered,
>> since your note did not define a specific problem or issue.  Yes, it
>> referred to namespaces and fragmentation, but it was not at all clear what
>> specific problem you are concerned about.
>> 
>> d/
>
>Since when did the GA Chair agree to take instructions from a member?

The GA Chair is not our leader but our representative.  And there was
nothing wrong with Mr Crocker's request of him.  There is a difference
between a request and an instruction.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 21:38:07 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Hello Roeland,

Thursday, April 12, 2001, 8:36:10 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> DOC thought and Adnrew Pincus opinion is one thing, an actual vote and
> action is another. Please, do not under-cut the significance of this BoD
> action. My reading of the Verign contract did not reveal many of the
> conditions that Pincus recommended, FWIW. Further, it is a legal document
> defining specific terms. Being the first such document, it is also the model
> from which all other TLD registry contracts should be modeled. It sets the
> precedent. The ICANN BoD should have a difficult time nullifying that
> precedent. Policies, both implied and explicit, are now set within that
> document.

This presumes that the BoD cares about consistency in it's decisions.

You should know by now that is not the case.

- -- 
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 21:39:55 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Collisions in Namespace

Hello Joanna,

Thursday, April 12, 2001, 8:16:56 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
>> 2.  Would you please state a specific question or issue to be considered,
>> since your note did not define a specific problem or issue.  Yes, it
>> referred to namespaces and fragmentation, but it was not at all clear what
>> specific problem you are concerned about.
>> 
>> d/

> Since when did the GA Chair agree to take instructions from a member?

Actually, I think it is a legitimate question.

After all, the GA Chair is there to facilitate the CONSENSUS of the
GA, which derives from it's members.

If Mr Younger is acting on his own as an individual, that is something
any of us can do.  If he is speaking in his role as GA Chair, then the
statement really should have been addressed HERE first.

The GA Chair is not a position for an independent actor.  His actions
derive from our work.

- -- 
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 22:49:05 -0700
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> PacificRoot Hostmaster
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 2:21 AM
> To: Jeff Field
> Cc: [email-masked]; [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.

I've already stated my opinion as to the use of the term, "upgraded".  FYI,
here's the relavant dictionary definition I found:

Upgrade - "To replace (a software program) with a more recently released,
enhanced version."

I believe the more appropriate term to use is "alternative".  Here's the
dictionary definition I found:

Alternative - "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities."

Anyway, forgetting for the moment that you may be using a different version
of software than ICANN's root server, one which you may consider an upgrade;
for all practical purposes, the only difference between your root and the
ICANN root is the data it contains.  Yours has more (the additional TLDs).
Additional data does not constitute an upgrade.  Having said that, and
taking my cue from the copy on your site
(http://www.pacificroot.com/register.shtml), let me try to help you out
with, what I believe to be, copy that would not be misleading:
- --------------------------------------
Please note: In order for you and other Internet users to access the
websites of, send email to, or use any other Internet service connected with
the domain name(s) you are about to register requires the DNS (Domain Name
System) settings of each user's computer be configured to point to DNS name
servers which have been set up to query the ORSC Inclusive Name Space root
server system operated by PacificRoot.

Additionally, although PacificRoot believes the ORSC Inclusive Name Space
root server system we operate is superior to what we believe to be the
functionally obsolete ICANN root server system, and that we are currently
making progress through marketing, education and outreach to raise the
awareness of all Internet users of that superiority, many Internet user
computers are not yet configured this way.  Simply put, all this means is
that currently some Internet users will be able to utilize (access your
website, send you email, etc.) the domain name(s) and and some will not.
- --------------------------------------
Or something along those lines.  BTW, I would also suggest putting this copy
in a more prominent place than the current right side small print that has a
good chance of being missed.  Additionally, it ought be included just before
the registration submit button....coloring it red is not a bad idea, either.

> 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.

Ahem...do you know me that well to make such a statement?  I've only been on
this list for about a week or so.  I don't believe we've met...have we?

> 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 ;)

Ahem, again...I don't believe you know me *at all* to make such a statement.
I have no agenda here, hidden or otherwise.

Regards,

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

> 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 23:15:36 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [council] Collisions in Namespace

The problem of alternate or competing roots is a highly complex one. I would support the idea of a new, open Working Group being convened on this topic. I say this fully understanding that the debate on this topic often takes the form of a religious war and that it is unlikely that any coherent policy would come out of such a working group soon. 

However, there is some possibility that, given enough time and some clear guidance, such a group might achieve some consensus points that could bring about a temporary ceasefire, if not an end, to the war. And I see little downside. At worst, the group will waste bandwidth and time and accomplish nothing. At best, it might come up with some useful ideas. Why not give it a try? The incremental cost of a new mailing list is pretty low.

>>> "babybows.com" <[email-masked]> 04/12/01 17:26 PM >>>
"Constituencies or GA participants may propose that
the NC consider domain name policies or
recommendations."

As two principles addressed by the White Paper, stability and competition,
have been raised in the course of this debate, and whereas the Department of
Commerce has previously expressed concern regarding any actions which may
lead to the possibility of consumer "confusion", I now ask that the NC
consider the ICANN domain name policy with respect to collision with names
in the alternate root community.

- --
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 23:51:01 -0700
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Collisions in Namespace

Quick question...does anyone know if there are other currently operational
alternative root servers besides the ORSC alternative root?  I know there
used to be at least a few.  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: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 03:10:38 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Collisions in Namespace

There are a few, actually.  Correction to your misconception of the 
ORSC root, though.  The PacificRoot and the ORSC root are two 
totally different entities.  

It lists different roots.

Leah

> Quick question...does anyone know if there are other currently
> operational alternative root servers besides the ORSC alternative
> root?  I know there used to be at least a few.  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: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Attn: GA Chairman Younger....

Dear Chairman Younger,

As a long time GA member and one who has also been honored with the
distinction of belonging to the GA's first watchdog committee, I would
like to say that I have been pleased to be one of the people who assisted
in bringin a semblance of order to this body back in the days when we had
no Chair, and were struggling to find ourselves through the adoption of
some kind of "proceedings".

There was much calamity back then, with paid confidence men and payrolled
disuptors in place here who were so adept and cunning with regards to
derailing any efforts of achieving order and stability here.

During the past year or so I have for the most part stood by the sidelines
of the GA, opting to focus more on things operational - things which have
yielded the fruits of a promising new Internet for our children, free
from outrageous name speculation and where everyone can have a short and
meaningful domain name for a modest fee or absolutely free - not subject
to the terms of the dastardly UDRP.

In fact, I would gather that most of the people here haven't even been
around long enough to remember the not so distant days when all I had to
do was give Hillary a phone call over at internic (NIC.DDN.MIL) down in
San Diego to get a domain name for free - because they were free back then
as long as you used it.

Since then much has changed but only primarily in the political landscape.
When President Ford announced that the gas crunch was over in 1974 the
lines at the gas stations suddenly disappeared - not that there was any
more or less gasoline than the day before. The public's psyche was simply
perceptibly overhauled by the announcement. That's all.

Similarly, the same thing is true wrt domain name registrations. A
flooding land grab and miner-49er-itis struck again, but instead of
Sutter's mill it occured in Virginia. ICANN has served as the catalyst for
a terrible injustice to the simple notion of taxanomical structure.

Although many here would not agree with my assertion that, "It's just a
string", that is in fact all that we envisioned back in the ARPAnet days
when IBM would have been happy to have ABC.NET - much simpler than
remembering all those host IPs.

Those days are obviously gone forever though, and the biggest threat to
The Intellectual Prperty community and ICANN is the fact that it doesn't
take jillions of dollars to reliably run a database, operate a root
system, registry, or administer them responsibly.

In the past there were even various volunteer hobby root systems such as
the ORSC which demonstrated quite effectively that DNS would not break if
the number of Top-Level domains greatly exceeded the amount currently
loaded in the relatively tiny VeriSign/NSI/DoC  managed root system.

Those days are past too, and now the world is experiencing a
transformation of the Internet landscape by international commercial
enterprises (and sovereign governments) that are delivering once again to
the public the mass availability of short, meaningful character strings in
a reliable, and responsible  manner.

I do understand that this tends to derail any notion that domain names
have any intrinsic value beyond what the nominal adminstrative tasks
associated with providing these services demands, and that it has quite
frankly threatened to destroy the ill-advised investment portfolios of
cyber-realestate speculators. But Someone should have told them, "It's
just a string".

The real reason I am writing you this evening is because your letter below
seems to point out that you intend to redress the critically sensitive
issues that threaten to have far reaching consequences for the "average
joe" using the Internet. So I find that now is the time to bring up this
issue of collisions, as you are apparently very aware of their
catastrophic possiblities in the domain name space.

Whereas the lionshare of dialog that has existed to date seems to center
around the notion of HTTP traffic, I would like to point out that there
are far dire consequences for ICANN if they continue on this collision
course with real, viable, and active Top-Level Domains such as those
currently supported by The PacificRoot.

Some fanatical extremists of Internet infamy, such as Richard Sexton,
insist that the loading of colliders into the USG root will result in
cache-poisoning, perhaps bringing everything to a grinding halt on all
sides of the DNS name space. Such people claim that there are even IAB or
IETF papers and studys depicting this very scenario and warning against it
- - although my colleagues and I have yet to find anything to support these
claims through our extensive digging through the IAB archives or any
other research. In any case, perhaps this would be a good time for this GA
body to look into that independantly.

The real 'hidden' nasties though, aren't that you might not know which
ABC.TLD website you will end up at (although this would occur on a regular
basis), but things such as mail transport and other peripheral forms of
electronic communication and protocols that depend upon DNS as their
'cable-car wire' will be irevacably and adversely affected.

With the burgeoning use and activity in the "Inclusive Name Space" by the
general public, what people in the glass house don't seem to understand is
that users are actually putting MX records into zonefiles and engaging in
the practice of mail transport via email, which works just the same in the
"Inclusive Name Space" as it does in the deprecated ICANN legacy system.

This alone has caused so many problems with ISP tech support personnel
that we field calls at The PacificRoot almost daily from providers who
wish to upgrade their DNS if for no other reason than to avoid any more
calamity at their help desks. 

Nevertheless, electronic mail is NOT web surfing; private, confidential,
and even critical communications regarding health and welfare are conveyed
through this medium by private, governmental, and commercial parties,
There has actually come to exist in the last few years the assumpion that
email should be reliable and expected to arrive at the correct recipients
point of delivery. US government mandates that certain percentages of
government awarded contracts must be derived from bids submitted
electronically via the Internet are but one example of this.

Let's take the hypothetical situation where Verizon was granted the
authority from The FCC and CPUC to provide duplicate area codes and phone
number strings already switched by Pacific Bell. And let's say that
someone's child was gravely injured in an automobile accident one evening.
And let's just suppose that the police attempted to contact the parents of
the gravely injured minor child so that immediate consent could be granted
to save the life of that child. Suppose the phone number that the police
had on record was one of the colliding duplicates and the "other" party
was reached via phone instead of the parents of the innocent child.

Now, suppose that child dies as a result of this arbitrary administrative
approval of colliding phone numbers by the US Government and the
California Public Utilities Commission that had usurped the ability of the
law enforcement and medical community to reliably contact the childs
parents in time.

Who do you suppose the parents would sue? The US Government? The 
California Public Utilities Commision or the state of California? Verizon
for knowingly loading colliding phone number strings into the PSTN? 

I would venture to say all of them, although I'm no attorney and Judge
Wapner is about the extent of my legal training. 

Well, Mark my words. This very thing is going to occur on the Internet if
ICANN succeeds in having the US Government load a  duplicate, colliding
.BIZ TLD because The PacificRoot has made a legally binding contractual
commitment as a private sector commercial provider of network services to
ARNI, our customers, and our registrants to continue providing the quality
services that we are in the business of providing and we have no 
intentions of removing ARNI's .BIZ Top-Level domain just because the US
Government may decide to load a colliding .BIZ Top-Level domain in their
puny rootzone.

At The PacificRoot, we've sighed for and pained over the ineptitude of
this process longer than we are going to bother with. We're just about
ready  now to wash our hands and turn this problem over to the
International public community of Internet subscribers and providers to
let them hash it out directly with the US Government and ICANN.

No one has asked ICANN or the US Government to load the Top-Level Domains
managed or operated at The PacificRoot. That would be a decision
they would have to make on their own and without benefit of ANY contract
in the interest of public service. Besides,  we're doing just fine as it
is and will continue to do so even if they load colliders. The dillema is
all theirs.

Chairman Younger, this may be the last and final chance for ICANN and
the US Government to avoid fragmenting the Internet's one and only DNS 
name space, and I request and encourage you on behalf of all the
reasonable members of the ICANN General Assembly to do your utmost in
adressing this issue of collisions in the DNS name space.

I will therefore, if you think that it may help, join and participate as a
member of your proposed working group. But I have little time to bother
wiht, and even less tollerance of scheming disruptors that may wish to
participate as well. We're the real thing - The issue entity that ICANN at
it's own peril is going to have to ultimately deal with as one of
the only sources that can work cooperatively and in good faith to avoid
collisions in the DNS name space. Other parties would include ARNI and IOD
as well. This should be considered, because The PacificRoot isn't going
anywhwere and again, we're not pulling the proverbial plug on our
partners.

The only even slightly comical portion in any of this is that with the
coming of hundreds of websites where you will be able to register .BIZ
domain names, the average users WILL become confused as to which domain
space they are actually registering their domains in - the real and
original .BIZ held by ARNI, or the pretending would be imposter being
championed by ICANN - Once again I reiterate, at their own peril.

As you can tell, if neccessary, we are perfectly comfortable allowing both
to exist simultaneously, colliding and creating havoc due to ICANN's
arrogance and ignorance.

Humbly and sincerely,

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
The ONLY Root That Resolves All Roots!
Upgrade Your DNS today for FREE
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.com

On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, babybows.com wrote:

> To:  Philip Sheppard, Names Council Chair
> 
> There has been considerable discussion on the GA list regarding collisions
> in namespace.  Arguments have been put forth that the ICANN Board action to
> accept the .biz application constitutes a policy decision which may fragment
> the net irrevocably.  Without commenting on the merits of this claim, it is
> sufficient to note that domain name policy is the purview of the DNSO, and
> that "Constituencies or GA participants may propose that the NC consider
> domain name policies or recommendations."
> 
> As two principles addressed by the White Paper, stability and competition,
> have been raised in the course of this debate, and whereas the Department of
> Commerce has previously expressed concern regarding any actions which may
> lead to the possibility of consumer "confusion", I now ask that the NC
> consider the ICANN domain name policy with respect to collision with names
> in the alternate root community.
> 
> As the consequences of such NC consideration may have serious monetary
> repercussions for those directly impacted by any such consensus-based policy
> recommendation, and as such consideration may well come to also impact users
> of the Internet worldwide, I ask that a formal working group be convened to
> allow for the full and unfiltered expression of all views on this topic.
> 
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:35:20 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Collisions in Namespace

AtlanticRoot
PacificRoot
MHSC.NET
DIEBOLD
MEJAC

Do you want me to send you the root-zone?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Field [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 11:51 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Collisions in Namespace
> 
> 
> Quick question...does anyone know if there are other 
> currently operational
> alternative root servers besides the ORSC alternative root?  
> I know there
> used to be at least a few.  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
> 
- --
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: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 01:30:11 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Collisions in Namespace

Hello Roeland,

Friday, April 13, 2001, 12:35:20 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> AtlanticRoot

Are they an actual root server network, or a TLD operator?

> PacificRoot

> MHSC.NET

Running your own local/private copy of the root zones from the ORSC do
not make you a root server network, Roeland.

> DIEBOLD
> MEJAC

Aren't there just components of the ORSC root server network?

- -- 
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: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:17:18 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

At 22:49 12.04.2001 -0700, Jeff Field wrote:
>I've already stated my opinion as to the use of the term, "upgraded".  FYI,
>here's the relavant dictionary definition I found:
>
>Upgrade - "To replace (a software program) with a more recently released,
>enhanced version."

<humor>
I prefer the version I found in a dictionary written by frustrated database 
users, circa 1985:

"Upgrade - an arcane ritual in which a Database is sacrificed to the great 
god Progress....."
</humor>

- --
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: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:45:40 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Attn: GA Chairman Younger....

Dear Bradley,

first of all, thanks for taking *time* to write down
your thoughts!

> Let's take the hypothetical situation where Verizon was granted the
> authority from The FCC and CPUC to provide duplicate area codes and phone
> number strings already switched by Pacific Bell. And let's say that
> someone's child was gravely injured in an automobile accident one evening.
> And let's just suppose that the police attempted to contact the parents of
> the gravely injured minor child so that immediate consent could be granted
> to save the life of that child. Suppose the phone number that the police
> had on record was one of the colliding duplicates and the "other" party
> was reached via phone instead of the parents of the innocent child.
>
> Now, suppose that child dies as a result of this arbitrary administrative
> approval of colliding phone numbers by the US Government and the
> California Public Utilities Commission that had usurped the ability of the
> law enforcement and medical community to reliably contact the childs
> parents in time.

I'm afraid I disagree with the way the proponents of
alternative roots argue. They may argue that they need
no authority to set up an alt.root and that's just fine,
but then I find it hard to understand how they can
complain that others are not limiting themselves to
the TLDs left over by the alt.root operators. It
comes down to the question whether "being there first"
is sufficient for claiming a Top Level Domain.
From the U.S. legal point of view, it seems it isn't
(at least that is how I understand the court decisions
about TM rights in TLDs), and although I understand
that many participants in the GA are personally running
such alt.roots, I don't think they have a higher moral
right to any TLD than anybody else.
(Including ICANN, that is.)

I also don't think your phone and child story depicts the
situation adequately. The alt.root phone company would have
to be a company who e.g. finds and uses a portion of the
number space which has not been previously occupied (e.g.
all numbers between 12xxxxxx and 14xxxxxx). So does that
mean the alt.phone company gains a permanent right in this
part of the number space? Hardly.

Alternative root TLDs will lead to alternative resolution
unless there is some kind of Meta-ICANN making binding
decisions on both the ICANN/USG root and the alternative
roots. For phone companies, there is a hierarchical structure
in place: ITU recommendations, national administrations,
phone companies etc. But I fail to see a public call for
such a Meta-ICANN. If the alt.roots had as many users as
the ICANN/USG roots, they would suffer from the same
problems and attract the same actors as ICANN does today.

Best regards,
/// Alexander
- --
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: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:28:35 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Confirmation of our new Chairs

To:  Philip Sheppard, Names Council Chair

As the nominator of our new Chair and co-chair I would like to ask the NC
to give us a deadline by which transfer of authority from Roberto/Harald to
Danny/Patrick can be expected to be finalized. 

As I understand, we are still waiting for a formal recognition of the
authority of our new chairs.

This Assembly desperately needs some focus. A mechanism to handle
proposals and motions needs to be put in place.  Moderators need to be
elected (unless the Chairs themselves would take that on)
It would not be proper that our sitting Chairs take responsibility for any
of these tasks.
For the moment the NC has us in limbo.
Unless the new Chairs simply take charge.

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
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 #379
************************