Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #380
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, April 13 2001            Volume 01 : Number 380

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:54:42 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Dear Dave,
Your are right. The IANA/iCANN is by charter supposed to work with 
everyone. I am ready to work with them, they are not ready to work with me 
while they have been just created for that. This is an independent move of 
the iCANN, claiming they are an unique god in three persons.

OK, this is their cup of (independent) tea. But this removes them every 
right over me: they are just that independent. Goliath but independent.
Now, either we are in open business space and common business rules apply, 
such as first use first own, and we can live together.
Or we are in wild word space and gun/stone law applies.

You seem to think that iCANN has decided in favour of the latter. Is that 
right, David?
Jefsey

On 03:29 12/04/01, Dave Crocker said:
>The point that is missed in analyses, such as the one below, is that those 
>in other roots chose to establish those roots (namespaces) independently 
>of IANA/ICANN.  It therefore makes no sense at all to now expect 
>IANA/ICANN to "coordinate" with those independent activities.
>
>People who choose to work independently should be allowed and encouraged 
>to operate in the mode they chose:  independent.
>
>d/

- --
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 13:54:35 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] motion to the Chair

Motion
"
The current iCANN name space management policy is rising a large number of 
questions in the international internet community and related industries.

Among others:

- - the ".biz" intended DNS collision, and its politcal, business and 
technical consequences
- - the ".biz" intended market (since TLD cannot be Trade Marked) collision 
with the ".bz" ccTLD and the precedent created against ccTLD rights.
- - the ".org" reassignement and possible retroactive charter review with DN 
losses by registrants
- - the ".net" reassignment and possible charter review
- - the standardization of a TLD contract leading to a single TLD model by 
the iCANN, while the initial tarfet was to fost innovation and competition,
- - the timeschedule of these new TLDs contracts
- - the "million TLD" introduced by BoD response at the GAC Open Session in MDR
- - the press reports leading to think that the iCANN would support a "TLD 
Divide" in the name space
- - the exact situation of the root managementn, the lack of reporting on the 
SSRAC site, the lack of reporting concerning the CRADA
- - the new versions of Bind 9.1 which may lead to a new legal understanding 
of the DNS while still conforming to the RFCs
- - the lack of reaction to New.net venture
- - the confusion regarding the multinational domain names

All these questions and others which may concen the USNIC, the ccTLD 
policy, the relations with the emerging TLDs industry, etc... agregate in a 
center of interest of a real importance, both to those interested in the 
netwide stability and development and to the stakeholders in the 
TLD  industry.

Such a matter IMHO justifies a special treatment by the GA.

I therefore ask for the creation of a specialized  sub-mailing list of this 
GA by the name of "inclusive name space management" and a temporary 
Moderator to be chosen by the DNSO/GA/Chair.

"

Proposed by Jefsey Morfin,
stakeholder in the TLD Industry.

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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 14:36:58 +0200
From: Robin Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say stick to the topic

Sure, its relevant.

Where you work often has a lot to do with what you think on many topics. I know
that from experience. So do most others. 

This guy is talking about restricting the general public from having the right
to register domains, in the public interest of course. :-)  The new bogeyman is
called 'cybersquatting'. No doubt it happens, and I don't like it any more than
the next person. But a degree of speculation, I dont think we can avoid. But
using a sledgehammer on the innocent that have registered names in good faith
in the name of controlling speculators isn't the way. And that's how we ended
up with such horrid laws against cyberquatting and even the UDRP being
improperly applied at times. These were set up to deal with 'cybersquatting',
but many of us folks can attest to how these laws and rules have been
improperly applied. And Gavin says, those arent enough. He thinks we need even
MORE draconian measures to protect the public against itself.

Don't we just love altruists. 

Robin

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> 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
- --
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 15:07:11 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Attn: GA Chairman Younger....

Dear Alexander,
your honnest response calls for some information/remarks.

1. Bradley was just making a point with his example. If you want
     to use that example as a general example, it woudl be faire to
     use it in the Thomas Edisson's time context, when Telephone
     was emerging as the Internet is doing now.

2. there is an unique name space. There may be several semantics
    but the DN structure which associates the Registry (TLD),  the
    targeted site (SLD) and the hosts/application (3LD+) is unique.

    That structure was first used in 1978 for the German and Italian
    public data services to the US nets. We used then the ISO 3
    letter list and used the latin semantic (TLD first as it is named)
    without dot. The first DN registered was ITAFORDSALES and
    the second GERFORDSALES. By early 80s we intgrated the
    X121 numbering scheme in more than 40 countries (X121).
    The owner would certainly win http://sales.ford.it in an UDRP
    today.

    This name space is shared with others, hence different problems.
    The ones you know are the Phone, the Trade Marks, the EDI,
    the postal stuff. If I created a DN by your address and used it, you
    would be entitled to UDRP me. RFCs are provisionning some
    arrangements to clarify the use. Prefixes are among them:
    a phone number is a part of the name space. With http:// as
    a prefix it is a site address, with tel:// as a prefix it is a telephone
    switch board.

     GAC has said that TLD could not be trade marked, because
     (among others) it would mean that the DNs coiuld be trade
     marked twice and in diferent classes.... But IP is not TMarking.
     TM are to warranty against confusion. Name ownership comes
     from you name, your logo, your business usage.

     All this to say that the DNS is not the master of the name space.
     It is only one of its several servants. With languages, academies,
     history, WIPO, etc... And the iCANN is not the owner of the DNS,
     just one user. The USG (as the General Acountant understood it)
     is not the owner of the root (just of the a-root machine) which is
     simply the directory of the machines I use to route my calls. DNS
     improvement - according to RFCs - will soon change the legal
     vision of the system - the multi-roots as proposed a few days ago,
     the sub-root include as we develop.

3. The wording "alternative root" is totally wrong. It only describes
     a commercial operation named AlterNIC.

     There are two things:

     - the inclusive name space. Which includes (hence its name)
       all the possible names to be used on the internet.

     - the augmented root : the roots including the legacy TLDs
       (iCANN) and all the others. Probably 2000.

     What you want to refer to is the TLD industry.

     The point you defend is a  "TLD Divide" by a leader of this
      industry attempting an industry hi-jacking.

4. The name space and the TLD industries are not Far West
     where an independent large cattle owner could do what he
     wants. There is law and order there too.

     The iCANN has been set up by the USG to serve that
      industry. It independently and against its charter decided
      to run it. This has to be corrected. To everyone benefit.
      Let assume you leaved in Eastern Gemany and had to use
      only the Trabant cars. You would have been happy if they
      had some competition: event without changing your car
      maker you would have seen improvements in the car. (I
      accept that Germany has reunited and that cars are far
      better for everyone now)

     BTW why does iCANN behave as it does? Prfobably because
     the name space is shared with TMs and that Staff tries to give
     stability to TM rather than to DN owners. This is a mistake as
     they are here to represent DN owners (at he end of the day
     Joop will win and iCANN will have to take care of DN holders :-) )

Jefsey

On 11:45 13/04/01, Alexander Svensson said:

>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

- --
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 11:23:14 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] motion to the Chair

I second.

And thank you very much for joining us Mr. Bradley D. Thornton.

~k

At 01:54 PM 4/13/2001 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>Motion
>"
>The current iCANN name space management policy is rising a large number of 
>questions in the international internet community and related industries.
>
>Among others:
>
>- the ".biz" intended DNS collision, and its politcal, business and 
>technical consequences
>- the ".biz" intended market (since TLD cannot be Trade Marked) collision 
>with the ".bz" ccTLD and the precedent created against ccTLD rights.
>- the ".org" reassignement and possible retroactive charter review with DN 
>losses by registrants
>- the ".net" reassignment and possible charter review
>- the standardization of a TLD contract leading to a single TLD model by 
>the iCANN, while the initial tarfet was to fost innovation and competition,
>- the timeschedule of these new TLDs contracts
>- the "million TLD" introduced by BoD response at the GAC Open Session in MDR
>- the press reports leading to think that the iCANN would support a "TLD 
>Divide" in the name space
>- the exact situation of the root managementn, the lack of reporting on 
>the SSRAC site, the lack of reporting concerning the CRADA
>- the new versions of Bind 9.1 which may lead to a new legal understanding 
>of the DNS while still conforming to the RFCs
>- the lack of reaction to New.net venture
>- the confusion regarding the multinational domain names
>
>All these questions and others which may concen the USNIC, the ccTLD 
>policy, the relations with the emerging TLDs industry, etc... agregate in 
>a center of interest of a real importance, both to those interested in the 
>netwide stability and development and to the stakeholders in the TLD  industry.
>
>Such a matter IMHO justifies a special treatment by the GA.
>
>I therefore ask for the creation of a specialized  sub-mailing list of 
>this GA by the name of "inclusive name space management" and a temporary 
>Moderator to be chosen by the DNSO/GA/Chair.
>
>"
>
>Proposed by Jefsey Morfin,
>stakeholder in the TLD Industry.
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 09:54:51 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Critics say stick to the topic

> From: Robin Miller [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 5:37 AM

> Don't we just love altruists. 

There is no such thing as an altruist. Scratch every one and you will find a
totalitarian.

- --
Who is John Galt?
	-- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
- --
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 13:16:43 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Collisions in Namespace

on 4/12/01 11:59 PM, Dave Crocker at [email-masked] wrote:

> At 08:16 PM 4/12/2001, Joanna Lane wrote:

>> 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?

I do not wish to get into a conversation with you on this. I made a simple
observation about something which I thought was fairly obvious.
> 
> 
>>> 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!

I did not say that. Stop putting words into my mouth.
> 
> 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/

I have no idea what your request was designed to do, neither do I care very
much.

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: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:47:03 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say stick to the topic

At 05:36 AM 4/13/2001, Robin Miller wrote:
>Sure, its relevant.
>
>Where you work often has a lot to do with what you think on many topics. I 
>know
>that from experience. So do most others.

What you read, what religion you practise, what you eat, and many, many 
other things affect "what you think on many topics".  This is what is 
called a slippery slope.

The problem is that it is entirely inappropriate to question a person's 
internal considerations in these sorts of discussions.

Either their statements have merit or they do not.  Either the statements 
are compelling on their own or they are not.

- ----------
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 20:11:18 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [council] Collisions in Namespace

My support for this too.

Marc Schneiders

On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, at 23:15 [=GMT-0400], Milton Mueller wrote:

> 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
> 

- --
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 14:38:21 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New.net tactics

Many of you may be interested in learning that New.net offers an
affiliates program.  The terms of their program read as follows:

"Sell domain names ending with .shop, .chat, .club, . sport, .family,
.inc, .xxx and many more. You will get paid $5 per domain name
registration and $0.05 per plug-in download for all orders and downloads
placed by third parties through your properly tracked links. (Only
downloads that were properly installed onto a computer that has not yet
installed the plug-in will qualify for commission. The return period for
both the domain name and the download expires on the earlier of 24 hours
or the visitor clicking on another New.net affiliate link.)"

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.

- --
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 12:00:09 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Critics say stick to the topic

Hello Dave,

The concept that a person's employer shouldn't have any relevance in
looking at that person's positions in context is absolutely incorrect.

It is ENTIRELY relevant, and appropriate.

Friday, April 13, 2001, 10:47:03 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 05:36 AM 4/13/2001, Robin Miller wrote:
>>Sure, its relevant.
>>
>>Where you work often has a lot to do with what you think on many topics. I 
>>know
>>that from experience. So do most others.

> What you read, what religion you practise, what you eat, and many, many 
> other things affect "what you think on many topics".  This is what is 
> called a slippery slope.

> The problem is that it is entirely inappropriate to question a person's 
> internal considerations in these sorts of discussions.

> Either their statements have merit or they do not.  Either the statements 
> are compelling on their own or they are not.

- -- 
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 15:22:46 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Attn: GA Chairman Younger....

Alexander:

The example used by Mr. Thornton was to illustrate the technical 
prohibition of having duplicate domains.  It was not a political or 
"rights" statement, although that much would follow through.

Put simply, the WWW is not the only purpose or use of the DNS.  It 
is a latecomer to the system, actually.  Email is one other use and 
does not tolerate duplication.  Depending on what servers you point 
to, whether TLD servers or root servers or SLD servers, your mail 
will be routed via those servers.  It only knows to look up that 
name, period.  If the server can find it, the mail will route.  
Therefore, if it is not the server handling the right version of that 
domain, the mail will go to the wrong person.  No duplication of 
domains - no problems.  If the server doesn't know the name, it will 
bounce.  Simple, but no one will get the wrong mail.

As for rights in a TLD and who got there first, it is a fact of life in 
any free market.  These TLDs have been around and operational for 
many years.  They could have been included for everyone years 
ago.  Because ICANN/DoC have been reluctant to do so, we now 
have a public that is outraged and confused.  It is not because of 
the inclusive name space roots.  It is because of a small group who 
believe, wrongly, that the DNS applies only to them that we will see 
massive chaos.  New.net said that anyone has the right to register 
in any TLD.  Not true, as will be evidenced on a huge scale if DoC 
duplicates .BIZ.  

Technically there must be one registry for a TLD and if there are 
additional registrars they must be somehow tied into that registry.  
It must be handled responsibly.  A TLD does not have to originate in 
the USG root, but should be at least recongized as existing to avoid 
duplication.  ARNI has worked responsibly with the Internet and its 
users in mind at all times.  .BIZ was made a representative for all 
TLDs by ICANN's actions in duplicating it.  It is, however, just an 
example of what will come.

The email issue is just one.  Another is hostnames for servers.  
Those must be unique as well and do not service just the WWW.  
There are others issues that will be impacted by duplication.

It IS a single DNS - a single name space, and a serious issue.  If the 
GA has not shown a consensus, perhaps it is due to a lack of 
understanding of the issues.  It seems that the GA has dealt only 
with the web and needs to look at the Internet.  A working group is 
a beginning to gain understanding and develop a consensus, don't 
you think?

Leah

> 
> 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-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 21:49:51 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Collisions in RFC 1535 space

At 02:02 12.04.2001 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > 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 problem WAS very real in 1993 when RFC 1535 was issued - not as an 
exploit (it was a friendlier net back then), but as an user confusion problem.
One of the first publicly acknowleded victims was apparently the owners of 
edu.com.

A few years back (Sept 1998), the .no domain owners did a survey - sniffing 
traffic in the UNINETT backbone, looking for queries that targeted .com.no, 
.no.no and similar domains, which you would expect to see if this was still 
a problem in Norway.
The number of queries was microscopic (approximately 0.54% of the number of 
.com queries observed).

As a result, the Norwegian domain name owners dropped the blanket refusal 
to register two-character domains.

It was once a sensible thing to forbid. It does not seem to be terribly 
relevant any more.

                  Harald

- --
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 16:08:35 -0400
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Call for a Working Group

At 11:15 PM 4/12/2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:

>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.

I agree with Milton on this. The NC should create a Working Group to 
explore this. Introduction of new colliding TLDs (especially .BIZ) should 
be put on hold until this WG has a chance to explore the ramifications of 
alternate or competing roots.

Regards,

Kendall

- --
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 14:10:08 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

At 01:08 PM 4/13/2001, Kendall Dawson wrote:
>At 11:15 PM 4/12/2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>>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...
>
>I agree with Milton on this. The NC should create a Working Group to 
>explore this. Introduction of new colliding TLDs (especially .BIZ) should 
>be put on hold until this WG has a chance to explore the ramifications of 
>alternate or competing roots.

1.  This is not a new topic.  It has been around for years.  Why is it only 
being pursued this late, with new ICANN registries about to be turned on?

2.  The debate on this topic, over a period of years, has not produced an 
discernible, neither practical nor theoretical.  What is the basis for 
believing that anything other than further delay will be the result of this 
effort, now?

3.  Why should the independent actions of registration activities of 
independent namespaces be of any concern to us?

This is exactly the sort of activity that suggests an interest in endless 
debate than in providing users with new TLDs...

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 14:18:04 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

Hello Kendall,

Friday, April 13, 2001, 1:08:35 PM, Kendall Dawson wrote:

> At 11:15 PM 4/12/2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:

>>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.

> I agree with Milton on this. The NC should create a Working Group to 
> explore this. Introduction of new colliding TLDs (especially .BIZ) should 
> be put on hold until this WG has a chance to explore the ramifications of 
> alternate or competing roots.

I'd drop this request, in the interest of trying to get the work group
created at all (which alone will have its own share of obstacles).

Insisting on the stopping of .biz as part of this would put the entire
issue into the circular file.

- -- 
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 23:36:31 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New.net tactics

I just note that they do not intend to pay for DN renewal....
Do they want to make their return on the second year, or do
they expect to be under before then?
Jefsey

On 20:38 13/04/01, Sotiris said:
>Many of you may be interested in learning that New.net offers an
>affiliates program.  The terms of their program read as follows:
>
>"Sell domain names ending with .shop, .chat, .club, . sport, .family,
>.inc, .xxx and many more. You will get paid $5 per domain name
>registration and $0.05 per plug-in download for all orders and downloads
>placed by third parties through your properly tracked links. (Only
>downloads that were properly installed onto a computer that has not yet
>installed the plug-in will qualify for commission. The return period for
>both the domain name and the download expires on the earlier of 24 hours
>or the visitor clicking on another New.net affiliate link.)"
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Hermes Network, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>--
>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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #380
************************