Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #381
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, April 14 2001           Volume 01 : Number 381

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 23:52:49 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Collisions in RFC 1535 space

Thanks, Harald for confirming this with the weight of your authority and
a good live example.
This also shows that some RFCs may be quite outdated...
... as 1591 or 920.
Jefsey

On 21:49 13/04/01, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
>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

- --
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 17:47:53 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

the debate in the past has been among a small group of people, did 
not take into consideration aspects beyond the WWW and did not 
inlcude the public.  It did not go anywhere because it was almost 
totally political and not technical.  Discussions rarely took into 
account the entire Internet.  The public was not informed because 
it meant little to the average user due to ignorance of the subject 
matter.

Well, people are more savvy and the issue is about to impact 
millions of people instantly.  It is important for the GA to consider it, 
since ICANN is at the heart of the problem by advocating an ostrich-
like and isolationist stance wrt to existing TLDs.

Ignoring the issues beyond simple registrations of domain names is 
absolutely outrageous.  It may not have been seen as a major issue 
prior to this because the majority of the public has no idea what is 
about to happen.  

To continue to insist that a situation does not exist just because 
you don't want it to exist is foolhardy.  The issue is duplication in 
the DNS.  It is serious and more so now that ICANN has determined 
that it doesn't matter; that it has a separate name space and that 
duplication is just fine and dandy as long as it is not in "their root."

This is so wrong.  You just go ahead and and foster the notion that 
nothing will be amiss when email goes haywire, nameservers are a 
mess and the internet stabiltiy is affected.  

And let's not forget that it is not the "alternate roots" who are 
advocating this duplication.  It is ICANN.  I don't know of even one 
root manager who would favor deliberate duplication (except ICANN 
and new.net).  They all know the consequences of doing so and are 
working to eliminate them.  They all also know that there can be 
only one registry for a TLD to avoid duplicates.  

Delaying tactic?  We've been screaming about duplication since 
ICANN began discussing the possibility of accepting applications for 
duplicates.  The GA may not have picked up the discussion, but it 
has been there.  ICANN has simply stubbornly ignored it.  Not one 
word was mentioned at the Melbourne meetings.  It was a non issue 
to the BoD.  In MDR, Mr. Kraaijenbrink was insistent that it didn't 
matter and that it should be ignored.  

You insist that working outside the ICANN framework means just 
that and that ICANN should ignore "independents."  Fine.  Let's see 
the result.  Let DoC enter a duplicate TLD.  But let's hold them 
responsible for the results of doing so, okay?  And let's hold ICANN 
responsible for facilitating and suggesting it and not doing anything 
to cooperate in the effort to prevent it.

Do I sound frustrated?  Well I am.  It amazes me that this political 
hot potato is more important to some than the real issues.

Leah

> 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-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 15:01:53 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

It is to note that Dave is employed by NeuStar, and as such, has
a vested interest in preventing such a working group, as his
employer is a partner in the new .BIZ registry, the suggested
topic of this working group. It is my belief that such an interest
calls his arguments into question, at a minimum.

Christopher

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Kendall Dawson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 2:10 PM
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
> 

- --
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 15:22:57 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Call for a Working Group

> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 2:10 PM
> 
> 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?

We tried to "make it happen" in WG-C. That group was rat-holed.

> 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?

Because "certain parties" behave as if they had a vested interest in NOT
coming to some sort of agreement on this and keep rat-holing the
discussions. I, for one, have been trying to get this to happen for a very
long time. The straw-man for this has been around since 1998 and was posted
in WG-C.

> 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...

This sort of argument suggests a lack of willingness to come to a conclusion
on this issue, unless it is the conslusion espoused by the arguer. The
"endless debate" comes from polarized positions and a willingness to not
have any conclusions, rather than the one that would compromise theirs. IOW,
the old "my way or the highway" mentality. If I recall correctly, that's
exactly what both you and Kent got nailed on, in WG-C. The absence of both
of you, would probably allow such a WG to succeed.
- --
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 18:28:04 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Harald and Jeff,

When you "upgrade" a PC with a newer motherboard or chip, video 
card, hard drive, you have gone to a different but better system 
with more functionality and capacity.  In software there are also 
"competitive upgrades" which means using a different program 
altogether.  You can upgrade a service by going to a more inclusive 
service, such as a better equipped auto repair center with more 
techs.  You upgrade your DNS by going to a better provider or one 
that is more inclusive, or by changing to a different type of DNS 
program altogether (in Unix, perhaps djbdns).

Leah

> 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 15:58:04 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

Hello Christopher,

Friday, April 13, 2001, 3:01:53 PM, Christopher Ambler wrote:

> It is to note that Dave is employed by NeuStar, and as such, has
> a vested interest in preventing such a working group, as his
> employer is a partner in the new .BIZ registry, the suggested
> topic of this working group. It is my belief that such an interest
> calls his arguments into question, at a minimum.

And by the same token those calling for the working group have a
history of ties to the alt.root community.

Bias goes both ways, but yes, those biases should be considered when
taking comments on both side into context.

- -- 
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 15:58:00 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

William Walsh said...
> > It is to note that Dave is employed by NeuStar, and as such, has
> > a vested interest in preventing such a working group, as his
> > employer is a partner in the new .BIZ registry, the suggested
> > topic of this working group. It is my belief that such an interest
> > calls his arguments into question, at a minimum.
> 
> And by the same token those calling for the working group have a
> history of ties to the alt.root community.
> 
> Bias goes both ways, but yes, those biases should be considered when
> taking comments on both side into context.

Absolutely correct on both points.

Christopher

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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:22:07 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

At 03:01 PM 4/13/2001, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>It is to note that Dave is employed by NeuStar, and as such, has
>a vested interest in preventing such a working group, as his
>employer is a partner in the new .BIZ registry, the suggested
>topic of this working group. It is my belief that such an interest
>calls his arguments into question, at a minimum.

This is to note that Christopher is employed by a wanna-be registry and, as 
such, has a vested interested in preventing ICANN from implementing the 
decisions it has already made.

Now gosh, folks, wasn't this a productive exchange?  Let's question 
everyone's motives, everytime they post a note.  We certainly will get a 
lot done that way, won't we?

By the way, there is already one complaint against Chris' prediliction for 
raising personal concerns at every turn.  For those who are supposed to 
attend to such matters, please treat this as a second formal complaint.

d/

ps.  One small problem with Chris' analysis is that it is so convenient it 
ignores some rather important facts, such as the minor fact that I have 
been speaking against delays at implementing new TLDs for, perhaps, 4 
years, at least 3 more years than has involved Neustar.  Sigh.

- ----------
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 16:27:19 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

If pointing out vested interests is a crime, then I'm guilty.

As I've said, I embrace my biases. Dave tries to distract
from them. That's not an attack, it's an historical fact. It's
part and parcel of this discussion.

Christopher

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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:33:43 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

I look forward to a productive Working Group on this issue. I would like to
see a time line as to its starting date.

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
To: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

William Walsh said...
> > It is to note that Dave is employed by NeuStar, and as such, has
> > a vested interest in preventing such a working group, as his
> > employer is a partner in the new .BIZ registry, the suggested
> > topic of this working group. It is my belief that such an interest
> > calls his arguments into question, at a minimum.
>
> And by the same token those calling for the working group have a
> history of ties to the alt.root community.
>
> Bias goes both ways, but yes, those biases should be considered when
> taking comments on both side into context.

Absolutely correct on both points.

Christopher

- --
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 16:45:14 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

At 02:47 PM 4/13/2001, JandL wrote:
>the debate in the past has been among a small group of people, did not 
>take into consideration aspects beyond the WWW and did not inlcude the 
>public.

The debate goes back roughly 6 years.  It has been an entirely open debate 
for all of that time.  The range of people involved during that time has, 
of course, expanded, but it was never closed.  Some people have shown up 
for the discussion only recently, but that does not mean the topic was 
limited or that participation was closed.

Further, the topic has been the subject of constant media reporting, both 
industry and mass media, for at least 4 years.

The implication that we are faced with is that anyone may show up at 
anytime, re-open a topic, and thereby cause infinite delay.  This does not 
make for an effective operation, folks.

And, by the way, it was never limited to the world wide web.  If you do a 
little research about my own technical background you might appreciate why 
I find your perception slightly amusing...

>did not go anywhere because it was almost totally political and not 
>technical.

Again you simply are incorrect.  The discussion did become highly 
politicized, but it has primarily been a matter of technical concern.

That is what prompted the Internet Architecture Board to issue its 
technical summary on the matter.  Please review: RFC2826, "IAB Technical 
Comment on the Unique DNS Root".

>Discussions rarely took into account the entire Internet.

You are wrong.

>The public was not informed because it meant little to the average user 
>due to ignorance of the subject matter.

The public has been constantly "informed" for at least the last 4 years, 
though really longer.  And the public has been able to participate for all 
of that time and longer.

>To continue to insist that a situation does not exist just because you 
>don't want it to exist is foolhardy.  The issue is duplication in the DNS.

No.  The issue is duplications of domain name systems, not duplication 
within one.  The independent folks have been working out of their own, 
independent name space.  They are free to continue to do so.

>It is serious and more so now that ICANN has determined that it doesn't 
>matter;

That determination has been made more than once, and not recently.  Long 
ago the IAHC had four different lawyers sitting in the room when the 
question of .web came up, during discussions about proposed new gTLDs, and 
all were unanimous -- as was the rest of the non-lawyer IAHC -- that the 
independent .web effort had nothing at all to do with the IANA namespace 
that we were working for.

>This is so wrong.  You just go ahead and and foster the notion that
>nothing will be amiss when email goes haywire, nameservers are a
>mess and the internet stabiltiy is affected.

You are doing an excellent job of describing the reason it was, and 
remains, rather irresponsible of those independent namespace administrators 
to have misrepresented their activities.  Thank you.

>Delaying tactic?  We've been screaming about duplication since ICANN began 
>discussing the possibility of accepting applications for duplicates.  The 
>GA may not have picked up the discussion, but it has been there.

In fact not just the GA or the ICANN board has ignored it.  Almost everyone 
except a few folks -- not suprisingly most are involved in independent 
namespace administration -- have ignored it.

>You insist that working outside the ICANN framework means just that and 
>that ICANN should ignore "independents."  Fine.  Let's see the result.

Does MacDonalds have to "coordinate" with Burger King before introducing a 
new product?

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 16:28:24 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

At 03:26 PM 4/13/2001, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > 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?
>
>On the internet a lot of things are decided, discussed at the last
>moment under some healthy pressure. Remember the Verisign deal?

There was a change, initiated by Verisign, that created the urgency.

There is NO change in the presence of administrators for independent 
namespaces.  They have been with us for roughly 4 years.

> > 3.  Why should the independent actions of registration activities of
> > independent namespaces be of any concern
>
>Because of collisions?

To say that there are collisions is to say that the namespaces are not 
independent.

However, those independent operators very clearly have been operating 
entirely independently for up to 4 or more years, making assignments 
without any coordination with IANA/ICANN.

This demonstrates clearly that the namespace they work with is independent 
of the one that IANA/ICANN works with.  Hence there is no collision.

> > to us?
>
>Meaning "the ICANN community"?

yes.

> > This is exactly the sort of activity that suggests an interest in endless
> > debate than in providing users with new TLDs...
>
>This is exactly the sort of argument to refuse any discussion one is
>afraid to enter.

Sorry, but I cant't parse your sentence, so I do not know what you meant.

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 16:51:27 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

At 04:27 PM 4/13/2001, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>If pointing out vested interests is a crime, then I'm guilty.
>
>As I've said, I embrace my biases.

really?  you mean that every time you post you make a statement about your 
biases and goals?

>Dave tries to distract from them. That's not an attack, it's an historical 
>fact.

False, false and false.

I would like you to show where I have denied an affiliation that actually 
existed.

The "fact" that you seem compelled to post a note directing people to 
dismiss my comments due to a particular affiliation is nothing other than 
an attack, Chris.

That is why it is worthy of a formal complaint, given the rules of this list.

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 16:55:52 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Call for a Working Group

> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 4:22 PM

> By the way, there is already one complaint against Chris' 
> prediliction for 
> raising personal concerns at every turn.  For those who are 
> supposed to 
> attend to such matters, please treat this as a second formal 
> complaint.

There are also complaints against you... for the same behavior.
- --
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: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:50:26 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

Dear Leah,
dont worry, this is just Dave's delaying tactic. Nothing more than the
famous Vint's response: "not my cup of tea". I think that on the Hill
they start being quite frustrated as several other Govs and EU...
with this kind of attitude.

May be will we hear them screaming when a conflicting ".com" is
started.  Did he not hear about 'porn.com' project??? I would be
delighted seeing Dave in string when I call http://icann.org :-) !!!
BTW did you get some more infos in the news about it?
Jefsey

On 23:47 13/04/01, JandL said:
>the debate in the past has been among a small group of people, did
>not take into consideration aspects beyond the WWW and did not
>inlcude the public.  It did not go anywhere because it was almost
>totally political and not technical.  Discussions rarely took into
>account the entire Internet.  The public was not informed because
>it meant little to the average user due to ignorance of the subject
>matter.
>
>Well, people are more savvy and the issue is about to impact
>millions of people instantly.  It is important for the GA to consider it,
>since ICANN is at the heart of the problem by advocating an ostrich-
>like and isolationist stance wrt to existing TLDs.
>
>Ignoring the issues beyond simple registrations of domain names is
>absolutely outrageous.  It may not have been seen as a major issue
>prior to this because the majority of the public has no idea what is
>about to happen.
>
>To continue to insist that a situation does not exist just because
>you don't want it to exist is foolhardy.  The issue is duplication in
>the DNS.  It is serious and more so now that ICANN has determined
>that it doesn't matter; that it has a separate name space and that
>duplication is just fine and dandy as long as it is not in "their root."
>
>This is so wrong.  You just go ahead and and foster the notion that
>nothing will be amiss when email goes haywire, nameservers are a
>mess and the internet stabiltiy is affected.
>
>And let's not forget that it is not the "alternate roots" who are
>advocating this duplication.  It is ICANN.  I don't know of even one
>root manager who would favor deliberate duplication (except ICANN
>and new.net).  They all know the consequences of doing so and are
>working to eliminate them.  They all also know that there can be
>only one registry for a TLD to avoid duplicates.
>
>Delaying tactic?  We've been screaming about duplication since
>ICANN began discussing the possibility of accepting applications for
>duplicates.  The GA may not have picked up the discussion, but it
>has been there.  ICANN has simply stubbornly ignored it.  Not one
>word was mentioned at the Melbourne meetings.  It was a non issue
>to the BoD.  In MDR, Mr. Kraaijenbrink was insistent that it didn't
>matter and that it should be ignored.
>
>You insist that working outside the ICANN framework means just
>that and that ICANN should ignore "independents."  Fine.  Let's see
>the result.  Let DoC enter a duplicate TLD.  But let's hold them
>responsible for the results of doing so, okay?  And let's hold ICANN
>responsible for facilitating and suggesting it and not doing anything
>to cooperate in the effort to prevent it.
>
>Do I sound frustrated?  Well I am.  It amazes me that this political
>hot potato is more important to some than the real issues.
>
>Leah
>
>
> > 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-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

- --
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 20:16:21 -0400
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

At 04:28 PM 4/13/01 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>However, those independent operators very clearly have been operating 
>entirely independently for up to 4 or more years, making assignments 
>without any coordination with IANA/ICANN.
>
>This demonstrates clearly that the namespace they work with is independent 
>of the one that IANA/ICANN works with.  Hence there is no collision.

Hi Dave,

Most of those "independent operators" have tried time and time again to 
work with the system and become approved by IANA/DoC/ICANN (or whoever 
happened to be controlling the DNS at the time). They have continually met 
with resistance from a group of "insiders" who feel that it is their right 
to control the root. Check out this archive from 1996 - 
http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/current/date.html (you even have a post on 
here).

Almost every time the opportunity comes up for the "independent operators" 
to petition IANA/ICANN for "official inclusion" in the A-root they run up 
against a brick wall. It is one excuse after another...pick one: separation 
of registry / registrar,  finances, confusion of the public, IP and 
trademark, etc, etc...

They "clearly have been operating entirely independently" but, you cannot 
say that they did not try. Time and time again they have tried to get an 
answer to what the "official" procedure is for getting recognized by the 
governing-body-du-jour. The only reason that they are considered 
"independent" is because companies and organizations like NSI, VeriSign, 
WIPO, CORE and JDRP are intent on keeping them out.

I still feel that there needs to be an officially recognition of the 
alternative roots by ICANN. One day they are going to wake up and find that 
they are suddenly the minority. In case you haven't noticed: the media, 
Congress, and the Net users around the world are not particularly thrilled 
with ICANN at the moment. The only ones who seem happy are Afilias, Joe 
Sims, Louis Touton, Michael Roberts, and VeriSign.

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 17:28:20 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

Hello Dave,

Friday, April 13, 2001, 4:22:07 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> By the way, there is already one complaint against Chris' prediliction for
> raising personal concerns at every turn.  For those who are supposed to 
> attend to such matters, please treat this as a second formal complaint.

Raising issues such as your employer or companies who contract with
you is not a violation of the rules.

For someone who just recently got away with making a real personal
attack on the list, one would think you would be more sensitive to
abuses of the complaint process.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #381
************************