Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #382
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, April 14 2001           Volume 01 : Number 382

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:30:09 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Call for a Working Group

Okay, hopefully, unless retired, or otherwise  financially supported,
EVERYONE is employed by someone/entity/organization, company, etc. Can we
get past this particular issue and focus on work?

I may not agree with the proposed work, but that's a different issue. But I
don't support continual "harping" on issues, rather than work.

Is there work to be done?  If so, can someone outline it?

Then, Chris, Dave, Marilyn, and many others, can engage in productive
dialogue, even if we don't agree with each other.

...given that it's a week end (even given time differences, some of it is a
week end)  maybe a brief vacation from each other is in order. 

Here, I'll start it: I'm signing off until AFTER this week end.

Enjoy your family, neighbors, friends, etc.,  net-colleagues.  I intend to
do that myself. It's Spring here in the U.S., getting to fall in other
regions, and hopefully, a week end to enjoy, where ever you are.  

regards, Marilyn 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 7:22 PM
To: Christopher Ambler
Cc: [email-masked]; [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
- --
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 17:42:15 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

> 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.

Ah yes, 5 wolves and a sheep, voting on what to have for dinner.

The wolves went hungry.

> >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?

They do when they want to call it a "Whopper," yes.

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 07:03:27 +1000
From: "Erica Roberts" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [council] Collisions in Namespace

Hi Milton,
Following th election of Patrick Corliss to the GA Alt Chair, the relevance
of this topic is clear.  However, while I tend to agree with your comment
that:
,given enough time and some clear guidance, such a group might achieve some
consensus points that could bring about a temporary ceasefire .....
the key issue is the guidance that should be provided to such a TF.
Do you have any thoughts on this?

erica

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 1:15 PM
Subject: 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: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:35:57 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] motion to the Chair

At 11:23 13/04/01 -0700, Kristy McKee wrote:
>I second.
>
I too am generally supportive of Jefsey's wish for a WG.
There are people out there who want to make money off the emerging TLD
industry. As long as the integrity of the existing DNS is not threatened,
this is legitimate and can be beneficial to end users of Domain Names.
What needs to be discussed is regulation of this industry, as it has great
potential for registrar corruption and abuse-of-power. 
As it is unlikely that the Board or the NC will initiate discussion of this
whitehot topic, it might as well be SIG volunteers from the GA in the best
bottom-up tradition.
I would suggest that the participation rules would demand a showing of
mutual respect or even outright friendliness , enforced by an elected
moderator as a condition for participation. :-)

A side benefit of creating the WG will be to get the most antagonistic
discussions off the main GA list, together with a commitment to come to a
recommendation to the DNSO. 

As there has been opposition to creating such a WG, I would like to request
the Chair (old or new) to take the main thrust of Jefsey's motion to a vote.

>And thank you very much for joining us Mr. Bradley D. Thornton.
>
I am not so sure if I am so happy with the re-appearance of Mr Thornton.
(a.k.a. .satan.god)

If  you want to show your good will, Mr Thornton, I suggest that you start
with an apology to the people (myself included) that you have insulted or
slandered here in this forum.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://www.idno.org  

- --
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 18:31:15 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

Hello Christopher,

Friday, April 13, 2001, 5:42:15 PM, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>> Does MacDonalds have to "coordinate" with Burger King before introducing a
>> new product?

> They do when they want to call it a "Whopper," yes.

But not to call it a burger.

The one is trademarkable, the other isn't.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:33:13 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

> Friday, April 13, 2001, 5:42:15 PM, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >> Does MacDonalds have to "coordinate" with Burger King before introducing a
> >> new product?
> 
> > They do when they want to call it a "Whopper," yes.
> 
> But not to call it a burger.
> 
> The one is trademarkable, the other isn't.

I think that's my point. :-)

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: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 03:30:11 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

To all.
In order to document the Chair on the number of people that would 
participate to a ML on the iCANN management  of the inclusive name space 
(the whole name space available to Internet names), I would thank those who 
would like to participate seriously to let it me know.

Seriously means not fighting a religious war or repeating the same slogans 
or pursuing the same feuds as before. But to try to fairly understand the 
real situation, the different positions, to respect everyone interest and 
to word out a real consensus both on some netiquette and on policy 
recommendations.

Thank you.
Jefsey

- --
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 18:42:14 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

Hello Christopher,

Friday, April 13, 2001, 6:33:13 PM, Christopher Ambler wrote:

>> Friday, April 13, 2001, 5:42:15 PM, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>> >> Does MacDonalds have to "coordinate" with Burger King before introducing a
>> >> new product?
>> 
>> > They do when they want to call it a "Whopper," yes.
>> 
>> But not to call it a burger.
>> 
>> The one is trademarkable, the other isn't.

> I think that's my point. :-)

Not really.

It kinda defeats your point.  Each "root server" burger chain can have
a burger line, just like root server networks can have a .com TLD
each.

Which root server burger chain you go to decides which burgers you
can buy.  Which root server network you go to decides which .com TLD
you will be resolving.

If you don't like the burgers/tlds at one root server network, you go
to another one.

The two are entirely independent.

And as long as ICANN doesn't claim to be the Open Root Server
Confederation root server network, there are no problems.

Just like McDonald's can't advertise that they are Burger King's.

It isn't important that the user gets the same kind of burger at each
chain.  They expect to get different products with different
suppliers.

A root server network is simply a supplier of services, one that
competes with other root server networks.

This is why you shouldn't use analogies like that, Chris  :)  No
matter what analogy you use it can be twisted around on you to show
the other side.  Some more so than others.

- -- 
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 18:55:37 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

At 05:16 PM 4/13/2001, Kendall Dawson wrote:
>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).

Some have participated in discussions, for awhile.  Nothing more.  In case 
you have not noticed, the delay in adding gTLDs has not be the fault of 
IANA or ICANN.  The process became increasingly politicized -- involving 
governments and their posturing representatives -- and that has forced delay.

Most of the independent folks gave up rather quickly and just decided to go 
off on their own.  That was, and is, entirely their right.  What is NOT 
their right is to come back later and claim that they are entitled to a 
special place in the IANA/ICANN root.

>They have continually met with resistance from a group of "insiders" who 
>feel that it is their right to control the root.

In these situations the typical use of the term "insiders" is to refer to 
whoever is saying no (to you), since you insist they must say yes.  The 
term does not have much more substance than that sort of sour grapes.

>Check out this archive from 1996 - 
>http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/current/date.html (you even have a post 
>on here).

And I was uninvolved in the gTLD debates until being named to the 
IAHC.  Yet the term "insider" got applied as soon as the IAHC issued its 
draft report.

>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.

The petition is for special privileges.  OF COURSE that is being 
ignored.  It SHOULD be ignored.

>  It is one excuse after another...pick one: separation of registry / 
> registrar,  finances, confusion of the public, IP and trademark, etc, etc...

None of these has been used as the basis for denying special position to 
the independent namespace administrators.

>They "clearly have been operating entirely independently" but, you cannot 
>say that they did not try.

To try does not mean that one shouts and jumps up and down for awhile, 
imitating nothing so much as a child having a tantrum, and then goes away 
claiming that they were treated unfairly.

Sorry, no.  That is only "trying" in terms of trying the patience of those 
interested in participating like adults.

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 18:58:50 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

At 05:42 PM 4/13/2001, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > 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
>
>Ah yes, 5 wolves and a sheep, voting on what to have for dinner.
>...
> > Does MacDonalds have to "coordinate" with Burger King before introducing a
> > new product?
>
>They do when they want to call it a "Whopper," yes.

gosh those were clever, Chris.  both had nothing at all to do with the 
comments being made.

what was it you were saying about distorting and diverting?

thank you.

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 19:06:14 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

> Which root server burger chain you go to decides which burgers you
> can buy.  Which root server network you go to decides which .com TLD
> you will be resolving.

.com == Big Mac
.net == Whopper
.web = Hot and Juicy

I don't care how many roots (burger chains) there are. There's only
one .com (Big Mac).

Put another way - the first company to put up a serious .com in an
alternative root will find Verisign on them in a flash.

> Just like McDonald's can't advertise that they are Burger King's.

Nor can they call their burger a Whopper.

> This is why you shouldn't use analogies like that, Chris  :)  No
> matter what analogy you use it can be twisted around on you to show
> the other side.  Some more so than others.

Funny, that.

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 19:07:24 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

> > > Does MacDonalds have to "coordinate" with Burger King before introducing a
> > > new product?
> >
> >They do when they want to call it a "Whopper," yes.
> 
> gosh those were clever, Chris.  both had nothing at all to do with the 
> comments being made.

It's not my fault if you don't understand. William seemed to get it
with ease (even if he disagrees).

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 19:18:55 -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 JandL
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 3:28 PM
> To: [email-masked]; Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Cc: [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

Whatever...I'm done arguing the difference between what you call an upgrade
and what I would think most others would call an alternative...but I will
not back down on my belief that the site is misleading, especially to anyone
that goes there that is unfamiliar with the inner workings of the Internet,
i.e. 99% (or whatever the correct figure is) of Internet users.

Some time ago in the days of InterNIC, when the only place to go register a
name was www.internic.net, a company from Australia set up a website for
domain name registration using the web address, www.internic.com.  Although
they also had a few small print/buried disclaimers, there was also copy that
would lead many to think they had arrived at the official InterNIC site to
register domain names.  I believe they charged $250 to register a name when
the same thing could be done at the real InterNIC site for $100 (that was
the fee at the time).  The only mistake they made, going to .com instead of
.net cost them $150 for each name registered.  The site was eventually shut
down...in fact, I just found the old stories over at www.news.com (for the
full stories, search on "internic.com"):

Domain reseller confuses users - July 9, 1997
Internic.com clarifies disclaimers - July 11, 1997
FTC goes after domain broker - August 21, 1997
Domain registry charged with fraud - May 1, 1998
Bogus Australian domain registry blocked - June 8, 1999

The way in which information is presented at the alternative root .biz
registration site reminds me a lot of the internic.com scam.  And with that,
I'm done debating this issue.

Regards,

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

> > 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 19:21:31 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

Hello Jefsey,

Friday, April 13, 2001, 6:30:11 PM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> To all.
> In order to document the Chair on the number of people that would 
> participate to a ML on the iCANN management  of the inclusive name space 
> (the whole name space available to Internet names), I would thank those who 
> would like to participate seriously to let it me know.

I think this should wait until we even know IF a work group will be
formed by the NC.

- -- 
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 23:16:12 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> In order to document the Chair on the number of people that would
> participate to a ML on the iCANN management  of the inclusive name space
> (the whole name space available to Internet names), ...

That's a contradiction. By definition, the "inclusive" namespace includes
ICANN's space plus others things, and ICANN cannot manage things outside
the space it manages.

Given the way DNS works, anyone can set up their own root with an "inclusive"
name space. My root might, for example, point to .cat and .dog on my own
servers, but point to ICANN-authorized servers for .com. .net, ...

This works fine provided there are no collisions. If either I try to use
.org or ICANN decides to use .dog, chaos ensues unless one of us changes
the name or scraps their root server entirely. 

Scrapping ICANN's root servers isn't worth discussing; too much depends on
them. (Scrapping ICANN might make sense, if any reasonable alternative were
visible, but even then, you'd keep the servers.) So the only solutions to
a collision are:

	change the ICANN name
	change the other name
	scrap the other root server

The "alternate root" people have tried to make a business out of building
such inclusive roots and selling space in them.

Now there's a collision. .biz exists in one of the alternate roots, but
ICANN just decided to create a .biz in its root.

( Methinks that was a bad decision. There's an obvious possible confusion
  with .bz, so I don't think ICANN should allow .biz. )

Assuming the folks running the non-ICANN .biz do not want to scrap their
servers (which might scrap their business), the available alternatives
are:

	persuade ICANN to drop .biz (not likely)
	change the non-ICANN TLD name (upsets customers)
	negotiate some sort of deal that gets their customers moved
	  into the new, authorized, .biz

I see ICANN dropping .biz as highly unlikely. It is a desirable name, they'd
almost certainly be sued by the people they just gave it to, and backing down
on the decision would make them look extremely foolish.

Methinks the people running the non-ICANN .biz should be trying to arrange
some sort of deal with the new ICANN .biz folks. The former presumably have
customers; the latter need customers. Maybe some sort of deal is possible.
- --
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 20:31:45 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

> At 05:16 PM 4/13/2001, Kendall Dawson wrote:
> >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).
> 
> Some have participated in discussions, for awhile.  Nothing more.  

Yeah, you're right. Image Online Design's mostly been vacationing
in the Bahamas these past 5 years.

And we never landed on the moon.

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 22:16:38 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

Hello Sandy,

Friday, April 13, 2001, 8:16:12 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:
> ( Methinks that was a bad decision. There's an obvious possible confusion
>   with .bz, so I don't think ICANN should allow .biz. )

It hasn't been a major issue between .co and .com, there is really
little evidence it will be for .bz and .biz.

The letter from .bz was just another "open" commercially run ccTLD
trying to slow namespace expansion, much like others did during the
workgroup C 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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:19:00 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

At 07:07 PM 4/13/2001, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > > > Does MacDonalds have to "coordinate" with Burger King before 
> introducing a
> > > > new product?
> > >
> > >They do when they want to call it a "Whopper," yes.
> >
> > gosh those were clever, Chris.  both had nothing at all to do with the
> > comments being made.
>
>It's not my fault if you don't understand.

Chris, Please read my note more carefully.

I did not say that I did not understand.

Quite the opposite.

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: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:43:15 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN Under Fire

The Name Game
By Anthony Shadid,
The Boston Globe, 9 April 2001

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/099/business/The_name_game+.shtml
ICANN, charged with clearing up the murky water of domain naming, is under fire
from every quarter.

The article includes some interesting comments from ICANN staff:

(1)    The process ''was extremely open and completely transparent,'' said
McLaughlin, ICANN's policy director.

(2)    ICANN officials say the complaints, in part, come from ''sore losers.''
The applications and process were extensively documented on the Web site, with
room for public comment, available to anyone who visited, they point out.

(3)    McLaughlin notes, too, that since ICANN took over the job, the price of
domain names has fallen - from $35 to $9 or even less - and the number of
competitors offering them has surged into the dozens.

(4)    In arguing against greater government oversight:

''It doesn't look very good for the US government to be acting, appearing to
act, in a unilateral way in regard to the Internet,'' McLaughlin said. ''They
don't like to see what appears to be a proprietary attitude by some in the
United States toward the Internet.''

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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 16:38:42 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Confusion in the Namespace

On Saturday, April 14, 2001 3:16 PM (AEST)
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

> Friday, April 13, 2001, 8:16:12 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > ( Methinks that was a bad decision. There's an obvious possible confusion
> >   with .bz, so I don't think ICANN should allow .biz. )
>
> It hasn't been a major issue between .co and .com, there is really
> little evidence it will be for .bz and .biz.
>
> The letter from .bz was just another "open" commercially run ccTLD
> trying to slow namespace expansion, much like others did during the
> workgroup C process.

I agree with your comment that there would probably not be much confusion
between .BIZ and .BZ but not for the reason you gave.

The .COM is a TLD and the .CO is a 2LD so they are not at the same level.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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 23:25:08 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

At 08:31 PM 4/13/2001, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > At 05:16 PM 4/13/2001, Kendall Dawson wrote:
> > Some have participated in discussions, for awhile.  Nothing more.
>
>Yeah, you're right. Image Online Design's mostly been vacationing
>in the Bahamas these past 5 years.

Chris, what part of the word "some" did you not understand?

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 23:35:21 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

At 08:16 PM 4/13/2001, Sandy Harris wrote:
>That's a contradiction. By definition, the "inclusive" namespace includes
>ICANN's space plus others things,

I have a chair.  You have a chair.  Is it possible to sit on a single, 
"inclusive" chair"

There is no "inclusive" namespace.

What you are suggesting is that folks who have been independently running 
their own namespace should be given power to restrict ICANN's namespace.

That's not an "inclusive" namespace, it is restrictive, by virtue of 
restricting ICANN's choices over the namespace for which it has responsibility.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #382
************************