Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #383
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, April 14 2001           Volume 01 : Number 383

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 23:39:47 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Confusion in the Namespace

Hello Patrick,

Friday, April 13, 2001, 11:38:42 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> 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.

.co is a top level domain.

Just like .au is a top level domain.

- -- 
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: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 16:49:35 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Confusion in the Namespace

On Saturday, April 14, 2001 4:39 PM (AEST)
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: Re: Confusion in the Namespace

I wrote;

> > 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.
> 
> .co is a top level domain.
> 
> Just like .au is a top level domain.

My apologies.  I forgot about . . which country was that ?

Best 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 16:55:43 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

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

Hi Sandy

Good analysis.

> 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.

ICANN has sheltered itself from being sued through the division of functions.
They are not the ones loading .biz into the ICANN legacy root.  Cute trick !!

> 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.

You don't quite get the power play here.  If ICANN can get .biz operational they
would effectively kill off the so-called alternate roots.  Who would invest
money in setting up a TLD like .dog or .cat if they knew that ICANN could come
along at any time and just usurp it?

That's why the whole "alternative" community are united in their opposition.

What people forget is the opposite argument.  If ICANN does NOT get .biz
operational then ICANN is effectively beaten back from any alternate TLD which
has been activated.  These are becoming increasingly numerous.  It would mean
that ICANN's scope of operations would become more and more constrained over
time.

Both operators of .biz (legacy and alternate) are just pawns in a death
struggle.

It's more like the "cold war" where neither can win but neither can afford to
lose.  Of  course, like the cold war, the struggle itself might cause one or
other side to collapse internally.   If you look at it realistically, New.Net
shows that it is not easy to call who will be the winner.

As I have argued, the question is "HOW should we resolve the problem of people
setting up
colliding TLDs:

        (a)  Technical
        (b)  Competition
        (c)  Negotiation, Co-operation
        (d)  Regulation
        (e)  Other ?"

It is my view that the answer to this question will determine the future of the
internet.  It is certainly an appropriate policy reference to the General
Assembly or a Working Group.

Best 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 02:00:11 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Confusion in the Namespace

>> .co is a top level domain.
>>
>> Just like .au is a top level domain.
>
>My apologies.  I forgot about . . which country was that ?

Colombia

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 00:06:29 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

> > > 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?

The "Nothing more" part. It implies that a subset have participated
only partially, and that no extended inference may be drawn past
the limited participation. Leave out the "Nothing more," and there's
no problem with your statement, however misleading.

As stated, it's not only untrue, but insulting to the participants.

Do be more clear in the future if you want to promote substantive
progress, will you?

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 17:16:57 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

On Saturday, April 14, 2001 9:51 AM (AEST)
Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

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

C'mon, David.  You never denied any affiliation or vested inteest.

You simply refused to answer the question !!!

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

On Tuesday, December 05, 2000 4:10 AM (my local time)
Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Welcome to the List

> This is getting confusing.  Is everyone on the list now expected to
> disclose their full list of relationships?
> 
> Or just the folks that Patrick has decided have shown some sort of
> unreasonable pattern?  In support of ICANN.  What about those who have
> shown an unreasonable pattern of criticism?
> 
> "Are you now or have you ever been a member of..."  McCarthy would have
> been proud, and exactly 50 years ago.
> 
> What a lovely way to waste bandwidth and keep from discussing anything
> meaningful.
> 
> In fact, it's probably worth noting how effective all the nasty hyperbole
> against ICANN is... at ensuring that there is no room for constructive
> criticism.
> 
> 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: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 00:24:50 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

Hello Patrick,

Friday, April 13, 2001, 11:55:43 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
<snip>
> That's why the whole "alternative" community are united in their opposition.
<snip>
> It is my view that the answer to this question will determine the future of the
> internet.  It is certainly an appropriate policy reference to the General
> Assembly or a Working Group.

It's my opinion that the argument that this is a collision is the worst
possible argument the Alternative namespace community can be making.
Because as you said, it means that if they do not win, they have lost,
and the odds are stacked against them.

The alt.root people need to embrace the independence of their root
systems, and rather than see that as a bad thing, turn it into a
positive and start marketing from there.

The longer and more vocally they stick to this idea of a single
namespace and that there is such a thing as collisions, the better the
arguments for a central authority to manage the namespace, ala ICANN
since there are no reasonably suitable alternatives that have a chance
of international recognition.

The death struggle will only come about if the alt.root people insist
on it.  I think this collision play is the worst possible foot to be
putting forward at this point, especially since the alt.root position
with regard to ICANN is still as weak as it is (visibility and use
wise).  If they had a more substantial visibility than they have
currently, then maybe this collision play would stand a better chance,
but sticking to it with the weak case currently existing, is certainly
a recipe for failure.

- -- 
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: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 00:50:14 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

At 12:16 AM 4/14/2001, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>On Saturday, April 14, 2001 9:51 AM (AEST) Dave Crocker 
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> > I would like you to show where I have denied an affiliation that 
> actually existed.
>
>C'mon, David.  You never denied any affiliation or vested inteest.
>You simply refused to answer the question !!!

When you impose a requirement that everyone who participates must document 
any possible conflict of interest, or source of bias, THEN it will perhaps 
be appropriate to discuss a particular participant's affiliations.

Absent that consistent policy, it's really rather unfortunate that those 
who claim so much interest in a question are too lazy to do any work to get 
it answered through trivial means, other than creating a distraction in a 
public forum:

         <http://www.brandenburg.com/brandenwork.html#clients>

The entry has been there since the beginning of the relationship.

sigh.

d/

ps.  And, by the way, congratulations on beginning your reign in such an 
auspicious fashion.

- ----------
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 10:39:37 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Attn: GA Chairman Younger....

Dear Leah,

> 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.

Yes, I understood and agree that duplicate TLDs are
harmful. There is a range of possible ways to deal
with that to avoid the sad story of the child and
the phone -- you could even forbid alternative roots
because the possible confusion is creating grave
security problems! No, I'm not proposing that; I
just questioned the logic that if I start a TLD
registry using all possible three-letter strings or
all words in a dictionary except the ones used by
ICANN and the other alt.roots, I can practically block
the whole TLD space just because I "came first".
I don't think this would be a good decision, and
secondly there is no entity which could make such a
binding decision for both ICANN and the alt.roots
except maybe the U.S. courts.

> As for rights in a TLD and who got there first, it is a fact of life in
> any free market.
I'm afraid this is the alt.roots' weak point. There is
no first-come-first-serve rule for TLDs -- the alt.roots
have no such protection. There are various strategies
for the alt.root registries to deal with this:

 -- Try to lobby U.S. Congress, e.g. by appearing
 at hearings or creating the TLDA to emphasize the
 business aspect of alt.roots. This is what you have
 tried, but I'm not too convinced this will work out.

 -- Try to get the U.S. courts to stop ICANN or DoC. So
 far, this has not worked out, and it seems the alt.roots
 have no TM rights in 'their' TLDs.

 -- Try to get a mass market for the alternative TLDs
 and hope for the "normative power of facts". I'm not sure
 how New.net will do when there finally are new TLDs that
 don't require any plug-in or change in the settings.

 -- Try to get into the ICANN/USG root by applying
 officially, like IODesign does.

<snip>
> 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?

Learning more about technical and social effects of
TLD duplication can obviously do no harm. But in the
end, it is a policy question: Does ICANN want to
restrict itself to all the TLDs left over by the
alt.roots even though it is not legally required to?
Do the benefits of this restriction outweigh the
disadvantages? And the problem is that the answer to
this question depends largely on whether you
(a) operate an alt.root TLD or hold alt.root domains,
(b) operate or want to operate a TLD in the ICANN/
USG root. Therefore I'm rather skeptical about a
consensus on this policy question.

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

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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:47:09 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 11:35 PM
> 
> 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.

Typical, when you can't use reason you use faulty analogy to declare a
conclusion. Where is your proof? Chairs are not names. However, I can call a
chair instance anything I like.

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

Because it is an inclusive name space, they avoid existing names already.
The restriction goes both ways, quid pro quo. BTW, since you made this a
statement, I agree with it.

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

Your argument is not real coherent. But, essentially correct. ICANN cannot
infringe on an existing business. Welcome to the dark-side, Dave ...<g>.
- --
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 01:51:19 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

> As I have argued, the question is "HOW should we resolve the 
> problem of people
> setting up
> colliding TLDs:
> 
>         (a)  Technical
>         (b)  Competition
>         (c)  Negotiation, Co-operation
>         (d)  Regulation
>         (e)  Other ?"

In the US telco business, they have defined a new term "co-opetition", that
is, cooperative competition. In fact, the RBOCs are regulated into doing
that.
- --
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 02:12:48 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 11:56 PM

> > 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.
> 
> You don't quite get the power play here.  If ICANN can get 
> .biz operational they
> would effectively kill off the so-called alternate roots.  
> Who would invest
> money in setting up a TLD like .dog or .cat if they knew that 
> ICANN could come
> along at any time and just usurp it?

Two things; If NeuStar came up with a suitable offer to buy the BIZ
registry, I'm sure Karl and Leah would consider it. There is no such thing
as a business that isn't for sale. We all know what we all are, it is simply
a matter of price. Secondly, I disagree with your conclusion. BIZ is a valid
business, which may be protected by law (US Constitution, 4th Amendment).
The USG cannot, by direct action or via an agent, cause the destruction of a
lawful business. Since the DOC has final authority over the USG root zone,
entering the NeuStar BIZ would cause destruction or interferance with
AtlanticRoot BIZ and would therefore be illegal. So, bottom-line, they can't
just come along and usrup it. They can try, but that would definitely
indicate a court fight, probably with TRO's that would suspend that action.

[IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
encouraged to seek legal advice. ]

> That's why the whole "alternative" community are united in 
> their opposition.
> 
> What people forget is the opposite argument.  If ICANN does 
> NOT get .biz
> operational then ICANN is effectively beaten back from any 
> alternate TLD which
> has been activated.  These are becoming increasingly 
> numerous.  It would mean
> that ICANN's scope of operations would become more and more 
> constrained over
> time.

Possibly. However, off-shore TLDs maybe not so protected. Their defense
against this is to define a standard registry SLA.

> Both operators of .biz (legacy and alternate) are just pawns 
> in a death struggle.
>
> It's more like the "cold war" where neither can win but 
> neither can afford to
> lose.  Of  course, like the cold war, the struggle itself 
> might cause one or
> other side to collapse internally.   If you look at it 
> realistically, New.Net
> shows that it is not easy to call who will be the winner.

IMHO, it's an indicator, but may not be definitive as you think.
- --
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 03:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Sandy Harris wrote:

> 
> 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.

(Note: You mispelled "Inclusive Name Space")

Yes this is true. Vint Cerf admitted when he got grilled before congress
that their attorneys tell him that they are only responsible for their
root. "They" however, do need to co-exist cooperatively with their
neighbors including the Inclusive Roots firing up under the authority of
other soveriegn governments outside the bubble that Vint and his other
non-elected Board Members are living in. In the meantime, "Their" air is
running out in that bubble. 

> 
> 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, ...

And you might Point to The PacificRoot's authorized servers for .BIZ and
.NOMAD too ;) But authorized is not correct syntax in the sense that you
use it. What you meant to say was "AUTH" (even if you don't know that's
what you meant). One is DNS, and the other is just phraseology and
mumbo jumbo ICANN's crooked  politicians use to engage in psychological
warfare with the public through the media tool, who are just innocently
looking for a "scoop". 

ICANN can't "AUTHORIZE" - it can only recommend that the US government
illegally and unconstitutionally  load colliders. ICANN readily admits
that they have no authority to load colliders in:
http://www.icann.org/tlds/correspondence/esi-v-icann-13nov00.htm where it
is specifically stated that, "ICANN represents that it has no authority to
implement new TLDs, and that instead, it merely makes recommendations to
the Commerce Department..."

Also, http://www.PacificRoot.com/news/00121800.shtml  Which sites, "ICANN
has no inherent legal authority to make any final decisions on new TLDs.
That authority rests solely with the Department of Commerce..."

ad nauseam infinitum.... The list goes on forever....

> 
> 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.

Chaos ensues, and tickets for the show are selling like hotcakes :)
 
> 
> Scrapping ICANN's root servers isn't worth discussing; too much depends on

You're not really understanding how this works. there are "root servers"
and there are servers answering auth for TLDs. We call them TLD Servers to
make it easy to understand. ICANN names their TLD Servers
"X.GTLD-SERVERS.NET" Where "X" is replaced with a hostname. They also run
TLDs on some root servers, but that is beside the point. They don't have
to - and shouldn't. It's bad form.

So what you meant to say (even though you didn't know it) was that they
would have to "Pull the collding zone files from their TLD Servers" their
root servers really aren't needed - The only thing root servers need to
point to are the nameservers answering "AUTH" for a zone - in this case
we're talking about a TLD string. Now, we're not advocating neccessarily
that the whole world upgrade their DNS ;) That's a choice each and every
commercial provider or subscriber needs to make on their own.

After all, The Internet is owned by companies like SPRINT and
Cable&Wireless and The PacificRoot and UUnet and SWBELL. We own the cable
and the fiber and and routers, and  in it's virtual entirety the Internet 
operates via private sector companies that agree to pass traffic from each
others networks using various odd protocols through agreements contractual
implied or otherwise. 

Heck, We charge the government for access and can whimsically decide not
to provide service to them at the expiration of their contracts with us.

Right to pass subject to revocation by owner.

If you'd stop and listen to yourself for just one moment Sandy, you would
see that you are buying into a fantasy. The Internet is a commercial
operation - not a government operation. It is we, the commercial providers
of service that dictate how we will run our networks and who we will allow
to traverse them.

Can you name even one Fortune 1000 company that doesn't have it's own
Private network? {well maybe you can but you get my point} And you think
that the government is going to tell them what they are going to carry on
their network? That's unconstitutional to say the least, possibly even
mercantilism. that's why we use firewalls, and block undesireable traffic
- - at will, and on a daily basis.

> 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

You left one out one:  Load the illegal collider and watch the fun begin.

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

I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about when you say "alternative
root". You must mean the deprecated ICANN legacy system. As far as
Inclusive Roots, it just makes sense to provide resolution for all that
there is out there. It's what the users (Subscribers, to be accurate)
want, and we're giving it to them.

It's what the ISPs want, and we're giving it to them.

It's what the Hosting providers want, and we're giving it to them.

The government doesn't have to buy our service if it doesn't want to. I
spent over 3 years with the Defense Department and I can tell you they
don't pay enough or timely enough for us to bother with them or their
contracts ;) We have plenty of customers in the commercial market and it's
only going to get better if ICANN succeeds in getting a colliding .BIZ
loaded :)

That is what you NEED to worry about Sandy. Truly.

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

No, there's no collider yet in the alternate root, but they're trying to
get the DoC to load one ;)

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

Tom Guidry would agree with you on that too. But it didn't get him or his
company anywhere. In fact, His claim to .BZ seemed to be quite probably
valid, and he wanted The PacificRoot to run it. We declined though and the
government of Belize pulled out all the plugs on him and broke their
contract. I think they did the wise thing too, considering what I came to
think of the man after getting to know him, and after chatting with Randy
Bush about it.

But this country's (The United States) government isn't the government of
Belize, and we have a Constitution that protects us from scary monsters
like ICANN. And if our government lets us down, oh well, let the show
begin ;)

> 
> 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)

you sure?

> 	change the non-ICANN TLD name (upsets customers)

Excuse me? now let's not get ridiculous here Sandy :)

> 	negotiate some sort of deal that gets their customers moved
> 	  into the new, authorized, .biz

Although I can't speak for ARNI, I believe that it is their position that
they (ICANN) can move their customers over to the new, authorized .BIZ
anytime they like as long as the following two conditions are met:

1.) The name must be available

2.) They have to pay for it just the same as anyone else.

(Note: The new, authorized .BIZ is over 5 years old)

> 
> I see ICANN dropping .biz as highly unlikely. It is a desirable name, they'd

I know that people nowadays tend to think in speculative terms, but to me
it's no more desireable than .qwerty or .com. And to be completely honest
with you, I don't even have registered a single .BIZ domain. I personally
like the very first domain we ever registered in The PacificRoot's POSSR
system - "SPUTNIK.NOMAD" ;) I thought it appropriate - if you know what I
mean :) 

> almost certainly be sued by the people they just gave it to, and backing down
> on the decision would make them look extremely foolish.

Yeah they really put their back into a corner didn't they?

> 
> Methinks the people running the non-ICANN .biz should be trying to arrange
> some sort of deal with the new ICANN .biz folks. 

Although we're really too busy to take any phone calls from Dr. Cerf or
Mike Roberts, They both already know all too well that they are welcome to
load any and/or all of the TLDs supported by The PacificRoot whenever they
wish, and without benefit of contract.

I hope I've cleared up some of your misunderstandings Sandy, and if time
permits I'll be happy to assist you further anyway I can in the future.

Kindest regards,

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
The ONLY root that resolves all roots!
Upgrade your DNS for free today at:
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.com

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

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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 03:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

Geez!

Well, everyone knows that I really do refrain from paying any attention to
your payrolled nonsense,  but I'm going to clarify something for you Dave,
so read very, very, carefully ok?

On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:

> There is no "inclusive" namespace.

Then you are blind.

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

It's not ICANN's namespace. It's mine. And it's every other commercial
provider's and subscriber's. We built it. We OWN it.

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

ICANN is a pretender.

- --
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 09:35:23 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> > > I see ICANN dropping .biz as highly unlikely. ...
> 
> > > Methinks the people running the non-ICANN .biz should be
> > trying to arrange
> > > some sort of deal with the new ICANN .biz folks. ...
> >
> > You don't quite get the power play here.

Arguably, they're not trying for new power, just using what they've
always had.

> >  If ICANN can get .biz operational they
> > would effectively kill off the so-called alternate roots.

Yes.

> > Who would invest
> > money in setting up a TLD like .dog or .cat if they knew that
> > ICANN could come
> > along at any time and just usurp it?

People did, and they knew ICANN could create a conflicting domain.
Everyone has known from the beginning that ICANN could create .biz,
.web, or whatever in its root.
 
> Two things; If NeuStar came up with a suitable offer to buy the BIZ
> registry, I'm sure Karl and Leah would consider it. There is no such thing
> as a business that isn't for sale. We all know what we all are, it is simply
> a matter of price.

Or negotiate some sort of deal that moves the customers from their
.biz to the new .biz. Assuming the new .biz actually happens (which
I'd say is the way to bet) this is obviously in the interests of both
the new registry and the customers. For Neustar, it sucks, but it may
be the best option.

> Secondly, I disagree with your conclusion. BIZ is a valid
> business, which may be protected by law (US Constitution, 4th Amendment).
> The USG cannot, by direct action or via an agent, cause the destruction of a
> lawful business. Since the DOC has final authority over the USG root zone,
> entering the NeuStar BIZ would cause destruction or interferance with
> AtlanticRoot BIZ and would therefore be illegal. So, bottom-line, they can't
> just come along and usrup it. They can try, but that would definitely
> indicate a court fight, probably with TRO's that would suspend that action.

The counter-argument is pretty obvious.
 
> [IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
> encouraged to seek legal advice. ]

Me neither.
 
> > That's why the whole "alternative" community are united in
> > their opposition.
> >
> > What people forget is the opposite argument.  If ICANN does
> > NOT get .biz
> > operational then ICANN is effectively beaten back from any
> > alternate TLD which
> > has been activated.  These are becoming increasingly
> > numerous.  It would mean
> > that ICANN's scope of operations would become more and more
> > constrained over
> > time.
> 
> Possibly. However, off-shore TLDs maybe not so protected. Their defense
> against this is to define a standard registry SLA.
> 
> > Both operators of .biz (legacy and alternate) are just pawns
> > in a death struggle.
> >
> > It's more like the "cold war" where neither can win but
> > neither can afford to
> > lose.  Of  course, like the cold war, the struggle itself
> > might cause one or
> > other side to collapse internally.   If you look at it
> > realistically, New.Net
> > shows that it is not easy to call who will be the winner.
> 
> IMHO, it's an indicator, but may not be definitive as you think.
- --
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 17:30:12 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

Roeland, Patrick,

>From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
> > From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > You don't quite get the power play here.  If ICANN can get
> > .biz operational they
> > would effectively kill off the so-called alternate roots.

It will all depend on where people will register.
Are you assuming that the vast majority will register with the TLD in the 
"legacy" system? Interesting assumption!
If, OTOH, people will stay with the "alternate" system, I don't see why the 
alternate roots will be killed.

>
>Two things; If NeuStar came up with a suitable offer to buy the BIZ
>registry, I'm sure Karl and Leah would consider it. There is no such thing
>as a business that isn't for sale. We all know what we all are, it is 
>simply
>a matter of price. Secondly, I disagree with your conclusion. BIZ is a 
>valid
>business, which may be protected by law (US Constitution, 4th Amendment).
>The USG cannot, by direct action or via an agent, cause the destruction of 
>a
>lawful business. Since the DOC has final authority over the USG root zone,
>entering the NeuStar BIZ would cause destruction or interferance with
>AtlanticRoot BIZ and would therefore be illegal. So, bottom-line, they 
>can't
>just come along and usrup it. They can try, but that would definitely
>indicate a court fight, probably with TRO's that would suspend that action.

I don't understand this.
How does the Neustar/ICANN .biz change the situation for users/ISPs who 
chose to "enhance" their settings and point to the alternate roots? Those 
people will continue seeing the AtlanticRoot .biz, and would not even know 
that USG has added .biz.
The decision would not "destroy" the business: the business will collapse if 
registrants will massively register in ICANN's .biz and not in AR's .biz, 
while it will stay healthy if things happen the other way around.
It is true that USG should not destroy a business, but should also not be 
obliged to rescue a business that goes belly up due to competition.

If you want to argue that this is a bully attitude from ICANN, that may be 
true, but OTOH there has been no bid by AR for .biz (contrary to IOD's bet 
for .web), so I don't see what could ICANN have done. Reserve it for future 
use, maybe?

>
>[IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
>encouraged to seek legal advice. ]

Maybe the disclaimer is a good idea. I would assume that the whole thing 
will end up in court, like just about everything in your part of the world 
;>)

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #383
************************