Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #384
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, April 14 2001           Volume 01 : Number 384

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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:31:47 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
http://www.dnsga.org

The DNSGA is involved in an active approach of which the DNSO and GA cannot
pursue because of their conflicts and association with ICANN.

The DNSGA replied yesterday to Leah representing the AtlanticRoot Network, Inc.
as follows:

You are raising very interesting points concerning the alternative root
community.

However, the DNSGA was focusing on the matter of alternative root Registrars
advertising practices and their claims that describe alternative root domain
names to be the same as .com domain names. Clearly there is a difference in
that .com domain names cannot access alternative root domain names unless a
workstation computer or ISP is pointing to the alternative root. This appears
confusing to the average consumer who registers a domain name. The average
consumer understands .com, but does not understand the alternative root
domains.

The matter the DNSGA was focusing on in its comment is the United States
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jurisdiction over advertising practices and
consumer protection. It appears that the FTC can claim that the average
consumer understands .com, but not the alternative root domains. This is all
the FTC needs to engage businesses claiming that alternative root domain names
are the same as .com domain names. The FTC can claim that alternative root
domain names are not equivalent to .com domain names. The FTC is a powerful
agency with broad jurisdiction. The FTC could prevent U.S. businesses from
selling alternative root domain names to consumers.

It is important for organizations like yours to participate in explaining your
opinion regarding how the alternative root community will be compatible with
the .com root system.

So, the issue right now are the representation made to consumers regarding
alternative root domain names vs. the .com domain names. Arguments concerning
other uses of alternative root communities may come later.

If organizations like yours, and interested parties, do not participate in
forums now to explain the compatibility issues and develop solutions that can
be communicated to government, ICANN may be successful at convincing the United
States Department of Commerce ("DoC") and international Government Advisory
Committee ("GAC") representatives that ICANN policies and agreements must be
accepted or else alternative roots will create chaos and fracture the Internet.
This could be enough to convince World governments to consolidate against the
alternative root community.

Alternative root community representatives should immediately participate in
explaining their position to the industry. The DNSGA is a vehicle that can
effectively communicate to the United States Government ("USG") the significant
arguments concerning the alternative root community.

The DNSGA is scheduled to file a legal action with the DoC May 2001. The DNSGA
will address alternative root issues and other matters and we invite you to
participate in submitting your comments or opinion regarding the alternative
root community so that we can better understand this matter and the
compatibility issues and develop solutions.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:

> 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

- --
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 17:35:24 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Call for a Working Group

Marilyn,

>
>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.
>

I second.

>...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.
>

I guess spring is coming over here as well: it stopped snowing one hour ago 
:<(

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

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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 18:36:50 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

It is not clear to me what exactly the scope of this working group should 
be.

It will be interesting to discuss (once again!) about the alternate roots, 
and the relationship between ICANN and them, but I don't think that we will 
go anywhere.
Moreover, from the few posts so far, it is not clear to me whether this WG 
should address the unique vs. multiple roots, or should address the point 
raised by Kendall below:

>
>I still feel that there needs to be an officially recognition of the
>alternative roots by ICANN.

This is a different thing, and does not mean "alternative roots" but "get 
everybody in the unique root". BTW, does this include NameSpace as well?

>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.

If ICANN will become minority, that means that alternate roots are the 
majority and therefore I don't see the point in further discussing.
Browser will point to the alternate roots, and that's it, everybody happy.

But I don't see this coming in the near future.
If Congress (or Net users around the world, or whoever else) is not in love 
with ICANN, it does not mean that it is in love with the alternate roots. In 
fact, I suspect that very few Congresspersons, if any at all, has ever heard 
about alternate roots.

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

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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 18:57:07 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Confirmation of our new Chairs

Joop,

Thanks for your post.
My understanding is that the NC will have a formal vote by e-mail to ratify 
the election of Danny and Patrick, as there has been no quorum at the 
teleconference of 2001-04-10.
Incidentally, the vote of the representatives present was unanimously in 
favour.

I forward your request to the NC Chair.

>
>
>To:  Philip Sheppard, Names Council Chair
>
>As the nominator of our new Chair and co-chair I would like to ask the NC
>to give us a deadline by which transfer of authority from Roberto/Harald to
>Danny/Patrick can be expected to be finalized.
>
>As I understand, we are still waiting for a formal recognition of the
>authority of our new chairs.
>
>This Assembly desperately needs some focus. A mechanism to handle
>proposals and motions needs to be put in place.  Moderators need to be
>elected (unless the Chairs themselves would take that on)
>It would not be proper that our sitting Chairs take responsibility for any
>of these tasks.
>For the moment the NC has us in limbo.
>Unless the new Chairs simply take charge.
>
>

A vote of the GA has been taken, and the NC would have ratified the 
election, if it would have had the quorum.
I think that we can go ahead with the transition.

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

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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 19:05:10 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] vote appeal

Joanna,

>Thank you for clarifying your position, and I confirm that I did vote in 
>the
>@Large Elections. You may be confusing this:-
>
>"Can I change my endorsement?
>
>
>Yes. Simply log in again and make your new endorsement. Your prior
>endorsement will be automatically deleted."
>
>
>with this:-
>
>"Can I change my vote, after it has been submitted?
>
>
>No. A vote cannot be changed after it has been submitted. Votes are 
>recorded
>anonymously; therefore, it is not possible to change votes once they have
>been submitted."
>

You're right, I stand corrected.
I remember that this was the method for the endorsement phase, because there 
has been long discussion on the ICANN-EU list on the subject.
I thought that the same system did apply in the voting phase, but obviously 
I was wrong.

Happy Easter, to those who celebrate it, and a nice time to everybody.
Roberto

>http://members.icann.org/faq.htm#vote
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Joanna
>

_________________________________________________________________________
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

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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 19:28:38 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

Dear William,
I do not understand your point. I do not see what the NC has to do here.

- - Denny Younger as a private person proposed the NC to initiate a WG.

- - I think it is a good idea, but it should be a concerted and documented
   request. IMHO you cannot request a WG-Inclusive Name Space
   Management like that to the NC. Also the decision is by the BoD.

   I think that asking such a WG-INSM is a special and difficult task that
   the GA might assign to itself. If the GA may workout a good request to
   the BoD, it will mean that we can discuss the issue (today when you
   ask if they want to discuss y/n, ... they respond a Credo).

   To achieve such a task, I think we must remove the issue from the
   GA main list and see first if the interested people may talk together.
   We also must enlarge the subject to what is of real concern for the
   iCANN and not only to a few stakeholders creeds, concerns and
   interests. IMHO it is the only way for them not continue arguing on
   small details. (I feel there is a large vision they may build together
   that the iCANN fails to see as actually its own).

- - if that ML may make practical constructive propositions both on the
   way to positively set-up a WG and to propose an agenda, IMO we
   could then propose the BoD to create a WG.

   Then the BoD might call upon the advice of the NC before taking
   a decision.

You see the GA has shown its importance with the VRSN issue. But
it just then claimed a disagreement and published a voted position.
This lead the constituencies to move and the NC to take a position.
This was a good scheme: we did not impose the NC to take a decision.
But in that case we asked nothing. Here we want to ask something
and we have to find the best way to do it, using that experience.

This is why I think the best is to call directly on the BoD which has
to decide so the BoD to ask the agreement of the NC. If you consider
what we did in the VRSN case, this is that scheme we followed. We
did not call on the NC, we published an opposition to Staff.

This way we keep the control of our position. We do not conflict
with the NC (we have no structural relation with it: we are just some
kind of action committee). But through the decision maker (BoD) we
accept the ultimate say of the NC, so we respect the bylaws and
the NC mandate.

Jefsey

On 04:21 14/04/01, William X. Walsh said:
>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: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 19:52:38 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

Dear Patrick
I think this mails perfectly shows why we need a dedicated ML, and I
ask you to coordinate with Danny, Roberto and Harald to have it in operations
ASAP before his discussion is out of control.

1. your first action as a co-Chair is to say you publish a private position.
     it would be much clearer on a dedicated ML where you would not be
     the one to monitor the discussion.

2. you use of a "alternate root" is improper to most of the RSC and does
     not help mutual peaceful and cooperative understanding of the
     different positions. It shows that we actually need some time for the
     different stakeholder to agree upon a language and get some mutual
     understanding. This should and cannot be archived at the GA level.

3. your emphatic claim that this is a struggle to death is probably true,
     but it is not IMHO happening on .biz. It is more complex and more
     involving. It is not political but structural. That iCANN does or does 
not
     implement a .biz-bis does not change the way the Internet is built
     and the consequences of such a behavior. What I mean is that
     .biz is not really important, what is important is that a structure like
     iCANN, its Staff, its BoD, the DoC, the Hill control etc..; might have
     developed and implement a doctrine allowing them to accept a collision
     in saying "this is not my cup of tea".

Again, the issue is not to day to discuss the Inclusive Name Space
management. But the way this GA may propose (most probably through
a dedicated SIG ML) the creation of a WG-INSM.

IMHO, the more we discuss the matter on the GA, the more we delay
the creation of a special interest ML and the more we delay a decision
about the WG.

Jefsey

On 08:55 14/04/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>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

- --
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 11:17:30 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

Hello Jefsey,

Saturday, April 14, 2001, 10:28:38 AM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear William,
> I do not understand your point. I do not see what the NC has to do here.

> - Denny Younger as a private person proposed the NC to initiate a WG.

> - I think it is a good idea, but it should be a concerted and documented
>    request. IMHO you cannot request a WG-Inclusive Name Space
>    Management like that to the NC. Also the decision is by the BoD.

No, the decision to form a working group belongs to the NC.  The BoD
can direct them to create one, but the NC is the decision maker.

We are seeing a tendency to put the horse before the cart by some
members, and we have to remember that if we do not follow the form, we
will be disregarded.

- -- 
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 11:20:36 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 8:30 AM
> >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.

Yes and no, you have to understand the way the Inclusive Root system works,
currently.
It all starts with the USG root zone file, as a kernel. It is fetched from
http://rs.internic.net and then the new TLD refernces are added. These
additional TLDs can be anything an individual wants. but, the Inclusive Root
operators use a validated and filtered list of new TLD references. MHSC
starts with the ORSC root-zone, which is filtered manually by Richard
Sexton. MHSC's root zone is not strictly ORSC because we add our own private
TLDs, which are not in the ORSC list (maybe a moot point, at this time
<sigh>).

Currently, everything is "peaches" because the kernel zone file is
effectively static and all the new TLDs are being added to it. There is a
vetting process and a list of policies that govern which TLDs get added and
which ones don't. There are many TLD claimants that are NOT in the ORSC
root, nor are they in the MHSC root. Yes, this sort of places Sexton in
Postel's position WRT ORSC (for the record, MHSC uses its own "services"
files as well).

Where this becomes a problem is when ICANN deliberately adds a TLD in
conflict with one of the existing vetted Inclusive Root TLDs, like BIZ. No
longer, can we simply copy the existing kernel. According to Inclusive Root
policies, the new TLD would not qualify because it is in-conflict and
doesn't pass the FCFS bar. From a policy perspective, this opens a great big
ICANN o' wurms. One that many of us would rather leave sealed. One of the
reasons the Inclusive Root System works well is that EVERYONE agrees on the
content of the kernel. They ALL get it from the USG. Regardless of which
root-zone publisher, the kernel remains the same. 

Unlike ICANN, the Inclusive Root operators practice "First Come, First
Served" (FCFS) with almost religious zeal. Mainly, because it is a "first
principle" that almost anyone can agree on (except ICANN, of course). It is
almost the only thing that all the various root-zone operators CAN agree on.
Even the ICANN has a hard time making a case against FCFS, as a primary
policy. Instead, what ICANN does, is to define whom is "First". This is a
lot like Bill Clinton's weasel-words regarding the meaning of "is". It
barely saved his butt, however, no one was really convinced and everyone
knew what the real score was. The same applies to ICANN's use of FCFS.

What all of the above means is that, if ICANN adds the NeuStar BIZ, then the
Inclusive Root Zone operators would have to, by their own rulz, specifically
remove the NueStar entries prior to incorporating the USG root zone kernel.
Not all of them will do that reliably. This introduces entropy into the
Inclusive Root system. Unlike cryptographic randomness, entropy is NOT good
for production systems.

> 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.

You are missing a connector here. If it can be shown that adding the NeuStar
BIZ TLD will forseeably have the effect that you mention here (and that is
very difficult to dispute) then we can establish a causal relationship
between the addition of the TLD and the effect on ARNI's BIZ. Ergo, the
simple addition of the NeuStar BIZ TLD, in the DOC root zone, would
destablize ARNI's BIZ registry. Since DOC is a branch of the USG and ARNI is
a US company engaged in a lawful business, the USG would be in violation of
its own Constitution. I might point out, before anyone else does, that the
USG is already in violation of various other parts of its own Constitution
[The US has been in a continuous State of Emergency since 1952, with various
executive over-rides on parts of the US Constitution being applicable
(Korean War, Viet Nam, Cold War, War on Drugs, etc, old argument, we need
not go there)].

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

> 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?

Actually, the ICANN isn't the issue. USG/DOC/NTIA is. That the ICANN places
them in this position isn't good for ICANN. It could back-fire. IF DOC
doesn't add BIZ, regardless of the reasons, ICANN status is much reduced.
The first rule of leadership command is to NEVER give an order that
can't/won't be obeyed. If DOC does add the TLD and it results in the turmoil
that is likely to ensue, then DOC has the easy way out of disassociating
itself from the ICANN (once DOC recovers the fumble). What ICANN did, in
MDR, was a high-risk move with a very narrow margin of success, without
properly appreciating the downside risks involved. They had a glimmer,
because of WEB, but various factions succeeded in installing blinders wrt
BIZ. In the side-room discussions, everyone was aware of ARNI's BIZ. Some
arrogant idiots were even looking forward to the conflict, not realizing
what everyone loses thereby.

- -- 
IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
encouraged to seek legal advice. 
- -- 
ROELAND M.J. MEYER
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
TEL: +001 925 373 3954
FAX: +001 925 373 9781
http://www.mhsc.com
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 14:57:38 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
http://www.dnsga.org

You suggest an interesting  point in that what exactly do we call (and how do we
define) the alternative root community so any such description is not offensive to
its representatives. Can you please elaborate further on your opinion regarding
this matter.

Do you really believe that the DNSO and NC can effectively promote the alternative
root community position when this matter is contrary to ICANN's apparent mission to
control the entire DNS?  A better question may be, how can ICANN accept the
alternative root community or any DNSO or NC workgroup product regarding the
matter?

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Patrick
> I think this mails perfectly shows why we need a dedicated ML, and I
> ask you to coordinate with Danny, Roberto and Harald to have it in operations
> ASAP before his discussion is out of control.
>
> 1. your first action as a co-Chair is to say you publish a private position.
>      it would be much clearer on a dedicated ML where you would not be
>      the one to monitor the discussion.
>
> 2. you use of a "alternate root" is improper to most of the RSC and does
>      not help mutual peaceful and cooperative understanding of the
>      different positions. It shows that we actually need some time for the
>      different stakeholder to agree upon a language and get some mutual
>      understanding. This should and cannot be archived at the GA level.
>
> 3. your emphatic claim that this is a struggle to death is probably true,
>      but it is not IMHO happening on .biz. It is more complex and more
>      involving. It is not political but structural. That iCANN does or does
> not
>      implement a .biz-bis does not change the way the Internet is built
>      and the consequences of such a behavior. What I mean is that
>      .biz is not really important, what is important is that a structure like
>      iCANN, its Staff, its BoD, the DoC, the Hill control etc..; might have
>      developed and implement a doctrine allowing them to accept a collision
>      in saying "this is not my cup of tea".
>
> Again, the issue is not to day to discuss the Inclusive Name Space
> management. But the way this GA may propose (most probably through
> a dedicated SIG ML) the creation of a WG-INSM.
>
> IMHO, the more we discuss the matter on the GA, the more we delay
> the creation of a special interest ML and the more we delay a decision
> about the WG.
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 08:55 14/04/01, Patrick Corliss said:
> >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
>
> --
> 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: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 13:01:25 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman

Your organization was unknown to me until your post
yesterday. But I don't see any information on your
site regarding membership.

Would you be so kind as to provide a URL to your
membership list? If you keep that private, would you
be so kind as to simply identify how many members
you have?

By way of explanation, there have been many
organizations that have popped up over the years
with broad-sounding names, but a membership
comprised only of the founder. I'm sure you're
not in the same boat, but please humour me?

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 16:24:47 -0400 (AST)
From: John Charles Broomfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

So, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that the ICANN
action of adding their own ".biz" to their own root-zone (the one which you
guys download from rs.internic.net), actually messes up the way that you
later add to to it.

Interesting concept that you decide to use the USG authoritative as long as
it doesn't change, but if it DOES change, then you scream about it.

Of course, one must understand that the amount of individuals that this
actually affects (ie the ones that resolve through some method that actually
adds things to the generic vanilla USG/ICANN root) is rather minimal (what
was the last good count on it? less than .5% of the 'net?), and to take it a
step further, this would then only REALLY affect those people who actually
use a domain name under ".biz" which is visible through those alternative
servers. So, it's *probably* only a fraction of that .5% (who knows, maybe
100 individuals in all???). And of those that it DOES actually affect, it's
*probably* only people who were playing around on a technical basis, and not
actually on an operational basis (I defy ANYONE to show me someone that will
really be affected by the introduction of ".biz" into the USG/ICANN roots,
apart from some company selling non-ICANN .biz names and finding that it
actually sheds light on what they are REALLY doing, ie selling air).

Now, if you actually do think that there is a customer base out there who
actually uses the non-ICANN ".biz" on a daily basis, then what is your
problem with the ICANN one, as your CURRENT user base will continue to use
their old one without a hitch!

You can't have it both ways:
- -either you consider ICANN as authoritative and you decide to add to
 whatever ICANN throws at you (so continue adding to the ICANN one, and
 understand that as ICANN is authoritative, then *your* additions are flaky
 to say the least).
- -or your consider YOURSELF to be authoritative and say to hell with ICANN,
 and play in your own sandbox with whatever names you want.

Of course, you've probably realized that considering yourself authoritative
is a bit of a non-starter in each case where ICANN has its version of what
you want to add, so you know that ICANN is authoritative. Given that,
instead of bowing to ICANN (which throws your private ideas into disarray),
you try to do a 50% stand and somehow convince the rest of the world that
you are just as trustworthy as ICANN, so your own TLDs should be taken into
account etc...

However, seeing that ICANN doesn't consider you as such (and they shouldn't
really, because every morning a new set of kids discovering BIND invents
their own playground to play in, so considerinng you above the bunch somehow
gives you an unmerited privilege), that only leaves you the yell-kick-and-scream tactic.

At the base of it, there can only be ONE authoritative root-zone. You say
that the ICANN one is done without co-operation. What you mean is that YOU
didn't get to have a disproportionate amount of say in it, but there has
been a hell of a lot of political pushing & pulling (which out there is
called cooperation) to get it to the current state. Then again, there are
people who live in the USA who don't recognize the USA Government as
legitimate... (but they don't generally go ranting around trying to get the
rest of the country to believe that THEY are legitimate instead.)

Yours, John Broomfield.

> > 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.
> 
> Yes and no, you have to understand the way the Inclusive Root system works,
> currently.
> It all starts with the USG root zone file, as a kernel. It is fetched from
> http://rs.internic.net and then the new TLD refernces are added. These
> additional TLDs can be anything an individual wants. but, the Inclusive Root
> operators use a validated and filtered list of new TLD references. MHSC
> starts with the ORSC root-zone, which is filtered manually by Richard
> Sexton. MHSC's root zone is not strictly ORSC because we add our own private
> TLDs, which are not in the ORSC list (maybe a moot point, at this time
> <sigh>).
> 
> Currently, everything is "peaches" because the kernel zone file is
> effectively static and all the new TLDs are being added to it. There is a
> vetting process and a list of policies that govern which TLDs get added and
> which ones don't. There are many TLD claimants that are NOT in the ORSC
> root, nor are they in the MHSC root. Yes, this sort of places Sexton in
> Postel's position WRT ORSC (for the record, MHSC uses its own "services"
> files as well).
> 
> Where this becomes a problem is when ICANN deliberately adds a TLD in
> conflict with one of the existing vetted Inclusive Root TLDs, like BIZ. No
> longer, can we simply copy the existing kernel. According to Inclusive Root
> policies, the new TLD would not qualify because it is in-conflict and
> doesn't pass the FCFS bar. From a policy perspective, this opens a great big
> ICANN o' wurms. One that many of us would rather leave sealed. One of the
> reasons the Inclusive Root System works well is that EVERYONE agrees on the
> content of the kernel. They ALL get it from the USG. Regardless of which
> root-zone publisher, the kernel remains the same. 
> 
> Unlike ICANN, the Inclusive Root operators practice "First Come, First
> Served" (FCFS) with almost religious zeal. Mainly, because it is a "first
> principle" that almost anyone can agree on (except ICANN, of course). It is
> almost the only thing that all the various root-zone operators CAN agree on.
> Even the ICANN has a hard time making a case against FCFS, as a primary
> policy. Instead, what ICANN does, is to define whom is "First". This is a
> lot like Bill Clinton's weasel-words regarding the meaning of "is". It
> barely saved his butt, however, no one was really convinced and everyone
> knew what the real score was. The same applies to ICANN's use of FCFS.
> 
> What all of the above means is that, if ICANN adds the NeuStar BIZ, then the
> Inclusive Root Zone operators would have to, by their own rulz, specifically
> remove the NueStar entries prior to incorporating the USG root zone kernel.
> Not all of them will do that reliably. This introduces entropy into the
> Inclusive Root system. Unlike cryptographic randomness, entropy is NOT good
> for production systems.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> You are missing a connector here. If it can be shown that adding the NeuStar
> BIZ TLD will forseeably have the effect that you mention here (and that is
> very difficult to dispute) then we can establish a causal relationship
> between the addition of the TLD and the effect on ARNI's BIZ. Ergo, the
> simple addition of the NeuStar BIZ TLD, in the DOC root zone, would
> destablize ARNI's BIZ registry. Since DOC is a branch of the USG and ARNI is
> a US company engaged in a lawful business, the USG would be in violation of
> its own Constitution. I might point out, before anyone else does, that the
> USG is already in violation of various other parts of its own Constitution
> [The US has been in a continuous State of Emergency since 1952, with various
> executive over-rides on parts of the US Constitution being applicable
> (Korean War, Viet Nam, Cold War, War on Drugs, etc, old argument, we need
> not go there)].
> 
> [IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
> encouraged to seek legal advice. ]
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Actually, the ICANN isn't the issue. USG/DOC/NTIA is. That the ICANN places
> them in this position isn't good for ICANN. It could back-fire. IF DOC
> doesn't add BIZ, regardless of the reasons, ICANN status is much reduced.
> The first rule of leadership command is to NEVER give an order that
> can't/won't be obeyed. If DOC does add the TLD and it results in the turmoil
> that is likely to ensue, then DOC has the easy way out of disassociating
> itself from the ICANN (once DOC recovers the fumble). What ICANN did, in
> MDR, was a high-risk move with a very narrow margin of success, without
> properly appreciating the downside risks involved. They had a glimmer,
> because of WEB, but various factions succeeded in installing blinders wrt
> BIZ. In the side-room discussions, everyone was aware of ARNI's BIZ. Some
> arrogant idiots were even looking forward to the conflict, not realizing
> what everyone loses thereby.
> 
> -- 
> IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
> encouraged to seek legal advice. 
> -- 
> ROELAND M.J. MEYER
> Managing Director
> Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
> TEL: +001 925 373 3954
> FAX: +001 925 373 9781
> http://www.mhsc.com
> 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
> 

- --
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 #384
************************