Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #385
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, April 15 2001            Volume 01 : Number 385

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

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 06:17:49 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind

http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=93&mode=thread&order=0

See in particular Jon Weinberg's reference to Paul Vixie and RFC 2826.

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 16:57:07 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: confusing....

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

Thank you for your comment.  You have raised a productive suggestion
regarding the posturing of our communication and development of our
position regarding the alternative root community.

The DNSGA is not focusing on the alternative root domain names that are
accessible via the legacy root system (.edu, ccTLDs, etc.).  The DNSGA
is focusing on alternative root domain names that are not accessible via
the legacy root system.

.edu, ccTLDs and others are accessible via the legacy root system and
this appears to be what the average consumer expects when registering a
domain name.

The DNSGA position in not U.S. centric, however, it is difficult to
dispute the legitimacy and weight of the legacy root system as far as
what average consumers has learned to expect from the Internet.  The
DNSGA is requesting information regarding this matter so that its
position accurately reflects the industry position.

The concern the DNSGA is raising is that ICANN appears to be using the
alternative root community as leverage against the DOC, ccTLD and GAC
representatives, persuading them to accept ICANN policies and
agreements.  This may cause the DOC, ccTLD and GAC to consolidate
efforts to stop the promotion and sales of alternative root domain names
that are not generally accessible via the legacy root system.
Enforcement may come through government consumer protection agencies,
such as the FTC, if ICANN is successful with its DOC review in September
2001.

The DNSGA has until May 2001 to file its legal actions against ICANN,
which may give the USG a different perspective than the ICANN
perspective regarding the alternative root community.  Or else, the DOC
may approve ICANN policy and ICANN agreement proposals.  DOC approval of
ICANN policy and ICANN agreement proposals could give consumer
protection agencies the enforcement teeth they seek to stop the
promotion and sales of alternative root domain names that are not
generally accessible via the legacy root system.

The DNSGA, the alternative root community and interested parties do not
have much time to properly set forth positions to off set the ICANN
claims and the ICANN hysteria regarding the possible fracture of the
Internet by the alternative root community.

The DNSGA is requesting assistance from the alternative root community
so that the DNSGA can properly and effectively communicate to the USG
the industry position of the alternative root community.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

- --
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 14:13:56 -0700
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

All this McDonalds/Burger King food talk got me thinking (a sometimes
dangerous thing)...

Today you have the ICANN root (McDonalds), the PacificRoot root (Burger
King), and perhaps some other roots (Wendys, Jack In The Box, etc....but
let's keep this simple).  Well, if I'm McDonalds, I don't sell Burger King
food (unless I want to and have an agreement with Burger King that allows me
to do so).  And, if I'm Burger King, I don't sell McDonalds food (unless I
want to and have an agreement with McDonalds that allows me to do so).  On
that, I think we can all agree.

Applying the above well-accepted business practice to the ICANN root vs.
alternative root situation, and the idea that the roots are for all intents
and purposes in competition with each other...

It would seem to me that PacificRoot has no right to include in their root
the gTLDs (.com, .net, .org, etc.) or the ccTLDs (.uk, .au, .fr, etc.) that
are contained in the ICANN root (hopefully, we can all agree that those TLDs
were in the ICANN root first).  By the same logic, the ICANN root also has
no right to include in their root the TLD's (.web, .biz, .scuba, etc.) that
are contained in PacificRoot's root (hopefully, we can all agree that those
TLDs were in PacificRoot's root first).

If we can all agree on the statements above, then it would seem to me that
the answer to the ICANN root vs. alternative root situation might be
relatively simple...

ICANN should request that PacificRoot immediately remove all ICANN TLDs from
their systems.  If PacificRoot refuses to do so, ICANN should pursue all
legal means to accomplish this goal (it's definitely a fair competition
issue, after all, they're trying to drive traffic to their system and away
from ICANN's system).  By the same token, ICANN should agree not to include
in the ICANN root all the TLDs currently in PacificRoot's root (yes, that
means giving up .biz...I'll deal with that below).

Obviously, the practical effect of all this is that traffic to PacificRoot's
root would dwindle to a trickle and the commercial value of .biz and .web
and the other TLDs being in their root would quickly go to nil.  At that
point, the .web and .biz registries (and the others) would have to make a
decision; either stay with PacificRoot's root or try to get into ICANN's
root.  If they want to stay in PacificRoot's root, fine.  If they want to
get into ICANN's root, fine again...all they have to do is apply and be
accepted.  Simple solution, huh?  But wait...

I know, I know...I left out one little detail.  What to do with Melbourne IT
and the fact that ICANN already awarded them .biz?  Well, assuming you could
make all the above happen, I have to believe that both the .web and .biz
registries would take a hard look at their business models and conclude that
the ICANN root would be the only place to be.  Otherwise, having the rights
to register .web and .biz domain names would be worth roughly zip.  And, if
I were either, I would jump at the chance to cut a deal with Melbourne IT to
get in on this first round of new TLDs.  And, if I were Melbourne IT, I just
might jump at the chance to replace .biz with .web.  So, the solution to
this problem just might be to...

Get ICANN, Melbourne IT, Christopher Ambler (.web), and Leah Gallegos (.biz)
all in the same vicinity and let them play, "Let's Make A Deal"!  The
dynamics might be:

- - .web might see value in being included in the first round of new TLDs and
want to cut a deal with Melbourne IT
- - .biz might see value in being included in the first round of new TLDs and
want to cut a deal with Melbourne IT
- - .web and .biz might compete with each other to cut a deal with Melbourne
IT
- - ICANN just wants to put this whole problem to bed with any kind of
reasonable solution

As a carrot to get a deal done, ICANN might/should consider making a rule
for all future registry applications along the following lines, "the entity
making application may not currently be operational in any other root system
nor lay claim to any previously held or believed to be previously held IP
(Intellectual Property) rights for the particular TLD for which it is
applying".  IOW, the entity making a future application would be on equal
footing with any other entity which submits an application for the same TLD.
So, .web and .biz could stay in PacificRoot's root and never go anywhere or
take the chance on a future application with ICANN...but not before they
gave up their previous claims to the TLD and stood on equal footing with any
other entity that wants the same TLD.  So, if I were Christopher or Leah, I
think I'd want to cut a deal this time around.

Anyway, I'm sure there can be some tweaking; I don't have all the
answers...but just thought I'd send this along as "food for thought".

Regards,

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Christopher Ambler
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 7:06 PM
> To: William X. Walsh
> Cc: [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
>
>

- --
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 14:39:39 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: confusing....

At 04:57 PM 4/14/2001, Derek Conant wrote:
>This may cause the DOC, ccTLD and GAC to consolidate
>efforts to stop the promotion and sales of alternative root domain names
>that are not generally accessible via the legacy root system.

There are no such efforts.  Feel free to provide documentation that 
substantiates your claim.

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 17:48:41 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind

- --------------A3FE5AE681C629F5C0BACBE7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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

It is nice to see new or emerging products and services that work toward
solving the technical aspects related to the alternative root
controversy.  However, how can this technology solve the consumer
confusion questions when say 40 different alternative roots represent a
similar altTLD extension?  How can the confusion problem be productively
managed and consumers protected against chaos?

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=93&mode=thread&order=0
>
> See in particular Jon Weinberg's reference to Paul Vixie and RFC 2826.
>
> 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

- --------------A3FE5AE681C629F5C0BACBE7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnsga.org">http://www.dnsga.org</A>
<p>It is nice to see new or emerging products and services that work toward
solving the technical aspects related to the alternative root controversy.&nbsp;
However, how can this technology solve the consumer confusion questions
when say 40 different alternative roots represent a similar altTLD extension?&nbsp;
How can the confusion problem be productively managed and consumers protected
against chaos?&nbsp;&nbsp;
<p>Derek Conant
<br>DNSGA President and Chairman
<p>Patrick Corliss wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><a href="http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=93&mode=thread&order=0">http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=93&amp;mode=thread&amp;order=0</a>
<p>See in particular Jon Weinberg's reference to Paul Vixie and RFC 2826.
<p>Regards
<br>Patrick Corliss
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>
</html>

- --------------A3FE5AE681C629F5C0BACBE7--

- --
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 18:12:16 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: confusing....

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

Are sure that there are no such efforts?  If you have information that shows
that there are no such efforts, then please direct us to that information.

We believe that there are such efforts and this can be partly shown by
ICANN's accelerated approach and urgency in its contract negotiations with
ccTLD and GAC representatives that request them to enter into policy and
cooperative agreements with ICANN.

Other information regarding the matter is too complicated to list at this
time.  However, we are currently working on setting forth our opinion
regarding the matter on our Web site for public comment and for our filings.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 04:57 PM 4/14/2001, Derek Conant wrote:
> >This may cause the DOC, ccTLD and GAC to consolidate
> >efforts to stop the promotion and sales of alternative root domain names
> >that are not generally accessible via the legacy root system.
>
> There are no such efforts.  Feel free to provide documentation that
> substantiates your claim.
>
> 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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 08:18:37 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Call for a Working Group

Hi Jeff

Nice try but worthless.  I won't explain why, somebody else will do that.

I just wish you and Derek Conant would clarify these issues offlist first.
Then you might understand the dynamics of the situation !!

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Field <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: Christopher Ambler <[email-masked]>; William X. Walsh
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 7:13 AM
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

> All this McDonalds/Burger King food talk got me thinking (a sometimes
> dangerous thing)...
>
> Today you have the ICANN root (McDonalds), the PacificRoot root (Burger
> King), and perhaps some other roots (Wendys, Jack In The Box, etc....but
> let's keep this simple).  Well, if I'm McDonalds, I don't sell Burger King
> food (unless I want to and have an agreement with Burger King that allows me
> to do so).  And, if I'm Burger King, I don't sell McDonalds food (unless I
> want to and have an agreement with McDonalds that allows me to do so).  On
> that, I think we can all agree.
>
> Applying the above well-accepted business practice to the ICANN root vs.
> alternative root situation, and the idea that the roots are for all intents
> and purposes in competition with each other...
>
> It would seem to me that PacificRoot has no right to include in their root
> the gTLDs (.com, .net, .org, etc.) or the ccTLDs (.uk, .au, .fr, etc.) that
> are contained in the ICANN root (hopefully, we can all agree that those TLDs
> were in the ICANN root first).  By the same logic, the ICANN root also has
> no right to include in their root the TLD's (.web, .biz, .scuba, etc.) that
> are contained in PacificRoot's root (hopefully, we can all agree that those
> TLDs were in PacificRoot's root first).
>
> If we can all agree on the statements above, then it would seem to me that
> the answer to the ICANN root vs. alternative root situation might be
> relatively simple...
>
> ICANN should request that PacificRoot immediately remove all ICANN TLDs from
> their systems.  If PacificRoot refuses to do so, ICANN should pursue all
> legal means to accomplish this goal (it's definitely a fair competition
> issue, after all, they're trying to drive traffic to their system and away
> from ICANN's system).  By the same token, ICANN should agree not to include
> in the ICANN root all the TLDs currently in PacificRoot's root (yes, that
> means giving up .biz...I'll deal with that below).
>
> Obviously, the practical effect of all this is that traffic to PacificRoot's
> root would dwindle to a trickle and the commercial value of .biz and .web
> and the other TLDs being in their root would quickly go to nil.  At that
> point, the .web and .biz registries (and the others) would have to make a
> decision; either stay with PacificRoot's root or try to get into ICANN's
> root.  If they want to stay in PacificRoot's root, fine.  If they want to
> get into ICANN's root, fine again...all they have to do is apply and be
> accepted.  Simple solution, huh?  But wait...
>
> I know, I know...I left out one little detail.  What to do with Melbourne IT
> and the fact that ICANN already awarded them .biz?  Well, assuming you could
> make all the above happen, I have to believe that both the .web and .biz
> registries would take a hard look at their business models and conclude that
> the ICANN root would be the only place to be.  Otherwise, having the rights
> to register .web and .biz domain names would be worth roughly zip.  And, if
> I were either, I would jump at the chance to cut a deal with Melbourne IT to
> get in on this first round of new TLDs.  And, if I were Melbourne IT, I just
> might jump at the chance to replace .biz with .web.  So, the solution to
> this problem just might be to...
>
> Get ICANN, Melbourne IT, Christopher Ambler (.web), and Leah Gallegos (.biz)
> all in the same vicinity and let them play, "Let's Make A Deal"!  The
> dynamics might be:
>
> - .web might see value in being included in the first round of new TLDs and
> want to cut a deal with Melbourne IT
> - .biz might see value in being included in the first round of new TLDs and
> want to cut a deal with Melbourne IT
> - .web and .biz might compete with each other to cut a deal with Melbourne
> IT
> - ICANN just wants to put this whole problem to bed with any kind of
> reasonable solution
>
> As a carrot to get a deal done, ICANN might/should consider making a rule
> for all future registry applications along the following lines, "the entity
> making application may not currently be operational in any other root system
> nor lay claim to any previously held or believed to be previously held IP
> (Intellectual Property) rights for the particular TLD for which it is
> applying".  IOW, the entity making a future application would be on equal
> footing with any other entity which submits an application for the same TLD.
> So, .web and .biz could stay in PacificRoot's root and never go anywhere or
> take the chance on a future application with ICANN...but not before they
> gave up their previous claims to the TLD and stood on equal footing with any
> other entity that wants the same TLD.  So, if I were Christopher or Leah, I
> think I'd want to cut a deal this time around.
>
> Anyway, I'm sure there can be some tweaking; I don't have all the
> answers...but just thought I'd send this along as "food for thought".
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff
> --
> jeff field
> 925-283-4083
> [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 15:17:36 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: confusing....

At 06:12 PM 4/14/2001, Derek Conant wrote:

>Are sure that there are no such efforts?  If you have information that shows
>that there are no such efforts, then please direct us to that information.

Wrong game to play.  It's called proving the negative.  (Prove that you are 
not beating your mother or spouse or children...  Their testimony obviously 
is not to be trusted since they live in fear of your beatings.)

You made an affirmative claim that an effort existed.  Please provide 
substantiation.

>We believe that there are such efforts and this can be partly shown by
>ICANN's accelerated approach and urgency in its contract negotiations with
>ccTLD and GAC representatives that request them to enter into policy and
>cooperative agreements with ICANN.

accelerated approach?  1) doesn't look like accelerated, and 2) there are 
many reasons for accelerating an effort.  You can't seriously be claiming a 
particularly explanation, without other substantiation.

>Other information regarding the matter is too complicated to list at this

Ahh.  Now that's not even an original dodge.  Try again.

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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 09:15:27 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Non-Disclosure of Vested Interests

> 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 !!!

On Saturday, April 14, 2001 5:50 PM (AEST), Dave Crocker wrote:

> 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.

Hi David

That'd fine.  As I said at the time, if you don't want to disclose, or deny,
that
you are a hired gun that's fine by me.  I just wouldn't expect members of this
list to treat your PR motivated statements with much gravity or respect.

However, I do believe that the US may be particularly weak in relation to
disclosing "conflicts of interest".  In fairness, such conflicts should not only
be disclosed during the debate but the person concerned should excuse
themselves from that debate.

That is why you see directors and other officials going outside of the room
while an issue affecting them, such as their salary, or terms of emplyment, is
discussed.

Let's say you were the executive officer of an advertising agency with an
account, say a bank, which invited you to be on the Board.  Would you expect to
sit in the Board room whilst a renewal of that contract was being discussed?  Or
to put your view point during the debate leading up to the decision?

I'd suggest that the other directors would want you out of the room so they
could speak freely in your absence.  As that's not the case here in the General
Assembly, then we do need to think about some rules for you, and everybody else,
to follow.

> 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.

I didn't know we had a relationship, David.  In fact I deny that we have one
except that I wrote the following:

On Tuesday, December 05, 2000 2:44 AM (AEST)
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ardent Admirers of ICANN

> So the question must be asked.  Why no simple denial?
<snip>
> If not paid by ICANN, the following statement would be quite appropriate:
>
>       The views that I express are independently formed without
>       bias or conflict of interest.  I do not receive any form of benefit
>       from ICANN or any related organisation whether in the form of
>       salary, fees, gifts or expenses.  Any suggestion to a contrary
>       effect is, and always has been, quite false.
>
> That would at least clear the air just a little.

According to your sorce code, the site was last updated in October.  I asked my
question about your conflict of interests, on NetSol's 'Domain Policy, in early
December 2000.  I'm not sure when I joined that list but I can trace my postings
back to early May 2000.  I've been actively involved since January 2000.

Now I can assert, without proof, that I checked your website before October last
year.  In fact I can say with some certainty that your present site -- which
includes limited disclosure -- is an improvement.

I can also say that it is not up to each one of 200 or so members of this forum
to have to dig around the websites of each of the rest of the 200 or so members
of this forum (that's if they even have a website) searching for possible
disclosures of conflicts of interest.

Even if I had  done that between May and October, which I assert, how often
should I repeat the exercise just to see if their have been any changes in a
website that you might not have even got.

> sigh.

Exactly.

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

I wouldn't expect any goodwill from you, David.

- --
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 09:37:43 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List decorum

On Saturday, April 07, 2001 7:27 AM (AEST)
Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] List decorum

> However it is, I believe, a simple and direct implication:  Someone
> asserted on the list that I am a paid agent provococateur.  There is no
> substance to that claim, because it is entirely false; in fact it is silly.
>
> False and malicious.  That is slander.

I am very reluctant to pick up on this thread but I believe you opened this
particular can of worms when you challenged DPF's harmless comment as follows:

On Tuesday, April 03, 2001 5:01 AM (AEST)
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

> And then we have your citing the tiny number of people who go to ICANN
> meetings "with absolutely no vested interests".  It might be interesting to
> discover who these people are, since there are so few people at the
> meetings, and therefore almost no one likely to be there with no vested
> interest.

I have read and re-read this paragraph many times and can see your intention was
to suggest that the ICANN meetings are empty.  As an aside, this was not my
experience in Melbourne and led either you or Kent to complain about their
childish behaviour.

As a master of this form of debate, your writing cannot be faulted.   However,
the complexity of your construction "almost no one likely to be there with no
vested interest" makes it look as if you are saying those who do attend such
meetings have a vested interest in the outcome.

In fact, it is almost certainly true that attendees DO have an interest in the
outcome.  Hence the childish outbursts complained about (because they were
concerned at the expected outcome).

This almost inevitably raises the question of conflict of interest and I am glad
to see you deny that you are a "paid agent provocateur".  Of course as a master
of the language, you will know that there are two implications (1) that you are
paid and (2) that you are an agent provocateur.

Your denial only applies to the conjunction of those two statements.

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 19:01:45 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Sorry - wong answer

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0485_01C0C515.59C98CE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[THE FOLLOWING IS MY OWN OPINION AND NOT THAT OF ANY ORGANIZATION]

Jeff has posed an interesting idea, but as for ADNS, we will not make =
deals with ICANN that
depreciates the right to our business products.

The only thing we want to hear from ICANN is either "We will recommend =
to DoC that they include the glue for EARTH, LION, USA and Z as directed =
by ADNS with no strings attached (ie: We wont have to shove the facist =
UDRP on our customers) into a.root-servers.net" or if that is too much =
for them, they can say "We will not  recommend to DoC any TLD that is =
already a business product of another company". (Such as .BIZ, etc).

John

- ------=_NextPart_000_0485_01C0C515.59C98CE0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3103.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>[THE FOLLOWING IS MY OWN OPINION AND =
NOT THAT OF=20
ANY ORGANIZATION]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Jeff has posed an interesting idea, but =
as for=20
ADNS, we will not make deals with ICANN that</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>depreciates the right to our business=20
products.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The only thing we want to hear from =
ICANN=20
is&nbsp;either "We will recommend to DoC that they include the =
</FONT><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>glue for EARTH, LION, USA and Z as directed by =
ADNS with no=20
strings attached (ie: We wont have to </FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>shove the=20
facist UDRP on our customers) into a.root-servers.net" or if that is too =
much=20
for them, they can say "We will not&nbsp; rec</FONT><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>ommend to DoC any TLD that is already a business product of =
another=20
company". (Such as .BIZ, etc).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>John</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0485_01C0C515.59C98CE0--

- --
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 17:30:36 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

> And, if
> I were either, I would jump at the chance to cut a deal with Melbourne IT to
> get in on this first round of new TLDs.  And, if I were Melbourne IT, I just
> might jump at the chance to replace .biz with .web.  So, the solution to
> this problem just might be to...

You get someone from ICANN to state, on the record, that they would
accept such a deal, and I'll eat my hat.

> As a carrot to get a deal done, ICANN might/should consider making a rule
> for all future registry applications along the following lines, "the entity
> making application may not currently be operational in any other root system
> nor lay claim to any previously held or believed to be previously held IP
> (Intellectual Property) rights for the particular TLD for which it is
> applying"

There goes. ATT and .MCI and .AOL and .IBM and .MSN and...

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 17:40:15 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

Hello Christopher,

Saturday, April 14, 2001, 1:01:25 PM, Christopher Ambler wrote:

>> 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?

Another ICIIU?  :)

- -- 
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:42:44 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] List decorum

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From:On Behalf Of Patrick Corliss
|> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 9:38 AM
|> To: Dave Crocker
|> Cc: [GA]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] List decorum
|>
|>
|> On Saturday, April 07, 2001 7:27 AM (AEST)
|> Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
|> Subject: Re: [ga] List decorum
|>
|> > However it is, I believe, a simple and direct implication:
Someone
|> > asserted on the list that I am a paid agent provococateur.  There
is no
|> > substance to that claim, because it is entirely false; in fact it
is silly.
|> >
|> > False and malicious.  That is slander.
|>
|> I am very reluctant to pick up on this thread but I believe you
opened this
|> particular can of worms when you challenged DPF's harmless comment
as follows:

Interesting such content should be under the subject "List decorum".
Perhaps "Declining List Decorum" would be more appropriate?

The GA is an open list with no restrictions on participation.  It is
improper to single out any one or small number of participants in this
manner.  If there are questions with regards to conflict of interests,
the condition of declaring such would need to be applied to all.  That
approach is not supported under the rules of operation for the GA.

The making of unsubstantated accusations should also be a matter of
concern and something that should not be tolerated, against anyone.

If there are conflicts of interest etc, the posting contents will show
how the participant regards an issue.  Being directly involved doesn't
renege the contribution but enhances it.  Surely we are all savvy
enough to work out what contributions are of value and what can be
discarded.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch

PS... Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am not affiliated with
any of the persons involved in these issues and to the best of my
knowledge, I have no conflicts of interest with the topics under
discussion.  Except that I am a domain name registrant and hold a
number of .org, .net and .com domain names.  As this makes me directly
involved in a large number of the topics under discussion in the GA,
it could be construed as a conflict of interest.  A company I'm
involved in also operates as a third level domain Registry and
Registrar.  That may also be construed as a conflict of interest.  I
am not a US citizen so at least there is no conflict of interest
involving discussion of USG, DoC etc.

- --
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 18:17:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

Charles,

You've missed the point. yet it appeared to me that Roeland had quite
eloquently explained it. This may in fact be a shortcoming of Roeland,
myself, and others here who sufficiently understand the nature of DNS in
te first place.

So I'll just point out a couple of things for you and attempt to bring you
up to speed....

On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, John Charles Broomfield wrote:

> 
> 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.

No, it wouldn't 'mess' anything up with us technically or operationally
from the standpoint of The PacificRoot rootzone. The ICANN .BIZ simply
couldn't make the muster because there is a pre-existing TLD string in 
the rootzone (The authorized one if you must have it that way) that
belongs to ARNI.

In continuing, we 'fetch' TLD zonedata from all over the world, and the
ICANN TLDs are only some of them. They have a right in our eyes to exist
there and not be interfered with by colliders. Therefore we would not be
willing to load the .ORG that Sandy Harris is operating.

We also load all of the ccTLDs, and tlds from independants as well as
other root systems. You see, it's really all about TLDs, and not roots.
The roots can't collide because there is only one name space - it's when
you have duplicate TLD strings in that one name space that you have
collisions, and technically that would be whether they existed in
different roots or in the same root, which I have seen before in the ORSC
root. .FILM is one example, existing simumltaneously in the same root with
the TLD servers listed from completely different zones - sometimes one
would work and sometimes the other. It was really extremely entertaining,
but I tired of experimenting with it after about four months and finally
pointed it out to their very embarrased rootzone manager.

In the meantime I had the privilege of studying in detail the nature of a
live collider. I gathered a lot of data  even though ORSC is not a
commercial grade production rootzone. very entertaining, or scary stuff
depending upon how you choose to view it.

So no, the foundation of The PacificRoot's rootzone is not the ICANN root,
but rather, The PacificRoot's root servers. Everything else is built
around that. ICANN's root is really for the most part a non-issue wrt
building our rootzone, we merely include their operational, non-colliding
TLDs.

> 
> 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.
> 

um.... no.

Please go back to my tutorial yesterday when I explained
"X.GTLD-SERVERS.NET" That's what is authoritative for the ICANN TLDs, and
in The PacificRoot we point to those TLD Servers as Authoritative (You
have used the correct syntax though,  most lay people confuse AUTH with
authorized).

They can change their zonedata for the zones we choose to carry anytime
they like - after all it's their zone. The TLD doesn't have much of
anything to do with the root, except that it's served by it. And we do a
better job of that at The PacificRoot anyway :)

> 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

um..... :) that's a big number when you start adding all those zeros
behind it ;) And if it breaks things - it's everyone on the planet that is
potentially effected.

> step further, this would then only REALLY affect those people who actually
> use a domain name under ".biz" which is visible through those alternative

No, both sides of the fence.

> 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,

http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=5146 will lead you to a
long list of people that will be happy to engage your defiance.

It seems that you understand nothing whatsoever about distribution channels  
in capitalist society, where a free market based economy is like a house
of dominoes. For if you did your wouldn't switch feet like that.

I'm inclined to actually sit down with you and show you how this all works
if you're truly as serious as you come off, but I'm a businessman and you
will have to, after all, agree to pay me.

> 
> 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!
> 

Collisions. You see, people such as yourself that are smart enough to
upgrade their machines in a timely manner don't run stuff like Microsoft
Internet Explorer version 1 or 2, and hopefully not 3. If you did you
wouldn't be able to see a vast portion of the Internet's name space now
would you? 

So you upgraded your system enabling you to see the whole Inernet.
Simple concept. It just makes sense. You see John Charles, it's not a
question of "IF", but instead it is a question of "WHEN", you will next
upgrqade your system to see the whole Internet by upgrading from the
deprecated, ICANN legacy system to the "Inclusive Name Space". It just
makes sense.

And when your friends and family give you email addresses that bounce on
you it is you who will suffer, because it just made sense to them and all
their other friends and relatives can now take advantage of the
availabilty of short, meaningful, and inexpensive domain names free from
arbitrary theft by ICANN.

You still use punched cards and mag tape John Charles?

> You can't have it both ways:
> -either you consider ICANN as authoritative and you decide to add to

Your still not getting this. perhaps an O'Reilly book would be good right
about now. I'll recomend DNS and BIND. Then you will be ready to play in
the sandbox.

Listen Very closely k? 

ICANN is not authoritative for a zone - a nameserver is. A nameserver is a
machine, and ICANN is a bunch of drycleaned, pressed, unelected, and
larcenous collusion artists. There is a big difference. One will answer
True or False - can you tell which one?

> -or your consider YOURSELF to be authoritative and say to hell with ICANN,
>  and play in your own sandbox with whatever names you want.

Nonsense. there is but one name space. The PacificRoot merely points to
the nameservers that are auth for all Known, non-colliding, and 
operational TLDs on the Planet.

The difficulty you are having is in the definition of "What is a
Collider?"

> 
> Of course, you've probably realized that considering yourself authoritative

Machines are authoritative for zones not companies. Please take the time
to educate yourself before using incorrect terminology that must
continually be corrected. You are almost not making sense. 

> 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

um... ICANN Trustworthy? hm... JUMBO Shrimp? hm.. DEAFENING Silence?

ROFLMAOPMP

http://www.law.com/ci-bin/gx.cgi/Appt.ogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=ZZZ30K9I8LC&live=cst=1&pc=0&pa=0

> 
> At the base of it, there can only be ONE authoritative root-zone. You say

Wrong. There can only be one name space. Duplicate strings means
collisions. There "ARE" "MANY" authoritative rootzones pointing to
authoritative TLD zones pointing to authoritative SLD zones pointing to
authoritative 3LD zones etc...

> 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

Wrong as rain going up. Like Vint Cerf 'eventually' admitted to Congress,
They're only responsible for their own root. What he continually refused
to answer was that they have a responsibility to avoid collisions in the
name space that would harm or otherwise interfere with others, and that in
loading a collider that is exactly what they would do to ARNI's .biz and
everyone else that uses DNS for resolution.

It's like the Blue Belly's and the Rebs lining up agin' each one another
in the field and firing their musketts into the uniforms of the other. No
one asked ICANN to secede from the Union and dawn the Confederate Uniform
but they did and the bodies are just going to pile up until they
surrender.

Again, you forget that other Governments Have had it with them too and
have fired up Inclusive Roots and/or TLD servers elsewhere, and they're 
not going away either. You might as well face it John Charles, Atlanta is
already burning, Tecumseh is roasting marshmallows, and The PacificRoot is
here to stay :)

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200102/05/eng20010205_61600.html

Kindest regards,

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
The ONLY root that resolves all roots!
Upgrade your DNS today for FREE 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #385
************************