Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #386
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, April 15 2001            Volume 01 : Number 386

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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 18:43:11 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List decorum

At 04:37 PM 4/14/2001, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > False and malicious.  That is slander.
>
>I am very reluctant to pick up on this thread

Given the rest of your note, your reluctance could not have been very strong.

>but I believe you opened this
>particular can of worms when you challenged DPF's harmless comment as follows:

harmless?  does that mean one should not respond to misstatements unless 
they are deemed to provide clear and present danger?

>On Tuesday, April 03, 2001 5:01 AM (AEST)
> >  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.

Since I never said or implied any such thing, I cannot account for your 
creative interpretation.  You will need to look inside yourself for the 
source of that.

On the other hand, yes, my writing was convoluted, so I'll restate my 
points in simpler, alternative sentences.  With any luck, a) you will 
understand them, and b) you will be less inclined to invent meanings:

1.      So far, any group of people attending ICANN meetings is too small 
- -- and are selected non-randomly -- so they are not a statistically valid 
sample of any "population".

         Hence we must all be very careful about claiming that activities 
of any attendees at an ICANN meeting "represent" any global population.

         No, that does not mean anyone should ignore those 
activities.  Rather, we must view them carefully.

2.      Most of people who attend ICANN meetings are there on their own 
initiative.  That is, very few can cite a formal chain of authority that 
empowers them to act as an official representative.

         Hence, when someone at an ICANN meeting claim that they are 
expressing the needs and wishes of a larger group, they are really just 
expressing their personal, informal opinion about the larger group.  They 
have no objective basis for claiming more.

3.      The "vested interest" statement meant, quite simply, that almost 
everyone at these meetings has a vested interest.  (Humans do not process 
double negatives well; and now we have a demonstration of the reason we are 
taught not to use them in writing.)  The presence of pervasive vested 
interests can be used to suggest that we seek to know everyone's biases, or 
else to suggest that we ignore everyone's biases.

         The former means that we will spend a great deal of time insisting 
that people divulge all sorts of personal and professional details.  The 
latter means that -- gosh -- we instead simply focus on the merits of 
arguments.  I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which 
is simpler and more productive.

>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).

There is a difference between having an interest and having childish, 
unprofessional conduct.  The point behind the use of the term childish 
refered more to the childish style of analyzing the situation than to the 
public behavior (although that was pretty childish, too.)

>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.

thanks for the slander.  always appreciated.  and if you are going to refer 
to someone's playing games with language and logic, please do not be shy 
about taking credit for yourself.

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

Again I will request that you refrain from inventing meanings.  I made no 
such "admission".

You also seem also to be ignoring my observation that my comments over the 
last year have been consistent with my comments over the last four 
years.  There was no client then.  Quite the opposite.

         But, please, perhaps you can invent some explanation for that?

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 18:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Jeff Field wrote:

> 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.

No, the majority of the ccTLDs are carried in both The PacificRoot and the
ICANN root witout benefit of contract, obligation, or liability. The
PacificRoot is willing to enter into Service Level Agreements with any
additional ISO-3166 ccTLDs that seek guarantees of service and will
provide resolution for their TLDs under contract for free and in
perpetuity.

But otherwise, and in general, if it exists (a TLD) we will reslove it
anyway as a public service benefitting the Internet community at large.

But it was a nice thought Jeff and I thank you for your time and effort.

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 18:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind

On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Derek Conant wrote:

> 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?

It won't. All it will do is permit you to prioritize which TLDs come
first, and then if there's no zone existing on that TLD server then it
moves on to the next one.

Stepping technology does not solve the issue of colliders, It merely
exacerbates the problem, especially with regards to email etc... Even if
it's something that people may implement in the future.

It's not too late to keep ICANN from loading colliders.

- --
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 19:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Sorry - wong answer

THE FOLLOWING IS THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE PACIFICROOT

On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, John Palmer wrote:

> [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).

Sounds pretty reaonable and straightforward to me.

So we have a solution to all this mess right?

If this ws a motion I'd second it! (That's a hint John ;) ).

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

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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 22:21:54 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind

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

I doubt ICANN will retract the New TLDs it has licensed.  However, the DOC may
not approve ICANN's proposals if there is a solution that can offset the
consumer confusion allegations surrounding the altTLDs.

Without a clear solution to the consumer confusion allegations surrounding the
altTLDs, the new USG Administration and other governments will probably take
the course of approving ICANN proposed agreements to establish legitimate TLDs
to prevent fracture of the Internet.

Does anyone out there have a solution to the consumer confusion allegations
surrounding the altTLDs?

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Derek Conant wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> It won't. All it will do is permit you to prioritize which TLDs come
> first, and then if there's no zone existing on that TLD server then it
> moves on to the next one.
>
> Stepping technology does not solve the issue of colliders, It merely
> exacerbates the problem, especially with regards to email etc... Even if
> it's something that people may implement in the future.
>
> It's not too late to keep ICANN from loading colliders.

- --
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 19:25:31 -0700
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Call for a Working Group

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Patrick
> Corliss
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 3:19 PM
> To: Jeff Field
> Cc: Derek Conant; [GA]
> Subject: [ga] Call for a Working Group
>
>
> Hi Jeff
>
> Nice try but worthless.  I won't explain why, somebody else will do that.

I would really like to know why you think it's worthless.  A one-liner to
dismiss the idea is not good enough.

> I just wish you and Derek Conant would clarify these issues offlist first.

As far as I know, I don't believe I've ever met nor talked to Derek Conant.
I'm hoping your comment was not designed to imply that Derek Conant and I
are somehow acting in concert or that we share the same views, opinions,
ideas, or whatever (we may or may not...I am just not familiar enough with
him to say either way).  What exactly did you mean?

> Then you might understand the dynamics of the situation !!

Ummmm...I think I understand the dynamics just fine, thanks!

> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss

Regards,

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

[Enclosed for reference]
> 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 19:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind

On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Derek Conant wrote:

> Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
> http://www.dnsga.org
> 
> I doubt ICANN will retract the New TLDs it has licensed.  However, the DOC may
> not approve ICANN's proposals if there is a solution that can offset the
> consumer confusion allegations surrounding the altTLDs.

Derek, If you guys are for real, The PacificRoot is willing to work with
you in any capactity that we can to reach an amicable solution to this
looming problem.

Consider The PacificRoot as a cooperative body.

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

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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 22:54:56 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:

> Listen Very closely k?
> 
> ICANN is not authoritative for a zone - a nameserver is. A nameserver is a
> machine,

Yes. And the authoritative servers for the Internet root zone are the ones
NSI/Versign runs under ICANN authority.

( Arguably, this is unfortunate and that zone is badly mis-managed. I'm
  inclined to think that myself. However, that is irrelevant to this
  discussion. )  

I can have my own private root with .cat and .dog. Those domains will
not work for anyone except me and a few friends who also use my DNS
servers. They remain private, just as my RFC 1918 addresses might.

You can build any private root you like with whatever domains you like.
You can even sell second level domains there, if anyone wants to buy
them. 

Of course, if you start marketing these without giving customers accurate
information on their status -- private names usable by anyone who chooses
to do so, but not part of the standard Internet name space -- then you're
skating on exceedingly thin ice.

The whole rhetoric of "upgrading" to an "inclusive" name space from the
"deprecated" ICANN system is bogus. It might be fair to say you are
"augmenting" the "standard" ICANN system, but methinks that's the most
generous interpretation possible without telling your customers outright
lies. 

> and ICANN is a bunch of drycleaned, pressed, unelected, and
> larcenous collusion artists.

( I think you're overstating this, though to some extent I agree. In any
  case, this is entirely irrelevant to the question of what should happen
  about the .biz collision. )
- --
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 21:58:08 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Sorry - wong answer

OK - Its a motion
John

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "PacificRoot Hostmaster" <[email-masked]>
To: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Sorry - wong answer

> THE FOLLOWING IS THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE PACIFICROOT
>
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, John Palmer wrote:
>
> > [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).
>
> Sounds pretty reaonable and straightforward to me.
>
> So we have a solution to all this mess right?
>
> If this ws a motion I'd second it! (That's a hint John ;) ).
>
>
> 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
>
>

- --
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 20:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind

On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Derek Conant wrote:

> Does anyone out there have a solution to the consumer confusion allegations
> surrounding the altTLDs?

I'll offer some of my thoughts on this....

The PacificRoot is a private network providing public services for the
benefit of the Internet community at large. It's DNS services extend out
through Many Many other private networks that also have many many other
private networks associated with them, and so on.

Our users DO NOT have a consumer confusion issue. They understand exactly
how totally cool what they get from us is, and they love it. Like I've
said many times before, "It just makes sense."

Just as any end subscriber (Defined as one who pays for access to a
private network) may elect to upgrade their DNS independantly of their
local ISPs settings if that ISP has not already done so, it is also the
case that any user who wishes to downgrade their DNS to the deprecated,
ICANN legacy system may do so idependantly of the superior DNS service
that their provider may be Providing them via The PacificRoot.

The consumer has choice that is all, where before all they had were
ICANN's table scraps.

No, that's not all. They have consumer protection too. I invite you to
check out the following links:

http://www.pacroot/ddrp_current.shtml

and the following:

http://www.pacroot/ptld_tos_current.shtml

Absolutely NO ONE can obtain a registrant account at the PacificRoot
without specifically verifying that they have read and agree to these
unambiguous terms and conditions. Our POSSR system will not let them.

I know that some people would like us to have psychedelic flying saucers
buzzing around our home page Saying all kinds of self-flagellating things
about ourselves and this is not going to happen. I don't even see the kind
or myriad of disclaimers at http://www.webtld.com that we have on our
registrar site. We're just going the extra mile to make SURE that we've
done everything REASONABLY possible to educate our users regarding the
superior service they are receiving. 

If ICANN loads a collider - it is they who will have caused pandemonium
and confusion, and it is they who will have "broken" the one name space
that exists. It is they who may meet their demise as a result. 

This is why Senator Burns and others are so concerned about ICANN's
maverick activities, and NOT The PacificRoot's. They speak kindly of us in
fact with a smile parting their lips.

Try it. Say "PacificRoot" out load to yourself. Kinda tickles and gives
you that warm fuzzy feeling huh?

Our customers get that feeling and tell all their friends to upgrade too. 

If that helps you or anyone else here at all Derek it was my pleasure :)

> 

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

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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 23:31:07 -0400 (AST)
From: John Charles Broomfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

Hi Bradley,
	Thanks for all those nice pointers in the right direction. I really
needed them. I'll make a note of checking the O'reilly book. Just new around
here. Also thanks for all of your lessons. If you'll forward me your
consulting rates for formation I'll have a look at them.

> > So, if I understand you correctly, the ICANN action of adding ".biz" to their
> > root-zone 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.

Then as it's not a problem and ICANN is not playing with your rules (naughty
ICANN), you will just drop the ICANN ".biz", won't you (note to self: please
add the paragraph to my "words that the author will eat" file)

(...)
> 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.

I love it when managers of non-ICANN alternative roots keep insisting that
they get their information from independent sources, and that they are not
starting out from the legacy/ICANN/USG roots and adding to it. I also love
it when to date I have NEVER had a single request to also update an
alternative root instead of updating the legacy roots, despite this hand
shaking about getting information from alternative sources...

> > 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.

Then why are you so bothered about ".biz"? If it was not such a hassle
and just someone wanting to add something in a rogue manner (as you seem to
imply), then you'd have already indicated that they would be ignored by you,
and that would be the end of it.

(aprox .5% of the net can actually see a ".biz today. A small % of that .5%
has actually ever typed in a .biz -my guess is that updating SOAs and
secondaries actually accounts for most of the traffic!-, and a small % of
that small % of .5% has actually ever done anything meaningful to date with
a .biz -apart from selling them- [selling air?] )

> 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.

Yes, potentially everyone is affected if I squash a bug tomorrow as
*potentially* everyone could have seen it (butterflies in NY causing
hurricanes in India, etc...). In practical terms, the only adverse effect of
the ICANN ".biz" addition is that the non-ICANN ".biz" seller finds
themselves in exactly the pickle that everyone has been pointing out for
around 6 years now (ie, doing something rogue and unsanctioned won't give
you any advantage whatsoever WRT the same thing in the legacy roots, and
might in fact make you look a bit silly).

> > 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.

Not really... Those claims of incredible potential relative growth (as far
as visibility), have proven for the past 5-6 years to be just that:
incredible. Most people today can't see .earth, .web or .biz and never will
see the non-ICANN version. For all PRACTICAL purposes they don't really
exist. I define practical as something that you can actually USE. You can't
SERIOUSLY try and promote your .biz/.earth/.web domain today. Nobody
exlusively uses a [email-masked] email address to be reached, etc...
So, the side of the fence not using .biz today (which is the vast majority,
not just 99.5% , but of the remaining .5% most of them don't even know/care
that the "other" .biz is there), so in practice NOBODY is going to be
affected by this DIRECTLY. Indirectly however, it is going to be that much
harder to continue justifying the existance of the non-legacy roots (apart
from on a hobbyist/fun basis. which in all honesty is all that it is today
anyway).

> > 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.

Sorry, I redefine my defiance as to wanting to be shown a
living/working/running example of a meaningful zone in use today which uses
".biz" as a primary (or very important) means of contact. Come on, give us
some numbers (like how many hits for a MAJOR ".biz" site, or how much email
destination ".biz", or how many DNS lookups of ".biz" TLD -non secondary zone
transfer in there please, or calculate on average how much of that data is
due to secondaries refreshing themselves).

> 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.

Yes, you can use non-ICANN domain names today. You could also use them last
year, and also 5 years ago (how long have you been running your own .web
Chris? When was .per started?).
6 years on, and we still haven't seen the landslide of people rushing to get
NON-legacy email addresses. 6 years is a long time in Internet time, so your
wishes are still that.

> You still use punched cards and mag tape John Charles?

No, but I've also seen my share of vaporware technologies that would
dominate the world and be the best thing since sliced bread. I think it
wouldn't be unfair to compare your hopes to those of the people pushing
Esperanto (except that even they seem to have a wider user base...)
Btw, mag tape is used today far more often than non-legacy domains.

> 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?

Semantics. The authority of a zone does not lie with a machine. It is not
the machine which chooses what is in its files. It's human beings that
decide what to put in their files. ICANN is authoritative for their
root-zone. Not A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET . The machine is just a slave that runs
software.

> 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?"

Not at all. Collision in namespace by definition is when we have conflicting
information about a certain zone. There are collisions all the time when
people switch their SLD zone from one provider to another, fail to reflect
that with the old provider and have the maintainers of their TLD reflect the
new data (the old provider gets left out in the cold).
What you are saying is that you will not leave out in the cold your current
non-ICANN ".biz" and that you will thumb your nose at the ICANN version of
it when it materializes. Famous last words.

> 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. 

No. People/entities/companies are authoritative in the end. Machines just
run software that those people put in it. You might aswell say that the end
users modem is authoritative because that's what is telling his computer
the DNS data that he requested. You are being too short-sighted.

> > 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...

Let me correct my phrase to:
In *practical* terms, there is only ONE authoritative root-zone.
Today that root-zone is the legacy/USG/ICANN/IANA root-zone (call it what
you want).
True, there are many people who setup rootzones to play with them (some play
more than others), but for all practical applications they are not used (at
least not in their non-legacy capacity anyway).

Yours, John Broomfield.

P.S. For those that are new on the scene, but most of the oldies knew it
anyway, the first paragraph in my message is 100% JCB sarcasm.
- --
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 20:21:22 -0700
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

> -----Original Message-----
> From: PacificRoot Hostmaster [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 6:50 PM
> To: Jeff Field
> Cc: [email-masked]; Christopher Ambler; William X. Walsh; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group
>
>
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Jeff Field wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> No, the majority of the ccTLDs are carried in both The PacificRoot and the
> ICANN root witout benefit of contract, obligation, or liability. The
> PacificRoot is willing to enter into Service Level Agreements with any
> additional ISO-3166 ccTLDs that seek guarantees of service and will
> provide resolution for their TLDs under contract for free and in
> perpetuity.

IMO, you are absolutely correct.  Any country, I would have to believe, is
free to use whichever root they desire.  They could even start their own.
Additionally, I also believe that ICANN will gladly recommend to the DoC,
upon the request of any country, to have that country's respective ccTLD
removed from the ICANN root systems.

In the absence of a contract with any ccTLD or gTLD carried by the ICANN
root, will PacificRoot honor any such removal request from either ICANN
regarding .com, .net, and .org, for which they do have contracts, or any
country regarding their respective ccTLD?

Regards,

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

> But otherwise, and in general, if it exists (a TLD) we will reslove it
> anyway as a public service benefitting the Internet community at large.
>
> But it was a nice thought Jeff and I thank you for your time and effort.
>
> 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 20:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Sandy Harris wrote:

> PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:
> 
> > Listen Very closely k?
> > 
> > ICANN is not authoritative for a zone - a nameserver is. A nameserver is a
> > machine,
> 
> Yes. And the authoritative servers for the Internet root zone are the ones
> NSI/Versign runs under ICANN authority.

Incorrect. You're not reading my lips. Incorrect.

The TLD servers that answer for .COM and a few others are under ICANN's
thumb. Not the Internet's name space.

- --
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 #386
************************