Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #387
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, April 15 2001            Volume 01 : Number 387

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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 23:23:50 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind

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

Bradley,

You will see that we are for real and thank you for your support and cooperation.

If any of us are going to be heard, interested parties need to understand the value
of consolidating their energy in an active and productive capacity.  If we are not
aware of interested party positions and solutions to industry problems, and we do
not consolidate and actively pursue and address significant issues, then the
problems described in the domain name industry regarding the Internet's architecture
and ICANN processes will get worse.

The DNSGA will not be able to posture an effective filing without interested party
participation.  I will send you more information regarding the DNSGA and its actions
next Monday.

Best regards,

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
> >
> > 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 20:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Sorry - wong answer

Ok :)

I second it.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, John Palmer wrote:

> 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
> 

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
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 20:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

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

> 
> 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.

No Problem. Will do ;)

> 
> 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...

FYI, The legacy system info is the last thing we add :) Twice a day.

> 
> Let me correct my phrase to:
> In *practical* terms, there is only ONE authoritative root-zone.

Ok. If you insist, We'll be that root-zone for you :)

> 
> 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.

I'll Send the contracts anyway, you may need them, so just sign and fax
back.  And I'm not new here. I've been here all along.

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 21:16:15 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind

> You will see that we are for real and thank you for your support and cooperation.
>
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman

You keep saying, "we." Who is "we?" I might want to join your organization. Who
else is a member?

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 23:31:15 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

Jeff - I think you are wrong here.

The only requests that should be honored are requests to REMOVE COLLIDERS
and to avoid entering them in the first place.

It is perfectly proper for PacificRoot (and ORSC and anyone else) to list
PUBLIC information about
published resources, ie:
    COM can be found at A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET, B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.... etc

No, no one should remove delegations for TLDs as long as they are
delegations as specified by their
RIGHTFUL CUSTODIANS.

ICANN, by virtue of being assigned by the DoC to manage .COM/.NET/.ORG, is
the authority for
what is the right glue for those tlds. Leah is the correct authority for
.BIZ - do you get it?

John
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>; "William X. Walsh"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "PacificRoot Hostmaster"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 10:21 PM
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
>
>

- --
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 22:50:16 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

> From: Jeff Field [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 2:14 PM
> 
> 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.

The analogy breaks down because the DOC root zone is property of the USG,
aka every US citizen has an explicit right to that data under FOIA, if
nothing else. As US citzens, it is *our* property. The root zone has never
been classified as anything other than "white" either. So, NSA doesn't have
overrides.

Now, can we quite wasting time on analogous arguments and talk about what
we're really here to talk about?
- --
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 22:52:14 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind

The answer is that it is difficult. That is why the Inclusive Root community
tries so hard to avoid collisions.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Derek Conant [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 5:49 PM

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
- --
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 22:52:42 -0700
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

With all due respect, John, the question was posed to Bradley D. Thornton at
the PacificRoot.  If you speak for PacificRoot, please accept my apologies.
If not, here it is again for Mr. Thornton:

> 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?

On second-glance, the question above could have two possible answers.  Let
me break it down:

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

2. In the absence of a contract with any ccTLD or gTLD carried by the ICANN
root, will PacificRoot honor any such removal request from any country
regarding their respective ccTLD?

Regards,

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John
> Palmer
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 9:31 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group
>
>
> Jeff - I think you are wrong here.
>
> The only requests that should be honored are requests to REMOVE COLLIDERS
> and to avoid entering them in the first place.
>
> It is perfectly proper for PacificRoot (and ORSC and anyone else) to list
> PUBLIC information about
> published resources, ie:
>     COM can be found at A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET, B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.... etc
>
> No, no one should remove delegations for TLDs as long as they are
> delegations as specified by their
> RIGHTFUL CUSTODIANS.
>
> ICANN, by virtue of being assigned by the DoC to manage .COM/.NET/.ORG, is
> the authority for
> what is the right glue for those tlds. Leah is the correct authority for
> .BIZ - do you get it?
>
> John
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>; "William X. Walsh"
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "PacificRoot Hostmaster"
> <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 10:21 PM
> 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 16:04:59 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of PacificRoot Hostmaster
|> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 1:22 PM
|> Cc: [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.

The Internet name space was created as a cooperative effort and is
based in the legacy root zone system.  You and other have opted out of
that cooperative name space and created your own name spaces.  Now you
are attempting to dictate to the original name space what may be
included.  I feel you do not have a leg to stand on.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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 23:10:24 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

John is sandbagging everyone here. He's been involved at least 4 years,
maybe six. Check NSI DOMAIN-POLICY archives.

John, quit playing around and get serious.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Charles Broomfield [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 8:31 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 16:12:09 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of John Palmer
|> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 2:31 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group
|>
|>
|> Jeff - I think you are wrong here.
|>
|> The only requests that should be honored are requests to
|> REMOVE COLLIDERS
|> and to avoid entering them in the first place.
|>
|> It is perfectly proper for PacificRoot (and ORSC and
|> anyone else) to list
|> PUBLIC information about
|> published resources, ie:
|>     COM can be found at A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET,
|> B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.... etc
|>
|> No, no one should remove delegations for TLDs as long as they are
|> delegations as specified by their
|> RIGHTFUL CUSTODIANS.
|>
|> ICANN, by virtue of being assigned by the DoC to manage
|> .COM/.NET/.ORG, is the authority for
|> what is the right glue for those tlds. Leah is the correct
|> authority for  .BIZ - do you get it?
|>
|> John

That is rather conveniently ignoring the fact that the legacy zone
which ICANN has authority over is not limited to just .com/.net/.org
but is in fact the cooperative name space created to assist in
navigation through the Internet.

Yes, anyone can create additions to the name space that follow the
guidelines.  Creating additional TLD's does not.  Hence those people
created their own name spaces so they could create and use their own
TLD's.  They opted out of the legacy system and created their own.
They have no authority within the legacy system and nor should they.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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 #387
************************