Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #389
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, April 15 2001            Volume 01 : Number 389

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

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:59:30 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Attn: GA Chairman Younger....

> Learning more about technical and social effects of
> TLD duplication can obviously do no harm. But in the
> end, it is a policy question: Does ICANN want to
> restrict itself to all the TLDs left over by the
> alt.roots even though it is not legally required to?

Legally?  Legally if DoC enters a duplicate it will have offended the 
MOU and the White Paper merely on the technical issue.  It would 
not be legal.  In any case it offends the APA.

> Do the benefits of this restriction outweigh the
> disadvantages? And the problem is that the answer to
> this question depends largely on whether you
> (a) operate an alt.root TLD or hold alt.root domains,
> (b) operate or want to operate a TLD in the ICANN/
> USG root. Therefore I'm rather skeptical about a
> consensus on this policy question.
> 

Policy should at least require respect for the DNS by not allowing 
DoC to duplicate TLDs.  Period.  As for restrictions, we all live by 
them.  If I want to introduce a new TLD, I still have to make sure it 
is unique in the DNS.  So does ICANN unless it wants to create 
chaos.  

IMO, it is definitely something the GA should discuss in a WG.

Leah 

- --
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 11:06:01 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

Glady, Jefsey.

Leah

> To all.
> In order to document the Chair on the number of people that would
> participate to a ML on the iCANN management  of the inclusive name
> space (the whole name space available to Internet names), I would
> thank those who would like to participate seriously to let it me know.
> 
> Seriously means not fighting a religious war or repeating the same
> slogans or pursuing the same feuds as before. But to try to fairly
> understand the real situation, the different positions, to respect
> everyone interest and to word out a real consensus both on some
> netiquette and on policy recommendations.
> 
> Thank you.
> Jefsey
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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 11:27:51 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

One basic difference, Jeff.  The .BIZ we are registering is the 
original, legitimate .BIZ and the registry is not a fake, duplicate or 
copy of another registry.  It is not a "pre-registration" nor is it a re-
direct away from someone else's business.  

It would be different if we were registering names supposedly in a 
someone else's registry or one that did not exist. Now if you were 
to open a .biz registry and make it look as though you were 
registering in our registry, or if you were to call yourself The .BIZ 
TLD Registry, AtlanticRoot Network, Inc. biztldnet.com or 
pacificrootcom.net, it would be a similar case.   Yours is a totally 
different scenario.

Leah

> 
> Some time ago in the days of InterNIC, when the only place to go
> register a name was www.internic.net, a company from Australia set up
> a website for domain name registration using the web address,
> www.internic.com.  Although they also had a few small print/buried
> disclaimers, there was also copy that would lead many to think they
> had arrived at the official InterNIC site to register domain names.  I
> believe they charged $250 to register a name when the same thing could
> be done at the real InterNIC site for $100 (that was the fee at the
> time).  The only mistake they made, going to .com instead of .net cost
> them $150 for each name registered.  The site was eventually shut
> down...in fact, I just found the old stories over at www.news.com (for
> the full stories, search on "internic.com"):
> 
> Domain reseller confuses users - July 9, 1997
> Internic.com clarifies disclaimers - July 11, 1997
> FTC goes after domain broker - August 21, 1997
> Domain registry charged with fraud - May 1, 1998
> Bogus Australian domain registry blocked - June 8, 1999
> 
> The way in which information is presented at the alternative root .biz
> registration site reminds me a lot of the internic.com scam.  And with
> that, I'm done debating this issue.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jeff
> --
> jeff field
> 925-283-4083
> [email-masked]
> 
> > > At 22:49 12.04.2001 -0700, Jeff Field wrote:
> > > >I've already stated my opinion as to the use of the term,
> > > >"upgraded".
> > > > FYI, here's the relavant dictionary definition I found:
> > > >
> > > >Upgrade - "To replace (a software program) with a more recently
> > > >released, enhanced version."
> > >
> > > <humor>
> > > I prefer the version I found in a dictionary written by frustrated
> > > database users, circa 1985:
> > >
> > > "Upgrade - an arcane ritual in which a Database is sacrificed to
> > > the great god Progress....." </humor>
> 

- --
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 08:21:47 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

At 05:26 AM 4/15/2001, PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:
>while people like John Charles and Dave Crocker come
>across, at best, as people with a severe short term memory deficiency.
>
>One can only state the actual circumstances surrounding the truth once or
>twice before it becomes fencing. And I need to be spending my time
>building a better Internet for our children,

what does it say about the future you are building, if it is on a 
foundation of slander, lodged at anyone and everyone who holds a different 
position than yours?

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 08:15:36 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

At 11:04 PM 4/14/2001, Dassa wrote:
>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.

This is one of the best -- and most concise -- summaries I have seen about 
the independent efforts.

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 08:58:37 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

Hello Dassa,

> No, ICANN will not be taking the domain names when it loads .biz or
> any other TLD into the legacy system.  The name spaces the current
> alternative TLD's exist in is another entity to the legacy system.

> They are not introducing duplicates.  They would be loading TLD's into
> the existing legacy name space that the alternative roots have
> disdained and moved away from.

Do you realize that you are arguing for the uncontrolled fragmentation of
the 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

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

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 09:02:13 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

Hello Leah,

Sunday, April 15, 2001, 7:24:58 AM, JandL wrote:

> Dassa, I'm not going to re-argue the same thing over and over 
> again.  There is ONE NAME SPACE - ONE DNS.

That doesn't parse Leah.

There are multiple namespaces.

This is a simple fact, and in fact is the best argument the
alternative root systems have, is that they are a competitive root
offering.

The one namespace argument lends itself to support the position of
centralized control, which lends itself to ICANN.  It also lends
credence to the argument over confusion and regulation, and in the
event that it is determined that having "two" .biz's would lead to
instability, there are some important arguments that will be used
against the one in the alt.root space.

1) that the ICANN process carries the imprimatur of the government
process (and is the type of centralized control structure that our
government and representatives prefer to see)

2) the argument will be made that it is the alternative roots that are
introducing the instability by not being subject to the type of
centralized control mentioned above

3) and I know you won't like this one, but the bottom line is and
always will be market share.

I think the issue here is that the conflict over .biz is an issue of
bad timing for the alt.root .biz.  It's not yet in a position to
assert itself.  Had there been another year for .biz before having to
have a face off with ICANN, the issues might be very different.

The alt.root community needs to ask itself if it wants to turn .biz
into the line in the sand, and force the face off with ICANN now, or
not fight this particular battle and wait until they are in a better
position visibility wise to raise this issue with regard to some
future TLD.

You say you have argued this over and over, but I have to say the case
has not been made persuasively or logically.

- -- 
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 09:05:27 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 8:16 AM
> 
> At 11:04 PM 4/14/2001, Dassa wrote:
> >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.
> 
> This is one of the best -- and most concise -- summaries I 
> have seen about the independent efforts.

It is so concise that it is incomplete. It fails to note that the
cooperation ended when NSF prevented addition of new TLDs. The original
cooperation understanding always allowed for the addition of new TLDs. In
fact, the IANA stated "100 per yer" a few times.
- --
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 12:15:49 -0400 (AST)
From: John Charles Broomfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > From: Dassa [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > What claim are you refering to Roeland?  That anyone can create
> > additions to the name space, this is done all the time with
> > sub-domains.  That not everyone is allowed to add additional TLD's,
> > that is an established fact.  
> This is a fact that is amply disproven. The other TLDs exist. That is a
> fact. There is no issue of "allow". The principle is; that which is not
> specifically disallowed, is allowed.

The "other TLDs" exist in non-ICANN/DOC/legacy/USG name-space. True, it is
allowed to create alternative namespaces. Trying to mix concepts is
misleading to say the least.
The fact that you can run a ".web",".per",".earth"... outside the legacy
roots gives no right to be included *IN* the legacy roots.
So far, all that you guys have proven is that you are allowed to run your
own root-zone (akin to playing in your own sandbox). What you keep trying to
push down the throats of everyone else (and keep trying to convince that
it's the other way around) is your own minority namespace.
You paint it as unfairness, unconstitutional, discrimination, restriction of
business, going against the principles on which the internet was built
etc... Whatever story fits best (usually with a hammer) on that particular
day.
So far the most memorable accomplishment of all of the "alternative"
root-zones and alternative TLDs has to slow down the enlargement process to
nearly a standstill (what was the date of the kickoff of discussions with
the original postel draft? circa '94 I think).

You say that which is not specifically disallowed is allowed. Quaint, but an
oversimplification. Show me one instance of a non-ccTLD being added to the
legacy roots in the past 4 years that proves your point. It hasn't happened.
All attempts have been purposefully blocked (most notable .web trying to sue
its way into the legacy root). I think we can conclude that your collective
efforts have been disallowed constantly and without fault up to the present
day (efforts of getting your info into the legacy roots). Your efforts of
running your own roots have, on the other hand, never been challenged. And,
btw, I hope you guys continue to run non-legacy roots, as it keeps the
legacy one awake.

> > ICANN currently has that delegated power, no one else. 
> ICANN has a delegated power. It is not exclusive. There is no law, nor can
> there be a law, that prevents someone operatiing of their own root server
> systems or publishing their own root zone file, or for others to use it.

And nobody is arguing against that. ICANN holds the delegated power to
control the legacy root. We are talking about who has the power to enter
information into the legacy root. You can continue to have your own
root-zone as you have demonstrated for a few years now. Note, it is YOUR
root-zone. You have so far demonstrated no right to impose YOUR data on
others. You have demonstrated that others have the RIGHT to consult what you
allow free access to, and you have demonstrated that you have the right to
publish that data. You are however trying to take it one step further and
obliging the legacy root-zone to include your data. That, as you know, is
overstepping your rights.

> > That they opted out of the legacy system, established fact evidenced by
> > their creating their own name spaces with TLD's not supported in the
> > legacy system. 
> There is no established link between your evidence and your fact. The
> creation of additional names does not automatically exclude one from the
> political system.

That they have created their own namespace is established fact. That you
can't run on two root-zones at the same time is also established fact. If
you run on a non-legacy root-zone, you have opted out (voluntarily) of the
legacy namespace. More so when I constantly hear the managers of alternative
root-zones affirming that they do not author from the ICANN namespace as
basis for their rootzones...

> > That they have no authority within the legacy system, established fact. 
> 
> I disagree. Or are you claiming that ICANN is an exclusive, non-transparent,
> club? By directive, it is otherwise. 

On this one I'm with you Roeland (as demonstrated by the fact that nobody is
censoring your voice). However, your personal efforts to one side of ICANN
do NOT entitle you to a larger voice than anyone else (in many eyes that
discredits you, but that is always on a personal basis). Proportionately &
collectively, the alternative rootzone managers unfortunately seem to have a
rather larger voice than the less than .5% of people who actually are served
somewhat by their servers. This is unfair, but then again it seems that they
turn up more than the others (fanatics?).

> > That they shouldn't have any authority, self
> > evident as they opted out and have no control over the legacy system.
> 
> Circular argument. It only holds if the declaration above holds and it
> doesn't.

Agree again with you Roeland. But that authority should have a .5% weight in
the vote in reality (of course, then we enter into problems of mob-rule
which these guys would complain about... but all voting systems have their
deficiencies).

Yours, John Broomfield.
- --
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 18:08:44 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

On 2001-04-15 09:34:15 -0400, JandL wrote:

> I have been off-line for two days due a cable cut in this area
> (Verizon).  I have been going through the 475 messages I just
> received and found the strings very interesting, especially the
> inference of misleading information on websites.

Just out of curiosity - how was your version of .biz affected by
this cut?

- -- 
Thomas Roessler			    <[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 12:27:45 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

I had no phone service and could not dial up for internt access on 
my home pc.  It had no effect on .BIZ, just my personal access and 
everyone else in a wide area where I live.  One can do nothing if 
there is an area outage.

Leah

> On 2001-04-15 09:34:15 -0400, JandL wrote:
> 
> > I have been off-line for two days due a cable cut in this area
> > (Verizon).  I have been going through the 475 messages I just
> > received and found the strings very interesting, especially the
> > inference of misleading information on websites.
> 
> Just out of curiosity - how was your version of .biz affected by
> this cut?
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler			    <[email-masked]>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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 12:36:51 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

I can't speak for everyone, only for myself.  While I believe that 
DoC should include all non-colliding operational tlds, I have never 
made that my mantra.  I do insist that that to introduce a colliding 
TLD is going to create technical chaos and should not be allowed 
under any circumstances.

Any root can carry any subset of existing TLDs and I don't think 
that anyone has said anything different.  Some will be inclusive and 
some will not.  As long as there are no colliders, people can choose 
what they prefer.  

I have exceeded my five posts for today, so this is it.

> 
> Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > From: Dassa [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > What claim are you refering to Roeland?  That anyone can create
> > > additions to the name space, this is done all the time with
> > > sub-domains.  That not everyone is allowed to add additional
> > > TLD's, that is an established fact.  
> > This is a fact that is amply disproven. The other TLDs exist. That
> > is a fact. There is no issue of "allow". The principle is; that
> > which is not specifically disallowed, is allowed.
> 
> The "other TLDs" exist in non-ICANN/DOC/legacy/USG name-space. True,
> it is allowed to create alternative namespaces. Trying to mix concepts
> is misleading to say the least. The fact that you can run a
> ".web",".per",".earth"... outside the legacy roots gives no right to
> be included *IN* the legacy roots. So far, all that you guys have
> proven is that you are allowed to run your own root-zone (akin to
> playing in your own sandbox). What you keep trying to push down the
> throats of everyone else (and keep trying to convince that it's the
> other way around) is your own minority namespace. You paint it as
> unfairness, unconstitutional, discrimination, restriction of business,
> going against the principles on which the internet was built etc...
> Whatever story fits best (usually with a hammer) on that particular
> day. So far the most memorable accomplishment of all of the
> "alternative" root-zones and alternative TLDs has to slow down the
> enlargement process to nearly a standstill (what was the date of the
> kickoff of discussions with the original postel draft? circa '94 I
> think).
> 
> You say that which is not specifically disallowed is allowed. Quaint,
> but an oversimplification. Show me one instance of a non-ccTLD being
> added to the legacy roots in the past 4 years that proves your point.
> It hasn't happened. All attempts have been purposefully blocked (most
> notable .web trying to sue its way into the legacy root). I think we
> can conclude that your collective efforts have been disallowed
> constantly and without fault up to the present day (efforts of getting
> your info into the legacy roots). Your efforts of running your own
> roots have, on the other hand, never been challenged. And, btw, I hope
> you guys continue to run non-legacy roots, as it keeps the legacy one
> awake.
> 
> > > ICANN currently has that delegated power, no one else. 
> > ICANN has a delegated power. It is not exclusive. There is no law,
> > nor can there be a law, that prevents someone operatiing of their
> > own root server systems or publishing their own root zone file, or
> > for others to use it.
> 
> And nobody is arguing against that. ICANN holds the delegated power to
> control the legacy root. We are talking about who has the power to
> enter information into the legacy root. You can continue to have your
> own root-zone as you have demonstrated for a few years now. Note, it
> is YOUR root-zone. You have so far demonstrated no right to impose
> YOUR data on others. You have demonstrated that others have the RIGHT
> to consult what you allow free access to, and you have demonstrated
> that you have the right to publish that data. You are however trying
> to take it one step further and obliging the legacy root-zone to
> include your data. That, as you know, is overstepping your rights.
> 
> > > That they opted out of the legacy system, established fact
> > > evidenced by their creating their own name spaces with TLD's not
> > > supported in the legacy system. 
> > There is no established link between your evidence and your fact.
> > The creation of additional names does not automatically exclude one
> > from the political system.
> 
> That they have created their own namespace is established fact. That
> you can't run on two root-zones at the same time is also established
> fact. If you run on a non-legacy root-zone, you have opted out
> (voluntarily) of the legacy namespace. More so when I constantly hear
> the managers of alternative root-zones affirming that they do not
> author from the ICANN namespace as basis for their rootzones...
> 
> > > That they have no authority within the legacy system, established
> > > fact. 
> > 
> > I disagree. Or are you claiming that ICANN is an exclusive,
> > non-transparent, club? By directive, it is otherwise. 
> 
> On this one I'm with you Roeland (as demonstrated by the fact that
> nobody is censoring your voice). However, your personal efforts to one
> side of ICANN do NOT entitle you to a larger voice than anyone else
> (in many eyes that discredits you, but that is always on a personal
> basis). Proportionately & collectively, the alternative rootzone
> managers unfortunately seem to have a rather larger voice than the
> less than .5% of people who actually are served somewhat by their
> servers. This is unfair, but then again it seems that they turn up
> more than the others (fanatics?).
> 
> > > That they shouldn't have any authority, self
> > > evident as they opted out and have no control over the legacy
> > > system.
> > 
> > Circular argument. It only holds if the declaration above holds and
> > it doesn't.
> 
> Agree again with you Roeland. But that authority should have a .5%
> weight in the vote in reality (of course, then we enter into problems
> of mob-rule which these guys would complain about... but all voting
> systems have their deficiencies).
> 
> Yours, John Broomfield.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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 10:17:47 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[6]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

> You understood those names would not be a part of the established
> namespace system.  A better way of putting it may be that they
> KNOWINGLY created these domains OUTSIDE the scope of the existing
> namespace, and with the knowledge that this was outside the existing
> namespace.

Um, no. I can't speak for any of the others, but this statement does
not hold true for IOD and .Web, and I believe you've acknowledged
that fact in the past.

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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:33:54 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

At 09:36 AM 4/15/2001, JandL wrote:
>Any root can carry any subset of existing TLDs and I don't think
>that anyone has said anything different.  Some will be inclusive and
>some will not.  As long as there are no colliders, people can choose
>what they prefer

the key clause is "as long as there are no colliders".  that means there 
are no problems until there are problems.  it ignores how to avoid collisions.

avoiding collisions requires a central authority.  that is what root 
namespace administration is all about.

when someone decides to split off from one root namespace administration 
and to form their own, they have embarked on an independent path.  They are 
free to do that.

They are not, however, free to come back later and demand inclusion in the 
previous namespace.  That constitutes an attempt to claim retroactive 
authority over the previous namespace administrator.

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 11:31:54 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[8]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

Hello Christopher,

Sunday, April 15, 2001, 10:17:47 AM, Christopher Ambler wrote:

>> You understood those names would not be a part of the established
>> namespace system.  A better way of putting it may be that they
>> KNOWINGLY created these domains OUTSIDE the scope of the existing
>> namespace, and with the knowledge that this was outside the existing
>> namespace.

> Um, no. I can't speak for any of the others, but this statement does
> not hold true for IOD and .Web, and I believe you've acknowledged
> that fact in the past.

I've acknowledged that IOD MAY be in a different circumstance, without
commenting on the merit of their claims.

- -- 
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 20:31:41 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] sub-ML for the request of a WG-Inclusive Name Space Management

Dear Chair, and all,
further to your public personal letter to Philip Sheppard, I have submitted 
a motion to the Chair to create a dedicated sub-ML to the end of discussing 
and documenting the request of a WG to review and advise the management of 
the Inclusive Name Space by the ICANN. I gave a large number of reasons why 
this is an important and urgent issue involving many concerns in all the 
areas of involvement of the iCANN. I then asked those interested to let you 
and the GA know it.

1. That motion has been seconded.
2. a realistic number of person have indicated their intent to participate 
to expect now this ML to be well set-up an managed
3. the discussion is yet under dislodgement under the GA. But it is 
unfortunately uncoordinated and confusing because of a lack of a moderator 
and of the definition of a glossary permitting all the contributors to 
understand each other and therefore to work together.

I understand that Easter time do not favor a quick response of yours. But 
the delay is not in favor of a peaceful and studious cooperation.

I therefore propose all the interested parties the following glossary as a 
basic tool. I certainly realize that these definition will be criticized: 
as my target is not to start a dispute but to help a dialog without dispute 
on the meaning of the words when we can avoid it, I suggest you then 
propose your own words with you own definitions. I also suggest you use 
other words so we do not have alternate meanings for the same word.

Name/Meaning (I note that the request for a WG-INSM is iCANN related, not 
"alternative" root related. Would this ML not discuss any "alternative" 
root matter, there would a very large number of subjects. Therefore the 
glossary here proposed is not "alternative" root relate, however it should 
allow to also discuss 'alternative" root matters).

Name Space:
a mathematical understanding of all the names of any length and any 
structure that the human being may think of in his different languages.

Inclusive Name Space:
a restriction of this name space including all the strings corresponding to 
the DNS definition:
- - a string corresponding to the Registry (TLD)
- - a string corresponding to the Registrant (SLD)
- - none, one or several strings decided by the Registrant.
- - these strings using only the character set accepted by the DNS
Remark: there is no reference here to any legal, national, historic, legacy 
or controversy aspect. This is a pure technical definition.

Legacy
the part of the Inclusive Name Space using TLDs according to RFC 920. It is 
to be noted that Jon Postel foresaw a broad extension of the number of TLDs 
and that questioned at the GAC open session in MDR an iCANN Director 
responded that there could be one million of TLDs..

NIC (Network Information Center):
common wording for the organization operating a TLD service (in the 
InterNIC locution for example)

RSC (Root Service Center)
by analogy to the NIC, wording for an organization operating a Root 
Service. (Beware: this locution is accepted with different meanings for the 
C in different circles, including the so called "alternative" spheres. It 
must NOT be confused with the ORSC where the C means confederation).
The iCANN is for some the only RSC, for others it is the largest RSC.

A-Root
This is he file maintained by the iCANN to permit the resolution of the DNs 
of the Legacy.

Augmented-Root
this is one root including the a-root and others TLDs used by an RSC trying 
to propose its users the broadest access to the Inclusive Name Space.

Alternative TLDs
an historical wrong naming for non Legacy TLDs coming from the name of one 
of its supporter (AlterNIC). The managers of these TLDs do not want to set 
up an alternative to the legacy, but to have the a-root accepting all the 
non conflicting TLDs as the augmented root does.

WorldWide Alliance of ccTLDs
the ccTLD alliance. ccTLDs being TLDs reserved to the national NICs

TLDA
the TLD Association. Open to all the TLD manager (including legacy TLDs and 
ccTLDs). Among others, it actively supports the anti-collision effort of 
the whole Internet Community in documenting every TLD date, manager, 
contact, etc... to the attention of the RSC

DN (Domain Name)
Inclusive Name Space string destined to be resolved by the DNS system and 
assigned to a registrant in a given TLD

MSN (Member Site Name)
Inclusive Name Space string destined to be resolved by the DNS system and 
identifying a Site of a Member of a multiorganization TLD set up according 
to RFC 920. This corresponds to cooperative, associative, co-owned TLDs.

Alternative Names
generic designation of other Inclusive Name Space string types destined to 
be resolved by the DNS system. This may correspond to telephone number, 
rules, patterns, dynamic data, etc... as per existing or foreseeable RFCs

DNS
a public system documented by several RFC and supported by public domain 
program that permits to resolve an Inclusive Name Space string into an IP 
address.

iCANN
an non profit no member corporation under the Californian law that has been 
delegated among others by the USG the management of the a-server of the 
a-root with the purpose of deregulating this management and to open the 
Internet to all.

Digital Divide
the divide between people using the Internet and people not able to 
(plainly) user the Internet due to economical, political or technical reasons.

TLD Divide
forumula used by some to report the divide between RSCs due to political, 
historical, economical reasons. Such a divide exists between the iCANN and 
most of the non legacy TLDs and with some ccTLDs.

virus.com
a generic word to define the virus programs aiming at blocking .com or 
other TLD. This goes from some variats of MTX_.exe, to the press alleged 
virus from german hackers to change the default root on machines, to the 
current rumor about the sticking porn.com version of the New.net plugg-in 
rerouting call to .com sites to porn sites.

King of Ireland Policy (keep from KIP)
an expression to name the iCANN policy to call on the GAC to control the 
ccTLDs and non legacy TLDs, as a King of Ireland called on the King of 
England against another King of Ireland.

I hope that such a first glossary try that we should post on the future 
sub-ML site may help us work better or to better disagree, I mean to be 
more constructive in disagreeing as we will understand each other and will 
be more precise.

All the best to all of you.

Jefsey

- --
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 20:49:44 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

Dear Dassa,
This reminds me wjen I mailed to Mike Roberts that the Yokohama resolution
allowed him to decide about the TLD application fee level and that I asked that
it would be suppressed or reduced in the case of non-profit organization
applications like ours:

- - the .SYS Consortium to offer for free an innovative concept we have worked
   on and quite documented already to the Intenet Community ...
- - the CINICs - non profit cooperative TLDs conforming to the RFC 920 
multiorganization
   legacy TLD definition...

What do you think was his cooperative oriented response?

This was one the best and most consise business response I have seen from the
commercial approach of the inclusive name space I saw.

"If you want to enter the TLD intenational business, you are better be 
prepared to it."
then followed the need of money, attornies, etc.. etc...

I am sorry, I did not pay the M$ 50 and I am in the International TLD business.
Even if the iCANN wants to push me out. And I support the individual Member
Site Name owners of my TLDs.

Ask Dave the budget of a new TLD project under the iCANN, and ask me the
cost of one of my cooperative TLDs. We will see which one is a la internet as
you so rightly describe it.

As you may recall the internet was quite free, as still are most of the TLDs.
This is just the iCANN/ VeriSign duopoly which tals about millions. Most of
ghe others talk about Digital Divide and TLD Divide. This is the problem...

Jefsey

On 17:15 15/04/01, Dave Crocker said:
>At 11:04 PM 4/14/2001, Dassa wrote:
>>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.
>
>This is one of the best -- and most concise -- summaries I have seen about 
>the independent efforts.
>
>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
>

- --
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 #389
************************