Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #390
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, April 16 2001            Volume 01 : Number 390

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

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:17:50 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

Dave,
1. you say: they are free to do that. Right.
2. liberty calls for liberty protection, otherwise it is not a liberty. If 
they are free, it means that their freedom is to be protected.
3. this is exacly what they ask for, their freedom to create heir own TLD 
not to be agressed.
4. they only suggest from their own experience a common root to help good 
relations. They support iCANN, iCANN agresses them. Where is their freedom 
you accept?

I would have assumed you would say: they are free to do it, I hate them 
doing in it but I will protect their freedom.  The same as I did: I dislike 
your positions but I fought against those wanting to ban you from this list.

Jefsey

On 19:33 15/04/01, Dave Crocker said:
>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

- --
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 13:47:31 -0700
From: Darrell Greenwood <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WIPO Seeks Comment On Domain Name Process

WIPO Seeks Comment On Domain Name Process

Scott Robinson writes: "WIPO has released their Interim Report of the
Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process. More importantly, they have
requested for comments on this report. Read, respond, be a good netizen."
Michael mentioned the report's release in this story as well.
Unfortunately, WIPO doesn't make it available as either html or plain text;
your options are Word and pdf -- but it's worth downloading, to see how
WIPO justifies its role in determining (among other things) which common
words, pharmaceutical identifiers and geographically-linked terms the
ordinary domain registrant is allowed to use. The comment period ends June
8th.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/04/15/1318245&mode=thread
- --
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 14:34:27 -0700
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

I apologize for not making myself clear...the point I was trying to make had
nothing to do with what you sell; it had to do with the way in which you
sell it, i.e., with misleading tactics (small print/buried
disclaimers/misleading copy/etc.).

Again, something along the lines of the following, prominently displayed,
would be, IMHO, acceptable.

- --------------------------------------
Please note: In order for you and other Internet users to access the
websites of, send email to, or use any other Internet service connected with
the domain name(s) you are about to register requires the DNS (Domain Name
System) settings of each user's computer be configured to point to DNS name
servers which have been set up to query the ORSC Inclusive Name Space root
server system operated by PacificRoot.

Additionally, although PacificRoot believes the ORSC Inclusive Name Space
root server system we operate is superior to what we believe to be the
functionally obsolete ICANN root server system, and that we are currently
making progress through marketing, education and outreach to raise the
awareness of all Internet users of that superiority, many Internet user
computers are not yet configured this way.  Simply put, all this means is
that currently some Internet users will be able to utilize (access your
website, send you email, etc.) the domain name(s) and some will not.
- --------------------------------------

Regards,

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of JandL
> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 8:28 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> 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
>
>

- --
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 23:42:54 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

Jefsey,

>Dave,
>1. you say: they are free to do that. Right.

Back to the burger thing, I am free to open a burger shop. Right.

>2. liberty calls for liberty protection, otherwise it is not a liberty. If
>they are free, it means that their freedom is to be protected.

OK, my freedom to oper a burger joint has to be protected.
I assume you mean: nobody can force me to close down, nobody can prevent me 
from advertising my burgers, and the alike.

>3. this is exacly what they ask for, their freedom to create heir own TLD
>not to be agressed.

Exactly.
I'm free to run my own business, if I feel that can be profitable - in fact, 
I can run it even if I don't think it will be profitable ;>)

>4. they only suggest from their own experience a common root to help good
>relations. They support iCANN, iCANN agresses them. Where is their freedom
>you accept?

Wait, wait, wait!
I run my own burger joint, until yesterday I have been screaming and yelling 
against McDonalds, but now I support them, I really think that they should 
let me operate in franchise, under their umbrella-organization, otherwise I 
will consider this an aggression!
(and appeal to the Constitution, the California courts, the Founding 
Fathers, the Red Cross, the Great Pumkin,....)

>
>I would have assumed you would say: they are free to do it, I hate them
>doing in it but I will protect their freedom.  The same as I did: I dislike
>your positions but I fought against those wanting to ban you from this 
>list.

I will fight for their rights to run alternate roots, *not* their supposed 
right to get into the root co-ordinated by somebody else.
But this not because they are good or bad: because otherwise everybody will 
feel authorized to wake up one nice morning, and claim an ASCII string (and 
soon Unicode string) as proprietary and, in name of the sacred principles, 
be allowed in the root.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 23:56:03 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] sub-ML for the request of a WG-Inclusive Name Space Management

Jefsey,

>
>Dear Chair, and all,

If you are addressing this to the old retiring Chair ;>), please be aware 
that I do not feel empowered to take any action, past the GA vote.

But as a participant I will add my comments.

>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.

So what?
Does this mean you are asking for a vote?

>2. a realistic number of person have indicated their intent to participate
>to expect now this ML to be well set-up an managed

I saw a lot of people participating (end enjoying) the debate, but frankly 
not a lot of explicit calls for a separate list.

>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 am under the impression that those who are willing to understand do 
understand eachother very well.

But, as I said, it is the new chair that should, IMHO, take the lead now.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 15:06:30 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WG direction.

> I will fight for their rights to run alternate roots, *not* 
> their supposed 
> right to get into the root co-ordinated by somebody else.
> But this not because they are good or bad: because otherwise 
> everybody will 
> feel authorized to wake up one nice morning, and claim an 
> ASCII string (and 
> soon Unicode string) as proprietary and, in name of the 
> sacred principles, 
> be allowed in the root.

The answer to this is to define what a proper registry should be. That will
raise the barrier to entry sufficiently that this objection should be
satisfied. I also think that this should be the direction of the new WG,
before we go anywhere else.
- --
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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 00:17:00 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

You realize that there are too many messages when people usually very 
attentive like Roeland just read the first sentence of a message ;>)

Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
>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.
> >

<snip>

> > 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.
> >

Welcome back, John Charles - how's life in the DOMs?
Roberto
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 15:19:29 -0700
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of JandL
> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 6:34 AM
> To: PacificRoot Hostmaster; Derek Conant
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML
>
<--- snip--->
> I would like to know how "This is a NON-ICANN TLD" is misleading.
> There are also instructions detailing how a user can see the rest of
> the internet.

Absent explanatory copy, because most users don't know an ICANN TLD from a
NON-ICANN TLD.  It's meaningless.  Here's the copy from PacificRoot's
website:

"Please note: The new domains, especially .biz, are not ICANN TLDs. They are
real domains supported in the ORSC Inclusive Name Space. Likewise, we are
not taking pre-registrations; these are all active domains."

Yes real, yes active...but invisible to nearly everyone.  Sort of like
buying a shrink-wrapped calculator that has the add, subtract, and multiply
buttons disabled; only the divide button works.  IOW, the expectation was a
fully functioning calculator but what I got was nearly useless.  And, if I'm
the consumer, I don't give a damn if the company disclosed this information
in the fine print (the tactic used at PacificRoot's website), I'm pissed!

> I can also tell you that out of the hundreds of messages and phone
> calls I field daily that I have yet to find a user who is confused
> about this issue.  The only confusion I find is the assumption or fear
> that ICANN will "take" domain names from those who have
> registered them once ICANN loads the duplicate .BIZ.

Perhaps that's your cue to be more forthright about your product?  Might cut
down on those "hundreds of messages and phone calls I field daily"?

<--- snip--->
>
> Leah

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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 00:35:27 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

Roeland,

> >
> > I don't understand this.
> > How does the Neustar/ICANN .biz change the situation for
> > users/ISPs who chose to "enhance" their settings and point to
> > the alternate roots? Those people will continue seeing the
> > AtlanticRoot .biz, and would not even know that USG has added .biz.
>
>Yes and no, you have to understand the way the Inclusive Root system works,
>currently.

The way it works currently does not matter that much to me.
My point was, and still is, that if the non-ICANN Root System wanted, it 
could easily resolve .biz disregarding the contents of the ICANN Root.

[long explanation snipped]

>What all of the above means is that, if ICANN adds the NeuStar BIZ, then 
>the
>Inclusive Root Zone operators would have to, by their own rulz, 
>specifically
>remove the NueStar entries prior to incorporating the USG root zone kernel.

Exactly.

>Not all of them will do that reliably. This introduces entropy into the
>Inclusive Root system. Unlike cryptographic randomness, entropy is NOT good
>for production systems.
>

That's what I would call "your own tecnical problem".
If somebody will have unreliable information, ISPs will point to the others 
who have.
(incidentally, you have given the best explanation to the reason why almost 
everybody points to the reliable (and consistent) root, not to potentially 
unreliable, although "enhanced", surrogates)

> > The decision would not "destroy" the business: the business
> > will collapse if registrants will massively register in ICANN's
> > .biz and not in AR's .biz, while it will stay healthy if things
> > happen the other way around. It is true that USG should not
> > destroy a business, but should also not be obliged to rescue a
> > business that goes belly up due to competition.
>
>You are missing a connector here. If it can be shown that adding the 
>NeuStar
>BIZ TLD will forseeably have the effect that you mention here (and that is
>very difficult to dispute) then we can establish a causal relationship
>between the addition of the TLD and the effect on ARNI's BIZ. Ergo, the
>simple addition of the NeuStar BIZ TLD, in the DOC root zone, would
>destablize ARNI's BIZ registry. Since DOC is a branch of the USG and ARNI 
>is
>a US company engaged in a lawful business, the USG would be in violation of
>its own Constitution. I might point out, before anyone else does, that the
>USG is already in violation of various other parts of its own Constitution
>[The US has been in a continuous State of Emergency since 1952, with 
>various
>executive over-rides on parts of the US Constitution being applicable
>(Korean War, Viet Nam, Cold War, War on Drugs, etc, old argument, we need
>not go there)].

Well, in this case, it is not even ICANN's problem.
USG will fix it, no point to discuss it further - in particular for those 
who *did not* move to the US in 1960 ;>)

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 18:38:58 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> >4. they only suggest from their own experience a common root to help good
> >relations. They support iCANN, iCANN agresses them. Where is their freedom
> >you accept?
> 
> Wait, wait, wait!
> I run my own burger joint, until yesterday I have been screaming and yelling
> against McDonalds, but now I support them, I really think that they should
> let me operate in franchise, under their umbrella-organization, otherwise I
> will consider this an aggression!

Exactly. Thank you Roberto. This is the best summary I've sen so far.

> (and appeal to the Constitution, the California courts, the Founding
> Fathers, the Red Cross, the Great Pumkin,....)

Clutching at straws.
- --
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 15:44:58 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

> But this not because they are good or bad: because otherwise everybody will 
> feel authorized to wake up one nice morning, and claim an ASCII string (and 
> soon Unicode string) as proprietary and, in name of the sacred principles, 
> be allowed in the root.

And if they meet clear and objective technical and operational criteria,
why shouldn't they be allowed? Set the criteria as high as you like, as
long as it's objective and applied across the board.

Funny, that's exactly what Jon Postel wanted in 1995. Everything since
has been politics.

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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:10:15 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, at 00:35 [=GMT+0200], Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Roeland,

> >Not all of them will do that reliably. This introduces entropy into the
> >Inclusive Root system. Unlike cryptographic randomness, entropy is NOT good
> >for production systems.
> 
> That's what I would call "your own tecnical problem".
> If somebody will have unreliable information, ISPs will point to the others 
> who have.

> (incidentally, you have given the best explanation to the reason why almost 
> everybody points to the reliable (and consistent) root, not to potentially 
> unreliable, although "enhanced", surrogates)

This I do not understand. Roeland described a situation that might
exist in the future. How can this explain something that you already
say (and I doubt) to be true in the present? I did note 'potentially',
but would think that is not really what is on people's mind when they
think about using another root. More in general: It sounds like
marketing language to me: 'unreliable, surrogate'.

- -- 
[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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:23:11 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: WG direction.

Roeland wrote:
>
>The answer to this is to define what a proper registry should be. That will
>raise the barrier to entry sufficiently that this objection should be
>satisfied. I also think that this should be the direction of the new WG,
>before we go anywhere else.

The current answer is that a proper Registry is what comes out from the 
ICANN accreditation.
We may all (well, almost all) agree that so far the process has not been hte 
best: rushed evaluation, decisions not always giving the impression of being 
well informed (I still laugh about the motivation on .air converted to 
.aero), and more.

Maybe a WG on criteria and process for future expansion would make sense!
But what you are proposing is a WG to throw away what has been done so far, 
and restart again (in the best traditions of Internet Governance: when one 
way or the other new TLDs are about to be added, opla', let's start all 
over).

Mmmmhh! - went there, seen that ;>)

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 16:30:02 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

> > I run my own burger joint, until yesterday I have been screaming and yelling
> > against McDonalds, but now I support them, I really think that they should
> > let me operate in franchise, under their umbrella-organization, otherwise I
> > will consider this an aggression!

Not really.

You've been running your own burger joint, marketing a burger called a
"Roberto Special," and now McDonalds comes along and says, "starting
next quarter, we're introducing the 'Roberto Special!'" You tell them that
you're already doing that, and they say, "Who cares? We're bigger, you
don't have a trademark, and we didn't know about you." You show them
documentation in their own online forum for public comments where they
were notified of you, and they just shut up.

Can they do it? Yeah, guess so. Can you fight back? Yeah, you can.
Will you win? Good question, hard to tell. But it'll be a bloody fight,
that's for sure.

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 16:33:54 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

Roeland,

>You are missing a connector here. If it can be shown that adding the
>NeuStar
>BIZ TLD will forseeably have the effect that you mention here (and that is
>very difficult to dispute) then we can establish a causal relationship
>between the addition of the TLD and the effect on ARNI's BIZ. Ergo, the
>simple addition of the NeuStar BIZ TLD, in the DOC root zone, would
>destablize ARNI's BIZ registry. Since DOC is a branch of the USG and ARNI
>is
>a US company engaged in a lawful business, the USG would be in violation of
>its own Constitution.

There is no such "do no harm" provision in the US Constitution.

As a matter of fact, the USG has regularly passed laws that have put
not only individual businesses, but entire industries, out of
business.  There is no constitutional guarantee of protection.

The Constitution is not the appropriate doctrine for your argument.

- -- 
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 16:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Jeff Field wrote:

> "Please note: The new domains, especially .biz, are not ICANN TLDs. They are
> real domains supported in the ORSC Inclusive Name Space. Likewise, we are
> not taking pre-registrations; these are all active domains."
>
> Yes real, yes active...but invisible to nearly everyone.  Sort of like
> buying a shrink-wrapped calculator that has the add, subtract, and multiply
> buttons disabled; only the divide button works.  IOW, the expectation was a
> fully functioning calculator but what I got was nearly useless.  And, if I'm
> the consumer, I don't give a damn if the company disclosed this information
> in the fine print (the tactic used at PacificRoot's website), I'm pissed!

So in essence you are arguing that people are too stupid to read,
shouldn't bear the burden of understanding what they are signing up for,
and anyone offering these names even with a disclaimer in place is
misleading consumers?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:51:48 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

On Monday, April 16, 2001 9:30 AM (AEST)
Christopher Ambler wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

> You've been running your own burger joint, marketing a burger called a
> "Roberto Special," and now McDonalds comes along and says, "starting
> next quarter, we're introducing the 'Roberto Special!'" You tell them that
> you're already doing that, and they say, "Who cares? We're bigger, you
> don't have a trademark, and we didn't know about you." You show them
> documentation in their own online forum for public comments where they
> were notified of you, and they just shut up.
>
> Can they do it? Yeah, guess so. Can you fight back? Yeah, you can.
> Will you win? Good question, hard to tell. But it'll be a bloody fight,
> that's for sure.

Hi Christopher

What I see is the whole fight is pointless anyway as "Roberto Special" is not
even that good a name and IOD Design would pay US$50,000 for McDonalds to use
their nice "Deluxe Design" name.

In this case it looks like McDonalds are just being provocative for no reason.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 19:52:05 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] sub-ML for the request of a WG-Inclusive Name Space Management

on 4/15/01 5:56 PM, Roberto Gaetano at [email-masked] wrote:

>> 2. a realistic number of person have indicated their intent to participate
>> to expect now this ML to be well set-up an managed
> 
> I saw a lot of people participating (end enjoying) the debate, but frankly
> not a lot of explicit calls for a separate list.
> 
I explicitly support Jefsey's call for a seperate ML list for this topic.
All interested persons are constrained by time, and it is vital that those
with the most to contribute are given the best possible opportunities to
focus, without having to deal with disruptive noise from the GA list, hence
my call for 6 seperate mailing lists to be set up immediately, including
this one.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:04:47 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: JandL [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 12:25 AM
|> To: Ga; [email-masked]
|> Subject: RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML
|>
|>
|> Dassa, I'm not going to re-argue the same thing over and over
|> again.  There is ONE NAME SPACE - ONE DNS.
|>
|> There cannot be two of the same TLD string in the name space.
|> Simple.  If there is an existing TLD and DoC enters
|> another one it is
|> a duplicate and it doesn't make any difference what semantics you
|> choose to use for the roots.  The roots do not make any
|> difference.
|>  It is a duplicate TLD in the name space.  THE NAME SPACE.  End of
|> story.  It makes no difference how many times people want to try
|> to split it up so it sounds like separate DNS's.  It's one
|> structure, one DNS and we all use it.

Much as you and others may try to argue there is only a single name
space, the facts and practical examples show there isn't.  If there
was only one name space, all would be visible to everyone without the
need for additional configuration.

DNS is made up of multiple name spaces linking together in a
heirarchial structure.  The roots are at the top of the tree and are
the base for the structure.

Everyone who connects to the Internet with their own private DNS and
network is introducing another name space.  If that name space fits
into the legacy system, well and good, all thier hostnames will be
seen immediately.  If the name space doesn't fit into the legacy
system it is not seen by the majority.  That is the alternative name
spaces, users need to reconfigure their systems either at the hostname
or ISP level for the hostnames to be seen.

There is not a single name space.  There are multiple name spaces that
under the legacy system operate under a cooperative agreement.  The
alternative name spaces are not operating under that cooperative
agreement and are in direct competition with it.  Pure and simple.

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 #390
************************