Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #414
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, April 23 2001            Volume 01 : Number 414

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

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 16:17:10 -0400
From: "LDG" <[email-masked]>
Subject: (Fwd) Re: [ga] Competitive Roots  [was Additional Mailing List

We're playing the semantics game here, I think.  There should be no 
competition, IMO.  There should be a real effort toward cooperation.  If 
all the roots are carrying the ICANN and CCTLDs, where is the 
competition?  Cooperation is a huge factor.  The issue of duplication is 
huge even though the FUD makes it appear to be a competitive issue.  

Competition should take place among TLDs and registrars to keep 
prices reasonable and interesting in a free market.  That has nothing to 
do with whether there should be duplicates of any string at the same 
level of the tree.

It is this understanding that must be dealt with, along with the absolute 
that these entities do exist and are not going away.  It sounds to me as 
though there are many who think companies like new.net will simply 
disappear if certain other things are true.  I believe that assumption is 
dead wrong, but if it were true, we're also looking at possibly hundreds 
of thousands of people on the net who would be seriously injured.  I 
think it is extremely important to look at these issues to find ways to 
communicate and cooperate for all interested parties - especially the 
users.

For those who think that ignoring it will make it go away, fine.  Let's sit 
back and watch the disaster.  For those who see it as competition, 
maybe that's good too.  It makes us take notice, doesn't it?

Leah

On 22 Apr 2001, at 7:36, Eric Dierker wrote:

> GA Members;
> 
> Do we have a consensus that these roots are in competition with ICANN?
> 
> If they are then we should have one course of action, as in competition strategy.
> 
> If they are not then we have another course of action, inclusion and cooperation.
> 
> I also suggest that if it is competition then .biz is a non-issue, why would we
> care about competitors rights, and if that is the case, we should unleash a slew
> of gTLDs that compete with every other competing root.
> 
> (someone please tell us that competition is not what it is)
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick Corliss wrote:
> 
> > Hi Sotiris
> >
> > > With all due respect, Patrick, I think it would be wise to leave aside the
> > > topic of competitive roots.  This, because  the competitive roots topic
> > > is really not an ICANN relevant topic; the ICANN intransigence on
> > > competitive roots is firmly entrenched and IMHO it will take a miracle
> > > to get the BoD to even comment on altroots.  After all, competitive roots
> > > are just that: competition.
> >
> > Can't agree, honestly.  First it's an issue with New.net's drive to expand its
> > operations.  Secondly, many people will keep bringing it up if .biz gets
> > approved and operational.  Thirdly, there is going to have to be a debate
> > about MultiBind.  Fourthly, we need to consider multilinguals but this is a
> > diversion for many, if not most, on the main mailing list.    Finally I don't
> > see why we ought not to discuss the competition - Pepsi does !!
> >
> > The whole issue really needs to be shunted off to a separate mailing list
> > somewhere.  Otherwise it will keep coming back to haunt the main list.
> >
> > I know I have an interest in this topic but that's just good common sense.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Patrick Corliss
>

Leah Gallegos
AtlanticRoot Network, Inc. http://www.biztld.net
The DotBIZ tld Registry - the REAL one.  Stop ICANN
from duplicating the .BIZ tld in their root and fracturing
the Internet! 
ALSO, visit http://www.TLDlobby.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, 22 Apr 2001 16:21:39 -0400
From: "LDG" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Additional Mailing Lists

I think it is asking a lot of monitors to cover all lists.  It is not going to 
be that easy to find monitors for all the lists, but they really should be 
responsible for only one or two at the most.  It's very time consuming.

I also think that list rules should be established for each list since each 
will be topic specific and posting limits should not be imposed unless 
there is serious abuse.  In a WG, the list monitor should have wider 
leeway in imposing on-topic rules, etc, IMO.

Leah

On 22 Apr 2001, at 9:13, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 06:49 22.04.2001 -0400, babybows.com wrote:
> >Hi Patrick,
> >
> >Please keep in mind my comment, "This proposed collection of lists will
> >further be discussed by the General Assembly in the course of the next few
> >days".  The lists that I proposed are only a suggestion, and I am expecting
> >the GA to make up its own mind regarding the way forward with regard to
> >these mailing lists.   You will note that many of the proposed lists reflect
> >the recommendations (motions) already put forward by the membership.
> 
> One note - I think it natural that the rules for monitoring of the new 
> mailing lists should be the same as for the GA list (decorum, chair can ask 
> for posting limit, list monitor team and suspensions).
> I also think it natural that the lists have the same monitors as the main 
> list (although not all monitors will be on all lists, one could ask for at 
> least 2 of them to be on each), but that suspensions are per list, not for 
> all the GA lists.
> 
> But I'm biased. Other thoughts?
> 
> 
> >Best regards,
> >Danny
> >
> >--
> >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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

Leah Gallegos
AtlanticRoot Network, Inc. http://www.biztld.net
The DotBIZ tld Registry - the REAL one.  Stop ICANN
from duplicating the .BIZ tld in their root and fracturing
the Internet! 
ALSO, visit http://www.TLDlobby.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, 22 Apr 2001 16:41:47 -0400
From: "LDG" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Competitive Roots  [was Additional Mailing Lists]

I'm going to try to make this really clear.

There are other roots in existence.  There are many TLDs. They all use 
the DNS. They are not going away. Duplicates in the DNS will cause 
problems - big problems, especially if they re in the USG root.  

The TLD managers pretty much agree that competition among registries 
is fine in a free market (e.g., .museum vs. .travel or .web vs. .online), 
but there is no competition with the USG root in any case.  There must 
be communication and cooperation, however, to avoid the potential 
problems that exist when these entities do not communicate and when 
ICANN insists that they are "not real."  

Business models are NOT the issue.  Duplication IS a huge issue.

The ostrich game spells disaster.

On 22 Apr 2001, at 12:04, Kristy McKee wrote:

> I don't believe ICANN should be in competition with anyone other than 
> another group who wants to provide technical coordination services for the 
> USG Root servers, etc.
> 
> :)
> 
> ~k
> 
> At 07:36 AM 4/22/2001 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >GA Members;
> >
> >Do we have a consensus that these roots are in competition with ICANN?
> >
> >If they are then we should have one course of action, as in competition 
> >strategy.
> >
> >If they are not then we have another course of action, inclusion and 
> >cooperation.
> >
> >I also suggest that if it is competition then .biz is a non-issue, why 
> >would we
> >care about competitors rights, and if that is the case, we should unleash 
> >a slew
> >of gTLDs that compete with every other competing root.

That's pretty much what new.net did - mostly with colliders.  It shows a 
total lack of understanding of the DNS and a total lack of caring about 
the users.  It's bottom line thinking without regard for the DNS itself.  If 
that is what ICANN does, it is in direct conflict with the mandate to 
maintain stability.  Is that what you are suggesting?   Duplication of 
existing TLDs in order to "show them" that ICANN is bigger?  It's a 
disaster in the making.

> >
> >(someone please tell us that competition is not what it is)
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >
> >
> >Patrick Corliss wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Sotiris
> > >
> > > > With all due respect, Patrick, I think it would be wise to leave 
> > aside the
> > > > topic of competitive roots.  This, because  the competitive roots topic
> > > > is really not an ICANN relevant topic; the ICANN intransigence on
> > > > competitive roots is firmly entrenched and IMHO it will take a miracle
> > > > to get the BoD to even comment on altroots.  After all, competitive roots
> > > > are just that: competition.
> > >
> > > Can't agree, honestly.  First it's an issue with New.net's drive to 
> > expand its
> > > operations.  Secondly, many people will keep bringing it up if .biz gets
> > > approved and operational.  Thirdly, there is going to have to be a debate
> > > about MultiBind.  Fourthly, we need to consider multilinguals but this is a
> > > diversion for many, if not most, on the main mailing list.    Finally I 
> > don't
> > > see why we ought not to discuss the competition - Pepsi does !!
> > >
> > > The whole issue really needs to be shunted off to a separate mailing list
> > > somewhere.  Otherwise it will keep coming back to haunt the main list.
> > >
> > > I know I have an interest in this topic but that's just good common sense.
> > >
> > > 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
> 
> --
> 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
> 

Leah Gallegos
AtlanticRoot Network, Inc. http://www.biztld.net
The DotBIZ tld Registry - the REAL one.  Stop ICANN
from duplicating the .BIZ tld in their root and fracturing
the Internet! 
ALSO, visit http://www.TLDlobby.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, 22 Apr 2001 11:48:57 -0400
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Competitive Roots (correction)

At 10:31 22.04.2001 -0400, Sotiris wrote:
>Assuming it happens that @Home (and/or the rest) of New.net's partners
>go under, get bought out, or are otherwise disinclined to continue their
>relationship, New.net goes nowhere.

note that new.net has a relationship with excite@home.
the rest of the @home family seems not to have joined forces with it.

- --
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, 22 Apr 2001 18:06:25 -0400
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Additional Mailing Lists

At 09:44 22.04.2001 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 5:22 AM
>
> > (4)    [ga-rts]     Competitive Roots  (alts & multilinguals)
>
>I would like to see alts and multilinguals separated. They are NOT the same
>issues and each may disrupt discussion of the other.

Agreed. The most likely scenario for multiscript deployment (we already 
HAVE multilingual - Dutch is not English, even if the characters are the 
same) is within the ICANN roots, and initially within the existing ICANN TLDs.

               Harald

- --
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, 22 Apr 2001 18:18:30 -0400
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] China?[Re: Additional Mailing Lists]

At 16:02 22.04.2001 -0400, LDG wrote:
>I realize that you are considering only the roots, and of those, only the
>ones that have been listed thus far.  Have you considered the countries
>who are launching roots because of dissatisfaction with ICANN - China,
>for example?  If you think it will end there, you are wrong.  Any entity
>using the DNS must be noticed by ICANN and the topic is very relevant
>to the GA.

*has* China launched an alternate root?
If so, what is the published IP addresses of its root servers?

the reason for asking is that the number of actions attributed to China is 
often quite large; without adequate documentation, it is impossible to know 
for sure whether or not a given claim is true.

Unlike many other things, an alternate root connected to the global 
Internet can be identified relatively easily.

[this message should be sent on the 23rd, if my mail system does what I 
want. I have already said enough on the 22nd....]

- --
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, 22 Apr 2001 18:11:33 -0400
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "All roots" (Re:  Additional Mailing Lists)

At 11:54 22.04.2001 -0700, Kristy McKee wrote:
>I disagree with you Sotiris,
>
>I think all the different Root services must begin to communicate 
>now.  Many of them are already effectively communicating, our 
>representatives are not participating and WE, the members of the group who 
>are supposed to have a voice are screaming that many of us want our 
>representatives to at the very least attempt to negotiate with all 
>existing Root Administrators/Owners.

Note that I as a member of this group am not screaming for this. Quite the 
opposite, in fact.

>We have also communicated repetitively that we do not want the USG to 
>create duplicate entries in the Master List for all Roots.  Some of our 
>representatives have heard us and yet they are deaf to our pleas - we have 
>a way to make them understand how important our Internet is to us and that 
>we don't care for it to be segregated.

Again, I as a member of this group do not agree with the opinion stated above.

The reason is that I do not believe that the concept "the Master List for 
all Roots" can exist without a corresponding governing body.
No obvious governing body has been identified, either here on the list or 
elsewhere; therefore I do not believe that the Master List for all Roots 
currently exists, and it is impossible to create duplicate entries in a 
list that does not exist.

Be careful - you have this opinion, and many agree with you. However, I 
(and several others) do not.

- --
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, 22 Apr 2001 18:31:51 -0400
From: "LDG" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: China?[Re: Additional Mailing Lists]

The announcement was posted to this list, the domain-policy list and in 
several online and print media publications.  The root was launched 
some time ago.

Leah

On 22 Apr 2001, at 18:18, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 16:02 22.04.2001 -0400, LDG wrote:
> >I realize that you are considering only the roots, and of those, only the
> >ones that have been listed thus far.  Have you considered the countries
> >who are launching roots because of dissatisfaction with ICANN - China,
> >for example?  If you think it will end there, you are wrong.  Any entity
> >using the DNS must be noticed by ICANN and the topic is very relevant
> >to the GA.
> 
> *has* China launched an alternate root?
> If so, what is the published IP addresses of its root servers?
> 
> the reason for asking is that the number of actions attributed to China is 
> often quite large; without adequate documentation, it is impossible to know 
> for sure whether or not a given claim is true.
> 
> Unlike many other things, an alternate root connected to the global 
> Internet can be identified relatively easily.
> 
> [this message should be sent on the 23rd, if my mail system does what I 
> want. I have already said enough on the 22nd....]
> 

Leah Gallegos
AtlanticRoot Network, Inc. http://www.biztld.net
The DotBIZ tld Registry - the REAL one.  Stop ICANN
from duplicating the .BIZ tld in their root and fracturing
the Internet! 
ALSO, visit http://www.TLDlobby.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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:56:52 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "All roots" (Re:  Additional Mailing Lists)

Hi Harald

Many lists would consider your posting to be a breach of list rules of the "me
too" variety.  In this case you simply say that you do not agree without
stating any reasons.

The argument is for a working group to discuss the policy implications of
alternate roots.

Can you be specific, please, not necessarily by answering Kristy's post but by
stating why you think there are no policy implications for alternative roots?

In other words, if you are saying the subject is not worthy of discussion then
why is much of this list taken up with discussing it?  As I said, it would
free up the main list.

The other alternative is to keep ruling it "off topic" and banning almost
everybody.  I am not sure the GA would agree to impose that sort of a role on
the list monitors.

BTW I have only included multilinguals to the extent that they are running
alternative roots as I thought, with respect, should have been obvious.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
To: Kristy McKee <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 8:11 AM
Subject: [ga] "All roots" (Re: Additional Mailing Lists)

> At 11:54 22.04.2001 -0700, Kristy McKee wrote:
> >I disagree with you Sotiris,
> >
> >I think all the different Root services must begin to communicate
> >now.  Many of them are already effectively communicating, our
> >representatives are not participating and WE, the members of the group who
> >are supposed to have a voice are screaming that many of us want our
> >representatives to at the very least attempt to negotiate with all
> >existing Root Administrators/Owners.
>
> Note that I as a member of this group am not screaming for this. Quite the
> opposite, in fact.
>
> >We have also communicated repetitively that we do not want the USG to
> >create duplicate entries in the Master List for all Roots.  Some of our
> >representatives have heard us and yet they are deaf to our pleas - we have
> >a way to make them understand how important our Internet is to us and that
> >we don't care for it to be segregated.
>
> Again, I as a member of this group do not agree with the opinion stated
above.
>
> The reason is that I do not believe that the concept "the Master List for
> all Roots" can exist without a corresponding governing body.
> No obvious governing body has been identified, either here on the list or
> elsewhere; therefore I do not believe that the Master List for all Roots
> currently exists, and it is impossible to create duplicate entries in a
> list that does not exist.
>
> Be careful - you have this opinion, and many agree with you. However, I
> (and several others) do not.
>
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:16:46 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Additional Mailing Lists

At 10:19 22/04/01 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:

>
>While I agree with *objective* "civil discourse" rules, I find that
>stifiling participation via posting limits is counterproductive to the
>very purpose of discussion lists.
>
Patrick,
I often find myself in agreement with you, but not this time.

If we want *objective* civil discourse rules, we will still find ourselves
working on a 10 page casuistic document for the next 12 months.
Non-lawyers always over-estimate the force of "objective" rules.
Abusers  will still find loopholes to debate. (vide Kent Crispin's
contribution on "what is un-civil?"  on the early idno-discuss list) 

Insults are by definition subjective. Provocative lies can be delivered in
a perfectly civil way, aimed to troll for an angry response or, if that
doesn't work, to  discredit/silence participants.
People need a complaints procedure and explain offlist to a moderator why
they are complaining.
Throwing a disruptive or offensive participant temporarily  out of the
Assembly is a subjective exercise, one for which we should bear collective
responsibility.

OTOH, the 5-posts-a-day rule is eminently suited to force heated dialoges
to a slower pace and preventing such to dominate the bandwidth of us all. 

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://www.idno.org  

- --
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, 23 Apr 2001 10:26:06 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Chinese Internet

Somebody, I'm not sure who, asked about Chinese alternative roots.  In fact I
have supplied that information already (see below).  I would also draw the
following post to your attention.

On Monday, April 16, 2001 10:21 AM (AEST), Bradley D. Thornton wrote:
Subject: RE: [minc-discuss] Looking for meat and potatoes...

> We're having problems with the CNNIC's TLDs right now, as they no longer
> seem to be functioning on our servers (resolving properly). If anyone has
> the neccessary glue records for CNNIC's new TLDs this would really be
> appreciated - again, The A and NS RRs are al that we need.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>; Kristy McKee <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 5:59 AM
Subject: [ga] Chinese Internet

On Tuesday, April 17, 2001 5:27 AM (AEST)
Sandy Harris <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

> Kristy McKee wrote:
> > China, among others has no interest in using the legacy root services.
>
> Have you any evidence for this? It seems to me .cn is in the root zone, and
> I fairly often see Chinese sending to various mailing lists I'm on. All of
> them are (surprise!) hosted on real domains whose TLDs are in the ICANN
> root.  The Chinese I see there seem to have no problem finding those
domains.

CHINESE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM LAUNCHES ON ALTERNATIVE ROOT SERVER

New York, NY February 7, 2001 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) People's Daily reports that
China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) has launched its Chinese
Domain Name System.

Internet surfers can also access other websites that do not end with ".cn" by
entering Chinese characters, so long as they have installed client software
provided by CNNIC, states the report.

Significantly, the "client software" referenced above means that CNNIC's
Chinese Domain Name System is using an alternate root server - an inclusive
name space root that operates in the same manner, but independently of the
U.S./DoC root system.

Users of ISPs that have installed the Chinese domain name resolving software
need not resort to installing the client software of their own. Many ISPs
regard the resolve function as a kind of value-added service, so they are
actively cooperating with CNNIC to promote and popularize this service.

CNNIC will provide three kinds of code formats for each domain name including
GBK, BIG5, UTF8 which are respectively used by Chinese mainland, Hong Kong &
Taiwan and Win2K users. Internet users can use their local code format
conveniently and there is no need to convert characters. This will undoubtedly
help lay a good foundation for interchanges between the motherland, Hong Kong
and Taiwan.

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, 22 Apr 2001 17:42:58 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "All roots" (Re:  Additional Mailing Lists)

On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:56:52AM +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> Hi Harald
> 
> Many lists would consider your posting to be a breach of list rules of the "me
> too" variety.  In this case you simply say that you do not agree without
> stating any reasons.
> 
> The argument is for a working group to discuss the policy implications of
> alternate roots.
>
> Can you be specific, please, not necessarily by answering Kristy's post but by
> stating why you think there are no policy implications for alternative roots?

Alternate roots and alternate TLDs destabalize the name space, and hence
the primary policy question is how strongly ICANN should condemn them. 
So far ICANN has been content with letting the alternate roots (and
alternate TLDs) self-destruct, but I think that with the appeance of
new.net a case could be made that a stronger policy is necessary. 

That's probably worth another motion:

    I move that the GA petition the NC to ask the Board to submit a
    formal letter to the US Federal Trade Commission calling for the
    immediate investigation of all alternate root and alternate TLD
    providers.  

Moreover, I think the US congress should be informed, and that, for
those of us in the US, we should encourage our congresspersons to pass a
law to make knowingly attaching alternate roots or TLDs to the public
Internet a criminal offense.  In other countries I think responsible 
people should take similar measures.

I'm not saying this to be provocative, incidentally -- I really do
believe that attaching alternate roots or TLDs to the Internet runs the
risk of doing serious harm.  As long as the experiments are very small
the risks of damage are very slight, but if the number of participants
in these experiments gets very large, I believe the possibility of
serious damage becomes quite real. 

> In other words, if you are saying the subject is not worthy of discussion then
> why is much of this list taken up with discussing it?

Because there are a number of people who are either living in a
technical dream world, or are willing to damage the Internet for their
own personal gain. 

> As I said, it would
> free up the main list.

That's highly doubtful.

> The other alternative is to keep ruling it "off topic" and banning almost
> everybody.

Interesting that you think that the alternate root crowd is "almost everybody".

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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, 22 Apr 2001 17:32:10 -0700
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "All roots" (Re:  Additional Mailing Lists)

Patrick Corliss writes:
 > Can you be specific, please, not necessarily by answering Kristy's
 > post but by stating why you think there are no policy implications
 > for alternative roots?
 > 
 > In other words, if you are saying the subject is not worthy of
 > discussion then why is much of this list taken up with discussing it?
 > As I said, it would free up the main list.

The subject is not worth discussing because there can never be an
accomodation with the so-called "alternate" roots.  The only people on
this list who want to talk about the subject are those who have a vested
interest in one so-called "alternate" root or another, in other words
those with a conflict of interest with ICANN.

There is nothing to be gained by re-hashing the same old tired arguments
that have already been re-hashed on every single mailing list that has
anything remotely to do with this whole process (e.g., IAHC, white
paper, etc., etc., ad naseaum).  What are the possible outcomes of any
discussion of the so-called "alternate" roots?

o ICANN BoD agrees that the so-called "alternate" roots represent a
  legitmate claim on the namespace and grandfathers them in.

o ICANN BoD maintains their existing policy that the so-called
  "alternate" roots represent nothing more than what they claim and have
  always claimed, namely an alternate view of a global namespace,
  perfectly reasonable in a free market.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that ICANN will ever change
their position, no matter how many so-called "alternate" root
sympathizers manage to yell and scream on the GA list or in any working
group.  There is no logical reason to continue to discuss this matter
which has already been beaten to death over and over and over and over
and over and over again and again and again and again...

 > The other alternative is to keep ruling it "off topic" and banning
 > almost everybody.  I am not sure the GA would agree to impose that
 > sort of a role on the list monitors.

It is off-topic because there is no new information to add to a subject
which everyone has already made up their minds on.  Every single person
who is calling for the discussion has a vested interest in seeing one or
another of the so-called "alternate" roots succeed, probably because
they have some monetary stake in it.  Everyone else thinks that there is
absolutely nothing to discuss because the so-called "alternate" roots
have always been free to publicize their own private namespaces and they
have always been free to promote their views in every other forum they
want, especially in the commercial marketplace, the only forum that
matters.

 > BTW I have only included multilinguals to the extent that they are
 > running alternative roots as I thought, with respect, should have
 > been obvious.

Multilingual DNS is a technical issue that does not belong in a
political forum.

/Joe
- --
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, 23 Apr 2001 10:40:20 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Fw: [ga] "All roots" (Re:  Additional Mailing Lists)

This post from Harald may be included in my posting count.

On Monday, April 23, 2001 10:19 AM (AEST),
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:
To: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "All roots" (Re: Additional Mailing Lists)

At 09:56 23.04.2001 +1000, you wrote:
>Hi Harald
>
>Many lists would consider your posting to be a breach of list rules of the 
>"me too" variety.  In this case you simply say that you do not agree without
>stating any reasons.
>
>The argument is for a working group to discuss the policy implications of
>alternate roots.

Since I am over my daily limit, I'll reply privately. Feel free to forward.
The purpose of the post is not mainly to say that I disagree with Kristy 
about alternate roots (I think we all know that).

The purpose is to say that I think she is wrong to say that WE (meaning the 
GA) want our representatives to negotiate with the alternate root owners.

I think the subject is worthy of discussion (and would prefer a sublist to 
do so). But I think the GA does not have a stated opinion on the matter.
.
        Harald

- --
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, 22 Apr 2001 20:57:46 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: China?[Re: Additional Mailing Lists]

Leah and All,

Whether China launches its own root or not, the question is: will I be able to
access the Chinese rootzone and its TLDs from a WWW cybercafe in Peru, or perhaps
in Finland?  China may have its own "root" for purposes of a country-specific
WAN, but how does it affect the global DNS if the Chinese domains do not
automatically resolve worldwide?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

LDG wrote:

> The announcement was posted to this list, the domain-policy list and in
> several online and print media publications.  The root was launched
> some time ago.
>
> Leah
>
> On 22 Apr 2001, at 18:18, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > At 16:02 22.04.2001 -0400, LDG wrote:
> > >I realize that you are considering only the roots, and of those, only the
> > >ones that have been listed thus far.  Have you considered the countries
> > >who are launching roots because of dissatisfaction with ICANN - China,
> > >for example?  If you think it will end there, you are wrong.  Any entity
> > >using the DNS must be noticed by ICANN and the topic is very relevant
> > >to the GA.
> >
> > *has* China launched an alternate root?
> > If so, what is the published IP addresses of its root servers?
> >
> > the reason for asking is that the number of actions attributed to China is
> > often quite large; without adequate documentation, it is impossible to know
> > for sure whether or not a given claim is true.
> >
> > Unlike many other things, an alternate root connected to the global
> > Internet can be identified relatively easily.
> >
> > [this message should be sent on the 23rd, if my mail system does what I
> > want. I have already said enough on the 22nd....]
> >
>
> Leah Gallegos
> AtlanticRoot Network, Inc. http://www.biztld.net
> The DotBIZ tld Registry - the REAL one.  Stop ICANN
> from duplicating the .BIZ tld in their root and fracturing
> the Internet!
> ALSO, visit http://www.TLDlobby.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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:07:55 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Agenda for the Stockholm Meeting

I like the way this is going- some structure, and some planning of what we
will work on in Stockholm.

The basic list looks preetty good to me

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of DPF
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 7:01 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Agenda for the Stockholm Meeting

Sounds a better way of doing things.  The groupings seem quite logical

DPF

On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 21:45:36 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:

>Thank you, David.  Some of these can easily be tidied up:
>Perhaps there could be six semi-permanent working groups.
>Each group could then set their own priorities.
>
>ACCOUNTABILITY
>    Conflict of Interests
>    ICANN Directors
>
>CONSENSUS
>    Constituency Structure
>    Outreach & Participation
>    Website & Communication
>
>INTERNAL PROCESSES
>    Electoral Procedures
>    Finance & Funding
>    List Rules & Protocols
>    Mailing List Facilities
>
>COMPETITIVE ROOTS
>    Alternate Root Systems (Colliders)
>    Multilingual DNS
>
>REGISTRATION
>    Registrant/Whois Privacy
>    Registrar Accreditation, QA
>    Registry-Registrar Separation
>    Verisign Agreement (incl. .org)
>
>TRADE MARKS-IP
>    Dispute Resolution
>    WIPO-2
>
>
>Best regards
>Patrick Corliss
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: DPF <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 8:46 PM
>Subject: Re: [ga] Agenda for the Stockholm Meeting
>
>
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:02:52 +1000, you wrote:
>
>>Could I ask the floor whether the following list is complete?  It already
>>includes the Chair's concerns on "Registrant/Whois Privacy" and anything
else
>>I can think of.  I appreciate Joop's point that some motions have already
>been
>>proposed to the Chair.
>
>I think if anything it is too complete.  I think that it will be
>beyond our capability to even scratch the surface of so many topics.
>It is useful having them all listed but for my 2c I would concentrate
>on:
>
>>> Consensus Process
>>> Constituency Structure
>>> Electoral Procedures
>>> Finance & Funding Support
>>> Individual Constituency
>>> List Rules & Protocols
>>> Mailing List Facilities
>>> Names Council Relationship
>>> Voting and Electoral Issues
>>> Website & Communication
>>> Working Groups
>
>DPF
>--
>[email-masked]
>ICQ 29964527
>--
>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

- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 #414
************************