Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #423
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, April 27 2001            Volume 01 : Number 423

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

Date: 26 Apr 2001 15:02:51 -0700
From: Srikanth Narra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] domain name owner's bill of rights

Thanks Patrick/Eric

So far no one got back to me on the issue per se.

On positive side :

NSI, sent me the invoices and renewal notices in a hurry within few hours of posting to this list. (my thanks to whoever made it happen)

On negative side :

I just come across Register who held up my domain transfer to other registers after receiving my explicit transfer approval. So they can make counter-offer to stay on with them. 

To top things, I found out they denied my transfer because I did not respond to their counter offer in time.

Is it even legal to do this ? 

Either a working group or a request for comments to domain name owners would be a very good idea.

Sri

On Thu, 26 April 2001, "Patrick Corliss" wrote:

> 
> On Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:50 AM (AEST)
> Srikanth Narra <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Subject: [ga] domain name owner's bill of rights
> 
> 
> > Anywhere in the agreements (mela) that surround ICANN - is there any thing
> that
> > sounds or feels like bill of rights for domain name owners ?
> 
> Hi Srikanth
> 
> Did anyone ever get back to you on this question?  The Chair is setting up
> several working groups and this is the sort of issue that may be referred to
> one of them to be considered.
> 
> 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: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:55:07 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign Contract/policy

If any one questions whether it is right and good for us to look at
thses contracts and respond accordingly and whether or not they are
policy matters read this and weep.
And do not knee jerk react without reading the entire article and
reflecting on what is a conflict of interest and what is an illegal
monopoly and what is required by the APA and the White Paper.

"Mountain View, CA, April 25, 2001-VeriSign, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRSN), the
leading
provider of Internet trust services, today announced that the American
Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), the organization that administers
and
registers Internet Protocol (IP) numbers for North America, South
America,
the Caribbean, and sub-Saharan Africa, has selected VeriSign's Managed
DNS
Services to ensure the reliability and robust query response of its DNS
(Domain Name System) zone file information. VeriSign's Secondary Name
Server
Hosting, part of the company's suite of Managed DNS Services, will
provide
secondary name server support to ARIN's zones for inverse address
mapping,
which perform IP address-to-domain name resolution on the Internet."

more info:  http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2001/pr_20010425b.html

Verisign's control over the existing Internet structure is dangerous and
ill advised from a public policy perspective.  Now they are
getting/maintaining a certain amount of control over even the ccTLDs.
Where is the GAC and DNSO in this matter?

I have read much of the DoC documents regarding this matter, they are
begging for a political cure to this mess.  They do not want to be
experts in these matters they want to hear from the experts - the GA.
They can only do what is right if we tell them what that is, and the
only thing that is right is that the Internetstakeholders position on
these matters takes precedence!

Sincerely,

- --
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: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 04:56:22 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] http://dnso-ga.org moke-up and management

As per our published commitment, the http://dnso-ga.org site
donated by world@wide is online.

1. comments/suggetions are welcome for entries in the menus,
     and texts. The whole menu structure is maintained in a
     single ASCII file easily edited. So it may be maintained
     by the Secretariat.

     On a temporary basis secretariat is provided by the SIAT.
     But SIAT lacks resources: a full time person will join
     only in June..

2. we would like the GA to take over as soon as possible

     - could someone host it? The machine it currently on
       is and R&D machine.
     - a solution for the secretariat should be found
     - help is needed for text writing and English revision
     - a management group should be set up we could transfer
       the site to  (may be under co-Chair supervision?).

3. In the meanwhile we plan:

     - to pick DannyBows' mail to serve as a description of the
        NC sponsored MLs.- unless a better text is available?
     - relate with Joop to find a formula to best present and link
       its booth for polls, if he agrees..
.
Thank you for your help.
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: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:09:06 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] U.S. Gov't sets date for ICANN-Verisign power deal appro val

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:46:04 -0700, you wrote:

>On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 06:50:34AM +1200, DPF wrote:
>> The point I was trying to make is that when many within ICANN begged
>> for even a 30 day extension to allow more time for consultation the
>> very clear message was that this is not possible and we will stick
>> with the status quo if no decision by this time.  We were told even a
>> delay of some weeks would be unfair to Verisign's plans.
>> 
>> The USG has now asked for a 21 day extension and as you have indicated
>> this will be granted.  Why the different treatment between requests
>> from ICANN for more time and requests from the USG?
>
>0) Things change.

Indeed they do.  That is not an answer though - just an observation.

>1) The USG is one of the signatories to the contract.  The DNSO is not.

ICANN is though and we were told any request by ICANN for an extension
would be turned down.

>2) The DNSO is part of ICANN, it is not ICANN.

Indeed not.  But the reason the DNSO requests were refused by ICANN is
because ICANN had been told no extension would be granted.

>3) The DNSO is concerned with general policy, not contract 
>negotiations.

A red herring.

>4) That the contracts involved any policy issues is questionable, at
>best. 

The proposition that they do not is what I would have called
questionable but there will never be agreement on this.  

The issue of what is and is not policy is an important one and I must
say I am disappointed that there has been no debate on this issue.  I
did try to start one looking at the issue of ccTLD names being
restricted in gTLDs but no-one weighed in on either that this is a
policy decision or that this is a contractual decision.

>5) The DNSO has absolutely no role in policy *enforcement*, even if 
>there had been policy issues in the contracts.

Red Herring.

>6) There could even be further changes in the contract as the result of 
>issues raised by the USG.  That's the way contract negotiations go.  
>That's why the idea of the DNSO overseeing the contract negotiations 
>is silly.

It's amazing how often people decry this idea when no one at all has
ever suggested the DNSO should negotiate contracts.  

The DNSO being asked to set a policy framework for such negotiations
is quite a different thing and consistent with our bylaws.

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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 01:09:13 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA's rights and obligations

Fine Members and Collegues,

I don't really think the nay sayers would be intersted in reading this
it just happens to be the Federal Registry document that allows ICANN to
operate within it's guidelines.

If the Verisign Contracts, Any Roots and the New gTLDs are not within
the GA's province then all of ICANN is a fraud.

I really do not expect many to go and read much of this so let me just
put a nice little synopses for you:

It basically points out, ahead of time what our responsibilities are and
that we are required as citizen internet users to maintain and require
our rights.  That the history and legacy of bottoms up consensus is
historical and a good thing for our part of the Internet. (keep in mind
there is another side that is so technical that it was purposefully
protected from the likes of me).
No this is not a fun document, it is a document that charges you and me
to act responsibly and to insist in taking part in all parts not
specifically technological and even then when we can.

Sincerely

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

15 CFR Chapter XXIII

[Docket No. 980212036-8036-01]
RIN 0660-AA11

III. The Need For Change

    From its origins as a U.S.-based research vehicle, the Internet is
rapidly becoming an international medium for commerce, education and
communication. The traditional means

[[Page 8827]]

of organizing its technical functions need to evolve as well. The
pressures for change are coming from many different quarters:
    <bullet> There is widespread dissatisfaction about the absence of
competition in domain name registration.
    <bullet> Mechanisms for resolving conflict between trademark
holders and domain name holders are expensive and cumbersome.
    <bullet> Without changes, a proliferation of lawsuits could lead to
chaos as tribunals around the world apply the antitrust law and
intellectual property law of their jurisdictions to the Internet.
    <bullet> Many commercial interests, staking their future on the
successful growth of the Internet, are calling for a more formal and
robust management structure.
    <bullet> An increasing percentage of Internet users reside outside
of the U.S., and those stakeholders want a larger voice in Internet
coordination.
    <bullet> As Internet names increasingly have commercial value, the
decision to add new top-level domains cannot continue to be made on an
ad hoc basis by entities or individuals that are not formally
accountable to the Internet community.
    <bullet> As the Internet becomes commercial, it becomes
inappropriate for U.S. research agencies (NSF and DARPA) to participate
in and fund these functions.

 There appears to be strong consensus that, at least at this time,
domain name

[[Page 8829]]

registration--the registrar function--should be competitive. There is
disagreement, however, over the wisdom of promoting competition at the
registry level.
    Some have made a strong case for establishing a market-driven
registry system. Competition among registries would allow registrants
to choose among TLDs rather than face a single option. Competing TLDs
would seek to heighten their efficiency, lower their prices, and
provide additional value-added services. Investments in registries
could be recouped through branding and marketing. The efficiency,
convenience, and service levels associated with the assignment of names
could ultimately differ from one TLD registry to another. Without these
types of market pressures, they argue, registries will have very little
incentive to innovate.
    Others feel strongly, however, that if multiple registries are to
exist, they should be undertaken on a not-for-profit basis. They argue
that lack of portability among registries (that is, the fact that users
cannot change registries without adjusting at least part of their
domain name string) could create lock-in problems and harm consumers.
For example, a registry could induce users to register in a top-level
domain by charging very low prices initially and then raise prices
dramatically, knowing that name holders will be reluctant to risk
established business by moving to a different top-level domain.
    We concede that switching costs and lock-in could produce the
scenario described above. On the other hand, we believe that market
mechanisms may well discourage this type of behavior. On balance, we
believe that consumers will benefit from competition among market
oriented registries, and we thus support limited experimentation with
competing registries during the transition to private sector
administration of the domain name system.

- --
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: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 20:57:38 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] domain name owner's bill of rights

Sri and all,

In the absence of legally solid -Supreme Court recognized- property rights,
a DN Owners' Bill of Rights arrived at by consensus of the Internet
Stakeholders is a necessity for the protection of the natural rights
associated with Naming and Owning a Domain on the Net.

The current contract that a Registrant has to sign is one-sided and
stresses  obligations more than  rights.
Renewal notices sound scary, not so much to big companies, but more to
Individuals and make a DN owner feel insecure.  Confident investment by
Individual DN owners and Small businesses in  promoting and promulgating
their  Domain is not encouraged by this insecurity.

One of the first tasks for an Individual's constituency is to formulate
this Bill of Rights and seek the consensus of the DNSO on such a document.
The courts will take notice.

- --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: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:22:37 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Verisign Contract/policy

Eric,

I don't suppose there is a possibility that VeriSign offered the most
reliable and responsive response to ARIN's needs?  Or maybe you think that
they should have selected second best because the best choice was VeriSign?
Finally, what does providing quality technical services have to do with
control?

In my opinion, this is the kind of emotional reaction that limits the GA's
credibility and therefore the willingness of others to take it seriously.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 7:55 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Verisign Contract/policy

If any one questions whether it is right and good for us to look at
thses contracts and respond accordingly and whether or not they are
policy matters read this and weep.
And do not knee jerk react without reading the entire article and
reflecting on what is a conflict of interest and what is an illegal
monopoly and what is required by the APA and the White Paper.

"Mountain View, CA, April 25, 2001-VeriSign, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRSN), the
leading
provider of Internet trust services, today announced that the American
Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), the organization that administers
and
registers Internet Protocol (IP) numbers for North America, South
America,
the Caribbean, and sub-Saharan Africa, has selected VeriSign's Managed
DNS
Services to ensure the reliability and robust query response of its DNS
(Domain Name System) zone file information. VeriSign's Secondary Name
Server
Hosting, part of the company's suite of Managed DNS Services, will
provide
secondary name server support to ARIN's zones for inverse address
mapping,
which perform IP address-to-domain name resolution on the Internet."

more info:  http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2001/pr_20010425b.html

Verisign's control over the existing Internet structure is dangerous and
ill advised from a public policy perspective.  Now they are
getting/maintaining a certain amount of control over even the ccTLDs.
Where is the GAC and DNSO in this matter?

I have read much of the DoC documents regarding this matter, they are
begging for a political cure to this mess.  They do not want to be
experts in these matters they want to hear from the experts - the GA.
They can only do what is right if we tell them what that is, and the
only thing that is right is that the Internetstakeholders position on
these matters takes precedence!

Sincerely,

- --
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: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:19:20 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] By-passing the DNSO

In a new paragraph added to the Proposed Unsponsored TLD Agreement (3.5.6.)
which matches the language in the Verisign agreement, the ICANN Staff has
introduced a provision regarding changes to the proposed "Sanctions Program"
that effectively eviscerates the policy-recommending role of the DNSO:

"In the event that the gTLD Constituency of the Domain Name Supporting
Organization proposes a substitute Appendix Y at any time prior to 1 May
2002, and ICANN determines (following an appropriate process of public
notice and comment) that substitution by that Appendix Y would serve the
interests of the Internet community, the substitution shall be made."

This sanctions program (appendix Y) deals with violations of Subsections
3.5.1 through 3.5.5 and Appendix H (certification and separation
requirements) and Appendix I (Registry Operator's Code of Conduct) of the
Registry Agreement.  This action to deny the role of the DNSO (supplanting
it with the role of the gTLD constituency), is akin to allowing the fox to
propose new rules regarding its own distance and conduct with respect to the
hen-house.

The "Sanctions Program" also calls for a "Confidential Notice of
Investigation", which to my view subverts the concept of open public
evaluation of charges of abuse; this bears further consideration.

Details of proposed sanctions are as follows:

"Sanctions of up to US$10,000 for each violation may be assessed for each
minor violation found and sanctions of up to US$100,000 for each violation
may be assessed for each major violation found. The amount of the financial
sanction shall be proportionate to the violation and other relevant facts."

This "fixed scale" of sanctions effectively allows giant well-financed
corporations to sustain multiple violations of conduct with relative
impunity as they can well afford the cost of such fee assessments.  A
"proportionate scale" tied to the relative size of the registry might be a
more reasonable consideration.

In the last round of discussions on the Verisign agreement, the DNSO was
played like a fish on a hook; it was specifically asked for comments to
focus on the "substantive merits" of the agreements, which then allowed
Stuart Lynn to make the following comment to the Department of Commerce:

"As this recitation indicates, the ultimate Names Council recommendations to
ICANN are, in general, not focused on "policy" issues, but rather are
suggestions about how the proposed new agreements could be modified, by
changing contractual dates and the like, to make them better agreements in
the view of those supporting the resolutions. These expressions are
certainly important, but they can hardly be described as representing the
kinds of policy issues that are, pursuant to ICANN's bylaws, the initial
responsibility of the DNSO within the ICANN structure."

We must take a hard look at the policy implications within these proposed
agreements and argue primarily on the basis of policy.

Sanctions are a punitive enforcement mechanism.  The degree to which
violations must be met with punishment is a matter of consensus-based
policy.  There are six other constituencies, as well as unrepresented
members of the general public, that have a stake in reigning in potentially
abusive registry conduct.  The DNSO should not be by-passed in this process.

- --
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: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:55:25 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Verisign Contract/policy

Dear Chuck,
You are right. Eric is mostly emotional and injust to NSI. But I am
not sure you are right about the impact on the GA image. Emotional
reactions belong to life.

No other place in the iCANN and in the industry can rationally take
them into account (you don't see an employee or a paid consultant
being emotional). Yet we need to make sure that every market and
political assessment take them into account, how?

IMHO the GA has the capacity not to overlook the emotional aspects
and to aggregate them  with many other "unusual" sources into
professional place (GA) and market (@large) self-produced studies.
Managements should be (and are) eager for that.

There is nothing sophisticated, costly or complex in Eric's reaction,
no need to pay a market study firm:  there is just what many
may/will say in the public.

- - your PR and management should be happy with this kind of early
   warning and test bed of market/public/press reaction (BTW I suppose
   you would not be here nor Marilyn nor several others otherwise).

- - GA reports, worked in common are not emotional but voted by a
   diversified segmentation of the industry opinions. They should then
   be of real value to you as based upon the whole spectrum if the
   possible inputs.

In Plan B's case this has shown its capacity to make things moving,
melting an emotional dynamic with a diversified scope of rationals.
It is under way to show the same capacity in several other areas.

Or I am totally wrong?
Jefsey

On 13:22 27/04/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
>Eric,
>
>I don't suppose there is a possibility that VeriSign offered the most
>reliable and responsive response to ARIN's needs?  Or maybe you think that
>they should have selected second best because the best choice was VeriSign?
>Finally, what does providing quality technical services have to do with
>control?
>
>In my opinion, this is the kind of emotional reaction that limits the GA's
>credibility and therefore the willingness of others to take it seriously.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 7:55 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [ga] Verisign Contract/policy
>
>
>If any one questions whether it is right and good for us to look at
>thses contracts and respond accordingly and whether or not they are
>policy matters read this and weep.
>And do not knee jerk react without reading the entire article and
>reflecting on what is a conflict of interest and what is an illegal
>monopoly and what is required by the APA and the White Paper.
>
>"Mountain View, CA, April 25, 2001-VeriSign, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRSN), the
>leading
>provider of Internet trust services, today announced that the American
>Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), the organization that administers
>and
>registers Internet Protocol (IP) numbers for North America, South
>America,
>the Caribbean, and sub-Saharan Africa, has selected VeriSign's Managed
>DNS
>Services to ensure the reliability and robust query response of its DNS
>(Domain Name System) zone file information. VeriSign's Secondary Name
>Server
>Hosting, part of the company's suite of Managed DNS Services, will
>provide
>secondary name server support to ARIN's zones for inverse address
>mapping,
>which perform IP address-to-domain name resolution on the Internet."
>
>more info:  http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2001/pr_20010425b.html
>
>Verisign's control over the existing Internet structure is dangerous and
>ill advised from a public policy perspective.  Now they are
>getting/maintaining a certain amount of control over even the ccTLDs.
>Where is the GAC and DNSO in this matter?
>
>I have read much of the DoC documents regarding this matter, they are
>begging for a political cure to this mess.  They do not want to be
>experts in these matters they want to hear from the experts - the GA.
>They can only do what is right if we tell them what that is, and the
>only thing that is right is that the Internetstakeholders position on
>these matters takes precedence!
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:48:18 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign Contract/policy

Your point is well taken Mr. Gomez, it is the exact party line when supporting
the allowance of a Monopoly. You have either chose to ignore the authority
which supports my positions or you are trying to obviscate by attacking my post
as emotional.

I would ask you to site one enabling document which supports Verisgns
controlling interest in the Registry and ancillary businesses.

The only thing that limits the GA, DNSO and the NC credibility has been your
company's ability to coopt the staff and BoD, into ignoring our consensus based
input.  It is just perfect that Verisign would attack an internetstakeholders
opinion as hurting the GA.  You and staff are in lockstep, at least that is
becoming open and transparent.

"Being the SOLE PROVIDER OF ESSENTIAL SERVICES has everything to do with
control. And everything to do with Policy.
Monopoly - "1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply,
or
                     concerted action.
I suggest Versign has accomplished this through concerted action.

I do appreciate your time spent in contributing to the GA understanding of the
problem.  Please read your own company's press release regarding the matter.
It somewhat conflicts with your position.

Sincerely,

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> Eric,
>
> I don't suppose there is a possibility that VeriSign offered the most
> reliable and responsive response to ARIN's needs?  Or maybe you think that
> they should have selected second best because the best choice was VeriSign?
> Finally, what does providing quality technical services have to do with
> control?
>
> In my opinion, this is the kind of emotional reaction that limits the GA's
> credibility and therefore the willingness of others to take it seriously.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 7:55 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Verisign Contract/policy
>
> If any one questions whether it is right and good for us to look at
> thses contracts and respond accordingly and whether or not they are
> policy matters read this and weep.
> And do not knee jerk react without reading the entire article and
> reflecting on what is a conflict of interest and what is an illegal
> monopoly and what is required by the APA and the White Paper.
>
> "Mountain View, CA, April 25, 2001-VeriSign, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRSN), the
> leading
> provider of Internet trust services, today announced that the American
> Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), the organization that administers
> and
> registers Internet Protocol (IP) numbers for North America, South
> America,
> the Caribbean, and sub-Saharan Africa, has selected VeriSign's Managed
> DNS
> Services to ensure the reliability and robust query response of its DNS
> (Domain Name System) zone file information. VeriSign's Secondary Name
> Server
> Hosting, part of the company's suite of Managed DNS Services, will
> provide
> secondary name server support to ARIN's zones for inverse address
> mapping,
> which perform IP address-to-domain name resolution on the Internet."
>
> more info:  http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2001/pr_20010425b.html
>
> Verisign's control over the existing Internet structure is dangerous and
> ill advised from a public policy perspective.  Now they are
> getting/maintaining a certain amount of control over even the ccTLDs.
> Where is the GAC and DNSO in this matter?
>
> I have read much of the DoC documents regarding this matter, they are
> begging for a political cure to this mess.  They do not want to be
> experts in these matters they want to hear from the experts - the GA.
> They can only do what is right if we tell them what that is, and the
> only thing that is right is that the Internetstakeholders position on
> these matters takes precedence!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:09:43 -0400
From: "David G. Post" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Question No. 1

Just fyi, I continue to think that Roeland's idea is an interesting 
one, and I've posted a brief comment at ICANNWatch about this issue, if 
anyone cares to comment.
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=127&mode=&order=0

David

I wrote:

>I think Roeland is right on target.  The DNS is a kind of language -- 
>it gives names to things.  Coordination is very valuable in a language 
>-- if Roeland calls a round spherical object a 'ball,' and I call it a 
>'goidosphere,' we're going to have trouble understanding one 
>another.  But we need imposed coordination of the ICANN variety about 
>as much as we need a Bureau of Definitions to tell us what words 
>mean.  We had this fight 200 years ago; really smart and sensible 
>people actually argued that we needed things like the Academie 
>Francaise to 'authorize' particular labels for things, lest chaos 
>ensue.  That argument lost, 
>decisively.  See  http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/DrakeTalk.pdf 
 >  Somehow we manage to agree to call it a 'ball', or not, quite 
>effectively without any single institution telling us we have to do that.
>
>David

At 12:00 PM 4/11/01 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:

>There is a serious disconnect here. When dealing with finite physical
>resources, these distinctions make sense. OTOH, when dealing with abstract
>resources these distinctions make absolutely no sense. I am sorry to see
>that some have managed to rat-hole the discussion into "argument by
>analogy". There are no definitive analogies that matter. We need to grasp
>the concepts directly and deal with them ... directly.
>
>The facts are that names are simply labels. I may label a spherical rubber
>object a "ball" and you may label a square steel cube a "ball". Both are
>equally valid within their context. A third-party would have to deal with
>each of us, within our own context, and use the labels appropriately, when
>discussing those things within the given context.
>
>The fundimental problem here is that labels are not resources at all. They
>are a meta-object, a means for organizing a universe of entities such that
>we can distinguish one from another. They are a reusable tag. We can change
>the object that we place the label on. We can also place the label on
>another object ... at the same time. The problem here is that the contexts
>that the labels are valid within ... can also be labeled, which is valid
>within a meta-context. This is a recursive phenomenon. I submit that, the
>only other place we have this problem is in object-oriented design and
>analysis (OOD and OOA). Analogies don't work, for defining the problem,
>there either. Further, OOD and OOA technologies weren't available when the
>DNS system was designed.
>
>This is the fundimental theoretical problem that the original designers of
>the DNS system ran into. Thair answer was that, they drew the line in the
>sand, at the root-zone level, and said "we'll stop here, for now". The line,
>while occuring at a natural demarcation point, is still arbitrary. This
>reduced the problem to managable proportions, such that they could build the
>initial DNS system (the decendent of which is ISC BIND 8.2.3).
>
>What we have here, as a direct result, is a system which is, intentionally,
>context-limited. However, for labeling hosts on the Terabit project, it
>worked. The problems we are dealing with today are a direct resultant of
>applying the DNS system, out of its contextual referent, to problems that
>really have their own context rules. Refering to my previous example, my
>definition of "ball" differs from yours and unless we make an effort to
>define the context of "ball" we will never understand each other. In the DNS
>context, the label "ball" is a name space collision unless the relevant
>context is defined. The key is that, understanding the context matters and
>we'll never resolve this until we start dealing with context and
>acknowleging that there are other contexts.
>
>The practical application is that;
>
>ICANN cannot ignore the contextual referents of the other root-zone
>publishers.
>Trademark and IP interests cannot apply thier restrictions without also
>understanding the contextual references.
>The software needs to apply to a larger contextual scope than it has ever
>had to heretofore (the MultiBIND project has been announced).
>--
>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: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:12:11 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] By-passing the DNSO

To suggest that the DNSO should be involved in the sanctions program is
ABSURD.  Somewhere along the line it would be nice if some sort of
"reasonable business sense" existed.  But maybe that is asking too much.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: babybows.com [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 10:19 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] By-passing the DNSO

In a new paragraph added to the Proposed Unsponsored TLD Agreement (3.5.6.)
which matches the language in the Verisign agreement, the ICANN Staff has
introduced a provision regarding changes to the proposed "Sanctions Program"
that effectively eviscerates the policy-recommending role of the DNSO:

"In the event that the gTLD Constituency of the Domain Name Supporting
Organization proposes a substitute Appendix Y at any time prior to 1 May
2002, and ICANN determines (following an appropriate process of public
notice and comment) that substitution by that Appendix Y would serve the
interests of the Internet community, the substitution shall be made."

This sanctions program (appendix Y) deals with violations of Subsections
3.5.1 through 3.5.5 and Appendix H (certification and separation
requirements) and Appendix I (Registry Operator's Code of Conduct) of the
Registry Agreement.  This action to deny the role of the DNSO (supplanting
it with the role of the gTLD constituency), is akin to allowing the fox to
propose new rules regarding its own distance and conduct with respect to the
hen-house.

The "Sanctions Program" also calls for a "Confidential Notice of
Investigation", which to my view subverts the concept of open public
evaluation of charges of abuse; this bears further consideration.

Details of proposed sanctions are as follows:

"Sanctions of up to US$10,000 for each violation may be assessed for each
minor violation found and sanctions of up to US$100,000 for each violation
may be assessed for each major violation found. The amount of the financial
sanction shall be proportionate to the violation and other relevant facts."

This "fixed scale" of sanctions effectively allows giant well-financed
corporations to sustain multiple violations of conduct with relative
impunity as they can well afford the cost of such fee assessments.  A
"proportionate scale" tied to the relative size of the registry might be a
more reasonable consideration.

In the last round of discussions on the Verisign agreement, the DNSO was
played like a fish on a hook; it was specifically asked for comments to
focus on the "substantive merits" of the agreements, which then allowed
Stuart Lynn to make the following comment to the Department of Commerce:

"As this recitation indicates, the ultimate Names Council recommendations to
ICANN are, in general, not focused on "policy" issues, but rather are
suggestions about how the proposed new agreements could be modified, by
changing contractual dates and the like, to make them better agreements in
the view of those supporting the resolutions. These expressions are
certainly important, but they can hardly be described as representing the
kinds of policy issues that are, pursuant to ICANN's bylaws, the initial
responsibility of the DNSO within the ICANN structure."

We must take a hard look at the policy implications within these proposed
agreements and argue primarily on the basis of policy.

Sanctions are a punitive enforcement mechanism.  The degree to which
violations must be met with punishment is a matter of consensus-based
policy.  There are six other constituencies, as well as unrepresented
members of the general public, that have a stake in reigning in potentially
abusive registry conduct.  The DNSO should not be by-passed in this process.

- --
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 #423
************************