Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #431
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Wednesday, May 2 2001            Volume 01 : Number 431

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

Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 20:39:53 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: New.net international TLD's and DN's

Sorry dude unless they hire the same guys they lost when the buyout occurred
they simply do not have it in them to correct even the deletion and
registration problems they have right now.  They have one system engine
running to many seperate allocations and they just got the new job with the
regionals which is scary in and of itself.

p.s. don't tell anyone

Jeff Williams wrote:

> All,
>
>   Recently we have seen some articles and references from naysayers
> that don't believe that international character sets for TLD's and
> Domain names is possible.
> See for references: http://www.feer.com/_0102_22/p038innov.html
> and
> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/dailynews/story/0,2000013063,20208533,00.htm
>
>    It is true that Verisign/NSI's version has been less than
> successful currently.  But I am sure they can get their "Version"
> up and running.  I hope that Verisign/NSI will get this done
> in my lifetime.
>
>   It might be wise for Verisign/NSI to get some assistance from
> New.Net.  See" http://www.new.net/intl_domains.tp
>
> Regards,

- --
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: Wed, 02 May 2001 14:01:54 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

On 19:33 1/05/01 -0700, Kent Crispin said:

>Sorry, you should read more carefully.  Harald said, in the message I
>was replying to, the following:
>
>    Another possible form of representation would be to grant domain
>    name owners one vote per registered domain name in a
>    totally-integrated "domian name owners' constituency". 
>
>Note carefully:  he said "one vote per registered domain name".

ooops. You are right, I overlooked that. Your reply was justified.
Both my comments  withdrawn with apologies.
This makes Harald's 'possible form of representation' totally different
from the one I proposed. 
Was it meant seriously, 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: Tue, 1 May 2001 21:47:57 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 02:01:54PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >Note carefully:  he said "one vote per registered domain name".
> 
> ooops. You are right, I overlooked that. Your reply was justified.
> Both my comments  withdrawn with apologies.
> This makes Harald's 'possible form of representation' totally different
> from the one I proposed. 

However, your proposal is really no better.  Notwithstanding the best
efforts of the intellectual property interests, there still is no cheap
and easy way to strongly bind a domain registration to a particular
person or entity, and privacy advocates would go ballistic if there was
one. 

- -- 
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: Wed, 2 May 2001 00:06:06 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 7:33 PM

> On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 10:15:16AM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > At 08:58 1/05/01 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > 
> > >That would grant 531400 votes to netzero, inc(*), and 
> would radically bias 
> > >the voting.

> > Nobody has ever said that votes should be proportionate to 
> the number of
> > Domain Names held.
> > A strawman argument if I ever saw one.
> 
> Sorry, you should read more carefully.  Harald said, in the message I
> was replying to, the following:
> 
>     Another possible form of representation would be to grant domain
>     name owners one vote per registered domain name in a
>     totally-integrated "domian name owners' constituency". 
> 
> Note carefully:  he said "one vote per registered domain name".

Yes, and Harald missed out on the many previous discussion where that
evolved to one vote per registrant, regardless of the number of domains
held.

We keep going back through this same argument. Can someone please record
this end-result for posterity this time. This is about the umpteenth time
this issue has come up and the umpteenth minus one time it gets to the
inevitably correct conclusion.
- --
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: Wed, 02 May 2001 09:42:52 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

At 14:01 02.05.2001 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>On 19:33 1/05/01 -0700, Kent Crispin said:
>
> >Sorry, you should read more carefully.  Harald said, in the message I
> >was replying to, the following:
> >
> >    Another possible form of representation would be to grant domain
> >    name owners one vote per registered domain name in a
> >    totally-integrated "domian name owners' constituency".
> >
> >Note carefully:  he said "one vote per registered domain name".
>
>ooops. You are right, I overlooked that. Your reply was justified.
>Both my comments  withdrawn with apologies.
>This makes Harald's 'possible form of representation' totally different
>from the one I proposed.
>Was it meant seriously, Harald?

It would seem a reasonably fair basis. But there are obvious problems:

- - Getting agreement on which domain names were entitled to a vote
   (*.com is in, *.co.uk is in, *.ml.net may be out - what about
   the *.god domains....?)
- - Getting the word out to the people that they actually have this right, and
   establishing means to let them participate in the process
- - Avoiding the obvious "proxy" ploy: "by registering this domain name through
   evilregistrar.com, you permanently assign all rights to represent you to
   ICANN through your voting power to evilregistrar.com"
- - Proving that this is more reasonable than "you have a vote because you are
   a human being".

The proposal was serious, as far as something that is not fully worked out 
can be serious. Whether it is the best proposal is a matter that we have to 
discuss further.

- --
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: Wed, 02 May 2001 11:33:30 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [icann-eu] Re: [ga] DNSO funding and the NCDNHC

Dear Mike,
How are you doing now you may relax from being the man on the spot? I hope 
you enjoy life and entertain yourself with the spectacle of the wild wide 
world?.

IMHO what you say brings a lot of fuel to Eric's [wrong] assumptions...

On 00:37 02/05/01, Mike Roberts said:
>The requirement under the Internal Revenue code section 501c3 is that all 
>of ICANN's activities be conducted for "scientific and educational 
>purposes."  This is the same section used by all non-profit U.S. 
>universities and research organizations.
>
>All of ICANN's activities fall under this tax language.  For legal 
>purposes, ICANN's mission is stated in its articles of incorporation. See: 
><http://www.icann.org/general/articles.htm>
>- Mike

This seems pretty worrying to me. You might want to elaborate on the way 
building a duopoly with VeriSign as per Plan B and conducting tough 
negotiations with gTLD after having  discriminated between commercial gTLDs 
applications leading to industrial and commercial powers are "scientific 
and educational" occupations, or even "charitable".

I accept that in the bootstrap period the iCANN practised self-education 
and that to some extent @large experiment and study could be presented as 
research towards world government systems and educational to some extent. 
But I don't see plethoras of students coming in MDR to get a MBNet and 
Louis Touton's R&D seems more buck than bits or bug oriented. Charity seems 
disputable when 80% of the Domain Name (small) holders are denied a fair 
representation at the DNSO and the NomCom are denied NC voting rights (and 
hence access to the BoD) on financial grounds.

We all wished the iCANN to stay a university-style organization, fulfilling 
its White Paper role and working on a worldwide consensus, in an inclusive 
"all-together" and "WE the iCANN" style. It seems you have been entrapped 
into something quite different - you better than anyone else can tell 
why.  But today iCANN is all but "scientific and reasearch" to many.

And charitable to none. I asked you once charity: as you were entitled to 
do it do drop or reduce the $50.000 fee to apply an innovative ccTLD to be 
donated to the Internet Community by a non profit organization. You 
responded that if we intended to enter the "international TLD business" I 
had better to be prepared to its costs and professional fees. Your perfect 
right to respond this (IMHO wrong) way; but it shown us that you were not 
in the charity business.

OK. I accept that you will certainly not comment on the tax aspect. But may 
be will you want to give us, from your experience, orientations regarding 
the way to reform the iCANN and avoid what many of us now consider as 
inevitable, i.e. a collapse by e-bureaucracy excess. There are too many 
complex things tight together in a small unit which call for too many 
responses in too many uncertain international legal, technical, commercial 
controverted fields. The thread of a world-wide instability should the 
iCANN be shaken will not protect: if it was true the more we wait the more 
the risk would be important, so better to review the iCANN ASAP.

You were the first to explain us the situation at MDR meeting and after, 
explaining the delays regarding the @large study document, by the load 
of  the gTLD application review. I certainly believe that the Staff and you 
- - it seems your are called upon from time to time (shows you are in good 
shape!)  - may respond to the current and foreseeable work load for a few 
months. But could iCANN really sustain the load of simultaneous Congress, 
tax, anti-trust, Intl., DoC only preliminary investigations? I recall IBM 
proposing to change its CEO everyday, so the one spending the day at the 
investigators disposal would not be the one managing the company. But one 
President or a Chair a day for the iCANN, with the same political spirit, 
this seems beyond the realm of the possible.

They would probably pay a lot Joe Sims and his partners to respond. But who 
would then conduct the policy?  We all saw your very well oiled show with 
Louis and Andrew in MDR. A perfect ballet with occasional support from Joe. 
Bravo. But we also saw you were the boss and that you took over several 
times, pushing Andrew or interrupting Louis. Let assume Stuart will cope 
with the situation as you did, or even better. From experience could you 
grant us that the show would have been the same had you then been in DC, 
Andrew in Tokyo and Louis exhausted by working with Joe's people night 
after night? IMHO there would be discrepancies among the individual Staff 
responses. Look at the public response to Louis Touton's testimony last 
year: let just multiply it by 10 or even by 3. Do you think the Staff could 
foot the bill?

Tell us candidly (some non@large Directors speak) if the Staff's love and 
now BoD's one for emergency decisions, and the lack of budget for the NC 
and the DNSO/GA, are real political decision or the result if a practical 
inability for the Staff and Directors to cope with the load of DNSO 
standard relations? Is that not true in many other area? Starting with the 
root?

I wish you the best and most active retirement.
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: Wed, 02 May 2001 14:01:35 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS

At 01:25 01.05.2001 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>External Relationships:  To consider, build and enhance the General
>Assembly's relationship with all external parties including, but not limited
>to, the ICANN Board, ICANN as a body, the Names Council, other Supporting
>Organizations, other internet organizations and the general public.

What is the delimiter between ga-ext and ga-review?

My immediate reaction to the agenda below is that it seems more appropriate 
to  ga-review; "Department of Commerce (DoC) mandate" seems hardly relevant 
to the relationship betweeen the General Assembly and the world.

>POSSIBLE AGENDA
>
>(1)    ICANN as an Organisation
>Board of Directors, CEI & Staff
>Committees of the Board of Directors
>ICANN mission - technical or regulatory?
>ICANN as a Non-Profit, Articles & By-Laws
>Accounts, audit, finance & funding
>Structure, membership & accountability
>
>(2)    Oversight & Corporate Governance
>Role & Jurisdiction of US Government
>Department of Commerce (DoC) mandate
>Congresss and oversight of ICANN
>Monopoly, anti-trust & internet control
>ICANNWatch & other critiques
>
>(3)    Past & Present Advisory Committees
>At Large Membership Study Committee (ALSC)
>Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
>DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)
>Membership Advisory Committee (MAC)
>Advisory Committee on Independent Review (IRAC)
>
>(4)    Corporate Policies
>Conflicts of Interest Policy
>Independent Review Policy
>Reconsideration Policy
>
>(5)    Policy, Strategy & Consensus Process
>ICANN website & Public Comment Forum
>Names Council-DNSO relationship
>Outreach, participation, translations, education
>Emerging constituencies & the public
>Membership Implementation Task Force (MITF)
>ICANN's relationship with govts & ccTLDs
>
>(6)    Contracts and Agreements
>ICANN-Verisign Registry Agreement (.com, net & org)
>ICANN-DoC Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
>Cooperative Research & Development Agreement (CRADA)
>Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
>IANA ccTLD Delegation Practices Document
>Registrar Accreditation Agreements, etc.
>ARIN-Verisign Core DNS Support
>
>(7)    Supporting Organisations
>Address Supporting Organisation (ASO)
>Domain Name Supporting Organisation (DNSO)
>Protocol Supporting Organisation (PSO)
>
>(8)    ASO =>>      Regional Internet Registries
>American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>Réseaux IP Européens (RIPE) Network Co-ordination Centre
>Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)
>
>(9)    DNSO =>>    Constituencies
>Business Constituency
>Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders (NCDNHC)
>Country Code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) Registries
>Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Registries
>Internet Service Providers (ISPs) Constituency
>ICANN Accredited Registrars Constituency
>Intellectual Property (IP) Constituency
>
>(10)    PSO =>>        Organisations
>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
>World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
>European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)
>
>(11)    Other Related Bodies
>Berkman Center for Internet & Society
>World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)
>
>Best regards
>Patrick Corliss
>Co-Chair, DNSO GA
>
>
>
>--
>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: Wed, 02 May 2001 13:33:52 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

At 00:06 02.05.2001 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>Yes, and Harald missed out on the many previous discussion where that
>evolved to one vote per registrant, regardless of the number of domains
>held.

references (list + date) are appreciated.
I believe you, but would like to know.

>We keep going back through this same argument. Can someone please record
>this end-result for posterity this time. This is about the umpteenth time
>this issue has come up and the umpteenth minus one time it gets to the
>inevitably correct conclusion.

since we haven't come up with a reasonable way to implement the "inevitably 
correct conclusion", it's likely to resurface for the umpteenth + 1 time.

query: does this discussion (who votes in the DNSO) belong on the new 
ga-review list?

- --
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: Wed, 02 May 2001 14:08:25 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Appendix U

At 22:24 30.04.2001 -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
>Kent Crispin wrote:
> > We can either delay now while the DNSO grinds through several months of
> > inconclusive rambling, or we can delay later while the confidentiality
> > clauses tick away.
>
>I don't see months of rambling as an option. These contracts will be
>revised, or not, in the next week. I'd rather see the confidentiality delays
>fixed now than left in. I read in Danny's message that he fully appreciated
>the time pressures on this.

Note that the most long-lasting confidentiality requirement in the Afilias 
contract (the one I checked) is 18 months, and covers ONLY reports that 
reveal how much money they used for advertising (sections 2.1 and 4.4).

I think a fair amount of evaluation can be done without this info.

>        -- Bret
>
>--
>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: Wed, 2 May 2001 06:18:17 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 4:34 AM
> 
> At 00:06 02.05.2001 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> >Yes, and Harald missed out on the many previous discussion where that
> >evolved to one vote per registrant, regardless of the number 
> of domains
> >held.
> 
> references (list + date) are appreciated.
> I believe you, but would like to know.

Lists;
IDNO, ORSC, DOMAIN-POLICY, DNSO/WG-C, et alia
Dates:
<Ouch>, early IDNO under membership discussions, NSI list <?> that backup
tape is unreadable to me because my DDS1 DAT tape drive died (orphaned HP
product), that also applies to ORSC and WG-C lists, for me. Yes, this is
from corruptable organic memory. But, I haven't the time to dig through the
web archives (grep doesn't work there).

> >We keep going back through this same argument. Can someone 
> please record
> >this end-result for posterity this time. This is about the 
> umpteenth time
> >this issue has come up and the umpteenth minus one time it 
> gets to the
> >inevitably correct conclusion.
> 
> since we haven't come up with a reasonable way to implement 
> the "inevitably correct conclusion", it's likely to resurface for the 
> umpteenth + 1 time.

Since we can't implement it, why are we chewing this cud again?

> query: does this discussion (who votes in the DNSO) belong on the new 
> ga-review list?

Most likely ...
- --
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: Wed, 2 May 2001 10:17:38 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

On 2 May 2001, at 9:42, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 14:01 02.05.2001 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >On 19:33 1/05/01 -0700, Kent Crispin said:
> >
> > >Sorry, you should read more carefully.  Harald said, in the message I
> > >was replying to, the following:
> > >
> > >    Another possible form of representation would be to grant domain
> > >    name owners one vote per registered domain name in a
> > >    totally-integrated "domian name owners' constituency".
> > >
> > >Note carefully:  he said "one vote per registered domain name".
> >
> >ooops. You are right, I overlooked that. Your reply was justified.
> >Both my comments  withdrawn with apologies.
> >This makes Harald's 'possible form of representation' totally different
> >from the one I proposed.
> >Was it meant seriously, Harald?
> 
> It would seem a reasonably fair basis. But there are obvious problems:
> 
> - Getting agreement on which domain names were entitled to a vote
>    (*.com is in, *.co.uk is in, *.ml.net may be out - what about
>    the *.god domains....?)

Yes to all, IMO.  A registrant is a registrant.  It  really should not matter 
what the domain name is, even a 3 or 4ld.  All that is needed is the 
delegation of a domain name.  For the purposes of the DNSO, all the 
above would be stakeholders.

> - Getting the word out to the people that they actually have this right, and
>    establishing means to let them participate in the process

Would have to be worked out, of course.

> - Avoiding the obvious "proxy" ploy: "by registering this domain name through
>    evilregistrar.com, you permanently assign all rights to represent you to
>    ICANN through your voting power to evilregistrar.com"

I'd really like to see an atty's opinion on this type of clause in a contract 
of adhesion.  Can one be forced into relinquishing this right in this 
manner?  If the GA (ICANN) gives the right to vote to a registrant, can a 
registrar take it away?  I would think that the GA could confer the right 
to the registrant for voting in the GA regardless.  To do otherwise would 
be the same as forcing someone to give up rights to membership in a 
trade association or union by an employer or another trade association.  
"If you do anything with me, you can't do anything with any other 
group."  At least in the US, the employer can't prevent someone joining 
a union.

> - Proving that this is more reasonable than "you have a vote because you are
>    a human being".

As opposed to? :)  

> The proposal was serious, as far as something that is not fully worked out 
> can be serious. Whether it is the best proposal is a matter that we have to 
> discuss further.
> 

Leah

> 
> 
> 
> 
> --

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

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

Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 08:23:36 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Appendix U

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> Note that the most long-lasting confidentiality requirement in the Afilias
> contract (the one I checked) is 18 months, and covers ONLY reports that
> reveal how much money they used for advertising (sections 2.1 and 4.4).
> 
> I think a fair amount of evaluation can be done without this info.

Sure. But if there's one piece of information necessary for the evaluation
that becomes available only after 18 months, then that holds up the entire
second round. 

It's actually more than 18 months from *now*. Here's the language:

        No later than one month after each anniversary
        date after the Commencement-of-Service Date,
        Registry Operator shall provide to ICANN an Annual
        Proof-of-Concept Report on Effectiveness of
        Competition, with the following information:
 
        3.1 Marketing Efforts.
 
        3.1.1 Total Registry Operator expenditures
        for marketing the .biz TLD, broken down by
        calendar quarter ending in the year to which
        the report relates and by the region where the
        expenditure was made.

Since the reporting triggers from "Commencement-of-Service Date," you should
know that this is "the date on which the Registry TLD is first delegated
within the Authoritative Root-Server System." On the most aggressive
schedule, let's say these TLD contracts are signed on Monday, May 7th, and
that the DOC promptly approves them, sends the instruction to NSI to add the
new TLDs to the root, and the new TLDs are live on May 10th.

We don't count 18 months from May 10, 2001, but 18 months from when the data
is delivered to ICANN. In this scenario, the data in 3.1.1 is not even *due*
until June 10th, 2002. It then remains "confidential" for 18 months,
becoming public on December 10th, 2003.

So if we complete the evaluation as soon as the reporting data becomes
public, we're looking at Q1, 2004. So we complete the evaluation and call
for new applications. On an unrealistically aggressive schedule, the
applications come in during Q3, 2004, setting up for selection at the
November 2004 meeting.

The second round goes live in 2005.

There are a lot of solid companies with thoughtful TLD proposals that would
like to move that forward faster, and they were told as much last November.
The schedule that I see unfolding is not consistent with the statements by
the Board in Marina del Rey. I'd love to be told I'm wrong, but the first
bit of testbed data under 3.1.1 won't even be available to the public for
years.

Personally, I'd like to see these marketing reports deleted entirely. I
don't see what they add for our evaluation purposes, and the confidentiality
concerns may outweigh the limited probative value.

          -- Bret

- --
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: Wed, 2 May 2001 07:50:46 -0400
From: [email-masked] (Digitel - Ken Stubbs)
Subject: [ga] MY "ALTERNATE ROOT" EXPERIENCE

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C0D2DC.9922B2C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

today i had a very unnerving experience  with an alternate root entity =
which i want to share with you .......

i was curious about this "new.net" phenomena and went to the www.new.net =
site and at the top of the main page there was a link which said to =
"click here" to be able to allow my browser to see the new.net tlds.. i =
clicked there and, unbeknown to me, a program was installed in my =
computer which created absolute havoc for my entire computer system.

 i was TOTALLY unable to send or receive e-mail or view any regular =
sites or use the net at all.!!=20

i was not aware that this program was placed in my system and and my =
ability to use the net was totally disabled for quite some period of =
time.=20

i also have an intel "anypoint" wireless system in my home which was =
totally disabled as well.=20

fortunately for me, i was able to contact one of company's network =
engineers and he was able to troubleshoot the problem in short order and =
get the "phantom program" removed and restore my system to regular =
working order.

the point i make is this:

i am not a "tecchie" and after this little encounter with "new.net" i am =
VERY MUCH MORE SKEPTICAL about the "alternate root" experience.  if i =
can get paralyzed this easy, then there are uncountable numbers of =
persons who could end up experiencing the same "sinking" feeling of =
being "cut off " from the regular net as we know and use as i had.

the sense of "instability" created by this "encounter" is to say the =
least "nerve-wracking"  & frustrating =20

as a result of this experience "new.net" has lost significant =
creditablity in my eyes and the "alternate root" experience has left a =
very sour taste in my mouth.

=20
ken stubbs

=20

- ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C0D2DC.9922B2C0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4613.1700" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>today i had a very unnerving experience&nbsp; with =
an=20
alternate root entity which i want to share with you =
.......</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>i was curious about this "new.net" phenomena and =
went to the=20
<A href=3D"http://www.new.net">www.new.net</A> site and at the top of =
the main=20
page there was a link which said to "click here" to be able to allow my =
browser=20
to see the new.net tlds.. i clicked there and, unbeknown to me, a =
program was=20
installed in my computer which created absolute havoc for my entire =
computer=20
system.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp;i was TOTALLY unable to send or receive e-mail =
or view=20
any regular sites&nbsp;or use the net at all.!!&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>i was not aware that this program was placed in my =
system and=20
and my ability to use the net was totally disabled&nbsp;for quite some =
period of=20
time. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>i also have an intel "anypoint" wireless system in =
my home=20
which was totally disabled as well. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>fortunately for me, i was able to contact one of =
company's=20
network engineers and he was able to troubleshoot the problem in short =
order and=20
get the "phantom program" removed and restore my system to regular =
working=20
order.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>the point i make is this:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>i am not a "tecchie" and after this little encounter =
with=20
"new.net"&nbsp;i am VERY MUCH MORE SKEPTICAL about the "alternate root"=20
experience.&nbsp; if i can get paralyzed this easy, then there are =
uncountable=20
numbers of persons who could end up&nbsp;experiencing the same "sinking" =
feeling=20
of being "cut off " from the regular net as we know and use as i=20
had.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>the sense of "instability" created by this =
"encounter" is to=20
say the least "nerve-wracking" &nbsp;&amp; =
frustrating&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>as a result of this experience "new.net" has lost =
significant=20
creditablity in my eyes and the "alternate root" </FONT><FONT =
size=3D2>experience=20
has left a very sour taste in my mouth.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>ken stubbs</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C0D2DC.9922B2C0--

- --
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: Wed, 2 May 2001 12:10:34 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MY "ALTERNATE ROOT" EXPERIENCE

The new.net "plug-in" has been known to cause problems and, IMO, 
should have an explanation rather than just an auto-download from a 
pop-up window.  It should also have an "uninstall" description clearly 
shown in the same window.

Most of the roots do not use this method and to compare it to all of 
them is unfair.  Both The PacificRoot and ORSC root provide maunal 
instructions (about a one minute task and not very different from 
settings for DSL or cable or any ISP).  They also offer a small program 
to effect the settings.  Neither one attacks your browser settings or 
proxies.  

I have always felt that new.net should offer the same instructions wrt to 
the browser changes and do not like the misleading pop-up that simply 
says "activate your browser."

There is a major difference between "enabling dns" and a browser plug-
in.

Leah

On 2 May 2001, at 7:50, Digitel - Ken Stubbs wrote:

> today i had a very unnerving experience  with an alternate root entity which i want to share with you .......
> 
> i was curious about this "new.net" phenomena and went to the www.new.net site and at the top of the main page there was a link which said to "click here" to be able to allow my browser to see the new.net tlds.. i clicked there and, unbeknown to me, a program was installed in my computer which 
created absolute havoc for my entire computer system.
> 
>  i was TOTALLY unable to send or receive e-mail or view any regular sites or use the net at all.!! 
> 
> i was not aware that this program was placed in my system and and my ability to use the net was totally disabled for quite some period of time. 
> 
> i also have an intel "anypoint" wireless system in my home which was totally disabled as well. 
> 
> fortunately for me, i was able to contact one of company's network engineers and he was able to troubleshoot the problem in short order and get the "phantom program" removed and restore my system to regular working order.
> 
> the point i make is this:
> 
> i am not a "tecchie" and after this little encounter with "new.net" i am VERY MUCH MORE SKEPTICAL about the "alternate root" experience.  if i can get paralyzed this easy, then there are uncountable numbers of persons who could end up experiencing the same "sinking" feeling of being "cut off " 
from the regular net as we know and use as i had.
> 
> the sense of "instability" created by this "encounter" is to say the least "nerve-wracking"  & frustrating  
> 
> as a result of this experience "new.net" has lost significant creditablity in my eyes and the "al
ternate root" experience has left a very sour taste in my mouth.
> 
>  
> ken stubbs
> 
>  
> 

- --
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: Wed, 02 May 2001 12:20:24 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [council] MY "ALTERNATE ROOT" EXPERIENCE

Ken:

I'm sure that everyone on both of the lists you sent this message to understands that as proprietor of the .info and operator of .museum tlds you are a direct business competitor of New.net. 

I hope that list traffic on an official policy making forum will not be consumed with business competitors' attempts to disparage the products of other service providers. (I used to hear NSI people say the same things about CORE. The did it privately, tho!)

You voluntarily clicked on a browser plug-in to load software. That's something that happens on thousands of web sites. Strange and unexpected results sometimes occur, even with the most reputable of products and manufacturers (I had genuinely awful experiences with my attempt to download the latest Netscape a few months ago, e.g.).  

If the product is as bad as you say, surely New.net offers no serious competitive threat to your new domains, wouldn't you agree? 

Do you think consumers should decide for themselves, or are you suggesting that we should decide for them? If the former, I would suggest sending your claims to more appropriate fora, such as Consumers Reports Magazine, etc.

>>> Digitel - Ken Stubbs <[email-masked]> 05/02/01 11:52 AM >>>
today i had a very unnerving experience  with an alternate root entity which i want to share with you .......

i was curious about this "new.net" phenomena and went to the www.new.net site and at the top of the main page there was a link which said to "click here" to be able to allow my browser to see the new.net tlds.. i clicked there and, unbeknown to me, a program was installed in my computer which created absolute havoc for my entire computer 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: Wed, 2 May 2001 09:29:13 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] MY "ALTERNATE ROOT" EXPERIENCE

> From: L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:11 AM

> There is a major difference between "enabling dns" and a browser plug-
> in.

There are an amazing number of folks that don't understand that difference.

> On 2 May 2001, at 7:50, Digitel - Ken Stubbs wrote:
> 
> > today i had a very unnerving experience  with an alternate 
> root entity which i want to share with you .......

> > i am not a "tecchie" and after this little encounter with 
> "new.net" i am VERY MUCH MORE SKEPTICAL about the "alternate 
> root" experience.  if i can get paralyzed this easy, then 
> there are uncountable numbers of persons who could end up 
> experiencing the same "sinking" feeling of being "cut off " 
> from the regular net as we know and use as i had.

- --
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 #431
************************