Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #432
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Wednesday, May 2 2001            Volume 01 : Number 432

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 08:33:49 -0400
From: [email-masked] (Digitel - Ken Stubbs)
Subject: Re: [ga] MY "ALTERNATE ROOT" EXPERIENCE

thanks for the timely response leah...

it only points to the crux of the issue which is "inconsistancy" & the sense
of unstability created by "irresponsible" actions of entities like "new.net"

my guess is that problems like the ones i had will come home to roost in
seroius "customer service issues" with new.net's affiliates & channel
partners.

i am not a fan of this kind of "everyone doing it their own way" when it
results in confusion and lack of confidence in the "system" and problems
like i experienced today.

the net has grown because of user confidence  a "stabile, consistant, and
predictable" foundation and, although there may be more than "one way to
skin a cat" here, my personal feeling is that most users aren't that
enthusiastic about taking an "unsure" step like i just took and results like
i just had will only make them that much the less enthusiastic

ken stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
To: "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>; "Digitel - Ken Stubbs"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "names council" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:10 PM
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, 2 May 2001 08:36:20 -0400
From: [email-masked] (Digitel - Ken Stubbs)
Subject: Re: [ga] MY "ALTERNATE ROOT" EXPERIENCE

your clearly correct here roland ...

but should that really matter if your a "non-technical" everyday user of the
net ?

i think not !!

ken stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "names council" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:29 PM
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

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 12:24:22 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Appendix U

Bret,

It seems to me that your conclusion is true only if the "one piece of
information" in question is critical to the evaluation and if the evaluation
cannot be completed without publicly disclosing the "one piece of
information."

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 11:24 AM
To: [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
- --
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 09:37:48 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Appendix U

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> It seems to me that your conclusion is true only if the "one piece of
> information" in question is critical to the evaluation and if the evaluation
> cannot be completed without publicly disclosing the "one piece of
> information."

But if it's not critical to the evaluation, it ought to be deleted from
Appendix U altogether. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate seeing a better
schedule, with an explanation of how we're going to complete the evaluation
process and make second round selections without all the data.

          -- 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 09:43:37 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] MY "ALTERNATE ROOT" EXPERIENCE

You may be misunderstanding. I was agreeing with you, off-handedly.

Most users don't know ... further, they don't want to know ... and they
shouldn't have to know...

I also agree that the new.net approach has serious problems. However, they
are the only one that is using that particular approach. I might also point
out that you are known to be aware of that and have been for some years. I
wouldn't consider you a model of the innocently ignorant user. You are far
from innocent ... :>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 5:36 AM
> To: Roeland Meyer; [email-masked]; General assembly list
> Cc: names council
> Subject: Re: [ga] MY "ALTERNATE ROOT" EXPERIENCE
> 
> 
> your clearly correct here roland ...
> 
> but should that really matter if your a "non-technical" 
> everyday user of the
> net ?
> 
> i think not !!
> 
> ken stubbs
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "names council" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:29 PM
> 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

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 08:55:37 -0400
From: [email-masked] (Digitel - Ken Stubbs)
Subject: Re: [ga] MY "ALTERNATE ROOT" EXPERIENCE

your are seriously wrong here roland..
when it come to "alternate roots" and how, technically,  the user get to
view these these sites, i am no more knowledgable than the next guy.
i followed the pacific root instructions how how to use their system  and it
worked for me so, naturally, i did just the same thing (i.e. followed what i
thought were clear instructions)  with new.net and ended up with the mess i
described in my initial e-mail.

nothing more... nothing less

ken stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "names council" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:43 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] MY "ALTERNATE ROOT" EXPERIENCE

> You may be misunderstanding. I was agreeing with you, off-handedly.
>
> Most users don't know ... further, they don't want to know ... and they
> shouldn't have to know...
>
> I also agree that the new.net approach has serious problems. However, they
> are the only one that is using that particular approach. I might also
point
> out that you are known to be aware of that and have been for some years. I
> wouldn't consider you a model of the innocently ignorant user. You are far
> from innocent ... :>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 5:36 AM
> > To: Roeland Meyer; [email-masked]; General assembly list
> > Cc: names council
> > Subject: Re: [ga] MY "ALTERNATE ROOT" EXPERIENCE
> >
> >
> > your clearly correct here roland ...
> >
> > but should that really matter if your a "non-technical"
> > everyday user of the
> > net ?
> >
> > i think not !!
> >
> > ken stubbs
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>;
> > <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: "names council" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:29 PM
> > 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

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 13:16:24 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MY "ALTERNATE ROOT" EXPERIENCE

On 2 May 2001, at 8:33, Digitel - Ken Stubbs wrote:

> thanks for the timely response leah...
> 
> it only points to the crux of the issue which is "inconsistancy" & the sense
> of unstability created by "irresponsible" actions of entities like "new.net"
> 
> my guess is that problems like the ones i had will come home to roost in
> seroius "customer service issues" with new.net's affiliates & channel
> partners.

I doubt it, Ken.  I think that what will happen is new.net will improve 
upon the "activation" method and may be compelled to provide a clear 
description of what will occur with the download.
> 
> i am not a fan of this kind of "everyone doing it their own way" when it
> results in confusion and lack of confidence in the "system" and problems
> like i experienced today.

I see no problem with having different methods of configuring your own 
PC.  You do it every time you download an upgrade to a browser or 
obtain a plug-in like the "acrobat reader."  There is no gurarantee that 
things will work without conflict or that "Real Player" will operate on 
your existing system properly.  It is a choice between that or several 
other "players."

> 
> the net has grown because of user confidence  a "stabile, consistant, and
> predictable" foundation and, although there may be more than "one way to
> skin a cat" here, my personal feeling is that most users aren't that
> enthusiastic about taking an "unsure" step like i just took and results like
> i just had will only make them that much the less enthusiastic
> 

You are correct.  Many users will opt to not download soemthing about 
which they are unsure, which is why it is a good idea to provide 
descriptions of what will occur and an uninstall feature.

Choice is good, Ken.  It is simply the method that needs refining.

Leah

> ken stubbs
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
> To: "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>; "Digitel - Ken Stubbs"
> <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "names council" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:10 PM
> 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-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: Wed, 2 May 2001 14:20:28 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Appendix U

I don't necessarily disagree with you on that point and as you know I don't
have anything to do with Appendix U because we do not have one.  But isn't
it possible that some information that is confidential could be used to
reach conclusions which then could be communicated publicly without
disclosing the specific information?

In my mind, it isn't at all clear that the fact that some information
submitted for evaluation purposes is confidential necessarily needs to delay
the evaluation process and therefore the possible introduction of additional
TLDs.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:38 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Appendix U

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> It seems to me that your conclusion is true only if the "one piece of
> information" in question is critical to the evaluation and if the
evaluation
> cannot be completed without publicly disclosing the "one piece of
> information."

But if it's not critical to the evaluation, it ought to be deleted from
Appendix U altogether. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate seeing a better
schedule, with an explanation of how we're going to complete the evaluation
process and make second round selections without all the data.

          -- 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, 02 May 2001 11:46:30 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Appendix U

Of course it's possible. I'm assuming though that whatever the testbed data
shows, people will read it differently -- some will accept conclusions
reported by staff and others will insist on seeing the raw data. I just see
a potential minefield here, and I'd rather clear it now before it becomes an
unnecessary obstacle.

     -- Bret

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> I don't necessarily disagree with you on that point and as you know I don't
> have anything to do with Appendix U because we do not have one.  But isn't
> it possible that some information that is confidential could be used to
> reach conclusions which then could be communicated publicly without
> disclosing the specific information?
> 
> In my mind, it isn't at all clear that the fact that some information
> submitted for evaluation purposes is confidential necessarily needs to delay
> the evaluation process and therefore the possible introduction of additional
> TLDs.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:38 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Appendix U
> 
> 
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>> It seems to me that your conclusion is true only if the "one piece of
>> information" in question is critical to the evaluation and if the
> evaluation
>> cannot be completed without publicly disclosing the "one piece of
>> information."
> 
> But if it's not critical to the evaluation, it ought to be deleted from
> Appendix U altogether. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate seeing a better
> schedule, with an explanation of how we're going to complete the evaluation
> process and make second round selections without all the data.
> 
>         -- 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, 02 May 2001 22:21:45 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MY "ALTERNATE ROOT" EXPERIENCE

Dear Ken,
the real issue is the stability of the existing major TLDs, like .com etc 
and the new TLDs in front of the viruscom (tricks, softwares, etc.. making 
the DNS to react differently from what the user expects). We registered 
viruscom.org to set-up a site on his topic to warn users like you (but it 
seems we are bypassed by the speed of the problem).  Help and information - 
this is a very new story. 10 months the first hearsays - your help, your 
information would be welcome.

The viruscoms already known for sure :

1. the first viruscom is obviously ".biz" by Vint Cerf. Which will make DNS 
to react in strange ways. Codenamed 'bis.biz".

2. the second we had reported may be a hoax (but it would help the 
dissemination, so it could however be classed as a virscom). Name is 
porn.com: when you call any .com address you reach an adult site with 
compliments of the person who sended the plug in to you. Afetr 7 days you 
reach a porn copy of the icann site and your disk is erased. The 
dissemination trick is to look as a New.net commercial proposition so you 
send it to your friends first, then to your ennemies when you understood 
what it is. Beware! reports are that you cannot unistall it (it would 
install twice: one at the righ place, one at random and revive eratically 
at power up).

3. the third is a very simple variation of the New.net plugin you 
experienced. From reports on New.net use (there may be several releases as 
this has been documented by two users and denegated by a New.net 
consultant) if you make a typo or type a non a-root TLD you are lead to a 
New.net site by default. This is made in checking a list of all the a-root 
TLDs in the plugin. You may create a viruscom very easily with this: just 
take a byte editor and change "com" into "dom" in the list. The user will 
never access .com anymore. Simple and Neat.

4. variations on New.net plugin had been announced a long ago on various 
MLs. So hackers had a lot of time to think about them. But there was no fun 
yet until .biz and New.net. During the @large campaign it was even 
suggested that a pro ORSC virus has been devised to reroute the users calls 
to ORSC root. This has never been traced, but as ORSC (or Pacific or 
others) only includes TLDs excluded by the iCANN, peolpe do not know if 
they are using the legacy or an inclusive root. So, It is possible that 
many people resolve bis.biz on Leah's .biz if  (should the DoC appoved the 
.biz take away).

The virsucom issue is of real interest. It mostly results from the 
inability of windows users to init their own root and of the possibility 
left to change what the user typed in the browser window into something 
else. We suppose that now the fashion starts being on it hackers will 
enjoy. As it has been said, "iCANN taught us how to take away .biz, why not 
to hi-jack .com". You will not prevent this people to have a try and 
some"fun". The first media reports will create instability and therefore 
interest for hackers ... and commercial competition in various fields 
(anti-viruscoms, plugins, etc...) will play on that.

The only real way to fight this is to extend the DNS to the user machine. 
So the user controls exactly what he does and where it goes. The best 
example of this is MultiBind. The user selects the roots he wants to 
include and then protects the pipe between his browser and MultiBind. 
MultiBind is then a plugin. Until MicroSoft/Netscape/Opera corrects this 
and includes a value added builtin MultiBind. This way the user will have 
RSC shopping list and will chose which TLDs he wants to access (some may be 
on a paying basis like for TV) and will be updated on changes for the other 
softwares. RSC will turn into multi TLD information resellers. iCANN will 
end in running the select TLD "legacy shop", "established since 1998".

Thank you for rising the matter. Interesting. I suppose this should be 
resolved before the end of the year, otherwise we will have an e-economy 
collapse. Look at the dissemination of the last Word viruses and the way 
the media covered them. And ask yourself about the impact of a nasty 
viruscom making the kids to access porn or may be tax comptrollers to 
access your banking accounts (remember that Windows stores your passwords 
and that Trojan horses are all over). If it develops it will be no joke. 
Thanks to "bis.biz".

Jefsey

PS.
BTW the Browser builtin MultiBind will nicely solve the international DN 
issue. And save a lot of time to WIPO and to the NAS. Chinese will use it 
quick and distrbute Roots on CDs so the Govs knows what is in it for sure.

BTW MultiBind was supposed to ship today?

On 19:16 02/05/01, L Gallegos said:
>On 2 May 2001, at 8:33, Digitel - Ken Stubbs wrote:
> > thanks for the timely response leah...
> >
> > it only points to the crux of the issue which is "inconsistancy" & the 
> sense
> > of unstability created by "irresponsible" actions of entities like 
> "new.net"
> >
> > my guess is that problems like the ones i had will come home to roost in
> > seroius "customer service issues" with new.net's affiliates & channel
> > partners.
>
>I doubt it, Ken.  I think that what will happen is new.net will improve
>upon the "activation" method and may be compelled to provide a clear
>description of what will occur with the download.
> >
> > i am not a fan of this kind of "everyone doing it their own way" when it
> > results in confusion and lack of confidence in the "system" and problems
> > like i experienced today.
>
>I see no problem with having different methods of configuring your own
>PC.  You do it every time you download an upgrade to a browser or
>obtain a plug-in like the "acrobat reader."  There is no gurarantee that
>things will work without conflict or that "Real Player" will operate on
>your existing system properly.  It is a choice between that or several
>other "players."
>
> >
> > the net has grown because of user confidence  a "stabile, consistant, and
> > predictable" foundation and, although there may be more than "one way to
> > skin a cat" here, my personal feeling is that most users aren't that
> > enthusiastic about taking an "unsure" step like i just took and results 
> like
> > i just had will only make them that much the less enthusiastic
> >
>
>You are correct.  Many users will opt to not download soemthing about
>which they are unsure, which is why it is a good idea to provide
>descriptions of what will occur and an uninstall feature.
>
>Choice is good, Ken.  It is simply the method that needs refining.
>
>Leah
>
> > ken stubbs
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>; "Digitel - Ken Stubbs"
> > <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: "names council" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:10 PM
> > 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-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

- --
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 14:21:20 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

Hello Roeland,

Wednesday, May 02, 2001, 6:18:17 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

>> 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).

Only one I can find this on is the IDNO list, and you can't expect
that to be taken as an exhaustive review of the subject.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

- --
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 #432
************************