Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #441
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Tuesday, May 8 2001             Volume 01 : Number 441

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

Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 23:44:21 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] What makes a corporation?

> From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> Roeland Meyer wrote:
> 
> > It certainly appears that way Ollie...
> 
> You may be right, Stan. If that were the case, corrective measures
> would be required.  Among the responses (not necessarilty to me,
> but back and forth between others), I find the spectre of the large
> corporation having huge voting power, since they sell votes and
> they can pile up endlessly. (It is only in this kind of weird Internet
> context that the selling of votes, with prices listed, is announced to
> the world.)  So the next question is, what good are they? Is it not
> the BoD that ultimately makes the decisions on various things? 

The is exactly the issue, Ollie. But, to be fair, the output of the DNSO,
including the beknighted NC, has been abysmal, as had been noted by some, on
the WG-Review list. The work product and credible track record is somewhat
lacking. Even when it sppears to get close, someone pulls out a wildcard
trump, because they didn't like the first answer. Like what happened with
the WG-Review report (take your pick ... many more than one).

This was my opinion, expressed at the time;
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01554.html

> I have seen nothing that would legally bind the BoD to do anything
> -- except as some have pointed out, abide by the Bylaws and
> have a DNSO.  But where does it say that those things on which the
> DNSO speaks out, presumably on the basis of what its various
> constituencies have voted to do, must be followed by the BoD?
> And if the BoD does its own thing regardless, what recourse is
> there?  I can think of a few, but would like to be educated as to
> what viable options really exist.  

Actions of the GA are definitely not binding on the NC. Likewise, NC actions
are not binding on the ICANN BoD. ICANN BoD actions are the only ones that
matter and they have a history of not listening to many ... kind of like the
ol' IANA ...

> (One suggestion I saw a few
> days ago, that everyone boycott so that the DNSO disappears,
> I don't see as viable.)

This is also my belief.

> Bill Lovell

ciao ..

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 7:19 PM
> >
> > The issue, of course, is whether the present structure is such that
> > "constituencies"
> > are simply ghost-like wraiths that ineffectively float 
> about the real
> > action; there is no
> > actual need for any constituency for dominating TM owners 
> because the system
> > is
> > already locked in to their advantage. Is that what we have here?
> > Bill Lovell
> > --
> > 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: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:03:31 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders'  constituency (IC)

At 10:32 8/05/01 +0800, McMeikan, Andrew wrote:
>I think that to propose the creation of an IC it at least needs a little
>definition to go along with it rather than just implied on the subject line.
>
>in general there are 
>1)the mass of users 
>2)some of those produce content or contribute in some way to the overall net
>3)some control a single (non-transient) computer that makes up part of the
>internet

I think I now understand where you are coming from. 
Most Individual DN owners, who own websites will fall under your 3)
They have control over the access to their content, either directly,
because they own the machine, or indirectly, because they have contracted a
webhost.

However, an Individual Domain used for email only may not "control" a
single computer. Yes, owners of such domains have an equal stake in the DNS
and should be allowed to be part of an IC.
The IDNO has formulated (art 4) a pretty workable but maybe too inclusive
definition of an Individual DN owner.

Would you want to keep those who control larger networks  [ your  5) or 6)]
 (even if they are individuals) out of an IC?
They do have different interests , I grant you that.

Some want to have a constituency of "Internet resource providers" (like a
mom&pop biz constituency, this makes sense, IMHO),  others, sysadmins like
Mr Pacific Root, want to play .god   :-)

I agree with Bill Lovell that it would be very helpful to reserve the
constituency for  the "typical"  Individual DN owners make sure it  speaks
credibly for them. It's the old "capture" issue. 
Large numbers  provide protection against capture. 
Large numbers will not join, until a constituency is recognized in principle.

- -joop

- --
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, 08 May 2001 14:23:02 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf

Dear Mr. Chairman,

the DNSO/GA has been hampered by internal problems not permitting me to 
formally propose this letter to a debate. It is therefore sent only under 
my name. It represents however the questions of several and your response 
will certainly be studied carefully by many.

I have two questions. The first one is strategic to the Internet and the 
second is technical and legal. Both of them concern the decision of 
introducing a "bis.biz" TLD colliding with the existing ".biz" TLD.

1. the strategic question is the following.

You cannot ignore that the possible support by the iCANN of a second .biz 
is opposed and is not therefore based upon consensus. This means that the 
iCANN is here going beyond its Charter which is to manage the Consensus. 
Some may argue that iCANN opponents are not representative and give fuel to 
an interesting theory of Consensus by exclusion. Others will respond - and 
I suppose you are among them - that bylaws give the iCANN the right to act 
without consensus should the motive or the urgency be good enough.

In all the ".biz" controversy we have heard many con and pros. There is 
however a pro we never heard until now and that we are eager to hear from 
you: why is that so important to the Internet about the ".biz" TLD? And 
what made you vote to take it away from Leah Gallagos?

2. The second question is both technical and legal. I will handle it 
through a study case.

     Background

DNS timers, machine failures, mail service overloads, etc. do not permit to 
know which machine  an e-mail will travel through. The iCANN excludes the 
augmented roots from its own root. The augmented roots include the whole 
inclusive name space, i.e. every non colliding TLD including iCANN's TLDs. 
It is not possible to foresee the root used by every machine on an e-mail path.

In case of collision (the same TLD being used on different roots) this 
means that a mail bound to a given host under one root, may land on another 
host under another root.

This is different from an error or of the hacking of the mail service. Here 
the mail service works perfectly: the final error is the result of the 
network misconfiguration which is the TLD collision.

     Description of the case (the use of IBM name is just for better 
understanding)

1) let suppose my name is Ian B. Martinez and I own ibm.biz on existing 
".biz" service.
2) let suppose the DoC authorizes the iCANN to proceed with your own ".biz" 
TLD, named here after "bis.biz" for better understanding.

     Questions:

3) I send a mail to [email-masked]. Can you certify that that mail will 
always reach my own "accounting" mailbox on my own ibm.biz host (and not 
one under "bis.biz")?

4) the IBM Tax Advisor sends a mail to the IBM, Accounting VP at 
[email-masked] (i.e. bis.biz). Can you certify that his mail will never 
reach my own ibm.biz host?

5) can you certify the iCANN and the DoC are not legally responsible for a 
possible wrong delivery while they decided to create this misconfiguration?

6) I assume that I am the legitimate owner of the data I receive in my 
mailbox and I may freely disclose it to the press (BTW could be sent to me 
on purpose). Can you certify that the iCANN and the DoC will not be held 
responsible for the harm which might result to IBM?

7) if a mail of mine was received by another party and discolsed due to the 
collision iCANN would have advised to the DoC, who would you advise me to 
sue?

8) are you ready to take personal responsibility for these responses? Board 
Members may be held legally and financially responsible of their decisions. 
Has the iCANN subscribed a protection scheme in the case the victim(s) of 
such a leak would want to sue them ?

I do thank you for your attention and your time.
I will certainly value your responses.

Jefsey Morfin

Copy:
Members of the Board
DNSO/GA
icann-fra

- --
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, 08 May 2001 14:28:32 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] What makes a corporation?

Dear Leah,
I would suggest you join me in the DNSO/BC/SME. I try to get it
active. We are only two there interacting together and interesting
issues have been discussed, like a DN holderhsip insurance and
a TLD operator insurance. This went up to the Staff with good feed
back. But we need more members... The DNSO/BC/SME is a
committee in the BC bylaws, even if Phil Sheppard never cared
to respond when I explained that we had started it (after I met
with BC people in Paris).

We cetainly can start working, lobbying and then claiming one
NC BC seat for us. There are 70 members or so at the BC.
would we be 100 SMEs we could certainly interest SME
associations and administrations round he world.

I also certainly support Joop's proposition to have an unformal
alliance between NonCom, BC/SME and IDNH on points of
common interest. This might help restoring the balance for the
80% of the holders not yet represented.

Last but not least: I am not sure that nonDN holders should
not be present at the DNSO. The DNSO is about DNS: they
use the DNS as anyone and may be affected by some
decisions, orientations. Many may be 3rd level users or
Inclusive root users.

As you know my position is that the GA sould include the
existing constituencies and others as Special Interest
Groups. The constituency system is only a way to elect
NC Membes, it could cetainly survive: the DNSO/BC SIG
would also be a constituency in that it would elect 3
Members at the NC. Some time the DNSO/IDNH SIG
could become a constiuency through a revamp of the NC
election rules: this should not prevent it to start existing
now. The mistake is to consider that the NC seats are
the key of the DNSO activity and of its real decision
making process.  a) the VRSN case shown that the GA
has a wheight by itself  b) it is up to the GA to work out
a new balance with the NC. The Chair election shown
that is possible.

Jefsey

On 03:24 08/05/01, L Gallegos said:

>On 7 May 2001, at 19:25, Bruce James wrote:
>
> >
> > The business constituency is open to small businesses.  The opportunity is
> > there.  You can't make people take advantage of it.  There are dozens and
> > dozens of small businesses represented on these lists, more than enough to
> > be extremely effective in the business constituency.
>
>And the bigger the business, the more votes they have.  You really
>think that a sole proprietor fits with the MCI Worldcoms?  It is the
>corporations of the type in the business constituency who are preying
>upon the individual and small business domain name holders.  The
>membership fees are descriptive of the balance of power.  That's the
>reason for the need of a constituency to allow the small business a
>voice.
>
> >
> > But then they wouldn't be able to complain about not being represented,
> > would they?
> >
> > --
> > Kent Crispin
>
>
>--
>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: Tue, 08 May 2001 08:52:11 -0400
From: Vany Martinez <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders' c	onstituency (IC)

Hi Lia:

  01:34 a.m. 05/08/01 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
>If you hold a domain name, you want the IC which doesn not exist.  You
>could also join the non-commecial SO,
There's no such Non-Comercial SO.  Which exists is a Non-Commercial 
Constituency, and right now we just
admite as members Non-Commercial Organizations.

>if your site falls into that
>category.  There is no prohibition on joining more than one.
yes..other constituencies are accepting individuals.

>The bone of
>contention is that there is no place for the individual domain name
>holder or small business that is not controlled by a faction that is at
>cross purposes with that part of the community.  The major
>corporations have the business SO, the IP interests have their SO, the
>non-coms have theirs, but everyone else is in limbo with no voice.
Lia...Constituencies, not SO.   SO is for DNSO, ASO and PSO

Best Regards
Vany

>On 8 May 2001, at 12:42, McMeikan, Andrew wrote:
>
> > No I was not confused, just trying to get it stated in a way that would
> > avoid confusion.
> >
> > I guess I did not succeed.  I will state my opinions so that hopefully my
> > position will be clearer.
> >
> > * I challenge no ones right to do stuff one the net, although I challenge
> > ICANN for its attempt to limit others rights.
> >
> > * If there is to be a body like ICANN that does wish to decide what can and
> > can not be done, then as many that are affected should be represented.
> >
> > * There are other things on the net than web pages and these need to be
> > protected just as much.
> >
> > * I own a domain name with non-commercial content hosted on 'free' web
> > providers, I want to be in a constituency and be heard.
> >
> > * there used to be a net before DNS and there will still be one after its
> > gone.
> >
> >
> >  cya, Andrew...
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:       Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent:       Tuesday, May 08, 2001 11:31 AM
> > > To: GA
> > > Subject:    RE: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN
> > > holders' constituency (IC)
> > >
> > > Hi Andrew:
> > >
> > > I have realized that you are confused between the At Large and the IC.
> > >
> > > The IC and Individual Domain Names Holders.  The At Large membership are
> > > any Internet user holds or not holds a domain, that are interested in the
> > > policy developing in the subjects of:  Domain Names, IP addresses space
> > > and Protocols.
> > >
> > > El lun, 07 may 2001, McMeikan, Andrew escribió:
> > > > I think that to propose the creation of an IC it at least needs a
> > > > little definition to go along with it rather than just implied on the
> > > > subject
> > > line.
> > > >
> >  <snip>
> > --
> > 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

Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
a member of the Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency of the 
ICANN's DNSO
e-mail:  [email-masked]
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Fax:  (507)  230-3455

- --
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, 8 May 2001 17:26:20 +0200 (CEST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN  holders'  constituency (IC)

On Tue, 8 May 2001, at 22:03 [=GMT+1200], Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 10:32 8/05/01 +0800, McMeikan, Andrew wrote:
> >I think that to propose the creation of an IC it at least needs a little
> >definition to go along with it rather than just implied on the subject line.
> >
> >in general there are 
> >1)the mass of users 
> >2)some of those produce content or contribute in some way to the overall net
> >3)some control a single (non-transient) computer that makes up part of the
> >internet
> 
> I think I now understand where you are coming from. 
> Most Individual DN owners, who own websites will fall under your 3)
> They have control over the access to their content, either directly,
> because they own the machine, or indirectly, because they have contracted a
> webhost.
> 
> However, an Individual Domain used for email only may not "control" a
> single computer. Yes, owners of such domains have an equal stake in the DNS
> and should be allowed to be part of an IC.
> The IDNO has formulated (art 4) a pretty workable but maybe too inclusive
> definition of an Individual DN owner.
> 
> Would you want to keep those who control larger networks  [ your  5) or 6)]
>  (even if they are individuals) out of an IC?
> They do have different interests , I grant you that.
> 
> Some want to have a constituency of "Internet resource providers" (like a
> mom&pop biz constituency, this makes sense, IMHO),  others, sysadmins like
> Mr Pacific Root, want to play .god   :-)
> 
> I agree with Bill Lovell that it would be very helpful to reserve the
> constituency for  the "typical"  Individual DN owners make sure it  speaks
> credibly for them. It's the old "capture" issue. 
> Large numbers  provide protection against capture. 
> Large numbers will not join, until a constituency is recognized in principle.

1. I am in full support of any attempts to get a IDN constituency off
the ground, and specifically I support/second Joop's motion. Even if
it might not be the perfect solution (I have no reason to think that),
we have to get started, really, after all this time, esp. given the
speed with which the net develops. Things for the new TLDs are moving
already even before the contracts are signed. So why linger here?

2. I see a lot of practical difficulties in determining who does or
does not fulfil the criteria (however we may formulate them) for being
part of on IDN constituency. What is wrong with one domain one
vote? The electoral registry is already in place, so to speak. So why
not allow any domain owner to join? Maybe then rename to DN
constituency without the I? The stakeholders in the DNSO are the
owners/registrants of domain names, whatever they do with
them: business, non-commercial, individual, religious etc. 
I would limit things (within the context of ICANN as it is right now,
to registrants of gTLDs. The ccTLDs have (in part at least) their own
ways of doing registrant participation. The policies for ccTLDs are
largely outside of ICANN's control anyway.

3. To keep out those who have merely unused domains, I would suggest
that only domains that receive email (and therefore also resolve) can
have a vote. Perhaps a special email address? "Postmaster@" goes to
/dev/null in many places, and is also, IIRC, now out of the
relevant RFC.
Maybe: dnso-vote@ ? Something that may not conflict with any normal
address in any case.

[email-masked]
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: 8 May 2001 08:36:05 -0700
From: Srikanth Narra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] domain name owner's bill of rights

Peter

From prespective of responding fast to individual issues of this type aired on public list I have found NSI to be the most responsive. 

The registar in this case was register.com; In all fairness to them I must state that I don't have any issue with them making a counter offer. I think that's a legitimate business practice and makes good sense to them from business standpoint as well as to us from consumer standpoint. 

My issue with them is them rejecting the transfer because I did not respond in time to them despite having given explicit approval required for transfer. I have unease with registers imposing mandatory processes of their own. 

From public pressure standpoint, things might work in a (very) long run from larger perspective - we know from early NSI experiences; but again, at what cost to individuals that get burnt in a meanwhile ? Will they ever be justice to them ?

Maybe if we had some leverage with the renewal/revalidation/revokal of approved register status. The very fact, hopefully, should keep bad practices (unapproved extra judicary) in check. 

Sri

On Mon, 07 May 2001, "Peter de Blanc" wrote:

> 
> I would like to know who that registrar is, so i do not try to use them in
> the future.
> 
> Publication of such information may cause them to modify their behaviour.
> 
> peter de Blanc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Srikanth
> Narra
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 6:03 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [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

- --
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, 08 May 2001 13:18:34 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] quote of the month

With respect to the "sunrise" and other pre-registration TM `safeguards'
to be implemented in the impending release of the *new ICANN domains:

"Elana Broitman, a lawyer representing RegistryPro, told the room full
of fellow attorneys that such restrictions will naturally hinder abuse
because those professions have a higher level of ethics than other
groups and "would be less likely to cybersquat."

for the full scoop:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5851342.html?tag=mn_hd

Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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, 08 May 2001 12:23:49 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] quote of the month

"Higher level of ethics"......Ha!

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Sotiris" <[email-masked]>
To: "ga" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 12:18
Subject: [ga] quote of the month

With respect to the "sunrise" and other pre-registration TM `safeguards'
to be implemented in the impending release of the *new ICANN domains:

"Elana Broitman, a lawyer representing RegistryPro, told the room full
of fellow attorneys that such restrictions will naturally hinder abuse
because those professions have a higher level of ethics than other
groups and "would be less likely to cybersquat."

for the full scoop:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5851342.html?tag=mn_hd

Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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: Tue, 8 May 2001 14:06:18 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: (Fwd) RE: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN  

Joop:

On 8 May 2001, at 22:03, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 10:32 8/05/01 +0800, McMeikan, Andrew wrote:
> >I think that to propose the creation of an IC it at least needs a little
> >definition to go along with it rather than just implied on the subject
> >line.
> >
> >in general there are 
> >1)the mass of users 
> >2)some of those produce content or contribute in some way to the overall
> >net 3)some control a single (non-transient) computer that makes up part
> >of the internet
> 
> I think I now understand where you are coming from. 
> Most Individual DN owners, who own websites will fall under your 3)
> They have control over the access to their content, either directly,
> because they own the machine, or indirectly, because they have contracted
> a webhost.
> 
> However, an Individual Domain used for email only may not "control" a
> single computer. Yes, owners of such domains have an equal stake in the
> DNS and should be allowed to be part of an IC. The IDNO has formulated
> (art 4) a pretty workable but maybe too inclusive definition of an
> Individual DN owner.
> 
> Would you want to keep those who control larger networks  [ your  5) or
> 6)]
>  (even if they are individuals) out of an IC?
> They do have different interests , I grant you that.

Really?  I am building a LAN at my home with 3 servers and 4 
workstations running different OS's that I want to become familiar with.  I
have serveral domain names personally. I want to learn more about
networking (physical) and programming. Why am I different from an
individual with one or two domains and a home PC or a mom&pop 
business
(which I happen to have).  I have both non-commercial public interest 
sites
and a commercial site that I will now host on my own servers instead of
having someone else host them.

> 
> Some want to have a constituency of "Internet resource providers" (like a
> mom&pop biz constituency, this makes sense, IMHO),  others, sysadmins
> like Mr Pacific Root, want to play .god   :-)

I do hope you will leave ad hominems out of posts.  Most sysadmins 
have rather unique ideas.  Most of the ones I do know have similar 
geeky attittudes.  For their own networks they do have command.  
Many also have personal domains and should not be excluded from an 
IC.  FYI, small businesses like that have the same stake in this issue as
any other small business.  I play .god in my small business too.  It is 
my
responsibility.  

I think you will find that people like Bradley would be very happy to
participate in such a constituency if it is membership driven with one 
vote
per registrant regardless of the number of domains held.

> 
> I agree with Bill Lovell that it would be very helpful to reserve the
> constituency for  the "typical"  Individual DN owners make sure it 
> speaks credibly for them. It's the old "capture" issue. Large numbers 
> provide protection against capture. Large numbers will not join, until a
> constituency is recognized in principle.
> 
> -joop
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

- --
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, 8 May 2001 13:26:24 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf

Jefsey, I'm sure you didn't realize it, but you have made the strongest 
case I have seen so far for my proposal that there should be legal 
sanctions against the connection of alternate root system to the global 
Internet.  And of course, I don't speak for Dr Cerf in this matter.  
But you have posted these comments far and wide, and indicate yourself 
that you expect public response.

Comments below:

On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 07:56:26PM +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> Dear Mr. Chairman,
> 
[...]

> I have two questions. The first one is strategic to the Internet and the 
> second is technical and legal. Both of them concern the decision of 
> introducing a "bis.biz" TLD colliding with the existing ".biz" TLD.
> 
> 1. the strategic question is the following.
> 
> You cannot ignore that the possible support by the iCANN of a second .biz 
> is opposed and is not therefore based upon consensus. This means that the 
> iCANN is here going beyond its Charter which is to manage the Consensus. 
> Some may argue that iCANN opponents are not representative and give fuel to 
> an interesting theory of Consensus by exclusion. Others will respond - and 
> I suppose you are among them - that bylaws give the iCANN the right to act 
> without consensus should the motive or the urgency be good enough.

Both are clearly true.

> In all the ".biz" controversy we have heard many con and pros. There is 
> however a pro we never heard until now and that we are eager to hear from 
> you: what is that so important to the Internet about the ".biz" TLD? And 
> what made you vote to take it away from Leah Gallagos?

Nothing is being taken away from her.  She chose to use an alternate
root system that was very unwisely connected to the global internet, and
she can continue to do so.  However, her actions were irresponsible in
that they ignored a very large scale process that has been going on for
years, and she must take the consequences. 

> 2. The second question is both technical and legal. I will handle it 
> through a case study.
> 
>      Background
> 
> DNS timers, machine failures, mail service overloads, etc. do not permit to 
> know which machine  an e-mail will travel through. The iCANN excludes the 
> augmented roots from its own root. The augmented roots include the whole 
> inclusive name space, i.e. every non colliding TLD including iCANN's TLDs. 
> It is not possible to foresee the root used by every machine on an e-mail path.
> 
> In case of collision (the same TLD being used on different roots) this 
> means that a mail bound to a given host under one root, may land on another 
> host under another root.
> 
> This is different from an error or of the hacking of the mail service. Here 
> the mail service works perfectly: the final error is the result of the 
> network misconfiguration which is the TLD collision.
> 
>      Description of the case (the use of IBM name is just for better 
> understanding)
> 
> 1) let suppose my name is Ian B. Martinez and I own ibm.biz on existing 
> ".biz" service.
> 2) let suppose the DoC authorizes the iCANN to proceed with your own ".biz" 
> TLD, named here after "bis.biz" for better understanding.
> 
>      Questions:
> 
> 3) I send a mail to [email-masked]. Can you certify that that mail will 
> always reach my own "accounting" mailbox on my own ibm.biz host (and not 
> one under "bis.biz")?
> 
> 4) the IBM Tax Advisor sends a mail to the IBM, Accounting VP at 
> [email-masked] (i.e. bis.biz). Can you certify that his mail will never 
> reach my own ibm.biz host?
> 
> 5) can you certify the iCANN and the DoC are not legally responsible for a 
> possible wrong delivery while they decided to create this misconfiguration?

The misconfiguration is in creation of a .biz in an alternate root 
system, and connecting that to the global Internet -- an action which 
exposes one to all kinds of problems, not just the one you outline.

> 6) I assume that I am the legitimate owner of the data I receive in my 
> mailbox and I may freely disclose it to the press (BTW could be sent to me 
> on purpose). Can you certify that the iCANN and the DoC will not be held 
> responsible for the harm which might result to IBM?

Actually, the entity that needs to worry about being held responsible 
is the party who created an alternate TLD and advertised it.

> 7) if a mail of mine was received by another party and disclosed due to the 
> collision iCANN would have advised to the DoC, who would you advise me to 
> sue?

The operator of the .biz that is operating in an alternate root.  Such
operation is in direct contradiction to the best technical advice
available (RFC 2826), and it is clearly irresponsible to operate in
contradiction to such authoritative advice.  I am not a lawyer, but in a
US court, at least, willfully ignoring such important and widely known
information would be extremely damaging -- worse than mere negligence.

If I were Ms Gellagos, I would be thinking very hard about this.

- -- 
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: Tue, 08 May 2001 17:50:30 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf

Kent Crispin wrote:
 
> Jefsey, I'm sure you didn't realize it, but you have made the strongest
> case I have seen so far for my proposal that there should be legal
> sanctions against the connection of alternate root system to the global
> Internet.

Methinks you're over the top there.

There's nothing wrong with connecting a private alternate root to the
Internet. Lots of people do that all time and it works just fine.

When an alternate root vendor talks about "upgrade to see the whole
Internet" rather than "add private domains visible only to our clients",
they are either lying or they aren't. If they are, then existing laws
on fraud, false advertising and client damage lawsuits apply and your
proposed sanctions are unnecessary. If they aren't, then I cannot see
the point of your sanctions. 

> > In all the ".biz" controversy we have heard many con and pros. There is
> > however a pro we never heard until now and that we are eager to hear from
> > you: what is that so important to the Internet about the ".biz" TLD? And
> > what made you vote to take it away from Leah Gallagos?
> 
> Nothing is being taken away from her.

She never had it, at least not in the official root for the global Internet.

> She chose to use an alternate
> root system that was very unwisely connected to the global internet, and
> she can continue to do so.  However, her actions were irresponsible in
> that they ignored a very large scale process that has been going on for
> years, and she must take the consequences.

> The iCANN excludes the
> > augmented roots from its own root. The augmented roots include the whole
> > inclusive name space, i.e. every non colliding TLD including iCANN's TLDs.

No. The global roots, (mis)managed by ICANN and Verisign, are the roots for
the public Internet. You can augment them as you please for private use, but
attempting to do so for the public net is both dumb and perilous.

> The misconfiguration is in creation of a .biz in an alternate root
> system, and connecting that to the global Internet -- an action which
> exposes one to all kinds of problems, not just the one you outline.

> > ... who would you advise me to sue?
> 
> The operator of the .biz that is operating in an alternate root.  Such
> operation is in direct contradiction to the best technical advice
> available (RFC 2826), ...

Good reading.
- --
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 #441
************************