Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #442
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Wednesday, May 9 2001            Volume 01 : Number 442

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

Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 15:33:33 -0700
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders'  constituency (IC)

Joop Teernstra writes:
 > On 15:50 7/05/01 -0700, Joe Kelsey said:
 > >I am opposed to any Individual's Constituency which has anything at all
 > >to do with the non-legitimate so-called IDNO.  Please remove all
 > >references to this organization.
 > >
 > 
 > The Name is not important for the Resolution of the GA. 
 > This is why I speak of an IC.

I cannot support any motion that makes mention of the so-called IDNO.

I can support a motion which talks in principle about an individual
domain name holders constituency as an abstract concept divorced from
the so-called IDNO.

 > However, the history cannot be unmade and the history is part of the
 > considerans.
 > The archives bear witness to what exactly has been said and done.

The history of the so-called IDNO is *exactly* the reason why the
concept of an individual domain name holders constituency has gone
nowhere for so long.  We *must* leave this history behind, exactly as if
it had never happened in order to move forward.

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

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

Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 18:59:59 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf

On 8 May 2001, at 13:26, 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.  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. 

Kent, that is about the most ridiculous statement I've read in a long 
time.  .BIZ has been on the public net since 1995.  Others have been 
there many years more (1985). I didn't introduce it and you know it.  I 
got the delegation after it had been around for years.  If ICANN had not 
endeavored to duplicate it, there would be no problem.  If and when 
ICANN dupliates others, it will be just as bad. Talk about irresponsible 
behavior!

> 
> > 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.

The negligence is on the part of ICANN since they were aware of the 
existence of .BIZ and were fully aware of the consequences of 
duplicating it.  As usual, you are reversing the situation.  It's rather like 
the cheater accusing the spouse of cheating to cover his own 
misbehavior.  Happens all the time.  .BIZ pre-existed ICANN's dupe.  
Simple.

Once more, Kent. The DNS is singular.  Roots are not.  Roots are not 
the name space.  DNS is.  Most of the kids in school can think that 
through.  

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

Careful, Kent.  And my name is spelled Gallegos, thank you.

> 
> -- 
> 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-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 16:40:18 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders'   constituency (IC)

> From: Joe Kelsey [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 3:34 PM
> 
> Joop Teernstra writes:
>  > On 15:50 7/05/01 -0700, Joe Kelsey said:
>  > >I am opposed to any Individual's Constituency which has 
> anything at all
>  > >to do with the non-legitimate so-called IDNO.  Please remove all
>  > >references to this organization.
>  > >
>  > 
>  > The Name is not important for the Resolution of the GA. 
>  > This is why I speak of an IC.
> 
> I cannot support any motion that makes mention of the so-called IDNO.

Joe, we already know that you, and your elitist buddies, do not want
individuals to have any say, in any part of the Internet. I bet you and Kent
still think "blue laws" are also appropriate and human-rights is a figment
... Yes, we are [through your repetitive ranting] disgustingly well aware of
your views.
- --
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 16:50:35 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf

On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 06:59:59PM -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
> Once more, Kent. The DNS is singular.  Roots are not.  Roots are not 
> the name space.  DNS is.  Most of the kids in school can think that 
> through.  

The technical means by which the singularity of DNS is
enforced is through the use of a single root (currently under the
authority of the USG).  The is explicit in the design of dns; it has
been reiterated many times.  

Please note that it is the use of alternate roots and TLDs that is the
fundamental problem: if you use alternate roots with alternate TLDs you
can *never* be sure that you won't get polluted by someone else's
alternate root and TLD of the same name -- they don't have to tell you
about it; you don't have to know that it exists; it doesn't have to be
publically advertised.  The conflict Jefsey describes with the two
versions of .biz exists independent of whether one of them is in the
real root -- two alternate root zones that don't know about each other
have precisely the same problem; there is no distinguishing
characteristic of the real root that sets it apart.

To put it in other words, if you use a .biz in an alternate root, you 
run the risk of colliding with someone who, deliberately or 
accidentally, sets up a .biz in another alternate root, and they don't 
have to tell you about it.  The only way you can guarantee to avoid 
such conflicts is to avoid using alternate roots.

- -- 
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, 8 May 2001 17:01:16 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 4:51 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf
> 
> On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 06:59:59PM -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
> > Once more, Kent. The DNS is singular.  Roots are not.  
> Roots are not 
> > the name space.  DNS is.  Most of the kids in school can think that 
> > through.  
> 
> The technical means by which the singularity of DNS is
> enforced is through the use of a single root (currently under the
> authority of the USG).  The is explicit in the design of dns; it has
> been reiterated many times.  

DNS is not a sngularity.
- --
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 17:24:55 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders'   constituency (IC)

Hello Roeland,

Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 4:40:18 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>> I cannot support any motion that makes mention of the so-called IDNO.

> Joe, we already know that you, and your elitist buddies, do not want
> individuals to have any say, in any part of the Internet. I bet you and Kent
> still think "blue laws" are also appropriate and human-rights is a figment
> ... Yes, we are [through your repetitive ranting] disgustingly well aware of
> your views.

Nice twisting of what he said, Roeland.

He said he >>supports<< the more for an individual's constituency.

The caveat that any such motion not refer to the IDNO in any fashion,
or grant any recognition to the IDNO, is a reasonable one based on
it's history.

Objecting to any IDNO related language is not anywhere what you imply
above in your excessive criticism.

Take a step back, and tone your attacks down.  The effort for an
individual's constituency doesn't need your kind of behavior above.

- -- 
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

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

Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 17:38:25 -0700
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders'   constituency (IC)

Roeland Meyer writes:
 > Joe, we already know that you, and your elitist buddies, do not want
 > individuals to have any say, in any part of the Internet. I bet you and Kent
 > still think "blue laws" are also appropriate and human-rights is a figment
 > ... Yes, we are [through your repetitive ranting] disgustingly well aware of
 > your views.

I posses my own domain name.

I support an individual domain name holders constituency.

I DO NOT support Joop or the so-called IDNO.

Roeland, you and your anarchist buddies need to learn how to read.

/Joe

I will post no more on this topic today.
- --
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, 09 May 2001 11:21:05 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN  holders'  constituency (IC)

On 15:33 8/05/01 -0700, Joe Kelsey said:
>Joop Teernstra writes:
> > On 15:50 7/05/01 -0700, Joe Kelsey said:
> > >I am opposed to any Individual's Constituency which has anything at all
> > >to do with the non-legitimate so-called IDNO.  Please remove all
> > >references to this organization.
> > >
> > 
> > The Name is not important for the Resolution of the GA. 
> > This is why I speak of an IC.
>
>I cannot support any motion that makes mention of the so-called IDNO.
>
If you can't even bear reading the IDNO in the considerans, then perhaps
the motion is better off without your "support".

>I can support a motion which talks in principle about an individual
>domain name holders constituency as an abstract concept divorced from
>the so-called IDNO.
>
Oh sure. We can debate an "abstract concept" for another year.
But there are  real people out there who want to be represented.

> > However, the history cannot be unmade and the history is part of the
> > considerans.
> > The archives bear witness to what exactly has been said and done.
>
>The history of the so-called IDNO is *exactly* the reason why the
>concept of an individual domain name holders constituency has gone
>nowhere for so long.  We *must* leave this history behind, exactly as if
>it had never happened in order to move forward.
>
That would be Stalinistically  convenient for those who stand exposed by
this history. 
Sorry, but the nature of the Internet no longer allows us such convenience.

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 18:36:01 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN   holders'  constituency (IC)

Hello Joop,

Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 4:21:05 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> If you can't even bear reading the IDNO in the considerans, then perhaps
> the motion is better off without your "support".

I hope this doesn't mean what I think it means, that you are in it
more for the personal glory than for the concept of getting a real
individual's constituency created in the DNSO.

If you truly want to see an individual's constituency adopted, with
as broad support as would be needed to get this controversial issue
push forward, then you would well do to set your personal issues
aside, and remove the IDNO from any considerations.

I'd hate to see the IDNO issue become a subject of debate again,
especially at this very important moment.

But there are enough people who share the concerns with regard to the
IDNO itself that any effort to make the IDNO even a small focus of
this movement will meet with solid and loud opposition.

Is it really worth it for this little personal glory, Joop?

I think deep down you are a bigger person than that.

- -- 
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

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

Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:55:35 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed"  ???

Hi William

Thank you William.  I agree with you here and suggest that we all tone down
personal attitudes as these will destroy any opportunity for consensus.

I also note your own personal support of a constituency for individual
domain name holders.  Joe Kelsey is also with you on this one.  Many others
are also.  Those that have said so specifically seem to me to include:

In favour:
Joop Ternstra
William X. Walsh
Roeland Meyer
Joe Kelsey
Marc Schneiders
Patrick Corliss
Leah Gallegos
Sotiris Sotiropoulos
Andrew McMeikan
Chris McElroy (aka NameCritic)
Eric Dierker
Jeff Williams

Opposed:
nobody

Have I missed anybody?  Can I ask for a count before we consider putting it
to a vote?

Please advise IN FAVOUR or OPPOSED.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
To: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:36 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders'
constituency (IC)

> Hello Joop,
>
> Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 4:21:05 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > If you can't even bear reading the IDNO in the considerans, then perhaps
> > the motion is better off without your "support".
>
> I hope this doesn't mean what I think it means, that you are in it
> more for the personal glory than for the concept of getting a real
> individual's constituency created in the DNSO.
>
> If you truly want to see an individual's constituency adopted, with
> as broad support as would be needed to get this controversial issue
> push forward, then you would well do to set your personal issues
> aside, and remove the IDNO from any considerations.
>
> I'd hate to see the IDNO issue become a subject of debate again,
> especially at this very important moment.
>
> But there are enough people who share the concerns with regard to the
> IDNO itself that any effort to make the IDNO even a small focus of
> this movement will meet with solid and loud opposition.
>
> Is it really worth it for this little personal glory, Joop?
>
> I think deep down you are a bigger person than that.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh

- --
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 20:00:59 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed"  ???

Hello Patrick,

Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 7:55:35 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi William

> Thank you William.  I agree with you here and suggest that we all tone down
> personal attitudes as these will destroy any opportunity for consensus.

> I also note your own personal support of a constituency for individual
> domain name holders.  Joe Kelsey is also with you on this one.  Many others
> are also.  Those that have said so specifically seem to me to include:

> In favour:
> Joop Ternstra
> William X. Walsh
> Roeland Meyer
> Joe Kelsey
> Marc Schneiders
> Patrick Corliss
> Leah Gallegos
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> Andrew McMeikan
> Chris McElroy (aka NameCritic)
> Eric Dierker
> Jeff Williams

> Opposed:
> nobody

> Have I missed anybody?  Can I ask for a count before we consider putting it
> to a vote?

> Please advise IN FAVOUR or OPPOSED.

No, no, no, no.

An important issue like this needs to be discussed more before being
advanced to a vote prematurely.

- -- 
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

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

Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 13:23:48 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair, GA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed"  ???

Hi William

> > Please advise IN FAVOUR or OPPOSED.
>
> No, no, no, no.
>
> An important issue like this needs to be discussed more before being
> advanced to a vote prematurely.

OK but that wasn't an official vote - just a sounding out of opinion.

I suggest we move the discussion over to [ga-ext] which is the mailing list
for "constituencies" and discuss the issue for another week to formulate an
agreed motion to be put to a formal vote.

Can I call for volunteers to be the Chair for that list?  I also suggest
that person can moderate the discussion and monitor the list or appoint
someone to do so.

Regards
Alternate Chair

- --
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 21:08:43 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf

So is this a case of "reverse TLD hijacking?" Instead of  mom and pop having
a domain name on which to post their grandchildren's refrigerator art, but which
name has commercial signicance so BIG BAD CORPORATION starts up the
UDRP or whatever, we have a TLD that after all these years likewise turns out
to have commercial significance, so ICANN sets out to duplicate it through its
own procedural clout?

Bill Lovell

L Gallegos wrote:

> On 8 May 2001, at 13:26, 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.  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.
>
> Kent, that is about the most ridiculous statement I've read in a long
> time.  .BIZ has been on the public net since 1995.  Others have been
> there many years more (1985). I didn't introduce it and you know it.  I
> got the delegation after it had been around for years.  If ICANN had not
> endeavored to duplicate it, there would be no problem.  If and when
> ICANN dupliates others, it will be just as bad. Talk about irresponsible
> behavior!
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> The negligence is on the part of ICANN since they were aware of the
> existence of .BIZ and were fully aware of the consequences of
> duplicating it.  As usual, you are reversing the situation.  It's rather like
> the cheater accusing the spouse of cheating to cover his own
> misbehavior.  Happens all the time.  .BIZ pre-existed ICANN's dupe.
> Simple.
>
> Once more, Kent. The DNS is singular.  Roots are not.  Roots are not
> the name space.  DNS is.  Most of the kids in school can think that
> through.
>
> >
> > If I were Ms Gellagos, I would be thinking very hard about this.
>
> Careful, Kent.  And my name is spelled Gallegos, thank you.
>
> >
> > --
> > 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-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, 9 May 2001 16:00:01 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] AUDA: Media Release

The following media release has been issued by Mr Chris Disspain, the CEO of
the Australian Domain Administrations, auDA.

auDA APPROVES CHANGES TO DOMAIN NAME POLICY

The auDA Board has approved the final recommendations of its Name Policy
Advisory Panel, clearing the way for significant changes to the Australian
domain name system (DNS).

At a meeting held on 8 May 2001, the Board accepted the Panel's report in
full.  This means that there will be a number of changes to domain name
policy, including:
* no limit on the number of domain names per entity;
* a renewal period for all domain names;
* inclusion of trade marks as eligibility criteria for a domain name;
* a close and substantial connection between a domain name and its licensee;
* creation of a 'reserved list' for domain names that may not be licensed.

The Board re-affirmed the current policy, that domain names be allocated on
a 'first come, first served' basis.

The Board also considered that, in principle, the prohibition on generic
domain names in the com.au domain should be removed.  auDA will undertake
further work in order to determine a suitable method of allocating generic
domain names.

The issue of geographic domain names will be considered by the Board after
the Panel reports on the possible creation of new second level domains
(2LDs).

 "auDA commends the Panel, in particular Panel Chair Derek Whitehead, for
producing a coherent set of recommendations that reflects the views of many
different interests," said auDA CEO, Chris Disspain.

"auDA is confident that the changes will make it easier for Australians to
license domain names in the .au domain.  The new policy rules will also
provide a greater degree of consistency and predictability in the allocation
of .au domain names."

auDA is now working on an implementation strategy.  Changes to domain name
policy will not take effect until the second half of 2001, in conjunction
with the introduction of competition in the domain name services market.

The Panel's report is available on the auDA website at
http://www.auda.org.au or phone +613 9226 9495.

For further information contact Chris Disspain on phone +613 9226 9495 or
 +61 412 920 408 (mobile phone) or email [email-masked]

Au Domain Administration Ltd
PO BOX 1545P
Melbourne VIC 3000

9 May 2001

- --
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, 9 May 2001 03:33:41 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed"  ???

There has been no motion.  Only a request for those opposed or for the 
idea.

Leah

On 9 May 2001, at 2:26, Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all
> 
>   I concur!  Lets get this set up for a vote!
> 
> Eric Dierker wrote:
> 
> > I move that the motion which has already been seconded and roundly
> > supported be elevated to a call for a vote by the general assembly.  I
> > hereby demand by right of membership that we have a sign of in favor and
> > out of favor, or yeahs or neahs on the already proposed motion.  I call
> > for a no confidence in the chair lest he put it forward with due speed. 
> > The Ga has spoken and we need formalization.  This is a formal RROO and
> > Parlimentary call to order by a member.  I beseach the chair to act or
> > for a vote of lack of confidence there in.
> >
> > Member, Eric Dierker
> >
> > Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > > WXW, Patrick and all,
> > >
> > >   I think more than enough discussion has taken place already.
> > > I would like to see this motion move to a vote post haste.
> > > Further discussion would be paramount to more visceral
> > > behavior to be displayed unnecessarily.
> > >
> > > William X. Walsh wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Patrick,
> > > >
> > > > Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 7:55:35 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi William
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you William.  I agree with you here and suggest that we all
> > > > > tone down personal attitudes as these will destroy any opportunity
> > > > > for consensus.
> > > >
> > > > > I also note your own personal support of a constituency for
> > > > > individual domain name holders.  Joe Kelsey is also with you on
> > > > > this one.  Many others are also.  Those that have said so
> > > > > specifically seem to me to include:
> > > >
> > > > > In favour:
> > > > > Joop Ternstra
> > > > > William X. Walsh
> > > > > Roeland Meyer
> > > > > Joe Kelsey
> > > > > Marc Schneiders
> > > > > Patrick Corliss
> > > > > Leah Gallegos
> > > > > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > > > > Andrew McMeikan
> > > > > Chris McElroy (aka NameCritic)
> > > > > Eric Dierker
> > > > > Jeff Williams
> > > >
> > > > > Opposed:
> > > > > nobody
> > > >
> > > > > Have I missed anybody?  Can I ask for a count before we consider
> > > > > putting it to a vote?
> > > >
> > > > > Please advise IN FAVOUR or OPPOSED.
> > > >
> > > > No, no, no, no.
> > > >
> > > > An important issue like this needs to be discussed more before being
> > > > advanced to a vote prematurely.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > > E-Mail [email-masked]
> > > Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> 
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> 
> 
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #442
************************