Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #504
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Thursday, May 31 2001            Volume 01 : Number 504

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

Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 00:28:30 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Note to the ICANN Community UPDATE:

Hello Leah,

(JW CC line removed, those people can thank me later)

Tuesday, May 29, 2001, 8:04:44 PM, L Gallegos wrote:

> Let's see... If .net suspended registrations tomorrow, would it be okay
> for another root to duplicate it using different name servers?  There are 
> others which are really dormant, but plan to activate.  Is that reason to 
> have another root duplicate them using different name servers?  Why 
> should anyone recognize their autonomy?

It is not a duplication.

The ICANN root is unique in and of itself.  It represents a unique
namespace, that has been created and developed over time, and
represents a series of decisions that had led to its contents.

If others choose to duplicate those contents as a basis for their own
roots, that is, in fact, their choice, but that act does not confer on
them any rights with regards to listings in the ICANN root.

Nor does the absence of a string from being listed in the ICANN roots
confer on those who create their own namespace the right to assert
those strings in their namespace and expect protection in ICANN's
unique namespace.

There is no legal basis for any such claims that alt.root use of a TLD
grants them any rights in a namespace they have intentionally chosen
to operate outside of.

To the alt.root advocates, be careful what you ask for.  You ask for
there to be one "inclusive" "unified" namespace.  The most likely way
for that to happen will be for ICANN to be declared the manager of
that one single namespace, and thus give a further sense of
illegitimacy to the efforts of alt.roots.  ICANN staff have already
gone on record that alt.roots are in competition with ICANN, and are
totally separate and unique.

That is a gift.  You should be embracing it rather than railing
against it.  The end result of your current argument is most certainly
not in your favor.  It presents the best argument yet for a controlled
central root.

You do more to support the arguments in the Stuart Lynn and
draft-crispen documents when you insist on sticking to those
arguments.

Yes, you may have to accept that there will be casualties as the
result of embracing that position.  But your current path would almost
certainly result in far greater casualties among your ranks.

- -- 
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, 30 May 2001 19:59:02 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Credibility.

At 21:24 29/05/2001 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>On 2001-05-29 11:59:51 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
>>Yes. I have made the (bold?) suggestion in the WG that membership of the 
>>GA (and especially posting rights on the list) should be endorsed by a 
>>minimum of 5 other individual GA members. (number of 5 is of course open 
>>to debate) This would make each poster to the GA list a sort of 
>>"representative" with accompanying rights and obligations.
>
>I object.
>
>This proposal basically means that you have to know some members of some 
>kind of GA mafia in order to even get a chance to get your voice heared.

Using GA-full for this could solve that problem and in effect create a sort 
of "lower chamber".

Thomas, I am not firmly wedded to any of these ideas; I was just responding 
to pained cries about the GA's credibility.
Obviously lots of details would need to be worked out if such a system is 
to satisfy all.
If the idea finds no support, I will not waste my time with details.

What I do notice however is that there are  vested interests to prove 
on-line democracy unworkable.
A dysfunctional GA suits them eminently.
The last thing they would want is increased respectability and credibility.

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz

- --
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, 30 May 2001 02:41:36 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Stockholm: ICANN fighting "perceptions that it is too cautious and bureaucratic"

When it meets in Stockholm on Friday, the Internet's top
standards-setting body will still have to fight perceptions that it is
too cautious and bureaucratic -- in essence, that it does not move at
``Internet speed.''

http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/010530/n29510765_2.html

(and unlike when Corliss reposts articles, this does count against my
posting limit)

- -- 
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, 30 May 2001 03:31:14 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA Credibility.

Hello Joop,

Wednesday, May 30, 2001, 12:59:02 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> What I do notice however is that there are  vested interests to prove
> on-line democracy unworkable.
> A dysfunctional GA suits them eminently.

As would your proposal.

I find it interesting that someone who railed so hard against a
representative structure in the IDNO, claiming it was not an
appropriate model for your digital democracy, is pushing for something
like this now.

- -- 
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, 30 May 2001 13:14:33 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] root vs roots - the false but usefull confusion 

Dear Name Critic,
I think your post summarizes the level of confusion reached in people's
mind with Start's paper. This comes from the deliberately ill chosen
"alternate root"  wording and from the naming of the ga-roots ML. There is
only one root (it should be ga-root. There are several sources but a single
root without a single point of failer].

It is not the root of the iCANN: the iCANN has deliberately chosen to have
its mini-root (authoritative on its TLDs] being only a part of the full and
unique root.

On 10:05 30/05/01, NameCritic said:
>A Standards Competition between Roots was my understanding. Maybe I'm just
>reading too many lists and I'm mistaken. A likely analogy for the
>competition between roots would be the standards competition between VHS and
>Beta awhile back. Which one was better? Beta. Which one won consumer
>support? VHS.

There is not such a thing.

There is a capacity for millions of TLDs (cf. BoD response to the GAC in MDR).
undere the common free DNS technology.

There are people thinking that TLDs are to be used by the users to the best
common advantage of the users and there are people thinking TLDs are to be
used by the users to their own best business advantage.

The first ones think that stability comes from everyone using an open system.
The other think that stability is the stability of their income through a 
controlled
system (hence M$ 200 by VeriSign planned on the DNS).

This translates into those thinking the user is authoritative for his own 
machine
and those thinking the merchant has to be authoritative over his clients 
machine.

The rest is pure window dressing and personal pride of technicians not
wanting to acknowledge they have been manipulated by merchants. There
is not such a thing as alternative root vs authoritative root. Please note 
that
the iCANN contract talks about Authoritative Root-Server System, not 
authoritative
root, and describes this system as the galaxiy described the named.ca file 
(they
never dare to speak of their mini-root in a legal document, so nothing 
prevents
them to install the common full root if the FoC asks it).

There a single root including all the TLDs, including the iCANN TLDs. The
iCANN mini-root is part of it. If you want I can copy you the real root as 
I am
one of those trying to maintain it.

There is only two problems: collision and exhaustiveness. Some people have
started TLDs in parallel or attempting competition (iCANN, NEW.net), some
do not care too much (Name.Space) and some do not document (China).

The TLD community is quite adamant at not accepting colliders. And is
obviously upset on technical grounds by the bis.biz collision (now with
added bad faith). Should someone come with this attitude, none of the
RSCs (Root Service Centers would accept him).

The collision problem is treated quite simply: on the basis of the first
date in operation (as the US belong to the UK due to the first landing
date), of he good faith and of the reality of the service. No one decides
who is right: only the RSC decide to accept a collider or not. If the collider
is unhappy he may go to another root. Market will decide. RSC try now
to talk together and would be more than happy to see the iCANN joining.

Why would someone chose a root rather than an other one? For
a few reasons:

- - it is kept updated (new TLDs show up and zone servers IP addresses
   are to be maintained: I publish every day a report on the discrepancies
   I found and broadcast it. I use the other roots as inputs too. So this
   stabilizes a lit and becomes very precise and  professional). Just
   remember that this responsibility is carried at the iCANN by an open
   position and no report are published. It happens (from former Directors
   reports) that when they come in the morning the root has crashed...

   Obviously all the iCANN changes (gTDs and ccTLDs are integrated)
   in the common full root.

- - they may filter some TLDs (their service is to the users not to a
   a twisted legal obligation) that their user do not want (there is a
   religious oriented root filtering adult TLDs)

- - they may integrated DNS+ services the user favor. Actually we will
   see the ISP becoming RSP (root service providers) with a menu for
   the users. This will certainly develop in commercial roots with special
   bargain to access TV shows, discounts, etc....

So the root is obviously unique but common, not hi-jacked by a non
profit no member VeriSign supper contracted USG delegated corporation.
It is open and belongs to everyone. An example is English:  there is
only one meaning for each word, but everyone may [try to] speak English
without having to their thinking in the Oxford Dictionary. Is some one
get the idea for a new word: he may be praised for that, or he may TM
it, or he make a lot of money of it. Same in TLD. There some free,
there are some costly.

This shows you that most what is discussed on ga-root has no real
meaning except when coming down to reality and getting histerycs
out. The question is only: when and how the DN replace the TMs with
their - non yet defined rules. Many people are really unhappy with that.
Starting with large US corporations due to the US law. But we are on
the move and this is not 94% of the people's "cup of tea". (Vint Cerf
testified that non iCANN TLDs are not his "cup of tea").

So there may be commercial competition (I suppose it would be
more complementarity). But with a common basis. So instead of
talking of alternative roots (for most of those you know: ORSC,
Pacific, etc...) it is better to speak of coopetitive roots and to
count the iCANN among them with its mini-root conception.

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 22:02:40 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] root vs roots - the false but usefull confusion 

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] On Behalf Of Jefsey Morfin
|> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:15 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] root vs roots - the false but usefull confusion

<snip>
|> It is not the root of the iCANN: the iCANN has deliberately
|> chosen to have its mini-root (authoritative on its TLDs] being only a
part of
|> the full and unique root.
|>
As ICANN has the major share of the name space the above is a little
misleading.

There has been a bit of discussion on ICANN using US law to control other
roots, mainly in the form of making it illegal for ISP's in the US to use
them.  This has been touted as not being possible.

Has anyone given any thought to other legal means ICANN has at its
disposal?  I would think that ICANN would be able to swing contractual
arrangements to control access to the legacy root.  Whereby anyone who uses
the legacy root is under a contractual obligation to acknowledge it as the
authoritive unique root and to not use the legacy root simultaneously with
another root.  They could also knobble the other roots use of the legacy
root in the same manner.  Unless there is a contact authorising access to
the legacy root, access is unauthorised and illegal.

ISP's would be free to use any root they choose, but to use the legacy root
they would be obligated to only use it.

To me, this would allow ICANN to give the legacy root the authority that
people are saying it lacks.

Just a late night thought.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 30 May 2001 07:44:18 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Interim Report of The NGO and Academic ICANN Study (NAIS)

Interim Report of The NGO and Academic ICANN Study (NAIS)

 http://www.naisproject.org/report/interim/

/Bruce

- --
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, 30 May 2001 14:58:20 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI. NAIS Interim Report

| From [email-masked] Wed May 30 04:32 MET 2001
| Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:31:55 -0400
| To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
| From: Rob Courtney <[email-masked]>
| Subject: NAIS Interim Report
| Cc: [email-masked]
| 
| Dear S.O. Secretariats:
| 
| The NGO and Academic ICANN Study has recently released the Executive 
| Summary of its Interim Report. Could you please help distribute this 
| notice to your Supporting Organizations?
| 
| Thank you,
| 
| Rob Courtney
| NGO and Academic ICANN Study
| 
| * * *
| 
| Greetings,
| 
| 1. In preparation for the upcoming ICANN meeting in Stockholm, the 
| NGO and Academic ICANN Study is releasing its Interim Report on last 
| year's At Large election and on the future of the public role in 
| ICANN.
| 
| The Executive Summary of that report is available online at 
| http://www.naisproject.org/ or, for those without Web access, by 
| e-mail to [email-masked]. The full Interim Report will be 
| available online shortly. Translations of the Executive Summary in 
| Spanish, French and Chinese will be available later this week.
| 
| The Interim Report is preliminary in nature. NAIS will publish its 
| Final Report, with recommendations, in September. We welcome 
| comments, and look forward to continued discussion on this topic.
| 
| 2. NAIS also invites members of the ICANN community to a lunchtime 
| briefing on the report this Saturday, June 2, at the Stockholm 
| meeting. NAIS members will provide an overview of the Interim Report 
| and host an open discussion of its contents. Please feel free to 
| bring a bag lunch and join the conversation.
| 
| DATE: Saturday, June 2nd, 12:00-13:15
| TIME: 12:00 - 13:15
| PLACE: First Hotel Royal Star, Skytten room (near the Stockholm 
| International Fairs building, site of the meetings)
| 
| We look forward to your comments and suggestions!
| 
| The NAIS Project
| 
| * * *
| 
| The NGO and Academic ICANN Study (NAIS) is a collaboration of experts 
| from around the world, formed to explore public participation in 
| ICANN and the selection of At-Large Directors on ICANN's governing 
| board.  NAIS mirrors ICANN's own study effort, and was created to 
| provide an independent examination, global in scope and grounded in a 
| belief in the importance of public representation.
| 
| For more information, please visit http://www.naisproject.org/ or 
| contact [email-masked].
| 
| -- 
| 
| Rob Courtney
| Policy Analyst
| Center for Democracy & Technology
| 1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
| Washington, DC 20006
| 202 637 9800
| fax 202 637 0968
| [email-masked]
| pgp id: 0xAD7123FB
| http://www.cdt.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: Wed, 30 May 2001 08:41:02 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] root vs roots - the false but usefull confusion

Darryl and all assembly members,

Dassa wrote:

> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: [email-masked] On Behalf Of Jefsey Morfin
> |> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:15 PM
> |> To: [email-masked]
> |> Subject: [ga] root vs roots - the false but usefull confusion
>
> <snip>
> |> It is not the root of the iCANN: the iCANN has deliberately
> |> chosen to have its mini-root (authoritative on its TLDs] being only a
> part of
> |> the full and unique root.
> |>
> As ICANN has the major share of the name space the above is a little
> misleading.
>
> There has been a bit of discussion on ICANN using US law to control other
> roots, mainly in the form of making it illegal for ISP's in the US to use
> them.  This has been touted as not being possible.
>
> Has anyone given any thought to other legal means ICANN has at its
> disposal?  I would think that ICANN would be able to swing contractual
> arrangements to control access to the legacy root.  Whereby anyone who uses
> the legacy root is under a contractual obligation to acknowledge it as the
> authoritive unique root and to not use the legacy root simultaneously with
> another root.  They could also knobble the other roots use of the legacy
> root in the same manner.  Unless there is a contact authorising access to
> the legacy root, access is unauthorised and illegal.

  This is one method that has potential to be sure.  However such a proposed
contract or set of contracts would need to be very careful to not get crosswise

with other federal statutes dealing with free market enterprise issues.  I
won't
list them individually here, but there are a number of them...

>
>
> ISP's would be free to use any root they choose, but to use the legacy root
> they would be obligated to only use it.
>
> To me, this would allow ICANN to give the legacy root the authority that
> people are saying it lacks.

  I am glad you now recognize that there is no such thing as the "ICANN
Roots" as you have used that description for the USG Legacy Roots
in the past.  Even with such a contractual arrangement that you
suggest, it would not necessarily carry the force of contract law
outside of the US for those root servers in the legacy root structure
that reside physically outside or the US, and are already under
a contractual arrangement with the USG presently.  As such,
the contractual arrangement that you suggest here would be
circumventable to that extent at least.

>
>
> Just a late night thought.

  Well it was a good thought, just lacked some considerations that
late night thoughts often do.  >;)

>
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
> --
> 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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 08:16:19 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] simple noise

Ten thousand (10,000) new users a day on the internet. Sounds huge. But
it is not. How many are born each day and how many die just of
ignorance.  What is the point?  There are two points.

The traffic in the GA has doubled from normal, whatever that is. But
check out the usual suspects, they have not really changed. However we
are now representing 100,000 more than we were ten days ago.

Gentlemen and Gentlewomen we have reached a point where we can no longer
be representative we must be Jefsey's governors, we must act as
stewards. We now must no longer simply argue for, we must care for.

Next time you turn away from your computer to do something important
like paying attention to your spouse, Just realize that in the eight
hours you sleep, 3,333 more people require your guidance. For every
10,000 new users you can only post 5 more messages to this list.

Remember "the only unacceptable solution is the status quo" and "to the
world you are only one person but, to one person you may be the world".

Redouble your efforts, re-evaluate your motives and keep taking action.

Thank you all,

- --
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, 30 May 2001 09:26:36 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] root vs roots - the false but usefull confusion 

> From: Dassa [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 5:03 AM
> 
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: [email-masked] On Behalf Of Jefsey Morfin
> |> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:15 PM
> |> To: [email-masked]
> |> Subject: [ga] root vs roots - the false but usefull confusion
> 
> <snip>
> |> It is not the root of the iCANN: the iCANN has deliberately
> |> chosen to have its mini-root (authoritative on its TLDs] 
> being only a
> part of
> |> the full and unique root.
> |>
> As ICANN has the major share of the name space the above is a little
> misleading.
> 
> There has been a bit of discussion on ICANN using US law to 
> control other
> roots, mainly in the form of making it illegal for ISP's in 
> the US to use
> them.  This has been touted as not being possible.
> 
> Has anyone given any thought to other legal means ICANN has at its
> disposal?  I would think that ICANN would be able to swing contractual
> arrangements to control access to the legacy root.  Whereby 
> anyone who uses the legacy root is under a contractual obligation to 
> acknowledge it as the authoritive unique root and to not use the legacy
root 
> simultaneously with another root. 

Inclusive root systems don't work this way. What they do is grab a copy of
the legacy root and add to it, their own data. They don't run multiple
roots, yet. They actually run an integrated root. The issue is, what pieces
they integrate into their root. I might point out that most large nets do
this to define their own LOCAL TLD, in a tiered DNS environment. It is not
an uncommon practice. I know, for fact, that SpeakEasy.Net does this and I
have clients that do this (I sold them the system and set it up for them ...
they're quite happy about it too). Those same entities also use HOSTS files
to fix known server constellations, on those same servers, in case the DNS
goes off-line. This has been known to save their butts when the
root-servers.net system goes insane (which it still does, occasionally, and
probably will do again, in the future). This practice also reduces the load,
on the root zone servers, substantially. It is considered a good operational
practice. The only difference between them and the inclusive root operators
are the publication and structure of the zone files. This is also why
"alternate" and "rogue" appellations do not fit them (as much as some would
want it to).

As a side note; they have to do it this way due to deliberate restrictions
in the DNS source code. The iterative query could be modified and extended
into a multiple root zone server search. Such suggestions are vehemently
resisted on namedroppers (even if some of us have implemented it and proven
that it works quite well). Claims that this breaks the Internet is pure FUD.

> They could also knobble the other roots use of 
> the legacy root in the same manner.  Unless there is a contact 
> authorising access to the legacy root, access is unauthorised and illegal.

This last part is definitely of extremely low probability. The legacy root
is published by NSI under government contract. It has been proven, in US
courts, to be a property of the US Government. As such, it is owned by the
US public. As with all documents owned by the US federal government, it is
subject to the US Freedom of Information Act. That means that, unless it is
classified as being in the interests of National Security, the USG MUST make
it available, uncensored and in a timely manner, to any US citizen that asks
for it. The best that they could do is to make it available ONLY to US
citzens. This takes an Executive decree that places the root zone files
under the jurisdiction of the US National Security Act. The National
Security Act is the only exemption, that I know of, to the Freedom of
Information Act. 

This means that it cannot be published on the root zone servers either,
since those are available to non-US citizens. Obviously, that sort of breaks
the Internet. I might also point out that this is something the Internet
community has been staunchly resisting since the days of DARPAnet.

> ISP's would be free to use any root they choose, but to use 
> the legacy root they would be obligated to only use it.

As I said, it's not practical. I hate to sound US-centric here, being an
immigrant myself. But, that's the legal situation, as I know it. The root
zone files and their specific contents are property of the citizens of the
USA and subject to US law and ONLY US law. There is nothing you, or any
non-US citizen, could do about that. Frankly, it would defeat the USG
purpose to do, as you would like. This is why I continually suggest that the
ICANN must first run its own inclusive root zone and zone servers, before
getting uppity with access to the zone files and adding ICANN TLDs. But,
then ICANN becomes "yet another" inclusive root registry. BTW, I originally
registered DNSO.NET for that purpose. If ICANN doesn't do something with it
soon then ROOT-SERVICE.NET shall.

That said, derivative works may be protected by copyright. But, I'll defer
to the IP lawyers on this list with regards to that issue. The derivations
may have to be plainly marked as derivative intellectual property. I don't
think that's been tried before. But again, the IP lawyers on this list
should know.

- -- 
IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
encouraged to seek legal advice. 
- --
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, 30 May 2001 10:07:26 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] root vs roots - the false but usefull confusion

Why isn't all this, and others like it, in ga-roots?
And what on earth is a "owner-ga-full?"

Bill Lovell

Dassa wrote:

> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: [email-masked] On Behalf Of Jefsey Morfin
> |> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:15 PM
> |> To: [email-masked]
> |> Subject: [ga] root vs roots - the false but usefull confusion
>
> <snip>
> |> It is not the root of the iCANN: the iCANN has deliberately
> |> chosen to have its mini-root (authoritative on its TLDs] being only a
> part of
> |> the full and unique root.
> |>
> As ICANN has the major share of the name space the above is a little
> misleading.
>
> There has been a bit of discussion on ICANN using US law to control other
> roots, mainly in the form of making it illegal for ISP's in the US to use
> them.  This has been touted as not being possible.
>
> Has anyone given any thought to other legal means ICANN has at its
> disposal?  I would think that ICANN would be able to swing contractual
> arrangements to control access to the legacy root.  Whereby anyone who uses
> the legacy root is under a contractual obligation to acknowledge it as the
> authoritive unique root and to not use the legacy root simultaneously with
> another root.  They could also knobble the other roots use of the legacy
> root in the same manner.  Unless there is a contact authorising access to
> the legacy root, access is unauthorised and illegal.
>
> ISP's would be free to use any root they choose, but to use the legacy root
> they would be obligated to only use it.
>
> To me, this would allow ICANN to give the legacy root the authority that
> people are saying it lacks.
>
> Just a late night thought.
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
> --
> 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

- --
         Bill Lovell

http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm

- --
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, 30 May 2001 13:14:49 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] root vs roots - the false but usefull confusion

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> Why isn't all this, and others like it, in ga-roots?

Perhaps because there's no cross-posting.

>
> And what on earth is a "owner-ga-full?"

That's the administrator for the majordomo list called "ga-full".

Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

>
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> Dassa wrote:
>
> > |> -----Original Message-----
> > |> From: [email-masked] On Behalf Of Jefsey Morfin
> > |> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:15 PM
> > |> To: [email-masked]
> > |> Subject: [ga] root vs roots - the false but usefull confusion
> >
> > <snip>
> > |> It is not the root of the iCANN: the iCANN has deliberately
> > |> chosen to have its mini-root (authoritative on its TLDs] being only a
> > part of
> > |> the full and unique root.
> > |>
> > As ICANN has the major share of the name space the above is a little
> > misleading.
> >
> > There has been a bit of discussion on ICANN using US law to control other
> > roots, mainly in the form of making it illegal for ISP's in the US to use
> > them.  This has been touted as not being possible.
> >
> > Has anyone given any thought to other legal means ICANN has at its
> > disposal?  I would think that ICANN would be able to swing contractual
> > arrangements to control access to the legacy root.  Whereby anyone who uses
> > the legacy root is under a contractual obligation to acknowledge it as the
> > authoritive unique root and to not use the legacy root simultaneously with
> > another root.  They could also knobble the other roots use of the legacy
> > root in the same manner.  Unless there is a contact authorising access to
> > the legacy root, access is unauthorised and illegal.
> >
> > ISP's would be free to use any root they choose, but to use the legacy root
> > they would be obligated to only use it.
> >
> > To me, this would allow ICANN to give the legacy root the authority that
> > people are saying it lacks.
> >
> > Just a late night thought.
> >
> > Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
>          Bill Lovell
>
> http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm
>
> --
> 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, 30 May 2001 12:13:37 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New.net Calls for Greater Reliance on Competitive Market....

New.net Calls for Greater Reliance on Competitive Market
Forces in Governing the Internet Domain Name System

Policy Paper Suggests Limiting Role of ICANN to Technical Matters
While Marketplace Would Determine
Addition and Administration of Top-Level Domains

 http://www.new.net/press_release_5.tp

/Bruce

- --
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, 30 May 2001 11:22:57 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 2826 Golden Rule

…a degree of cooperation and agreed technical rules are required in
order to guarantee the uniqueness of names. In the DNS, these rules are
established independently for each part of the naming hierarchy, and the
root domain is no exception.  Thus, there must be a generally agreed
single set rules for [assigning the top-level domain names listed in]
the root.

And here is where we all agree,

Now may we all agree on one more point?

It should not be a top down money influenced decision as to how to
implement the above rule.

I for one would rather see a USG federal court judge decide this, than
the Versign controlled ICANN BoD and Staff.

I would be well pleased if someone could correct my thinking here or
show me a reasonable alternative.

Sincerely,
Eric

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

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

Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:31:39 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Opening a Can of Soup

Hi Bill

> Why isn't all this, and others like it, in ga-roots?
> And what on earth is a "owner-ga-full?"

Well it's like this.

The more intelligence, degrees and other qualifications a person has the
less ability they have in opening a can of soup.  Add to that that anybody
dealing with alternate roots is an independent, ornery person who doesn't
want to follow simple guidelines like "open can at other end" and you have a
big mess.

My golden rule is that "everybody" must co-operate to make a mailing list
succeed but just "one" person can wreck those efforts. Let me work on that:

    A mailing list *might* succeed if everybody co-operates.
    But it is certain to fail if just one person doesn't.

Or something along those lines.

BTW My answer to much of your question is below.  The word "owner" is a list
management term used in bounced messages.  I must have reposted a bounced
message of something of that nature and released that address *into the
wild* for one list member to get confused by it.

I could ask the DNSO Secretariat to bounce posts of people who use that term
but that would certainly wreck something somewhere else e.g. some proper
posting to that address.

So I am trying a bit of user training and education.

<sigh>

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Alternate Chair <[email-masked]>
To: [ga-rules] <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 00:56:40 +1000
Subject: [ga-rules] Bounced Messages & Other List Administration

All

The GA-ROOTS list has received more postings that any of the other special
purpose lists.  As well the debate has been vigorous and informed.  Other
lists are starting to pick up and become relevant.

Unfortunately one or two people have posted material relating to ROOTS
elsewhere.  One person, for example, has posted to [email-masked]
instead of [email-masked].   I have received this mail along with bounced
posts such as submissions by non-members.

I have reposted three non-member submissions.  I thought some were
subscribed and the cause for the error needs to be investigated.  As far as
I can tell, there is no set procedure and I could check their subscriptions
or write to them privately or onlist.  Any corrective action takes time and
effort.  It is also useful to post ICANN Announcements or even posts from
other lists.

There are therefore three types of postings I might make (1) my own views on
a subject of interest (2) reposts and corrections (3) GA announcements.
Trying to perform these tasks could easily lead me to exceed my personal
daily posting limit.  This would be a valid but unworthy cause for concern.

Of course, I could easily just ignore mis-postings, filter bounced messages
and not re-post ICANN Announcements or other relevant emails.  I see that as
bowing to form rather than substance.  A better solution is to refer
complaints of excess postings to the List Monitors who can make an impartial
assessment.  Pity that this just adds to their already large burden.

Another alternative is to make arrangements to pass this work to the DNSO
Secretariat.

Clearly, list administration is a necessary function.  Personally, I would
prefer to spend more time on substantive issues relating to ICANN policy.
In fact, it is easy to forget that even intelligent people disagree or just
get things wrong.

I'd therefore ask everyone to assist with the list housekeeping by (a)
making sure you are subscribed before posting (b) using the right "to" and
"from" addresses and (c) posting to the most relevant mailing list.  I would
particularly suggest that you do not simply blindly follow the previous
person -- it should be easy to tell ROOTS from RULES etc.

I'd appreciate any constructive comments.  Should this be considered an
official post.
And if so, should it be excluded from my daily limit of five posts?

Thank you for your time
Patrick Corliss
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #504
************************