Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #529
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, June 12 2001            Volume 01 : Number 529

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:54:54 -0500
From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] IPv8 FAQ on Proof of Concept TLDs

IPv8 FAQ on Proof-of-Concept TLDs
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html

1. Q. Is the ICANN Board Qualified to "mess with DNS" ?

A. The Proof-of-Concept DNS expansion is confined to the "toy" IPv4
Internet.
This creates a natural firewall from serious networks. While it is true that
ICANN Board members are expressing their concerns about not being qualfied
in DNS technologies, this did not seem to prevent them from accepting the
position. By firewalling their activities, they should have little impact
on the Internet.

2. Q. When will the "Proof-of-Concept" end ?

A. It appears that some TLD Registries will complete a "Proof-of-Concept"
Report which will then be evaluated. It is unclear how long this will take.
It could take years.
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/biz/registry-agmt-appu-11may01.htm
"Registry Operator shall provide the following reports and related data to
ICANN for use in its proof of concept evaluation." In other cases, the
companies will likely show they have proven their TLD(s) to be desirable in
the marketplace. In the end, that is what counts.

3. Q. What are the "Concepts" being Proved ?

A. This depends on the company. In some cases, serious companies appear
to be proving that they can deploy all of the needed infrastructure
needed to serve customers from start to finish. In other cases, vendors
appear to be more interested in holding lotteries, selling raffle tickets,
and engaging in Pre-Registration activities, despite the FTC warnings.
Most of those activities seem to center around .BIZ and .INFO.

4. Q. Are all of the Proof-of-Concept TLDs operational ?

A. You have to check on a case by case basis. All of the
http://www.name-space.com TLDs appear to be working. All of the
http://www.New.Net TLDs
appear to be working. The .WEB TLD and the .BIZ TLD appear to be operational
but there appear to be disagreements at times. The operational stability
of IPv4 TLDs will have to be taken into consideration when IPv6 service is
considered. By the time IPv8 and IPv16 come into play, only the rock-solid
TLDs will be considered.

5. Q. Are these the only new TLDs ?

A. No, there are many new TLDs. These appear to be the "best-of-breed".

6. Q. What does "best-of-breed" mean ?

A. "Best-of-breed" is an attempt to identify TLDs, companies and groups
with a long track record of supporting TLDs. There are other views on
"best-of-breed". http://orsc.net/.musings/bar/

7. Q. The eDNS archives show that 10 TLDs were suggested, is it now 20 ?

A. Yes, it appears that the consensus has changed and 20 TLDs are
required to make a viable dynamic business. see http://www.New.Net

8. Q. How many groups of 20 are expected ?

A. With only 2,048 prime IPv8 slots, and 20 TLDs per company, it
appears that 10 or 12 companies will likely dominate the market.
This seems small, but if one considers the rental car market model
at major airports, they will see this is typical of such markets.

9. Have the so-called ccTLDs been removed from IPv8 allocations ?

A. The so-called ccTLDs will little consumer interest are being removed.
They do not appear to be interested in the commercial realities of
the Registry Industry. They also are not operating in an open manner,
and in some cases appear to only exist for the pleasure of a few people.
The consensus is that IPv8 TLDs should have a broad appeal.

10. Q. Is .NEWS first in line ?

A. see

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg03028.html

.NEWS     FORM  14 Sep 1995 00:23:26  Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>

- -------

11. Q. Is .NEWS operational ?

A. see

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
http://www.name-space.com
http://www.icann.org/tlds/ads1/NameSpace-gtld-appBP.html

.NEWS

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

12. Q. When will all the TLDs promised by the ISOC be available?

A. Ask the ISOC Trustees. http://wwww.isoc.org

13. Q. Will the U.S. Government have to step in ?

A. The U.S. Government may have to step in to FREE the TLDs held
hostage in the ICANN application process. Their recent letters appear
to have been ignored by the ICANN Board.

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp

- --
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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:17:32 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

Joop and all assembly members,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 16:29 10/06/01 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
> >If it were announced tomorrow that the Names Council had created a number of
> >formal working groups to deal with the topics of:
> >
> >1. UDRP (Working Group G)
> >2. Dot ORG (Working Group H)
> >3. Roots (Working Group I)
> >4. DNSO Review (Working Group J)
> >5. Privacy/WHOIS (Working Group K)
> >6. At-Large (Working Group L)
> >
> >I seriously doubt that I would be hearing the argument that these working
> >groups should not have their own lists, nor would I be hearing that it would
> >be preferable if all the work were conducted on the main GA list, nor would
> >I be hearing that there are too many working groups and that it is too
> >confusing.
> >
> >Instead, I would probably note a large number of participants rushing to
> >become part of the process.  As long as our "management" (the Names Council)
> >organizes the working groups, appoints the Chairs or Liaisons, establishes
> >the Terms-of-Reference, sets the Timeline, and drafts the Conclusions, then
> >we are eagerly willing to participate...
> >
> >but if asked to self-organize, to take our own General Assembly lists and
> >turn them into research committees, the equivalent of productive working
> >groups, we fail.   We have a list devoted to ROOTS that has generated over
> >700 comments so far, but do we have one single substantive document that has
> >emerged?  Do we have any self-organized bottoms-up leadership?  Of course
> >not.  Who in their right mind would willingly want to become a target for
> >the relentless abuse that has characterized this Assembly?  It is no wonder
> >that calls for volunteers to head up these committees have gone unheeded.
> >
> >We have become so comfortable with the notion that it is appropriate to be
> >constantly attacking our leadership and challenging the decisions of our
> >leadership, that we fail to recognize the deleterious consequences of our
> >actions.
> >
> >Perhaps we are not capable of effective bottoms-up self-organization,
> >perhaps like other groups of individuals that have struggled for years and
> >still have not be able to raise funding for their respective membership
> >efforts, we are destined to remain nothing more than another chat-room for
> >domain name policy (one of many).  We can certainly continue in this fashion
> >for years to come, knowing that through this process those that monitor
> >these lists (Vint Cerf, Stuart Lynn, Karl Auerbach and others) can get a
> >sense of the public mood.  Perhaps being a "barometer" is all we are capable
> >of achieving.  But I have higher hopes for this Assembly.
> >
> >It is my opinion that what is needed is a structure by which list/committee
> >efforts can be properly organized.  We have a need for Terms-of-Reference,
> >for Timelines for preliminary reports and feedback, for Final Reports and a
> >vote by the entirety of the General Assembly on the work-product that has
> >been put forth; we have a need for the equivalent of a Task Force or an
> >ExCom to direct list activities.
> >
> >The new lists are admittedly an experiment.  Let's experiment a little
> >longer to see if we can achieve meaningful results.  One of the major issues
> >that we must confront is the inevitable restructuring of ICANN.  Notes from
> >the last Board meeting make it eminently clear that the ALSC will be
> >providing recommendations to the ICANN Board for an overall restructuring -
> >their mission has gone far beyond a mere "clean-sheet" study of the
> >At-Large:
> >
> >"Cohen: Recall deal in Cairo that ALSC would examine structure of ICANN as a
> >whole. Recommend that we consider this in Montevideo. Look for legitimacy
> >and reasonableness."
> >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/scribe-bod-060401.html
> >
> >We can contribute to this effort, much like the Boston Working Group and
> >others contributed to the development of ICANN's formative structure.  Our
> >Alternate Chair has argued that the venue for such discussion should be on
> >our GA-ICANN list, and I will accept this recommendation.  What is needed
> >now, in my opinion, is a small group to organize the effort for the benefit
> >of all current and future participants.
> >
> >As many are reticent to volunteer, I will therefore appoint the following
> >people to this Organizing Committee (they are of course at liberty to
> >decline such an appointment):
> >
> >1. Sotiris Souteropolis
> >2. William Walsh
> >3. Jefsey Morphin
> >4. Marilyn Cade
> >5. Eric Dierker
> >6. Leah Gallegos
> >7. Joop Teenstra
> >8. Bret Fausett
> >9. Joanna Lane
> >
> >It is my hope that this group can elect their own Chair, establish Terms-of
> >Reference, Timelines, and collect sufficient background documents to rapidly
> >educate those of us new to the process.  After this group finishes its
> >preliminary work, the rest of us may then better participate in a formally
> >structured environment.   What I hope for ultimately is a consensus-based
> >report to emerge at least as thorough as the recent interim NAIS
> >presentation, and supported by documented outreach to all of our
> >constituencies.  The future of the General Assembly, the At-Large, and ICANN
> >may well be determined by the bottoms-up collective consensus view.  I ask
> >you to accept this challenge, to create a new model for participation, and
> >to lead us into a new future.
>
> Danny and GA members,
>
> Danny Younger is an elected Chair of this Assembly, not an appointee.
> A posting like the above deserves support, respect for the majority that
> elected Danny and not inane criticism.

  Your right, inane criticism is not appropriate.  However constructive
criticism is VERY appropriate.  I do not characterize the comments
(See above) as inane criticism, I just don't fully agree with all
of the text of the criticism (See above) to which you refer...

> I am dismayed at some of the
> postings that I have seen from the last 24 hours.

  I am frequently dismayed and appalled at some postings I see.
This is to be expected of course.

>
>
> I also take seriously the charter of the DNSO that tells me why I am a
> member of this Assembly:
> "The participants in the GA should be individuals who have a
>      knowledge of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas for
>      which the DNSO has primary responsibility, and who are willing to
>      contribute time, effort and expertise to the work of the DNSO, including
>      work item proposal and development, discussion of work items, draft
>      document preparation, and participation in research and drafting
>      committees and working groups."
>
> I'll try to be of help, if such an Organizing committee can be formed and
> other appointees are willing to accept the task.

 there should be NO appointees, only elected positions.

> But every proposal that
> comes out of such an Organizing Committee must be subjected to a  voting
> process for endorsement or amendments by the other members of the GA.

  This also should be done, yes.

>
>
> Even Karl Auerbach, who has always been consistent in advocating
> accountability, expressed a few days ago how he saw merit in the closed
> character of the BWG (Boston Working Group).
> I too, have experienced the limits of totally open efforts in organizing
> the IDNO. ("bottom-up, the final illusion" I wrote, disillusioned)

  The problems of the IDNO were of a personal nature.  And as such
need not apply here.

>
>
> We have elected our Chair in the hope of getting things done. We should now
> close ranks behind him to make it happen.

  The duties of a chair are not those of a leadership position in any
venue in business that I have been associated with in some +25 years.
The chair is to espouse the perceived desires or needs that can be
specifically determined by those in which he is chairing for.  A chair
is s servant.  Not the other way around...  I am not at the chair's
service, he is at my/our service.  Same goes for a BoD member
as well.  I am a CEO, we have a COB, he serves the BoD and the
BoD in turn serves the employees and investors, if any, in our
corp.  Same is true for most well run and managed non profit
corporations or other organizations.

  So in closing here, I must say that you seem to have the ROLE
of a chair confused with something that is not applicable with a
chair position.

>
>
> --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

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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:47:12 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

Jeff Williams wrote:

> I admire your desire to move forward with real work
> to be done and much needed in the DNSO GA, however it is
> also not wise to blindly go forward with every proposal that Danny
> suggests, or for that matter any one else proposes.

I have had my differences with Danny, surely you recall recent events.  However, in
his proposal, I see a real effort and desire to accomplish something... so far, very
little if anything has been accomplished by the GA ML, mostly hot air...  Jeff, I
understand and respect your caution, but i want to see something come of my time on
this List.  Otherwise, why be here at all?

> Therefore
> I cannot support and do not support, Appointing Joop as to the
> Task force as suggested for the GA.  Rather an election should
> be held, and even Joop agrees, to determine whom this person
> or representative should be.

Oh, I agree completely.  There should be an election and I've already made my opinion
on this matter known to the Chair.  In all honesty, I see the Chair is trying very
hard to put this boat on an even keel, I even think he's got a chance...  I support
his initiative and resolve in make something (anything) constructive happen.   So,
let's be good mates and get this baby into harbour.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.

- --
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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:06:26 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

Sotiris and all assembly members,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > I admire your desire to move forward with real work
> > to be done and much needed in the DNSO GA, however it is
> > also not wise to blindly go forward with every proposal that Danny
> > suggests, or for that matter any one else proposes.
>
> I have had my differences with Danny, surely you recall recent events.  However, in
> his proposal, I see a real effort and desire to accomplish something... so far, very
> little if anything has been accomplished by the GA ML, mostly hot air...  Jeff, I
> understand and respect your caution, but i want to see something come of my time on
> this List.  Otherwise, why be here at all?

  Let me try to be a bit more clear.  The problem I see with Danny's proposal
is that there is no funding for it that I have seen or heard of to date.  To ask
or appoint individuals to such a task, without any compensation, is a bit
over the top, as the say...

>
>
> > Therefore
> > I cannot support and do not support, Appointing Joop as to the
> > Task force as suggested for the GA.  Rather an election should
> > be held, and even Joop agrees, to determine whom this person
> > or representative should be.
>
> Oh, I agree completely.  There should be an election and I've already made my opinion
> on this matter known to the Chair.  In all honesty, I see the Chair is trying very
> hard to put this boat on an even keel, I even think he's got a chance...  I support
> his initiative and resolve in make something (anything) constructive happen.   So,
> let's be good mates and get this baby into harbour.

  I am more than willing and happy to try to help.  But I am not god.  And
I can only hope to help those that are willing to help themselves.  Getting
this "Baby into the Harbor" as you say, required some method of propulsion,
or $$ in this instance.  As there doesn't seem to be any moneys available for this
project, I fail to see how this scow can make it to harbor...  In that the
ICANN BoD just recently received some $5m US from Verisign, possibly
Danny could prevail upon the ICANN staff or BoD to allocate adequate
funds for this project?  If the ICANN BoD see it as a viable project
I am sure they will be more than willing to fund it.

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Hermes Network, Inc.

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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:08:29 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IPv8 FAQ on Proof of Concept TLDs

Monday, June 11, 2001, 2:54:54 PM, JIM FLEMING wrote:

> IPv8 FAQ on Proof-of-Concept TLDs
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html

> 1. Q. Is the ICANN Board Qualified to "mess with DNS" ?

For those who are not familiar with his tactics, Jim Fleming posts
things to mailing lists or comments boards that archive them like the
IETF and NTIA, and then uses references to his own messages and
comments at those URLs to make it look somehow more "official" and
"legitimate."

- -- 
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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:58:32 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Hello Michael,

Monday, June 11, 2001, 4:43:56 AM, Gendron, Michael (MIS) wrote:

> Correct me if I am wrong - but the threading software only works if no one
> modifies the subject line...but once they do all bets are off.

This would be no different in a web based system.

It would open a new topic thread.

- -- 
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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:43:05 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

Jeff Williams wrote:

>   Let me try to be a bit more clear.  The problem I see with Danny's proposal
> is that there is no funding for it that I have seen or heard of to date.  To ask
> or appoint individuals to such a task, without any compensation, is a bit
> over the top, as the say...

A valid point.

>   I am more than willing and happy to try to help.  But I am not god.  And
> I can only hope to help those that are willing to help themselves.  Getting
> this "Baby into the Harbor" as you say, required some method of propulsion,
> or $$ in this instance.  As there doesn't seem to be any moneys available for this
> project, I fail to see how this scow can make it to harbor...  In that the
> ICANN BoD just recently received some $5m US from Verisign, possibly
> Danny could prevail upon the ICANN staff or BoD to allocate adequate
> funds for this project?  If the ICANN BoD see it as a viable project
> I am sure they will be more than willing to fund it.

Again, I think you make an excellent point.  Let's ask the Chair to "prevail upon the
ICANN staff or BoD to allocate adequate funds for this project."  Danny, how 'bout
some greenbacks for the troops?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.

- --
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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 19:24:05 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

Your points are well raised gentlmen and prevail at will.  I ask Mr. Bruce James for some
insight here.  I believe that this project could garner a little outside support -
earmarked and since we are dealing in truly small donational funds these could be gotten
through the emergency status of most foundations.  While the ICANN as a whole suffers
from inability to cloister sums because they miss their mark as a mission we may do well
to prevail upon the hosts of good conscience.  Something also tells me that there are
other sources as well.

Let us not be puritanical and naive here money comes with a tag.  I would suggest an open
and notorious group of donors which get unfettered access and contribution to the group
in exchange for a very sizeable donation, not voting and all communication open and
transparent - call it corporate outreach and cross marketing.  Believe it or not this
method works great for things like the AMA dealing with drug companies.  The best
conferences and meeting grounds take place at someones expense.  I do not believe that
Stockholm was tainted by the fact of sponsorship of different gatherings. Far from it, it
is open and good and allows us to learn and prosper.

It is time to move, there are folks on this "appointment list" who can find the
resources. Mr. Williams will you consider such matters and decide how you best could help
and insure the integrity you so correctly seek?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >   Let me try to be a bit more clear.  The problem I see with Danny's proposal
> > is that there is no funding for it that I have seen or heard of to date.  To ask
> > or appoint individuals to such a task, without any compensation, is a bit
> > over the top, as the say...
>
> A valid point.
>
> >   I am more than willing and happy to try to help.  But I am not god.  And
> > I can only hope to help those that are willing to help themselves.  Getting
> > this "Baby into the Harbor" as you say, required some method of propulsion,
> > or $$ in this instance.  As there doesn't seem to be any moneys available for this
> > project, I fail to see how this scow can make it to harbor...  In that the
> > ICANN BoD just recently received some $5m US from Verisign, possibly
> > Danny could prevail upon the ICANN staff or BoD to allocate adequate
> > funds for this project?  If the ICANN BoD see it as a viable project
> > I am sure they will be more than willing to fund it.
>
> Again, I think you make an excellent point.  Let's ask the Chair to "prevail upon the
> ICANN staff or BoD to allocate adequate funds for this project."  Danny, how 'bout
> some greenbacks for the troops?
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Hermes Network, Inc.
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 22:37:05 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Hello David,

on 6/11/01 2:35 AM, [email-masked] at [email-masked] wrote:
>> [ga-sys]                   meant for detailed issues like registration
>> systems
> 
> Has it had any traffic?  Could be chopped IMO.
> 
> DPF

With the greatest respect, it would be helpful if you would actually check
this list before disseminating a value judgement which amounts to summary
execution. 

Since its formation, the GA-SYS list has largely focused on Privacy issues
in relation to the EU laws and WHOIS databases. To say that this is a matter
of deep concern to Individual Domain name Holders and the public at large,
(whose interests are not currently represented elsewhere is the DNSO
process), is an understatement.

For your information, the NC is currently conducting a survey on WHOIS,
which is one of the few things that they have actually asked us to do, and
to that end, they have issued a lengthy questionaire that requires a
response by the deadline of July 31st.

This is the GA's opportunity to have a say in how the Whois is to be
constituted and run, and should we fail to respond, either individually, or
collectively, we cannot complain about the result. Those that belong to the
GA-SYS list recognize the importance of this issue to individuals, even
though they themselves may represent other interests. They are to be
commended, not trashed.

The number of posts to the GA-SYS lists is few compared to the GA main list,
and that is to its credit. Members only post when they have something
meaningful to say, which is the way it should be. You will see direct
cross-constituency dialogue developing there between individuals, such as
myself, technicians such as Roeland Meyer, and policy advocates, such as
Ross Nadar of Tucows, to mention a few.

As a British citizen, I find myself advocating an EU position, pitted
against the US position, represented by William Walsh. This has certainly
increased my understanding about how US citizens have become conditioned to
accept intrusion into their private lives, something that is not accepted so
readily by the rest of the world. More research is needed to establish a
worldwide consensus position. It's healthy stuff.

I would also mention that this is the only list that, to my knowledge, has
produced any documents at all since its creation. Several papers have gone
through a first draft stage, for further consideration by the full
membership, under the working title of Freedoms, part 1,2 and 3. In
addition, a summary of discussions on the list was recently posted, for
those interested in clarifying the issues and furthering/ joining the
debate.

I can accept that you have no particular interest in all of the above, but I
cannot accept that you would kill a list that has added more value to the GA
in past weeks than possibly any other, and is producing quality
cross-constituency dialogue, with no noise.

Finally, it has not passed me by that your lack of concern and understanding
about these issues are voiced at a time when your name has been put forward
as a potential candidate to represent the best interests of individuals to
the NC. For this reason, I regret that I cannot support your nomination for
the position.

Regards,
Joanna Lane
http://www.internetstakeholders.com

- --
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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:54:22 -0500
From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] IPv8 FAQ on Proof of Concept TLDs

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of William
X. Walsh
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 6:08 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] IPv8 FAQ on Proof of Concept TLDs

Monday, June 11, 2001, 2:54:54 PM, JIM FLEMING wrote:

> IPv8 FAQ on Proof-of-Concept TLDs
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html

> 1. Q. Is the ICANN Board Qualified to "mess with DNS" ?

For those who are not familiar with his tactics, Jim Fleming posts
things to mailing lists or comments boards that archive them like the
IETF and NTIA, and then uses references to his own messages and
comments at those URLs to make it look somehow more "official" and
"legitimate."

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

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/03_23_98-10.htm

###

From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/23/98 10:28pm
Subject: Comments on Discussion Draft on Technical Management of Internet
Domain Names

Enclosed are the official comments of myself to the US Green Paper
Proposal on Internet Domain Names.

- --
William X. Walsh [email-masked]
Director, Network Operations and Technical Services
TJ Network Services http://www.tjns.tj
Domain Name Services, Web Hosting, and Email Services

Comments on the US Green Paper on :

Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses

Comments are made by :

William Walsh
Director, Network Operations and Technical Services
TJ Network Services
[email-masked]

I. Introduction

TJ Network Services is a relatively new Domain Name Registrar, currently
providing management of the National Top Level Domain for the country of
Tajikistan under contract. We provide a wealth of value added domain name
services, as well as direct registration under the .TJ nTLD, including
World Wide Domain Name Registration under the existing Generic TLD's, and
other national TLD's. Our main source of business is derived in the value
added services which we package with these domain registration services.

TJ Network Services was formed as a result of a long standing goal to
provide low cost Internet Identity services that were easy to use, and
within the budget of the many people starting up small, home based
businesses on the Internet, and those who just wanted to have a permanent
identity to use in conjunction with their on-line hobby presence, or other
type of presence they are cultivating.

The very premise of our service is that we feel the establishment of a
permanent identity should be within reach of ANYONE on the internet who as
the motivation to seek one.

In light of the affects on this premise of the current proposal, we feel
compelled to provide our own comments, and to advocate changes which would
be in the best interest of the Internet as a whole.

We have waited till today to issue our formal comments in an effort to
review the comments and opinions of others, both formal and to various
internet based discussion lists of which we monitor.

We urge everyone on the Internet to read the document at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainname130.htm

II. Summary of Comments

TJ Network Services feels the goals outlined by the US Green Paper,
Section V - Principles for a New System, are an extremely positive step
in the right direction. We do, however, feel that there is room for
improvement in the methodology used to implement these goals. We comment
on these in this document.

III. Time Frame for US Government Withdrawal

TJ Network Services applauds the Green Papers statement regarding the
need to balance stability issues with concerns that the US Government
would never withdraw from oversight. We feel that the time frames listed
should, however, be shorter, or at the very least mandated by statute, to
insure that there be no extension of this oversight past the maximum date
listed, September 30th, 2000.

We would like to see the oversight areas spelled out more clearly, with

time frames for the relinquishment of specific areas of oversight
included.

IV. Representation on the New Corporation's Board of Directors

TJ Network Services feels the outline for the Board of Directors is
positive, but we would like to see it broadened to include representative
of the non-affiliated National TLD registrars who are not represented by
the Regional Number Registries.

Except for the comment noted above, we feel the representation is fair and
international in scope.

V. Minimum Requirements for Registries and Registrars

TJ Network Services operates on what we affectionately call a "shoestring
budget." Using Co-operative agreements we have in place with both
domestic and foreign entities, we provide an extremely stable and broad
base for our services. We do this on what is a VERY small budget. We are
also aware of another organization, Monolith Internet Services, which has
provided third and forth level domain name services with a variety of
add-on type services, to an international community of users numbering in
the tens of thousands. And this was done on a budget of practically
nothing, depending on small donations from users, and from small
sponsorship agreements. Monolith Internet Services has provided an
excellent level of service Internationally and under incredibly high
loads, with a VERY limited amount of resources.

We see many of these requirements as a means to keep the "little guys" out
of the market, and this is damaging to the very competitive process this
proposal is supposed to be seeking. By placing unnecessary restrictions,
you drive the costs of getting into the Domain Name Business up, and drive
up the prices of services, making it hard for services to offer free, or
low cost, alternatives to the higher priced, more commercial gTLDs.

A provision should be made to give people the choice of what service they
chose to us. There will be those Registries who will meet these
requirements, and well exceed them. They will be able to advertise this,
and use it as a means to promote the stability and security of their
services. But it should not exclude an individual from selecting to do
business with a Registry who does not meet those requirements, but can
still provide service.

We make the following proposal :

Prospective Domain Registries should meet the following minimum
requirements :

1) A Primary Domain Name Server, under the direct control of the domain
registry, hosted on a network with at least T1 connectivity, and backup
power supply. The level of connectivity, and other pertinent information
should be noted on the registries publicly available website.

2) At least 2 geographically and network diverse Secondary Domain Name
Servers, also on networks of at least T1 connectivity. This information
should also be published as noted in #1 above.

3) A complete published set of policies and procedures as outlined in the
Green Paper, published as noted in #1.

4) A robust Database Management System, that will maintain records of all
transactions, and full information regarding each domain name
registration, and it's registrants. This information should be publicly
accessible in an easy to use and understand interface. A simplified, easy
to use automated system should also be in place to provide for simplified
domain name registrations, by Registrars if using the distributed
registrar model, or for use by users if a single Registrar model is being
used.. The level of current technology is sufficiently advanced enough to
allow for new and update transactions to occur over a secure web
interface, rather than the relatively insecure, and lengthy procedures
involved in using email form based solutions.

5) Registrars should set simple requirements for Registries. Frankly,
Registrars should be required to be little more than customer service
stations, and provide easy and fast access to registration services
provided to the Registrar by the Registries. Of importance to the
Registry, is to make sure the Prospective Registrar is capable of
providing the level of customer service which they deem appropriate for
their TLD. Again, this is the image that will be created for the TLD, and
it is the responsibility of the Registry to make the decision of the
overall image they seek to present, and make the policies under this
section and all the other sections with this premise in mind.
Requirements for Registries, if any, should be uniform and published in
accordance with the publication of information in the other sections.

6) Domain Name Registries should remove themselves from the Trademark
Protection Process, and registrants should be subject to the same
Trademark Laws as everyday citizens. Domain Name Registries should honor
judgments and ruling made regarding trademark disputes by courts of
"competent jurisdiction." Any further restrictions would be
anti-competitive in nature, and place undo responsibility on the Registry
to act as a "Policing" agency. This information should be made available
on the Registries website, published as noted above in #1.

7) A plan to allow for continued management of their Top Level Domain
should the registry become insolvent. This could involve a bond in an
amount sufficient to insure that minimum services can be provided for a
reasonable period of time, till the Registry can make permanent
arrangements for a new management contract by a solvent registry. This is
again just a suggestion, some TLD's may make no such provision.
Regardless, the Registry should be mandated to make this information
publicly available on their website in a prominent manner, published in
accordance with #1 above.

Other than as noted, no further requirements should be made for Registrars
or Registries. This would of course be subject to review by the board
after a reasonable period of time has elapsed and the results of such an
open set of requirements can be evaluated more fully.

VI. Summary and Conclusion

As can be noted above, TJ Network Services finds itself in agreement with
most of the points of the Green Paper, with the exception of the comments
made in Sections II through V.

We feel the market should be broaden to allow for various levels of domain
name registration services, from the free services who cannot provide any
service guarantees and minimal if any customer service, to the high end
commercial registries who provide absolute security in service guarantees
and customer services. The market in the International Internet Community
is broad and diverse enough to provide a robust market for Registrars at
both these levels and at all levels in between.

TJ Network Services welcomes comments on our position paper, which can be
made via email to [email-masked]

William Xavier Walsh [email-masked]
Director, Network Operations and Technical Services (NOTS)
TJ Network Services http://www.tjns.tj
Registry/Registrar for the .TJ (Tajikistan) Top Level Domain

For information about TJ Network Services, please contact [email-masked]

For comments on this Position Paper, please email them to
[email-masked]

TJ Network Services ==> Putting You in Front!

###

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of William
X. Walsh
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 6:08 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] IPv8 FAQ on Proof of Concept TLDs

Monday, June 11, 2001, 2:54:54 PM, JIM FLEMING wrote:

> IPv8 FAQ on Proof-of-Concept TLDs
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html

> 1. Q. Is the ICANN Board Qualified to "mess with DNS" ?

For those who are not familiar with his tactics, Jim Fleming posts
things to mailing lists or comments boards that archive them like the
IETF and NTIA, and then uses references to his own messages and
comments at those URLs to make it look somehow more "official" and
"legitimate."

- --
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

- --
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 #529
************************