Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #608
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, July 11 2001           Volume 01 : Number 608

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

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:25:51 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reminder: TLDA Nominations under way

Jefsey,

Anyone may join the "public" list who wishes to discuss TLD 
issues.  The archives are available to list members.

The "members" list is open only to TLDA members.  All TLD 
holders are welcome to join the TLDA.

On 11 Jul 2001, at 17:53, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Jeff,
> as far as I understand the TLDA is a TLD industy association. Their
> public list should be open to all the TLD Managers. I suppose that as
> soon as you have set-up your own TLD operations you may join their
> list. Jefsey
> 
> On 10:23 11/07/01, Jeff Williams said:
> >John and all assembly members,
> >
> >   When will the archives or your public ML ba avlaible to the
> >   public?
> >
> >John Palmer wrote:
> >
> > > Just a reminder that nominations are under way for TLDA board and
> > > committee seats.
> > >
> > > Members can nominate and can also run for the seats on the board
> > > and committees (see http://www.tlda.org).
> > >
> > > Nominations run through July 13, 2001 at 23:59:59 UTC.
> > >
> > > Elections will be July 27 12:00 UTC - July 29 12:00 UTC.
> > >
> > > To see if you qualify as a member of the TLDA or to apply for
> > > membership vist http://www.tlda.org
> > >
> > > John Palmer
> > > Secretary
> > > TLDA
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> >--
> >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
> 
> --
> 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, 11 Jul 2001 18:40:32 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] a quote from Lynn

Ouaf, ouaf,
when you are shown absurd, you don't like it.....
Ever read a DNS root file in your life? Tell us about the ". SOA" sequence....
I am enjoying all these serious people turning so poor theoricians once 
money is around... Most common in scientist and technical spheres however. 
Epistemology is full of those ...
Remembers me the TitaNIC architect...
Jefsey

On 17:58 11/07/01, William X. Walsh said:
>Hello Jefsey,
>
>Don't waste our mutual time anymore sending semantic crap like this to
>me.
>
>
>Wednesday, July 11, 2001, 8:56:13 AM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > Much fun, WXW,
>
> > The Single Authoritative Root as you perfectly know is empty.
> > The dot at the rightest end that Jon Postel did not want
> > to see in the DN to avoid confusion in English but which is in
> > the DNS files.
>
> > Single and Authoritative means perfection. Only empty or divine.
> > Jon Postel though it empty. Joe Sims thinks it divine (cf. his
> > yesterday post: as if a lawyer's trick impressed a CPU :-) ).
>
> > So you perfectly know that the so-called roots are just the first
> > level of the DNS tree and technically not THE root. Someone
> > should have told it to Lynn.. So the inclusive roots are those
> > who try to accept everyone and the only excluding one - by
> > reason of money ($ 50.000 a piece to be read) - is the
> > AmerICANN root.
>
> > You also perfectly know that the AmerICANN root is quite
> > recent (is it even completed?) and is/will be 13 computers
> > managed by an open position (l Look at the AmerICANN
> > staff list).
>
> > Jefsey
>
>
>
>
> > On 01:19 11/07/01, William X. Walsh said:
> >>Hello L,
> >>
> >>Tuesday, July 10, 2001, 12:14:32 PM, L Gallegos wrote:
> >> > In actuality, Lynn's statement is good.  There should not be any
> >> > duplication, that's all.  It has nothing to do with whether you
> >> > choose one root over another.  When you want to go to nic.biz,
> >> > you should always get to the ARNI .biz registry, not Nuelevel.
> >> > When you want to go to computers.biz, you should always see the
> >> > same one.  That much should always be true.
> >>
> >> > What he is trying to say is that there should be only the USG root,
> >> > but he misses the point that there will always be more than one
> >> > root.  Universality is the uniqueness of the domain throughout all
> >> > roots.
> >>
> >>Under your position above, there is no reason for multiple roots, if
> >>they all contain the same data, there is no inherent benefit to
> >>multiple root systems.
> >>
> >>I have to say, this argument doesn't help your claims any, Leah.
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Best regards,
> >>William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> >>Userfriendly.com Domains
> >>The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> >>DNS Services from $1.65/mo
> >>
> >>--
> >>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
>
>
>
>
>--
>Best regards,
>William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
>Userfriendly.com Domains
>The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 11 Jul 2001 11:40:19 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reminder: TLDA Nominations under way

The Public list is open to anyone - regardless of membership status.
The Members list is open only to members.

To join the public list, go to http://mail.tlda.net/mailman/listinfo/Public

John
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jefsey Morfin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 10:53
Subject: Re: [ga] Reminder: TLDA Nominations under way

> Jeff,
> as far as I understand the TLDA is a TLD industy association. Their public
> list should be open to all the TLD Managers. I suppose that as soon as you
> have set-up your own TLD operations you may join their list. Jefsey
>
> On 10:23 11/07/01, Jeff Williams said:
> >John and all assembly members,
> >
> >   When will the archives or your public ML ba avlaible to the public?
> >
> >John Palmer wrote:
> >
> > > Just a reminder that nominations are under way for TLDA board and
committee
> > > seats.
> > >
> > > Members can nominate and can also run for the seats on the board and
> > > committees (see http://www.tlda.org).
> > >
> > > Nominations run through July 13, 2001 at 23:59:59 UTC.
> > >
> > > Elections will be July 27 12:00 UTC - July 29 12:00 UTC.
> > >
> > > To see if you qualify as a member of the TLDA or to apply for
> > > membership vist http://www.tlda.org
> > >
> > > John Palmer
> > > Secretary
> > > TLDA
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> >--
> >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
>
> --
> 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, 11 Jul 2001 19:17:29 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] a quote from Lynn

On 18:23 11/07/01, William X. Walsh said:
>Hello Jefsey,
>I've been reading zone files since before you ever entered the DNS
>game, Jefsey.
>The absurdity is in your messages.
>Go play your games with someone else, you might find you can fool
>others into believing your garbage.

Get real, William!
You will not make us believe you do not understand the way a triangle works 
and what is an index tree...

Let put it another way.
Please copy me your single authoritative root.  :-)

By nature of a real time and real life and of a hierarchical system it can 
only be "." (it seems we are many being absurd and believing that).

Now again send me yours!
And swear me it is unique and 100% trustable. :-)
Great words are good, reality is more funny.
Jefsey

>Wednesday, July 11, 2001, 9:16:19 AM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > Ouaf, ouaf,
> > when you are shown absurd, you don't like it.....
> > Ever read a DNS root file in your life? Tell us about the ". SOA" 
> sequence....
> > I am enjoying all these serious people turning so poor theoricians once
> > money is around... Most common in scientist and technical spheres however.
> > Epistemology is full of those ...
> > Remembers me the TitaNIC architect...
> > Jefsey
>
>
>
> > On 17:58 11/07/01, William X. Walsh said:
> >>Hello Jefsey,
> >>
> >>Don't waste our mutual time anymore sending semantic crap like this to
> >>me.
> >>
> >>
> >>Wednesday, July 11, 2001, 8:56:13 AM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >>
> >> > Much fun, WXW,
> >>
> >> > The Single Authoritative Root as you perfectly know is empty.
> >> > The dot at the rightest end that Jon Postel did not want
> >> > to see in the DN to avoid confusion in English but which is in
> >> > the DNS files.
> >>
> >> > Single and Authoritative means perfection. Only empty or divine.
> >> > Jon Postel though it empty. Joe Sims thinks it divine (cf. his
> >> > yesterday post: as if a lawyer's trick impressed a CPU :-) ).
> >>
> >> > So you perfectly know that the so-called roots are just the first
> >> > level of the DNS tree and technically not THE root. Someone
> >> > should have told it to Lynn.. So the inclusive roots are those
> >> > who try to accept everyone and the only excluding one - by
> >> > reason of money ($ 50.000 a piece to be read) - is the
> >> > AmerICANN root.
> >>
> >> > You also perfectly know that the AmerICANN root is quite
> >> > recent (is it even completed?) and is/will be 13 computers
> >> > managed by an open position (l Look at the AmerICANN
> >> > staff list).
> >>
> >> > Jefsey
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On 01:19 11/07/01, William X. Walsh said:
> >> >>Hello L,
> >> >>
> >> >>Tuesday, July 10, 2001, 12:14:32 PM, L Gallegos wrote:
> >> >> > In actuality, Lynn's statement is good.  There should not be any
> >> >> > duplication, that's all.  It has nothing to do with whether you
> >> >> > choose one root over another.  When you want to go to nic.biz,
> >> >> > you should always get to the ARNI .biz registry, not Nuelevel.
> >> >> > When you want to go to computers.biz, you should always see the
> >> >> > same one.  That much should always be true.
> >> >>
> >> >> > What he is trying to say is that there should be only the USG root,
> >> >> > but he misses the point that there will always be more than one
> >> >> > root.  Universality is the uniqueness of the domain throughout all
> >> >> > roots.
> >> >>
> >> >>Under your position above, there is no reason for multiple roots, if
> >> >>they all contain the same data, there is no inherent benefit to
> >> >>multiple root systems.
> >> >>
> >> >>I have to say, this argument doesn't help your claims any, Leah.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>--
> >> >>Best regards,
> >> >>William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> >> >>Userfriendly.com Domains
> >> >>The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> >> >>DNS Services from $1.65/mo
> >> >>
> >> >>--
> >> >>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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Best regards,
> >>William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> >>Userfriendly.com Domains
> >>The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> >>DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
>
>
>
>--
>Best regards,
>William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
>Userfriendly.com Domains
>The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 11 Jul 2001 13:40:37 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] a quote from Lynn

L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> On 10 Jul 2001, at 8:31, Eric Dierker wrote:
> 
> > "Universal resolvability means the ability to find the same answer to
> > the same query from anywhere on the public Internet. ...
> >
> > ... universal resolvability is one of the key design
> > elements of the DNS. ...
> 
> In actuality, Lynn's statement is good.  There should not be any
> duplication, that's all. ...

I agree completely.

Of course duplication is more dangerous the higher up the tree you go.
Duplicating 4th_level_name.whatever.example.com really isn't much of a
problem. Duplication of a top-level domain, say .com or .biz, poses
serious problems. That's why people are howling about the .biz situation.

By that argument, duplication of the root is a real catastrophe, the
worst possible duplication problem.

So if you actually believe duplication is wrong, you should shut your
duplicate root down 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, 11 Jul 2001 13:55:13 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] a quote from Lynn

Sandy and all assembly members,

Sandy Harris wrote:

> L Gallegos wrote:
> >
> > On 10 Jul 2001, at 8:31, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > "Universal resolvability means the ability to find the same answer to
> > > the same query from anywhere on the public Internet. ...
> > >
> > > ... universal resolvability is one of the key design
> > > elements of the DNS. ...
> >
> > In actuality, Lynn's statement is good.  There should not be any
> > duplication, that's all. ...
>
> I agree completely.
>
> Of course duplication is more dangerous the higher up the tree you go.
> Duplicating 4th_level_name.whatever.example.com really isn't much of a
> problem. Duplication of a top-level domain, say .com or .biz, poses
> serious problems. That's why people are howling about the .biz situation.

  Yes it is why people are upset about the .BIZ and .INFO situation.
The ICANN BoD and Staff CREATED the problem, where none existed
before and there were already operating Registries for .BIZ and .INFO
in place.

>
>
> By that argument, duplication of the root is a real catastrophe, the
> worst possible duplication problem.

  It can be, but doesn't need to be if properly technically dealt with.
However the ICANN BoD and staff have decided not to take
those technical steps.  As a result there will be a problem.

>
>
> So if you actually believe duplication is wrong, you should shut your
> duplicate root down today.

  I disagree with your solution.  It will not solve the long term problem.
Rather a better solution is for ICANN to include Atlantic Roots
registry as the proper registry for .BIZ.  Or the ICANN BoD and
staff can embrace the Shared Roots technology.  The latter is the
best long term solution.

>
> --
> 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, 11 Jul 2001 15:00:50 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] a quote from Lynn

One - I don't run a root.
Two - duplicate domains are not the same as a distrubuted root.  
That is not a duplication.  It is providing identical information for 
TLDs - same name servers, contact information.  There are no 
"duplicate" roots, but there are inclusive and exclusive roots.  As 
long as TLDs are not duplicated using different nameservers and 
contacts, there is no problem.  It is an enhancement.

On 11 Jul 2001, at 13:40, Sandy Harris wrote:

> L Gallegos wrote:
> > 
> > On 10 Jul 2001, at 8:31, Eric Dierker wrote:
> > 
> > > "Universal resolvability means the ability to find the same answer
> > > to the same query from anywhere on the public Internet. ...
> > >
> > > ... universal resolvability is one of the key design
> > > elements of the DNS. ...
> > 
> > In actuality, Lynn's statement is good.  There should not be any
> > duplication, that's all. ...
> 
> I agree completely.
> 
> Of course duplication is more dangerous the higher up the tree you go.
> Duplicating 4th_level_name.whatever.example.com really isn't much of a
> problem. Duplication of a top-level domain, say .com or .biz, poses
> serious problems. That's why people are howling about the .biz
> situation.
> 
> By that argument, duplication of the root is a real catastrophe, the
> worst possible duplication problem.
> 
> So if you actually believe duplication is wrong, you should shut your
> duplicate root down today. -- 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, 11 Jul 2001 12:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] a quote from Lynn

On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Sandy Harris wrote:

> L Gallegos wrote:
> >
> > On 10 Jul 2001, at 8:31, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > "Universal resolvability means the ability to find the same answer to
> > > the same query from anywhere on the public Internet. ...
> > >
> > > ... universal resolvability is one of the key design
> > > elements of the DNS. ...
> >
> > In actuality, Lynn's statement is good.  There should not be any
> > duplication, that's all. ...
>
> I agree completely.
>
> Of course duplication is more dangerous the higher up the tree you go.
> Duplicating 4th_level_name.whatever.example.com really isn't much of a
> problem. Duplication of a top-level domain, say .com or .biz, poses
> serious problems. That's why people are howling about the .biz situation.
>
> By that argument, duplication of the root is a real catastrophe, the
> worst possible duplication problem.
>
> So if you actually believe duplication is wrong, you should shut your
> duplicate root down today.

Yes, you're right ICANN should shut down their duplicate root today, but
it's unlikely to happen.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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, 11 Jul 2001 12:31:14 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] a quote from Lynn

Hello L,

Wednesday, July 11, 2001, 12:00:50 PM, L Gallegos wrote:

> One - I don't run a root.
> Two - duplicate domains are not the same as a distrubuted root.  
> That is not a duplication.  It is providing identical information for 
> TLDs - same name servers, contact information.  There are no 
> "duplicate" roots, but there are inclusive and exclusive roots.  As 
> long as TLDs are not duplicated using different nameservers and 
> contacts, there is no problem.  It is an enhancement.

Actually the argument doesn't stand up.

When you do a dns query for the "." domain on the real root system,
you get the following response:

;; ANSWER SECTION:
.                       1D IN SOA       A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. hostmaster.nsiregistry.NET. (
                                        2001071100      ; serial
                                        30M             ; refresh
                                        15M             ; retry
                                        1W              ; expiry
                                        1D )            ; minimum

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
.                       6D IN NS        A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       6D IN NS        H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       6D IN NS        C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       6D IN NS        G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       6D IN NS        F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       6D IN NS        B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       6D IN NS        J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       6D IN NS        K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       6D IN NS        L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       6D IN NS        M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       6D IN NS        I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       6D IN NS        E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
.                       6D IN NS        D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.

As Jefsey will confirm, the "." is the real top level domain.

The other roots return completely different results for this domain.

;; ANSWER SECTION:
.                       1D IN SOA       A.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC. HOSTMASTER.A.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC. (
                                        2001070107      ; serial
                                        3H              ; refresh
                                        15M             ; retry
                                        1W              ; expiry
                                        1D )            ; minimum

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
.                       2D IN NS        A.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
.                       2D IN NS        B.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
.                       2D IN NS        C.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
.                       2D IN NS        D.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
.                       2D IN NS        E.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
.                       2D IN NS        F.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
.                       2D IN NS        G.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
.                       2D IN NS        H.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
.                       2D IN NS        I.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
.                       2D IN NS        J.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.

That is duplication according to your own statement that
as "long as TLDs are not duplicated using different nameservers and
contacts, there is no problem."

The . is a domain (it can even technically have an IP address).

Sandy's argument is supported.

You yourself have said that duplication at any level is bad, whether
at the "top" or second level.

If duplication is bad, duplication is bad.  It can't be both ways.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 11 Jul 2001 15:41:31 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] a quote from Lynn

One more time...
It is the tld's that cannot be duplicated without causing a problem 
for internet users.  A distributed root will not cause the problem.  

On 11 Jul 2001, at 12:31, William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello L,
> 
> Wednesday, July 11, 2001, 12:00:50 PM, L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > One - I don't run a root.
> > Two - duplicate domains are not the same as a distrubuted root. 
> > That is not a duplication.  It is providing identical information
> > for TLDs - same name servers, contact information.  There are no
> > "duplicate" roots, but there are inclusive and exclusive roots.  As
> > long as TLDs are not duplicated using different nameservers and
> > contacts, there is no problem.  It is an enhancement.
> 
> Actually the argument doesn't stand up.
> 
> When you do a dns query for the "." domain on the real root system,
> you get the following response:
> 
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> .                       1D IN SOA       A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> hostmaster.nsiregistry.NET. (
>                                    2001071100      ; serial
>                                    30M             ; refresh
>                                    15M             ; retry
>                                    1W              ; expiry
>                                    1D )            ; minimum
> 
> 
> ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> .                       6D IN NS        A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> .                       6D IN NS        H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> .                       6D IN NS        C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> .                       6D IN NS        G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> .                       6D IN NS        F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> .                       6D IN NS        B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> .                       6D IN NS        J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> .                       6D IN NS        K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> .                       6D IN NS        L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> .                       6D IN NS        M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> .                       6D IN NS        I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> .                       6D IN NS        E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> .                       6D IN NS        D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> 
> As Jefsey will confirm, the "." is the real top level domain.
> 
> The other roots return completely different results for this domain.
> 
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> .                       1D IN SOA       A.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
> HOSTMASTER.A.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC. (
>                                    2001070107      ; serial
>                                    3H              ; refresh
>                                    15M             ; retry
>                                    1W              ; expiry
>                                    1D )            ; minimum
> 
> 
> ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> .                       2D IN NS        A.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
> .                       2D IN NS        B.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
> .                       2D IN NS        C.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
> .                       2D IN NS        D.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
> .                       2D IN NS        E.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
> .                       2D IN NS        F.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
> .                       2D IN NS        G.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
> .                       2D IN NS        H.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
> .                       2D IN NS        I.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
> .                       2D IN NS        J.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
> 
> That is duplication according to your own statement that
> as "long as TLDs are not duplicated using different nameservers and
> contacts, there is no problem."
> 
> The . is a domain (it can even technically have an IP address).
> 
> Sandy's argument is supported.
> 
> You yourself have said that duplication at any level is bad, whether
> at the "top" or second level.
> 
> If duplication is bad, duplication is bad.  It can't be both ways.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
> 
> --
> 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, 11 Jul 2001 21:52:10 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Roberto Gaetano elected as the GA delegate to the NC Review TF

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

Wednesday 11 July 2001, 21:00 Paris time.

Re: b06

Vote by the GA to designate its representative to the Names Council 
Review Task Force
     cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GA-ReviewTF.html

The vote was conducted by the DNSO Secretariat using Instant Runoff
Vote according to the Election Rules adopted by the GA and published
in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html.

The members to the Watchdog Committee in 2001 election are:
   o Roberto Gaetano (request for removal received on 3rd July 2001)
   o Harald Alvestrand
   o Kent Crispin (request for removal received on 2nd July 2001)
   o Dany Vandromme
   o Alexander Svensson
   o Izumi Aizu

The time for the vote was:

     Begins: Tuesday 3 July 2001, 16:00 UTC, 18:00 CET (Paris),
     Ends: Tuesday 10 July 2001, 16:00 UTC, 18:00 CET (Paris)

A. The final result:

     Roberto Gaetano is elected.

B. Information about ballots received:

  1. Number of ballots received: 81

  2. One (1) ballot empty:

          1. b06:K37e4Z

     which adds to number of valid ballots, and increases majority
     requirement in the first step.

  3. Besides ballots we received eighteen (18) Delivery-Reports:

          1  b06:K3c9cZ
          2  b06:K1c9aZ
          3  b06:Kf927Z
          4  b06:Kd627Z
          5  b06:K38ebZ
          6  b06:K6f87Z
          7  b06:Ke29eZ
          8  b06:K4240Z
          9  b06:K4171Z
         10  b06:K6db2Z
         11  b06:K289fZ
         12  b06:K7f7aZ
         13  b06:Kfdd0Z
         14  b06:Kc770Z
         15  b06:Kdf8bZ
         16  b06:K3cf8Z
         17  b06:Kc770Z
         18  b06:K6218Z

  4. One (1) ballot was discarded:

          1. b06:KabcdZ

     sent by user who was not on electorate list at the time the vote
     started.

C. Adjustements:

Besides trashing HTML format, the following adjustements were made:

1. b06:K247eZ, line END__: completed
2. b06:Kaa39Z, line END__: completed
3. b06:Kc6c0Z, line END__: completed
4. b06:K9359Z, missing square bracket added
   received:
      >  b06:K9359Z:[ 3 David Farrar
   replaced by:
      >  b06:K9359Z:[ 3] David Farrar
5. b06:K2c5dZ, splitted lines accolated
   received:
      > b06:K2c5dZ:[ ] David Farrar
      > b06:K2c5dZ:[ ] Eric Dierker
      > b06:K2c5dZ:[
      1
      >] Joop Teernstra
      > b06:K2c5dZ:[ ] Kent Crispin
      > b06:K2c5dZ:[
      2
      >] Roberto Gaetano
   replaced by:
      > b06:K2c5dZ:[ ] David Farrar
      > b06:K2c5dZ:[ ] Eric Dierker
      > b06:K2c5dZ:[ 1 ] Joop Teernstra
      > b06:K2c5dZ:[ ] Kent Crispin
      > b06:K2c5dZ:[ 2 ] Roberto Gaetano

D. Eight (8) "x" adjustements:

Eight (8) received ballots were with only one candidate marked, not
with "1" but with "x".

The Secretariat tends to consider these ballots valid, "x" replaced by
"1" for results calculation.

     1  b06:K16f3Z:[x] Roberto Gaetano
     2  b06:K468eZ:[x] David Farrar
     3  b06:K4f0dZ:[X] Joop Teernstra
     4  b06:K8236Z:[x] Roberto Gaetano
     5  b06:K8686Z:[x] Roberto Gaetano
     6  b06:Ka996Z:[X] Joop Teernstra
     7  b06:Kec3aZ:[x] David Farrar
     8  b06:KfffbZ:[X] Roberto Gaetano

E. Full public record:

The calculations step by step using Instant Runoff Vote are published in:
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b06fullrecord.html.

These calculations has been validated by the Watchdog Committee.

DNSO Secretariat
- --
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 #608
************************