Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #632
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, July 27 2001            Volume 01 : Number 632

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 18:17:59 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The first New.net Name appraisal at Afternic and a great free domain name

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, at 08:45 [=GMT-0700], Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 03:24:03PM +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > Anybody else willing to trade names on this list?
> > 
> > :<(
> 
> Even better, we could trade fake appraisals.  I thought the appraisal
> for 3.5 million dollars for "movie.shop" was most interesting.  Clearly
> I'm in the wrong business -- I should sell "songbird.com" and retire,
> eh?

Yes, please do so. I bid $100.

- -- 
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 09:59:39 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The first New.net Name appraisal at Afternic and a great free domain name

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 8:46 AM
> 
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 03:24:03PM +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > Anybody else willing to trade names on this list?
> > 
> > :<(
> 
> Even better, we could trade fake appraisals.  I thought the appraisal
> for 3.5 million dollars for "movie.shop" was most 
> interesting.  Clearly
> I'm in the wrong business -- I should sell "songbird.com" and retire,
> eh?

This shows a fundimental ignorance of the marketing/sales process.
- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 09:57:30 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The first New.net Name appraisal at Afternic and a great free domain name

On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 06:17:59PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, at 08:45 [=GMT-0700], Kent Crispin wrote:
> > Even better, we could trade fake appraisals.  I thought the appraisal
> > for 3.5 million dollars for "movie.shop" was most interesting.  Clearly
> > I'm in the wrong business -- I should sell "songbird.com" and retire,
> > eh?
> 
> Yes, please do so. I bid $100.

Sorry.  You would have to be in the millions before I would even begin 
to think about it.

Kent

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:10:57 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 9:14 AM
> 
> Bill Lovell wrote:
> >
> >Some relevant questions concerning this letter:
> >
> >On what basis is ICANN claiming "consensus?"
> >
> >What is the basis for the statement "the concept
> >of multiple roots clearly leads to the potential for
> >conflicting top level domains and consequent
> >Internet instability," and if that is true, why is
> >it establishing a .biz TLD, when there already is
> >one of those, which could bring about the
> >very collision it decries?
> 
> 
> The basis for this statement is the position of the IETF, as 
> summarised by the IAB.

As has been noted before, there is no technical basis for the IAB report. In
fact, there was no technical content in that IAB report, whatsoever. It was
purely a policy statement, decorated with FUD, pretending to technical
legitimacy. I might add that, it wasn't worthy of the IAB, IMHO.

> This item has also been debated at the PSO General Assembly 
> some 10 days ago, and there has not been one single voice in favour of 
> multiple roots.

That is because those holding that position are not allowed to speak there
or are actively attacked, with ad hominems, when they do.

> I don't want to underestimate the importance of the different 
> political POVs on the multiple roots, but since this issue has negligible 
> support (if any at all) in the Protocol community, and specifically at the

> IETF, ICANN should not do anything else than dismiss it.

Let's see; Hold a meeting on a subject, beat off opposing views with clubs,
lock the doors, then declare that there are no opposing views...nice and
open. This is typical IETF procedure and what you report here appears no
different. Multiple root concepts have been actively suppressed,
politically, almost since the very start of the IETF.

- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 10:18:41 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The first New.net Name appraisal at Afternic and a great free domain name

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 9:58 AM
 
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 06:17:59PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, at 08:45 [=GMT-0700], Kent Crispin wrote:
> > > Even better, we could trade fake appraisals.  I thought 
> the appraisal
> > > for 3.5 million dollars for "movie.shop" was most 
> interesting.  Clearly
> > > I'm in the wrong business -- I should sell "songbird.com" 
> and retire,
> > > eh?
> > 
> > Yes, please do so. I bid $100.
> 
> Sorry.  You would have to be in the millions before I would 
> even begin 
> to think about it.

Do you have an independent appraisal justifying that expectation?
- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 17:24:53 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Interesting news tidbit

Ladi wrote:

>
>Further reading of the article shows that many of the stolen credit
>cards were used at Network Solutions, presumably to buy up domains...I
>wonder what domains were registered and/or if whois info from those
>domains would point to 'cybersquatters' (whatever the PC term for them
>is today). Seems to be a tad more well-organized and targeted than your
>usual identity theft since random merchandise wasn't bought, but
>domains...

What I wonder is why on earth a criminal that gets in possession of CC+ID 
data wastes this gold mine for buying domain names, that will be 
reappropriated anyway at chargeback.

>
>Can any of the card holders claim ownership of the domains registered
>under their CC if they wished to do so? What will happen to these
>domains after chargebacks from legitimate card holders?

Obviously Verisign will cancel the registration.
The only way for the thief to make money is to sell the name before the 
chargeback (actually, I bet that the domain names bought with the fraudulent 
operation have been already blocked by VeriSign in all cases in which it has 
been possible to contact the victim).

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.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: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 19:33:40 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to Stuart Lynn"

Roberto Gaetano wrote on 26.07.01, 15:50:59:
> The protection of IP rights has not been ensured via a cross-constituency
> WG, or a proposal to NC, but building a specific constituency.
> I would assume that similarly, while the options you outline are reasonable
> second-best choice, the ideal solution would be to let the consumers (as a
> whole, not just subsets like Business, IP, NonCom) to be able to get
> organized in a Constituency.
> Specifically, and that was probably Joop's point, what is sorely missing is
> a vehicle to transmit the instances of the Individuals.

On (somewhat) related news:
The .at (Austria ccTLD) registry has just chosen a 
co-regulatory approach with a domain council of the 
Internet Privatstiftung Austria (IPA). Its composition:
Someone from the registrars, an Internet users 
association, an association of judges, an ISP, the 
Ministry of Transport, an university college and the
telecommunications regulation authority. The domain
council decides on questions like the registration policy
or a possible dispute resolution policy.

There is a (German) article about this
 http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-25.07.01-004/
with a quote by the head of the IPA:
  "Although it is a small association we have decided
  for [the Internet users association] VIBE, because
  they have presented their own opinions on domain
  policy for a long time", explains Haberler. One 
  could possibly ask the question of legitimacy, Haberler
  concedes. "For the time being, it is a jump from zero
  to one, we certainly have to continue the discussion
  about the new structure." [my translation]
VIBE.AT is a member of the Global Internet Liberty
Campaign (gilc.org).

Best regards,
/// Alexander
- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 10:49:03 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

I was not alluding to any specific example. I will note that those of us
that are technically proficient in these things do not attend IETF meetings
any longer. This is mainly because we have other things to waste our time on
(like running a business) and being abused is not high on the list.
Technical intolerance and bigotry has been a fundimental part of the IETF
since it's foundation. This is well known and documented. A good example is
the NANOG list, where certain subjects are considered taboo, even if the
otherwise meet the NANOG AUP.

> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:40 AM
> 
> I am sorry but it would appear that you are describing what 
> Harald A. tried to
> do with the GA.  Are you suggesting that someone accomplished 
> this at the IETF
> and if so who? And why?  I observe the IETF anonymously 
> because it is such a
> scary place.  I have never observed any openness and 
> transparency there in the
> last year, but I just assumed it was a private club.  
> Certainly they do not
> allow any of "those types" in do they?
> 
> Bigotry and intolerance is a waste of the Human Spirit, and 
> you can quote me on
> that!
> 
> Sincerely,
> Eric
> 
> Roeland Meyer wrote:
> 
> > <snip>
> >
> > That is because those holding that position are not allowed 
> to speak there
> > or are actively attacked, with ad hominems, when they do.
> >
> > > I don't want to underestimate the importance of the different
> > > political POVs on the multiple roots, but since this 
> issue has negligible
> > > support (if any at all) in the Protocol community, and 
> specifically at the
> >
> > > IETF, ICANN should not do anything else than dismiss it.
> >
> > Let's see; Hold a meeting on a subject, beat off opposing 
> views with clubs,
> > lock the doors, then declare that there are no opposing 
> views...nice and
> > open. This is typical IETF procedure and what you report 
> here appears no
> > different. Multiple root concepts have been actively suppressed,
> > politically, almost since the very start of the IETF.
> >
> 
- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 11:50:47 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

cache poisoning issues have been well addressed, since the Kashpureff
incident. Even MSFT Win2K DNS answers this well.

> All the arguments they are using to claim that the real .biz will
> cause "real technical problems" are the single best technical reasons
> the IAB position is correct.

On the contrary, it only proves that stubborn non-cooperation will break the
Internet.
- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 11:53:53 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Limits

It appears that I am at, or beyond, my posting limits for today .... back to
lurk-mode.
- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 21:48:26 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] the GA as an R&D center

Dear Danny, Patrick and all,
When you think of it there is no other place in the AmerICANN and in the 
world for network development R&D than the DNSO/GA.. I mean by network 
development the global development of the network: how to expand it, how to 
promote it, how to live it and with it, etc... There are several other fora 
which deal with the technical aspects of the Internet development. There is 
none to consider the questions we all more less ask ourselves:

- - what is a domain name?
- - is the current domain name system management appropriate?
- - is the whois of use, would there be alternatives, what are the relations 
with other systems?
- - what is the public wanting? what would it accept? which experience could 
we consider?
- - new TLDs for what?
- - the Internet assisted governance systems
- - the protection of the users
- - the relations with States and international organizations
- - the ccTLDs and the national Internet communities
- - the IP addressing plan
- - the new form of social relations alighted by the Internet
- - consensus nature and technicalities
etc... etc...

I mean here no dispute but R&D to develop a practical vision of the 
Internet evolution and support the necessary related decisions by the 
different bodies sharing in the Internet governance.

The GA is the only technical enough group of users. I see no other place 
where are melt enough of the competence, independence, variety of 
experience necessary to develop a coherent body of doctrine about what is 
happening, how it could change, what to do to support the evolution and 
innovation, etc...

I will take three examples for you to better understand what I am at:

- - the UDRP. I want to investigate a change of nature: the arbitration panel 
to be replaced by a court made of a panelist as a Judge, of public debates 
on-line and of a Jury of randomly selected Internet users. There is no 
dispute here. I just want to investigate an other traditional form that Joe 
Sims and Jonathan Cohen might have chosen.

- - Domain Names. Why do we have Registries? Are there not alternatives. The 
present system is like gold mine placer management. Would it not be 
interesting to investigate other ways? I would favor a permanent title with 
a document or a plastic card I could keep with me and I would pay for usage 
on a yearly basis - do you lose your name if you do not pay your taxes? We 
would address some of the today problems and would meet others. What is the 
best? I do not know, we should discuss it.

- - the governance. The AmerICANN is not the Internet governance. But we 
spend our time disputing about the governance system of the AmerICANN. We 
only observe the practical impact of principles that are enlighten 
progressively since the end of the XIXth century about network, innovation, 
polylogual relations, end of the bottom-up/top-down models and emergence of 
the me/we model, subsidiarity in that environment, etc... This concerns our 
whole life, thinking (the politically correct is a direct result from the 
me/we model). The AmerICANN is necessarily at the core of such a change.

This is of the essence of the DNSO/GA, but probably not of this mailing 
list. Bill and Joanna are in fact trying to propose to work on something 
like that with their Best Practices. If the result will be of interest to 
ga-rules, I think that the preparation of these BPs and their interaction 
with many other socio-politic aspects are to be carried on a special list 
with a different spirit.

If you consider it, the Internet is today very much technic driven and not 
market driven. What I propose is to try to work out a compromise through a 
technical analysis of the market and of its evolution (innovation) with an 
immediate target: to see if there are no alternative technical solutions to 
our today most difficult problems. Without dogmatic declarations, but 
humble study and some imagination.

I would be interested by your comments.
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: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 15:20:22 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

At 04:14 PM 7/26/2001 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Bill Lovell wrote:
>>
>>Some relevant questions concerning this letter:
>>
>>On what basis is ICANN claiming "consensus?"
>>
>>What is the basis for the statement "the concept
>>of multiple roots clearly leads to the potential for
>>conflicting top level domains and consequent
>>Internet instability," and if that is true, why is
>>it establishing a .biz TLD, when there already is
>>one of those, which could bring about the
>>very collision it decries?
>
>
>The basis for this statement is the position of the IETF, as summarised by 
>the IAB.
>This item has also been debated at the PSO General Assembly some 10 days 
>ago, and there has not been one single voice in favour of multiple roots.
>Incidentally, I have been one among others who spoke in favour of 
>IAB/ICANN's position, but of course made it clear that I was speaking only 
>as "a member of the DNSO/GA".
>
>I don't want to underestimate the importance of the different political 
>POVs on the multiple roots, but since this issue has negligible support 
>(if any at all) in the Protocol community, and specifically at the IETF, 
>ICANN should not do anything else than dismiss it.
>
>Regards
>Roberto

I disagree with Roberto.
ICANN must hold to it's written agenda which includes representing public view.

As far as the IETF's credibility:  we all surely recognize it has been 
suspect for a few years now.

:)

~k

- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 22:12:57 +0200
From: Michael Haberler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [centr-legal] Domain Council at .AT - facts

The article on www.heise.de does reflect the journalists preconceptions, 
but not necessarily the facts, as I have commented there (in german, though).

Here's some background on IPA and its Domain Name Council.

The Internet Foundation Austria (IPA), a charitable foundation and owner of 
the .at registry nic.at GmbH, has an advisory board called "Domainbeirat" 
(Domain Name Council). This was as designed in into the bylaws of the 
foundation, which was established Nov 2000. The members of this council are 
nominated by the management of IPA (= me, Rupert Nagler and Manfred Wagner) 
and appointed by the Foundation Council, on which are Peter Rastl of 
University of Vienna, Georg Hahn and Karl Hitschmann of ISPA, the ISP 
association, which is the donor of the foundation and former owner of 
nic.at GmbH. Btw the foundation council is different from the Domain name 
Council. To distinguish - the foundation council is more like a regular 
company's board with mainly a management agenda - it hires and fires IPA 
management if we steal silver spoons etc, it approves results, sets 
compensation,  etc, whilst the Domain Name Council is solely concerned with 
.at policy issues.

Members of the Domain Name Council are appointed in a personal capacity, 
and not as a member of some organisation. We have nominated seven members, 
of which two have jobs in government functions: Christian Singer of the 
ministery of public transport is also the .at GAC representative, and Ernst 
Langmantel is the technical director of RTR Gmbh, the regulator. The others 
are: Christian Mock of Vibe.at, an Internet users asscoiation, Naseem 
Bhatti of internic.at, a registrar which many of you probably know, Ronald 
Schwaerzler, an IT consultant, former manager of a large ISP and member of 
the ISP asscociation ISPA, and Franz Schmidbauer, a judge,  an expert in 
Internet law, very active in the Internet community and runs a popular 
website on legal & Internet issues. I dont have to introduce Dennis 
Jennings here. While these members are not democratically legitimized by 
some election or consultation process or a 'LIC travelling circus' :-) they 
represent a large part of the LIC constituency, and also have the 
undeniable advantage of being competent in their field and have a clue what 
the Domain Name System is about. Take that: there are members which can 
actually edit a zone file. Now that's innovative.

Basically, the Domain Name Council is our stab at a representation of the 
local Internet community.

On tuesday July 24 this council has convened for the first time, and 
approved its own bylaws, which also document its relation to IPA 
management. They say that decisions of the domain name council, although 
advisory in nature, are to be carried out by the management within its 
responsibility as defined by the bylaws of the foundation. This means if 
the Domain Name Council would go berzerk relative to the IPA's bylaws, 
management would be expected to obey bylaws first. The bylaws of the 
foundation, btw, specify that one of IPA's duties is to take care of the 
.at domain name management. Hence, the management would be free to ignore a 
suggestion of the Domain Name Council to sell nic.at GmbH to Verisign, to 
name a exotic constellation for the sake of argument. If the Council 
suggest a particular approach to local dispute resolution, the management 
would surely listen very carefully.

I think this clarifies the advisory nature of the Domain Name Council and 
its nature of a LIC representation.

Judge yourself where you find a 'co-regulatory approach' here.

- -Michael Haberler

Managing Director,
Internet Foundation Austria

At 19:59 26.07.2001 +0200, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

>Greetings,
>
>This message just arrived to the DNSO GA list, posted
>by Alexandrer Svensson from Germany.
>
>Could someone from Austria give more info, please ?
>
>Elisabeth
>
>--
>Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 19:33:40 +0200
>From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>
><snip>
>
>The .at (Austria ccTLD) registry has just chosen a
>co-regulatory approach with a domain council of the
>Internet Privatstiftung Austria (IPA). Its composition:
>Someone from the registrars, an Internet users
>association, an association of judges, an ISP, the
>Ministry of Transport, an university college and the
>telecommunications regulation authority. The domain
>council decides on questions like the registration policy
>or a possible dispute resolution policy.
>
>There is a (German) article about this
>  http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-25.07.01-004/
>with a quote by the head of the IPA:
>   "Although it is a small association we have decided
>   for [the Internet users association] VIBE, because
>   they have presented their own opinions on domain
>   policy for a long time", explains Haberler. One
>   could possibly ask the question of legitimacy, Haberler
>   concedes. "For the time being, it is a jump from zero
>   to one, we certainly have to continue the discussion
>   about the new structure." [my translation]
>VIBE.AT is a member of the Global Internet Liberty
>Campaign (gilc.org).
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander
>--

- ----
Michael Haberler                       [email-masked]
Mariahilferstrasse 126/27         Tel +43 1 5261679
A-1070 Vienna Austria           Fax +43 1 526167925

- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 14:03:52 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Fwd: Virus Alert]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------761E6B409C7B38074635E4D6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

FYI:

I received the message noted below and immediately forwarded it
to the [email-masked], where I routinely forward spam, and a few
minutes later received this back from the FTC. So all of you watch
your mailboxes with care.

Bill Lovell

- --
Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --------------761E6B409C7B38074635E4D6
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:51:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Virus Alert

The mail message (file: R.C. WILLEYS EXPENSES.xls.pif) you sent to [email-masked] contains a virus (TROJ_SIRCAM.A). This message generated by scan host redwolf.ftc.gov. More info on this virus may be found at http://www.antivirus.com/vinfo

- --------------761E6B409C7B38074635E4D6--

- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 14:15:03 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 3:20 PM

> As far as the IETF's credibility:  we all surely recognize it 
> has been 
> suspect for a few years now.

I hope that you all will forgive one last comment on this subject. :\

A fair representation of the onen/closed-mindedness of a group can be
measured by the number of ad hominem responses received upon introduction of
a specific topic.

Example:
	1) login to namedroppers and start discussing multiple root-zone
architectures.
	2) Login to NANOG and discuss same (carefully crafted for
operational context, of course).

In both cases, you will receive a huge number of ad hominem responses that
are virtually free of any technical content. All responses will intimate how
stupid you are for breathing, or worse. But, none of them will type even one
character in defense of their position nor will they read even one line in
opposition to their view. 

This is but one example. There are other topics that are treated that way.

In the case of the unified root school, the arguments required to support
that view are akin to proving that 2+2=4, in calculus. It is amazingly
difficult and no one wants to even try. I am, of course, of the opinion that
it is wrong, a much easier case to prove.
- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 14:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

> >I don't want to underestimate the importance of the different political
> >POVs on the multiple roots, but since this issue has negligible support
> >(if any at all) in the Protocol community, and specifically at the IETF,
> >ICANN should not do anything else than dismiss it.

Roberto,

It's unfortunate that so few people have read New.net's position paper
carefully, including it would appear ICANN staff and Stuart Lynn.

In it, New.net does not argue for multiple roots systems, rather New.net
argues about the means by which new TLDs gain acceptance into
the(marginally) DoC-controlled/ICANN root.

It is perplexing to me that when people attempt to engage in a dialogue
about the means by which new TLDs are introduced into the ICANN root, they
are met with the statement "multiple roots are bad and we can't recognize
others."

It's a non-sequitor, and an unfortunate distraction away from the
conversation that should be happening.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 18:24:46 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Fwd: Virus Alert]

I've been receiving email with this virus for days.  It is increasing in 
volume hourly.  It's a particularly nasty virus, so I agree with you 
that everyone needs to watch for it, especially those who use 
Windows Outlook and Outlook express.

Leah

On 26 Jul 2001, at 14:03, William S. Lovell wrote:

> FYI:
> 
> I received the message noted below and immediately forwarded it
> to the [email-masked], where I routinely forward spam, and a few
> minutes later received this back from the FTC. So all of you watch
> your mailboxes with care.
> 
> Bill Lovell
> 
> 
> --
> Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
> possibly be explained at:
> "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
> Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
> mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found 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: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:04:27 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 02:12:22PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> Roberto,
> 
> It's unfortunate that so few people have read New.net's position paper
> carefully, including it would appear ICANN staff and Stuart Lynn.

Gee, which should we believe -- the words in New.net's position paper,
or your words when you say that they have in fact created an alternate
root?

> In it, New.net does not argue for multiple roots systems,

What they argue really isn't very important -- they are so full of hype
you can't tell what they are talking about anyway.  What matters is what
they *do*, and they have *done* is create an alternate root. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 19:43:37 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 02:12:22PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> > In it, New.net does not argue for multiple roots systems,
>
> What they argue really isn't very important -- they are so full of hype
> you can't tell what they are talking about anyway.  What matters is what
> they *do*, and they have *done* is create an alternate root.

Actually, it's more of an enhancement to the existing root... like an
amplification, if you will.  The simple brute fact is that ICANN and the USG
had not foreseen the inventive approach employed by new.net to circumvent the
cartel-like conditions that were becoming increasingly evident through a
growing number of blatant abuses of a *non-existent power...

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:52:11 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 07:43:37PM -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 02:12:22PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> 
> > > In it, New.net does not argue for multiple roots systems,
> >
> > What they argue really isn't very important -- they are so full of hype
> > you can't tell what they are talking about anyway.  What matters is what
> > they *do*, and they have *done* is create an alternate root.
> 
> Actually, it's more of an enhancement to the existing root... like an
> amplification, if you will.

You are just parroting hype.  The fact is that new.net has conflicting 
TLDs already.

>  The simple brute fact is that ICANN and the USG
> had not foreseen the inventive approach employed by new.net

Sorry, once again I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about. 
There is nothing at all new in what new.net is doing. 

> to circumvent 
> the cartel-like conditions that were becoming increasingly evident through a
> growing number of blatant abuses of a *non-existent power...

"blatant abuse of a non-existent power"?

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #632
************************