Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #636
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, July 28 2001           Volume 01 : Number 636

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:05:39 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RESEND: Tucows Response to Cochetti Transfer Letter

Registrars/Members,

On July 16th, 2001 Roger Cochetti of Verisign wrote to Stuart Lynn of ICANN
making various allegations in support of their new policy on inter-registrar
domain transfers. As you may be aware, Tucows has been long involved in
seeking an appropriate resolution to this issue. As such, we felt it was
necessary to respond individually to Mr. Lynn and address Mr. Cochetti's
contentions. Our letter, sent earlier to Mr. Lynn and the DNSO Names Council
under separate cover, is available at
http://www.opensrs.org/xfer/rader-to-lynn-re-cochetti-letter-072701.pdf.

This is a resend of an earlier document that was rejected by the listserver
due to the size of the attachment. Apologies to the list-admins for any
problems.

Thank you in advance for your review of this document.

Ross Wm. Rader
Director, Innovation & Research
Tucows Inc.
t. 416.535.0123

- --
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: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 06:48:42PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > A telling presumption exhibited here: if the "protocol community"
> > doesn't like something, ICANN should dump it.
>
> Yes.  That is the same presumption you would use to say "if heart
> surgeons think a procdure is dangerous, dump it".
>
> >  However, the
> > Internet does not exist for the benefit of the "protocol community"
> > or ICANN; those two entities exist for the benefit of Internet
> > users.
>
> Right.  Medicine doesn't exist for the benefit of doctors.  But if
> doctors tell us something is a bad idea, we generally listen.  If we
> got practically universal agreement among doctors that a procedure was a
> bad idea, we should almost certainly dump it.

There was a time in history that the medical profession held leeches to be
the cure for almost every possible ailment known to man. :-)

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:18:36 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Tucows Response to Cochetti Transfer Letter

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

"A domain name is neither dial tone nor a telephone number. IP connectivity is
the closest analog to dial tone. An IP address is the closest analog to the
phone number, which the DNS was designed to mask for the benefit of the
end-user."

I think this ought to be added to the thread "Domain Names as Observed" (perhaps
Joanna, you could add it to the list already at internetstakeholders.com?)

Another interesting point RWR makes:

"The domain name business seems to be reverting to procedures more suited to
facilitating nineteenth century land transactions."

For many of the dotcommoners, this has been in plain evidence since the
so-called AntiCybersquatting Act [of Pure Shamelessness].  Your histrical
comparison is quite apt.  The ontic property status of domain names needs to be
defined for all as a standard to which reference can be made.  Otherwise, we can
keep talking about this stuff forever...

Finally, in my mind, the most interesting statement of them all:

"This is a dispute among the principals who act as an important interface to the
DNS."

Clearly, the DNS is beyond the principals who act as "interfaces" to it... so
what is it?  The Undiscovered Country?!  The Blessed Isles?!  Are registrars
kind of like travel companies?  They get you to your destination... a
destination the original registrant happens to have CREATED, which they direct,
control, have authority over, pay for, fill up with content, redirect, etc...

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: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 14:32:38 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Tucows Response to Cochetti Transfer Letter

In anticipation of what I'm likely to get as a response from some self-purported
"rocket scientist" or other...

The argument that has been thrown around in an effort to trivialize things is simply
this:

"DNS is software, nothing more."

Well, nobody is denying that.  Microsoft Word is software, so is Adobe FrameMaker,
nothing more...  But what about the "stuff" that people PUT into that software?!  The
software itself presents a tabula rasa every time it is opened.  It's up to the
person(s) who use it to create within it... using language (at least in the two
examples I chose, but the principle holds for all other types of software as well).
Language is something we all use to communicate with.  Nobody OWNS language, it is a
public resource.  When an author creates a work using Word, FrameMaker or whatever,
they use LANGUAGE (even if it's only a title) and they DO have copyright(s) to THAT
work... why is this not the case with domain names?  After all, according to
ICANN[1], domain name "registrants must supply various technical information that
many non-commercial (and probably many commercial) registrants would not likely have
available."  Which implies that the registrants who do register domain names are
performing a technical function when they create domain names.

[1] see footnote #5 at:
http://com-notes.house.gov/cchear/hearings106.nsf/0/9b7329ce68c79e458525679800593c10/$FILE/7899icann.pdf

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> Clearly, the DNS is beyond the principals who act as "interfaces" to it... so
>
> > what is it?  The Undiscovered Country?!  The Blessed Isles?!  Are registrars
> > kind of like travel companies?  They get you to your destination... a
> > destination the original registrant happens to have CREATED, which they direct,
> > control, have authority over, pay for, fill up with content, redirect, etc...
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >
>
> I think a case could be made that Versign is *Hotel California*.
>
> Eric
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 14:33:28 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to Cochetti Transfer Letter)

on 7/27/01 1:18 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos at [email-masked] wrote:
> I think this ought to be added to the thread "Domain Names as Observed"
> (perhaps Joanna, you could add it to the list already at
internetstakeholders.com?)

Done. The current list is:-

A Domain Name is neither dial tone nor a telephone number. IP connectivity
is the closest analog to dial tone. An IP address is the closest analog to
the phone number, which the DNS was designed to mask for the benefit of the
end-user. (Ross Wm. Rader)
Domain Names are a Public Resource.
Domain Names are Private Property.
Domain Names are currently subject to lease contracts with registrars.
Domain Names are a mnemonic aid for web site location.
Domain Names can be a mnemonic aid for an IP address.
Domain Names are a mnemonic aid (as MX record) to address an Individual or
Organization via email.
Domain Names are a unique identifier of an Internet presence.
Domain Names can appear in thousands of links embedded in web sites and thus
acquire economic value for the registrant.
Domain Names can be listed as Assets on companies' balance sheets.
Domain Names can be ordered sold to satisfy creditors.
Domain Names create wealth.
Domain Names can be used as vehicles of on-line (free) "Speech".
Domain Names can create copyrights.
Domain Names can be used to establish, re-inforce or infringe on Trade
Marks.
Domain Names give independence from ISP's.
Domain Names are a lucrative global industry.
Domain Names are assigned according to a process which currently confers no
legal rights to the holders of domain names.
Domain Names can be bequeathed as heirlooms (witness the recent rise of baby
domain names).
Domain Names can determine the potential for success in an online venture.
Domain Names are assigned through a registration process.
Domain Names lack a qualification of the assignment properties (rights)
conferred with the creation/acquisition of a domain name.
Domain Names are a status symbol.
Domain Names can be subdivided into sub-domains.
Domain Names are a much sought after commodity.
Domain Names are the very reason for the existence of the ICANN and its
DNSO.
Domain Names are assigned through a registration process that identifies,
publishes and sells the physical contact details of registrants. (Joanna
Lane)
Domain Names can be transferred from registrar to registrar (usually).
Domain Name prices vary, as do the ancillary services provided with
registration by the various registrars.
Domain Names are publications, as they allow for communication of
information to the public.
Domain Names are created by the original registrant.
Domain Names can be registered from one up to ten years.
Domain Names are convenient points of reference.
Domain Names that exactly resemble natural language words or phrases are
generally the most coveted. (Sotiris Sotiropoulos)

What Registered Domain Names are NOT
Property of Registries or Registrars
Property of ICANN
Property of WIPO
(Sotiris Sotiropoulos)
         
  Related Links
*    
More about General Assembly

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most read story about General Assembly:
BEST PRACTICES Part I - Principles and Definitions

- --
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: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:39:47 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

"William S. Lovell" wrote:
> 
> A telling presumption exhibited here: if the "protocol community"
> doesn't like something, ICANN should dump it.

It is stronger than that. If the "protocol community" -- the designers and
implementers of the Internet -- tell us something won't work, then it
would be absurd for ICANN, or anyone else, to say "we want it anyway".

"Multiple roots" work only if either they are entirely private, not made
public on the general Internet or there is some mechanism to make certain
they are all consistent.

If they are private, then the "alternate root" folk have no complaint about
a .biz in the public root. Anytime you create private names, you take the
risk that public name will conflict later. The only people who might have
a complaint are customers who feel they were misled about what registration
in a private root gave them. If they were misled, they should sue the
vendor.

> However, the Internet does not exist for the benefit of the "protocol
> community" or ICANN; those two entities exist for the benefit of Internet
> users.  

Of course.

> It is those users who have the right and obligation to decide
> what kind of Internet that will be, the single, "authoritative" (I just
> love that audacious presumption!) root or multiple roots.

It's harder than that. Technically, the only viable choices are a single
authoritative root or multiple roots with some mechanisim that enforces
consistency among them all.

ICANN, for all its flaws, is a mechanism that at least:

	attempts to be international
	claims to work in the public interest
	pays lip service to ideas like consensus and participaion of
	  all stakeholders
	has a realistic hope of having the US gov't turn over control
	  of root DNS to it

Until and unless I see concrete proposals for an alternative to ICANN
that is at least as plausible on those criteria, my position will be
that we must have single authoritative root with ICANN running it, so
we'd better work awfully hard on improving ICANN.
 
> And most of my questions were not answered at all.
> 
> Bill Lovell
> 
> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> > Bill Lovell wrote:
> > >
> > >Some relevant questions concerning this letter:
> > >
> > >On what basis is ICANN claiming "consensus?"

As we all know, this is based on the outcome of seriously flawed ICANN
processes.

> > >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?

Remember the Dogbert line, when he's being a product manager and is
asked if they've had any complaints. "None we've listened to."

There is one authoritative public root, as there always has been.
Establishing a .biz there is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, no
matter what is in various private roots, or how thoswe private
spaces have been marketed.

Are there any conflicts? Dogbert says "Not in the public space."
I agree.

> > The basis for this statement is the position of the IETF, as summarised by
> > the IAB.

Exactly. 

> > 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
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> 
> --
> 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
- --
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: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:43:40 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to  CochettiTransfer Letter)

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Joanna and all assembly members,
>
> Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > on 7/27/01 1:18 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos at [email-masked] wrote:
> > > I think this ought to be added to the thread "Domain Names as Observed"
> > > (perhaps Joanna, you could add it to the list already at
> > internetstakeholders.com?)
> >
> > Done. The current list is:-
> >
> > A Domain Name is neither dial tone nor a telephone number. IP connectivity
> > is the closest analog to dial tone. An IP address is the closest analog to
> > the phone number, which the DNS was designed to mask for the benefit of the
> > end-user. (Ross Wm. Rader)
> > Domain Names are a Public Resource.
> > Domain Names are Private Property.
>
>   You have a problem here with these two "Definitions?".  A Domain Name
> cannot be both a Public Resource and Private property.  I think you mean
> that the DNS is a Public Resource and Domain Names are Private Property?

I have to admit that these two "definitions" did appear rather contradictory to me
as well.  I think you're quite correct here Jeff.

>
>
> >
> > Domain Names are currently subject to lease contracts with registrars.
> > Domain Names are a mnemonic aid for web site location.
> > Domain Names can be a mnemonic aid for an IP address.
>
>   This   is also technically incorrect as well.  And IP address is a translator
> for a TLD or potentially a Domain Name.

This is a more subtle but equally important distinction.  The "content" of an IP
address is informed by the registered Domain Name and its holder.  I think this is
a crucial point to stress.  Nice heads-up Jeff.

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: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 14:33:49 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 06:48:42PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > A telling presumption exhibited here: if the "protocol community"
> > doesn't like something, ICANN should dump it.
>
> Yes.  That is the same presumption you would use to say "if heart
> surgeons think a procdure is dangerous, dump it".

Well, among the flood of responses to this FUD, I don't want my own
to get lost.   E.E.'s and heart surgeons have very little in common (I am
assuming that Mr. Crispin is an E. E.), but they do seem to share a
certain penchant for arrogance.  The analogy fails because I doubt
seriously whether even the "protocol community" has any basis for
speaking out authoritatively on the issue at hand, let alone Mr. Crispin.
There are undoubtedly many E.E.'s who would not share the view
being expressed. What is being said by Mr. Crispin, and the positions
being taken by this "protocol community," are based upon business
interests, not technology.  Hence, FUD.

> >  However, the
> > Internet does not exist for the benefit of the "protocol community"
> > or ICANN; those two entities exist for the benefit of Internet
> > users.
>
> Right.  Medicine doesn't exist for the benefit of doctors.  But if
> doctors tell us something is a bad idea, we generally listen.  If we
> got practically universal agreement among doctors that a procedure was a
> bad idea, we should almost certainly dump it.

Again, the analogy doesn't hold.  There is no "practically universal
agreement."

> The problem is protocol engineering really is a species of "rocket
> science"* -- it takes a long time to really understand the issues.  And,
> despitewhat you hear, most of the participants on these lists really
> aren't rocket scientists of the proper variety.

So IETF presumes to speak for these non-rocket scientists? Not for
me.  The problem with a group such as the IETF (to whom several
years ago I had begun to look to for expert guidance, but then gave
that up quite rapidly when I saw what it had done and was doing)
is that it becomes an in-grown cabal of "right thinkers," for whom
"right" more often has a business than a technological origin.  My
profession lies in determining what technology will work, and what
will not, and when are things being done for technological reasons
and when are they not.  I have learned not to depend on the IETF
for anything.

Bill Lovell

- --
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: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 15:03:05 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 02:33:49PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
[...]
> being expressed. What is being said by Mr. Crispin, and the positions
> being taken by this "protocol community," are based upon business
> interests, not technology.

Nope.  They are based on technology.

[...]

> > Right.  Medicine doesn't exist for the benefit of doctors.  But if
> > doctors tell us something is a bad idea, we generally listen.  If we
> > got practically universal agreement among doctors that a procedure was a
> > bad idea, we should almost certainly dump it.
> 
> Again, the analogy doesn't hold.  There is no "practically universal
> agreement."

Yes, among knowledgable protocol designers, there is.  You apparently
don't hang out with such people. 

> > The problem is protocol engineering really is a species of "rocket
> > science"* -- it takes a long time to really understand the issues.  And,
> > despitewhat you hear, most of the participants on these lists really
> > aren't rocket scientists of the proper variety.
> 
> So IETF presumes to speak for these non-rocket scientists?

Don't be silly.  The IETF speaks about protocol matters.  It is not 
speaking *for* you or anyone else.

> Not for
> me.  The problem with a group such as the IETF (to whom several
> years ago I had begun to look to for expert guidance, but then gave
> that up quite rapidly when I saw what it had done and was doing)
> is that it becomes an in-grown cabal of "right thinkers," for whom
> "right" more often has a business than a technological origin.

That simply illustrates your own lack of knowledge, I'm afraid.

>  My
> profession lies in determining what technology will work, and what
> will not, and when are things being done for technological reasons
> and when are they not.  I have learned not to depend on the IETF
> for anything.

I look forward to the cessation of your use of email, then, since the design 
of the email protocols came straight out of the IETF...

- -- 
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: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:37:55 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

Kent Crispin wrote:

>
>
> I look forward to the cessation of your use of email, then, since the design
> of the email protocols came straight out of the IETF...
>

Well, I'm going to end this silliness right now.  Mr. Crispin, I look forward to

the cessation of  your use of all optics, and all electronic communications,
since
one of my grandfathers helped put that first branch of physics together, and
another one did the second.  And, at least as to the second, they would not
like to see such misuse.

Bill Lovell

- --
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: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 09:42:24 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Virus warnings on the GA list

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
William S. Lovell
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 2:40 PM
To: Alexander Svensson; [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: Virus warnings on the GA list

Moreover, let's have this sleazy little weasel who is hiding
behind a cloak of anonymity with his complaint come
forward and face up to me and to the rest of the GA,
many of whom have invested great sums of money in
trying to stay in business in the face of viruses and the
like, with the grounds for his/her complaint.
<SNIP>

I didn't make the complaint but I fully agree with it.  I'm sure all
business people would love it if during their meetings protestors barged in
and started ranting about global warming.  There is a time and place for
everything.

To bring this back into GA Focus, the discussion should have been about
what measures are in place for the GA list.  Perhaps stripping all
attachments from mail sent to the list is appropriate?  This is done on a
number of lists.

Personally I would like to see all html mail rejected also.  There are a
number of exploits available that can be carried in html mail.

With respect to the anonymity of complaintants, perhaps your own
description of them as a "sleazy weasel" justifies the acceptance of
anonymous complaints.  I'm sure no one would appreciate rantings and
attacks from those complained about, with the possible exception of myself
and a few others :).

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 17:21:36 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 3:03 PM
> 
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 02:33:49PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> [...]
> > being expressed. What is being said by Mr. Crispin, and the 
> positions
> > being taken by this "protocol community," are based upon business
> > interests, not technology.
> 
> Nope.  They are based on technology.

In that case, the proof is ready for refutation ... where? It *does* include
running code, right?

Note that MHSC has had running code up for four years and every one of those
systems is connected via the Internet and are publically available. Also
ROOT-SERVICE.NET has had root zone servers on various colo clients for over
three years now. One of them is a very popular photo sharing site. It is
definitely connected to the Internet and sees more than 40 Mbps of traffic
24x7. it's part of a 4-way DNS cluster. You can reference one of the
resolvers, at 209.249.202.166, ignore the cache poisoning FUD.

Name space collisions are a people problem, not a technical one. This is why
the IAB abd PSO has no place pretending to authority on this issue.

> > > Right.  Medicine doesn't exist for the benefit of doctors.  But if
> > > doctors tell us something is a bad idea, we generally 
> listen.  If we
> > > got practically universal agreement among doctors that a 
> procedure was a
> > > bad idea, we should almost certainly dump it.
> > 
> > Again, the analogy doesn't hold.  There is no "practically universal
> > agreement."
> 
> Yes, among knowledgable protocol designers, there is.  You apparently
> don't hang out with such people. 

I can point out a whole crowd that disagrees. If you want to claim that they
are not knowlegable, then we can get down to a plain old fashioned coding
contest, or compare resumes, including my own, which is it? My choice of
weapons is gcc, on a Linux box, no GUI tools. My lab or yours?

> > > The problem is protocol engineering really is a species of "rocket
> > > science"* -- it takes a long time to really understand 
> the issues.  And,
> > > despitewhat you hear, most of the participants on these 
> lists really
> > > aren't rocket scientists of the proper variety.
> > 
> > So IETF presumes to speak for these non-rocket scientists?
> 
> Don't be silly.  The IETF speaks about protocol matters.  It is not 
> speaking *for* you or anyone else.

That we differ between unified-root or partitioned-root are not protocol
issues. In fact, the DNS is a distributed application that uses a particular
protocol. The application layer is what we are talking about.

> > Not for
> > me.  The problem with a group such as the IETF (to whom several
> > years ago I had begun to look to for expert guidance, but then gave
> > that up quite rapidly when I saw what it had done and was doing)
> > is that it becomes an in-grown cabal of "right thinkers," for whom
> > "right" more often has a business than a technological origin.
> 
> That simply illustrates your own lack of knowledge, I'm afraid.

I'm afraid that simply illustrates your level of troll-factor.

> >  My
> > profession lies in determining what technology will work, and what
> > will not, and when are things being done for technological reasons
> > and when are they not.  I have learned not to depend on the IETF
> > for anything.
> 
> I look forward to the cessation of your use of email, then, 
> since the design 
> of the email protocols came straight out of the IETF...

Current email protocols came straight out of sendmail. Eric will be quite
surpised to hear you claim otherwise. IETF adopted them after the fact.
FidoNet had email back in 1982. IETF didn't exist until 1989 or so. ...
amazing how those time-warps work to your sole benefit.
- --
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: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 21:21:47 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to  Cochet tiTransfer Letter)

Folks, I know I'll engage  much debate here, but I am under the impression
that domain names are not "private property". I believe that's the present
state of the law, but others who are lawyers can comment on that.

One registers and uses a domain name. That doesn't convey private property
rights in the domain name.  

I should duck, probably. 

:-)

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 4:44 PM
To: Jeff Williams
Cc: [email-masked]; Ross Wm. Rader
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to
CochettiTransfer Letter)

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Joanna and all assembly members,
>
> Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > on 7/27/01 1:18 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos at [email-masked]
wrote:
> > > I think this ought to be added to the thread "Domain Names as
Observed"
> > > (perhaps Joanna, you could add it to the list already at
> > internetstakeholders.com?)
> >
> > Done. The current list is:-
> >
> > A Domain Name is neither dial tone nor a telephone number. IP
connectivity
> > is the closest analog to dial tone. An IP address is the closest analog
to
> > the phone number, which the DNS was designed to mask for the benefit of
the
> > end-user. (Ross Wm. Rader)
> > Domain Names are a Public Resource.
> > Domain Names are Private Property.
>
>   You have a problem here with these two "Definitions?".  A Domain Name
> cannot be both a Public Resource and Private property.  I think you mean
> that the DNS is a Public Resource and Domain Names are Private Property?

I have to admit that these two "definitions" did appear rather contradictory
to me
as well.  I think you're quite correct here Jeff.

>
>
> >
> > Domain Names are currently subject to lease contracts with registrars.
> > Domain Names are a mnemonic aid for web site location.
> > Domain Names can be a mnemonic aid for an IP address.
>
>   This   is also technically incorrect as well.  And IP address is a
translator
> for a TLD or potentially a Domain Name.

This is a more subtle but equally important distinction.  The "content" of
an IP
address is informed by the registered Domain Name and its holder.  I think
this is
a crucial point to stress.  Nice heads-up Jeff.

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
- --
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: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:07:46 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to  Cochet tiTransfer Letter)

on 7/27/01 9:21 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA at [email-masked] wrote:

> Folks, I know I'll engage  much debate here, but I am under the impression
> that domain names are not "private property". I believe that's the present
> state of the law, but others who are lawyers can comment on that.
> 
> One registers and uses a domain name. That doesn't convey private property
> rights in the domain name.
> 
> I should duck, probably.
> 
> :-)
> 
> Marilyn

Is the ATT trademark private property? Do you not assume the same rights
have been conveyed in the att.com domain name?

(I should probably duck also)

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:37:01 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to  Cochet	tiTransfer Letter)

On 27 Jul 2001, at 21:21, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Folks, I know I'll engage  much debate here, but I am under the impression
> that domain names are not "private property". I believe that's the present
> state of the law, but others who are lawyers can comment on that.
> 
> One registers and uses a domain name. That doesn't convey private property
> rights in the domain name.  
> 
> I should duck, probably. 

I don't think so, Marilyn. ;)  However, while domain names may not be 
property in the sense of ownership, I do believe that once registered and 
as long as fees are paid, the rights to the use of the domain are pretty 
close to that.  It is my belief that a registrant should have control of the 
domain and has the rights to sell, lease, rent the use of it, but retains 
responsibility for adherance to terms and conditions of use regardless of 
who is using it.  I also believe the registrant has the rights to transfer 
that registration at will unless it has been encumbered in some way.

So, again, while it may not be property, there are rights in the contract 
(terms of service) unless otherwise specified.  The only reasons for 
revoking a registration should be illegal use proven in a court and upon 
presentation of a court order.  Registrants, IMO, should be able to feel 
secure in the use of a registered domain.

Leah

> 
> :-)
> 
> Marilyn
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 4:44 PM
> To: Jeff Williams
> Cc: [email-masked]; Ross Wm. Rader
> Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to
> CochettiTransfer Letter)
> 
> 
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> > Joanna and all assembly members,
> >
> > Joanna Lane wrote:
> >
> > > on 7/27/01 1:18 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos at [email-masked]
> wrote:
> > > > I think this ought to be added to the thread "Domain Names as
> Observed"
> > > > (perhaps Joanna, you could add it to the list already at
> > > internetstakeholders.com?)
> > >
> > > Done. The current list is:-
> > >
> > > A Domain Name is neither dial tone nor a telephone number. IP
> connectivity
> > > is the closest analog to dial tone. An IP address is the closest analog
> to
> > > the phone number, which the DNS was designed to mask for the benefit of
> the
> > > end-user. (Ross Wm. Rader)
> > > Domain Names are a Public Resource.
> > > Domain Names are Private Property.
> >
> >   You have a problem here with these two "Definitions?".  A Domain Name
> > cannot be both a Public Resource and Private property.  I think you mean
> > that the DNS is a Public Resource and Domain Names are Private Property?
> 
> I have to admit that these two "definitions" did appear rather
> contradictory to me as well.  I think you're quite correct here Jeff.
> 
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Domain Names are currently subject to lease contracts with registrars.
> > > Domain Names are a mnemonic aid for web site location. Domain Names can
> > > be a mnemonic aid for an IP address.
> >
> >   This   is also technically incorrect as well.  And IP address is a
> translator
> > for a TLD or potentially a Domain Name.
> 
> This is a more subtle but equally important distinction.  The "content" of
> an IP address is informed by the registered Domain Name and its holder.  I
> think this is a crucial point to stress.  Nice heads-up Jeff.
> 
> 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
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #636
************************