Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #785
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, October 12 2001           Volume 01 : Number 785

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

Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 17:50:39 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re[2]: ICANN and Internet Security and Stability Protection?

Dear Michiel,
On 16:48 11/10/01, Michiel Leenaars said:
>Hello Jefsey,
>JM> The idea is to work out an analysis methodology and a modelization with
>JM> observatories and test criteria. From then to create an Internet Security
>JM> and Stability Protection Advisory Committee to Govs and Governance 
>centers.
>
>Would a new organisation not stand the same risks as the old ones?

I do not think so. This is one of the reasons why it must be independent. 
Its role is to check others while all the others check it. It is not a 
matter of new or old: it is a matter of specialization. Nothing new under 
the sun: common Justice is better served if the judge is not one of the 
parties.

>My experience is that starting from scratch is necessary sometimes,
>and stupid most of the times. There would need to be a lot of
>cooperation with all the organisations in the field anyway, simply
>to get all the expertise and cooperation. An open framework such as
>ISOC (member based society, mother organisation to IETF, IAB, etc)
>might be a good way to embed such an activity - so that it won't
>crash down after initial success.

We are beyond the ISOC field. The ISOC (I am a Member) serves the Internet. 
Here the target is to serve the world. Let say that a Military Officer 
Association may help a lot in reorganizing an Army. Political parties are 
to assess the national defense policy.

>JM> This being used to filter out/in innovations and proposed changes.
>There's plenty of people doing that, most notably the IAB and IESG,
>and I really can't see anyone doing a better job. These are all
>very very senior people, mandated by the IETF-members (who have
>a very broad background) and refreshed regularly. There will be
>little room for a new organisation, unless it is backed by
>established others.

Again, this is not the same scope. Obviously ISOC, IAB, IESG people are 
welcome. But also are NATO, Russian and Chinese Generals, also are OPEP 
people, also are National Bar Association also are Bank Association , 
Airlines, Media, TM owners, Churches, Police, Intelligence people, Consumer 
associations, etc..etc... The people you list are the providers, the people 
concerned as the users.

When you consider road security and traffic stability, the road builders 
and architects are obviously concerned, but government calls too on car 
makers, police, gas stations, drivers clubs, garage franchises, environment 
association, consumer organizations, political parties, mayors, driver 
unions, etc...

The target is not to criticize but to help working together ways towards 
security, stability and  improvement. A simple example: ignorance is often 
a reason of distrust and internal distrust is a security and stability 
weakness. To have all the bodies you quote and many others sharing into the 
Internet Governance to study and agree on a common frame to present their 
organization may help reducing the distrust and by the same token 
dramatically help their outreach efforts through the resulting synergy.

Another one: EEC has published a White Book on Governance and Belgium would 
like Governance to be the next European challenge after the Euro. How to 
govern ourselves together. No one has analyzed the Internet Governance yet 
as such , however all of us share into a real and often long experience on 
the matter. Internet governance is certainly an important experience we can 
bring to Europe. Its security and stability analysis too. What is true for 
Europe is true for every other country in the world.

A last one: during the last campaign for DNSO election to the BoD I 
initiated a cross candidate proposition I hope Amadeu Abril i Abril who has 
been happily elected will support. This is very simple thing: that every 
governance proposition includes a small part explaining who it contributes 
to reducing the lingual, financial and digital divides. A very small thing, 
but probably a real stability  and mutual security factor.

Best regards.
Jefsey Morfin

- --
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, 12 Oct 2001 07:15:37 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The position of the GA?

On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 21:45:25 EDT, [email-masked] wrote:

>So far there have been restructuring position papers put forth by the 
>registrars, the business constituency, the gTLD registries, and the ALSC.  
>The gTLDs have referenced the concept of the Open Forum (GA) in this 
>statement:  
>
>"If Supporting Organizations are created to reflect the views of particular 
>groups, there should be some new cross-SO mechanism to facilitate inter-SO 
>deliberation on policies that might affect various SOs and to generate 
>documented consensus (on the basis of which the Board could take action)."
>
>The General Assembly membership should contribute to this debate as well.  I 
>would ask those that have already shown an interest in this topic, Kent 
>Crispin, David Farrar, Joop Teenstra, Ross Rader, and Tim Langdell, among 
>others, to assist in leading a discussion that would result in a GA position 
>paper.

This is an interesting area.  One option is to look on the SOs as
different Houses of Parliament and hence what the US does is to have a
joint House-Senate cmte iron out any differences.

However one could argue that this joint ""House-Senate" Committee is
in fact the Board as the Board is turning into being wholly appointed
by SOs.

Another approach is to have an ICANN GA.  However this would risk
being repetitive as it could be much the same people as would be in
the ALSO GA.

One could have a special committee with equal reps from each SO
(either permanent or established for each issue) but this is sounding
and smelling a bit like the Names Council and may be equally
unsuccessful.

Perhaps we need to focus on issues outside structure but more of
resources.  As with many non-profits the staff has huge ability to
influence things due to their position and available time.

A key to any cross-SO open forum is to have some sort of staff
resource allocated to it by ICANN.  Someone who can summarise
documents, record consensus, liaise with other ICANN staff on issues
etc etc.

Anyway these are just initial thoughts.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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, 11 Oct 2001 14:37:27 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] VeriSign/RealNames

Dear Stuart,

In ICP-3 you wrote:  

&#8220;They work under the philosophy that if they get there first with something that looks like a TLD and invite many registrants to participate, then ICANN will be required by their very presence and force of numbers to recognize in perpetuity these pseudo TLDs, inhibiting new TLDs with the same top-level name from being launched through the community's processes.

No current policy would allow ICANN to grant such preferential rights. To do so would effectively yield ICANN's mandate to introduce new TLDs in an orderly manner in the public interest to those who would simply grab all the TLD names that seem to have any marketplace value, thus circumventing the community-based processes that ICANN is required to follow. For ICANN to yield its mandate would be a violation of the public trust under which ICANN was created and under which it must operate. Were it to grant such preferential rights, ICANN would abandon this public trust, rooted in the community, to those who only act for their own benefit. Indeed, granting preferential rights could jeopardize the stability of the DNS, violating ICANN's fundamental mandate.&#8221;

Today VeriSign announced that is making RealNames Keywords available to its global network of over 90 domain name registrars, enabling those registrars to sell Keywords.  The RealNames Keyword system is integrated into Microsoft Internet Explorer browser software.  This creates the prospect that &#8220;different answers&#8221; will be given to the same query depending upon the user&#8217;s choice of browser.

As ICANN has a role as a coordinator, how do you view this major product launch which utilizes a layer on top of DNS, in effect creating &#8220;something that looks like a TLD&#8221;?

- --
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, 11 Oct 2001 08:04:43 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] proposed ICANN structure 

Dear all,
Danny has requested a GA proposition concerning the ICANN structure. IMHO 
an ICANN structure proposition calls first for an analysis of its social 
environment to understand where it fits and what is expected from it. Then 
to determine how it may best fulfill these expectations. Then the most 
adequate structure to best perform.

Once this has been defined, specific needs or obligations can be 
consistently addressed simply enough. Obviously this "wild" scheme below 
has the simplicity of a strict conformance with the initial RFCs, ccTLD 
best practices and with common sense as often expressed on this GA. But I 
think that common sense may be in many areas a Sept 11th aftermath. So who 
knows.

1. The ICANN is part of the Internet Governance

The Internet is the consensus of its participants, whatever their size, to 
interconnect their systems under the TCP/IP in using the IP and domain 
naming plans. Their management of the consensus of the Global Internet 
Community they form together is the Internet Governance.

This governance is assumed by the Internet participants on a voluntary 
basis. The governance participants may share into the governance either in 
a structured way through dedicated interest groups (constituencies, working 
groups, etc...) or on an individual manner. In that later case they are 
referred to as "@large Members".

This governance organizes itself to address them to address the needs it 
observes. It proceeds through ad-hoc specialized and complementary 
dedicated centers, such as those for network architecture, engineering 
cooperation, addressing plans coordination, security, netiquette, national 
or TLD management centers, user education, innovation catalysis, consumer 
representation, governments coordination, etc.

The different governance centers adopt the organization best suiting their 
needs where both Internet participants dedicated interest groups and @large 
members may share.

The stability and the security of an unlimited interconnect consensual 
system of such magnitude as the Internet require the smallest number 
possible of rules and of changes that everyone may understand, accept and 
rely upon to build their own applications. These rules are published by the 
different ad-hoc centers (RFC for the engineering, ICP for the addressing 
plans, etc...) after a process of consensual analysis and agreement uncovering.

2. The ICANN specialized area

The Internet needs a simple, powerful and stable addressing scheme. The 
ICANN wants to be the ad-hoc governance center to uncover and support the 
Internet Participants' consensus in that area.

Addressing involves three plans: IP addresses at interconnection level, 
names both for mnemonics and at machine level, protocol numbers at port 
access level. The responsibility undertaken by the ICANN (known as IANA 
functions) is to avoid conflicts in number and names through three "first 
come/first serve" registries subject  to registration prerequisites. These 
prerequisites are presented and described in the ICP documents.

3. Organization

The ICP documents result, through dedicated support organizations, from a 
consensual uncovering permanent effort both by all the stake holding 
organizations - them focusing on the netwide management aspects in their 
area of concern - and by the @large - them offering reviews of the global 
impact on the society and of the individual interest best service.

The ICANN is naturally organized into three basic Support Organizations 
(Protocol, IP and Name registries). These SO are the interfaces of the 
ICANN BoD and of the Staff with the Internet Participants, both @large and 
Constituencies.

Constituencies may freely participate to SOs on the basis of their 
concerns. @large freely participate to the GA of the SOs. Each SO has a 
Council where constituencies and @large are equally represented. This 
Council coordinates the work of the SO. The SO Councils share with the 
global @large membership to elect the BoD Members in such a way that - a 
part from the ICANN President a non elected Director -  the Directors 
equally come from Constituencies and from @large.

The ICANN shares into the specification and the maintenance of mail based 
governance management system. It is used by every working group and even at 
face to face meeting to permit remote people to be associated to the 
debate.  As a reference, archiving, polling tool it makes secret 
preparatory meetings less effective and progressively leads to transparency.

4. ICANN financing

ICANN assumes responsibility for the Internet Participant governance 
contribution collection. It carries the responsibility to organize and to 
channel it to governance Members. This contribution is included in the IP 
address allocation fee. This both the only long range stable and clearly 
defined charge by the ICANN, and a fairly distributed charge as 
sophisticated users (portable, private systems) will use large number of 
addresses while developing countries obtain reasonable access while sharing 
them.

Each governance center, SOs and constituency will benefit from this 
governance budget through a consensual process where every concerned party 
is represented.

5. ICANN Virtual Campus

The ICANN is well located to be one of the governance focal points where 
constituencies, associations, working groups may meet and cross fertilize. 
This is mainly carried through the organization of quarterly and yearly 
gatherings, possibly an Internet Show and of secretariat services.

This role is only an assistance offered to the Global Internet Community. 
It is not a way to obtain any form of dominance. In a governance mechanism 
leadership is provided through catalysis.

This ICANN Campus may offer "virtual housing" to governance bodies such as:

- - SSRAC : the USG root server system founded by the TLDs using it
- - Constituencies
- - IANA database and ccTLD Alliance
- - International @large Network Association (IALNA) : made of all the @large 
Members
- - GAC
- - a Consummation Consultative Committee
- - the Internet Security and Stability Protection Advisory Committee
- - the TLDA
- - etc...

The ICANN Campus charter permits a certain cohesion between these groups 
which helps when organizing common meetings, presentation, etc... This 
culture is based upon a common use of the same mail management based system 
and on the agreement that every common proposition will include a paragraph 
explaining how it will reduce the lingual, financial and digital divide.

6. ICANN Root Service

The ICANN assumes the IANA function of registering and updating the master 
file of the Name Registries (root) and to organize its distribution to the 
value added service providers (SSRAC, NICs, TLDs, ISP, ASP, TLDs, 
Registrars, Anti-Virus services, Registrants associations, etc...).

7. Naming confusion resolution procedures

Confusion may arise in the use of the ICANN registries from:
- -  loss of ICANN or TLD registry information
- -  inadequate choice of a name for a TLD or for a user domain.

The first confusion will be addressed by the delivery of a smart card 
providing both a permanent title to a name of domain and a way of access to 
its re-registration in case of failure or of transfer or to the change of 
its DNS parameters.

The second type of confusion concerns the adequacy of the user chosen 
domain name with the site as perceived by the users. This confusion is 
cleared through the call to a randomly selected large user panel of the 
same culture as the concerned domain name character set. The ICANN and the 
Registries are in no way concerned by the right to use a TM by a domain 
owner. Their duty is to the Internet Participants and it is to make sure 
that they are not confused and do not reach a site they did not cant to 
access. The common national laws on TM apply on the illegal use of TM, the 
ICANN and the TLD will only apply the international treaties on TM justice 
decision enforcement as they may be agreed by Governments.

TLD cybersquatting results from the ICANN failure to fulfill its IANA TLD 
registration function as per the RFC 920. The correct approach described 
above will correct that situation and stop TLD cybersquatting.

DN cybersquatting results from the ICANN acceptation of domain name 
transfers as if a name was not the designation of a given domain. The free 
competition between TLDs will probably lead new TLDs to propose a correct 
approach of the Internet user domain naming: domain life long free domain 
name allocation, no transfer allowed without the real transfer of the 
domain, charge on the basis of the information service provided to the 
accessing users. This should get progressively rid of cybersquatting and of 
the UDRP legal interference.

7. ICANN Membership

In choosing to assume naming management responsibility the ICANN has signed 
an agreement with the USG for the transfer of the IANA functions. This 
agreement obliged the ICANN to respect some obligations concerning its 
nationality and its monopoly role. The transfer of the USG root to the 
ICANN should be completed rapidly as an Internet Security and Stability 
Protection issue. Both to permit the USA to better control what is 
happening on their on soil as may do all the other countries. And to remove 
the "USA" tag on the Internet which may become detrimental to the Internet 
and therefore to the US interests themselves.

An international association status like the IATA or the ICC is the best 
solution for the ICANN. To protect its independence while fully assuming 
its international status, the ICANN should be reincorporated as the 
association of the national NICs assuming the national animation of the 
Internet Participants, the national ccTLD management and the IP addressing 
allocation and contribution recovery. The ICANN GA formed by the NIC would 
control the ICANN budget and approve the ICANN bylaws modifications.

This association will include Constituencies and @large as voting colleges 
to the BoD. The BoD election mechanism will be extremely simple and cheap 
since @large are the Members of the various mutually accepted governance 
centers: ISOC, IETF, IALNA, ICANNWatch, IDNHC, local NIC etc... etc... 
These Members clearly identified, active participants all the year long. 
They are  occasionaly poled on the various goverance matters, every two 
years elect the BoD Directors.

I made a dream...

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, 11 Oct 2001 23:16:21 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC Review TF Public comment mailing list

C'est un message de format MIME en plusieurs parties.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01C152AA.BD125DE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[[email-masked]]
[[email-masked]]
[[email-masked]]
[[email-masked]]

The mailing list for public comments on the report from
the NC Review TF is open, starting today, 11 October 2001.

Archives in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc01/

The Review report is in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html

DNSO Secretariat

- ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01C152AA.BD125DE0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>[[email-masked]]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>[[email-masked]]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>[[email-masked]]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>[<A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>The mailing list for public comments&nbsp;on the report from<BR>the =
NC=20
Review TF is open, starting today, 11 October 2001.<BR><BR>Archives =
in:<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc01/">htt=
p://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc01/</A><BR><BR>The =

Review report is in:<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html">htt=
p://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html</A><BR><BR>DNSO=
=20
Secretariat</DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01C152AA.BD125DE0--

- --
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, 11 Oct 2001 22:46:26 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Under $6.00 pricing by NetSol - ICANN BoD Judgment errors...

On 21:08 11/10/01, Jeff Williams said:
>I also have the same problem, Jefsey.  However I will say that the idea
>of having registrars was to provide competition for Domain Names
>in .COM, .NET, .ORG...  But had there been the registries allowed
>first, the registrars would not have been as necessary.

The target being to provide competition among registies to reduce their 
market share I fail to understand how creating more sales for the same 
registry could do that. The only thing was the $ 6  per DN of NSI registry 
were protected and more sales coming in. So instead of creating competition 
they created cynersquatting sponsors and made NSI financed by unlucky 
investors.

Actually it has helped competition against the ccTLDs and still augmented 
the NSI market share.
I many langages and in many countries people doing just that are called 
crooks or stupid. In this case I do not know the American word?

- --
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, 11 Oct 2001 23:38:34 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign/RealNames

Dear Danny,
the entry of Real Name in the Registrar business is a direct violation of 
the DNS far more important than New.net. This is a true alternative 
proprietary naming plan. Not a value added DNS service.

On 20:37 11/10/01, [email-masked] said:
>Dear Stuart,
>in ICP-3 you wrote:

Forget about Stuart: the only advantage is to show him that a naming plan 
has no root. And the time he made us to waste. And the time he makes us to 
waste with his MdR meeting.

>Today VeriSign announced that is making RealNames Keywords available to 
>its global network of over 90 domain name registrars, enabling those 
>registrars to sell Keywords.  The RealNames Keyword system is integrated 
>into Microsoft Internet Explorer browser software.  This creates the 
>prospect that different answers; will be given to the same query depending 
>upon the users choice of browser.

Real Names are real altenative TLDs. As such they are in direct violation 
withe the NSI/USG cooperation agreement. This legally terminates the 
relations between USG, ICANN and NSI.
Obiously they thought the situation adequate for such a "coup" after the 
11th September and Stuart Lynn's agenda for the MdR meeting. They presumed 
that 5100 deads are more important than to check NSI was introducing 
something wrong.  After taht it will be "fait accompli".

>As ICANN has a role as a coordinator, how do you view this major product 
>launch which utilizes a layer on top of DNS, in effect creating something 
>that looks like a TLD.

Not one TLD. Billions of TLDs: real names this a default TLD. It kills the 
DNS system and gives NSI a defacto monopoly on the Internet. Next step they 
will permit people to create their own sub-real nae for a fee. This a new 
name space reserved to IE users and probably soon to passport owners, with 
plenty of valuable new services.

This time we  really are at war.  How to react?
- - file an UDRP :-)
- - Denounce the Registrars contract if they sell real names? Half the 
registrars are owned by NSI: they do not care. The practical retailiation 
capacity of NSI is tremendous: they just have to get some problems with 
their computers.
- - publish a press release?
- - send Joe Sims... he will tell you he has explained the trick to them...
- - send a Tomahawk on Herndon? Microsoft leads the game.
Well timed. Question to XTNS: you said you were exclusive? Are you with 
them on this?

Now, NSI will relax. They will do as for the iDNs. Pass the lead to MS. See 
the legal impact. This gives us a few months may be one year to organize a 
response. But obviously not with the ICANN: they will be talking about what 
to do should someone do what NSI did. :-)

BTW, there is task force on UDRP :-) Maybe could they consider what is a 
domain name :-)
A real name sold outside of the DNS by an ICANN registrar?

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, 11 Oct 2001 23:34:31 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC dot Org TF Public mailing list

C'est un message de format MIME en plusieurs parties.

- ------=_NextPart_000_009A_01C152AD.46DB94E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[[email-masked]]
[[email-masked]]
[[email-masked]]
[[email-masked]]

The mailing list for public comments on the report from
the NC dot org TF is open, starting today, 11 October,
ending Sunday 28 October 2001.

Archives in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-dotorg/Arc01/

The dot org report is in:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00142.html

DNSO Secretariat

- ------=_NextPart_000_009A_01C152AD.46DB94E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>[[email-masked]]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>[[email-masked]]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>[[email-masked]]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>[[email-masked]]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>The mailing list for public comments&nbsp;on the report from<BR>the =
NC dot=20
org TF is open, starting today, 11 October,<BR>ending Sunday 28 October=20
2001.<BR><BR>Archives in:<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-dotorg/Arc01/">htt=
p://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-dotorg/Arc01/</A><BR><BR>The =

dot org report is in:<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00142.html">http:=
//www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00142.html</A><BR><BR>DNSO=20
Secretariat</DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_009A_01C152AD.46DB94E0--

- --
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, 11 Oct 2001 14:09:25 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign/RealNames

Danny

I do not speak for either Realnames or VeriSign, but I feel compelled to
correct you on what you say. Realnames Keywords are not in any way in
potential or real conflict with ICANN approved domain names. Keywords are
either single words or more than word separate by spaces (not dots). These
are the Keywords that VeriSign and Realnames announced would be available
via the VeriSign network. There is thus no possibility of different answers
as you say, or variance based on choice of browser (other than for Realnames
Keywords, which is surely not a concern for you is it? Certainly not for
ICANN).

Last, Realnames Keywords do not "look like TLDs". Again, they lack dots in
them and instead have spaces or are single words.

Tim

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 11:37 AM
Subject: [ga] VeriSign/RealNames

> Dear Stuart,
>
> In ICP-3 you wrote:
>
> &#8220;They work under the philosophy that if they get there first with
something that looks like a TLD and invite many registrants to participate,
then ICANN will be required by their very presence and force of numbers to
recognize in perpetuity these pseudo TLDs, inhibiting new TLDs with the same
top-level name from being launched through the community's processes.
>
> No current policy would allow ICANN to grant such preferential rights. To
do so would effectively yield ICANN's mandate to introduce new TLDs in an
orderly manner in the public interest to those who would simply grab all the
TLD names that seem to have any marketplace value, thus circumventing the
community-based processes that ICANN is required to follow. For ICANN to
yield its mandate would be a violation of the public trust under which ICANN
was created and under which it must operate. Were it to grant such
preferential rights, ICANN would abandon this public trust, rooted in the
community, to those who only act for their own benefit. Indeed, granting
preferential rights could jeopardize the stability of the DNS, violating
ICANN's fundamental mandate.&#8221;
>
> Today VeriSign announced that is making RealNames Keywords available to
its global network of over 90 domain name registrars, enabling those
registrars to sell Keywords.  The RealNames Keyword system is integrated
into Microsoft Internet Explorer browser software.  This creates the
prospect that &#8220;different answers&#8221; will be given to the same
query depending upon the user&#8217;s choice of browser.
>
> As ICANN has a role as a coordinator, how do you view this major product
launch which utilizes a layer on top of DNS, in effect creating
&#8220;something that looks like a TLD&#8221;?
>
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:22:26 +0100
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re VeriSign/RealNames

Hi Tim,

I notice you are not including a reply about XTNS in your response, odd
given you are its CEO.

Its funny, because you made plenty of noise about XTNS offering dotted
keywords and how they would act like real domains, and then you simply
removed all mention of it from your site and never communicated with any of
your customers who had ordered them based on your patently erroneous
statements.

If anything the XTNS farce just reinforces the validity of "real" DNS.

Regards

Paul Cotton

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Langdell" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign/RealNames

Danny

I do not speak for either Realnames or VeriSign, but I feel compelled to
correct you on what you say. Realnames Keywords are not in any way in
potential or real conflict with ICANN approved domain names. Keywords are
either single words or more than word separate by spaces (not dots). These
are the Keywords that VeriSign and Realnames announced would be available
via the VeriSign network. There is thus no possibility of different answers
as you say, or variance based on choice of browser (other than for Realnames
Keywords, which is surely not a concern for you is it? Certainly not for
ICANN).

Last, Realnames Keywords do not "look like TLDs". Again, they lack dots in
them and instead have spaces or are single words.

Tim

- --
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, 11 Oct 2001 18:26:06 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign/RealNames - INEGroup predictions coming true..

Danny, Stuart and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Stuart,
>
> In ICP-3 you wrote:
>
> &#8220;They work under the philosophy that if they get there first with something that looks like a TLD and invite many registrants to participate, then ICANN will be required by their very presence and force of numbers to recognize in perpetuity these pseudo TLDs, inhibiting new TLDs with the same top-level name from being launched through the community's processes.
>
> No current policy would allow ICANN to grant such preferential rights. To do so would effectively yield ICANN's mandate to introduce new TLDs in an orderly manner in the public interest to those who would simply grab all the TLD names that seem to have any marketplace value, thus circumventing the community-based processes that ICANN is required to follow. For ICANN to yield its mandate would be a violation of the public trust under which ICANN was created and under which it must operate. Were it to grant such preferential rights, ICANN would abandon this public trust, rooted in the community, to those who only act for their own benefit. Indeed, granting preferential rights could jeopardize the stability of the DNS, violating ICANN's fundamental mandate.&#8221;
>
> Today VeriSign announced that is making RealNames Keywords available to its global network of over 90 domain name registrars, enabling those registrars to sell Keywords.  The RealNames Keyword system is integrated into Microsoft Internet Explorer browser software.  This creates the prospect that &#8220;different answers&#8221; will be given to the same query depending upon the user&#8217;s choice of browser.
>
> As ICANN has a role as a coordinator, how do you view this major product launch which utilizes a layer on top of DNS, in effect creating &#8220;something that looks like a TLD&#8221;?

  First let me say I cannot speak for Stuart, but I can for our members.
We predicted over two years ago now that these sorts of approaches
to DNS enhancement would be occurring.  This latest announcement
is very similar to AOL's about a year ago.  It is one of several
methods that the internet technical aspect of the industry will be
addressing ICANN's short sightedness and lack of "Clue"
to the TLD introduction sense abandoning RFC1591.  Many,
many more will follow in fairly short order to this method, and the
methods will very as well...  We view this as industry driving
the use of developing technologies for the benefit of the stakeholders
without undue regulation...

>
>

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: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:26:34 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re VeriSign/RealNames

Paul

I don't understand your message. The reason I didn't mention XTNS in my
response is because Danny's message didn't reference XTNS at all. His
comments were solely restricted to VeriSign and Realnames Keywords products.

As to you other points, I am totally mystified. We have not "made plenty of
noise about offering dotted keywords" -- in fact we have never once said
that we offer "dotted keywords" (not the least because we do not). The
namespaces we do offer are still on sale on our site and have not been
removed. Indeed they were recently enhanced by the launch of our fully
multilingual namespaces in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Hebrew and Arabic. I
am thus entirely at a loss to understand any part of your message.

Tim

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 3:22 PM
Subject: [ga] Re VeriSign/RealNames

> Hi Tim,
>
> I notice you are not including a reply about XTNS in your response, odd
> given you are its CEO.
>
> Its funny, because you made plenty of noise about XTNS offering dotted
> keywords and how they would act like real domains, and then you simply
> removed all mention of it from your site and never communicated with any
of
> your customers who had ordered them based on your patently erroneous
> statements.
>
> If anything the XTNS farce just reinforces the validity of "real" DNS.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul Cotton
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Langdell" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign/RealNames
>
>
> Danny
>
> I do not speak for either Realnames or VeriSign, but I feel compelled to
> correct you on what you say. Realnames Keywords are not in any way in
> potential or real conflict with ICANN approved domain names. Keywords are
> either single words or more than word separate by spaces (not dots). These
> are the Keywords that VeriSign and Realnames announced would be available
> via the VeriSign network. There is thus no possibility of different
answers
> as you say, or variance based on choice of browser (other than for
Realnames
> Keywords, which is surely not a concern for you is it? Certainly not for
> ICANN).
>
> Last, Realnames Keywords do not "look like TLDs". Again, they lack dots in
> them and instead have spaces or are single words.
>
> Tim
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #785
************************