Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #786
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, October 12 2001           Volume 01 : Number 786

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

Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 20:15:36 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] .BIZ Litigation update

Posted to the registrars list:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01343.html

I have spoken with Bret Fausett who attended the hearings yesterday and
today and he provide me the following information listed below. Please check
the Blog for any additional information that should be forthcoming:
http://www.lextext.com/icann/

NeuLevel disclose during the hearing that it had received 282,000 unique 2nd
level domain names requests broken down accordingly: Class I (one applicant,
one domain name) approx. 193,000; Class II-A (one applicant, multiple domain
name requests) approx. 30,000; and Class II-B (multiple applicants, multiple
requests) approx. 58,000. In connection with the Class II-B names there were
1.5 million requests.

The Judge issued a preliminary injunction limited to the Class II-B names.
In light of the 1.5 million requests associated with these names, the judge
requested a 3 million payment from NeuLevel to be held in trust by the
court. The Plaintiffs were required to post $800,000 for a total of $1.6
million.

It appears that the trial will not happen for several months to allow
plaintiffs to conduct discovery and serve additional defendants (aka
registrars). With regard to several registrars that previously discussed a
possible joint defense please consider the following. The judge was
questioning his ability to excercise jurisdiction over registrars located
outside the US. This may be valuable information for non-US based registrars
in determining legal counsel should you get served. Just some friendly
(non-legal) advice.

Mike
- --
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 19:14:42 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re VeriSign/RealNames

Dear fine Gentlemen,

May peace find you and may your children be happy because you are their
father.

You two really do know a lot about this topic and may I be so bold as to
request
that you post some insight onto the list from a technical perspective as
to why
this is not exactly what was touted as the boogie man of inclusive
roots.

Let us start with the premise that we are not talking about addresses
here but
about names and their uses.  Although please back up and educate why if
taken
incorrectly my statement is wrong.

Please also take it as a given that to us dotcommoners it looks just the
same.

Thank you for any effort you may afford, and try to remember for each
dummy like
me you educate we will relate it to a bunch more dummies, and I do not
know if
that is good or bad.

Sincerely,
Eric

Tim Langdell wrote:

> 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
- --
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 21:49:32 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .BIZ Litigation update

Danny and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Posted to the registrars list:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01343.html
>
> I have spoken with Bret Fausett who attended the hearings yesterday and
> today and he provide me the following information listed below. Please check
> the Blog for any additional information that should be forthcoming:
> http://www.lextext.com/icann/
>
> NeuLevel disclose during the hearing that it had received 282,000 unique 2nd
> level domain names requests broken down accordingly: Class I (one applicant,
> one domain name) approx. 193,000; Class II-A (one applicant, multiple domain
> name requests) approx. 30,000; and Class II-B (multiple applicants, multiple
> requests) approx. 58,000. In connection with the Class II-B names there were
> 1.5 million requests.
>
> The Judge issued a preliminary injunction limited to the Class II-B names.
> In light of the 1.5 million requests associated with these names, the judge
> requested a 3 million payment from NeuLevel to be held in trust by the
> court. The Plaintiffs were required to post $800,000 for a total of $1.6
> million.
>
> It appears that the trial will not happen for several months to allow
> plaintiffs to conduct discovery and serve additional defendants (aka
> registrars). With regard to several registrars that previously discussed a
> possible joint defense please consider the following. The judge was
> questioning his ability to excercise jurisdiction over registrars located
> outside the US. This may be valuable information for non-US based registrars
> in determining legal counsel should you get served. Just some friendly
> (non-legal) advice.

  Two comments and/or observations:

1.) The final paragraph/comment from Michael Plage would seem to be
     particularly interesting as well as a word to the wise in the future
     direction which I suspect the ICANN BoD and staff may take
     with future registries for TLD's.

2.) Several of our members as I understand it also were in attendance.
      The fact that a judgment for a significant amount of funds from Nulevel
      would seem to bare out our contention regarding Nuelevel's original
      submission for the .BIZ TLD and their known personages involved
      in the nuelevel management with respect to attitude towards potential
      stakeholders and business methods al la CORE.

  It has been our collective opinion, and request on several occasions
posted publicly to this Forum and directly to the ICANN BoD and
staff that Nuelevel's contract and accreditation be retracted as a result
of their disregard for stakeholders and normal business norms.

>
>
> Mike

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 22:05:38 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Elisibeth Portenuevo

Perhaps the reports of her passing the mantle are premature and in such
case this is merely a tribute;

She has been a friend and a mentor
and her contribution has been without rancor
I consider her a friend
that I could count on to the end
who can fill the shoes she wore
who can carry burdens she bore
if I should die before I wake
I pray my girls like her God will make
multilingualism is just but one
of the jobs that she saw done
she kept us all in rank and file
she is a professional there is no denial
I hope she keeps the GA close to her heart
for we shall miss her on her departe.

Thank you for all your great service and dedication.  While you and I
shall seldom see eye to eye at least we have had the pleasure of knowing
that we could look there and see truth.

May God flatten mountains and raise valleys so that your walk is smooth
and your burden lessened.  May your family and friends adore you and
wish you the best as I do for all the days of your existence.

Sincerely,
Eric and all dotcommoners

- --
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 22:30:03 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] A tale of one city/ multilingual and Multicultural

So one of my roommates tells me to take this Pho bowl next door as a
gift.  Our TV is on a Vietnamese/Chinese station with news of the
Indonesian riots.  I go next door and in Togalog I am offered to sit and
watch Philippine TV, - news of the memorial services.  I leave and some
Guatemalan kid tosses a rock at this Sudanese kid and hits my car.  OK,
so we all go over and as we talk about the little ruffians we are
watching Mexican coverage of a futball game.  Dang! Puebla is kicking
butt (my adopted city in Mex.) so we get sidetracked and the kids
escape.

The point is that somehow they cover all world events in many languages
and we are the most advanced in all those languages and cultures and
technology.  Certainly we can advance along those lines and
cross-culture communicate and reach consensus better.

Just a desire and request for more input from more members.  Of all the
attacks on this list I have never seen a newbie attacked and I have
never seen anyone attacked for difficulty in english.

May all water flow in a circle, from earth to clouds, from mountains to
the oceans and around again and may your circle flow in a manner that
touches the GA.  Our circle would be better for it.

Sincerely,
Eric

- --
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 00:42:58 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Elisibeth Portenuevo

Eric and all assembly members,

  And now my fellow assembly members, you will please turn
your song books to "Rock of ages".  Let us all sing out now!
ROFLMAO!!!

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Perhaps the reports of her passing the mantle are premature and in such
> case this is merely a tribute;
>
> She has been a friend and a mentor
> and her contribution has been without rancor
> I consider her a friend
> that I could count on to the end
> who can fill the shoes she wore
> who can carry burdens she bore
> if I should die before I wake
> I pray my girls like her God will make
> multilingualism is just but one
> of the jobs that she saw done
> she kept us all in rank and file
> she is a professional there is no denial
> I hope she keeps the GA close to her heart
> for we shall miss her on her departe.
>
> Thank you for all your great service and dedication.  While you and I
> shall seldom see eye to eye at least we have had the pleasure of knowing
> that we could look there and see truth.
>
> May God flatten mountains and raise valleys so that your walk is smooth
> and your burden lessened.  May your family and friends adore you and
> wish you the best as I do for all the days of your existence.
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric and all dotcommoners
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 22:47:19 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] existing structure

http://www.icann.org/general/icann-org-chart_frame.htm

Please review this site.  Note there are 3+3+3+5 seats designated and
yet 19 seats on the board.

No organizational explanation because there is not one.

Goodness we must come up with a structure that will pass muster to
mathematicians.

Eric
- --
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 23:39:44 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Consensus

Dear Friends,

I have no authority here and only ask from my position on this list.

We have several important position papers and other matters that are
pending, not to mention the "security meeting" called in MDR ( and I
loved Joe's comment from NSI to the effect that the only security that
the BoD& ICANN is concerned with is JOB security)

Perhaps we could use the sublists for a point of impact and lack of
restriction on free speech. Maybe we could use them to build instead of
diminish.

Please up up up with your contributions of thought.  If there is an
increase I promise to decrease mine and help organize and put in proper
place for consensus yours.

"I am lowly but together you are great and I beg to serve but only if
you lead"  There is $20 at paypal if any can guess that quote  - who
made it?.

Eric

- --
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 10:53:33 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC dot Org TF public comment closes on 26 Oct 2001

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

- ------=_NextPart_000_00D6_01C1530C.23219180
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

Please note the change in closing date.

The mailing list for public comments to the report from
the NC dot org TF is open, starting today, 11 October,
ending Friday 26 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_00D6_01C1530C.23219180
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>Please note the change in closing date.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>The mailing list for public comments to the report from<BR>the NC =
dot org=20
TF is open, starting today, 11=20
October,<BR>ending&nbsp;Friday&nbsp;26&nbsp;October =
2001.<BR><BR>Archives=20
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_00D6_01C1530C.23219180--

- --
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 02:53:32 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: NC meeting

Friday, Friday, October 12, 2001, 1:20:57 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> William,
> the NC discussed your request at its meeting yesterday but did not consider
> it was appropriate to take it further at this stage.

So, the GA must remain without a Chair who believes in building
consensus on issues to bring to the NC or the ICANN BOD?

Sorry, Philip, but I consider this decision irresponsible, and I will
be calling each individual member of the Names Council to task on this
decision on the GA list, and asking them to justify their position.  I
will make a list, and place all NC members on there, as those who
support that kind of ineffective chair for the GA, and will remove
those who make clear statements that they would support action to get
a real chair for the GA.

You read his post, he believes that bringing issues from the GA to the
NC is a waste of time, and refuses to engage in that kind of action,
when that is EXACTLY what he is supposed to be doing.

What possible reason could exist to leave him in place after he made
that statement that he was not going to do what he was appointed to
do?

> We will however be asking the GA chair for his recommendations following the
> resignation of the alt chair.

You expect him to give you more guidance than he has ever given the
GA?

The GA, and thus the bottom up process that the DNSO is supposed to
have, CANNOT gain legitimacy in this environment.

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:58:26 +0200
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign/RealNames

On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 02:09:25PM -0700, Tim Langdell took time to write:
> 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).

I am sorry, but I do not think so.
IIRC modern browsers, when you input just a name, try to automatically
add www. and .com in front and in back to provide an URL.
That is one thing.

Now, if what you input is also a ``keyword'' what will the software
do ?
Still do what it has done previously (and connect like it was handled
an URL), or use the input as keyword ?
The problem is even bigger since not all browsers on all platforms
will use keywords.

This is variance, and this is bad.

Patrick.
- --
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 12:50:58 +0100
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  VeriSign/RealNames - XTNS

Tim,

"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."

This related to Jefsey's question: "Question to XTNS: you said you were
exclusive? Are you with
them on this?"

"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."

Either you have amnesia or selective memory, because you were originally
offering "namespaces"  (which you also called "domains" and "domain names"
on your site) using prefixes of www. sex. store. and corp. - this was the
main push at your site.  These were dotted realnames keywords, that was
exactly how your technology was supposed to work but microsoft prevented you
from doing this even though you said you were working with microsoft when
questioned on this via your message board.

In addition, your site made numerous fraudulent statements, such as :

"XTNS DOMAINS CAN BE VIEWED BY OVER 360,000,000 INTERNET USERS WORLDWIDE!"

and

"XTNS Domains are accessible by over 87% of Internet users worldwide! "

and

"Anyone can view XTNS Domains as long as they are using the Microsoft
Internet Explorer browser (version 5.0 or higher). which over 87% users
worldwide do."

along with :

"Hot suggestions:
www.store.toycity
mens.store.shoes
www.corp.lapizza
www.playground"

The above are all taken from a cached copy of your front page. Now isn't
this at odds with "The namespaces we do offer are still on sale on our site
and have not been removed." and also this article:

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7309540.html

"RealNames Chief Executive Keith Teare confirmed the problem, saying it
stems from the recent IE upgrade. But he doesn't expect any changes to the
browser's autosearch.

"XTNS namespaces that have a period...have ceased to function," he said. "We
don't think this status will change; it will remain this way for the
foreseeable future."

and

"Hundreds of companies have registered such addresses under XTNS' service
with RealNames, which went into effect Aug. 15, Langdell said. The Pasadena,
Calif.-based company says it was forced to suspend service to about 300
customers because of the new IE feature."

How on earth can you make the statement that these were not dotted keywords
when they relied on the realnames keyword resolver to work?

You simply removed all mention of these prefixed "namespaces" from your site
and have since acted as though they never existed.  You have a novel concept
of "enhancing" a service range.

Is any of this jogging your memory Tim?

regards

Paul Cotton

- --
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 16:20:47 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign/RealNames - INEGroup predictions coming true..

Dear Jeff,
I feel you fail to see the real implication of the NSI move. This is not a 
new way around ICANN's inability to cope with innovation. This is Internet 
hijacking against all of us.

Let understand. The entire naming system is not hierarchical but 
sequential. This means that there is an infinite number of possible 
registries. That each registry has an infinite number of possible names to 
register. And every registrant may create an infinite number of 3LD and so 
forth.

This results from Louis Pouzin's zone concept first applied in the early 
1970s to the IP addresses and wisely retained for the DNS. It permits every 
TLD Registry to be totally independent and yet the system to work smoothly. 
The only problem with that approach is TLD allocation/squatting.

There are three responses to that:
- - ICANN: "pay me a lot for me to mess it"
- - historic inclusive roots: I will respect the first declared TLD Manager"
- - Root and TLD Best Practices adopted by several roots: "seven criteria 
including the respects of the Registrants' rights". http://www.boroon.com

Real Name is a supper inclusive root, a catch all New.net. There is no more 
registries: everyone is his own TLD. NameSlinger says "name your TLD and I 
will implement it", the world@wide Trust says "let protect important TLDs 
from greed", Real Name says "every non used TLD is mine".

The alternative is simple. Someone must do the TLD registry (IANA) job.
- - either ICANN does it - registration budget : $ 150.000
- - either NSI does it - probable r.b : $ 100
- - either ccTLD do it - r.b unknown
- - or the TLD Registries do it together (TLDA) - r. b.unknown
- - the market can do it - r.b. variable
- - or the Internet community does it (inclusive/@large/GNU + ICANN?) - free

ICANN has extremely well worked for NSI. NSI has now a full control over 
3/4 of the DNs. NSI controls the Registrars sales force created by the 
ICANN. Inclusive roots have been maintained. USG has not transferred the 
root to the ICANN. NSI has final control on the root implementation.

ccTLD are certainly on the way of doing something, but they lack the 
coordination, the technical competence and the means to do it (it means 
supporting a roots server galaxy). They may however represent stability.

the TLDA will suffer the same limitations as the ccTLDs. But they could 
cooperation towards a common solution.

The only response I see is by the Global Internet Community. It seems quite 
simple:

- - to compete seriously with NSI in establishing the product definition.
   - TLD is a free
   - RT/BP criteria apply to determine who is a TLD Manager
   - RFC 1591 - RT/BP apply : a TLD Manager is a trustee of his Registrants
   - RFC 920 applies in full
   - Domain names are life long and free. Usage is paying.

- - GNU or private companies provide
   - a free alternative to the Microsoft resolver accepting the TLD database.
   - a free TLD Management system (registration and name server management).
   - TLD name server hosting. Several in here can foot the need today.

- - ICANN to get rid of their ICP-3, TM involvement and UDRP and start 
educating people and business about their true rights and may be help TLD 
shared management to be set-up (so every ABC companies over the world 
manage together an .ABC TLD association). cf. RFC 920.

- - GAC to make sure that an international anti-trust action is filled 
against NSI/Microsoft on the issue.

Jefsey

On 07:09 12/10/01, Jeff Williams said:
>Jefsey and all assembly members,
>
>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > On 03:26 12/10/01, Jeff Williams said:
> > >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...
> >
> > Dear Jeff,
> > please take into consideration that we are not only dealing with
> > technologies: we are dealing with users.
>
>   Indeed we are.  As such if some company or other type of organization
>has an idea that it wishes to provide and market to the users that they
>believe is useful and desired by those users, than it will come to be,
>at least for a time...
>
> > What if tomorrow the different
> > phone companies were annoucing different ways to organize their numbers.
> > One saying that NY is area code 607 and the other it is 111 and another it
> > is A06... and that you can use 2 to 12 digit numbers for one, 9 digits for
> > another etc... do you really think it would help developping the telephone
> > usage and the user satisfaction.
>
>   Again, it these phone companies believe that they can "Sell" it
>to the potential or existing users, they will indeed make it available
>sooner or later.  In fact with current numbering constraints that have
>been occurring for several years now, such changes as you suggest
>here, have already taken place and will continue to do so.
>
> >
> >
> > I fully understand that NSI wants to evade the ICANN goulag. I fully accept
> > that coordinating with others is impeached by the ICANN.
>
>   The ICANN BOD and staff, most particularly Stuart Lynn, and
>Louis Touton have stated clearly that they are not interested in
>coordinating with previously existing registries for TLD's such .BIZ
>for example.  As such, they have created a instability in the stakeholders
>names without their consent, and specifically without consideration of
>a number of stakeholders stated disagreement.
>
> > I claim that ICANN
> > blocks innovation. I fully understand the "fait accompli" strategy of NSI
> > as in the iDNS case. I would have approved had they started their own root
> > or a free TLD. But Real Name on a greater scale is a mistake.
>
>   Indeed Real Names may be making a mistake.  And if they are, than
>they will sooner of later be able to plainly realize that mistake as this
>venture will not be a profitable one for them.  Failing that potential
>occurrence, I can't see that this direction is necessarily a mistake.  But
>let me say, I do not like this method.  But also we live in a free
>enterprise system and on a global basis.  Given that I can only say
>that stakeholders will vote in this instance with their pocketbooks.
>
> > All the more
> > it openly ties them with Microsoft. Or they drop .com/.net/;org and adopt
> > Passport.
> >
> > All this leads the Internet towards an area of instability, real
> > alternative roots; competitive networks and anti-trust actions.
>
>  Inclusive and Competitive Roots/registries are here, and here to
>stay.  This could of course have been avoided some years ago,
>but was not.  the ICANN "Initial" BoD had yet another chance
>to head off Inclusive and Competitive Roots/registries as well
>as the effort of RealNames as well just before the last MdR
>ICANN meeting.  Again, they decide not to do so.  As such
>I am afraid and elated at the same time, that many different
>methods or routing around the ICANN Damage will continue
>and grow.
>
> >
> >
> > This is a step too far.
> > Jefsey
>
>Dare to be bold,
>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: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:10:37 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  VeriSign/RealNames - XTNS

Dear Paul,
Tim was most probably used as a test.  Technically and marketingly. By 
purpose or by mistake. Anyway they know what they wanted. And they may 
offer the "." "bug" some times at "NSI user community" consensual demand. 
The real tectical important point is to know is which character set is 
supported already.

http://icann:org works the same and the slogan "get more with double dot" 
is not bad.
http://icann/org "slash competition with the slash company" is not bad either
http://icann=org as is "be more equal than others with the equal scheme"...
http://icann+org "get plus with the plus maker"
http://icann*org "shine with the star"
http://stuart-icann-org is a good and clear possibility
http://icann however stays the best....it is now NSI under Microsoft and 
Inclusive roots under the DNS.

Jefsey

On 13:50 12/10/01, Paul Cotton said:
>Tim,
>
>"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."
>
>This related to Jefsey's question: "Question to XTNS: you said you were
>exclusive? Are you with
>them on this?"
>
>"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."
>
>Either you have amnesia or selective memory, because you were originally
>offering "namespaces"  (which you also called "domains" and "domain names"
>on your site) using prefixes of www. sex. store. and corp. - this was the
>main push at your site.  These were dotted realnames keywords, that was
>exactly how your technology was supposed to work but microsoft prevented you
>from doing this even though you said you were working with microsoft when
>questioned on this via your message board.
>
>In addition, your site made numerous fraudulent statements, such as :
>
>"XTNS DOMAINS CAN BE VIEWED BY OVER 360,000,000 INTERNET USERS WORLDWIDE!"
>
>and
>
>"XTNS Domains are accessible by over 87% of Internet users worldwide! "
>
>and
>
>"Anyone can view XTNS Domains as long as they are using the Microsoft
>Internet Explorer browser (version 5.0 or higher). which over 87% users
>worldwide do."
>
>along with :
>
>"Hot suggestions:
>www.store.toycity
>mens.store.shoes
>www.corp.lapizza
>www.playground"
>
>The above are all taken from a cached copy of your front page. Now isn't
>this at odds with "The namespaces we do offer are still on sale on our site
>and have not been removed." and also this article:
>
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7309540.html
>
>"RealNames Chief Executive Keith Teare confirmed the problem, saying it
>stems from the recent IE upgrade. But he doesn't expect any changes to the
>browser's autosearch.
>
>"XTNS namespaces that have a period...have ceased to function," he said. "We
>don't think this status will change; it will remain this way for the
>foreseeable future."
>
>and
>
>"Hundreds of companies have registered such addresses under XTNS' service
>with RealNames, which went into effect Aug. 15, Langdell said. The Pasadena,
>Calif.-based company says it was forced to suspend service to about 300
>customers because of the new IE feature."
>
>How on earth can you make the statement that these were not dotted keywords
>when they relied on the realnames keyword resolver to work?
>
>You simply removed all mention of these prefixed "namespaces" from your site
>and have since acted as though they never existed.  You have a novel concept
>of "enhancing" a service range.
>
>Is any of this jogging your memory Tim?
>
>regards
>
>Paul Cotton
>
>--
>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 #786
************************