Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #787
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, October 13 2001          Volume 01 : Number 787

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

Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:32:16 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign/RealNames

Patrick

I am trying to follow you. First, are you aware that "keywords" have been
around for some years now? This is not a new thing. It has been widely known
for years that RN's keywords only work with the IE browser. Other keyword
systems are also limited, and have also been around for years: AOL's
keywords only work within AOL, NetNames only work with their system, and so
on.

Tim

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick" <[email-masked]>
To: "Tim Langdell" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 2:58 AM
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 09:47:14 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  VeriSign/RealNames - XTNS

Paul,

I'll do my best to respond, but you are so far off the mark it may be
difficult. But here goes ...

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

I didn't see that remark by Jefsey. However, the answer is, no XTNS is not
in any way involved with this deal between Realnames and VeriSign which
(once again) is solely for RN's keyword products/services.

> 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.

Our namespaces are NOT "dotted keywords." Our system is entirely independant
from that of Realnames other than for the single point of contact where they
bounce the strings to us, MSFT having first bounced them to RN from IE. We
are still working to correct the error in the new 404 page code so that all
characters can resolve to our system. That remains true now. All the prefix
domains are still on offer on our site.

> 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."

All these statements are true according to the data we have been supplied
with by our partners. The XTNS system by virtue of working via the IE
browser is accessible by an estimated 360,000,000 Internet users, which is
approximately 87% of all users.

> "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."

The article clearly mis-quoted Keith Teare. In any event, the fact is we are
still working on resolving the technical issues that impact certain of our
pure-ASCII namespaces only, but they do not impact any of our multilingual
namespaces at all. Multilingual and mixed ML/ASCII are working perfectly --
as you know if you have visited our site.

> 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 lost me here ... First our namespaces do not rely on "Realnames keyword
resolver" to work. Second, I did not say what the article reported me
saying. But even if it was what I said it would in no way suggest that our
namespaces are "dotted keywords" -- again, they are not.

> 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.

We have not removed them from our site. You can still reserve names within
all these namespaces via our site if you wish.

- --
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 13:44:37 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: NC meeting

WXW and all assembly members,

William X Walsh wrote:

> 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?

  And I was just thinking after Eric had expressed to me privately the
you were becoming a positive participant in the DNSO GA.  How
sad that Eric was so wrong in that assessment.

  Danny is doing a good job overall in his position as Chair.  No,
he is not perfect.  Let he who is without sin cast the first
stone.  I guess you are without sin WXW?!  Hummmm?

  It is obvious to me anyway and it seems as well as with a number of
other GA participants/members that your opinion again is not
broadly shared, WXW.  Therefore I find Phillips comments
and in this instance the NC's position on this issue the
proper one.  I invite other GA members to avail themselves
to providing their assessments on the NC's position in this instance
yet AGAIN.

>
>
> 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
>

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 14:06:04 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign/RealNames - INEGroup predictions coming true..

Jefsey and all assembly members,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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.

  I recognize that, Jefsey.  However in that the ICANN BoD and staff
have thus far failed to adequately in a bottoms-up manner address the
Registry formation issues, such occurrences as NSI's move will flourish
and multiply.  The die was case in MdR last November.  Now we all
shall reap the whirlwind, be it a positive thing or not.  Perhaps
you missed the significance of my comment regarding RFC1591?
Had the ICANN BoD and staff recognized that already in process
method, the need for this sort of approach by NSI/Verisign, AOL, and
XTNS as well as different approaches would not have been as
readily put forward.  Alas, that huge and far reaching mistake,
and refusal to retract, has let loose the dogs of the DNS war's
with renewed vigor.

>
>
> 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

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 20:53:15 +0100
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  VeriSign/RealNames - XTNS

Tim,

For the XTNS "domains" to work, Microsoft needs to treat the address bar
entry as a keyword so that it gets bounced to Realnames and Realnames needs
to recognise it is an XTNS domain and not one of their own keywords.  So
Microsoft are treating it as a dotted keyword - on what technical basis are
you claiming that it isn't?

You were making statements about the www. store. corp. and sex. domains
being visible by 360,000,000 internet users and taking orders for them [
this is before you started calling it a preregistration, which from the
number of posts on your message board was clearly not what your customers
were led to believe ].

Please give just a single example of a single working www. store. corp. or
sex. XTNS "domain" that is visible to 360,000,000 internet users.

And for the sake of my sanity, can you also tell me where on your site it
mentions the www. etc "domains" and where they can be registered?

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 17:52:47 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Should the government get its own net?

FYI

http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?150607:22450324

Should the government get its own Net?

By Robert Lemos
ZDNet News 
October 11, 2001 4:31 AM PT

The Bush administration has apparently decided that the Internet isn't
secure enough for its needs and has proposed a new network be created to
communicate critical government information.

The new network, dubbed Govnet, is the brainchild of Richard Clarke, the
newly appointed presidential adviser for cyberspace security, and is
intended to carry data, voice-over-IP and possibly video.

"Planning for this network has been going on for several months," Clarke
said in a statement Wednesday, adding that the General Services
Administration--the agency responsible for providing service and equipment
to the U.S. government--will play a critical role. "We need the combination
of skills the GSA has to establish this network quickly."

The agency posted a so-called request for information on its Web site
Wednesday, calling for the high-tech industry to create potential blueprints
for the new network.

The proposal outlines a network that uses the current Internet protocols
that would be limited to communications between government agencies and
other authorized users. "There will be no interconnections or gateways to
the Internet or other public or private networks," the RFI said.

In addition, the proposal requires that all data on the network be encrypted
using the current standard recommended by the National Security Agency and
that the network be immune to worms, viruses, denial-of-service attacks and
other Internet hazards.

During the announcement of his new position Tuesday, Clarke explained why a
secure network for critical government services is needed.

"Our economy, our national defense, increasingly our very way of life
depends upon the operation--secure and safe operation--of critical
infrastructures that in turn depend on cyberspace," he said. He made no
mention of the Govnet at the time.

However, the idea of a separate Internet for critical government services is
not a new one for Clarke. Last December, at Microsoft's SafeNet Conference,
Clarke proposed just such a network.

"We need to bifurcate cyberspace: We need to have a secure zone in
cyberspace and then we can leave the rest of it as it is today," he said at
the time, when he had been serving as President Clinton's National
Coordinator for security, counterterrorism and infrastructure protection on
the National Security Council.

The secure Internet should have the equivalent of armed guards at the doors
and no one would be anonymous, he added. "In this zone, privacy and security
could be achieved, as long as there is no anonymity."

The request for information calls for a network release in the contiguous 48
states, with the possibility of future expansion into Canada, Alaska and
Hawaii. Industry proposals are due by Nov. 21, and Clarke intends to hold
information-exchange meetings on the topic.

- --
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 19:03:34 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Should the government get its own net?

Joanna and all assembly members,

  Yes.  Although I in part agree with Mr. Clarks assessment, and was well
aware of his thinking some two years ago, it is a shame that the ICANN
BoD and staff in part forced Mr. Clarks hand in this issue due to
the lack of proper security being provided on the Legacy Root
based internet structure which we called for some 4 years ago now.
Also see: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2662884,00.html
And:  http://www.fts.gsa.gov/govnet/govnet.doc

Joanna Lane wrote:

> FYI
>
> http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?150607:22450324
>
> Should the government get its own Net?
>
> By Robert Lemos
> ZDNet News
> October 11, 2001 4:31 AM PT
>
> The Bush administration has apparently decided that the Internet isn't
> secure enough for its needs and has proposed a new network be created to
> communicate critical government information.
>
> The new network, dubbed Govnet, is the brainchild of Richard Clarke, the
> newly appointed presidential adviser for cyberspace security, and is
> intended to carry data, voice-over-IP and possibly video.
>
> "Planning for this network has been going on for several months," Clarke
> said in a statement Wednesday, adding that the General Services
> Administration--the agency responsible for providing service and equipment
> to the U.S. government--will play a critical role. "We need the combination
> of skills the GSA has to establish this network quickly."
>
> The agency posted a so-called request for information on its Web site
> Wednesday, calling for the high-tech industry to create potential blueprints
> for the new network.
>
> The proposal outlines a network that uses the current Internet protocols
> that would be limited to communications between government agencies and
> other authorized users. "There will be no interconnections or gateways to
> the Internet or other public or private networks," the RFI said.
>
> In addition, the proposal requires that all data on the network be encrypted
> using the current standard recommended by the National Security Agency and
> that the network be immune to worms, viruses, denial-of-service attacks and
> other Internet hazards.
>
> During the announcement of his new position Tuesday, Clarke explained why a
> secure network for critical government services is needed.
>
> "Our economy, our national defense, increasingly our very way of life
> depends upon the operation--secure and safe operation--of critical
> infrastructures that in turn depend on cyberspace," he said. He made no
> mention of the Govnet at the time.
>
> However, the idea of a separate Internet for critical government services is
> not a new one for Clarke. Last December, at Microsoft's SafeNet Conference,
> Clarke proposed just such a network.
>
> "We need to bifurcate cyberspace: We need to have a secure zone in
> cyberspace and then we can leave the rest of it as it is today," he said at
> the time, when he had been serving as President Clinton's National
> Coordinator for security, counterterrorism and infrastructure protection on
> the National Security Council.
>
> The secure Internet should have the equivalent of armed guards at the doors
> and no one would be anonymous, he added. "In this zone, privacy and security
> could be achieved, as long as there is no anonymity."
>
> The request for information calls for a network release in the contiguous 48
> states, with the possibility of future expansion into Canada, Alaska and
> Hawaii. Industry proposals are due by Nov. 21, and Clarke intends to hold
> information-exchange meetings on the topic.
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:10:00 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Judge puts brakes on .biz addresses (NEWS.COM)

All assembly members,

Judge puts brakes on .biz addresses
By Gwendolyn Mariano
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
October 12, 2001, 2:45 p.m. PT
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7507806.html?tag=mn_hd
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
In the latest setback for efforts to expand the Internet address
system, a state court in California has temporarily blocked the
activation of some new domain names ending in .biz.

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge on Thursday issued a preliminary
injunction against domain registry NeuLevel, pending a lawsuit
charging that some .biz domain names were assigned through an illegal
lottery.

NeuLevel said the injunction covers less than 20 percent of the
domain names registered to date and that it expects to send all
uncontested addresses live Oct. 23 as scheduled.
"While we are disappointed with the court's decision and the impact
it will have on some .biz applicants, we strongly believe that the
process we've set forth...is the most fair and equitable way to
distribute domain names," Douglas Armentrout, CEO of NeuLevel, said
in a statement. "We fully intend to pursue this matter in the courts
and will work to resolve these issues as quickly as possible."

The case highlights the rancor that has marred efforts to expand the
choice of so-called top-level domains available to the general public
beyond .com, .org and .net.

In November, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN), the body that oversees the Web's address system, added seven
new domains to the pool: .biz, .info, .aero, .name, .coop, .pro
and .museum. ICANN also accredited a handful companies to administer
them, including NeuLevel, which won a contract for .biz.

The process has drawn some barbs.

ICANN "looks somewhat of an unregulated monopoly or the authority of
government without the accountability," said Robert Connor, an
associate professor at the Carlson School of Management at the
University of Minnesota, who published a critical study of the .info
domain in August. "It doesn't look to me like a free market kind of
system...They don't seem responsive to customers."

In addition, some registries have run into speed bumps that slowed
the launch of new domain names. Internet addresses under the .info
domain appeared later than planned as a result of last month's
terrorist attacks. Afilias, the registry operating that domain,
encountered further delays after continued efforts to bring its
system up to speed.

NeuLevel, ICANN and several other registries were hit with a class-
action lawsuit in August charging them with running an illegal
lottery system with applications for .biz domain names.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said that a processing fee skewed the
playing field for would-be registrants.

Applicants "wanted a fair and legal chance at registering a .biz
domain name," and they weren't given that chance, said Derek Newman,
an attorney at Newman & Newman who is representing the plaintiffs in
the case.

In response to Thursday's injunction, ICANN noted that the order did
not find the contract that ICANN entered into with NeuLevel was
unlawful. It said the judge only determined that NeuLevel's decision
to charge a $2 fee for processing certain ".biz" applications might
be in violation of California's lottery law.

ICANN added that the court may have stepped beyond its jurisdiction
in limiting Web address activations that were processed outside the
state of California.

"The ruling, if upheld on appeal, would be harmful to the evolution
of the global Internet," ICANN said in a statement.

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 23:08:22 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign/RealNames - INEGroup predictions comingtrue..

I feel peace and danger but I feel a real serenity coming on.  Wonder
Why?

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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.

It sure seems that way when you combine it with the co-opting of the
ALSC and
Structure TF.

Funny how things tie together and if you step back you see J&D and
Verisigns lawyers
have designed it.

Good Job Staff?
- --
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, 13 Oct 2001 07:22:34 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

I would like to take a moment to offer my congratulations and encouragement 
to Sotiris Sotiropoulos who has taken on the arduous mantle of leadership of 
the IDNO.   Encouragement is in order as someone (guess who) has already 
written:

"I will not answer any calls by this illegitimate chair. I do not recognize 
you as chair, and I will not answer any of your calls as chair, nor will I 
Recognize any act you take as the pretender who
claims to be Chair."

It seems that any organization that seeks to advance representation for 
individuals bears the burden of having disruptors in their midst whose 
efforts are focused moreso on attacks against the current Chair than on 
promoting the cause they purport to share.  

...but let's talk for a moment about how this cause may be moved forward.  On 
October 4, I sent the following note to the Council:
 
With regard to an individual's constituency, Vint Cerf made it clear in 
Stockholm that the Board noted the GA's communication on the topic, and 
further stated that a "proposal should come through the NC."  He also 
commented that, "We would entertain any reasonable proposal in accordance 
with Bylaws."   As the current Interim report of the Review Task Force does 
not appear to offer a reasonable proposal to expedite the creation of such a 
constituency, perhaps the NC would instead consider adopting the following 
language:  
     "In recognition of the relentless demand for an individuals constituency 
and the acknowledged need for better representation of individuals in the 
ICANN process, the Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization 
resolves to advise the ICANN Board to create such new Constituency upon its 
own motion, as such action would serve the purposes of the Corporation, and 
would be in accordance with the spirit of the Bylaws."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00094.html

The Council (as could be expected) has taken no action whatsoever to develop 
a reasonable proposal on behalf of individuals even after sustained 
encouragement.  They have once more, in their latest teleconference, chosen 
to again ignore the issue.  The only action taken thus far has been the 
proposal of "criteria" in the Interim Review Task Force Report that is 
clearly designed to keep new constituencies out.  

Those of you that seek to establish a constituency will need to address this 
issue.  And you will need to do it now -- the public comment period has just 
opened and it will not be open for long.   

Even after you present your Charter/petition to the Board, you will still 
need to await the Council's input to the Board on your petition.  That 
"input" will be based on this bogus "criteria" unless you act now to thwart 
the machinations of those whose goal is nothing less than to deny your 
successful application.

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

Comments may be posted to:  [email-masked]

The Council is not your friend.  You represent a threat to the balance of 
their power-clique.  You will need to fight them on this issue and break down 
their barriers to entry if you seek to make any forward   progress.  Good 
luck in your endeavors, and I certainly hope that your petition to the Board 
will be presented in Marina del Rey.  Best wishes to all of you.

- --
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, 13 Oct 2001 04:31:57 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

Is your resignation as GA chair forthcoming then, since the job you took
on as Chair of the GA requires you to do something you refuse to do?

If you had an ounce of integrity, you would resign and let someone who
will do what the GA Chair is supposed to do assume the job, since your
only act as Chair is to oppose the GA working with the Names Council
in any way.

- -- 
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: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 23:54:31 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [Idno-discuss] IDNO -- This affects you.

Danny

Interesting the Chair of the GA would cross post this into the GA Assembly
after all the effort of the moderators and others to keep IDNO related
material from being posted their.  Your intentions are plain.  I can see
you, like a few others, consider anyone who doesn't toe your party line as
being a disruptor.  Thank God for disruptors is all I can say.  I have been
busy with other matters and have paid scant attention to the lists.  Your
recent efforts and those of Joop are going to change that.  I will make sure
I spare some time to oppose your repressive campaigns.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked]
|> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|> [email-masked]
|> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 9:23 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Subject: [Idno-discuss] IDNO -- This affects you.
|>
|>
|> I would like to take a moment to offer my congratulations and
|> encouragement
|> to Sotiris Sotiropoulos who has taken on the arduous mantle of
|> leadership of
|> the IDNO.   Encouragement is in order as someone (guess who) has already
|> written:
|>
|> "I will not answer any calls by this illegitimate chair. I do
|> not recognize
|> you as chair, and I will not answer any of your calls as chair,
|> nor will I
|> Recognize any act you take as the pretender who
|> claims to be Chair."
|>
|> It seems that any organization that seeks to advance representation for
|> individuals bears the burden of having disruptors in their midst whose
|> efforts are focused moreso on attacks against the current Chair than on
|> promoting the cause they purport to share.
|>
|> ...but let's talk for a moment about how this cause may be moved
|> forward.  On
|> October 4, I sent the following note to the Council:
|>
|> With regard to an individual's constituency, Vint Cerf made it clear in
|> Stockholm that the Board noted the GA's communication on the topic, and
|> further stated that a "proposal should come through the NC."  He also
|> commented that, "We would entertain any reasonable proposal in
|> accordance
|> with Bylaws."   As the current Interim report of the Review Task
|> Force does
|> not appear to offer a reasonable proposal to expedite the
|> creation of such a
|> constituency, perhaps the NC would instead consider adopting the
|> following
|> language:
|>      "In recognition of the relentless demand for an individuals
|> constituency
|> and the acknowledged need for better representation of
|> individuals in the
|> ICANN process, the Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting
|> Organization
|> resolves to advise the ICANN Board to create such new
|> Constituency upon its
|> own motion, as such action would serve the purposes of the
|> Corporation, and
|> would be in accordance with the spirit of the Bylaws."
|> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00094.html
|>
|> The Council (as could be expected) has taken no action
|> whatsoever to develop
|> a reasonable proposal on behalf of individuals even after sustained
|> encouragement.  They have once more, in their latest
|> teleconference, chosen
|> to again ignore the issue.  The only action taken thus far has been the
|> proposal of "criteria" in the Interim Review Task Force Report that is
|> clearly designed to keep new constituencies out.
|>
|> Those of you that seek to establish a constituency will need to
|> address this
|> issue.  And you will need to do it now -- the public comment
|> period has just
|> opened and it will not be open for long.
|>
|> Even after you present your Charter/petition to the Board, you
|> will still
|> need to await the Council's input to the Board on your petition.  That
|> "input" will be based on this bogus "criteria" unless you act
|> now to thwart
|> the machinations of those whose goal is nothing less than to deny your
|> successful application.
|>
|> The Review report is in:
|> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html
|>
|> Comments may be posted to:  [email-masked]
|>
|> The Council is not your friend.  You represent a threat to the
|> balance of
|> their power-clique.  You will need to fight them on this issue
|> and break down
|> their barriers to entry if you seek to make any forward
|> progress.  Good
|> luck in your endeavors, and I certainly hope that your petition
|> to the Board
|> will be presented in Marina del Rey.  Best wishes to all of you.
|>
|> _______________________________________________
|> Idno-discuss mailing list
|> [email-masked]
|> http://listserver.isocnz.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/idno-discuss
|>

- --
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 #787
************************