Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #859
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, November 19 2001          Volume 01 : Number 859

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

Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 02:45:41 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Routing around ICANN?

www.icann.org (192.0.34.65) is not reachable. To me (who knows nothing
about routing) it looks like a routing problem.

Other hosts (I haven't checked them all) in the domain ICANN.ORG suffer
from a similar fate.

It is not a matter of DNS.

- --
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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 20:20:08 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Joanna and all assembly members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 11/18/01 12:39 PM, John Berryhill at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > If the Iraqis want a domain name and they don't want
> > to induce a violation of US law, then they can go register with a European
> > registrar.  It is that simple.
>
> Actually no, they can't necessarily. While European nations are indeed free
> to trade without fear of prosecution under US embargoes.

  I think you are forgetting the "Long arm statutes" of the US...

>
> http://www.eurunion.org/news/press/1998-2/pr43-98.htm, the EU has stated its
> support most emphatically for the US Coalition for the War on Terrorism, and
> numerous new regulations are being introduced in that respect every day by
> its Council.  The EU Council has requested the UN give consideration to any
> measure facilitating mutual assistance with third countries concerning the
> prevention of terrorism, and even before Sep 11, the EU had been pro-active
> in setting up the first International Criminal Court. Clearly the EU does
> recognize the need for developing international laws for certain crimes,
> such as crimes against humanity etc., which the sale of domain names to
> terrorists actually promotes.
> http://www.eurunion.org/news/press/1998-2/pr40-98.htm

  Not just the EU.  GB is also reviewing it laws regarding terrorism and
trade, a perhaps you know.

>
>
> In relation to specific trade sanctions in force in the 15 EU member
> nations, these are imposed not only by individual government decisions, but
> also by United Nations Security Council Resolutions. For example, I believe
> the laser guns Bill cites, are restricted from being exported from the UK to
> all destinations worldwide, in other words, no export license could be
> obtained by a UK business for any reason, regardless of US federal
> regulations or UN sanctions. Equally, if the UN lifts sanctions against a
> country, and an EU member nation does not have its own national laws in
> place against that country, then yes, that country is free to trade,
> regardless of what US Federal law may states.

  Except for the "Long arm statutes" Joanna.  Also there are the
bilateral trade agreements with most of not all EU countries that have
such trade agreements with the US.  Those trade agreements, if you
would care to look them over carefully incorporate the "Long Arm
Statutes".

>
>
> The documentation is immense, so I do not know specifically whether selling
> technology of the DNS kind to IRAQ by any one of the ICANN accredited
> European Registrars is lawful or not, but as stated above, it would be very
> surprising if either the UN, European Council or any government of the EU's
> member nations condoned such a step if the US stated it wished such activity
> to stop and indeed, enforced such steps under existing US law. That part is
> simple I agree.
>
> Regards,
>
> Joanna
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 18:24:14 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Routing around ICANN?

It looks like a major provider went dead for the night. It's been looking
like a route-flap all day.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 5:46 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] Routing around ICANN?
|> 
|> 
|> www.icann.org (192.0.34.65) is not reachable. To me (who 
|> knows nothing
|> about routing) it looks like a routing problem.
|> 
|> Other hosts (I haven't checked them all) in the domain 
|> ICANN.ORG suffer
|> from a similar fate.
|> 
|> It is not a matter of DNS.
|> 
|> --
|> 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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 20:36:44 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Routing around ICANN?

Marc and all assembly members,

  If this wasn't so tragic it would be funny.  This is I believe the 3rd
time
this year that the ICANN.ORG web site was unreachable.  Sheeesh!
And these people want to be the private regulator of the Internet!!!
Oh boy...

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> www.icann.org (192.0.34.65) is not reachable. To me (who knows nothing
> about routing) it looks like a routing problem.
>
> Other hosts (I haven't checked them all) in the domain ICANN.ORG suffer
> from a similar fate.
>
> It is not a matter of DNS.
>
> --
> 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 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:32:53 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Routing around ICANN?

well I can't ping icann.org from 24.xxx.xxx.xxx, which is where I live on
the internet.
At least the DNSO site is still up....

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> www.icann.org (192.0.34.65) is not reachable. To me (who knows nothing
> about routing) it looks like a routing problem.
>
> Other hosts (I haven't checked them all) in the domain ICANN.ORG suffer
> from a similar fate.
>
> It is not a matter of DNS.
>
> --
> 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

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:09:31 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] dotBIZ

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg03395.html
[ga] dotBIZ
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]> 
Subject: [ga] dotBIZ 
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]> 
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 08:55:59 -0800 
Organization: Hi-Tek.com.vn 
Reply-To: [email-masked] 
Sender: [email-masked] 

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

Two have mentioned privately that my dotBIZ reply mail does not resolve
half of the time.

Is it the obvious?

I find that hard to believe because I checked recently and could not
find a GODBLESS.BIZ from Leah's group.  So why would there be a
conflict?
- -----

Domain ID: D1004515-BIZ 
Domain Name: GODBLESS.BIZ 
Sponsoring Registrar: BulkRegister.com, Inc. 
Domain Status: ok 
Administrative Contact ID: LJ31-BR 
Administrative Contact Name: Lee Johnson 
Administrative Contact Organization: Concepts.net 
Administrative Contact Address1: 8571 Highwood Drive 
Administrative Contact City: San Diego 
Administrative Contact State/Province: CA 
Administrative Contact Postal Code: 92119 

.BIZ existed long before ICANN... 
http://www.dot-biz.com/TimeLine/ 
People are advised to register in BOTH of 
the IPv4 .BIZ registries, for reliable and 
redundant DNS service. 
http://www.dot-biz.com/DNS101/ 

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.Register-BIZ.com
http://www.BIZ-Registry.com

- --
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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:10:54 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Routing around ICANN?

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Marc Schneiders'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 8:24 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Routing around ICANN?

> It looks like a major provider went dead for the night. It's been looking
> like a route-flap all day.
> 
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 7:13 PM
Subject: "upgrade your system to IPv8 and exchange traffic only with those who have done likewise"

> http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg10042.html
> Re: ISP network design of non-authoritative caches
> 
> From: Paul A Vixie 
> Date: Sun Nov 18 18:23:07 2001 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Sorry to burst your reality distortion bubble Paul, but there are a very
> > large number of us who don't consider ICANN to be either representative of
> > our best interests, nor the ultimate authority on "the Internet".
> 
> right.  i've heard that.  however, your actions don't support your words.
> 
> otherwise you'd just start your own root zone with no NS RR's except those
> to your own TLD's, and you'd publish it to like-minded people, and you would
> not have a "fallback" domain that ends in .ORG, and you would not concern
> yourself with reachability by folks who follow the actual DNS specification
> and thus recognize only a single unique namespace.
> 
> in other words, the fact that i am able to listen to your rants is proof that
> you do not believe what you're ranting about.
> 
> if you want to prove me wrong, then it's simple.  upgrade your system to IPv8
> and exchange traffic only with those who have done likewise.  of course, most
> of those people are only reachable by some other stargate, and jim for some
> reason numbered his stargate at "0" on the improbable assumption that that
> number isn't already in use somewhere else in IPv8-land.
> 
> 
> 

The Exclusive Root
CHARTER IN-ADDR.[TLD] ZONES
ARPA
0:0
NET
0:1
SITE
0:3
CORP
0:9
XXX
0:30
GMBH
0:61
KIDS
0:139
CHAT
0:167
ORG
0:190
LTD
0:199
COM
0:201
ONLINE
0:203
BIZ  <<<<<<<<<<< Ready for November 19th expansion...
0:212
TECH
0:231
SHOP
0:242
WEB
0:253

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
IPv16....One Better !!

- --
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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:26:27 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .BIZ Registry #1 TLD Cluster Operational Problem

http://root-dns.org/VueDig/VueDig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=biz&submit=Submit

Open Root Server Confederation : 199.166.24.1
VueDig Results : Answer = 4 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 0. 
biz. 2D IN NS rectum.tallship.net.
biz. 2D IN NS condor.tallship.net.
biz. 2D IN NS falcon.tallship.net.
biz. 2D IN NS nomad.tallship.net.

The PacificRoot : 204.107.129.2
VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 6. 
biz. 15M IN NS nomad.tallship.net.
biz. 15M IN NS falcon.tallship.net.
biz. 15M IN NS condor.tallship.net.
biz. 15M IN NS rectum.tallship.net.
biz. 15M IN NS ns1.hypa.net.
biz. 15M IN NS ns2.hypa.net.

- ----

The above should match.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg03123.html
[ga] Will ICANN People Ever Get Back to Technical Discussions ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.Register-BIZ.com
http://www.BIZ-Registry.com

- --
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: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 04:49:14 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About the "Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign" GA thread

Dear John,
I am afraid you know better than that: this /is/ an emotional response. 
Joanna speaks of the Swiss Banks.

I will respond to you as you are technically competent and accepted as a 
good lawyer in this area. But a certain number of my points do not address 
your positions but several positions developed by lawyers or other 
competent Members of this ML.

I wish - for the reasons I indicate below - to underline the /real 
importance/ of this very debate.

On 10:26 18/11/01, John Berryhill said:
> > Please understand my position. Any witch hunt using inappropriate methods
> > and based upon emotion rather than on professional cool and responsible
> > decisions by legitimate authority is creating more harm to its cause than
> > you can imagine. All the more than it is done by popular or drum
> > justice at the wrong place. Your call is like calling on bar tenders to 
> poison
> > possible terrorist's coffees.
>
>Are you saying that US Dept. of Treasury regulations do not constitute
>legitimate authority?

Who is talking about US DoT? Joanna calls on us. Calls on the ICANN. To 
some extent she is absolutely right, but we have to pay attention at not 
going too far.

>Are you saying that US banks are on a witch hunt?

I am saying that would the US Banks become emotional under the pressure of 
the events or of a popular demand and would cross the law in over doing it, 
they would be on a witch hunt as already are those making that pressure. I 
am sure you see all the differences between the death of the late Captain 
Lynch and those of James 1st or Louis XVI, to take other famous cases were 
national emotion played an important role.

>Look, it's very simple.  Companies in the US must obey the law.  When the
>law says that it is illegal to do business with certain entities or with any
>entities in certain countries, then US companies must cease to do such
>business.  There really should be nothing earth-shattering about that.

This is obviously true and this not what we are talking about. We are 
talking about a proposition by which under the coordination of a 
Californian non-profit no-member private company acting as an USG agency, 
an international drum justice would be organized to enforce a US people 
emotional attitude calling for an international enforcement of US rules. My 
whole point - and you know it - is that there are national laws in the USA 
and in each other countries and that unless treaties are signed to modify 
their international enforcement these laws only apply on their national 
territories and - to the extent foreseen by the sovereign constitutions of 
such States - to their nationals aboard.

This - in the case of the USA - contradicts the missions assigned to the 
ICANN and expected from the Sovereign States. Cuba has not implemented 
".cu" to be censored or embargoed by the USA. Members of the GAC are not 
expecting to receive legal obligations from the Staff or the BoD.

This leads to the following alternative:
- - either the ICANN and the USG root are given an extraterritorial status 
like embassies and UN.
- - or the sovereign states will review the USG policy carried by the ICANN 
and will take the measures they deem necessary to insure their national 
protection on the Internet.

The kind of attitude some US domestic lawyers and activists developed on 
this mailing list and during the MdR meeting has already risen question by 
several Governments to the point that alternative national strategies to 
the ICANN are now seriously investigated and the necessary R&D programs 
considered.

IMHO any US centric position over defending the AmerICANN conception - on 
this list or on some other list where serious people exchange serious and 
emotional opinions - is a bad turn made to the Internet and to the USA. I 
must admit that many things have been triggered by Mike Roberts' post. This 
resulted from the impact it got into the press, the personality, the 
Internet political weight of the author and the consistency of his position 
with the ICANN policy he adopted vs ccTLDs and Governments. I saw that 
through the "ICP-4 Internet Security and Stability Protection" drafting 
initiative I undertook after having attempted to conduct it at the BC.

May I remind you that Mike's initiated ICANN policy tends to weave 
contractual bonds between the ICANN and the Govs of the World, endorsing 
their national ccTLD contract and placing this way parts of their 
sovereignty under the IANA's control and decisions. May I remind you that 
for that reason the proposed counter proposed contract by the ccTLDs has 
just been refused by the Staff without any explanation (the ccTLD consider 
they are national Internet interests legitimate trustees and they delegate 
common services to the ICANN).

The @large issue is not important to the Govs unless it becomes a way for 
the ICANN and for the US gTLDs to force into reality what an European 
diplomat qualified in the past of "American Joke": the ICANN contracts 
attempting to become de facto International treaties and possibly 
detrimental to the national interests.

You have to understand that the DNSO /is/ the place built for a review of 
the DNS policy and that GAC Members know it, even if Staff and BoD tend to 
ignore it. Also that this GA is appreciated as /the/ only non ICANN place 
to hear about what independent real specialists and concerned stakeholders 
have to say under their own mutual control. So this list /is/ seriously 
monitored and will probably be more and more in the future. This is an 
interesting fall out of the MdR security harping show. It also gives us 
more and real responsibilities.

You know that I certainly defend the position that the ICANN mission is the 
management of an Excel three page folder by two secretaries - so one can go 
on vacations - with a manager, two or three engineers to check the 
fulfillment of the TLD registration prerequisites and of an international 
multilingual legal writer to draft and edit the ICP documents establishing 
these prerequisite as voted by the BoD and proposed and/or reviewed by the 
SOs. You also know that I consider 1982 Mokapertis' views on the DNS as 
concerning the naming plan of an interconnected system to the international 
data network naming plan and certainly not fitting anymore the management 
of that whole plan over what has become a universal interconnecting system. 
You also know that I am well suited to say that the USA have a real 
legitimacy in the naming plan organization and management but that many 
others have too, in particular France, but also UK, Germany, Italy, 
Switzerland, Japan, Spain, etc..etc... and if there is a particular 
commercial and political interest of the USA to assist the others 
countries, there is no particular right to it, but there are duties.

So you cannot suspect me to over support the AmerICANN, and you can accept 
that I am under no emotional or activist influence when I ask that the 
transition from the AmerICANN mission creep and outdated conceptions to a 
serious Internet Security and Stability Protection is organized in a 
professional and serious manner, respecting the US rights and interests and 
taking the necessary time, so the medication kills the illness and not the 
patient.

1. the current situation where the US laws are applied mildly to Registrars 
and Registries is a good thing in the interest of the USA. Obliging a law 
enforcement by popular emotional actions and specialists' petitions - on 
this mailing list on the @large in particular - would embarrass the USA as 
they do not have today the time, the competence, the desire (I suppose) and 
the priority to draft and vote an ICANN Act. You do not fight terrorism by 
terrorism or even by integrism.

2. the ICANN is now in a situation where several major parts of the 
Internet (China, Europe, several other countries) have serious experts at 
governmental, industrial and/or civil society level studying contingency 
plans to by-pass the ICANN and to protect their citizens and their economy 
from an US control of the Internet. IMHO it is of the interest of the USA 
and of common interest for the world stability that these studies and plans 
are made at least in corelation. There is no need for the Internet to work 
well that such a cooperation exists, however it is to think that the IPv6 
deployment would be delayed and the TLD unlocking would be more conflicting.

You certainly realize that you cannot have a thread on "Mr. Qaddafi Salutes 
Verisign" going on for days on the professionals and experts debating list 
of the DNS oriented SO, which has the mission to advise the BoD of the 
concerned US Government acting Agency and its Counselors from many foreign 
Governments (GAC) without rising an interest among these countries 
diplomatic and political spheres. What are of interest are not the 
technicalities and the "alt(ic)roots" cons/pros by the Crispy Crockets. 
What is of interest is that there is here a live documentation and 
demonstration of a true risk of prohibitive control and remote embargo on 
national economies by the USA and a real threat that US activists may force 
their enforcement. You will understand that the directly concerned States 
and the States whose policy is not drastic to the point of a international 
witch hunt - including most probably the USG - may feel concerned. That 
they also may rise anti-trust concerns about Plan B (as did the DoJ) and 
the domain name system management stability.

You will also realize that once you have made plain on this list that you 
understood this, your posts will be more seriously analyzed by serious 
people to understand their value. Your are a specialist: they try to build 
their opinion to report to decision makers. All the sudden you are not 
anymore "not listened by the ICANN BoD and Staff", but "listened by serious 
people seriously worried by the ICANN BoD and Staff attitude".

IMHO our message should be "there is no panic; there are serious concerns 
due to the ICANN Management's current misunderstanding of the real nature 
of the Internet as an interconnecting and no more as an interconnected 
system; there are innovative easy responses; such responses should be 
discussed in common to make sure that non one can anymore attempt to "own" 
the Internet and to give the ICANN the true international status for the 
truly limited mission it should carry: protocol sequential numbering, IP 
addressing block allocation and IPv6 deployement serious catalysis, TLD 
Management prerequiste advisory control and registration".

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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 20:13:09 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Routing around ICANN?

I think it's a hack. The whois result I got when I queried internic.net is
below. 

     -- Bret

P.s. You won't get the same result from the web-based whois at internic.net.

> Whois has started ...
> 
> 
> Whois Server Version 1.3
> 
> Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
> with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
> for detailed information.
> 
> ICANN.ORG.IS.DISLIKED.BY.STRANGEFUSION.COM
> ICANN.ORG
> 
> To single out one record, look it up with "xxx", where xxx is one of the
> of the records displayed above. If the records are the same, look them up
> with "=xxx" to receive a full display for each record.
> 
>>>> Last update of whois database: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:0?    s+2:09 EST <<<
> 
> The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and
> Registrars.

- --
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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 22:20:00 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion to strike WIPO's Francis Gury - Karl and Andy are making headway!

All assembly members,

  It seems that WIPO is on it's way to be gone from imposing
policy over the internet and especially the DNS.  Karl and
Andy At-Large elected ICANN BoD members lead the
way and are making a difference.  Other less leadership
minded ICANN BOD members abstain in the vote.
See: http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=465&mode=thread&order=0

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 22:25:05 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] dotBIZ

Jim and all assembly members,

  Jim you may not know Eric means well but doesn't have the technical
knowledge base and as such sometimes makes statements on technical
issues, which he says he abhors being discussed here, before thinking
or getting adequate assistance.

  As you know Jim, this is commonly known as the technical strain
of  "Foot in mouth" disease...

Jim Fleming wrote:

> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg03395.html
> [ga] dotBIZ
> To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: [ga] dotBIZ
> From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 08:55:59 -0800
> Organization: Hi-Tek.com.vn
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> Sender: [email-masked]
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Two have mentioned privately that my dotBIZ reply mail does not resolve
> half of the time.
>
> Is it the obvious?
>
> I find that hard to believe because I checked recently and could not
> find a GODBLESS.BIZ from Leah's group.  So why would there be a
> conflict?
> -----
>
> Domain ID: D1004515-BIZ
> Domain Name: GODBLESS.BIZ
> Sponsoring Registrar: BulkRegister.com, Inc.
> Domain Status: ok
> Administrative Contact ID: LJ31-BR
> Administrative Contact Name: Lee Johnson
> Administrative Contact Organization: Concepts.net
> Administrative Contact Address1: 8571 Highwood Drive
> Administrative Contact City: San Diego
> Administrative Contact State/Province: CA
> Administrative Contact Postal Code: 92119
>
> .BIZ existed long before ICANN...
> http://www.dot-biz.com/TimeLine/
> People are advised to register in BOTH of
> the IPv4 .BIZ registries, for reliable and
> redundant DNS service.
> http://www.dot-biz.com/DNS101/
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
> http://www.Register-BIZ.com
> http://www.BIZ-Registry.com
>
> --
> 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 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 20:20:43 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Routing around ICANN?

Nevermind. I stand corrected. (At least if it's a hack, it has nothing to do
with what I wrote.)

Bret Fausett wrote:
> I think it's a hack. The whois result I got when I queried internic.net is
> below. 

- --
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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 22:46:19 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: ICANN falls off the face of the earth. And we should trust them to be world DNS dictators? Where's the reliability? (Was: Re: [ga] Routing around ICANN?)

Route Around you must.

WWW.ICANN.ORG = 192.0.34.65

From MAE EAST LOOKING GLASS

MAE-East Looking Glass Results

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

Query: bgp
Addr: 192.0.34.65

% Network not in table

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

Been that way since about 2 this afternoon.

These are the guys that say that they should be the ones to run the DNS?
Hmmm.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Bret Fausett" <[email-masked]>
To: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Routing around ICANN?

> I think it's a hack. The whois result I got when I queried internic.net is
> below.
>
>      -- Bret
>
> P.s. You won't get the same result from the web-based whois at
internic.net.
>
> > Whois has started ...
> >
> >
> > Whois Server Version 1.3
> >
> > Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
> > with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
> > for detailed information.
> >
> > ICANN.ORG.IS.DISLIKED.BY.STRANGEFUSION.COM
> > ICANN.ORG
> >
> > To single out one record, look it up with "xxx", where xxx is one of the
> > of the records displayed above. If the records are the same, look them
up
> > with "=xxx" to receive a full display for each record.
> >
> >>>> Last update of whois database: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:0?    s+2:09 EST
<<<
> >
> > The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and
> > Registrars.
>
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 23:56:05 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ICANN falls off the face of the earth. And we should trust them to be world DNS dictators? Where's the reliability? (Was: Re: [ga] Routing around ICANN?)

Maybe ICANN Needs Their Consultant ??

http://www.icannfacts.org/about.html
Kent Crispin
Additionally, I own Songbird, a consulting and web support company.
ICANN is a client.
- -----

http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg10057.html
11/18/01 Re: ICANN off the map Patrick Greenwell
11/18/01 Re: ICANN off the map Sean Donelan
11/18/01 Re: ISP network design of non-authoritat Paul Vixie
11/18/01 Re: Here's internet stability... Marshall Eubanks
11/18/01 Re: ICANN off the map Patrick Greenwell
11/18/01 Re: OT: totalnic.net? Andy Brezinsky
11/18/01 Re: ICANN off the map Sean Donelan
11/18/01 RE: ISP network design of non-authoritat Mathias Koerber
11/18/01 ICANN off the map Patrick Greenwell
11/18/01 Here's internet stability... Simon Higgs
- ------------------

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ga" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 10:46 PM
Subject: ICANN falls off the face of the earth. And we should trust them to be world DNS dictators? Where's the reliability? (Was:
Re: [ga] Routing around ICANN?)

> Route Around you must.
>
> WWW.ICANN.ORG = 192.0.34.65
>
> >From MAE EAST LOOKING GLASS
>
> MAE-East Looking Glass Results
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>
> Query: bgp
> Addr: 192.0.34.65
>
>
> % Network not in table
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> Been that way since about 2 this afternoon.
>
> These are the guys that say that they should be the ones to run the DNS?
> Hmmm.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bret Fausett" <[email-masked]>
> To: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 10:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Routing around ICANN?
>
>
> > I think it's a hack. The whois result I got when I queried internic.net is
> > below.
> >
> >      -- Bret
> >
> > P.s. You won't get the same result from the web-based whois at
> internic.net.
> >
> > > Whois has started ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Whois Server Version 1.3
> > >
> > > Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
> > > with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
> > > for detailed information.
> > >
> > > ICANN.ORG.IS.DISLIKED.BY.STRANGEFUSION.COM
> > > ICANN.ORG
> > >
> > > To single out one record, look it up with "xxx", where xxx is one of the
> > > of the records displayed above. If the records are the same, look them
> up
> > > with "=xxx" to receive a full display for each record.
> > >
> > >>>> Last update of whois database: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:0?    s+2:09 EST
> <<<
> > >
> > > The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and
> > > Registrars.
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #859
************************