Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #860
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, November 20 2001          Volume 01 : Number 860

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

Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:31:18 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>

> 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.

I said "US law"... whether they then run into problems with the law of some
EU country is not a problem of concern to me.

- --
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 09:45:00 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: "The NANOG mailing list is a technical, operational forum for major Internet Service Providers."

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 9:39 AM
Subject: "The NANOG mailing list is a technical, operational forum for major Internet Service Providers."

> http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9811/ppt/labovit/tsld013.htm
> NANOG Pre-Posting Guide
> 
> 1. Does my email have operational/technical content? 
> 2. Would I be interested in reading this email? 
> 3. Would 5000 other Internet engineers want to read this? 
> 4. Will Randy and Jhawk respond positively to my email? 
> 
> "The NANOG mailing list is a technical, operational forum for major Internet 
> Service Providers. See www.nanog.org for details about the North American 
> Network Operator's Group.  This list has restricted posting policy.  Those
> who wish to post to this list must first subscribe to the nanog-post list."
> 
> http://www.new.net/about_us_partners.tp
> @Home is the leader in broadband, offering residential and commercial services, with a global footprint of 74 million...
> EarthLink The No. 1 Provider of the Real Internet(TM), EarthLink brings the Internet to more than 4.8 million subscribers....
> Prodigy Communications Corporation is one of the nation's largest Internet service providers.....
> Juno Online Services, Inc. is one of the nation's leading Internet access providers, with 15.9 million.....
> Tutopia.com, Inc. is a leading provider of Internet access and highly targeted direct marketing solutions in Latin America.
> NetZero, Inc. is a leading provider of free and pay Internet access services.....
> 
> -----
> 
> The above seem to be "Major ISPs".....where are the people from those ISPs posting ?
> Since this is the IPv4 Internet, one has to assume it is for Proof-of-Concept testing.
> http://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/Proof-Of-Concept/index.html
> It looks like the "Major ISPs" have moved beyond the testing phase.
> 
> -----
> With respect to "root servers", they are really not needed, but for people that
> still want to get a published feed, they have several to choose from. Many root
> servers are out of date with the TLD Clusters, because the changes are made in
> the TLD Clusters first [See below for .BIZ Registry #1 Operational Changes].
> Redundant and Reliable TLD Clusters help to overcome what some call,
> "shared fate", where all of the servers running the same software and using the
> same database all crash together. Multiple TLD Clusters keep things running in
> the event of the loss of a cluster (which has several servers).
> 
> http://www.dot-biz.com/DNS101/index.html
> http://ROOT-DNS.org has tools.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> .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. 
> 
> 
> 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 09:47:45 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Volunteers to do DNS for NCDNHC.ORG (update 1)

Regardless, William, ICANN has botched a VERY SIMPLE TASK.  If ICANN needs 
to do something technical, this seems to be the result.

:(

At 10:44 PM 11/21/2001 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
>Friday, Friday, November 16, 2001, 9:39:42 PM, Nilda Vany Martinez 
>Grajales wrote:
>
> > Hi Marc, Dan and all:
>
> > I want to clarify what's going on right now with
> > the domain ncdnhc.org
>
> > We are changing our primary and secondary DNS.  Since ICANN is the
> > Registrant in this issue they took care of sending the changes we
> > requested to NSI.  Probably this will take some time to NSI to update
> > their records with the data we sent.
>
>If the domain was with one of the better registrars, the change would
>have been completed quite some time ago  :)
>
>--
>Best regards,
>William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
>--
>Webcertificates.info
>SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea
>
>--
>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: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:43:11 -0500
From: Ethan Katsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire

         I have been away and if Dan's suggestions below have already been 
implemented, I would be very pleased. But if people are still filling out a 
form that has the kind of format flaws Milton identifies below, or if there 
are questions that are confusing people, these should be fixed as quickly 
as possible. Given all this, we might be fortunate that there is as yet no 
notice of the questionnaire on the ICANN home page or the ICANN UDRP page. 
This, however, should be fixed quickly as well.

Ethan

At 12:00 PM 11/14/01 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>Given the errors on the page (which are not limited to the ones you point
>out and are duplicated in the french translation), should we not perhaps
>wait a bit before publicizing?
>
>Also, does anyone know where the responses submitted are going to?
>
>I know people have been commenting already and I think it would be a good
>idea to get a head start on looking at responses before the inevitable
>final-filing deadline deluge.
>
>Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> > I intend to express these concerns at the
> > Names Council meeting today, but for online
> > participants I will do it here, also.
> >
> > 1. We need to do a much better job of publicizing
> > the availability of this questionnaire. It is
> > a call for public comment but the public
> > has no idea it exists, and circulation among
> > the small coterie of dnso mailing lists will
> > not do the trick.
> >
> > The NC or ICANN should issue a news release
> > that solicits public comment and makes the
> > URL for it well known. There are a number of
> > reporters who follow ICANN closely who will
> > pick this up. It should also be highlighted
> > on ICANN's home page.
> >
> > 2. Flaw in survey form
> > On question 13, we ask "who should be
> > responsible for the selection of the provider."
> > The response should be a check box but
> > instead is a ranking from 1 - 5. I found this
> > so confusing that I was unable to answer
> > the question at all. I suspect many others will
> > too. But Q 13 is a crucial question.
> >
> > In general, our members report finding the
> > survey format difficult to understand and use.
> >
> > >>> "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]> 11/08/01 15:52 PM >>>
> > [To: [email-masked]]
> > [To: [email-masked]]
> > [To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Please find below the url for the UDRP Review Questionnaire.
> >  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html
> > Please complete the questionnaire online and "submit" at the end.
> > Your participation is much appreciated.
> > Thank you
> >
> > DNSO Secretariat
>
>--
>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: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:27:57 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About the "Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign" GA thread

|> From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 7:49 PM

|> 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 

Vacatons? You guys in EU have it easy. People should be satisfied that they
get both week-end days at less than 10 hours each. Heck, even lunch is
catered so that no one has to leave their workstation.
- --
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 10:47:55 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Volunteers to do DNS for NCDNHC.ORG (update 1)

"ICANN represents that it has no authority to implement new TLDs"
http://www.icann.org/tlds/correspondence/esi-v-icann-13nov00.htm 

http://www.dot-biz.com/DNS101/index.html
http://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/Proof-Of-Concept/index.html

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

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kristy McKee" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 9:47 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Volunteers to do DNS for NCDNHC.ORG (update 1)

> Regardless, William, ICANN has botched a VERY SIMPLE TASK.  If ICANN needs 
> to do something technical, this seems to be the result.
> 
> :(
> 
> At 10:44 PM 11/21/2001 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
> >Friday, Friday, November 16, 2001, 9:39:42 PM, Nilda Vany Martinez 
> >Grajales wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Marc, Dan and all:
> >
> > > I want to clarify what's going on right now with
> > > the domain ncdnhc.org
> >
> > > We are changing our primary and secondary DNS.  Since ICANN is the
> > > Registrant in this issue they took care of sending the changes we
> > > requested to NSI.  Probably this will take some time to NSI to update
> > > their records with the data we sent.
> >
> >If the domain was with one of the better registrars, the change would
> >have been completed quite some time ago  :)
> >
> >--
> >Best regards,
> >William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> >--
> >Webcertificates.info
> >SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea
> >
> >--
> >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: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 17:26:25 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO/BC's suicide

Dear Fellow GA,
bluntly, out of nowhere we have received today a proposition from Philip 
Shepard for a new DNSO/BC Charter. This Charter must be commented before 
the end of the month, presented for affirmation [whatever it may means] in 
December and become effective immediately [without any requested approval 
by the BoD].

What is interesting is that most of the DNSO/BC members are fired.

This results from the Membership criteria. 2 main criteria: to adore ICP-3 
and to be a real e-commerce: ie mainly primarily carrying commerce on the 
Internet with customers.

<quote>

2 In keeping with the selective membership criteria of other DNSO 
constituencies, the Business Constituency represents the interests of a 
specific sector of Internet users. The purpose of the Constituency is to 
represent the interests of businesses using the Internet for electronic 
commerce with customers. To avoid conflicts of interest membership is 
typically limited to those entities (or their representatives) whose 
primary use of the Internet is to conduct their business as users of 
electronic commerce in their dealings with customers or suppliers.

This excludes for-profit entities whose business means they are likely to 
formulate views from the perspective of Internet or Domain Name service 
providers, as well as from other groups whose interests may not be aligned 
with business users.  Such entities may find other constituencies offer 
more appropriate means of representing their members' interests.

</quote>

Interestingly enough Marilyn's customers may probably be a Member, but not 
her anymore since she extensively documented that her business was to sell 
e-commerce solutions not to run tham and that Grant was not at all carrying 
anything in the e-business area. As fas I know Bruce James is selling 
computers on-line as his primary activity. Welcome on the NC, Bruce!

Telcos are obviously out of the picture, so Philips, CNN, Disney etc...  I 
never really understood Philip Shepard's onw business, but I am not sure he 
is selling e-donuts all the day long. Obviously gone is Mike Roberts as he 
does not really sell ICANN T-Shirts on line from his site. Also Kent 
Crispin whose only business is to sell consulting and hosting services to 
the ICANN apart from his other professionnal and yachting duties.

I could probably stay through an affiliated e-commerce chain we are setting 
up, but I would probably be quickly in contradiction with the European and 
US Internet Security laws the way they develop. This ICP-3 mandatiory 
adoration permits to fire some others. An to deny access to new.net (except 
that New.net carry e-business of non domain names according to ICP-3). Great!

Obviously there not a single word on the budget to carry all that, except 
"sound financial management", no budget, no control, no responsible. 
e-business is really a new econonomy!

There is not a single word on how the BC is going to pay is debts (roughly 
a TAF - TLD application fee).

Now, where will the exiled from the BC go?  They "may find other 
constituencies offer more appropriate means of representing their members' 
interests". There are 55 Members left in the DNSO/BC. As we can hardly 
think that ALCATEL's primary Internet activity is to sell e-burgers, nor 
Alsthom, nor AOL, nor the French Railways or Power companies, nor BT, 
Deutch Telecom, Telephonica, Clear, MCI, Fujitsu, Unilever, etc... will 
their bosses join the NonCom as the ABEM (association of the BC ex-Member)

Only one interesting issue, RealName - these people are not in the same 
business as New.net so they are a Member - shall have to go.

Question to the BoD: now that the e-commerce is going to have its own 
constituency, what about creating a serious open and honest Professionnal 
and Industrial User Constituency for the pros?

Interesting ...

- --
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 10:58:58 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: ICANN off the map

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Patrick Greenwell" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: ICANN off the map

> 
> At 08:33 AM 11/19/2001 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > > The only people who claim ICANN has a goal of "running the Internet" are
> > > people outside of ICANN.
> >
> >Actions speak louder than words Dave.
> 
> My point exactly.
> 
> d/
> 
> ps. and no, folks, this exchange will not continue.
> 
> 
> ----------
> Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464
> 
> 

- --
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 11:47:00 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: 0:212 [00D4] - .BIZ - Moving Beyond the Proof-of-Concept Phase - Update

When do you anticipate being back in operation ?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "PacificRoot Hostmaster" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 12:12 AM
Subject: 0:212 [00D4] - .BIZ - Moving Beyond the Proof-of-Concept Phase - Update

> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
> We have a simple contract with pacroot for registry services.
> They are upgrading the software and are in the  process of accredting registrars.
> We are in the process of licensing  registrars to enable them to register .biz domains.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> When do you anticipate being back in operation ?
>
> Do you think such outages, would be tolerated from the
> vendors that ICANN recommends ?
>
> Note:
> .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: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:10:43 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

on 11/19/01 11:31 AM, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. at [email-masked]
wrote:

> 
> From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I said "US law"... whether they then run into problems with the law of some
> EU country is not a problem of concern to me.
> 
> 

We are in agreement..:-)

Regards,

Joanna

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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:43:40 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: (ngtrans) RE: the IAB/IETF Architecture diagram

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randy Bush" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) RE: the IAB/IETF Architecture diagram

> > Jim Fleming [mailto:[email-masked]] wrote:
> 
> please don't feed the trolls.  they don't digest the food and just puke on
> the furniture.
> 
> randy
> 

- --
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 16:01:23 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "...ICANN authorized an emergency redelegation..."

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19nov01.htm
"ICANN authorized an emergency redelegation"

"ICANN represents that it has no authority to implement new TLDs"
http://www.icann.org/tlds/correspondence/esi-v-icann-13nov00.htm 

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.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 16:59:56 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO/BC's suicide

This is truly interesting.  The BC is now not interested in business that 
simply have a presence on the Internet, leaving out the majority of 
businesses in the world.  So those businesses that may specialize in 
services, professionals (attorneys, doctors, etc), consultants, portals, 
communities offering notice of services, restaurants who post their 
menues, hotels that post information, Software companies that do not 
sell directly on-line, distributors, B2B companies, manufacturers, 
customer support companies, construction companies, and a myriad of 
others will no longer qualify as members of the BC.  There must be 
millions of businesses that do not do business directly with customers 
online, but have a presence on the Net to advertise themselves, or use 
the net for things other than the WWW - extranets, mail exchangers...

How far is this going to go?  Good work, Names Council and BC.  Keep 
degrading ICANN's legitimacy as a bottom up organization that includes 
the Internet community.

On 19 Nov 2001, at 17:26, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Fellow GA,
> bluntly, out of nowhere we have received today a proposition from Philip
> Shepard for a new DNSO/BC Charter. This Charter must be commented before
> the end of the month, presented for affirmation [whatever it may means] in
> December and become effective immediately [without any requested approval
> by the BoD].
> 
> What is interesting is that most of the DNSO/BC members are fired.
> 
> This results from the Membership criteria. 2 main criteria: to adore ICP-3
> and to be a real e-commerce: ie mainly primarily carrying commerce on the
> Internet with customers.
> 
> <quote>
> 
> 2 In keeping with the selective membership criteria of other DNSO 
> constituencies, the Business Constituency represents the interests of a
> specific sector of Internet users. The purpose of the Constituency is to
> represent the interests of businesses using the Internet for electronic
> commerce with customers. To avoid conflicts of interest membership is
> typically limited to those entities (or their representatives) whose
> primary use of the Internet is to conduct their business as users of
> electronic commerce in their dealings with customers or suppliers.
> 
> This excludes for-profit entities whose business means they are likely to
> formulate views from the perspective of Internet or Domain Name service
> providers, as well as from other groups whose interests may not be aligned
> with business users.  Such entities may find other constituencies offer
> more appropriate means of representing their members' interests.
> 
> </quote>
> 
> Interestingly enough Marilyn's customers may probably be a Member, but not
> her anymore since she extensively documented that her business was to sell
> e-commerce solutions not to run tham and that Grant was not at all carrying
> anything in the e-business area. As fas I know Bruce James is selling
> computers on-line as his primary activity. Welcome on the NC, Bruce!
> 
> Telcos are obviously out of the picture, so Philips, CNN, Disney etc...  I
> never really understood Philip Shepard's onw business, but I am not sure he
> is selling e-donuts all the day long. Obviously gone is Mike Roberts as he
> does not really sell ICANN T-Shirts on line from his site. Also Kent
> Crispin whose only business is to sell consulting and hosting services to
> the ICANN apart from his other professionnal and yachting duties.
> 
> I could probably stay through an affiliated e-commerce chain we are setting
> up, but I would probably be quickly in contradiction with the European and
> US Internet Security laws the way they develop. This ICP-3 mandatiory
> adoration permits to fire some others. An to deny access to new.net (except
> that New.net carry e-business of non domain names according to ICP-3).
> Great!
> 
> Obviously there not a single word on the budget to carry all that, except
> "sound financial management", no budget, no control, no responsible.
> e-business is really a new econonomy!
> 
> There is not a single word on how the BC is going to pay is debts (roughly
> a TAF - TLD application fee).
> 
> Now, where will the exiled from the BC go?  They "may find other 
> constituencies offer more appropriate means of representing their members'
> interests". There are 55 Members left in the DNSO/BC. As we can hardly
> think that ALCATEL's primary Internet activity is to sell e-burgers, nor
> Alsthom, nor AOL, nor the French Railways or Power companies, nor BT,
> Deutch Telecom, Telephonica, Clear, MCI, Fujitsu, Unilever, etc... will
> their bosses join the NonCom as the ABEM (association of the BC ex-Member)
> 
> Only one interesting issue, RealName - these people are not in the same
> business as New.net so they are a Member - shall have to go.
> 
> Question to the BoD: now that the e-commerce is going to have its own
> constituency, what about creating a serious open and honest Professionnal
> and Industrial User Constituency for the pros?
> 
> Interesting ...
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 17:33:54 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: how many roots must DNS have before it's considered broken (Re: ISP network design of non-authoritative caches) 

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" [email-masked]
"Sure -- my estimate is that that will take ~8 years"

.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. 

8 years ?....incremental approaches are here now...
http://www.dot-biz.com/DNS101/ 

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

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Simon Higgs" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: how many roots must DNS have before it's considered broken (Re: ISP network design of non-authoritative caches) 

> 
> In message <[email-masked]>, Simon Higgs writ
> es:
> >
> >At 05:21 AM 11/19/01 +0000, you wrote:
> >
> >>Once we start down the slippery slope of "I'm a root too", how
> >>many different ad hoc DNS "universes" (for lack of better
> >>term) must we have before we decide that things are "broken"?
> >
> >Two. That happened back in 1996 when the IANA TLD applicants began getting 
> >their glue added to AlterNIC. Today lack of entry in the root has created a 
> >dozen or so more alt.roots. Now people are beginning to notice the 
> >consequences (i.e. the .US zone is now causing cache pollution outside the 
> >legacy root since it's using the ICANN .BIZ name servers - and that .BIZ 
> >isn't recognized by all the alt.roots).
> 
> See what happens when there's more than one root?
> >
> >But it's OK. Really. There's only one root. Honest. Except for this one, 
> >which is being run with all the usual I* blessings:
> >
> >http://www.isi.edu/otdr/
> >
> >>Maintaining a single, authoritative root seems, IMHO, to be a
> >>Good Thing.  Given multiple registries, namespace collisions
> >>would get ugly -- and, even in the absence of collisions, let us
> >>consider "reachability" issues.
> 
> Don't confuse the question of the number of servers with the technical 
> question of what a root is; that's determined by the content.
> >
> >That's the point. Getting the alt.root "universes" to cooperate is an 
> >exercise similar to "cat herding", but it has to start somewhere.
> >
> 
> Please -- if folks "co-operate" properly, there's one root.  Don't 
> confuse the question of how many roots there should be with who should 
> decide the contents.  Whether or not ICANN should be the sole 
> decision-maker is a purely political question, and out of scope on the 
> ICANN list.
> 
> >Simon
> >
> >--
> >DNS is not a sacred cow that cannot be replaced by something better.
> 
> Sure -- my estimate is that that will take ~8 years:  1-2 years to 
> design, 1-2 years of coding, testing, and interoperability testing, at 
> 5 years for the installed base of machines to be replaced, since most 
> machines are never upgraded.  And you have to climb uphill against that 
> installed base, and against folks who don't understand why they should 
> populate your new database when they've already populated (and paid, 
> both directly and in support costs), for the existing database.
> 
> I'm not saying that you're wrong -- in fact, I agree that the current 
> scheme is showing its age in many different ways -- but don't 
> underestimate the difficulty of replacing it.  (The only similar 
> example I can think of, in terms of its impact on both end systems and 
> the infrastructure, is IPv6 -- and we all know how much of that is 
> deployed.)
> 
> --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
> Full text of "Firewalls" book now at http://www.wilyhacker.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: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:04:30 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Jim Fleming's Marketing Strategy

On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:10:54 -0600, Jim Fleming <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 7:13 PM
> Subject: "upgrade your system to IPv8 and exchange traffic only with those
who have done likewise"

Hi Jim

For some time now I have followed a practice of diverting all of your mail
to a special "Jim Fleming" folder.  Once in a while I have a look to see if
you said anything interesting.  Until now I have been disappointed.  The
above message, however, woke me up a bit.

If I exchanged traffic only with those "who have upgraded their system to
IPv8" would I be communicating with anyone other than Jim Fleming (or anet,
prodigy and the like) ?

If that's your sales pitch, you deperately need a marketing guru !!

Regards
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: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 19:31:01 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Jim Fleming's Marketing Strategy

It does not look like .AU made it in the Exclusive Root

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

- --
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: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:20:14 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] What Else is New?  DNSO/BC's suicide

On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 16:59:56 -0500, Leah Gallegos wrote:
> How far is this going to go?  Good work, Names Council and BC.  Keep
> degrading ICANN's legitimacy as a bottom up organization that includes
> the Internet community.

Hi Leah

Well it really looks to me as if ICANN is completely broken.  The ICANN
Board is not representative of ICANN membership or its Constitution.  The
three supporting organisations are quite unbalanced as they are heavily
weighted against domain names.

The consitituency structure does not balance "supply" and "demand" at all.
The constituencies themselves are certainly not representative of their own
constituencies.  The Names Council does its own thing (whatever that is).

And the General Assembly is without a Chair, an Alternate Chair, any special
purpose mailing lists or even any list monitors.  It is, and always has
been, denied resources or other forms of meaningful contribution.

I have no idea what is going to happen to the motions that have been
proposed or even whether we have a DNSO Secretariat.

So what else is new?

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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 21:35:11 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Jim Fleming's Marketing Strategy

Patrick and all assembly members,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:10:54 -0600, Jim Fleming <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 7:13 PM
> > Subject: "upgrade your system to IPv8 and exchange traffic only with those
> who have done likewise"
>
> Hi Jim
>
> For some time now I have followed a practice of diverting all of your mail
> to a special "Jim Fleming" folder.  Once in a while I have a look to see if
> you said anything interesting.  Until now I have been disappointed.  The
> above message, however, woke me up a bit.
>
> If I exchanged traffic only with those "who have upgraded their system to
> IPv8" would I be communicating with anyone other than Jim Fleming (or anet,
> prodigy and the like) ?

  You seem to be a little out of touch Patrick.  Perhaps a more in depth
review would be helpful for you.

>
>
> If that's your sales pitch, you deperately need a marketing guru !!

  What does deperately  mean???

>
>
> Regards
> 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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #860
************************