Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #867
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, November 22 2001         Volume 01 : Number 867

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

Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 17:04:41 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

At 10:56 22/11/01 +1300, Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

>In my country, the registry is contractually bound by policies developed by
>the consensus processes adopted by InternetNZ.

Which means in practice that registrar-registrant contracts are no longer 
unilaterally written by the registrars or by the registry.

>That is why, incidentally, the DNSO needs to remain as it is, as the
>debating chamber for the development of consensus policies affecting the
>g-TLDs, including those interested in and affected by gTLD policies, while
>the ccSO* is the forum for developing both the binding and the voluntary
>policies across the ccTLds.

Agreed.
With the addition, of course, that new constituencies such as the 
Individual DN Holder constituency and (now necessitated by the purge within 
the BC) a SME constituency can enter the DNSO to take part in these debates 
and in any policy proposals that are sent up to the Board.

Joop Teernstra LL.M.
Councillor
InternetNZ

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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:16:45 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

Peter,

From a business point of view, gTLDs and registrars can make the same
arguments.  If we do not effectively meet the needs of users we will not be
in business long.  So again, I don't see any major differences in this
regard.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Dengate Thrush [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 4:57 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Patrick Corliss'; Philip Sheppard
> Cc: [ga]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Patrick Corliss'" <[email-masked]>; "Philip Sheppard"
> <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 9:18 AM
> Subject: RE: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA
> 
> 
> > Patrick,
> >
> > Without detracting from your point about the individuals 
> consitutuency, it
> > seems to me that only 3 of the 7 constituencies represent suppliers:
> ccTLD,
> > gTLD and registrars.  The rest are all on the demand side.
> 
> Please read the answers to the questions posed by the g-TLD 
> registries to
> the cctlds about the ccSO* (*= in formation ) and appreciate 
> that ccTLds are
> more than suppliers and are obliged to represent the 
> interests of users and
> individual registrants amongst others in their Local Internet 
> Communities.
> 
> Local (cc) internet policies are the compromise product 
> worked out by the
> interaction of consultation among these groups.
> While not all of us are as good at this as we should, and 
> there is room for
> improvement, re-delegation is the consequence of failure.  
> Accordingly,
> cctlds also represent the demand side.
> 
> >Moreover, only 2
> > of the 7 are actually required contractually to implement 
> any consensus
> > policies developed.  That means that the supply 
> organizations who are most
> > directly impacted by consensus policies only have six of 21 
> votes on the
> NC.
> 
> By which you mean contractually bound by a contract with 
> ICANN to implement
> policies developed within ICANN.  Be aware that the rest of 
> the world runs
> to different rules. Try and appreciate that most of us are 
> not much affected
> by gTLD policy, but that US citizens, who have tended to 
> ignore their cc and
> opt for the generics, tend to be more interested in g-TLD policy.
> 
> In my country, the registry is contractually bound by 
> policies developed by
> the consensus processes adopted by InternetNZ.
> 
> That is why, incidentally, the DNSO needs to remain as it is, as the
> debating chamber for the development of consensus policies 
> affecting the
> g-TLDs, including those interested in and affected by gTLD 
> policies, while
> the ccSO* is the forum for developing both the binding and 
> the voluntary
> policies across the ccTLds.
> 
> 
> Regards
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Chair, International Affairs
> InternetNZ
> 64 4 499 8959
> 64 21 49 9888
> 
> fax 64 4 471 0672
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 23:51:48 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

Joop and all assembly members,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 10:56 22/11/01 +1300, Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
>
> >In my country, the registry is contractually bound by policies developed by
> >the consensus processes adopted by InternetNZ.
>
> Which means in practice that registrar-registrant contracts are no longer
> unilaterally written by the registrars or by the registry.

  Yes it would seem so.  In addition as well, the registrants have no
say so in the provisions in these registry contracts to which they
are bound.

>
>
> >That is why, incidentally, the DNSO needs to remain as it is, as the
> >debating chamber for the development of consensus policies affecting the
> >g-TLDs, including those interested in and affected by gTLD policies, while
> >the ccSO* is the forum for developing both the binding and the voluntary
> >policies across the ccTLds.
>
> Agreed.
> With the addition, of course, that new constituencies such as the
> Individual DN Holder constituency and (now necessitated by the purge within
> the BC) a SME constituency can enter the DNSO to take part in these debates
> and in any policy proposals that are sent up to the Board.

  Well the Individual DN Holder constituency (IDNHC or IDNO) is not
yet a ICANN constituency.  In addition with the problems that new
constituencies being "Approved or Accredited" by the ICANN BoD
it is also unlikely that and "SME" constituency has a chance of
coming about.

>
>
> Joop Teernstra LL.M.
> Councillor
> InternetNZ
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:55:27 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

Chuck and all assembly members,

  As I recall your company announced just last week, a reduction
in registrations as well as income.  As I also understand it the
registrar business in the ICANN "Accredited" registrars/registies
is on a steady decline and has been for awhile now.  Conversely
the Inclusive and competitive registries have been gaining
new registrants, most especially New.Net.  So could it be
that the decline of ICANN "Accredited" registrars and
registries is underway?  Do you have your resume up
to date Chuck?

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Peter,
>
> >From a business point of view, gTLDs and registrars can make the same
> arguments.  If we do not effectively meet the needs of users we will not be
> in business long.  So again, I don't see any major differences in this
> regard.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Dengate Thrush [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 4:57 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Patrick Corliss'; Philip Sheppard
> > Cc: [ga]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "'Patrick Corliss'" <[email-masked]>; "Philip Sheppard"
> > <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 9:18 AM
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA
> >
> >
> > > Patrick,
> > >
> > > Without detracting from your point about the individuals
> > consitutuency, it
> > > seems to me that only 3 of the 7 constituencies represent suppliers:
> > ccTLD,
> > > gTLD and registrars.  The rest are all on the demand side.
> >
> > Please read the answers to the questions posed by the g-TLD
> > registries to
> > the cctlds about the ccSO* (*= in formation ) and appreciate
> > that ccTLds are
> > more than suppliers and are obliged to represent the
> > interests of users and
> > individual registrants amongst others in their Local Internet
> > Communities.
> >
> > Local (cc) internet policies are the compromise product
> > worked out by the
> > interaction of consultation among these groups.
> > While not all of us are as good at this as we should, and
> > there is room for
> > improvement, re-delegation is the consequence of failure.
> > Accordingly,
> > cctlds also represent the demand side.
> >
> > >Moreover, only 2
> > > of the 7 are actually required contractually to implement
> > any consensus
> > > policies developed.  That means that the supply
> > organizations who are most
> > > directly impacted by consensus policies only have six of 21
> > votes on the
> > NC.
> >
> > By which you mean contractually bound by a contract with
> > ICANN to implement
> > policies developed within ICANN.  Be aware that the rest of
> > the world runs
> > to different rules. Try and appreciate that most of us are
> > not much affected
> > by gTLD policy, but that US citizens, who have tended to
> > ignore their cc and
> > opt for the generics, tend to be more interested in g-TLD policy.
> >
> > In my country, the registry is contractually bound by
> > policies developed by
> > the consensus processes adopted by InternetNZ.
> >
> > That is why, incidentally, the DNSO needs to remain as it is, as the
> > debating chamber for the development of consensus policies
> > affecting the
> > g-TLDs, including those interested in and affected by gTLD
> > policies, while
> > the ccSO* is the forum for developing both the binding and
> > the voluntary
> > policies across the ccTLds.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Peter Dengate Thrush
> > Chair, International Affairs
> > InternetNZ
> > 64 4 499 8959
> > 64 21 49 9888
> >
> > fax 64 4 471 0672
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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

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: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 18:07:33 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 04:44:57 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> At present the DNSO consists of seven constituency groups as follows:
>
> *    ccTLD registries
> *    Commercial and business entities
> *    gTLD registries
> *    ISPs and connectivity providers
> *    Non-commercial domain name holders
> *    Registrars
> *    Trademark, intellectual property, anti-counterfeiting interests
>
> In relation to the supply and demand for domain names, only two of these
> seven could relate to the "demand-side" viz business and non-profits.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:18:11 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Without detracting from your point about the individuals consitutuency, it
> seems to me that only 3 of the 7 constituencies represent suppliers:
ccTLD,
> gTLD and registrars.  The rest are all on the demand side.

Hi Chuck

I'd agree that ccTLDs are probably more likely to be on the supply side but
it is true, at least in the cause of .au, that auDA represents both supply
and demand.  It is reasonable to say they represent country codes which do
both.

ISPs and connectivity providers do not demand or supply domain names per se.
They provide a support service.  Really, they should be in a "Technical"
Supporting Organisation.   Trademarks are an odd one out.  They are both or
neither as you wish.  So I see the following:

BOTH            ccTLD registries
DEMAND    Commercial and business entities
SUPPLY        gTLD registries
NEITHER     ISPs and connectivity providers
DEMAND    Non-commercial domain name holders
SUPPLY        Registrars
NEITHER    Trademark, intellectual property, anti-counterfeiting interests

That's two for demand, two for supply and three for other.

Best 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: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:36:27 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:16:45 -0500, "Gomes, Chuck"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Peter,
>
>From a business point of view, gTLDs and registrars can make the same
>arguments.  If we do not effectively meet the needs of users we will not be
>in business long.  So again, I don't see any major differences in this
>regard.

I'm sorry but that is drawing far too strong a bow string.  Commercial
gTLD registries and registrars have a sole focus of maximising profit.
Now there is nothing wrong with that at all.   The fact one has to
keep customers happy to survive does not undermine that.  Also as a
gTLD registry is a natural monopoly one can well argue it does not in
any way have to meet the needs of users to survive.

A ccTLD sponsor does not have a sole focus of making a profit.  In
fact for .nz the over-riding priority is to serve the local internet
community.  

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:43:52 +0100
From: "Pascal Bernhard - cube" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] White Paper about further development of the Internet

Dear Assembly members,

my Name is Pascal Bernhard. I am CEO of cube, a German 
company developping communication strategies on and over the 
Internet.

I "lurk" now in the list for 4 months. But didn't discuss, because it is 
important to know what about somebody is discussing, before you 
begin to argue.

Now, in the meantime, we have developped a root network and some 
kind of global TLD policy. I'd like to invite you to read our position in 
the released white paper. You can find it under 
http://boroon.net/pdf_e/whitepaper_en.pdf

Please feel free to comment this paper. Since we are not native 
english speakers, it would be very kind if you apology the mistakes 
in the language and send appropriate corrections.

Thank you.
Regards,
Pascal Bernhard
Business Oriented Root Network

================================
Pascal Bernhard
cube
Geschäfte werden von Menschen gemacht...
[email-masked]
http://cube.de/
http://boroon.de/
FON: +49-6352-753725
FAX: +49-6352-753726
Mail: Im See 3 - 67295 Bolanden
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:43:05 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

|> From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 11:36 PM
|> 
|> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:16:45 -0500, "Gomes, Chuck"
|> <[email-masked]> wrote:
|> 
|> >Peter,
|> >
|> >From a business point of view, gTLDs and registrars can 
|> make the same
|> >arguments.  If we do not effectively meet the needs of 
|> users we will not be
|> >in business long.  So again, I don't see any major 
|> differences in this
|> >regard.
|> 
|> I'm sorry but that is drawing far too strong a bow string.  
|> Commercial
|> gTLD registries and registrars have a sole focus of 
|> maximising profit.

Now that says absolutely nothing. Duh! Any company has that fiduciary duty
to its investors and shareholders.

|> Now there is nothing wrong with that at all.   The fact one has to
|> keep customers happy to survive does not undermine that.  Also as a
|> gTLD registry is a natural monopoly one can well argue it does not in
|> any way have to meet the needs of users to survive.
|> 
|> A ccTLD sponsor does not have a sole focus of making a profit.  In
|> fact for .nz the over-riding priority is to serve the local internet
|> community.  

Then what should happen is, to hand those ccTLDs back to their designated
countries? What are you saying here.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:54:43 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 4:29 PM
|> 
|> Wednesday, Wednesday, November 21, 2001, 4:01:37 PM, Roeland 
|> Meyer wrote:

|> > That's not the song that I recall you singing a few years 
|> back. Am I wrong?
|> 
|> You're wrong.
|> 
|> I firmly believe the ccTLDs belong in the DNSO.

Were the ICANN anything other than dysfunctional, I might agree with you.

|> I also firmly believe that the ccTLDs are not, and should not be
|> assumed to be, under the control of the governments of the countries
|> the ccTLD codes represent.
|> 
|> Perhaps that is what you are thinking of.  The two positions are not
|> mutually exclusive.

Yes, that is what I was thinking of. I might point out that Jon Postel used
ccTLD delegations as alliance building currency (a matter of record). Some
of those ccTLDs have been reclaimed by their rightful owners, over the past
four years. Even it is is actually run by an outside management company, the
ccTLD still belongs to its country. It isn't a gTLD.
- --
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, 23 Nov 2001 00:44:43 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:43:05 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:36:27 +1300, David Farrar wrote:
> > A ccTLD sponsor does not have a sole focus of making a profit.  In
> > fact for .nz the over-riding priority is to serve the local internet
> > community.

> Then what should happen is, to hand those ccTLDs back to their
> designated countries? What are you saying here.

Hi Roeland

I can't speak for New Zealand but I do have experience in Australia.  As you
may know I am on the Board of auDA, the Australian country code.  Of course,
I speak in my personal capacity and not on behalf of the Board.

As I see it, each ccTLD is like a mini-ICANN.  As it may not have any
responsibility for IP addresses perhaps it is more appropriate to equate a
ccTLD with the DNSO.  At least that's the way I see it.

Now the DNSO is made up of seven constituencies representing registrars,
registries, businesses, trade marks etc.  Each ccTLD may be organised
similarly (i.e. with some form of constituency structure).

In Australia, for example, auDA's membership is open to interested parties
in three categories of membership - Supply, Demand and Representative
Associations.  Representatives from each of these classes sit on the board
of auDA for two year terms.

As provided in the Constitution, the auDA Board comprises:
*    Three (3) persons elected by Supply Class Members;
*    Three (3) persons elected by Demand Class Members;
*    Three (3) persons elected by Representative Association Class Members;
*    Two (2) persons elected by the Members voting together as a whole;

For details, see http://www.auda.org.au/about/board.html
This composition makes it very hard for any one group to "capture" the
Board.

You can see, perhaps, that David Farrar seems to be saying that a ccTLD
is really neither "supply" or "demand" like a gTLD registry.  It should not,
therefore, be lumped in with supply as Chuck Gomes seemed to suggest.

This is why ccTLDs argue for consideration as a separate Supporting
Organisation rather than a separate constituency within the DNSO.

I have tried to provide a better focus on the problem by asking members
of the GA to consider the underlying supply-demand reality.

Best 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: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 01:07:40 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] BC Mailing List Archives

Hi Gary

Can you please tell me whether the BC mailing list archives are open to
members of the DNSO General Assembly?

Thank you.

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: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:04:49 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

Patrick,

I don't find any problem with your analysis.  In a purely dichotomous
situation (which I recognize does not exist) I would put the constituencies
you classify as NEITHER on the demand side; in other words, if there was
simply a choice between supply and demand, I personally think they are more
on the demand side.  In the case of the ccTLDs, I recognize that in many
cases they have some special obligations on the demand side but it is also
true with regard to some ccTLDs that they are almost totally on the supply
side and are even for profit organizations.

My primary point of course was to note that the NC is not dominated by those
on the supply side and in fact may be underrepresented when one considers
the amount of impact on registries and registrars (including ccTLDs).

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 2:08 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: [ga]
> Subject: DNSO Constituency Structure
> 
> 
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 04:44:57 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > At present the DNSO consists of seven constituency groups 
> as follows:
> >
> > *    ccTLD registries
> > *    Commercial and business entities
> > *    gTLD registries
> > *    ISPs and connectivity providers
> > *    Non-commercial domain name holders
> > *    Registrars
> > *    Trademark, intellectual property, anti-counterfeiting interests
> >
> > In relation to the supply and demand for domain names, only 
> two of these
> > seven could relate to the "demand-side" viz business and 
> non-profits.
> 
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:18:11 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > Without detracting from your point about the individuals 
> consitutuency, it
> > seems to me that only 3 of the 7 constituencies represent suppliers:
> ccTLD,
> > gTLD and registrars.  The rest are all on the demand side.
> 
> Hi Chuck
> 
> I'd agree that ccTLDs are probably more likely to be on the 
> supply side but
> it is true, at least in the cause of .au, that auDA 
> represents both supply
> and demand.  It is reasonable to say they represent country 
> codes which do
> both.
> 
> ISPs and connectivity providers do not demand or supply 
> domain names per se.
> They provide a support service.  Really, they should be in a 
> "Technical"
> Supporting Organisation.   Trademarks are an odd one out.  
> They are both or
> neither as you wish.  So I see the following:
> 
> BOTH            ccTLD registries
> DEMAND    Commercial and business entities
> SUPPLY        gTLD registries
> NEITHER     ISPs and connectivity providers
> DEMAND    Non-commercial domain name holders
> SUPPLY        Registrars
> NEITHER    Trademark, intellectual property, 
> anti-counterfeiting interests
> 
> That's two for demand, two for supply and three for other.
> 
> Best 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: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 01:58:41 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: DNSO Constituency Structure

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:04:49 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I don't find any problem with your analysis.  In a purely dichotomous
> situation (which I recognize does not exist) I would put the
> constituencies you classify as NEITHER on the demand side; in other
> words, if there was simply a choice between supply and demand, I
> personally think they are more on the demand side.

I'm sure you will agree with me that many ISPs are sellers of domain names.
Perhaps William X. Walsh would advise the situation with the OpenSRS
resellers?  Are they mostly ISPs or do they perform other services?

Of course, ISPs may be seen as buying domain names which they then onsell to
their customers.  However, my concept is that a reseller of domain names (a
la OpenSRS) is really a baby registrar waiting to grow up.  In some cases
they might even apply to auDA for full accreditation as a registrar.

Except, perhaps, when they want a lower price for domain names !!

I believe OpenSRS calls them Registration Service Providers (RSPs).
Cetainly they are very supportive of their relationship with the parent
Registrar.  In fact, I cannot imagine them in any sort of opposition.

However, there is a distinction.  ISPs are more properly considered as
"infrastructure".  In other words their "core business" is not selling
domain names.  So their presence in the DNSO is really an anomaly.  Perhaps
all the infrastructure people should be considered quite separately.

Which is why I classified them as "NEITHER".

> In the case of the ccTLDs, I recognize that in many
> cases they have some special obligations on the demand side but it is also
> true with regard to some ccTLDs that they are almost totally on the supply
> side and are even for profit organizations.

I've written separately about ccTLDs.

> My primary point of course was to note that the NC is not dominated by
> those on the supply side and in fact may be underrepresented when one
> considers the amount of impact on registries and registrars (including
ccTLDs).

I understand.  Perhaps you are right.  My argument was more that a clearer
division between supply and demand would provide better focus for the
Names Council.  It also clarifies the position of newnet.

The NC could more easily try to balance the opposing viewpoints.  If they
agreed with each other, you could claim some form of consensus.

Best 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: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:40:27 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: 6:224     AU   (AUSTRALIA)...."...like a mini-ICANN...it may not have any responsibility for IP addresses..."

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
To: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Chris Disspain" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 9:45 AM
Subject: 6:224 AU (AUSTRALIA)...."...like a mini-ICANN...it may not have any responsibility for IP addresses..."

> Tony Staley and Greg Watson - [email-masked]
> David Thompson - [email-masked]
> Chris Disspain - [email-masked]
> Jo Lim - [email-masked]
> Kim Davies - [email-masked]
> Chris Chaundy
> Patrick Corliss
> Kim Davies
> Kim Heitman
> David Keegel
> Michael Malone
> Iain Morrison
> Dr Erica Roberts
> David Thompson
> Greg Watson
> Liz Williams
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg03525.html
> From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 00:44:43 +1100
> "As I see it, each ccTLD is like a mini-ICANN.  As it may not have any
> responsibility for IP addresses perhaps it is more appropriate to equate a
> ccTLD with the DNSO.  At least that's the way I see it."
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Mr. Corliss:
>
> The Next Generation Internet (NGI) is taking shape. Microsoft has
> recently made the technology needed to use "IPv8 Addressing" with IPv6
> available in Windows XP. That is the standard Windows now shipped on PCs.
>
> With the growing NGI, people will need Address Space. The Internet
> foundation is in the Address Space, not the Name Space. In fact, many people
> do not know that the Internet can be used with no DNS. DNS was added to
> make it easier to have long-lived labels which are mapped to the Address Space.
> As those mappings change, the Name Space remains more stable, yet it is also
> changing.
>
> In anticipation of the coming NGI, years ago, many people discussed how
> to MOST FAIRLY distributed the expanded Address Space. There was obvious
> concern that the expanded Address Space could be "captured" in the same
> manner that the IPv4 Address Space has been captured, by a small circle of
> insiders, who have profitted over the years from that capture. In order to have
> a fresh start, a somewhat clean slate, the NGI IPv8 Address Space was
> dispursed to all of the known (and anticipated) TLDs for the purpose of a more
> open and free management (not routing) of that Address Space.
> http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv8/
>
> The management of the 2,048 NGI IPv8 Address Spaces is done under the
> various IN-ADDR.[TLD] zones, in a similar manner to what is currently done
> with the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone. This is a convienant place to record usage
> and there are many software tools that can be easily migrated to be used in this
> management. Many Internet engineers learn the system quickly, because of their
> prior familiarity with the IN-ADDR.ARPA approach.
>
> One of the nice things about the NGI IPv8 Addressing approach, is that people
> using the IPv4-based Internet remain connected and grow in an incremental
> manner at the edges of that network. That is the Internet way. Growth at the
> edges allows people to grow at their own pace, as opposed to growth at some
> central core controlled by a small group of insiders.
>
> The people involved in the management of the .AU TLD have been pre-allocated
> an NGI IPv8 Address Space which is many times larger than the entire IPv4
> Address Space, which has been used for about 20 years, without being depleted.
> The people of the .AU Community can of course choose not to use the allocated
> space, and that appears to be the case, because no IN-ADDR.AU zone appears
> in the DNS. That is of course your free will. The 6:224 Address Space will not
> go anywhere, it can sit for years, until someone decides they have a need and they
> take over the management via IN-ADDR.AU.
>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> 6:224     AU   (AUSTRALIA)
> 2002:[IPv4]:0000:06E0:*.*.*.*:0000
>
> While no system of allocation is perfect, this approach seemed to be the most fair.
> Fairness has not been the hallmark of many of the ISOC, IAHC, ICANN proceedings.
> It is interesting, when presented with what many people think is a fair solution,
> people involved with ICANN jump on it (with little understanding) and dismiss it
> only to then be tasked with developing their own system of fairness, which never
> seems to materialize. In my opinion, the world needs to move forward, and route
> around all of the people who are apparently not aware of how the foundations of
> the Internet are laid, or people who have decided they want to someday make a
> more fair system (which seems to favor their financial objectives).
>
> It all boils down to fairness. Which list do you think is more fair ?
> The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> or
> The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
>
> Why would people pay for Address Space, when it is FREE ?
>
> Happy Holidays....!!!
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IPv8.info
> http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
> http://www.in-addr.info
> 3:219 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #867
************************