Re: [IFWP] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org reassignment

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message - 
From: "Einar Stefferud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I do not propose to run an election for ICANN 
> board seats without ICANN's knowledge.  

Stef,

I was under the impression that .ORG people wanted to vote on what
company they wanted to run the IPv4 32-bit DNS .ORG Registry that
Verisign has given up in a horse-trade for the, ten times larger,
IPv4 32-bit DNS .COM Registry.

Note the end of the Subject line says...".org reassignment"...

As for Board seats, it is my impression that those will be 15, hand-selected,
people, who have proven over the years to be 100% loyal to the I* society.
That will make it easier for the ICANN staff and legal team to do as they
please with a rubber stamp bigger than what they have now. Five of the 15
will supposedly have the endorsement of some government, but not be directly
from the government. That will help to insure it is an I* society insider with
no loyalty back to the government, just a one-way endorsement to fool the
press and the general public.

--
JF

Re: [IFWP] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .orgreassignment

[Einar Stefferud]

Hey Jim -- Let's not be silly about this.

We don't need no stinking candidates to vote on whether we like or 
dislike something.  I do not propose to run an election for ICANN 
board seats without ICANN's knowledge.  In fact, my position is that 
we should not do anything to help ICANN do anything that they can and 
should do for themselves, including jumping of a handy cliff 
someplace.

Yes, we need a ballot in any case, and as someone noted, a TXT record 
in your domain name's ZONE file can act as a voting tool if someone 
wishes to organize such a thing.

A major issue is to define an electorate, and if it is defined as 
"People who control a Zone File", then using the zone file as the 
ballot is simple enough.
If the Zone File's "owner" is not smart enough to figure out how to 
follow instructions to vote, then I think we can consider it a none 
vote.

Using that same information to organize a more "normal" looking 
ballot election should also be possible if there is reason to do it, 
perhaps as a demonstration of the ability to do it without screwing 
it up as ICANN is wont to do.

Cheers...\Stef


At 2:19 PM -0600 3/22/02, Jim Fleming wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: "Einar Stefferud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [IFWP] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org reassignment
>
>
>  > Do we need a sanction from anyone to run such an election?
>  >
>  > If the voter EMail addresses are openly available, it should be easy
>  > enough to issue a voter ID (DVC) to each and let them vote via the
>  > Internet.
>  >
>  > See 
>  >
>  > Perhaps IFWPlist would like to give it a try for IFWP subscribers?
>  >
>
>It would seem that you first need a ballot, or slate of candidates. Then, you
>are not running an election but more of a straw-poll. In order to assemble a
>slate of candidates, you would likely have to go through the expensive
>ICANN screening process, where Arthur Andersen decides if the candidates
>have enough money and the ICANN legal staff gets their fees for making
>sure the candidates meet all of the criteria they set up. Then you 
>have to allow
>enough time to have the I* society insiders jockey to get on the payrolls of
>the candidates. At that point you are ready for the big vote. If the 
>straw-poll
>turns out to the liking of the 15 hand-selected insiders, they will of course
>declare their agreement. If not, then they will do the ".WEB shuffle" and
>claim to be doing everyone a favor by waiting until the next round (which
>never comes) when there is more consensus. While all of this is going on, the
>candidates (unlike individuals) of course can reorganize and completely
>change the companies involved. Once that happens, then your straw-poll
>candidate can be declared the winner, and it will be the same I* society
>insiders who have moved behind the scenes to sit in the winner's seat. You
>are dealing with a group of people who swim at the shallow end of the
>ethical gene pool. Go ahead and vote, poll, etc. and watch the swamp
>32-bit DNS swamp churn under your feet.
>
>--
>JF

[IFWP] OpenSRS Live Reseller Update - 03/22/02

[Richard J. Sexton]

>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 17:55:04 -0500
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: OpenSRS Live Reseller Update - 03/22/02
>
>Greetings -
>
>Please find following an update on OpenSRS.
>
>
>1. Name locking
>-
>Tucows is pleased to announce that on Monday March 25th 2002
>we will extend name locking functionality to resellers. If
>a name is in a locked state, it can not be transferred to 
>another registrar or reseller. This functionality is being 
>released in a manner that will allow resellers to offer a
>managed locking functionality, or to pass locking along to 
>registrants through the MWI.
>
>Please note that the domain lock feature may not be used 
>against a registrant's wishes, or as a lever to force 
>registrant behaviour. Resellers must respect registrant's
>wishes with respect to name locking regardless of 
>circumstance. Should a reseller lock a name, they may not
>levy a charge to unlock a name. 
>
>Further details and documentation will be released on 
>Monday.
>
>As always - thanks for your continued support of OpenSRS!
>
>Regards,
>
>sA
>Scott Allan
>Director, OpenSRS
>
>

--

 /"\  ASCII RIBBON  / [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 \ /  CAMPAIGN AGAINST / http://open-rsc.org http://cr.yp.to/dnsroot.html
  X   HTML MAIL   / http://chrono.faq http://watch.gallery http://mbz.org
 / \  AND POSTINGS   / http://font.gallery http://dnso.com http://watch.prices


 

Re: [IFWP] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org reassignment

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message - 
From: "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >If the voter EMail addresses are openly available, it should be easy 
> >enough to issue a voter ID (DVC) to each and let them vote via the 
> >Internet.
> 
> You don't even need that. If every owned of an .org domain were to
> add a TXT resource record to their zone file, a simple program could
> tally the opinions of what .org owners really want to happen to .org.
> 

You might want to do that on the Next Generation Internet with 128-bit DNS.
That could be done along with "whois" handled via TXT records. I think
it will be more likely that people using 128-bit DNS (with IPv4++) will have
direct control of their DNS servers. At the moment, I bet you would find
that very few .ORG owners have any idea what a TXT record is and they
have no access to their nameservers, because all of that has been pushed
behind the scenes with the ICANN MLM machine, that handles all of that.
In some cases, you may find the view that ICANN and/or the Registrars
"own" the .ORG names, so the customers have no say. In that case, you
may find that the TXT records are added as proxies.

As an alternative to your approach, it might save everyone a lot of time,
if people were to just vote for all of the I* society insiders who should
then go off and run .ORG. That is probably 20 to 30 people who will no
doubt game the system this time around, like the last time. It will save a
lot of time to just forfeit the 32-bit DNS .ORG to them, and focus on the
128-bit .ORG DNS, along with the 128-bit .COM Registry.

--
JF

Re: [IFWP] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org reassignment

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message - 
From: "Einar Stefferud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [IFWP] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org reassignment


> Do we need a sanction from anyone to run such an election?
> 
> If the voter EMail addresses are openly available, it should be easy 
> enough to issue a voter ID (DVC) to each and let them vote via the 
> Internet.
> 
> See 
> 
> Perhaps IFWPlist would like to give it a try for IFWP subscribers?
> 

It would seem that you first need a ballot, or slate of candidates. Then, you
are not running an election but more of a straw-poll. In order to assemble a
slate of candidates, you would likely have to go through the expensive
ICANN screening process, where Arthur Andersen decides if the candidates
have enough money and the ICANN legal staff gets their fees for making
sure the candidates meet all of the criteria they set up. Then you have to allow
enough time to have the I* society insiders jockey to get on the payrolls of
the candidates. At that point you are ready for the big vote. If the straw-poll
turns out to the liking of the 15 hand-selected insiders, they will of course
declare their agreement. If not, then they will do the ".WEB shuffle" and
claim to be doing everyone a favor by waiting until the next round (which
never comes) when there is more consensus. While all of this is going on, the
candidates (unlike individuals) of course can reorganize and completely
change the companies involved. Once that happens, then your straw-poll
candidate can be declared the winner, and it will be the same I* society
insiders who have moved behind the scenes to sit in the winner's seat. You
are dealing with a group of people who swim at the shallow end of the
ethical gene pool. Go ahead and vote, poll, etc. and watch the swamp
32-bit DNS swamp churn under your feet.

--
JF

Re: [IFWP] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org reassignment

[Richard J. Sexton]

At 11:45 AM 3/22/02 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>Do we need a sanction from anyone to run such an election?
>
>If the voter EMail addresses are openly available, it should be easy 
>enough to issue a voter ID (DVC) to each and let them vote via the 
>Internet.

You don't even need that. If every owned of an .org domain were to
add a TXT resource record to their zone file, a simple program could
tally the opinions of what .org owners really want to happen to .org.



--
 Clique \Clique\, n. [F., fr. OF. cliquer to click. See Click, v. i.]
 A narrow circle of persons associated by common interests or
 for the accomplishment of a common purpose; -- generally used
 in a bad sense.
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [IFWP] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org reassignment

[Joanna Lane]

Excellent! If practicable, let's do it.
Joanna

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Einar
Stefferud
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 2:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Jim Fleming; ncc; James Love; @Quasar; Ellen Rony; Jay@Fenello. com;
Jefsey Morfin; Joanna Lane; karl@cavebear. com; Simon Higgs;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [IFWP] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org
reassignment


Do we need a sanction from anyone to run such an election?

If the voter EMail addresses are openly available, it should be easy
enough to issue a voter ID (DVC) to each and let them vote via the
Internet.

See 

Perhaps IFWPlist would like to give it a try for IFWP subscribers?

Cheers...\Stef

At 10:38 AM -0500 3/22/02, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>  >> It would seem to us to be fairly simple to allow every .org
>domain holder to
>  >> vote to express preferences with regard to who should get the .org
bid.
>  >> Unlike the at large election, there is a known list of potential
>voters, and
>  >> also a ready and inexpensive way to contact them and to verify
>who they are.
>  >
>  >James,
>  >
>  >You are correct,
>
>One way to do this might be to put a TXT record in the zone file.
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 22 10:35:40 /etc/namedb
># dig mbz.org. txt @ns1
>
>; <<>> DiG 8.1 <<>> mbz.org. txt @ns1
>; (2 servers found)
>;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
>;; got answer:
>;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 10
>;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 3, ADDITIONAL: 5
>;; QUERY SECTION:
>;;  mbz.org, type = TXT, class = IN
>
>;; ANSWER SECTION:
>mbz.org.2D IN TXT   "I vote for xxx to run .org"
>
>
>
>--
>
>  /"\  ASCII RIBBON  / [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  \ /  CAMPAIGN AGAINST / http://open-rsc.org http://cr.yp.to/dnsroot.html
>   X   HTML MAIL   / http://chrono.faq http://watch.gallery
http://mbz.org
>  / \  AND POSTINGS   / http://font.gallery http://dnso.com
http://watch.prices
>
>
>

[IFWP] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org reassignment

[Einar Stefferud]

Do we need a sanction from anyone to run such an election?

If the voter EMail addresses are openly available, it should be easy 
enough to issue a voter ID (DVC) to each and let them vote via the 
Internet.

See 

Perhaps IFWPlist would like to give it a try for IFWP subscribers?

Cheers...\Stef

At 10:38 AM -0500 3/22/02, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>  >> It would seem to us to be fairly simple to allow every .org 
>domain holder to
>  >> vote to express preferences with regard to who should get the .org bid.
>  >> Unlike the at large election, there is a known list of potential 
>voters, and
>  >> also a ready and inexpensive way to contact them and to verify 
>who they are.
>  >
>  >James,
>  >
>  >You are correct,
>
>One way to do this might be to put a TXT record in the zone file.
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 22 10:35:40 /etc/namedb
># dig mbz.org. txt @ns1
>
>; <<>> DiG 8.1 <<>> mbz.org. txt @ns1
>; (2 servers found)
>;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
>;; got answer:
>;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 10
>;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 3, ADDITIONAL: 5
>;; QUERY SECTION:
>;;  mbz.org, type = TXT, class = IN
>
>;; ANSWER SECTION:
>mbz.org.2D IN TXT   "I vote for xxx to run .org"
>
>
>
>--
>
>  /"\  ASCII RIBBON  / [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  \ /  CAMPAIGN AGAINST / http://open-rsc.org http://cr.yp.to/dnsroot.html
>   X   HTML MAIL   / http://chrono.faq http://watch.gallery http://mbz.org
>  / \  AND POSTINGS   / http://font.gallery http://dnso.com http://watch.prices
>
>
>

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from ["Jim Fleming" ]

[Richard J. Sexton]

>Message-ID: <011901c1d1c5$56529620$7f9d5cc6@UNIR>
>From: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: "krose@ntia. doc. gov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   "ksmith@ntia. doc. gov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Simon Higgs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   "karl@cavebear. com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   "Joanna Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jefsey Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   "Jay@Fenello. com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ellen Rony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   "@Quasar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James Love" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   "ncc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
><00e701c1d1bb$7f2671c0$7f9d5cc6@UNIR>
>Subject: Note how the NC distracts people 
>Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:16:39 -0600
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>   charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
>
>
>Note how the NC distracts people to focus on the issue (distraction) they decide is 
>important.
>
>.ORG is not viewed as a "core task".
>
>The NC does not note that the "restructuring" was done long ago and the NC has no 
>impact.
>
>Last year at this time, the ICANN staff was of course horse-trading .COM and the NC
>and Board were not a factor. People were distracted to go fill out surveys and buy 
>lottery tickets.
>
>--
>JF
>
>
>
>Re: [council] Agenda Friday NC
>To: Philip Sheppard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>Subject: Re: [council] Agenda Friday NC 
>From: Chun Eung Hwi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:20:36 +0900 (KST) 
>cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>In-Reply-To: <00d101c1d17f$b922c540$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>
>
>
>Dear Philip,
>
>O.K. I agree to focus on restructuring itself. 
>I will propose this issue separately later through this list.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Chun Eung Hwi
>
>Chun Eung Hwi
>General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone: (+82) 2- 2062-1302
>Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs: (+82) 019-259-2667 
>Seoul, 158-600, Korea   | eMail:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   
>
>
>
>On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>
>> I note the request for adding new items (dot org, fees) to the agenda for
>> Fridays's call (March 22). I would prefer to not do so. The fees question
>> will be dealt with by the Budget Committee in the first instance. On dot org
>> it would be better to dialogue by e-mail, make a case and propose an action.
>> 
>> Losing focus on our core task at out very first meeting is something we
>> should avoid.
>> 
>> Philip
>> NC Chair
>> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
 Clique \Clique\, n. [F., fr. OF. cliquer to click. See Click, v. i.]
 A narrow circle of persons associated by common interests or
 for the accomplishment of a common purpose; -- generally used
 in a bad sense.
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from ["Jim Fleming" ]

[Richard J. Sexton]

>Message-ID: <00f901c1d1bf$17a78da0$7f9d5cc6@UNIR>
>From: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: "ncc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James Love" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   "@Quasar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ellen Rony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   "Jay@Fenello. com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   "Jefsey Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joanna Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   "karl@cavebear. com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   "Simon Higgs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org reassignment
>Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:31:58 -0600
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>   charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
>
>- Original Message - 
>From: "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 
>> One way to do this might be to put a TXT record in the zone file.
>> 
>> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
>> mbz.org.2D IN TXT   "I vote for xxx to run .org"
>> 
>
>Along a similar line, people will now start adding  records for their nameservers.
>This will move them to 128-bit DNS. Depending on what addressing plan they select,
>they will either fall prey to the I* society's IPv6, or stick with IPv4, IPv4++, etc. 
>and
>allow the Internet to grow at the edges, with the individuals in control of their 
>future.
>
>The DNS can then be surveyed to see what people have selected by looking at their
> records. Unfortunately, many people do not now know they have nameservers,
>A records, or  records. They have surrendered their "vote" to the I* society
>Registrars and Registries, who have a financial incentive to keep the electorate away
>from the decision-making.
>
>--
>JF
>
>
>
>
>

--
 Clique \Clique\, n. [F., fr. OF. cliquer to click. See Click, v. i.]
 A narrow circle of persons associated by common interests or
 for the accomplishment of a common purpose; -- generally used
 in a bad sense.
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from ["Jim Fleming" ]

[Richard J. Sexton]

>Message-ID: <00e701c1d1bb$7f2671c0$7f9d5cc6@UNIR>
>From: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: "krose@ntia. doc. gov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   "ksmith@ntia. doc. gov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Simon Higgs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   "karl@cavebear. com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   "Joanna Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jefsey Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   "Jay@Fenello. com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ellen Rony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   "@Quasar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James Love" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>   "ncc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Raising the Bar, Moving the Goal Posts and Burning the Bridges
>Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:05:39 -0600
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>   charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
>
>Note how the U.S. Government helps to raise the bar, and move the goal posts.
>This allows the I* society to burn all of the bridges so that other companies can
>not enter (compete). Once I ran across a little-known U.S. Federal law that
>prohibits U.S. Government employees from working on the development of
>computer protocols. That apparently does not apply to the Internet, or Internet2.
>
>http://www.internet2.edu/ipv6/
>
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02219.html
>
>-- Forwarded message --
>Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:55:09 -0500
>From: Scott Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Minn provreg meeting notes
>
>Here's the first draft of the meeting minutes from the PROVREG WG.
>Please send any corrections/comments to me.  If none, the minutes will
>be submitted to the meeting proceedings.
>
>Gov't in action ;-)
>Scott R.
>
>
>Provreg Meeting minutes
>
>1. WG status (Ed Lewis)
> - Core Documents:  In IESG process in various stages
> - Other documents - no discussion
> - 1 Unsolicited individual submission
> - Next target:  move core drafts to draft standard as per RFC 2026
>   1.  Patrik F:  We need 2 independent client and 2 servers to test
>interop.
>(all must work together)
>
>
>2. Last Call Comments on EPP drafts (Scott Hollenbeck)
> - Requirements Draft:
>  1. WG last call completed
>  2. Comments by IESG in Feb, completed in Feb.
>  3. Waiting IESG
> - EPP core drafts
>  1. Last call ends 29 March - few comments for additions or corrections
> - Questions
>Patrik:  IESG or AD has not received any more comments than those
>mentioned in the meeting.
>
>
>3. In-process documents
> - BEEP - new revision available in the future.
>  1. Comment:  Is anyone planning any implementation on this draft?
> - Container draft - will not be continued.
> - SMTP draft - Still being worked on (rumor).  Some interest in seeing
>this as a draft.
> - Push feature draft - missing description document.  No one has
>   responsibility for that draft.  If Push feature is desired, please
>submit an
>   individual submission draft.
>
>4. Implementations (about 5 )
> - RTK (Sourceforge project) release Java version of registry tool
>  1. Different releases for different levels of EPP(draft revisions) -
>plan on
> restructuring releases into one package
> - Nominum:  .au registry release.
>  1. Adding different extensions than listed in draft
>  2. first country code to use EPP
> - Verisign
>  1. Non-core effort (smaller domains)  using EPP for registry
>  2. When EPP reaches RFC status, .com/net/org will go to EPP
>  3. Registry (Verisign) will not hold customer information/contact.
>That will still
> reside at the registrar level.
>  4. All RRP based registration systems will eventually migrate to EPP
>once contract expires
> - .sg registry
>  1. assumed that one status for domain name
> - NIC Mexico:
>  1. looking at rolling EPP out.  But using other means to authenticate
>registrar-registrar
> communication
>
>5. Registry-specific extensions (H. Liu)
> - .us TLD implementation for public review
> - Informational - may not be WG draft, but informational as an
>extension to EPP.  Test to
>   see if EPP really is extensible and still remain interpretational.
> - Differences from draft specs:
>  1. Collect NEXUS info for usTLD registration
>  2. 2 new parameters:  AppPurpose and NexusCatagory
> - Alternatives:  Name-value pairs or new XML schema definition
> - Comments:
>  1. Where scheme modified?  ContactObject extension field
>
>6. Scott H.  draft on EPP and DNSSEC/ENUM an individual submission, but
>belongs/will
>   remain independent submission (not DNSEXT) and hoped to be
>   included in DNSOP WG
> -
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-secdns-00.txt
>
>7. Next Steps
> - Need for a BCP/Informational RFC on how t

[IFWP] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org reassignment

[Richard J. Sexton]

>> It would seem to us to be fairly simple to allow every .org domain holder to
>> vote to express preferences with regard to who should get the .org bid.
>> Unlike the at large election, there is a known list of potential voters, and
>> also a ready and inexpensive way to contact them and to verify who they are.
>
>James,
>
>You are correct, 

One way to do this might be to put a TXT record in the zone file.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 22 10:35:40 /etc/namedb
# dig mbz.org. txt @ns1

; <<>> DiG 8.1 <<>> mbz.org. txt @ns1
; (2 servers found)
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 10
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 3, ADDITIONAL: 5
;; QUERY SECTION:
;;  mbz.org, type = TXT, class = IN

;; ANSWER SECTION:
mbz.org.2D IN TXT   "I vote for xxx to run .org"



--

 /"\  ASCII RIBBON  / [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 \ /  CAMPAIGN AGAINST / http://open-rsc.org http://cr.yp.to/dnsroot.html
  X   HTML MAIL   / http://chrono.faq http://watch.gallery http://mbz.org
 / \  AND POSTINGS   / http://font.gallery http://dnso.com http://watch.prices