Re: [IFWP] .US ?

[Einar Stefferud]

I expect that the speculators are seeing less glittering future 
profits, and the market is proving that there is no danger in 
expanding the number of TLDs.

Also, .US is not all that attractive in the first place.

Cheers...\Stef

At 12:44 AM +0200 4/28/02, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>Why does it look as if .US is not very much in demand? Many 
>short words are still available.
>
>inject.us
>injection.us
>
>Any ideas why?

[IFWP] [bwg+] interesting news

[Einar Stefferud]

VeriSign Value Plummets, Internet News, 4/26/2002,
http://www.internetnews.com/fina-news/article/0,,5_1016551,00.html

Re: [IFWP] All .us users to come under surveillance andcensorship control of US Gov

[Einar Stefferud]

Hello Stephen --

My take on all this is that;

First: The .us TLD has been a wasteland since it was created.
(This is why I have always avoided any us of .US;-)...

and that;

Second: Now it is going to get worse.
(Whichis why I am very happy with my prior choices;-)

Neustar understands things in terms of Telephone Central Offices,
where the central office has full control of all delegations down
to the last delegated digit of each subscriber's phone number.

Now, they are not aware of several things, such as, if they control
the content of the master records of your entire zone and all of its
delegations, then they  are liable to you for errors and failures to
proper keep and maintain and promptly service your need under your
delegation.

Perhaps you might want to have your lawyers explain these liabilities
in a letter to Neustar.  If they demand that they have full control,
then logic follows that they assume liability for the quality of your
zone records, and for the timely maintenance there-of.

I suspect that Neustar has not yet thought all this through.

Holding power over the quality of other people's assets is not
a one way street.  It only comes with serious liabilities.

Cheers...\Stef


>
>Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:34:14 -0600 (CST)
>From: Steve +1 608 278 7700 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Why it's called "delegation"
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Organization: Arnold Consulting, Inc.
>MIME-version: 1.0
>Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
>Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
>List-Help:  (List 
>Instructions)
>List-Unsubscribe: (Use this command to get off the list) 
>
>List-Subscribe: (Use this command to join the list) 
>
>List-Post: 
>List-Owner:  (Contact Person for Help)
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>There seems to be some misunderstanding about the nature of "delegation"
>in the procedures Neustar envisions, and even in the DOC contact.
>
>There is too much data on the Internet to centralize it.  This is why we
>use the DNS instead of hosts.txt.  When ISI delegated Fitchburg.WI.US to
>me, I take over the responsility for data in that zone, by maintaining
>it myself, and by delegating futher subzones.
>
>Neustar indicates that we must, according to the DOC contract (which I
>have not read), provide to Neustar registration data for all the zones
>under the delegated zone.  This is preposterous.  It's unlikely their
>systems can scale to serve all that data.  There could be thousands of
>domain names for individuals just in my city of 20,000 residents.
>
>If they have all that data, why do they need a delegated manager?
>Indeed, if we are not "sufficiently responsive" to requests for service
>in our delegated zones, they threaten that they will revoke the
>delegation unilaterally.
>
>I see no technical need for Neustar to have access to any registration
>data in any delegated zone.  There is no reason to develop a way to
>transfer that data to Neustart.  There is no reason to open our zones to
>Neustar for zone transfers.  And finally, there is certainly no reason
>for registrants in delegated zone or delegated managers to pay Neustar a
>fee for anything.  By analogy, I don't pay Network Solutions/Versign for
>delegations under Arnold.com!  (Neustar can register names at the second
>level to earn money.)
>
>I do recognized the need for a process to allow a local government or
>other RFC 1480 organization (library, school, etc.) to recover control
>of their domain from a delegated manager who is profiteering from it or
>providing inadequate service.  However, this process must not be
>initiated by Neustar.  It must be initiated only by a zone's proper
>constituents.  Having Neustar be able to revoke a zone leaves us open to
>abuse of power by Neustar.
>
>I also see a legitimate role for Neustar to maintain the delegation
>data, so other name servers can find our name servers, and so
>prospective registrants can find our administrative contact addresses.
>The text file now on line, corrected with up-to-date data from time to
>time, serves this need.
>
>(People can also find me through http://Fitchburg.WI.US and through
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]  I hope other delegated managers do the
>same.  I appreciate the idea, from this list, of pointing a wildcard
>Address record for *.Fitchburg.WI.US at Fitchburg.WI.US's IP address, so
>prospective registrants can easily determine if a domain is available.)
>
>I would be interested in hearing if other delegated managers agree that
>this is a flaw in the DOC/Neustar design.
>
>Regards,
>"Steve"   Stephen L. Arnold, Ph.D., President, Arnold Consulting, Inc.
>Address   2530 Targhee Street, Madison, Wisconsin  53711-5491  U.S.A.
>Telephone +1 608 278 7700   Facsimile +1 608 278 7701
>Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://WWW.

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 <http://mysafevote.com/>
>  >
>  > 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] 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
>
>
>

Re: [IFWP] OpenSRS Live Reseller Update 03/21/02

[Einar Stefferud]

What A marvelous result of the faulty SRS protocol designed by NSI.

I recall warning them about this exact problem when they asked me to review it.

Oh Well, they were not paying me, so they deserve what they get for 
ignoring me.

Foreward;-)..Stef  (New Naval Term for Sailing Into the Wind)


At 6:56 PM -0500 3/21/02, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>  >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:05:07 -0500
>  >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >Subject: OpenSRS Live Reseller Update 03/21/02
>  >
>  >Greetings -
>  >
>  >Please find following an update on OpenSRS.
>  >
>  >1. Unsolicited renewal offers from third parties
>  >
>  >
>  >1. Unsolicited renewal offers from third parties
>  >---
>  >We would like to advise you of a business practice that is
>  >becoming common in the domain marketplace and may result
>  >in you losing customers. With increasing frequency,
>  >companies are making unsolicited offers directed towards
>  >existing registrants of other firms.
>  >
>  >A company will send a letter (sometimes email, sometimes
>  >postal) to a domain registrant thanking them for either
>  >registering, or renewing their domain name.  The letter
>  >will also invite them, in language that suggests a prior
>  >business relationship exists with the soliciting company,
>  >to make some change to the domain, or to renew it, which
>  >would result in the name being transferred to the new
>  >organization.
>  >
>  >We recommend taking the following steps to ensure that
>  >your registrants understand these issues:
>  >
>  >a) regular general updates to your clients so they are
>  >familiar with your company name and the services you
>  >provide to them
>  >
>  >b) specific updates (as warranted, see example below) with
>  >respect to these activities, who is perpetuating them and
>  >what to look out for, as well as the consequences
>  >(service interruptions, etc…)
>  >
>  >c) warning registrants explicitly about this issue in your
>  >renewal notices; registrants often receive offers when
>  >their domain is approaching renewal.
>  >
>  >Specifically alerting registrants to unsolicited offers
>  >before the expiry date should increase registrant
>  >knowledge and decrease unintentional transfers.
>  >
>  >d) warning registrants explicitly in the customizable
>  >message that is sent to the administrative contact to
>  >approve a transfer away from you. If your clients do
>  >inadvertently respond to these offers, the 'Transfer
>  >Away' email is your last chance to inform them of the
>  >facts of the situation.
>  >
>  >Once recent example is an aggressive solicitation
>  >campaign by the Domain Registry of Canada/America. Their
>  >language encourages renewal with them, instead of the
>  >registrant's current registration service provider. We
>  >have found that a large number of registrants who receive
>  >these notices believe that the letter is from their
>  >existing registration service provider, and do not
>  >understand that they are in fact requesting a transfer to
>  >a new company, who may not provide similar services.
>  >
>  >Below is a sample message you can customize and use:
>  >
>  >"A company calling itself "Domain Registry of Canada" or
>  >"Domain Registry of America" is targeting  customers
>  >to renew their domains.  They obtained our customers'
>  >contact information through the publicly accessible
>  >WHOIS database, and are sending renewal notices through
>  >regular mail in an envelope and on stationary
>  >intentionally designed to appear to be an official
>  >government notice.
>  >
>  >It has been brought to our attention that these letters
>  >have been causing a great deal of confusion among our
>  >customers.  We hope to clear up any confusion with this
>  >email.
>  >
>  >You absolutely SHOULD NOT send any money to "Domain
>  >Registry of Canada"/"Domain Registry of America" in order
>  >to renew your domain, as  is your domain name
>  >provider.
>  >
>  >If you have already sent money, we suggest contacting your
>  >bank or credit card company regarding your options of
>  >having payment stopped or reversed.
>  >
>  >We regret that this notice is necessary, but feel it is
>  >important to notify our clients of this issue.  If you
>  >have any questions regarding this or any other issue,
>  >please do not hesitate to contact us at ."
>  >
>  >+
>  >
>  >Building strong relationships with your clients including
>  >regular contact will ensure they are clear that you are
>  >their supplier. The stronger these relationships are, the
>  >fewer registrants will act on these misleading messages,
>  >and the more customers you will retain.
>  >
>  >These are some of the things you can do to protect your
>  >business. We also are continuing to pursue and assess
>  >legal and policy initiatives that are at our disposal
>  >where the behavior of the company is in conflict with
>  >accreditation requirements o

Re: [IFWP] The ISOC Takeover (Was: Farber suggests the IAB)

[Einar Stefferud]

But Richard, going along with your ISP is a form of voting.  Not 
everyone votes in their best interest all the time, especially if 
they don't have all the needed information, but then, not having 
chosen to get the right information (or knowledge) they have again 
voted their choices.

We can work to educate, but we cannot force them to choose as we 
would choose.  That is what ICANN is trying to do;-)...

Or we can work to make it easier for ISPs to offer more than ICANN 
offers.  Like we can offer ISPS the option of giving all their users 
a choice of roots services.

Indeed, some customers want a limited set of TLDs or even SLDs.
I know of a group of families near Huntington beach that carefully 
subscribe to a filtered ISP to protect their children.  We need to 
find ways to enable more ISPs to offer such selective services to 
those who want them.  This is just one more way to add value to the 
DNS.

There is no rule or law that says that a customer cannot have such 
choices, or that ISPs must not offer such choices.

If ISPs cannot or will not offer selectivity, then each user needs to 
do it on their won with local host filtering, which is no doubt very 
difficult for most users.

Cheers...\Stef



At 11:38 PM -0500 3/20/02, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>  >This is why network democracy is more alligned with the nature
>  >of the Internet than the despotic technocracy in power today.
>
>Network democracy begins when you operate your own server. Until then you are
>a serf to your ISPs kingdom.
>
>
>
>--
>  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] The ISOC Takeover (Was: Farber suggests the IAB)

[Einar Stefferud]

To recall a point I made many years ago about the DNS:

Since every user of any computer, who has their computer's "root" password,
or if the computer does not have a password on its "root" login,
has the privilege of setting the value of the user's own
choosing for the IP address location of her/his choice of root server!

It is my observation that every time any such user requests a root
server name resolution, that they are in fact "voting," in the real
sense of the word, for their choice of root service.

So, I conclude that the Internet is inherently democratic without any
central controls, or any need for central controls of where  the users
look for DNS root service.  Every user has a free choice, and the freedom
to exercise that choice.

Thus, my conclusion is that the Internet is as democratic as any
community has ever been or ever will be since all users actually vote
many times each day!

This is even more democratic than Chicago where the lore has it that
everyone should vote early and often.

How much better (more democratic) do you think any committee is ever
going to make it?

All we need is for ICANN to get out of the way...\Stef


At 4:41 PM -0700 3/19/02, Ken Freed wrote:
>Please notice the ongoing tendencey to entrust
>decision-making to "experts" instead of trusting
>the Internet public to be educated enough to make
>responsible policy decisions in an open democracy,
>instead of the current system of fuedal kingdoms.
>-- ken
>
>  >Jay Fenello wrote:
>  >>
>  >> Farber suggests the IAB:
>  >
>  >> > PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility -
>  >
>  >> >An Open Letter to the Global Internet Community
>  >
>  >> >First, as an immediate temporary measure, all Internet policy, 
>operational,
>  >> >and other Internet-related functions currently performed by 
>ICANN should be
>  >> >transferred, as soon as practicable while maintaining continuity, to a
>  >> >different, already existing non-profit organization (or 
>organizations) on a
>  >> >non-permanent, strictly stewardship basis.  One potential candidate we
>  >>would
>  >> >suggest considering for this role would be the Internet 
>Architecture Board
>  >> >(IAB)
>  >
>  >In other words, the final complete takeover by ISOC of the Internet
>  >domain name system.
>  >
>  >> >Next, we recommend that an intensive, international study be started at
>  >> >once, with a mandate to propose detailed and meaningful paths for the
>  >> >Internet's development, operations, and management.  The goal 
>of this study
>  >> >would be to help guide the formation of purpose-built representative
>  >> >organizations
>  >
>  >These would, naturally, end up being identical with the local chapters
>  >of ISOC around the world.
>  >
>  >> >Our third recommended step would be for the results of this study to be
>  >> >carefully considered and, as deemed appropriate, to be implemented.
>  >> >Internet-related functions would be transferred from the temporary
>  >> >stewardship organization(s) to the entities developed from the study >
>  >>results.
>  >
>  >That is, from ISOC (the IAB) to ISOC (international local chapters).
>  >
>  >M.S.

RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder

[Einar Stefferud]

Of course Marc;-)...  Too True!

But, without it, the ITU Telephone Heads would not have left a mark 
anywhere in the Internet.  Surely you do not expect them to give up 
on leaving their mark!

So far as I can tell, they have done very little to improve on what 
TPC.INT did 5 years or more ago, aside from changing the SLD and TLD 
domain names.  And to do this, they used two large committees and 
many flights across the oceans.

Cheers...\Stef


At 1:14 AM +0100 3/20/02, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>Seriously, the basic idea is great, but the number idea is stupid. But
>let them set this up. If you can use the DNS to contact people more
>easily on whatever they have (phone, mail, sip, icq, msn) over
>
>1.2.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.e164.arpa
>
>you can also do the same over
>
>joanna.lane.ego
>
>The special Enum DNS records can be used in ANY zone file.
>
>That will be all you have to put on your business card. And you do not
>need new ones printed, when you move houses.
>
>
>On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, at 18:49 [=GMT-0500], Joanna Lane wrote:
>
>  > > And this does what exactly?
>  >
>  > www.enum.org
>  > "Because ENUM puts telephone numbers into the DNS, it allows for 
>a wide range
>  > of applications based solely on a phone number. Probably the most exciting
>  > application is an improvement in Voice over IP, in which 
>telephone calls can
>  > be made over the Internet. "
>  >
>  > Just imagine, someday you'll be able to dial a number and then actually
>  > speak with someone at a remote location.
>  >
>  > What will they think of next.
>  >
>  > The difference being that your current phone number is not used as a Global
>  > Personal Identifier ...Oh, I forgot...you were born with a social security
>  > number tattooed on your forehead already.

RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder

[Einar Stefferud]

At 12:08 PM +0100 3/19/02, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, at 20:52 [=GMT-0500], Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
>  > >> There's a $35 piece of sofware called "Simple DNS+" that puts 
>bind to shame
>  > >> for ease of use anf user friendlyness. http://www.jhsoft.com/ 
>There's a 30
>  > >> day free trial. I tried it and paid for it, it's really quite 
>amazing; it does
>  > >> caching, authoritative nameservice and zone transfers.
>  > >
>  > >Works fine indeed. Thanks. Pity the price has gone up to $79. That
>  > >includes 25 zones, but those I do not need.
>  >
>  > It might have always been that much, I don't really remember. But 
>it's good jah?
>
>It is good, as far as I can see. But the price will not make it
>popular. What we need is something like djbdns's dnscache for Windows.
>Not many people will need a real nameserver that serves zones. Isn't
>there anyone around who can 'play' with dnscache and compile it for
>Windows?

If you won't set up your own personal copy of the DNS root, then you 
must except that you are dependent on someone else, most likely 
someone who owes you nothing.

Not a good businesslike arrangement.  I can hardly wait till I can 
mount my own root server in my home LAN.

Cheers...\Stef

RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder

[Einar Stefferud]

Yeah;-)...  This is the original TPC.INT scheme set up by Marshall 
Rose and Carl Malamud to map all phone numbers in the world into the 
DNS;-)...

<9.1.7.1.3.7.4.3.1.6.1.tcp.int>

They used it to set up free FAX transmission via the Internet with 
local volunteer servers all around the world.

Except for finagling the TPC.INT Domain Name, they did it all without 
asking permission from anyone.  This is the Jesuit form of Working 
Around Problems.

"It is easier to beg forgiveness than to get Permission.

The entire TPC.INT episode must be stashed somewhere in the Internet Archives.

Cheers...\Stef

At 3:38 AM -0500 3/19/02, Joanna Lane wrote:
>  >Only for a heartbeat. ENUM. When your wireless number folds into the DNS
>and
>  >you can't verify your ID without it, you might want to retract this
>  >statement.
>
>Can you explain to me how that works?
>
>Something along the lines of taking your phone number, stripping non-numeric
>characters, reversing, adding dots and attaching to a TLD, so for example:
>+1 (613) 473-1719 becomese164.arpa.
>
>http://www.enum.org/
>http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/enum-charter.html
>
>Joanna

RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder

[Einar Stefferud]

Sort of.

Its lineage is via NeXT, which includes NeXT STEP and some other 
non-unix stuff.

It has a MACH kernel, among other things.  So, lots of stuff will 
port easily, but not all.

the people I talk to love it, and say "It is REAL UNIX" which I 
believe, but I do not have much info on what ports and what does not.

I understand for example that STAR OFFICE does not port.  Too bad;-(...
It is clearly not Solaris.

Cheers...\Stef

At 11:48 PM -0500 3/18/02, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>At 08:09 PM 3/18/02 -0800, you wrote:
>  >Will it run on OSX?  Cheers...\Stef
>
>No, it's a windows program. Isn't OSX just BSD with a Mac GUI?
>
>
>
>--
>  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] Moving Up the Ladder

[Einar Stefferud]

Will it run on OSX?  Cheers...\Stef


At 8:52 PM -0500 3/18/02, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>  >> There's a $35 piece of sofware called "Simple DNS+" that puts 
>bind to shame
>  >> for ease of use anf user friendlyness. http://www.jhsoft.com/ There's a 30
>  >> day free trial. I tried it and paid for it, it's really quite 
>amazing; it does
>  >> caching, authoritative nameservice and zone transfers.
>  >
>  >Works fine indeed. Thanks. Pity the price has gone up to $79. That
>  >includes 25 zones, but those I do not need.
>
>It might have always been that much, I don't really remember. But 
>it's good jah?
>
>
>
>--
>  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] Moving Up the Ladder

[Einar Stefferud]

We should interpret Adam Todd's refusal as a request for removal.

Simple action, positive result!...\Stef


At 8:04 AM -0800 3/18/02, Ellen Rony wrote:
>Doesn't name.space have some colliders,the same TLD delegated to more than
>one administrator in the inclusive TLD universe?
>
>[Aside: .SHEESH still is a collider because Adam Todd REFUSES to make the
>simple redelegation change I have been requesting for 1.5 years.  One
>excuse after another.]
>
>
>
>  >>The root Zone is minuscule these days relative to the size, for
>  >>instance of Windoze.
>  >>Or IE or OutLook, etc, ad nauseum...
>  >>
>  >>How many bytes is it Richard?
>  >
>  >368738 bytes
>  >
>  >It got pretty big when we added the Name Space tlds.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >--
>  > 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] Moving Up the Ladder

[Einar Stefferud]

No, I don't mean per any protocol.

Is it not typical to receive messages in the size range of 368738 
bytes?...\Stef


At 11:40 AM -0500 3/18/02, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>At 08:14 AM 3/18/02 -0800, you wrote:
>  >Isn't 368738 bytes well within the max size limit of a single >SNMP message?
>
>Beats me. It's been years since I've even looked at SNMP.
>
>--
>  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] Moving Up the Ladder

[Einar Stefferud]

Isn't 368738 bytes well within the max size limit of a single SNMP message?

Cheers...\Stef


At 10:07 AM -0500 3/18/02, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>  >The root Zone is minuscule these days relative to the size, for
>  >instance of Windoze.
>  >Or IE or OutLook, etc, ad nauseum...
>  >
>  >How many bytes is it Richard?
>
>368738 bytes
>
>It got pretty big when we added the Name Space tlds.
>
>
>
>--
>  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] Moving Up the Ladder

[Einar Stefferud]

There is no Internet Governance involved with ICANN, except for the 
hidden agenda of gaining control of Information Distribution by means 
of contracts binding users of DNS names to control by the name 
"delegators" who in fact have no natural reason to be controlling 
what people do with their names.

ICANN's hidden agenda is a power grab, not Governance.

Governance is not based on the concept of CONTROL.
It is based on the concept of setting social rules of conduct,
which hopefully do not require squads of enforcers.

ICANN is trying to build an enforcement squad for its "rules".

ORSC is trying to build a self enforcing set of rules for the TLD
providers community, based on enlightened self interests of all the 
involved parties.

This is more or less what controls the IP Backbone, and the 
associates ISPs without a central controller to manage the enforcers.

Cheers...\Stef



At 1:03 AM -0700 3/18/02, Ken Freed wrote:
>Wasn't the original idea a decentralized network that could survive 
>a nuke attack? Should decentralization of the root enourage 
>decentralizalization of governance?
>  -- ken
>
>  >>If a great thunderbolt from heaven descended upon ICANN and took
>  >>out 13 DoC controlled root servers, would your zones still work?
>  >
>  >Yes, absolutely. That's one of the major motivating factors for what
>  >we're doing, and in fact, if you adopt the recommended practice of
>  >running your own private root server [1] then the ORSC servers could
>  >get taken out by that same thunderbolt and everything would still
>  >work for us. "root servers" are a minor convenience, not at all 
>a >strict necessity.
>  >
>  >[1] http://cr.yp.to/dnsroot.html or http://support.open-rsc.org
>  >
>  >I do this on my home Windows box - you don't need unix to do this.
>  >
>  >--
>  > 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] Moving Up the Ladder

[Einar Stefferud]

Right on Richard;-)...

The root Zone is minuscule these days relative to the size, for 
instance of Windoze.
Or IE or OutLook, etc, ad nauseum...

How many bytes is it Richard?

Cheers...\Stef


At 10:00 PM -0500 3/17/02, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>  >If a great thunderbolt from heaven descended upon ICANN and took out 13 DoC
>  >controlled root servers, would your zones still work?
>
>Yes, absolutely. That's one of the major motivating factors for what we're
>doing, and in fact, if you adopt the recommended practice of running your own
>private root server [1] then the ORSC servers could get taken out by that
>same thunderbolt and everything would still work for us. "root servers"
>are a minor convenience, not at all a strict necessity.
>
>[1] http://cr.yp.to/dnsroot.html or http://support.open-rsc.org
>
>I do this on my home Windows box - you don't need unix to do this.
>
>
>--
>  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] Moving Up the Ladder

[Einar Stefferud]

There is no such thing as an alternate inclusive root.

The Inclusive root includes all non colliding TLDs,
so there is nothing alternate about it...Stef


At 7:21 PM -0500 3/17/02, Joanna Lane wrote:
>Yeah, right, and they'll call upon UN forces to defend security and
>stability of the internet. How long till they criminalize inclusive/
>alternate roots?
>
>Regards,
>Joanna
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>Michael Sondow
>Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 10:02 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder
>
>
>
>"Richard J. Sexton" wrote:
>  >
>  > Moving Up the Ladder
>  >
>  > http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm
>  >
>  > "It is further resolved [02.31] that the Chairman of the Board of ICANN
>will
>  > undertake to liaise with the appropriate activities and persons engaged in
>UN
>  > ICT work, keeping alert, always, for opportunities for mutually beneficial
>work
>  > between ICANN and the UN and its various subsidiary organizations;"
>  >
>  > Can an office in Geneve be far behind?
>
>Not necessary. The UN is now just another bureau of the U.S. Gov't, as
>witness its activities in ex-Yugoslavia (e.g. sending "UN observers"
>picked by the US State Dept. to Kosovo). ICANN will probably end up in
>D.C., where the UN is run from.
>
>M.S.

Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections

[Einar Stefferud]

When pray tell did the Govt pay for my piece of the Internet.

I do not recall ever getting any funds from them to pay for it.

I sure would appreciate getting back my $70,000 spent on Internet 
stuff over the years.  Somehow I expect you are not counting anything 
spent by non-govt people to mount the current Internet.

Your arguments are totally bogus;-)...\Stef


At 23:06 -0700 01/03/02, Ken Freed wrote:
>Examples are any nation on earth where the government owns the phone
>company, India for example. I'm more of a free marketeer than a socialist,
>to be sure, but by natural law, if the people rightfully own the government
>that constructs the network of interconnected networks, like a city builds
>roads that connect the private homes, this makes the Internet public.
>
>Let me raise a related issue, mostly to gather information to educate myself.
>Who can give details of development of Internet2, the next generation of the
>Internet? Where is the money coming from? What about its governance?
>
>Thanks for wisdom.
>-- ken
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  >At 04:19 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote:
>  >>And outside of the USA, Internet development mostly was funded by
>  >>governments.
>  >
>  >An interesting assertion. Can you back it up?
>  >
>  >First of all there really wasn't that much "Internet development"
>  >to speak of. In fact it didn't exists. Perhaps you're thinking
>  >of the ARPAnet.
>  >
>  >At any rate, the UUCP network, which remains larger than the
>  >TCP/IP ARPAnet, was larger then the arpanet and by the time
>  >they'r all merged into what we now refer to as "the internet"
>  >it was about 1996. UUCP was never government funded.
>  >
>  >
>  >--
>  > Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't
>  > change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
>  >   [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [IFWP] The ITU, to the rescue ...

[Einar Stefferud]

At 17:57 -0500 20/02/02, Jay Fenello wrote:
>The ITU, to the rescue ...
>
>
>http://www.geneva2003.org/home/index01.htm
>
>Background
>
>The international community is organizing a World Summit on the 
>Information Society. It will take place in two phases: in Geneva, 
>December 2003, to be followed up in Tunis two years later.
>
>The Information Society is at the heart of the political, social, 
>cultural and economic questions confronting us in the beginning of 
>the 21st century. The focus of the Information Society Summit is not 
>technology but the human being - we must keep in mind that it is not 
>enough to be connected to resolve the fundamental problems that 
>exist in the world.
>
>What values do we embrace to ensure that the Information Society 
>becomes a vehicle for democracy, justice, equality, the respect for 
>individuals and peoples, their personal and social development? What 
>is the role of communication in shaping the future of the society we 
>want to build?

Well, for starters, somehow ITU needs to get full control of it all, 
so that someone with clout and raw power can make sure that it does 
what everyone needs, according to the assessments of the countries 
that are signatories to ITU.

This of course ignores the fact that many of the signatories are no 
where near being democratic, or even right minded;-)...

HOGWASH IS WHAT I CALL IT;-)...\Stef

Re: [IFWP] Corrupt Domain Name Arbitration

[Einar Stefferud]

Well, if you were AMAZON and wanted to improve your odds

Cheers...\Stef


At 10:55 -0500 18/01/02, Michael Sondow wrote:
>How can the law firm that represents ICANN represent a complainant in a
>domain name arbitration?
>
>=
>WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
>
>
>
>   ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
>
>   Amazon.com, Inc v. Sung Hee Cho
>
> Case No. D2001-1276
>
>
>
>1. The Parties
>
>The Complainant is Amazon.com Inc, a Delaware corporation with its
>principal place of business at Seattle, Washington, USA. The
>Complainant is represented by Mr. John C. Rawls of Jones, Day, Reavis &
>Pogue of Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
>
>The Respondent is Sung Hee Cho of Seoul, Korea. The Respondent has not
>filed a Response and is not represented.

Re: [IFWP] Typosquatting

[Einar Stefferud]

I also apologize for jumping to conclusions;-)...

My Netscape is Version 4.7, as I do not have confidence in 6.0 or higher.

I am looking forward to upgrading my MAC to OS-X so I can run real Unix stuff.

but that is going to take a while, and I do not want to create any 
deadlines for completion.

Thanks for all your considerations...

If you want me to give your pages a test run, just send me the URLS.

Cheers...\Stef


At 22:56 +0200 10/10/01, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, at 08:57 [=GMT-0700], Einar Stefferud wrote:
>
>  > Thanks Mark for the feedback.
>  > I can plainly see that you did not knowingly choose what I see.
>  >
>  > I am running Netscape on a MAC, which might explain somethings, maybe.
>
>I think this is the core of the problem. Works fine in Netscaoe
>under Windows98. Much have to do with 'translation' of colours on
>different hard/software. More below.
>
>  > Both pages that I get from the URL are in very feint "ink", except
>  > the links which are the only parts I can read without a big effort.
>
>Thanks for replying to my rather sarcastic message, for which I
>apologize. This seems again to be a croos platform problem.
>
>  > The Typosquatting link is especially readable, but the page title says
>  > "Non-Existent Domain" in extremely feint letters, Which also threw me off.
>
>Yes, this "non-existant domain" is a stupid joke, only intelligible to
>people who do dns.
>
>  > There is some other very feint text by the links which I cannot read.
>  >
>  > So, the LINKS are the only readable stuff on either page, and the
>  > rest is in very feint type, which looks like light blue to me, but it
>  > is actually too
>  > feint to even determine what color it really is.
>
>I have to find again this page that tells which colours are 'save'
>across all platforms. I do try my pages in Opera under FreeBSD as well
>as Netscape and IE under WIndows 98. I should not forget Mac users. I
>cannot try this myself (I have only some obsolete MAC hardware running
>NetBSD :-), but will check out the coulour codes, about which there is
>indeed information out there. I saw it in the past.
>
>  > All in all, it is not readable for me, and I cannot figure out why.
>  >
>  > Is it some "feature" of MSN's invention trying to drive us all 
>into using IE?
>  >
>  > IE shows it in readable white on black!  Is this what you intended?
>  > I expect that this uses a NEW MSN feature that Netscape does not implement.
>
>I think it is a MAC problem. But still, we should write our pages for
>all platforms. I get mad too when pages do not work in Opera on
>FreeBSD.
>
>  > I only run IE in dire emergencies, such as this one.
>  > And then I turn if back off ASAP.
>
>Well, we disagree a bit here. IE is not that bad, I think, as long as
>we are not forced to use it, which we sometimes are (banks here in
>Holland!).
>
>  > MSN tricks will not convince me to switch;-)...
>  > They only convince me more and more that MSN is a Pariah!
>  > Hopefully, this kind of result will help train the world to not use
>  > MSN "mis-features!"
>  >
>  > My solution is to not bother with stuff that Netscape cannot show in
>  > readable form.
>
>Well, Netscape is some sort of a security problem, my FreeBSD ports
>tell me. They refuse to compile (well unpack I guess) it. So since I
>am not stubborn, I now run Opera on my desk top (and of course IE on
>my second M$ machine).
>
>Thanks for your kind reply!
>
>Marc
>
>  > > Cheers...\Stef
>  >
>  >
>  > At 06:26 +0200 10/10/01, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>  > >On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, at 14:32 [=GMT-0700], Einar Stefferud wrote:
>  > >
>  > >  > Very confusing set of URLs, requires a lot of careful thought to find
>  > >  > your page.
>  > >
>  > >Thank you for putting me on the right track! Let me try again: go to
>  > >www.nxdomain.net and click on the one and only prominent link on this
>  > >page "TypoSquatting" (cf. subject line).
>  > >
>  > >  > Blue Ink on White Background is pointless in terms of readability.
>  > >  > What ever happened to black and white?
>  > >
>  > >Well, eh, the page is very much and only in black and white (and
>  > >grey). I see no blue. If you are referring to some blue (for so-called
>  > >hyperlinks) on white in the analog report I link to, well, eh, yes,
>  > >this is not in the html, but, I guess, in your (satndard?) browser
>  > >settings. If you'd like to get this 

Re: [IFWP] Typosquatting

[Einar Stefferud]

Thanks Mark for the feedback.
I can plainly see that you did not knowingly choose what I see.

I am running Netscape on a MAC, which might explain somethings, maybe.

Both pages that I get from the URL are in very feint "ink", except 
the links which are the only parts I can read without a big effort.

The Typosquatting link is especially readable, but the page title says
"Non-Existent Domain" in extremely feint letters, Which also threw me off.
There is some other very feint text by the links which I cannot read.

So, the LINKS are the only readable stuff on either page, and the 
rest is in very feint type, which looks like light blue to me, but it 
is actually too
feint to even determine what color it really is.

All in all, it is not readable for me, and I cannot figure out why.

Is it some "feature" of MSN's invention trying to drive us all into using IE?

IE shows it in readable white on black!  Is this what you intended?
I expect that this uses a NEW MSN feature that Netscape does not implement.

I only run IE in dire emergencies, such as this one.
And then I turn if back off ASAP.

MSN tricks will not convince me to switch;-)...
They only convince me more and more that MSN is a Pariah!
Hopefully, this kind of result will help train the world to not use 
MSN "mis-features!"

My solution is to not bother with stuff that Netscape cannot show in 
readable form.

Cheers...\Stef


At 06:26 +0200 10/10/01, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, at 14:32 [=GMT-0700], Einar Stefferud wrote:
>
>  > Very confusing set of URLs, requires a lot of careful thought to find
>  > your page.
>
>Thank you for putting me on the right track! Let me try again: go to
>www.nxdomain.net and click on the one and only prominent link on this
>page "TypoSquatting" (cf. subject line).
>
>  > Blue Ink on White Background is pointless in terms of readability.
>  > What ever happened to black and white?
>
>Well, eh, the page is very much and only in black and white (and
>grey). I see no blue. If you are referring to some blue (for so-called
>hyperlinks) on white in the analog report I link to, well, eh, yes,
>this is not in the html, but, I guess, in your (satndard?) browser
>settings. If you'd like to get this pink on purple, tell your browser
>so. This is pretty standard html that analog produces. I did not
>tinker with it at all... Should I forward your complaint to analog? Or
>to Microsoft?
>
>  > > If you want anyone to read what you are presenting,
>  > please make it readable;-)...
>
>English prose is not my forte. I admit it. I am a foreigner.
>
>  > If you do not want anyone to read it,
>  > please do not invite us to read it;-)...
>
>Right.
>
>  > rule #1:  If you want the reader to see and understand you message,
>  > you (the author) are responsible for making it readable,
>  > and then for making it understandable.
>
>Absolutely! Thank you for all the efforts you put into this!
>
>God bless!
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>  > Cheers...\Stef
>  >
>  >
>  > At 20:38 +0200 06/10/01, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>  > >Typosquatting was a hot topic about a year ago. I then decided to do
>  > >my own little 'emperical' research. Results are at:
>  > >
>  > >http://www.nxdomain.net/
>  > >
>  > >In short: it does not pay, except IP lawyers...
>  > >
>  > >--
>  > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >___
>  > >Discuss mailing list
>  > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  > >http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>  >
>  >

Re: [IFWP] Typosquatting

[Einar Stefferud]

Very confusing set of URLs, requires a lot of careful thought to find 
your page.

Blue Ink on White Background is pointless in terms of readability.
What ever happened to black and white?

If you want anyone to read what you are presenting,
please make it readable;-)...

If you do not want anyone to read it,
please do not invite us to read it;-)...

rule #1:  If you want the reader to see and understand you message,
you (the author) are responsible for making it readable,
and then for making it understandable.

Cheers...\Stef


At 20:38 +0200 06/10/01, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>Typosquatting was a hot topic about a year ago. I then decided to do
>my own little 'emperical' research. Results are at:
>
>http://www.nxdomain.net/
>
>In short: it does not pay, except IP lawyers...
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>___
>Discuss mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[IFWP] Fwd: IP: Disconnect the Dots -- Maybe We Can't Cut Off Terror'sHead, but We Can Take Out Its Nodes

[Einar Stefferud]

This concept explains several things about our efforts to organize 
into some kind of coherent business organization, based on our 
existence as a network of people looking for ways to deal with DNS 
ROOT ISSUES.

We are a network, living in a network (SURPRISE!) and looking like a network.

Cheers;-)...\Stef


>Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 17:09:43 -0400
>From: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: IP: Disconnect the Dots  -- Maybe We Can't Cut Off Terror's Head,
>
>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41015-2001Sep16.html
>
>Disconnect the Dots
>Maybe We Can't Cut Off Terror's Head, but We Can Take Out Its Nodes
>By Joel Garreau
>
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>
>Monday, September 17, 2001; Page C01
>
>The essence of this first war of the 21st century is that it's not 
>like the old ones.
>That's why, as $40 billion is voted for the new war on terrorism, 
>35,000 reservists are called up and two aircraft carrier battle 
>groups hover near Afghanistan, some warriors and analysts have 
>questions:
>
>In the Information Age, they ask, how do you attack, degrade or 
>destroy a small, shadowy, globally distributed, stateless network of 
>intensely loyal partisans with few fixed assets or addresses?
>
>If bombers are not the right hammer for this nail, what is?
>
>Bombers worked well in wars in which one Industrial Age military 
>threw steel at another. World War II, for instance, was a matchup of 
>roughly symmetrical forces.
>This is not true today.
>
>That's why people who think about these things call this new 
>conflict "asymmetric warfare." The terrorist side is different: 
>different organization, different methods of attack -- and of 
>defense.
>"It takes a tank to fight a tank. It takes a network to fight a 
>network," says John Arquilla, senior consultant to the international 
>security group Rand and co-author of the forthcoming "Networks and 
>Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime and Militancy."
>
>He asks: "How do you attack a trust structure -- which is what a 
>network is? You're not going to do this with Tomahawk missiles or 
>strategic bombardment."
>
>"It's a whole new playing field. You're not attacking a nation, but 
>a network," says Karen Stephenson, who studies everything from 
>corporations to the U.S. Navy as if they were tribes. Trained as a 
>chemist and anthropologist, she now teaches at Harvard and the 
>University of London. "You have to understand what holds those 
>networks in place, what makes them strong and where the leverage 
>points are. They're not random connections," she says.
>
>
>
>
>
>For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/

PRIVATE Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

[Einar Stefferud]

Given your attitude toward anything I say, I think we have completed 
all our useful interactions;-)...

Enjoy the silence;-)...\Stef


At 16:15 -0600 12/09/01, Ken Freed wrote:
>Paranoid, Stef? Do you always presume that everyone is against you?
>Look at your mistaken presumption regarding my views on democracy.
>Critical thinking helps prevent embrassment by jumping to conclusions,
>There are more obvious "leaks" on the list than myself, e.g. Mr. Crispin,
>who's arrival effectively killed all communications on this list, it seems
>-- ken

Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

[Einar Stefferud]

Of course, and I assume you will make sure that it is passed along, 
in case someone else has not;-)...

Fortunately, "my plans" are just thoughts on the fly;-)...

But thank you very much for informing everyone here that ICANN has 
spies all around us, to be sure they know what we think, so they can 
resist any good ideas we might have;-)...

Thank you very much;-)...\Stef

PS:  I assume you did not really intend to pass along such useful info;-)...\s


At 09:36 -0600 11/09/01, Ken Freed wrote:
>As for ICANN finding out your plan, Stef, seems wise to presume that 
>your postings here have already been forwarded to ICANN by lurkers 
>on this list. There is no stealth on an open mailing list
>-- ken
>
>
>
>>Well, we run some danger of you going to ICANN meetings and 
>>spilling our beans;-)...
>>
>>So, you will find some hostility here to people who insist on 
>>participating in both.  We a re not going to try to kill ICANN, but 
>>we also do not want to put our head in the ICANN guillotine for no 
>>good purpose other then to lose our heads.
>>
>>We need to use some stealth in our effort to route around ICANN.
>>We do not need to visibly thumb our noses at them, or parade by 
>>with a brass band to get their attention.
>>
>>It is hard to agree to ignore them and at the same time work with 
>>them in their faked up committees.
>>
>>So, I fear you are going to get you chance to choose paths.
>>
>>Cheers...\Stef
>>
>>
>>At 00:11 +0200 11/09/01, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>>>Is this true? Does it not depend on _how_ you work inside ICANN? I see
>>>a lot of people active on the ncdnhc list who 'hate' ICANN as much as
>>>possible. Still they vote for the ICANN board seat (maybe without
>>>success) if they happen to be on the Names Council. Lets not ostracize
>>>each other. I am not putting any money on ICANN. Still, I don't see
>>>why I could not participate in some of its processes and at the same
>>>time be part of 'alternatives'. I would rather see things in the
>>>perspective of the wrong party being in power. Not the power being so
>>>entagled in cosa nostra that all I can do is buy a gun and go into the
>>>mountains.
>>>Anyway, I live in a country that is flat.

Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

[Einar Stefferud]

Well, how about that.

With Kent Crispin here the beans are already spilt, which is why I am leaving.

Cheers...\Stef


At 00:38 -0700 11/09/01, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>Well, we run some danger of you going to ICANN meetings and spilling 
>our beans;-)...
>
>So, you will find some hostility here to people who insist on 
>participating in both.  We a re not going to try to kill ICANN, but 
>we also do not want to put our head in the ICANN guillotine for no 
>good purpose other then to lose our heads.
>
>We need to use some stealth in our effort to route around ICANN.
>We do not need to visibly thumb our noses at them, or parade by with 
>a brass band to get their attention.
>
>It is hard to agree to ignore them and at the same time work with 
>them in their faked up committees.
>
>So, I fear you are going to get you chance to choose paths.
>
>Cheers...\Stef
>
>
>At 00:11 +0200 11/09/01, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>>Is this true? Does it not depend on _how_ you work inside ICANN? I see
>>a lot of people active on the ncdnhc list who 'hate' ICANN as much as
>>possible. Still they vote for the ICANN board seat (maybe without
>>success) if they happen to be on the Names Council. Lets not ostracize
>>each other. I am not putting any money on ICANN. Still, I don't see
>>why I could not participate in some of its processes and at the same
>>time be part of 'alternatives'. I would rather see things in the
>>perspective of the wrong party being in power. Not the power being so
>>entagled in cosa nostra that all I can do is buy a gun and go into the
>>mountains.
>>Anyway, I live in a country that is flat.

Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

[Einar Stefferud]

Hi Kent -- Now that I see you are here, I shall simply exit stage left;-)...

Enjoy;-)...\Stef


At 23:03 -0700 10/09/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 12:08:16AM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>  > >Beautiful. But who gave you your IP number?
>  >
>  > The same place ICANN got their. A regional registry. ICANN uses NAT
>  > addresses so this is rather moot.
>
>Where did you get that idea?
>
>--
>Kent Crispin   "Be good, and you will be
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]   lonesome." -- Mark Twain

Re: [IFWP] Introduction

[Einar Stefferud]

Fair enough;-)...  You can learn about me from the ORSC WEB SITE:

http://www.open-rsc.org

Where I have placed some essays and other writings.

I have been around the ARPANET/Internet since 1975, and I know most 
of the early  Internauts.  I was very active in the IETGF for many 
years, and was involved in the background of the development of the 
MIME protocol in 1990+.

Actually, I was involved with many of the original ARPANET 
development team long before it came to be.  I hired Steve Crocker as 
an undergrad student assistant in 1960 at UCLA, as Steve has reminded 
my about from time to time since.

I am now retired while remaining active in Internet affairs.

I have had my NMA.COM domain name since 1987.

For more information just put my address <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
or my name (Einar Stefferud> into your favorite GOOGLE
search engine and stand back;-)...

My name and email address are globally unique, so you will only get 
hits that are really for me.

Cheers...\Stef


At 23:39 -0400 10/09/01, Joanna Lane wrote:
>Thank you Ellen,
>Nice to meet you.
>Joanna
>
>on 9/10/01 10:16 PM, Ellen Rony at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  > Hi, Joanna--
>  >
>  > Many of us have been on this IFWP list since it was launched in about June
>  > of 1998.  It went through a period of non-use and then disappeared for a
>  > while into the ether, but for most of us here, this is an ongoing dialogue,
>  > with new people joining in (and perhaps leaving) from one month 
>to the next.
>  >
>  > That nothwistanding, here is my intro:
>  >
>  > I am co-author of  The Domain Name Handbook: High Stakes and Strategies in
>  > Cyberspace, a 645-page tome published in 1998.  I have been monitoring
>  > domain issues daily since January 1996.  Currently, I am offering domain
>  > name litigation support and expert witness services for the good guys and
>  > grousing about ICANN along with many others.  I live and work in beautiful
>  > Tiburon, California, 8 miles north of the Golden Gate Bridge that connects
>  > my county with San Francisco.  My website at http://www.domainhandbook.com
>  > provides thousands of links to domain name news, policies, disputes,
>  > Congressional testimony, ICANN's activities, DNS humor and more, but right
>  > now it's about a month behind.
>  >
>  > Regards,
>  >
>  > Ellen
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >> Hello Einar,
>  >> The funny thing about this medium is that while I have no idea 
>who you are,
>  >> you feel entitled to ask me all kinds of questions without introducing
>  >> yourself. If this were the phone, I doubt I'd take your call...;-)
>  >>
>  >> Regards,
>  >> Joanna
>  >
>  >   ^
>  > Ellen Rony )/_http://www.domainhandbook.com
>  > Co-author <" \  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  > Domain Name Handbook  /)  ) +1 415.435.5010
>  > ---/'-""---
>  > The more people I meet, the more I like my cockatiel.
>  >

Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked

[Einar Stefferud]

Right on Patrick;-)...

And a strategy of first making an egg is not likely to work out.
First we need the chicken, and it will give us some eggs.
If we also have a rooster;-)...\Stef


At 19:19 -0700 10/09/01, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Ellen Rony wrote:
>
>  > If there were killer content that is only available in the
>  > other-than-IANA-root, then people would quietly (or not) begin
>  > reconfiguring their computers to view it.
>
>It's a chicken and egg problem...

Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

[Einar Stefferud]

Well, we run some danger of you going to ICANN meetings and spilling 
our beans;-)...

So, you will find some hostility here to people who insist on 
participating in both.  We a re not going to try to kill ICANN, but 
we also do not want to put our head in the ICANN guillotine for no 
good purpose other then to lose our heads.

We need to use some stealth in our effort to route around ICANN.
We do not need to visibly thumb our noses at them, or parade by with 
a brass band to get their attention.

It is hard to agree to ignore them and at the same time work with 
them in their faked up committees.

So, I fear you are going to get you chance to choose paths.

Cheers...\Stef


At 00:11 +0200 11/09/01, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>Is this true? Does it not depend on _how_ you work inside ICANN? I see
>a lot of people active on the ncdnhc list who 'hate' ICANN as much as
>possible. Still they vote for the ICANN board seat (maybe without
>success) if they happen to be on the Names Council. Lets not ostracize
>each other. I am not putting any money on ICANN. Still, I don't see
>why I could not participate in some of its processes and at the same
>time be part of 'alternatives'. I would rather see things in the
>perspective of the wrong party being in power. Not the power being so
>entagled in cosa nostra that all I can do is buy a gun and go into the
>mountains.
>Anyway, I live in a country that is flat.

Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

[Einar Stefferud]

Of course we cannot and will not ignore ICANN.,.

After all, out plan is to copy the ICANN ROOT, and augment it into 
being our superior Inclusive Root, to be offered as a solid well 
managed ROOT service to ISP's that want and need such a service.

We should also offer it to the ccTLD operators who are being squeezed 
into ICANN compliance by bad service delivery to ICANN agreement 
non-signers.  In fact lets work on ways to address a proposal to them 
to join us in lieu of ICANN.

But first, lets get our own act together;-)...

Cheers...\Stef



At 00:05 +0200 11/09/01, Marc Schneiders wrote:

[SNIP]... [SNIP]... [SNIP]... [SNIP]... [SNIP]... [SNIP]... [SNIP]
>
>I am all for alternatives, especially working ones, and I do try to
>participate in those. But can we really _ignore_ ICANN completely?

Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

[Einar Stefferud]

Trying to work with ICANN is a double waste of any participant's time,
unless you are one of the people on the inside track.

First, if you are trying to change the status quo,
you are engaging in a fight with them.
they really know how to fight and win.
So, good luck, but don't ask me to any help that will waste my time and effort.

Second, everything you do with them, adds energy and power to ICANN as it is.
They take your energy and convert it to their advantage.  They feed 
off the people who are working to change them, while yielding nothing 
to their opponents.

I learned that lesson some years ago in a DNSO meeting in Washington, 
where I volunteered to lend support if there was some way to help 
them do things right.
First they asked for my patience, which was to say, "wait till our 
freshly poured concrete is hardened, and then we will let you try to 
change it".
so I immediately said, no, I cannot give you patience!

So, they asked me to work with their new PR agency (Ogilvie - sp?).
I worked with them for a few weeks, until I found that they were 
taking my advice to learn what They were not interested in doing 
things right, only with fooling the public better.

And that was the last time I did anything with them or for them, or 
against them.  it became clear that any energy I might put into 
working with them in order to influence them was going to be used 
against me and against my goals.

I have now watched many people doing their best to get ICANN to 
change its ways, and things only get worse.  They are still taking 
all input energy and using it to buttress their position, so I 
learned to withhold my energy from them.

I now see that others have finally gotten to the same conclusion and 
are now also uttering "stef-speak".

So, I don't care what you do with your energy, since it belongs to 
you, but do not ask me to put mine where you choose to put yours.

But mine is going to be dedicated to working around the damage of 
ICANN, not to trying to change ICANN, or to fight against ICANN. 
Just to let ICANN do its thing, and work around what ever that is.

They make it easy for us because they are exclusive, and we are inclusive.

Inclusiveness in the Internet has vastly greater value than 
exclusivity, as long as the inclusive game also has coherence, which 
is required to earn trust from the community.  So, we need to work on 
building trust by becoming coherent providers of the Inclusive Root 
Service.

This means including ICANN's root plus our own, and remaining 
coherent in the process.

We need to find ways to stop fighting, both with ICANN and with each other.

I am going to just wait until this comes about before I commit to any plans.

Onward;-)...\Stef


At 23:36 +0200 10/09/01, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 17:32 [=GMT-0400], Michael Sondow wrote:
>
>  > Einar Stefferud wrote:
>  > >
>  > > In my view, ICANN is no longer worthy of further attention,
>  > > as their deliberate intention is to disenfranchise all of us.
>  >
>  > I agree with you totally. The title of my posting was intended as
>  > sarcasm, as the content of Sims' email indicates. They have
>  > eliminated the membership, the principal matter which allowed people
>  > to think there was some chance of working with ICANN. That illusion
>  > has, by Sim's admission, now been shattered forever.
>
>I fail to see what is wrong with a two track approach: (1) Trying to
>change things within ICANN, shouting loud when it does dirty tricks,
>and (2) explore new ways. Unfortunately ICANN is way more clear than
>any alternative I know of.
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked

[Einar Stefferud]

I think we are beginning to converge, but are still running in 
different paradigms, so that our same  words mean different things to 
each of us.

I see in your text below, some sense that one way to solve the 
problem of ICANN is to declare it to be a public enemy, and then call 
the troops to wage war on the declared enemy.

That of course will justify them in waging war on us.

I propose that we do noting of that kind.

Instead, what we need to do is work around ICANN,
knowing they are there, but working around them none-the-less.

This way, neither of us has to get into a fight,
and we do not need to involve lots of other people in "our war".

All we really need to do is to find a way to stop fighting among ourselves,
and find a way to maintain what we have been recently calling our 
"Inclusive DNS Root Service" where-in, we include the ICANN root plus 
our own additions to that root, so our root is inclusive, and their 
root is exclusive.

This is of course, more or less what we are doing now, except that we 
are splintered into fighting camps.  Unfortunately some people solve 
their
problems by fighting, and so our job is to work around this also.

Not by beating them in a war and claiming the spoils, but by somehow 
getting them to play our non-zero-sum game, in place of their 
zero-sum game.

This means that we are together in this mess, and that when one of us 
gains value from the game, no one else need be losing what the 
gaining person gained.
Our game should be to add value to all of our participants by making 
the whole of our enterprise worth more to everyone that is in the 
game with us.

The collective whole of a smooth running stable inclusive Root is 
surely worth much more than a fragmented bunch of roots that is run 
by a bunch of people who are fighting with each other.

We need to present to the world a coherent image, in place of our 
current incoherent image.  We can only do this by finding ways to 
forge a collective effort.

I am not sure how to do this, but I do know that this is what we need.

Cheers...\Stef



At 14:27 -0600 10/09/01, Ken Freed wrote:
>I can understand you, Gordon, and still have my own perspective.
>
>The trust you hope to see perhaps grows out of folks interacting
>with mutual respect for one another, which for me grows out of
>that global sense of our deep interactivity I keep talking about.
>I have a long way to grow, personally, to achieve this level of
>maturity, but tiny progress every day adds up over a lifetime.
>And so I do what little I can from where I am to make a dent.
>
>Most of us think we're isolated and powerless. That's a lie.
>When Stef talks about the power at the edge of the network,
>this is where I'm focusing, empowering individuals for action.
>
>The practical problem is that we need a common framework
>for responsible behavior that honors the rights of all players,
>like we need a common language to communicate clearly.
>I'm advocating an inner sense of global interactivitiy that
>guides us to balance our freedom with responsibility.
>
>Since we lack the emotional, political or even spiritual maturity for
>responsible self rule (so far), we need laws to govern our actions.
>Law is the fundamental Social Contract keeping civilization from
>descending into chaos.  When we finally grow up into adulthood,
>anarchy may work. Until we do learn how to live responsibly free,
>I favor laws over kings for setting bounds on civil conduct. Right
>now we have the fox guarding the henhouse. Apart from the rule
>of law and asserting our natural right to enjoy self determination,
>how else would you propose stopping the ravages of ICANN?
>
>Indeed, the more I think about it, could a lawsuit be the answer?
>(There never was any public vote to privatise the public Internet,
>and there never was any public vote giving authority to ICANN.)
>And if so, in what venue could the plaintiffs gain a fair hearing?
>And who could or would put up the money to sustain the suit?
>Is there anyone with deep pockets AND a deep conscience?
>
>-- ken
>
>Ken Freed
>Publisher, Media Visions Journal
>http://www.media-visions.com
>
>"Deep literacy makes global sense"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  >>Which is why we need laws governing the DNS, not committees.
>  >>-- ken
>  >>
>  >>P.S. Richard: Your address:  ("Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>  >>  always bounces as "undeliverable", if that info is 
>helpful to you.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >you simply  DO NOT UNDERSTAND ken...
>  >
>  >although I admitt I didn't fully understand until I called steff
>  >voice a couple of hours ago and asked him to explain the TCP function
>  >as a tust mechanism for IP.
>  >
>  >laws shmaws.. the bloody hell with laws..  yes in grade
>  >school they taught  us that laws were goodbut any gd laws in any
>  >gd legilature are gonna be the laws the control freaks o the icann ip
>  >police want
>  >
>  >so don't talk laws.,.. you are wasting all our time..  th

Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

[Einar Stefferud]

In my view, ICANN is no longer worthy of further attention,
as their deliberate intention is to disenfranchise all of us.

We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the 
cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root.

Cheers...\Stef


At 12:58 -0400 10/09/01, Michael Sondow wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: "Joe Sims" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Sandy Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 6:04 AM
>Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Evaluation of NAIS and ALSC Reports
>
>  > The existing bylaws of
>  > ICANN make no provision for further At Large elections; this was the
>  > result of the Cairo Compromise, in which the Board agreed to direct
>  > elections of five directors for two years, during which time the ALSC
>  > would conduct a "clean sheet" study.  Thus, any new elections require
>  > the amendment of the bylaws to insert in Article II the criteria and
>  > procedures for any such elections.  So the fact is that "clean sheet"
>  > means just that -- the ICANN bylaws are a blank sheet on this subject,
>  > and any further At Large elections will require a 2/3 vote of the ICANN
>  > Board to write on that "clean sheet."

Re: [IFWP] Introduction

[Einar Stefferud]

On what basis are you running for an ICANN BoD seat?

On reading a few lines of your candidate statement, I note that you 
call for many of the same things that the IFWP (and the ORSC) called 
for long long ago in a meeting far far away (in Singapore;-)...

What makes you think that you can have any significant influence on 
getting ICANN to reverse course and adopt any of you ideas?

Its BoD is moribund, and has turning into a deaf and dumb rubber stamp.

My view is that the proper thing to do with ICANN is let it throw 
itself off a cliff, without anyone trying to stoop it from doing so.

As for this IFWP list, I dearly hope it does not turn into yet 
another ICANN subcommittee without portfolio, trying to help you get 
elected to save ICANN from itself.

Cheers...\Stef

PS:  I have no authority here in IFWPland,
  and very likely very little influence as well;-)...


At 17:45 -0400 09/09/01, Joanna Lane wrote:
>Just a note to introduce myself to this list. For those that don't me,
>please visit http://www.internetstakeholders.com, with particular reference
>to the ICANN Board Candidate Statement I made yesterday at Montevideo.
>
>Is there a subscriber list?
>
>Regards,
>Joanna

Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked

[Einar Stefferud]

OK, so now we are back to edge control by individuals,
which is where I started.

My strong suspicion is that if you take the entire internet as your 
target, that any "government" (with or without a constitution) will 
tend toward becoming centralized and bureaucratic (and hence 
dictatorial), and even if it is as you call it, "democratic", it will 
still have a single top executive, and a congress that is less that 
representative, etc, et all, ad nauseum.

Again, please consider the analogy between the Internet and
the Economy, as both are in fact edge controlled.

But, if you are thinking in terms of some kind of confederation of 
DNS service providers, overseeing DNS service provision, then I could 
be induced, as that is the model that was conceived of for the ORSC, 
which has not yet blossomed into active reality.

Cheers...\Stef


At 13:56 -0600 09/09/01, Ken Freed wrote:
>P.S. Stef:  You keep presuming I'm advocating centralization.
>Please do not pidgeon-hole my ideas to fit your expectations.
>I'm advocating quite the opposite:  Decentralized democracy,
>composed of individuals practicing reponsible self rule from
>a global sense of our deep interactivity, a sensibility that the
>global Internet could help to induce if liberated from ICANN.
>Thanks,
>-ken
>
>
>
>  >Hello Ned --
>  >
>  >At 12:27 -0600 08/09/01, Ken Freed wrote:
>  >>Wrongaroonie, Einar --
>  >>The goal is a decentralized network of independent democracies,
>  >>just as we need individuals practicing reponsible self rule from a
>  >>common global sense of our deep interactivity. That how genuine
>  >>freedom and democracy can work best. Isn't it time for us humans
>  >>to outgrow our addiction to despots? Or do we still fear adulthood?
>  >>-- ken
>  >>
>  >>Ken Freed, Publisher
>  >>Media Visions Journal
>  >>http://www.media-visions.com
>  >>
>  >>"Deep literacy makes global sense."
>  >
>  >
>  >I don't think you can contest with me about love of or distaste for despots,
>  >so why do you make this an issue.
>  >
>  >My point is very simple:
>  >
>  >What is the correct view of the Internet in terms of analogies with
>  >other phenomena that we see in our universe?
>  >
>  >My view is the the Internet, with its edge control and many
>  >participants who both contribute information to and consume
>  >information from other edge based participants, is more like a free
>  >economy, in terms of its need for organized central control.
>  >
>  >In this new millennium, after the last in which hundreds of millions
>  >of people were slaughtered in fighting to see who would be in control
>  >of various economies, including the global economy, why should we now
>  >shift to fighting over control of the Internet.  Why don't we take
>  >some lessons from our experiences with economies and markets which
>  >must remain free and open in order to function properly.
>  >
>  >So, looking at your proposals backwards, if a global internet constitution
>  >(for governing the Internet ) is a proper idea, why is it not also a
>  >good idea for governing the global economy?
>  >
>  >The basic problem is that all of the real driving decisions are made
>  >at the edges of the net (just as with the global economy), where
>  >people set up their computers as they individually wish to set them
>  >up, in spite of the fact that a lot of vendors are doing their best
>  >to in effect, convert all this freedom of choice into the original
>  >IBM Computer model with some central processor in control of the edge
>  >people's information access and flows.
>  >
>  >The MSN Windoze paradigm is that of central control, with central
>  >singular points of control. like PASSPORT, and ICANN to decide for us
>  >what we should be looking at.  It maps the IBM central control
>  >paradigm onto the Internet.
>  >
>  >The fact is that a lot of people just believe that there has to be a
>  >control point of control of things, or they will fall apart!
>  >
>  >In my view, what we have been losing, and are still losing more of
>  >every day in the Internet is basic trust in the net, in its service
>  >providers, and in each other, as we are all producers and consumers
>  >of the words that we use to exchange ideas.
>  >
>  >MSN offers to induce trust by registering all of us so MSN can vouch
>  >for our trustability.  but, on close inspection, trust is not
>  >transitive, so why should I trust MSN to tell me that I can trust you?
>  >
>  > [Side note:  Trust is transitive in Spy Networks, but not otherwise!]
>  > [This is why most of our "Internet security tools" depend on
>  >transitivity.]
>  > [Just think about where crypto technology came from;-]
>  >
>  >That the currency of the Internet is ideas, instead of sovereign
>  >coinage, does not change the underlying basis of the power of the
>  >Internet to self organize and to function without some kind of
>  >centralized trust inducer.  And to be sure, a constitution will
>  >result in forming some kind of gov

Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked

[Einar Stefferud]

Hi Ken -- So, you are just returning me to my first question;-)...

If some kind of democratic government, supported by a good constitution
is a good thing, why not try it also for the global economy?

I say this because they are both edge controlled environments,
and because economic freedom is so unevenly distributed;-)...

I tend to believe that what is good for the Goose,
is also good for the Gander;-)...

Cheers...\Stef


At 13:45 -0600 09/09/01, Ken Freed wrote:
>Hi Stef --
>
>The issue of despots arises because ICANN and all other
>such tyrannies across the spectrum, varying by degree, are
>able to function solely because people want to be ruled by
>despots. It's classic codependency, an addictive behavior,
>this need for saviors instead of saving ourselves, this false
>belief we're too sinful or inadequate to live responsibly free.
>Network democracy can help to induce personal democracy.
>
>My efforts are aimed at helping myself and the rest of society
>mature enough so real democracy can have a chance to work.
>It's quite narcissistic, in a way, my hope to live in a better world.
>I am focusing on ICANN because communication weaves the
>web of culture, and ICANN acts at the "core" of global media.
>Internet despotism tends to perpetuate political despotism,
>so I want our Internet to be ruled to democracy, not whim.
>
>Hope this clarfication helps you understand my motives.
>-- ken
>
>
>  >Hello Ned --
>  >
>  >At 12:27 -0600 08/09/01, Ken Freed wrote:
>  >>Wrongaroonie, Einar --
>  >>The goal is a decentralized network of independent democracies,
>  >>just as we need individuals practicing reponsible self rule from a
>  >>common global sense of our deep interactivity. That how genuine
>  >>freedom and democracy can work best. Isn't it time for us humans
>  >>to outgrow our addiction to despots? Or do we still fear adulthood?
>  >>-- ken
>  >>
>  >>Ken Freed, Publisher
>  >>Media Visions Journal
>  >>http://www.media-visions.com
>  >>
>  >>"Deep literacy makes global sense."
>  >
>  >
>  >I don't think you can contest with me about love of or distaste for despots,
>  >so why do you make this an issue.
>  >
>  >My point is very simple:
>  >
>  >What is the correct view of the Internet in terms of analogies with
>  >other phenomena that we see in our universe?
>  >
>  >My view is the the Internet, with its edge control and many
>  >participants who both contribute information to and consume
>  >information from other edge based participants, is more like a free
>  >economy, in terms of its need for organized central control.
>  >
>  >In this new millennium, after the last in which hundreds of millions
>  >of people were slaughtered in fighting to see who would be in control
>  >of various economies, including the global economy, why should we now
>  >shift to fighting over control of the Internet.  Why don't we take
>  >some lessons from our experiences with economies and markets which
>  >must remain free and open in order to function properly.
>  >
>  >So, looking at your proposals backwards, if a global internet constitution
>  >(for governing the Internet ) is a proper idea, why is it not also a
>  >good idea for governing the global economy?
>  >
>  >The basic problem is that all of the real driving decisions are made
>  >at the edges of the net (just as with the global economy), where
>  >people set up their computers as they individually wish to set them
>  >up, in spite of the fact that a lot of vendors are doing their best
>  >to in effect, convert all this freedom of choice into the original
>  >IBM Computer model with some central processor in control of the edge
>  >people's information access and flows.
>  >
>  >The MSN Windoze paradigm is that of central control, with central
>  >singular points of control. like PASSPORT, and ICANN to decide for us
>  >what we should be looking at.  It maps the IBM central control
>  >paradigm onto the Internet.
>  >
>  >The fact is that a lot of people just believe that there has to be a
>  >control point of control of things, or they will fall apart!
>  >
>  >In my view, what we have been losing, and are still losing more of
>  >every day in the Internet is basic trust in the net, in its service
>  >providers, and in each other, as we are all producers and consumers
>  >of the words that we use to exchange ideas.
>  >
>  >MSN offers to induce trust by registering all of us so MSN can vouch
>  >for our trustability.  but, on close inspection, trust is not
>  >transitive, so why should I trust MSN to tell me that I can trust you?
>  >
>  > [Side note:  Trust is transitive in Spy Networks, but not otherwise!]
>  > [This is why most of our "Internet security tools" depend on
>  >transitivity.]
>  > [Just think about where crypto technology came from;-]
>  >
>  >That the currency of the Internet is ideas, instead of sovereign
>  >coinage, does not change the underlying basis of the power of the
>  >Internet to self organize and to function w

Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked

[Einar Stefferud]

And The Solution to this lament is _?
Assuming, of course, that laments have solutions.
Cheers...\Stef


At 16:36 +0200 09/09/01, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, at 16:01 [=GMT-0400], Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
>  > I agree with Gordon on this; we don't need "gevernance". We didn't have any
>  > to build the network and it's generally harder to build somehing 
>than run >it.
>That would be great. However, if you own a piece of land in my country
>and build a house on it, the local government will pull it down, and
>send you a bill for the costs of descrtuction, unless you had its
>permission to build it. Of course we will not get that permission.

Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked

[Einar Stefferud]

Hello Ned --

At 12:27 -0600 08/09/01, Ken Freed wrote:
>Wrongaroonie, Einar --
>The goal is a decentralized network of independent democracies,
>just as we need individuals practicing reponsible self rule from a
>common global sense of our deep interactivity. That how genuine
>freedom and democracy can work best. Isn't it time for us humans
>to outgrow our addiction to despots? Or do we still fear adulthood?
>-- ken
>
>Ken Freed, Publisher
>Media Visions Journal
>http://www.media-visions.com
>
>"Deep literacy makes global sense."


I don't think you can contest with me about love of or distaste for despots,
so why do you make this an issue.

My point is very simple:

What is the correct view of the Internet in terms of analogies with 
other phenomena that we see in our universe?

My view is the the Internet, with its edge control and many 
participants who both contribute information to and consume 
information from other edge based participants, is more like a free 
economy, in terms of its need for organized central control.

In this new millennium, after the last in which hundreds of millions 
of people were slaughtered in fighting to see who would be in control 
of various economies, including the global economy, why should we now 
shift to fighting over control of the Internet.  Why don't we take 
some lessons from our experiences with economies and markets which 
must remain free and open in order to function properly.

So, looking at your proposals backwards, if a global internet constitution
(for governing the Internet ) is a proper idea, why is it not also a 
good idea for governing the global economy?

The basic problem is that all of the real driving decisions are made 
at the edges of the net (just as with the global economy), where 
people set up their computers as they individually wish to set them 
up, in spite of the fact that a lot of vendors are doing their best 
to in effect, convert all this freedom of choice into the original 
IBM Computer model with some central processor in control of the edge 
people's information access and flows.

The MSN Windoze paradigm is that of central control, with central 
singular points of control. like PASSPORT, and ICANN to decide for us 
what we should be looking at.  It maps the IBM central control 
paradigm onto the Internet.

The fact is that a lot of people just believe that there has to be a 
control point of control of things, or they will fall apart!

In my view, what we have been losing, and are still losing more of 
every day in the Internet is basic trust in the net, in its service 
providers, and in each other, as we are all producers and consumers 
of the words that we use to exchange ideas.

MSN offers to induce trust by registering all of us so MSN can vouch 
for our trustability.  but, on close inspection, trust is not 
transitive, so why should I trust MSN to tell me that I can trust you?

 [Side note:  Trust is transitive in Spy Networks, but not otherwise!]
 [This is why most of our "Internet security tools" depend on transitivity.]
 [Just think about where crypto technology came from;-]

That the currency of the Internet is ideas, instead of sovereign 
coinage, does not change the underlying basis of the power of the 
Internet to self organize and to function without some kind of 
centralized trust inducer.  And to be sure, a constitution will 
result in forming some kind of government, just because that is what 
constitutions do -- they specify the structure of a governing system 
that has a central point of control, such as the United States, which 
the EU is now trying to emulate with what they think is a more 
enlightened way to deploy bureaucracies for the common good of 
controlling the actions of its citizens and its markets.  I wish them 
all good luck!

Indeed, the entire world is struggling to form more perfect unions of 
people and communities, (typically with someone one chosen to be "in 
charge";-)...  You are only proposing that this someone should be 
chosen by some other means than that chosen by the ICANN process.  I 
don't like the ICANN process either, but the solution is not to 
replace it with yet another flawed system of centralizing control of 
the use of names, and numbers, and ideas and information in general.

In our world, there are many instances of self organized social and 
economic structures that do not require, and would not be enhanced, 
with the addition of any central controller, no matter how 
democratically that controller might be chosen.

I realize that there is a very large proportion of the world 
community that suffers great discomfort when they do not find someone 
in control, from whom they can obtain permissions to do what they do, 
or denial of permission, which  gives them comfort in the removal of 
their needs to be responsible for controlling their own behavior.

But, I much prefer the Jesuit Principle:

"It is easier to beg forgiveness than to get permission!"

Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked

[Einar Stefferud]

And then we can undertake to create a global constitution for the 
Global Economy, and then take on any other edge controlled 
environments which also surely\ need to have a constitution, to apply 
Centralized Democratic Government.

Enjoy your trip;-)...

At 12:47 -0600 07/09/01, Ken Freed wrote:
>Seems to me any effort to work within ICANN
>to acheive "network democracy" is innately an
>act of self-deception, continuing the public lie
>that ICANN is a legitimate government. It isn't.
>
>There has never been a public vote to privatise
>our public Internet. There has never been a public
>vote to grant any governance power to ICANN. The
>emperor is clothed in a fabric of veiled delusions.
>
>I still advocate a global Internet constitution, so we
>have a governmewnt of laws not committees.
>
>Ken Freed
>Media Visions Journal
>http://www.media-visions.com
>
>"Deep literacy makes global sense"
>
>
>
>
>
>  >(fixed)
>  >
>  >>Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 08:21:30 -0500
>  >>From: "ooblick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  >>Subject: Re: Re: Why wake up? (Re: [IFWP] Is this list up? (Test, ignore,
>  >>sorry))
>  >>To: "Dan Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  >>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  >>MIME-Version: 1.0
>  >>Content-Type: text/plain
>  >>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  >>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Sep 2001 12:18:55.0359 (UTC)
>  >>FILETIME=[EE94E8F0:01C13604]
>  >>
>  >>Hear hear.  So i am going on vacation.  The fix was in from the get go
>  >>and all we were was pawns to lend legitimacy to their fabricated claims
>  >>of consensus.
>  >>
>  >>See you next week. I'm going diving.
>  >>> Original Message ---
>  >>>From: Dan Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >>>Cc:
>  >>>Subject: Re: Why wake up? (Re: [IFWP] Is this list up? (Test, ignore,
>  >>>sorry))
>  >>>
>  >>>Well to counter your argument I would say that I went to IFWP meetings
>  >>>all over
>  >>>the globe, went to an ICANN meeting or two.  I worked on the at-large
>  >>>issue in
>  >>>good faith in the first Membership Advisory Committee.  I believe I was
>  >>>very awake
>  >>>during the entire process, with gusts to diligent.  What did all that
>  >>>work get?
>  >>>not much I think.  I am not funded to work on lost causes. 
>Those that go to
>  >>>Montevideo are funded to act and more than a couple of them will have a
>  >>>pre-set
>  >>>agenda. Unless you want to fund everyone on this list to show up 
>and make a
>  >>>presence felt, I think sleeping is the more economical course.
>  >>>
>  >>>Marc Schneiders wrote:
>  >>>
>   Why we should wake up fast? Quite a few people are on their way to
>   Montevideo right now. A couple  of them may try to determine a lot of
>   things on their own there without real input from those affected. The
>   ALSC preliminary report leaves not much hope for a change to the
>   better. Now, if it would be a good, thorough, well argued report, in
>   whi
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >
>  >--
>  > "But at the end of the day, even if you put a calico dress on
>  >  it and call it Florence, a pig is still a pig."
>  >  -- Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corp. et al., 2001 U.S. Dist.
>  >  LEXIS 8962, (S. D. Tex., 2001).
>  >
>  >  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [IFWP] Re: Registrar Constituency meeting - Berlin

[Einar Stefferud]

Hi Patrick -- That is the bad news.  

The good news is that doing so will unmask ICANN for what it is;-)...

BTW, my access to present mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is blocked and my mail is being rejected.

Cheers...\

>From your message Fri, 21 May 1999 19:41:12 -0700 (PDT):
}
}On Fri, 21 May 1999, Esther Dyson wrote:
}
}> The rooms are open.  Then either the constituencies self-organize, and the
}> Initial Board  recognizes them, or certain constituencies will be missing in
}> the initial DNSO.
}
}Consider for a moment that ISOC, who is convienently holding an
}all-chapters meeting in Berlin immediately preceeding the ICANN meeting,
}overwhelm the meeting with representitives for all the constituencies.
}
}You would recognize constituencies without offering equal weight to
}the input and/or participation of those utilizing the Internet who
}are either unable or unwilling to spend the potentially thousands of
}dollars(depending on location) to go to Europe?
}
}Recognizing any constituency without the input of those unable to attend
}physically would be do a great disservice to those that you purport to
}serve.
}
}/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
}Patrick GreenwellTelocity   http://www.telocity.com
}(408) 863-6617 v (tinc)(408) 777-1451 f
}\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
}

[IFWP] Re: voting

[Einar Stefferud]

Hi Esther -- Please forward this to the official address for protests
against the processes that ICANN is employing in organizing the
constituencies.  I am not at all clear where to send a protest like
this, but I trust you to know where to send it and to send it there.

It is my intention that the ICANN Board should see it and coprenend.

It is absurd to be organizing tyhem only among those present in
Berlin, as though being present in Berlin establishes credentials.

And, beyond that, I find all the actions of ICANN to be both devisive
among contenders, and to furhter imbed the practice of converting
everything into a power based zero-sum game, which manages to ap the
energies of most of the lesser powered constituents and tilts the
control process into the hands of the most powerful.

So, it is now my postion that I will stand by and let ICANN do itself
in with its power based closure of the doors on a major portion of the
eligible constituents.  Perhaps even a majoprity, but who can count
anything in the mess that ICANN has made.

Cheer...\Stef



>From your message Fri, 21 May 1999 21:13:46 -0400:
}
}That's really up to the constituencies themselves - as long as the voting
}rules pass muster: open, nondiscriminatory, broad participation, etc. 
}
}Esther
}
}At 06:01 AM 21/05/99 -0700, Rick H. Wesson wrote:
}>
}>I would like to understand what voting in the constituency meeting means.
}>It appears that anyone can go to a meeting and participate in its
}>organization. I think that is a good thing. I still want to understand
}>how voting in these meeting will take place? will each meeting allow for
}>real time input over the internet? will votes be published.
}>
}>I am especially conserned with voting for officers, will votes be blind,
}>straw, and will others from the net be able to participate. just a bit of
}>confusion i see coming. voting seems to be a prevleent thing in these
}>meeting and i would like to better understand how it will be used to
}>develop "consensus"
}>
}>thanks,
}>
}>-rick
}>
}>
}>
}
}
}Esther Dyson   Always make new mistakes!
}chairman, EDventure Holdings
}interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
}[EMAIL PROTECTED]
}1 (212) 924-8800
}1 (212) 924-0240 fax
}104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
}New York, NY 10011 USA
}http://www.edventure.comhttp://www.icann.org
}
}High-Tech Forum in Europe:  24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
}PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona 
}Book:  "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age" 
}
}

[IFWP] Announcement of the new TLD Association (TLDA)

[Einar Stefferud]

This new Candidate Constituency appears to be in head on competition
with the NSI sponsored gTLD constituency, and TKDA is focused on
including exactly those prosp[ective new gTLDs that the NSI gTLD
constituency ignores.

So, somewhere down the line, it is going to be required that these two
candidate constituencies get together to form one out of both, or for
one to kill the other off.

I suggest that melding both into one is the much preferred resolution.

Further, since the TLDA is less restricted, I suggest that is be used
as the base foundation from which to build the meld.

I find it to be an exceptional instance of hubris for NSI to claim to
be the sole representative of the entire gTLD "constituency" when it
is so patently clear that thiiis entire DNS MESS has grown up out of
the contentiousness of plans to add new gTLDs.

Best...\Stef

--- Forwarded Message

From: "Marsh, Miles (Gene)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Joop Teernstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
"Antony Van Couvering (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
"Christopher Ambler (Exchange) (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
"Dan Steinberg (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
"David Farber (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
    "Don Telage (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
"Ed Gerck (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
"Einar Stefferud (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
"Ivan Pope (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
"Jay Fenello (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
"Jock Gill (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
"Joe Baptista (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
"Richard J. Sexton (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
"Ron Kimball (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
"Stephen Wolff (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
"Wrath (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: TLDA Formed As Industry Association, ICANN Constituancy
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 01:38:50 -0400


> 
> For immediate release:
> 
> UNIONTOWN, OHIO, April 26, 1999/ -- An group of organizations
> today announced the formation of the Top Level Domain Association
> (http://www.tlda.org), an association designed to provide a clearing
> house and coordination point for organizations with a registry
> interest in new Top Level Domains on the Internet.  The group would
> also constitute the first TLD registry group for providing a voice 
> to ICANN, the organization chartered with management direction for 
> Internet IP addresses and domain names.
> Top Level Domains (TLDs) are the designations after the "dot" in
> Internet domain names.  To date, there are typically three commonly
> used TLDs: ".com", ".net" and ".org"  The TLDA will promote the
> development, use and management of additional TLDs, and work with
> other organizations, such as ICANN, the IETF and others to ensure
> their smooth deployment.
> According to Richard Sexton of VRx Network Services, interim 
> primary spokesman for the TLDA, "The Internet offers great potential 
> for individuals and business around the world.  Domain names are a 
> key to understandable and identifiable locations on the Internet.  A 
> coordinated effort to support additional TLDs is essential to the 
> future growth and success of the Internet and e-commerce world-wide. 
> The formation of the TLDA is the beginning step to assure additional 
> TLDs are addressed in a manageable fashion, and that organizations 
> with an interest in TLD registry functions have their concerns heard."
> Details of the TLDA organization and its functions are
> forthcoming, according to Gene Marsh, president of anycastNET
> Incorporated and interim secretary for the TLDA.  "We envision the 
> TLDA operating in a very open fashion. Participation will be sought 
> from every interested party.  The more ideas we have to consider, 
> the more informed our views will be."
> "It's about time this group was formed" commented Einar Stefferud,
> chairman of the Open Root Server Confederation (ORSC).  "I feel this 
> fits with the objectives of the ORSC, and fully support the effort"
> A Technology Company, Inc. founder Jason Hendeles wrote,
> "The domain name business has a window of opportunity. If the players 
> can remain focused on

[IFWP] Re: Not at all, was Re: the Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency, status update

[Einar Stefferud]

Hello Ed and Joop -- 

I fear that some kind of short circuit has occurred here.
Maybe several all at once;-)...

So, lets back up and reset/restart.

I am not entirely opposed to constituencies, but I am opposed to them
as ICANN is using them.  I am not organizing one of my own, but I am
supporting several others while also promoting competition for ICANN
because I find that ICANN ignores too many of the people who
particicpate in their stilted divide and conquer constituency
formation games, while paying great attention to unamed and invisible
supporters who lurk in the shadows and appear to manipulate things.

But, I am visibly supporting several constituencies, namely the IDNO
that Joop is forming, and the TLDA that Milton (Gene) Marsh is
forming, in the upside hopes that they might have some influence, and
the downside hopes that ICANN will quash them and clearly show its
real intentions to exclude them from having any influence.

Of course, it is also possible that ICANN will embrace them and still
ignore them, in the strategy of "holding your enemies close".  this is
why I am putting the greater effort into competing, as I find that
ICANN pays more attention to competition than to my contituencies.

I do not support the DNSO-IP constituency as it is cleary working
against my interests, but we shoudl not confuse the DNSO-IP)
constituncy with the IDNO constituency, though I must say the the
alphbet soup of constituency names has reached the point of no
return;-)...

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Tue, 27 Apr 1999 06:22:33 -0700:
}
}Joop Teernstra wrote:
}
}> Friends,
}>
}> All 34 individuals that have so far underwritten the IDNO constituency,
}> actually oppose the idea of constituencies for the DNSO.
}
}Joop:
}
}Not at all.
}
}I think your text is a far stetch and one that is not granted.  It should be
}recalled in totum. When anyone joins any Internet open group that is
}done most of the times if not all, not to oppose anything from the past
}but to help build something better for the future. To say otherwise is
}to misuse their trust.
}
}It is also misleading to consider mere listserver subscription as "support"
}or "opposition" when most of the time people just want to hear what is
}happening.
}
}> Those who do not want organisations to be their voice, seem to be forming
}> something that already looks like an organization.
}>
}> A contradiction?
}
}No, a sophism.
}
}> These few dozen founding members are set to become the the little crystal
}> dropped in the over-saturated solution.
}
}This is IMO a gross unwarranted use of those who decided to participate in
}dnso-ip -- including but not limited to 34, if that is not all of dnso-ip.
}
}Unless this attitude is retracted here and now I suggest that anyone in that
}group
}of 34 (whom you  have not named) is signing a blank check for your
}endorsement.
}
}If anyone considers my name in that group of "few dozen .. set to become the
}little
}crystal", due to my previous  messages and this dnso-ip list subscription,
}than
}such someone is mistaken.
}
}> They will go out and spread the message.
}
}No -- how can you say that 34 people are going to follow your agenda,
}which has been BTW hidden so far from any public discussion?  Do you
}realize you are co-opting 34 people -- who, if they remain silent, are just
}useless since so controlled?
}
}
}> Every day brings more statements of support as a direct result of their
}> evangelism.
}
}Their -- who?
}
}> In the end the mass of individuals with their voting rights in the DNSO
}> remains.
}>
}> This is the vision.
}
}Not mine and that was never said here when dnso-ip started.
}
}> I urge all Domain Name Owners to support it,  including those who will
}> participate in the formation of the other constituencies.
}
}On the contrary, I ask you to please erase this bad start and may it serve as
}
}an example of what cannot be done.
}
}Ed Gerck
}

Re: [IFWP] RE: Iperdome Status Report

[Einar Stefferud]

Indeed, Jay, the values you identify are worth working for.

I agree with Roberto that labeling them as American is not a helpful
idea in the ocntext of the Interent, which is viewed around the world
with a certain suspician that is it controlled by the US and needs t0o
be wrsted from "American Control".

Also, I am not asure that fighting is the right choice of words, as I
tire of constantly seeing people turn situations requiring some good
old fachioned hard work into wars so the problems can be solved with a
good rousing war of some kind. 

We do not need a war to resolve our difficulties with ICANN.  Outr
problem with ICANN is that it is waging war to solve its problems, and
we need to wage cooperation collaboration strategies inplace of divide
and conquer tacktics.  

Of course, it is always hard to stop a war once it starts.  It only
takes one to start a war, but it always takes two or more in
cooperation to stop it.  This is the basic nature of Zero Sum Gaming,
at which ICANN is a Master, whether they realize what they are doing
or not.

So, lets focus on common values and forget our nationalities.  What we
are working for is not a national thing of any kind.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:55:12 -0400:
}
}
}Hi Roberto,
}
}I had a long exchange with some Netizens
}up in Canada about my call for *traditional*
}American values.  They felt that it was not
}appropriate for me to hold our system of 
}government up as the ideal for the rest of 
}the world to follow, especially for the 75 
}or so other countries that have democratic 
}traditions.
}
}I couldn't agree more!
}
}In fact, the U.S. Government has been as
}guilty as *any* government in abandoning 
}Netizens rights in this global power grab.
}
}That's why my call was for *traditional*
}values, the ones that helped define our
}common traditions, and the ones that have
}broken the chains of bondage that were
}common before the emergence of government
}for the people, and by the people.
}
}So my call for traditional American values 
}was about just that -- values.  Values like 
}no taxation without representation, due process, 
}protections of minority interests, etc.  It was 
}also to get the attention of the two presidential 
}candidates that were cc:d on my original message.  
}
}In closing, my comments were meant as an ideal 
}to fight for.  To the degree that the rest of 
}the world agrees, I hope that they'll join us.  
}
}Jay. 
}
}P.S.  I will rewrite the PDNHA pages to better 
}reflect these sentiments.  Thank you for your 
}comments.
}
}
}At 06:39 AM 4/26/99 , Roberto Gaetano wrote:
}>> Finally, to facilitate representation
}>> for our clients, Iperdome has formed the
}>> Personal Domain Name Holders Association
}>> (http://www.pdnha.org).  The PDNHA claims
}>> membership in the non-commercial domain 
}>> name holders constituency, and any other
}>> Individual based constituency that may
}>> be considered.  
}>> 
}>What puzzles me most in PDNHA's approach (besides yet another unpronouceable
}>addition to the alphabet soup) is the following excerpt from the program
}>(see http://www.pdnha.org/about.html for reference):
}>
}>  An American Perspective
}>  As a Representative Democracy, U.S. citizens have come to expect
}>certain rights and civil liberties from our government. Unfortunately, this
}>unique American perspective has collided with the governance philosophies
}>found in the other 240+ countries throughout the world. Consequently, many
}>of our most closely held beliefs about governance have not been incorporated
}>into ICANN. Things like no taxation without representation, due process,
}>consent of the governed, etc. 
}>  The PDNHA will continue the fight for these truly American values,
}>not just for Americans, but for all Netizens of the world.. 
}>
}>First of all, many thanks to Jay Fenello on behalf of the other 240+
}>countries around the world, where rights and civil liberties cannot be
}>expected ;>).
}>
}>I have heard before the statement about fighting for American values on
}>behalf of the other peoples of the world, and even if often in good faith,
}>not many times with good results (Viet-Nam is the first example that comes
}>to my mind). I tend therefore to think at this attitude to fight on behalf
}>of others in spite of what the others think the best example of non-respect
}>of one of the primary civil rights and liberties, i.e. autodetermination.
}>
}>I surely think that Iperdome and PDNHA's point of view is very important,
}>and may be helpful in building up a truly complete scenario for the future
}>DNSO constituencies, but I doubt that a real claim for objectivity and
}>fairness can be made if the "American Perspective" approach is to be
}
}>privileged.
}>
}>Maybe this would be worth remembering when time will come to mediate among
}>the different proposals in Berlin.
}>
}>Roberto
}> 

Re: [IFWP] The DNSO General Assembly

[Einar Stefferud]

I was just curious as to whether you have a workable scheme for
implementing your policy.  

I do not think such a thing exists, and I have no suggestions for how
to do it.

I think the entire process is hosed and I am no longer interested in
helping ICANN make it look like I am supporting their actions adn
decisions, which I am clearly not supporting.

To date I have not seen any indication that they take anythign I say
or do in any serious way, though I have tried in many ways, including
private exchanges with Esther and others in ICANN.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:01:54 -0400:
}
}Einar Stefferud a =E9crit:
}>=20
}> Your policy is most laudable.
}>=20
}> What is the mechanism for making this work in Berlin?
}
}Well, what I thought was I would ask each one who can't come to
}Berlin if they want to assign me their vote. If they do, they send
}me an email proxy saying so. If there are many who don't, I'll ask
}that all voting on propositions in Berlin be postponed until the
}next day, March 26 (the constituency will meet March 25, supposedly,
}although I had also thought of having a meeting on the 24th). What
}do you think?
}
}> }Every person who signs up for the NCDNHC through the ICIIU sign-up
}> }procedure gets a vote in the NCDNHC, whether they come to Berlin or
}> }not.

Re: [IFWP] The DNSO General Assembly

[Einar Stefferud]

Your policy is most laudable.

What is the mechanism for making this work in Berlin?

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Wed, 14 Apr 1999 17:33:12 -0400:
}
}Einar Stefferud a =E9crit:
}>=20
}> I wish you good lucj, but since ICANN is going to take its cues from
}> those present in Berlin, the game is already hosed.
}
}Every person who signs up for the NCDNHC through the ICIIU sign-up
}procedure gets a vote in the NCDNHC, whether they come to Berlin or
}not.

Re: [IFWP] The DNSO General Assembly

[Einar Stefferud]

I wish you good lucj, but since ICANN is going to take its cues from
those present in Berlin, the game is already hosed.

I see no effort at all to work things ourt so that netizens can
participate without flying to Berlin.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Tue, 13 Apr 99 16:31:48 -0400:
}
}The discussion of the constituencies is important, but we shouldn't 
}forget about the General Assembly. It was the feature of the DNSO that 
}many of us thought most important, and the draft bylaws still give that 
}body the real "power" in the DNSO. 
}
}It is clear that organizational interests are rallying around the 
}creation of the  constituencies (they're entitled to do that, just as 
}individuals are), but equal focus, especially from those active on this 
}list, should go to developing, and most importantly, *populating* the 
}General Assembly. 
}
}Bringing interested stakeholders into this new body and developing 
}methods of effective online participation and voting are what will make 
}an effective General Assembly. And only an effective General Assembly 
}will minimize the effects of the constituencies or any organized 
}lobbyists that participate in this process.
}
}The downside of the "bottom-up" management style that we wanted is that 
}we now have to build the General Assembly from the bottom up. Anyone who 
could help devise a system of online participation, verification, and 
}voting that could facilitate the work of the General Assembly would be 
}doing God's work. 
}
}The first General Assembly meeting is scheduled for the afternoon of May 
}25th in Berlin. 
}
}-- Bret

[IFWP] Re: [Membership] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18

[Einar Stefferud]

I agree that it is not reasonable to have no criteria at all, whcih is
what this all boils down to, but, far be it from me to tell ICANN what
to do.  At this point, as ICANN wonders farther and farther off
course, I am more and more inclined to bow gracefuly as they go by and
let them go competely off course and sail off some handy cliff.

I have given up on trying to to even influence ICANN, as nothing I
have done so far has had the sligthest impact, and this is my graceful
bow as they go by;-)...

I am now dedicating my efforts to routing around the damage;-)...

Enjoy the trip;-)...\Stef

>From your message Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:26:22 -0700:
}
}Again, the voice of reason I mentioned in the past.  Nii's comments seem =
}to reflect the current standing committee of ICANN.  However the other =
}voices are not being heard.  Minimal dues are symbolic, but also carry =
}some legal weight.  It is not a case of creating second-class citizens, =
}but rather opening the membership to all, and giving those who need it =
}assurance that they can option membership though a dues waiver.  =
}Further, considering the state of technology (no way to verify identity =
}over the Net) a hard copy authentication procedure is essential.  How =
}can you have voting when you cannot authenticate the ballots?  I think a =
}reasonable compromise can be reached.
}
}Michael Gendron
}Lecturer
}State University of New York at Albany
}
}-Original Message-
}From:  Dr Nii Quaynor [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
}Sent:  Monday, April 12, 1999 4:02 AM
}To:Michael Sondow; ICANN MAC list; ICANN; Int'l Forum on the White =
}Paper; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Joop Teernstra; Jonathan Zittrain; Daniel =
}Kaplan; DNSO discuss; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Einar Stefferud; Eric =
}Weisberg; Esther Dyson; Jay Fenello; Karl Auerbach; Kathryn Kleiman; =
}Larry Lessig; Milton Mueller
}Subject:   Re: [Membership] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
}
}
}
}Some inputs for your consideration.
}
}>
}>1.  Any individual or organisation may be an AL member. Only
}>ORGANISATIONS that are members of a SO are excluded.
}>
}>Comment: No criteria whatsoever for membership is a clear invitation
}>to persons with no real interest in the Internet, but who seek to
}>use a newly created organization to further their political
}>ambitions, to join and manipulate their standing as members for
}>their own purposes. As Joop Teernstra has so well pointed out in his
}>proposal, an Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
}>clearly has a primary if not unique responsibility towards those who
}>possess or make use of Internet names and numbers, and it is these
}>who should be its members. As to excluding from the At-Large
}>membership organizations that are members of the SOs, that is not
}>only impossible to control, since organizations are after all only
}>collectives of their individual members, but undesirable since the
}>organizations that belong to the SOs, as well as the individuals who
}>are members of them, need a forum for collective deliberation, and
}>that, by all reason, should be the At-Large membership.
}>
}
}MAC deliberations at Singapore made recommendations on criteria. I =
}recall
}that the criteria *did not* exclude people with criminal record because =
}of
}potential problems of dissidents, for example. Hence its not true that =
}no
}criteria were specified. This meeting was an open meeting, as I recall.
}
}I support the statement that those who possess or make use of Internet =
}names
}and numbers should be members. I however think that there are others who =
}get
}impacted by the Internet and should not be excluded. Several of these =
}users
}dont own names and *dont* know that numbers even exist. Hence a more
}flexible and open membership should be sought beyond what you are =
}calling
}for.
}
}>2.  Members must apply by sending an on-line registration form
}>provided by ICANN, giving an e-mail address and other minimal
}>identification details, which ICANN will only attempt to verify if a
}>complaint is lodged.
}>
}>This is merely a convenience for the ICANN Board; but, like the
}>recommendation above, it invites the worst abuses. Who is to know if
}>the persons applying even exist, or if any of their information is
}>correct? Surely, minimal authentication, easily provided by postal
}>service mail-back, must be required in order to substantiate the
}>existence of the applicants.
}>
}
}MAC had discussed a more elaborate  procedure involving snail mail. I
}believe its still being discussed so you may be jumping to conclusions =
}on
}this one.
}
}>3.  Members must re-register annually. Changes to registered
}>details, particularly e-mail address, must be advised on pain of
}>loss of membership.
}>
}>What is the point to this if there is no hard-copy authentication of
}>members' existence? It only invites furt

[IFWP] Re: the Individual Domain Name Owners constituency

[Einar Stefferud]

I also support formation of such a constituency.

I suggest that it not take its direction from ICANN as to its
ineterests, but first organize an membership fo domain name owners and
find out what are their interests.

It is my interest to protect the interests of domain name owners, adn
not to protect the interests of ICANN!

How do I become a member?  My domain is NMA.COM.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Sat, 10 Apr 1999 08:20:11 -0400:
}
}Ok, here's my support for such a constituency.
}
}Joop Teernstra wrote:
}> 
}> Friends,
}> 
}> The effort that I undertook in Singapore, together with Jay Fenello and
}> many others, to have the Individual Domain Name Owners recognized as one of
}> the bootstrap-constituencies in the DNSO has been only partly successful.
}> 
}> What the ICANN board has edicted is
}> 1. a constituency for non-commercial DN owners
}> 2. a constituency of business interests.
}> 
}> Yet, Esther said (perhaps facetiously) that forming the constituencies
}> prior to the Berlin meet, is now a bottom-up effort.
}> 
}> Well, right here from the bottom,
}> I propose a constituency of Individual DN owners without the artificial
}> caste-barrier.
}> 
}> There are hundreds of thousands of DN owners who do not want to be
}> classified as non-commercial even if they might be so today.
}> 
}> Yet in the business-interests constituency they will not get the
}> representation they will want and need: protections against the WIPO lobby,
}> that will, if unchecked,  let big business with large law firms ride
}> roughshod over small business.
}> 
}> As small and , for registries, insignificant players, they will also need
}> special protections against arrogant behaviour and abuse of power by
}> registries. They need to have their ownership of their Domain recognized.
}> These protections will have to be lobbied for in the DNSO.
}> 
}> If these protections have to come from the at-large ICANN membership, they
}> will come too late.
}> I am convinced that the policy recommendations that will come out of the
}> DNSO will carry a great deal of weight for the future elected ICANN board.
}> Why else would the DNSO formation have mattered so much for the ICANN
}> interim Board to have both Esther and Joe Simms present all the time?
}> 
}> All we need to do is to present the constituency in Berlin, as a united
}> front of both business and non-business DN owners, concerned about the same
}> issues.
}> 
}> Please email your support for such a constituency to the list or to me.
}> I will need to know who supports such a constituency, well before I would
}> decide to go to Berlin on your behalf.
}> Actually, it would be more economical and practical if someone based in
}> Europe could represent us in Berlin.
}> 
}> Please comment or react. Your enemy is apathy.
}> 
}> 
}> 
}> Joop Teernstra LL.M.
}> Democratic Association of  Domain  Name  Owners
}> http://www.democracy.org.nz
}
}-- 
}Dan Steinberg
}
}SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
}35, du Ravin
}Box 532, RR1   phone: (613) 794-5356
}Chelsea, Quebecfax:   (819) 827-4398
}J0X 1N0e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [IFWP] Fwd: Re: Power Politics and the New Internet Order

[Einar Stefferud]

After reading the rest of this thread, which devolves into name
calling and drifts off the topic, I have decided to answer this one
from early in the thread;-)...

As a result of the early discussion in this thread, it suddenly
becomes very clear that if anyone is building a Private INTRAnet, and
they want to avoid name collisions in the open Internet where they
cannot control naming, they will be most wise to arrange to have full
control of the Open Internet name of their chosen Private TLD or SLD
in order to avoid unwanted conflicts at some later time.  

This is just plain ordinary due diligence and prudent management.  It
is always wise to only depend of resources that you really can depend
upon;-)...

So, Kent is right in pointing out (perhaps a bit obliquely) that the
private network manager is responsible for finding some dependable way
to be sure that conflicts can and will be avoided in the future.  If
anyone builds a private net with a hidden TLD or SLD and later finds
that it has come into conflict with a newly chosen name on the open
Internet, that manager has only himself to blame.

[NOTE]  I might usefully here call attention to the fact that some 
old line networking products ran into major problems because
they did not think ahead to assure that their customers could
have globally unique names and addresses for their network
elements.  SNA and DECNET come easily to mind.

Now, this realization does not yet complete the picture.  `

It leaves open the question of what can be done in the Coordinated
Administration of the DNS to facilitate Private Network Managers
ability to make known the names they use in private, and so block them
from being used by others parties in the Open Internet, and thus avoid
he unwanted conflicts in an open and positive way.

I would propose that it be possible for a private network operator
openly to register a PRIVATE TLD or SLD, or 3LD (or lower) to clearly
label it as reserved for private use!  At worst, one could put some
kind of host on that name to make it real enough, even if it was a
rented permission on some ISP's host, or on some WEB HOSTING site.

It is just too easy to find a way to lock up a name by making it
active in some minimal way in the open net, and then use is as you
wish in your private way.

First, what is the harm in allowing such things below the ROOT.
If none, then do  we care, and if we care, then why do we care?

Second, what is the harm in allowing this kind of treatment of a TLD?

I hope this will steer this thread back to more rational discussion.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Thu, 01 Apr 1999 22:44:41 -0800:
}
}At 08:26 PM 4/1/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
}>On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 11:37:13PM -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
}>[...]
}>> 
}>> There are a number of complications if the root-servers started to point to
}>> a different TLD root-server than the one set up by the VPN TLD registry.
}>> Were ICANN, or NTIA, to assign the VPN TLD to someone else, there would be
}>> an instantaneous conflict which, given the infrastructure investment, would
}>> result in instantaneous litigation. Given prior use and trademark law, this
}>> litigation could be successful.
}>
}>Uh, Roeland, if ICANN decides that it needs to change to a Swiss
}>corporation, what are you going to do? Sue in Swiss Court? Do you
}>have a Swiss trademark?
}
}Irrelevant, they're definitely NOT going to do that, the USG won't let
}them, period. Are you going to claim otherwise? Your statement here is
}pointless.
}
}>Also, since it is you who are using a TLD for a private purpose when
}>a lower level domain would do just fine, in contradiction to every
}>grain of common sense about good network management, why do you 
}>think ICANN should pay any attention to your private TLD?
}
}Non-starter and as irrelevant as your previous comment. In this case, you
}ask a question that has already been answered. In this case, another
}message I wrote this very morning.
}
}>> Some of this remains to be seen. It is
}>> possible that the VPN TLD registry does not want to be in the root-server
}>> system. In this case, given the technical conflict, the VPN registry must
}>> still be able to deny the root-server system the ability to assign that TLD
}>> to anyone else. The mechanism afforded by trademark law seems to be
}>> helpful, in this regard. This is still under evaluation, although
}>> preliminary research appears promising.
}>
}>Oh sure.
}
}Your point? Are you disagreeing with the requirement? You certainly can't
}be disagreeing with a solution that isn't being presented.
}
}>> In the case of a purely private network, built on an internal TLD (call it
}>> PNET), as you suggest, there is a bleed-though effect. Although the
}>> internal IP block is a private one (not visible outside that block) and the
}>> public IP addresses are only gateways, the node within that private network
}>> still have access to the Internet via the proxy-servers(ga

Re: [IFWP] Fwd: Re: Power Politics and the New Internet Order

[Einar Stefferud]

Thanks Dan for wiping out windsheilds again so we can see more
clearly.

I also agree with Chris Ambler's proposal that Well Know Name Holders
and Famous Name Holders should all have the same opportunity to
establish a TLD in their name, if they want to do so, and that if they
do, they have to meet all the same criteria that any other TLD
proposer has to meet.

One of those criteria has to be that there is no conflict over the
name as it passes out of its operational testing phases.

I still find that our Open Competitive SuperRoot needs to have a
staging subroot where new TLD registries must prove tha they are
responsible and capable of meeting established technical, operational,
policy, and administrative requirements, all of which must be
reflected in a contract to be signed by the registry and the Open
Competitive SuperRoot Trade Association.

The only exceptions will have to be made for the "legacy-TLDs" that
are already inbedded in the current IANA Root, as controlled by the
DCO NTIA, which we must agree to honor and include in our SuperRoot.

So, we need a drafting team to put together the definitive technical,
operational, policy, and administrative requirements, for publication,
open public discussion, and open public adoption.  In a very important
sense, this draft document will be a critical step on our marketing
plan for our SuperRoot.

Do we have some volunteers?  

This will be a heavy lifting exercise, so we should not have too many
participants with their hands in the keyboards to begin.  Following
the first draft publication, open discussion will certainly be in
order, as it will also be in order for subsequence evolving versions.

There is a lot of text available in various places, especially in the
ORSC texts that have been mounted over the last many months.  I
recall, but do not have handy some early discussions about
requirements for assuring that the root will be Open, Robust, Secure,
Comprehensive, Fair, Etc...

Cheers...\Stef



>From your message Thu, 01 Apr 1999 22:56:43 -0500:
}
}
}
}"Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote:
}> 
}> At 08:14 PM 4/1/99 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
}> >Notsofast...
}> >
}> >Before we (or anyone else) can cede famous names, we need an
}> >appropriate international definition of 'famous names'.  Right now
}> >most of the world uses 'well known marks' in the trademark arena, and
}> >that's as good as it gets.  Remember, that's just the trademark
}> >arena.  Outside of trademark law, I defy anyone to come up with an
}> >internationally acceptable definition of 'famous names' (other than "I
}> >know one when I see one").
}> 
}> I was thinking similarly. How about we make them present proof of
}> trademark, or provide statements affirming their common-law mark.
}
}Um, Roeland...
}Trademark in which country?
}The whole point I was trying to make is that we can't apply these
}rules across national boundaries.  Plenty of entities have valid
}trademarks on the same character string in the same country. Now take
}it across national boundaries.   This just doesn't scale.
}> 
}> I've always appreciated NSI's delicate position, although their policy sux
}> eggs.
}> 
}> >Sorry to be a wet blanket, but just because I think .att is associated
}> >with a certain firm doesn't mean everyone in the world does (actually
}> >I would first think of .at&t before I thought of .att but that's
}> >another story).
}> >
}> >The point being that it will 'fairly' difficult to make such
}> >allocations.  why should ford motor company get .ford instead of the
}> >ford agency?  Give male teens the choice between supermodels and super
}> >trucks, I wouldnt want to bet on the outcome.   And I am sure that
}> >somewhere in the world. the alpha string 'ibm' is strongly associated
}> >with something other than a certain company with headquarters in the
}> >state of New York.  Etc. etc.
}> 
}> >I like Christopher Ambler's suggestion.  Nothing is automatic.  If
}> >someone who happens to have a US Famous Mark wants to run a TLD, it is
}> >possible but not guaranteed.  There still has to be a process.
}> 
}> Agreed, with a modification. They should sign a hold-harmless. Actually,
}> this brings up another point related to the SLA and that is the contract
}> binding the TLD owner and the organization. Granted, we need to agree on
}> the service levels first, but they should be formalized shortly thereafter.
}> 
}> I have boiler-plate, that I used for the MHSC Terms Of Service
}> , but I am sure Dan has better,
}> or can better modify it for ORSC use. (BTW, I stole the plate from
}> AOL). Since ORSC is a DE corp, it would be prudent to claim DE jurisdiction.
}
}And the law of which nation should apply?
}Sorry, doesn't scale either.
}
}There's a few dozen problems to solve before we (or anyone else) gets
}to defining SLAs.
} 
}
}
}-- 
}Dan Steinberg
}
}SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
}35, du Ravin
}Box 532, RR1   phone: (613) 794-5356
}Chelsea, Quebec   

Re: [IFWP] Fwd: Re: Power Politics and the New Internet Order

[Einar Stefferud]

So, what is wrong with .ibm, .att, .ford, .etc?   

Lets cede all famous names to have TLD registries, and reserve the TLD
space for them.  Then they can mount thier TLD if they want to step up
to the reguirements of running a TLD service for themselves.  

This requires a lasrger commitement than to just get an SLD.
Specifically, it means committing to collaboration with all other TLD
registries to coordinate the ROOT.  And perhaps to also run a
Secondary ROOT server;-)...

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Thu, 01 Apr 1999 10:05:23 -0800:
}
}At 09:38 AM 4/1/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
}>"Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
}>
}>>Heaven's no! That's why I've kept talking about the "net gods" and the fact
}>>that www.xxx.yyy.zzz cannot be equal to www'.xxx'.yyy'.zzz'.  Once you
}>>(or somebody) factors in the fact that your "chartered TLD" is itself a
}>>private net, then all those problems disappear.  But so long as it's a TLD,
}>>by which I mean, not to lose communication here, it is on the same "level"
}>>as .com, .org, etc. (anyone not know what I mean by that?), the need to
}>>establish that "private" TLD in concurrence with ICANN and other god-like
}>>entities still remains, does it not?
}>
}>Why must your secure domain be established as a TLD?  Any level of the
}>domain tree should be sufficient.
}
}Technically correct. However, a TLD has additional marketing considerations.
}
}>Furthermore, my guess is that if people start registering TLDs as trademarks
}>en masse, eventually we will have the root(s) filled with .ibm, .att,
}>.yahoo, etc.
}
}
}yes, I expect that. By the same token, I expect that to also limit the rush
}as not everyone has a trademark-able name.
}___ 
}Roeland M.J. Meyer - 
}e-mail:  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
}Internet phone:hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
}Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
}Company web-site:   http://www.mhsc.com
}___ 
}   KISS ... gotta love it!
}
}

Re: [IFWP] Re: [dnsproc-en] Re: Domain Names are property, says court

[Einar Stefferud]

Call signs have much of the same character as DNS names, in that they
may not be used in conflict by two different Electro Magnetic Signa
Transmitters.  But, this has nothing to do with whether or not the
call sign registrant owns some intellectual property in connection
with the Call Sign string.

I keep going back to the advertsiing abstraction, where in the
registry (TCC, or DNS) owns a data base or a name server that behaves
like an advertising medium with space in the database zone file for
registered call sign strings or DNS zone file names.

So, there is room for a very clean contract between the registrant and
the registrar to the effect that for a fee, the registry will
"advertise" the registered name for the purpose of resolving the DNS
name to various data that are entered into the Registry database and
name serever for the registrant.

And this cointract does not require that the ownership rights to the
DNS name or the Radio CALL Sign be transferred to the registry, or o
anyone else for that matter.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Sun, 28 Mar 1999 19:02:33 -0800:
}
}At 04:53 PM 3/26/99 -0500, you wrote:
}>Bill Lovell a =E9crit:
}>>
}>> ICANN is saying that
}>> as soon as I tell one of the registrars what that name is, and tell them
}>> I want to park it there, then the ownership of that domain name
}>> transmogrifies over to ICANN?  Horse puckey.
}>
}>It's no more horse puckey, I'm afraid, than the restrictive
}>allocation of electromagnetic radiation in the earth's ionosphere.
}>You can invent a four-letter name for a transmitter of
}>electromagnetic radiation, but it's not much use until the regulator
}>grants you a piece of the high-frequency electromagnetic radiation
}>spectrum. Same soon for domain names.
}
}We're talking past each other.  In your example, the regulator does
}NOT own "KOIN," "WPBS,"  etc., in spite of the fact that it "owns,"
}i.e., has control of, that spectral space. :-)
}
}Bill Lovell
}
}Bill Lovell
}

Re: [IFWP] Deeper and deeper

[Einar Stefferud]

Chuckle:  The ICANN of WORMS;-)...\Stef

>From your message Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:02:55 -0500:
}
}Roeland,
}
}I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about.
}What particular can 'o worms are you referring to?
}
}"Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote:
}> 
}> Hello all,
}> 
}> It occurs to me that we keep digging deeper into this can o' worms and
}> finding ... more worms. What's more, they are beginning to look exactly
}> like the ones we already dug up. Now we need yet another set of documents
}> for each constituency.  It is beginning to appear that the
}> documents will all look relatively the same.
}> 
}> In popular JAD parlance, this is a rat-hole. We could pour a whole ocean
}> down it and never drown a rat.
}> ___
}>
}-- 
}Dan Steinberg
}
}SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
}35, du Ravin
}Box 532, RR1   phone: (613) 794-5356
}Chelsea, Quebecfax:   (819) 827-4398
}J0X 1N0e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[IFWP] Re: Power Politics and the New Internet Order

[Einar Stefferud]

Good show Jay;-)...  

Your comments fit with my interpretation of the facts as we know them.

Best...\Stef

Re: [IFWP] Re: [dnsproc-en] Re: Domain Names are property, says court

[Einar Stefferud]

Thanks Bill -- I have been making that point now for about two years,
and you are the first person to restate it in other words!

I welcome your support for the concept that ICANN is claiming to onw
things that they have not been conceived.

My claim is that the "ICANN owns all names" business model is terribly
flwaed, and that the correc tmodel is that they hold advertising space
in their zone file, and registrants rent that space to adversise their
DNS names, wwwhich are owned by the registrant.

At least the registrant owns the right of use, whci ICANN does not and
the registrar does not and the registry does not.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Wed, 24 Mar 1999 23:11:51 -0800:
}
}At 11:49 PM 3/24/99 -0500, you wrote:
} The name may be property, but it's the property
}>of ICANN, and leased not to the registrant but to the registrar, who
}>acts in the name of and retains the prerogatives of the property
}>owner, ICANN.
}
}Well, we'll see about that. I have in my mind right now a domain name.
}Before I thought it up, it did not exist.  Some space on some registry
}existed, true enough, but that space was not filled up with some ghost-
}like image of the domain name I'm thinking of.  ICANN is saying that
}as soon as I tell one of the registrars what that name is, and tell them
}I want to park it there, then the ownership of that domain name 
}transmogrifies over to ICANN?  Horse puckey.
}
}Bill Lovell
}
}

Re: [IFWP] Demise of Internic

[Einar Stefferud]

The Internet and The Economy are very much the same, in that both are
controlled from their edges, where individuals and companies all make
local decisons about product and service purcahses and offereings,
though some influence is applied with some Intergovernmental Treaties
and Central Banks and Legistlation which provide general policy and
general rules in a framework of laws, but not with regulation of local
decisions at the edges.  (e.g., where to look for DNS ROOT SERVICE).

So, the Internet is not in need of a Government any more than the
Economy is in need of having a "Government";-)...

Lets stop talking about a Constitution and Bill of Rights for the
Internet.  It makes no more sense than does a Constitution and Bill of
Rights for the global economy!

After a century of wars with the killing of many millions of people
over the great question of who should "control the global economy",
lets not now apply that logic to The Internet.  It only took a full
century to learn not to try to control free markets and econoimies
with centralized governmental institutions.

We do not need a Government of the Internet any more than we need a
Government of the Economy.

The problem we now have is that:

1.  The US Government has created a market structure failure by
ineptly allowing the DNS gTLD names space to be arbitrarily
restricted in size (only 3 useful names), thus creating an dire
artificial shortage of desireable DNS names, and with the US Govt
Contract in place with NSI, ther US Govt is entirely responsible
for creating and maintaining the NSI monopoly.  No one other than
the US Govt can remedy the current situation, which can only be
remedied by opening up the gTLD name space.  Resterictive
regulation of NSI as a monopoly by the US Govt or any
International Intergovernmental Body is not going to solve any of
the problems.

2.  Competing Registrars, all selling names in the same restricted and
servely cramped .com, .org, .net names spaces will not solve any
of the problems that arise from the lack of product in the gTLD
name space.  Regulating the gTLD registrars will not increase the
supply of gTLD names!  The monoply is caused by lack of supply!

3.  So, we are now being seduced into jabbing at NSI while the problem
continues to fester under control of the US Govt, aided and
abetted with support from ICANN which is salivasting over the
opportunity to become the Global Regulator of the use of all names
in the Internet.

It is time for us all to wake up to the nonesense that is now being
passed for "Enlightened Internet Governance"!  Lets just solve the
primary market structure problem and get out of the need for
regulation.

Cheers...\Stef




>From your message Mon, 22 Mar 1999 08:13:12 -0700:
}
}Charges of monopoly abuses make us question
}the powers that be, and the rules governing them.
}The stakes are great in the cyberspace land rush.
}Open competition will help only if the playing field
}is level. Again and still, we need an open Internet
}constitution with a bill of rights & responsibilities.
}Our global network needs interactive democracy.
}
}Ken Freed
}Media Visions Webzine
}http://www.media-visions.com
}
}
}
}>For years now, companies like Iperdome and
}>IO Design have been calling for competition
}>in the name space.  Not fake competition, at
}>the "registrar" level, but real competition,
}>at the "registry" level.
}>
}>Instead, many have attempted to devolve NSI's
}>monopoly through rules, regulations, and all
}>sorts of other machinations.  Now, people
}>are complaining about the results.
}>
}>Competition *will* address these complaints.
}>How many more years must we wait?
}>
}>Respectfully,
}>
}>Jay Fenello
}>President, Iperdome, Inc.
}>404-943-0524  http://www.iperdome.com
}>
}>
}>At 02:56 PM 3/21/99 , Robert Raisch wrote:
}>>I call for the immediate re-evaluation of Network Solutions contract and a
}>>further hastening of the creation of an infrastructure of competitive
}>>registrars.  Each moment we delay in doing so only furthers Network Solutions
}>>iron grip on the market, causing irreparable damage to competition.
}>>
}>>What is most egregous about this recent action is that by bundling further
}>>services in e-commerce, web, and e-mail hosting, with their existing domain
}>>name registration services, Network Solutions seeks to leverage its current
}>>market monopoly position unfairly against those providing the same services
}>>but lacking government-sanctioned control of the market.  This is why
}>>unchecked monopolies are so dangerous.
}>>
}>>Futhermore, Network Solutions seeks to butress its shaky future market
}>>position by taking acts today contrived to confuse the consumer into
}>>believing
}>>it *is* the Internic.  As such, this recent highjacking of the Internic is
}>>nothing but simple theft, since I - and every other U.S. taxpayer - paid for
}>>the creation of Internic's brand value, now held ho

[IFWP] Re: A tough decision

[Einar Stefferud]

Thanks William X...

Let us know if we may assist you in any way.

Best...\Stef

>From your message Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:29:25 -0800 (PST):
}
}
}For the last 24 hours this has been a matter of a great deal of thought for me.
}
}Even has I finished work late last night, I was willing to give NSI the 
}benefit of the doubt and see what Chuck had to say today.  
}
}But today's posts show me exactly where NSI stands.
}
}I've decided I am going to change a major position I have held as a result.  
}A position I held because I insisted on believing in the process, and in the
}system, that when all was said and done we would have a fair and open
}structure.  
}
}As such I criticized those who participated in activities that I felt were
}outside the scope of the process.  This included such activities as the Open
}Root Server Confederation's "Staging Root Server."
}
}In discussions with other Service Providers, and after some long and deep
}thought on my own this morning, I have decided to change my views.  And to
}actively encourage others to do the same.
}
}Beginning in just a few hours, DSo Internet will turn on a root server serving
}the "root" zone as pulled from the ORSC staging root, which includes a number 
}of TLDs not currently in the NSI operated USG controlled root.  Further we 
}will be strongly encouraging other Service Providers to do the same. I know 
}of at least 4 providers who will be pointing their hints file to ORSC 
}staging root servers.
}
}I further encourage all TLD operators with TLDs in the ORSC root zone to 
}secure a second level domain that is equal to the tld they operate, perhaps 
}in one of the ccTLDs, to do as Iperdome does and offer a functional domain 
}to those whose providers will not point to an alternative root.  I'd be 
}happy to work with them to research their options in this area.  It is 
}only with operational facilities that this can be used to our mutual 
}benefit (and indeed the benefit of the entire community).  I would 
}seriously urge CORE to drop all their differences with the ORSC and 
}join these efforts as well.
}
}It is time to work around the problem.
}
}I have given this a lot of thought, and while I will not support the efforts 
}of the AURSC/IRSC, since I see it as nothing more than a power grab by one 
}main person and people who think it would be cool to be a part of it, I see 
}the ORSC effort as much more fair and open operation, with an open 
}non-exclusionary decision making model, etc.   Even when I was a detractor 
}of this operation, my views and opinions were listened to and discussed as 
}an equal participant. 
}
}DSo Internet fully supports the efforts of the ORSC staging root, and will be
}encouraging its use wherever that may be possible.  We will be working on a
}position paper on this issue for posting on our website this week.
}
}--
}William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}General Manager, DSo Internet Services
}Date: 21-Mar-99
}Time: 14:07:29
}--

[IFWP] Re: Drawing lines

[Einar Stefferud]

Hi Esther -- Assuming that this is a postion of ICANN that you are
reporting, may I respectfully ask if y0ou are broadcasting your
response to the partites that Jay identified as not working in an open
manner?

If not, may I respectfully ask that you and/or ICANN do so via all
possible channels of communication.

In other words, what is the point of saying such things only to the
subset that is being excluded?

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:33:40 -0500:
}
}THanks for the question, Jay. =20
}
}We tried to address this subtly in the FAQ question about constituency
}formation, because we want to let the constituencies from themselves -
}bottom up.  But we certainly want open constituencies, in terms of point =
}of
}view if not necessarily what the point of view is about.  That is, if a
}constituency purposely excludes one side of  a broad range of views of, s=
}ay,
}registrar opinion, then there would be  some justification for a second
}constituency of registrars to  form itself.  An interest group is most
}likely better off getting its opposition to join it rather than fostering
}the creation of an opposing constituency. Thus, we encourage constituenci=
}es
}to call for members publicly, and given that the DNSO is part of ICANN, I
}would assume they can use icann-announce to do so. =20
}
}On your choice of constituencies, I defer to others' comments, and to you=
}r
}own good sense.
}
}Respectfully,
}
}Esther
}
}At 10:49 AM 16/03/99 -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
}>
}>Hello Esther,
}>
}>One of the decisions of the ICANN Board was to approve=20
}>a DNSO that featured overlapping constituencies.  This=20
}>creates a problem common to all constituencies, namely,=20
}>where do we draw the lines.
}>
}>For example, Iperdome may desire to join the following
}>constituencies, for the following reasons:
}>
}>ccTLD registries=20
}>   Iperdome is the official registry for
}>   the .per.nu domain, sub-delegated via
}>   RFC-1591
}>
}>Commercial and business entities=20
}>   Iperdome is a business entity
}>
}>gTLD registries=20
}>   Iperdome is a prospective gTLD registry
}>
}>ISPs and connectivity providers=20
}>   Iperdome is an ISP
}>
}>Non-commercial domain name holders=20
}>   Iperdome's clients are almost exclusively
}>   non-commercial domain name holders.
}>
}>Registrars=20
}>   Iperdome acts as a registrar for personal
}>   domain names.
}>
}>Trademark, intellectual property, anti-counterfeiting interests=20
}>   Iperdome is a trademark, and .per(sm) is a=20
}>   service mark.
}>
}>My concern is that certain constituencies are=20
}>attempting to form in private, behind closed=20
}>doors.  This could easily result in a biased=20
}>process, one that excludes legitimately=20
}>interested parties.
}>
}>I hereby request that the ICANN Board clearly
}>indicate that this is not acceptable, and that=20
}>any constituency wishing to be recognized by=20
}>ICANN must form via an open process.
}>
}>So far, I have only seen "public" postings to
}>form the registrar and the non-commercial domain
}>name holders constituencies, yet I am aware of
}>"private" postings for the trademark and ccTLD
}>registries constituencies.
}>
}>Please clarify this situation now, before=20
}>things get any worse.
}>
}>Thanks in advance.
}>
}>
}>Respectfully,
}>
}>Jay Fenello
}>President, Iperdome, Inc.=A0=20
}>404-943-0524=A0 http://www.iperdome.com
}>
}>
}
}
}Esther Dyson   Always make new mistakes!
}chairman, EDventure Holdings
}interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
}[EMAIL PROTECTED]
}1 (212) 924-8800
}1 (212) 924-0240 fax
}104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
}New York, NY 10011 USA
}http://www.edventure.comhttp://www.icann.org
}
}PC Forum:  21 to 24 March 1999, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona=20
}High-Tech Forum in Europe:  24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
}Book:  "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"=20
}
}

Re: [IFWP] Forming a NCDNC

[Einar Stefferud]

That is my definition originally used ORSC constituency
definitions.

It makes perfect sense to me still.  Cheers...\Stef

David Schutt wrote:
> 
> There was a definition of a domain holder floating around. It was anyone
> with administrative control of a zone file. (whether they did the actual
> editing or not)
> 
> David Schutt
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 3:24 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [IFWP] Forming a NCDNC
> 
> As you know, I find constitutiences to be a very, very bad idea.
> 
> But that aside, let's look at your single question: Who gets a vote?  In
> particular the question of "does a nomain holder get a vote"?
> 
> What constitutes a "domain"?
> 
> I suspect everybody will say that the holder of xxx.com holds a domain.
> But what about the holder of yyy.xxx.com?
> 
> Why not?  Are subdelegated domain holders inferior citizens?
> 
> If so, then we've just ruled out everyone such as joe.com.au.
> 
> (Ignore the fact that one might infer that joe might be presumed to be
> commercial in the above example. ;-)
> 
> --karl--

Re: [IFWP] Forming a NCDNC

[Einar Stefferud]

Tony -- Very interesting.

I expect that we need to think about the structural issues where
many ccTLDs use the 2LD level for categories (which really
correspond to gTLDs in some important ways.)  So, just cutting
across particular levels is not going to work very well.

So, I come back to "anyone with Zone Admin responsibilities
counts!"

Cheers...\Stef




"A.M. Rutkowski" wrote:
> 
> Karl,
> 
> > I suspect everybody will say that the holder of xxx.com
> > holds a domain.
> > But what about the holder of yyy.xxx.com?
> >
> > Why not?  Are subdelegated domain holders inferior citizens?
> >
> > If so, then we've just ruled out everyone such as
> > joe.com.au.
> 
> Indeed.  As Mark Lottor's host counts make clear, the
> top hundred 3rd level domains account for 24% of all the
> hosts.  By any metric or construct, their importance
> in the DNS is significant.
> http://www.nw.com/zone/WWW/secondnames.html
> 
> Even the 100th of these has more hosts in its zone
> than does any by the top 44 TLDs.
> 
> The top 3rd level domain, has more hosts under
> it than any but the top 25 TLDs.
> 
> --tony

Re: [IFWP] RE: Privacy of Domain Registration Information

[Einar Stefferud]

I don't have a great quarrel over the $1.00 per year per registered
name, but I am very concerned about oversight for ICANN in its use of
the funds!

And, at a higher meta level I find the chasm among conceptual business
models for naming and the registering of names to be a major problem.

We have two main camps:

One seems to believe that all names under any registry actually belong
to (are the property of the registry), so that all TLD names, whether
registered or not, belong to "the root".  And all SLD names are the
property of their TLD registry.  In this case to the IANA root, soon
to be "owned" and controlled by ICANN, thus becoming the ICANN ROOT.

Now, I have serious problems understanding this "owenrship"
relationship, especially whan it is applied to a name that no one has
ever conceived of before the registrant shows up to register it.  

(I would provide an example of such a name here, but then I could not
claim my example name had never before been conceived of;-)...

Now, my preferred (yes I am baised in this regard) is that names
belong to the registrant and the registrant, by registering the name
with a registry, is only renting advertising space for the registered
name, and the registry is responible, by contract, to advertise it
along with certain related data on a DNS server to enable otehr
Interent users to resolve the registered DNS name into the desired
related data (e.g., and IP address).

Now, these two conflciting coneptual business modelas cannot be
employed simultaneously in the DNS system.  We have a great need to
sort this out before we go much further, just because this conflict is
at the root (no pun) of our conflicting positions on the issues.

Now, if there is an conflict issue about who owns a name and who has
the right to register it with an advertising registry, then that issue
should be settled outside of the registry, as the registries job is to
maintain data integrity and robust and effective operational DNS
advertising service for its registered names.

So, does a TM owner have the sole right to register a trademarked name
in every possible DNS zone, as all possible DNS zone levels?

AS an aside, I also notice that there really is no argument about
whtehr or not DNS names are owned by someone.  

The only argument is about "Who is the owner?"  Uhntil we can decide
and agree on "Who is the owner?" of every DNS name, we are doomed to
fight over the details of running the DNS system!

So, let's stop fighting and decide who owns DNS names.

Is ICANN setting itself up to rent names to registrants or to rent
advertising space to DNS Name Owners?

I vote for the advertising business model!

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Sat, 06 Mar 1999 15:13:03 -0500:
}
}David Schutt wrote:
}
}> ()This is part of the point that I was trying to make. There is no reason
}> that
}> there has to be an annual fee to keep an entry in a notebook. Once the entry
}> is made, there is no reason why it can't just sit there. It seems a bit like
}> extortion to continuously charge for not deleting the name.
}>
}> If that entry is used by someone to provide a service, then that service is
}> something that might be charged for on a continuing basis. Keeping the the
}> entry does -not- have to be tied to the provision of name resolution
}> service.
}
}Perhaps a portion of this fee is for value-added services like Mr. Gomes' online
}"answering service" and upgrading the system software or for company costs like
}defending against court complaints. (And, yes, I'm sure we all have suggestions
}for ways to save money on the latter.)  In terms of ICANN overhead, we are
}talking about adding the services of a membership (registration, campaigning,
}balloting), an internal review (data base, decision-makers, hearing rooms), a
}government advisory council (travel expenses, negotiating time) and even more.
}Some of these chores were handled previously by the government at its own
}expense.  Is it likely that this financial burden will be paid out of registry
}and registrar fees?  I heard second-hand (but did not confirm) that RIPE now has
}over 54 employees.  Personally, I am very concerned that the golden days of
}relatively cheap entree to the Net are about to end.
}
}Jon Postel had a salaried day job, so he didn't have to charge for his
}notebook.  How would you separate out these expenses?
}
}Diane Cabell
}http://www.mama-tech.com
}[EMAIL PROTECTED]
}
}Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
}21 School Street, 3rd Floor
}Boston, MA
}1.617.227.1600 (vox)
}1.617.227.1608 (fax)
}
}

Re: [IFWP] Re: Trademark Enforcement at the TLD Level. WAS Re: a

[Einar Stefferud]

Well, a main issue is to block the use of that same TLD in the Public
ICANN (TM) ROOT.  Once TM oewnership of he rights to use the name as a
Private TLD are in place, then the issue is whetehr or not TM law
segments between PRIVATE or PUBLIC use in commenrce on the Internet.

My bet is that TM law has no concept fo the issue.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Mon, 01 Mar 1999 17:32:29 -0800 (PST):
}
}
}On 02-Mar-99 Einar Stefferud wrote:
}>  I think the best move for us to take is to just start using the
}>  Trademarking of Private and Prospective TLDs and be done with it.  It
}>  is a silly thing to try to use qas a hammer to get ICAN to back off.
}>  They do not listen to or respond to threats!  They react to real live
}>  action.  And since this nice TM avenue is just sitting there waiting
}>  to be used, lets just go for it!
}>  
}>  Can we use the ORSC staging root so show that TLD names have in fact
}>  been put in commerce?
}>  
}>  Cheers...\Stef
}
}I really don't think it could work.  The trademark could be made as only
}applying the naming of hosts within the private networks using those
}nameservers, and it could be argued (quite convincingly) that this would not
}apply outside those networks, since a government sanctioned process is underway
}to determine the infrastructure for naming of hosts on the generally connected
}internet.
}
}--
}E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}Date: 01-Mar-99
}Time: 17:30:55
}--
}"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
}of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
}- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
}

Re: [IFWP] Re: Trademark Enforcement at the TLD Level. WAS Re: alternate rootzone

[Einar Stefferud]

I think the best move for us to take is to just start using the
Trademarking of Private and Prospective TLDs and be done with it.  It
is a silly thing to try to use qas a hammer to get ICAN to back off.
They do not listen to or respond to threats!  They react to real live
action.  And since this nice TM avenue is just sitting there waiting
to be used, lets just go for it!

Can we use the ORSC staging root so show that TLD names have in fact
been put in commerce?

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Mon, 01 Mar 1999 15:08:18 -0800:
}
}At 12:52 PM 3/1/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
}>"Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
}>
}>> I would posit that we have just found the natural process by which
}>> new TLDs will have to be created. Further, as Marty, Bill, and I
}>> discussed earlier on this list, all SLDs and other domains,
}>> registered within this TLD, can be protected behind the TLD's
}>> charter. It gets even more interesting in that, since the
}>> trademark-holder is held responsible for maintaining the quality of
}>> that mark, they can NOT be coerced into allowing other registrars to
}>> register domains in that TLD, on the simple argument of "quality
}>> control".
}>
}>I think if this goes through, organizations will start registering TLDs in
}>their own name, and we will hit the TLD safe limit a lot faster than
}>we would otherwise.
}
}All the more reason to table some of these nit-wit games. All of this "you
}can't do that" BS, when there is a natural legal process, that will work,
}is extremely counter-productive. Of course, the registry controls the TLD.
}Of course, they can be for-profit if they so choose. Of course, they do NOT
}have to share out to registrars. Of course, gTLD's are on a par with ccTLDs
}wrt to autonomous operations. etc. etc. etc. 
}
}Like the "treaty of Versailles" was the true cause of WW2, excessive
}restrictions on gTLDs would cause this method to come into wide-spread use.
}Too much delay and it'll happen anyway. Try to say "No gTLDs" and it'll
}happen sooner. Try to force ADR and it'll happen. Claiming TLD space as a
}public preserve will make this happen. I personally know at least one
}company preparing for this strategy right now, possibly two, there may be
}more. Certainly WEB and PER can be positioned to file trademarks on their
}respective TLDs and, I believe, both are operating for-profit commercial
}registries, in their respective TLDs. There is nothing stopping them from
}following this course, anyone with a famous mark could do it now (IBM, ATT?).
}
}The counter to this scenario is to come up with a real DNSO document that
}all can live with. The socialist hard-liners have to recognize reality, as
}I had to recognize that the trademark contingent wasn't going away real
}soon. It might very well be that TLDs will have to be trade marked. I don't
}know, but we have to break through to a solution or natural events will
}over-take the process.
}
}Please, don't take this as a threat or a hard-line position statement. I am
}simply following the findings, as currently understood. The method I have
}outlined is not one I personally prefer, or one that I think is good for
}the well-being of the Internet. But, there is no way I can think of to stop
}anyone from using it other than to present a credible and palatable
}alternative.
}___ 
}Roeland M.J. Meyer - 
}e-mail:  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
}Internet phone:hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
}Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
}Company web-site:   http://www.mhsc.com
}___ 
}   KISS ... gotta love it!
}
}

Re: [IFWP] Comments on draft registrar accreditation guidelines

[Einar Stefferud]

Thank You David Schutt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for such a well thought out
and articulate statement.  I want to add my endorseent to it.

Cheers...\Stef


>From your message Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:29:14 -0600:
}
}As an individual user and a commercial user of the Internet, I have grave
}concerns about the draft accreditation guidelines released Feb.8th 1999.
}These concerns go beyond a difference with any of the particular points in
}the document and more to the fundamental assumptions that underlie those
}points. This can best be illustrated by commenting on the principles listed
}as the basis for the draft.
}
}When the goal of the introduction of competition is compared to the
}principles as listed, some contradictions become apparent. Principle number
}5, referring to worldwide access and the development of alternative business
}models supports the goal of competition, but the others do not to varying
}degrees.
}
}Principle number one speaks to the relationship between registrars and the
}registry, and in the special case of the com, net and org registry it might
}be appropriate to put requirements in place that otherwise would not be
}necessary. Giving the system a new start, with a level playing field, could
}benefit all concerned. Outside of this special situation, I can think of no
}reason why predetermining the relationship between a service provider and
}its resellers promotes market competition.
}
}Principles two, three, and four bear little resemblance to concepts that
}serve the goals implied by a competitive marketplace.
}
}The primary benefit of competition is choice, the opportunity to choose the
}type of service, and to negotiate the conditions under which that service is
}offered. If a handshake is good enough for me and the provider, and if the
}agreement is legal in the applicable jurisdictions, what benefit is provided
}by mandating a specific type of agreement? What common good is served? The
}language in principle two sounds somewhat like consumer protection, but in a
}situation where there really isn't yet a functioning market, how is it
}possible to predict what is likely to produce abuse of customers and what is
}not? At best it is guesswork, and unintended consequences are likely to
}overwhelm any benefits.
}
}As to principle three, the registration agreement should be legal in the
}applicable jurisdictions. This is what protects the rights of the parties to
}the agreement, and the legal systems of the world are what defines and
}protects the rights of third parties. Legal systems vary according to
}history and culture, and where there is necessity of and agreement on
}harmonization of law, this is reflected in arrangements between governments.
}ICANN is not a legislature or a court, and it has no mandate to behave as a
}government. Especially one that attempts to define legal rights and apply
}them worldwide.
}
}Privacy and the protection of data are important issues, but once again,
}they are best served by having available a wide variety of choices that can
}be selected to meet the individual situation and need. As a private
}individual, I would prefer to deal with a service provider that holds
}information about me in the strictest of confidence. As a business person,
}using the Internet for business purposes, my desires are different. It is in
}my interest to have information about my business as easily available and as
}widely disseminated as possible. Other organizations, such as network
}infrastructure operators, may wish to have detailed information only
}available to their peers. Again, the best way to serve these diverse needs
}is to allow a variety of approaches to develop, tailored to the needs
}expressed by individual customers. Making blanket statements about what data
}should and should not be required with domain registration serves everyone
}poorly.
}
}Even though the guidelines start out by talking about introducing
}competition into the domain name system, that track is quickly lost.
}Competition is only desirable because of the benefits it brings. Competition
}can stimulate innovation and efficiency, but most importantly, in a properly
}functioning market it can increase the diversity and choice of services
}available. Most of the text of the principles consists of restrictions on
}the relationships between a service provider, its resellers, and its
}customers. The result of intruding into the relationship between a provider
}and a customer is exactly the opposite of what is expected from a healthy
}market. It results in less choice, not more.
}
}ICANN's role, first and foremost, is to preserve the cooperation and
}coordination that has made the Internet so successful. In terms of the DNS,
}this begins by protecting the integrity of the root server system. This is
}what is most important to the protection of Internet wide stability.
}Attempts to influence the system at levels other than the root run the risk
}of being extremely counterproductive. The more constraine

Re: [IFWP] NSI's selective funding policy

[Einar Stefferud]

This is very interesting;-)...

I have seen no hostile ad homonim comments from Chuck Gomes, though I
might find the accusation of making them to be a case of making them.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:33:40 -0500:
}
}Dave,
}
}Whereas there were no formal selection criteria, I was
}personally involved in recommending several people who I
}knew did not have funding.  My criteria were as follows: (1)
}people who were actively involved in the relevant
}discussions on the lists I monitored (Domain-Policy and
}IFWP); (2) people who appeared to be objective in their
}analysis of issues; (3) people who appeared to favor a free
}market type approach rather than a regulated approach; and
}(4) people who needed funding.  In each case it was someone
}with whom I had been able to have a rational dialog on
}issues where we disagreed.  Moreover, rational dialog does
}not mean that they changed their positions.
}
}Chuck
}
}-Original Message-
}From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
}Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 7:40 PM
}To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}Subject: [IFWP] NSI's selective funding policy
}
}
}At 12:14 PM 2/25/99 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
}>Is your definition of an antagonist one who does not
}support ICANN?  Should
}>we all just blindly accept everything that ICANN proposes,
}without careful
}>analysis and evaluation?  I really doubt that you feel that
}way.
}
}
}Chuck,
}
}Since you typically try to offered reasoned and reasonable
}notes and since
}is the second note you have posted to this thread using
}hostile, ad
}absurdum statements, let me suggest that you are either
}reacting rather too
}defensively or you are consciously trying to distract us
}from serious
}consideration of my statement.
}
}NSI chose to fund people who are vigorous opponents to
}proposals on the
}table.  Kent listed some names; there are more.  Rather than
}just attack
}anyone who points out this selective behavior by NSI, how
}about explaining
}the exact decision process that led to NSI's giving money to
}some activists
}and not others.  NSI did not make public that it would
}offering funding, so
}there was opportunity for others to seek that assistance.
}
}So why did those who got money get it and others not?
}
}d/
}
}
}=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
}=-=-=-=-=-=-=
}Dave Crocker Tel: +1
}408 246 8253
}Brandenburg Consulting   Fax: +1
}408 273 6464
}675 Spruce Drive
}
}Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
}
}

Re: [IFWP] hypocrisy (was: Time out....)

[Einar Stefferud]

You are simply being nasty now with no sense to your comments.  Why
should anyone take your snide advice to ask for NSI travel money?

Why don't you ask for some for yourself?
I think it would be wonderful if you asked and they gave you some.

What is the point of this game of:

"Anything you can say, I can say better"

And now you are renaming things again, so the game is called:

"hypocrisy"

Cheers...\Stef

What makes you think that I, or anyone is going to allow theselves to
be bought for anything like $800 or $1000?p

>From your message Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:17:57 -0800:
}
}On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 10:12:18PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
}> Kent Crispin said:
}> 
}> >Not so.  The fact is that there are many people like me in the
}> >IAHC/POC/CORE arena that fund this activity entirely on their own
}> >dime -- sometimes tens of thousands of dollars.  The CORE registrars
}> >have a monetary stake in this, it is true.  But the IAHC/POC is
}> >composed of volunteers with no financial stake.
}> 
}> Of course, there are many of us like me who are not members of
}> IAHC/POC/CORE who have no monetary stake whatsoever who are funding this
}> activity also on our own dime.  Just trying to point out that there are
}> many on both sides of the issue who are not subsidized by anyone.
}
}Ask NSI for travel money.
}
}-- 
}Kent Crispin, PAB Chair"Do good, and you'll be
}[EMAIL PROTECTED]  lonesome." -- Mark Twain

Re: [IFWP] NSI payments Adam Todd and Richard Sexton

[Einar Stefferud]

Hello Kent -- If the words you are using (yours, not ours) are
"completely unimportant" (your words, not ours), then why do you
publish them in the first place.

Shall we also assume that your use of the words "private control of
TLDs" is also completely unimportant?

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:28:26 -0800:
}
}On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 12:14:40PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
}> Kent,
}> 
}> Is your definition of an antagonist one who does not support ICANN?
}
}The precise definition of "antagonist" is completely unimportant. 
}The real issue is that NSI, a government contractor, has funded
}participation of other parties who support a key NSI position
}(private control of TLDs).  
}
}Given that the activity under discussion has direct relevance to DOC
}oversight of NSI, and that NSI is a government contractor, I think
}these under the table payments by NSI are quite significant.  And
}they certainly give an insight into the ethics of the NSI management. 
}
}-- 
}Kent Crispin, PAB Chair"Do good, and you'll be
}[EMAIL PROTECTED]  lonesome." -- Mark Twain

Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020

[Einar Stefferud]

I think it woudl be just fine if you, Kent, would stop putting words
my my mouth, and trying to speak for ORSC;-)...

First, I assure you that this is not a joke;-)...

I in fact am seriously opposed to a lot of NSI policies and I am
working toward moving to a different TLD, in part to be free of the
threats posed by the NSI TM policy.

But, if ICANN has its way, things will become much worse for all DNS
name registrants at all fee based registration levels when the
Registrara has the power to removed registered names without hearing
for a variety of "causes".  ICANN threatens to destabilize all
businesses that depend on stable DNS name arrangements.

Just consider deregistration for being one day late in bill payment,
with the opportunity for someone else to jump in and grab the name, so
that arrival of the check the next day will not recover the name.

And, this is only one of the "new and improved" non-NSI policies.

So, rest assured, Kent, that ORSC does not endorse or condone the NSI
TM policies adn rules, and does not endorse the ICANN propposed ICANN
Registrar acceditation and operating rules.  

The fact that we are more opposed to ICANN than to NSI might let you
say that ORSC is less opposed to NSI than to ICANN. but you cannot
equate this with supporting NSI in what it does now.

Your problem seems to be the inability to sense the polarity of the
minus sign when it is applied to more than one entity at a time.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:10:55 -0800:
}
}On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 04:53:40PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
}> Stef,
}> 
}> It sounds like you are an antagonist according to Kent's
}> definition.  So I guess we did provide some support for an
}> antagonist, even one who is antagonistic to NSI.  :)
}
}Indeed, a good joke, Chuck :-) In fact, of course, there is
}absolutely no question that ORSC and NSI have been very supportive of
}each other's positions for a long time now. 
}
}-- 
}Kent Crispin, PAB Chair"Do good, and you'll be
}[EMAIL PROTECTED]  lonesome." -- Mark Twain

[IFWP] Re: NSI payments Adam Todd and Richard Sexton

[Einar Stefferud]

OK Kent -- I have laid out all my support for other sources.

There was then and is now, nothing going on under the table on my side
of this discussion.  I and ORSC specialize in working in the open, and
I must say that I find that we have been able to contribute vastly
more to the cause of finding consensus with out open melding and
merging processes than your scretive efforts to manipulate DNSO.ORG
into a closed deal with INTA/WIPO.  But time will tell.

BTW, ORSC was directly involved with watering down the contributions
of NSI to the PARIS draft.  But how woudl you know this, when you
refuse to heed anything we contribute.

Now, lets see an honest listing of your support sources.

Also note that there was absolutely no discussion between NIS and ORSC
or myself on the issue that you love to hate (private control of
TLDs).  Quite frankly, I take the White Paper to make clear that such
private ownership in an open free competitive market is a given,
regardless of your total opposition to the mere idea of it.

So, now we finally see what your real down deep motivation is -- Namely
to do whatever you can to destroy the idea, and destroy the work of
others who disagree with your on this point.

Thank you for finally making your ICANN cartel based anticompetition
position crystal clear;-)...

And I await your clear statement of all sources of support.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:28:26 -0800:
}
}On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 12:14:40PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
}> Kent,
}> 
}> Is your definition of an antagonist one who does not support ICANN?
}
}The precise definition of "antagonist" is completely unimportant. 
}The real issue is that NSI, a government contractor, has funded
}participation of other parties who support a key NSI position
}(private control of TLDs).  
}
}Given that the activity under discussion has direct relevance to DOC
}oversight of NSI, and that NSI is a government contractor, I think
}these under the table payments by NSI are quite significant.  And
}they certainly give an insight into the ethics of the NSI management. 
}
}-- 
}Kent Crispin, PAB Chair"Do good, and you'll be
}[EMAIL PROTECTED]  lonesome." -- Mark Twain

Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020

[Einar Stefferud]

Hello Chuck and all -- 

I have been no less harsh in criticism of NSI policies and operations
than of ICANN polices and operations, or of IAHC/CORE policies and
operations.

I have accepted travel exepense support from NSI ($800+) to attend the
ICANN Boston "open" Meeting, and also support from a member of CORE
EXECOM ($1000) to attend the DNSO.ORG Monterrey meeting.  Both amounts
just covered my expenses for the combined trip to attend both meetings
on consecutive days last November.

I funded my own way to IFWP Singapore last August and to IFWP in
Reston last July.  I am out about $5,000 in personal expense last year
in support of ORSC interests in DNS and ICANN.

I conditioned acceptance of all funding of this kind with a specific
statement that I would only represent myself and my ORSC interests,
and I would have refused the NSI or CORE based funding if there had
been any hint of resistance to my demand for total independence.  My
positions on all this have been widely broadcast to many public fora.

In fact, NSI provided the funding after I personally beat on the NSI
delegation to the Singapore IFWP about how they run .com, .org, .net,
as I accepted a free taxi ride to the airport on our way home.  I have
never hesitated to criticize NSI for stuff that I disagree about, and
I still think that their TM policy stinks!

But, I see ICANN as a much greater peril to the whole future of the
DNS, and I see that what ICANN is doing is more likely to perpetuate
the NSI monopoly than anything else, as ICANN appears to be planning
to impose the same NSI/NTIA invented business regulation model on all
DNS registries and registrars.  It is totally clear that ICANN has
made no effort to disclaim this charge, and until ICANN does disclaim
it, I will claim that they do in fact have exactly this in mind.

The problem is in the Market Structure Failure which ICANN policy
promises to perpetuate by limiting new TLDs and imposing heacy
regularion on the entire DNS industry.  ICANN policy appears to be
focused on forming a global DNS CARTEL, while NSI is welcoming
competition from other TLDS in an open market.  

So, you all get to choose your poison.

So, for whatever it is worth, I intend to hold all ICANN supporters to
be contributors to this outcome if it ever comes to pass.

I find that for solid ethical and fairness reasons, I must oppose what
ICANN is trying to do, and what ICANN is actually doing.  And I will
accept support from anyone who offers it in this crusade, provided
that they do not restrict me in any way.

Cheers...\Stef


>From your message Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:14:40 -0500:
}
}Kent,
}
}Is your definition of an antagonist one who does not support ICANN?  Should
}we all just blindly accept everything that ICANN proposes, without careful
}analysis and evaluation?  I really doubt that you feel that way.
}
}Chuck
}
}-Original Message-
}From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
}Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 12:05 PM
}To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation
}No. 52SBNT9C1020
}
}
}On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 06:45:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
}> Dave,
}> 
}> Please name any antagonists that NSI funded to the process.
}> Is an antagonist someone who disagrees with you?
}
}Adam Todd and Richard Sexton have both publically stated that NSI
}funded their travel expenses.  Both have expressed their, shall we
}say, lack of support for ICANN.  They also disagree with Dave, of 
}course. 
}
}-- 
}Kent Crispin, PAB Chair"Do good, and you'll be
}[EMAIL PROTECTED]  lonesome." -- Mark Twain

Re: [IFWP] Dallas Conference first day report

[Einar Stefferud]

I agree with your totally.  The irony was intended.  Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:16:03 -0800:
}
}At 12:01 AM -0800 2/25/99, Einar Stefferud wrote:
}>On pain of possibly encountering a severe case of regrets, I have to
}>agree with Dave that:
}
}I find it extremely ironic that you would side with Dave Crocker in
}silencing alternative ideas and contributions. It is he and the rest of the
}dreaded IAHC that we have to thank for the DNS mess. Their mantra seemed to
}be:
}
}>}This will only change when such contributions are ignored, thoroughly and
}>}permanently.
}
}The IAHC created a pattern of ignoring thoroughly and permanently all
}contributions that didn't jive with their view of the world. The ICANN
}seems to be following in the footsteps of the IAHC. That you would side
}with this sort of behaviour is shocking.
}
}May the ORSC make it's way quickly to the slag heap of Internet history too.
}
}Discusted with the whole mess, but long on NSOL,
}
}-rizzy
}
}

Re: [IFWP] ICANN comments deadline

[Einar Stefferud]

I fully agree with Dan and Ellen, and I propose that someone collect
all these process comments toether and grop them as a digest into all
the ICANN comments lists.  

I take the clear implication that this is designed to disable all
useful discussion and comment.  I also assume that all those who
directly support ICANN are commenting privately to various or all BoD
members, and that they will all be heavily counted against the public
coments.  Note that ICANN nevere has disclosed who those "many
backers" are that formed what ICANN claimed to form an overwhelming
consensus.

So, how can we possibly expect a different story now.

So, I predict that we will soon be informed that their is actually no
consensus for OPENness, or for the PARIS Draft, or against the
Registrar Accreditation plans (which are terrible from what I have
seen)!

Just mark my words when all this is proudly announced by ICANN as
being decided by overwhelming consensus support, without defining or
identifying the parties counted in the consensus measurement.

Sigh...\Stef

>From your message Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:04:10 -0500:
}
}I am afraid this kind of reminder is insufficient.
}
}Consider what you are asking us all to do (along with wading through
}the daily e-mail):
}* remember the comment mechanism (or find out about it for the first
}time)
}* check the website on a regular basis for publication of drafts (and
}to be sure there are no changes)
}* imagine when a comment period for each publication might likely
}expire
}* plan accordingly and hope we got it right
}
}Sorry but none of us on the list (to my knowledge) is a mind-reader.
}
}Is it too much to ask that each publication include an explicit
}declaration of a comment period (and mechanism as applicable)?  Not
}all of the documents you would have us comment on have such a date
}embedded within.  Only one of them has the date in a prominent place
}at the top of the document.
}
}And in the current instance, what you refer to as a 'reminder' comes
}very late in the game.  As stated by several people, 3 days (or less)
}is simply not enough time for constructive comment.  To be useful,
}that reminder would have been sent with at least a week left.
}
}I think not.
}
}Molly Shaffer Van Houweling wrote:
}> 
}> I should have made it clearer that my recent message was just a reminder.
}> The comment mechanism was originally announced on Feb. 8.
}> 
}> At 06:58 PM 2/24/99 -0500, you wrote:
}> >I may not use the same words as Stef but I have to agree with the
}> >content.
}> >3 days (or less if you live in the wrong time zone) to prepare a
}> >formal response (or even coherent comments)on some of these issues is
}> >totally inappropriate.
}> >
}> >As for Stef's "Sahdes of IAHC" commentary, my memory may be fading
}> >with age but I remember having much more time to comment both formally
}> >and informally during the IAHC process.  There were many aspects of
}> >IAHC that I disagreed with, but a 3-day comment period is not one of
}> >them.   This part (at least) they appear to have done better than
}> >ICANN and I feel it's important to set the record straight.
}> >
}> >Back to our regular program...
}> >
}> >Sorry to be blunt but this process of publishing drafts and seeking
}> >comment prior to making a decision is not exactly rocket science.
}> >While it may not be legally necessary (or even useful) to follow govt.
}> >procedures, anyone who really wants comment on their work should be
}> >prepared to allow sufficient lead time.  If someone needs some
}> >information by a particular date, it is normal to count backwards and
}> >find out when to start asking for it in order to give people adequate
}> >time to respond.  It is also normal to expect people to complain if
}> >you don't give them adequate time.  It is also normal for people to
}> >complain vigourously if you don't have an excellent reason for the
}> >rush.  I am willing to listen, but given that relevant dates have been
}> >known for a little while, it will be hard to convince me.
}> >
}> >As to what to do about this situation, all I can suggest is that we
}> >not be forced to bear the cost of this situation.  That (IMHO) means
}> >extending the deadline and I know that it means that the people who
}> >have to read the comments won't have much time before the Singapore
}> >meeting.  That could mean burning lots of midnight oil or it could
}> >mean information overload.  If the latter is true, then decisions
}> >should not be taken on such issues.
}> >
}> >There will be other meetings.  The stability of the internet is not at
}> >stake.  Mail is getting through.  The trains are running on time.
}> >There's no rush (al

Re: [IFWP] Dallas Conference first day report

[Einar Stefferud]

On pain of possibly encountering a severe case of regrets, I have to
agree with Dave that:

"There is only quietly shunning" and 
"This [behavior] will only change when such 
 contributions are ignored, thoroughly and permanently."

Dave and I together have proven conclusively that these two reactions
(shunning and ignoring) work really well.  And to prove the point, by
breaking my rule of never replying to Dave Crocker, I expect to now
prove for all on these mailing lists that breaking these rules only
extends the bothersome behavior.

I assure all concerned that I will only break my rule just this once,
This will also demonstrate how well it works when properly applied.

Cheers;-)...\Stef

>From your message Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:25:41 +0800:
}
}William, and all others who continue to respond to this sort of silliness:
}
}When someone gets continuing pattern of obscene telephone calls, they are 
}faced with trying to decide how to get the calls to stop.  This is made 
}difficult by the psychology of the people who make such calls.  The caller 
}is sufficiently starved for any sense of control over their life that they 
}find it necessary to try to use the telephone as a means of claiming some 
}control over others.
}
}If the target handles the call incorrectly, the caller will feel that they 
}have upset the person and, of course, that is the goal.  For most people, 
}simply hanging up is the best course of action, but some callers even take 
}that as an indication that the target is upset.
}
}At base, the requirement is to withhold any feedback -- any and all 
}feedback -- from the caller.  Only when they are fully and completely 
}deprived of any "reinforcement" will they stop calling.
}
}We are now experiencing this sort of aberrant psychology in Internet 
}mailing lists.  In the current case, it includes full-blown and persistent 
}delusions that even permit claims of friendship with the recently deceased.
}
}With this sort of illness, there is no reasoning.  Nothing that is said or 
}done will get the person to become a constructive participant.  There is 
}only quietly shunning.
}
}In case none of you has noticed, these aberrant behaviors have not reduced 
}over the last couple of years.  They have, if anything, gotten worse.
}
}This will only change when such contributions are ignored, thoroughly and 
}permanently.
}
}d/
}
}=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
}Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
}Brandenburg Consulting   Fax: +1 408 273 6464
}675 Spruce Drive 
}Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA 
}

[IFWP] Re: Singapore DNSO Meeting Schedule and Agenda - 2nd draft

[Einar Stefferud]

I apologize Kilnam for jumping to the same conclusion that Joop came
to -- That selective notification of a pulic meeting was hapening yet
again!

So, as you see, it is much more reasonable when posting this kind of
message to visibly cross post it to avoid causing people to suspect
ill will.

Have you sent a separate copy to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

These are what I have gleaned from my list archives.

I do not find any list address for IATLD, or WWTLD, WITSA, INTA, POC,
CORE, EuroInternet, FICPI, ISOC, ETSI, EuroISPA, CAIP, MARQUES, ICC,
USCIB, LATLD, ECOM-LAC, CIX.

>From your message Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:28:56 +0900:
}
}please read the relevant mailing lists to which i sent the announcement
}separetely.
}
}unfortunately some of them were bounced back such as lists.announce.org.
}
}if you have any other mailing lists to send, please let ME know.
}
}chon
}
}
}   1999.02.23
}Singapore DNSO Meeting Schedule and Agenda - 2nd Draft
}
}   Place: SICEC, Suntec City, Downtown Singapore
}
}1999.3.2  08:00 - 18:00
}
}   Presentation of 2 draft applications
}   Presentation on the difference
}   Discussion on major issues
}   Singapore meeting schedule update
}   Discussion on recommendation to ICANN Board
}
}1999.3.2~3
}
}   Drafting the recommendation to ICANN Board
}
}1999.3.4  13:00 - 18:00
}
}   ICANN Board Meeting Report
}   MAC Meeting Report
}   GAC Meeting Report
}   "What's next after ICANN Board Meeting?"
}
}1999.3.5  08:00 - 18:00
}
}   Major issues - revisit
}   Drafting Singapore Meeting output
}   Future meeting schedule
}
}Remark:
}   See further information in http://www.apricot.net or www.apng.net.
}
}   Please register for the first day meeting(1999.3.2) at www.apricot.net
}   as space is limited.
}
}   Please pay the meeting fee of US$50(S$80) per day at the door on
}   1999.3.2.
}   
}
}   Relevant public mailing lists;
}
}   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}
}Contact for further information:
}
}   Chhay Ea[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Local Arrangement
}   Agnes Lee   [EMAIL PROTECTED] Local Arrangement
}   Kilnam Chon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Program
}   
}
}On Wed, Feb 24, 1999 at 03:53:53PM -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
}> Hello Joop;-)...
}> 
}> Yes, this should be documented as yet another biased ICANN/DNSO.ORG
}> action, intended, but perhaps just a Freudian Slip, to bias the DNSO
}> meeting attendance while looking like they are issuing an open
}> invitation.
}> 
}> Thanks for pointing out that it was to only sent to two list addresses
}> of one faction in the current DNSO/ICANN zero sum game.
}> 
}> Cheers...\Stef
}> 
}> }What is the input from the Paris Draft group in this agenda?
}> }
}> }I hope the Paris Draft group will be there in force, even though Kilnam
}> }Chon restricted this announcement to discuss and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}> }But why do we have to pay S$80?
}> }
}> }FYI, the  day before,on march 1, an APNIC workgroup discusses registry
}> }policy under the Chairmanship of Jim Higgins and his sidekick Patrick
}> }O'Brien.  Even the ISOCNZ council has not been informed about this.
}> }Apparently, APNIC policymaking cannot wait until there is a DNSO.
}> }
}> }--Joop--
}> }http://www.democracy.org.nz/
}> 
}> 
}> >From Kilnam Chon's message Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:36:35 +1200:
}> }
}> }1999.02.23
}> }Singapore DNSO Meeting Schedule and Agenda - 2nd Draft
}> }
}> }Place: SICEC, Suntec City, Downtown Singapore
}> }
}> }1999.3.2  08:00 - 18:00
}> }
}> }Presentation of 2 draft applications
}> }Presentation on the difference
}> }Discussion on major issues
}> }Singapore meeting schedule update
}> }Discussion on recommendation to ICANN Board
}> }
}> }1999.3.2~3
}> }
}> }Drafting the recommendation to ICANN Board
}> }
}> }1999.3.4  13:00 - 18:00
}> }
}> }ICANN Board Meeting Report
}> }MAC Meeting Report
}> }GAC Meeting Report
}> }"What's next after ICANN Board Meeting?"
}> }
}> }1999.3.5  08:00 - 18:00
}> }
}> }Major issues - revisit
}> }Drafting Singapore Meeting output
}> }Future meeting schedule
}> }
}> }Remark:
}> }See further information in http://www.apricot.net or www.apng.net.
}> }
}> }   

[IFWP] Re: Singapore DNSO Meeting Schedule and Agenda - 2nd draft

[Einar Stefferud]

Hello Joop;-)...

Yes, this should be documented as yet another biased ICANN/DNSO.ORG
action, intended, but perhaps just a Freudian Slip, to bias the DNSO
meeting attendance while looking like they are issuing an open
invitation.

Thanks for pointing out that it was to only sent to two list addresses
of one faction in the current DNSO/ICANN zero sum game.

Cheers...\Stef

}What is the input from the Paris Draft group in this agenda?
}
}I hope the Paris Draft group will be there in force, even though Kilnam
}Chon restricted this announcement to discuss and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}But why do we have to pay S$80?
}
}FYI, the  day before,on march 1, an APNIC workgroup discusses registry
}policy under the Chairmanship of Jim Higgins and his sidekick Patrick
}O'Brien.  Even the ISOCNZ council has not been informed about this.
}Apparently, APNIC policymaking cannot wait until there is a DNSO.
}
}--Joop--
}http://www.democracy.org.nz/


>From Kilnam Chon's message Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:36:35 +1200:
}
}   1999.02.23
}Singapore DNSO Meeting Schedule and Agenda - 2nd Draft
}
}   Place: SICEC, Suntec City, Downtown Singapore
}
}1999.3.2  08:00 - 18:00
}
}   Presentation of 2 draft applications
}   Presentation on the difference
}   Discussion on major issues
}   Singapore meeting schedule update
}   Discussion on recommendation to ICANN Board
}
}1999.3.2~3
}
}   Drafting the recommendation to ICANN Board
}
}1999.3.4  13:00 - 18:00
}
}   ICANN Board Meeting Report
}   MAC Meeting Report
}   GAC Meeting Report
}   "What's next after ICANN Board Meeting?"
}
}1999.3.5  08:00 - 18:00
}
}   Major issues - revisit
}   Drafting Singapore Meeting output
}   Future meeting schedule
}
}Remark:
}   See further information in http://www.apricot.net or www.apng.net.
}
}   Please register for the first day meeting(1999.3.2) at www.apricot.net
}   as space is limited.
}
}   Please pay the meeting fee of US$50(S$80) per day at the door on
}   1999.3.2.
}   
}
}   Relevant public mailing lists;
}
}   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}
}===

[IFWP] Re: comment solicitation

[Einar Stefferud]

Thank you Molly for clarifying that no specific notice was posted
regarding the draft that was added to your web site on 17 Feb, so that
there was very little effective notice to the community.

It should go without saying that you must not expect all of us to
constantly check your web ICANN site for new drafts to review for you,
in orfer to avoid missing one and then being told that we had a chance
to comment if we had only been compulsive enough to look for needles
in your ICANN Haystack.

Now, how do I get htis message posted to your comments mailing list?

Might I ask you to post it for me, as you know where to post it and I
do not.  Please CC me on the copy you post for me.

Thanks...\Stef

>From your message Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:08:27 -0500:
}
}A press release went out on Feb. 8 (to IFWP, etc.).  The conflicts of
}interest draft was posted later, on Feb. 17.
}
}> 
}> What was the first date of notification for each of these drafts which
}> require comments from the Internet community?
}> 
}> Is it normal to allow only 3 days?  Or did I miss some earlier
}> announcement.
}> 
}> Cheers...\Stef
}> 
}> >From your message Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:33:57 -0800 (PST):
}> }
}> }Reminder:
}> }
}> }ICANN is soliciting comments on proposals for the domain name 
}> }supporting organization, draft registrar accreditation guidelines, 
}> }a draft conflicts of interest policy, and a draft reconsideration 
}> }policy.  
}> }
}> }In order to ensure that comments will be considered by the ICANN 
}> }Board in advance of its March 4 meeting, please submit them before 
}> }midnight, U.S. West Coast Time, February 26, following the 
}> }instructions at: http://www.icann.org/drafts.html
}> }
}> }Please submit written comments even if you will be attending the 
}> }ICANN public forum on March 3 in Singapore, as time for commenting 
}> }in person at the meeting will be limited.
}> 
}> - End Included Message -
}> 
}> 
}

Re: [IFWP] ICANN comments deadline

[Einar Stefferud]

By what measure is 3 days maximum elapsed time deemed sufficient to
obtain indepth and thoughtful comments (or suupport) from the global
Interent Community?

Sahdes of IAHC...  they at least allowed us to have a couple of weeks
before reading and ignoring our efforts.

But, I suppose this is called trust building, to be able to show NTIA
that they have waced their ideas under our noses and tht our responses
were to weak to bother with;-)...

Cheers...\Stef

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:46:27 -0800:
}
}[Sorry for the cross-posting and repetition, but I want to be sure that no
}one misses their chance to submit comments on issues to be considered by
}the ICANN Board.]
}
}Please submit comments to ICANN on the proposals for the domain name
}supporting organization, draft registrar accreditation guidelines, draft
}conflicts of interest policy, and draft reconsideration policy.  In order
}to ensure that comments will be considered by the ICANN Board in advance of
}its March 4 meeting, please submit them before midnight, U.S. West Coast
}Time, February 26, following the instructions at:
}
}http://www.icann.org/drafts.html
}
}Please submit written comments even if you will be attending the public
}forum on March 3 in Singapore, as time for commenting in person at the
}meeting will be limited.
}
}If you have any questions, please send them directly to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}
}Thank you,
}
}Molly Shaffer Van Houweling
}Senior Advisor, ICANN
}

Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020

[Einar Stefferud]

For whatever it is worth, ORSC is willing and able to lend whatever
support it has or can muster to another protest or move to compete
with ICANN in this "no-cost" award by NTIA/NIST.

What ORSC is not in position to do is to become an opperating compay
able to make a credible proposal;-)...  That is all...\Stef

>From your message Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:03:35 +:
}
}Roeland, Stef and all,
}
}Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
}
}> At 09:56 PM 2/19/99 -0500, you wrote:
}> >>At 03:06 PM 2/19/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
}> >>>I have not analyzed this in any depth.
}> >>
}> >
}> >Roeland Meyer replied:
}> >
}> >>Okay, I'm going from memory here, as I don't have time to look it up right
}> >>now.
}> >
}> >
}> >Roeland, please take the time.*LOOK* it up.  I could be mistaken but I
}> >really don't think that I am.
}> >
}> >This is a "no cost" contract meaning that the US GOV'T does NOT pay.  ICANN
}> >DOES.  IS MORGAN HILL ready to provide these services to the Internet and
}> >the US government at no cost to the gov't?  IE pay for them yourself?  If
}> >so great...onward.
}>
}> Yep, I looked (I said I would). Yes, you are correct wrt "no cost", that
}> was different from the original. This is also no longer the TNT project.
}> However, why do you think the ICANN is starting to talk about fees and
}> taxes? They need a revenue stream to pay for this. MHSC is looking at the
}> same thing. The differences are that the ICANN is as transparent as
}> Mississippi mud. MHSC wants to carry the ORSC guidon. Why do you think we
}> are talking to VC?
}
}  Whom might VC be Roeland?
}
}  From several private exchanges with Stef, as you are likely aware of,
}ORSC according to Stef, is not in a position to DO anything. I believe that
}you had spoken to me about this on the phone at some point about
}three weeks or so ago about.  So, again it seems that Stef (ORSC?)
}is still sitting on the fence as you had mentioned to me on the phone about
}Roeland.  IN the interest of transparency, I am stating this bluntly, no
}negative assertion is intended towards ORSC here.
}
}>
}> ___
}> Roeland M.J. Meyer -
}> e-mail:  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
}> Internet phone:hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
}> Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
}> Company web-site:   http://www.mhsc.com
}> ___
}>KISS ... gotta love it!
}
}Regards,
}
}--
}Jeffrey A. Williams
}CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
}Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
}E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}Contact Number:  972-447-1894
}Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
}
}

Re: [IFWP] Market Structure Failure

[Einar Stefferud]

Hello Gregbo -- You ask...

}I guess I have never really understood the ORSC position on new TLDs,
}because it doesn't seem to me that it makes the TM problems go away
}for quite some time, if ever.

Well, it is very simple!  More TLDs make it easier for parties to
share the use of given SLD names, each under a distinctly different
TLD, so the faster we add new gTLDS, the faster we will solve the
conflict problems, and conversely, the slower we go the slower we
solve the conflict problems.

The wierd part of this whole issue is that the TM forces seem to be
dead set against the DNS being allowed to have numerous TLD categories
like the TM "industry" has, which would allow the same SLD name to be
unabiguously used by different parties with different TLDs, just
because the same SLD with a differnet TLD is in fact a distinctly and
distinctively different name.

So, the mystery of what is the ORSC "policy postion" is that ORSC
advocates opening up the root to as many TLDs as the market wants.  
No more, no less!  And sooner rather than later!

Because the lack of gTLD names is THE CORE PROBLEM!

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:59:28 -0800 (PST):
}
}Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
}
}>And, when this reality dawns on [TM interests], they will see that
}>more TLDs will in fact solve their problems by providing lots of
}>qualifiers and differentiators.  How many "qualifier" categories does
}>TM law already recognize?
}
}Good question.  When I brought up the subject sometime back, the
}responses suggested that there were (potentially) hundreds of
}thousands of qualifiers.  Marks are registered geographically,
}according to the type of business, etc.
}
}>Why should DNS have any fewer the TM?  Why not lots more?
}
}We have had this discussion before (and never seem to be able to
}resolve it).  There are serious concerns as to how well DNS will work
}with hundreds of thousands of TLDs.
}
}Furthermore, are TLDs exclusive in nature?  If so, what happens when a
}business expands into another area?  Are they forced to move to a more
}inclusive TLD (assuming one exists)?  Are they forced to register in
}multiple TLDs?  What happens if their names are in use in the target
}TLDs?
}
}What stops TM interests from taking people in any TLD to court?  It's
}not as if all the "qualifying mark" TLDs will be created
}instantaneously.  Until enough TLDs are created to sufficiently
}qualify a business (assuming that ever happens), there is still a real
}concern that TM interests will continue to fight for the names they
}want to protect.
}
}I guess I have never really understood the ORSC position on new TLDs,
}because it doesn't seem to me that it makes the TM problems go away
}for quite some time, if ever.
}
}--gregbo

Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority

[Einar Stefferud]

Hi Ken -- I am afraid that your barragge of unanwerable questions,
with no effort to answer my rather straightforward questions, simply
leaves our discussion derailed.

So, I will take your point that you do not want to discuss what I want
to discuss, and weill just retirte to the sidelines and see what
happens next to your strong desires for a top down imposed set of
strong and enforces ethical standards on the whole DNS structure.

I wish you all great good luck, but expect your scheme to crash and
burn.  I certainly cannot support it.

Cheers...\Stef


>From your message Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:43:08 -0500:
}
}hello stef...
}
}your answers to some of the questions below were not very clear.
}
}1. are you saying that you don't have a position on a code of ethics for
}registrars
}2. rather than coming back to me with questions... are you reluctant to
}state your personal position on the question of registrar accreditation ?
}3. i take your answer to the last question to mean that you feel it is up to
}the registry to decide what information to provide. is that correct ?. does
}that mean that if a registry also acts as a registrar that they could elect
}not to provide appropriate data to assure "portability". are you telling me
}that information collected by registries in this circumstance is a form of
}"customer list" ? (funny.. i would have assumed that this data was not
}proprietary to the registry)
}
}a point of elaboration here ... the comments regarding item number 3 are
}related only to GTLD's and future GTLD's and do not necessarily have
}application  with CCtld's
}
}best wishes
}
}ken
}-Original Message-
}From: Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Becky Burr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
}[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
}[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
}[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Esther Dyson
}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mike Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
}[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}Date: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 1:59 AM
}Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority
}
}
}>Hi Ken -- Your questrions need some additonal context before the
}>  answers can make any sense..
}>
}>Are we talking about registrars for only registries that are monoplies
}>like NSI, or totally shared registeries ala CORE, or all registries
}>including all ccTLDs and new gTLDs?
}>
}>Will all TLD registries be required to operate as shared registries
}>the same way that NSI is required, or the way POC/PAB/CORE plans to
}>operate shared registries?
}>
}>Are you going to propote one size fits all for all rgions, segments
}>and nations?
}>
}>If not, what do you have in mind?
}>
}>>From your message Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:56:41 -0500:
}>}
}>}
}>}-Original Message-
}>}From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}>}To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}>}Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Becky Burr
}>}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}>}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}>}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}>}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mike
}Roberts
}>}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}>}Date: Monday, February 15, 1999 1:41 PM
}>}Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority is be Dangerous
}>}
}>}
}>}hello jay:
}>}
}>}i would appreciate some further elightenment in light of your comments
}>}below:
}>}
}>}1.who do you believe has the "rights" to access to the IP data ? what is
}>}your definition of "IPdata" ?
}>
}>
}>}2.who do believe should be accrediting  registrars and the development of
}>}mechanisms to insure  that they operate in "the best interest of the
}>}internet" ?
}>
}>Who indeed Ken?  Do you believe that every registrar must be
}>accredited.  Does this include all ISPs that bundle registrar services
}>into their service packages?  Are customers going to be releieved of
}>all needs to demand that their registrars acti in the interests of
}>their customers?  If yes, how are you gong to enforce your standards
}>of service?  Who is going to pay for the enforcement system?
}>
}>}3.should we have have a code of conduct for registrars ?
}>}
}>
}>I gather that you assume the answer is yes?  Why do you assume this?
}>
}>}4.how do you feel we should insure that there is equity in situations
}where
}>}the registry also competes at the registrar level ?
}>
}>What is wrong with volumen discount plans for Registrars?
}>
}>}5.how do we insure "portability" so that domain name holders are assured
}>}that they will be provided adequate informatio

Re: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS

[Einar Stefferud]

Hi Antony -- I need to challenge some of your points;-)...

>From your message Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:33:43 -0500:
}
}>
}> On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
}>
}> > NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
}> > charters serve a purpose?
}>
}> Why should they when they can not be enforced?
}>
}> el
}>
}[AVC] - Even though they are unenforceable, they might well serve a purpose.
}A set of rules governing use don't have to be applied beforehand, although
}there should be an element of this.  A set of rules can also serve to
}disqualify any protest when a rule-breaker is thrown out.
}
}For instance, suppose you had a chartered TLD, .ISP, which had a set of
}restrictions intended to make the domain one for internet access providers
}only.  Suppose there were a set of initial automatic tests *before* the
}domain was delegated to an applicant, for instance you had to have some
}functional nameservers and some functional mail servers.  Suppose there were
}also some non-tested restrictions, for instance you had to have at least 50
}dial-up customers.
}

Chicken and Egg problem.  How does an ISP get to the point of having: 

1.  at least 50 dial-up customers;
2.  some functional nameservers;
3.  some functional mail servers;

Without first getting a DNS Name?

You must enable people (entities) to get DNS names which will not
require being changed after becoming qualified.  Have you ever
witnessed a company changing their DNS name shortly after getting
started?  Would you like to be our pioneer to try out this scheme?

}
}The domain would be open to illegitimate registrations by non-ISPs, because
}there are people with name- and mail servers who aren't ISPs.  However, if
}it got to be a problem, you would still have the rules, and you could
}(following a complaint, for instance) eliminate an illegitimate
}registrations following an investigation.
}
}A charter doesn't have to be 100% effective, or 100% enforceable, to have
}some value.
}

This appears to me to mean that we are only kidding, and that people
who are willing to bend the rules will get away with braking them, and
more conservative people will avoid taking advantage of this shoddy
behavior.  I think this is a slippery slope that leads to more and
more bending of rules in general.  So, why have any rules at all.

}
}I imagine the same thing would apply under .NA.  If I could convince you
}that I was a business in Windhoek, you might delegate me a name in .NA.
}Once you found out, however, that I had never set foot outside of New York,
}you might well consider it within your rights to delete my name from the .NA
}root.  There's a charter with rules that is not 100% enforceable, but there
}are sanctions after the fact that make it workable.
}

I am certain that somewhere in the .NA zone there are some rule
breakers, and it is my sense that Dr, Lisse is getting close to
abandoning his own strict .NA "charter" rules, as we speak.

}
}Antony
}
}

So, I see no harm in some regisdtries deciding to run in "charter"
mode, but also see no reason whatever to impose charter structures on
the entire DNS.

One of my reaons for sayig this is the this appears to be an attempted
cure for the "TM" conflict with DNS.  My reaction is to suggest that
we accepot this as soon as the TM industry sets up rules wher-in all
TM onwers must always accompany their TM names with the TM category in
which they are registered, when used in public.

Cheers...\Stef

Re: [IFWP] Re: Trademarks vs DNS

[Einar Stefferud]

I have some interesting value questions (I hope)...

1.  What is the value of an SLD in a Chartered TLD if the TLD
"name-string" does not work with the desired SLD name-string.

2.  What is the value of an SLD in a chartered TLD if the business
changes over time, such that the charter forbids the company to
use its registered SLD?

What I am getting to is the great quesion of whether the market will
find any value in chartered TLDs.

There is clear evidence that the market did find great value in .COM
when it was a charter TLD, but since every charter TLD will by nature
be a monopoly, what does this outcome do the the value of SLDs in that
TLD?

I suspect that the answer is "nothing" unless alternative TLDs become
available in order to restore an open competitve market with
competition among TLDs serving the same SLD market segments.

So, at some meta level, I wonder what are the values to be provided to
the Internet Market for DNS names with charter TLDs?

For the life of me, I do not see any value in them.

Working backwards, how would all those TM holders feel if they were
forced to include their commercial TM category as part fo their full
name, and could not use their TM without also showing their category
name?

So, why is this non-existance TM requirement now being applied to DNS
names?

Cheers...\Stef

Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority

[Einar Stefferud]

Hi Ken -- Your questrions need some additonal context before the
  answers can make any sense..

Are we talking about registrars for only registries that are monoplies
like NSI, or totally shared registeries ala CORE, or all registries
including all ccTLDs and new gTLDs?  

Will all TLD registries be required to operate as shared registries
the same way that NSI is required, or the way POC/PAB/CORE plans to
operate shared registries?  

Are you going to propote one size fits all for all rgions, segments
and nations?

If not, what do you have in mind?

>From your message Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:56:41 -0500:
}
}
}-Original Message-
}From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Becky Burr
}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mike Roberts
}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}Date: Monday, February 15, 1999 1:41 PM
}Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority is be Dangerous
}
}
}hello jay:
}
}i would appreciate some further elightenment in light of your comments
}below:
}
}1.who do you believe has the "rights" to access to the IP data ? what is
}your definition of "IPdata" ?


}2.who do believe should be accrediting  registrars and the development of
}mechanisms to insure  that they operate in "the best interest of the
}internet" ?

Who indeed Ken?  Do you believe that every registrar must be
accredited.  Does this include all ISPs that bundle registrar services
into their service packages?  Are customers going to be releieved of
all needs to demand that their registrars acti in the interests of
their customers?  If yes, how are you gong to enforce your standards
of service?  Who is going to pay for the enforcement system?

}3.should we have have a code of conduct for registrars ?
}

I gather that you assume the answer is yes?  Why do you assume this?

}4.how do you feel we should insure that there is equity in situations where
}the registry also competes at the registrar level ?

What is wrong with volumen discount plans for Registrars?

}5.how do we insure "portability" so that domain name holders are assured
}that they will be provided adequate information on alternatives available to
}them for future registration servicing ?

Why is this such a hard problem.  Why cannot this be left as a
prioduct differenctiation feature for registrars?  Why does all this
control have to be imposed from the top?

}
}best wishes
}
}ken stubbs
}

Just checking;-)...\Stef

}
}>ICANN has greatly exceeded its mandate to deal with the
}>NSI monopoly.  It appears to have established an entire
}>business model for all ICANN registrars, one that makes
}>ICANN the owner of all IP data, and assesses a tax on
}>all registrants without *any* checks and balances.
}>
}>Respectfully,
}>
}>Jay Fenello
}>President, Iperdome, Inc.
}>404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
}>
}>
}

[IFWP] Re: Good ICANN money making scheme: Proprietary protocols in IETF clothing?

[Einar Stefferud]

I believe that INTERNET-DRAFTS are not controlled by the RFC EDITOR.

This is a failure of the IETF Secetariat, of IESG oversight.

I have already commented on the lameness of the "This document is an
}Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of
Section 10 of RFC2026" text that ahs recently been added to the
required text to be inserted into all INTERNT-DRAFTS.

My comment was that such a "content free" citation is not at all
helpful, and should be expanded to include singnificatn information
about what is relevant about RFC2026.  In fact, the added text I
endorsed was written by Scott Bradner who agreed with me that his text
worl be a very good and useful addition to all INTERNET-DRAFTS.

Unfortunatley my private request only received a rather rude reply
from the IETF Secretriat so I backed off to await this kind of
evidence that the change clearly needs to be made!

So, lets just get to it an fix it without making it into an ICANN
case.

Cheers...\Stef


>From your message Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:30:23 -0500:
}
}Would any of the "real" engineers reading here say that the item below
}offers a good reason why the less that the IETF has to do with ICANN the
}better?
}
}Does the RFC editor position now need political protection?
}
}Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:27:57 -0700 (MST)
}From: Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}Subject: Re: PPTP draft
}
}> From: Karl Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}
}> >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
}> >directories.  This draft is a work item of the Point-to-Point
}> >Protocol Extensions Working Grou p of the IETF
}
}> You are correct; PPTP is not a work item of the PPPEXT working group.
}
}Thanks.
}
}That's the second time in the last couple of weeks I've encountered a
}draft that appeared to be an officially sponsored and approved IETF
}document, but was not.  I had no clue about the real status of the other
}example, until the author enlightened me.  It contained no clue about its
}intended eventual status, the working group with which it ies associated,
}or anything useful than ISOC copyright.
}
}It would be really swell if all announcements would accurately state the
}status of the document.  It would also be good the RFC editor would refuse
}to announce documents until there their text makes clear their source and
}status.  The PPTP draft does include the familar "does not specify an
}Internet standard" disclaimer, but only after saying "This document is an
}Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section
}10 of RFC2026."  Wannabe that most readers will read the first three
}paragraphs, not read RFC 2026, miss the "not a standard" disclaimer, and
}conclude that PPTP is an official IETF standard?  Shouldn't the disclaimer
}be first, since it is most important and relevant?
}
}As long as the IETF is being a free vanity publisher for the world, it
}wouldn't hurt if the Editor imposed a few minimal guidelines to slow
}the dilution of the IETF brand or trademark.
}
}
}Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
}***
}The COOK Report on Internet  431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
}(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cookreport.com
}
}NOTE: Contempt in which ICANN PRES. MIKE ROBERTS holds rest of Internet:
}"Some of those people think the management [ICANN] should check with the
}public [the Communities of the Internet] every time they make a decision,
}which is crazy," Roberts said. "That's flat-out crazy." WIRED NEWS 2/4/99
}***

Re: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] BMW Procedural Problems

[Einar Stefferud]

It seems abundantly clear to me that ICANN has a large role to play in
making it very clear that they will not favor any application whose
supporters refuse to reasonably participate in a process of resolving
differences.  And this included doing so in public on the Internet.

It is not good enough to arrange for a one day F2F meeting in
Singapore the day before an ICANN BoD selection of a DNSO winner.  Or
anywhere else in the world.  Even California, as it is not possible to
get all the concerend parties into a single room to negotiate.
The fact is that we know how to do this on the net!

It would appear that for some reason unknown to the supporters and
editing team behind the Paris Draft, that the BWW/BWM/WBM/WMB draft 
(I think I included all the various mispellings for the same draft)
supporters are simply stonewalling.

Is it that they have the word from ICANN that they are favored, and
that they only need to hang tough to win all the marbles?

If so, what options do we Paris Draft Supporters have, other than to
demand that ICANN not support this WBM behavior.  itis clear to us
that we have been responsive (as Jay points out) to critical comments
about the PARIS Draft.

We have already called attention to the WBM intransigence, and ICANN
has not shown any sign of comment or even concern for how the process
is going.  So, at what point do we conclude that ICANN is in league
with the WBM supporters.  

As I recall, ICANN has had several private meeting with the WBM
supporters, in Boston before the ICANN "open" meeting, and in Canada
in between, and other private coaching commnications are known to be
occurring.

Also, we can plainly see glaring conections between ISOC support (now
seriously in question) and IAHC MoU support (also in serious question)
and POC/PAB/CORE (also in question) support, and the ICANN BoD and
ICANN President Mike Roberts (not seriously in question).

It would seem that ICANN should clear up all the suspicion that all
these clearly visible but private relationships imply for those of us
who are not privvy to all that private coaching and consulting that is
entirely focused on only one side of this game.

Of course, all this can be discounted as only supicion, as it is all
very hard to prove without someone on the ICANN inside breaking ranks
and providing provable facts.

But, on the other hand, we see no clear disclaimers from ICANN, in
spite of long standing calls for such disclaimers from ICANN.  So,
until I see some clear disclaimers and support for merging of the
WBM/PARIS drafts, I am going to assume that ICANN is stacking the deck.

It is very simple for ICANN to counter this postion by making a few
very clear statmemnts in pupblic press released that directly respond
to my charges stated here-in.

Best...\Stef



>From your message Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:39:33 -0500:
}
}At 2/15/99, 05:55 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
}>I see a lot of thrashing to and fro on "intentions."  I choose to believe
}>that all of us involved, and working, sometimes very long hours, have good
}>intentions, but still sometimes misunderstand or mistrust each other.  
}>
}>I'm for working on a single draft. Before Singapore, After Singapore but
}>working.  
}>
}>...let's continue to cut each other some slack and keep working together
}>toward creating a single approach which reflects broadness, depth,
}>globalness, inclusiveness, etcin short, the DNSO.
}
}
}Hello Marilyn,
}
}We certainly have similar stated goals.  However, 
}my experience does not match our common objectives.  
}For example:
}
}When people complained about the "Implementation
}Preview" clause in the Paris draft, AIP and NSI
}immediately drafted a new revision.  It was posted
}for public comment, and then amended into the
}Paris Draft.
}
}When BMW supporters complained that the Paris
}Draft would not be able to make timely decisions,
}Antony Van Couvering immediately drafted some
}revisions in an attempt to address these concerns.
}
}So far, so good.
}
}Now, when the Paris Draft supporters complained
}that the BMW draft was top heavy and unfair to
}minority interests on our conference call on 
}Saturday, Kent Crispin responded by disparaging
}the signatories to the Paris Draft.  Then, he
}confused everyone by describing the BMW draft
}in inaccurate ways.  
}
}Once again I ask -- does the business/trademark 
}community condone this activity?  
}
}Respectfully,
}
}Jay Fenello
}President, Iperdome, Inc.  
}404-943-0524  http://www.iperdome.com
}
}
}
}
}>-Original Message-
}>From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
}>Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 4:47 PM
}>To: DNSO.association.org
}>Subject: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] BMW Procedural Problems
}

[IFWP] Re: California meeting March 18; was Re: Chopped liver no more! Was Re: do we want......?

[Einar Stefferud]

What kind of meeting is this expected to be?

Does it have an agenda?  Is it just a social gathering?

Or a Birds Of A Feather thing?

Or just a meeting to enable saying that ICANN held one in California?

Seriously, we should have more of an idea about why and what.

Cheers...\Stef

Re: [IFWP] Re: California meeting March 18; was Re: Chopped liver no more! Was Re: do wewant......?

[Einar Stefferud]

>From your message Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:47:30 -0800 (PST):
}
}On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Ken Stubbs wrote:
}
}> get a life ellen.
}
}Is it possible to see a post from you where you do not make a snide or
}disparaging remark? It certainly would be a refreshing change.

This rather nasty comment has no place on the ORSC list.

THIS IS NOT as formal Civil Discourse Rule Complaint.  
Just a comment that this apears to be pushing the envelope.

Perhaps Ken would like to omit ORSC when making such coments.

Cheers...\Stef

[IFWP] Re: Central Authority is be Dangerous

[Einar Stefferud]

The Key Issue, which Mr. Zittrain also misses here is the necessary
distinction between NSI and its REgistrars becoming "regulated"
because NSI is a recognized Moopoly which just happens to be the
result of a nasty Market Structure Failure (caused by a lack of proper
USGovt Oversight of IANA and NSI) which remains in ofrce to limit
gTLDs to only 3 that are open to the public (.com, .org, .net).

It is very clear, after just a little thinking, that all the other
TLDs (ccTLDs and prospective would be gTLDs) are not monopolies that
need the regulatory cure being applied to NSI and the NSI Registrars.

So, why is ICANN setting policy for all TLD registries and Registrars,
Internet Wide?  And why are you jsutifying the doing of this based on
the fact of NSI being a monopoly and under regulatory control of NTIA.

And, why is ICANN stting NTIA policy for all TLds and they Registrars?
Is ICANN actually a CARTEL, with the power to set criteria and rules
for all DNS Registrars in tyhe Internet?

If ICANN doe snt make this claim, then I think it is critical that
ICANN say so and relieve us of our nigtmare concerns.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:18:41 -0500:
}
}For what it's worth, ICANN's been pretty clear from the start that the
}initial board would be doing policy, too--this from the Nov. 14 meeting
}(I'd been thinking of "interim" and "initial" as interchangeable before this):
}
}http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/archive/transmembership.html
}
} 3 MR. ZITTRAIN:  Well, if I may, I think
} 4  you're making at least two points.  One is, and it
} 5  was made earlier, you have to know what the
} 6  organization as a whole is doing before you can
} 7  actually define how the membership would play a
} 8  role in it.  And secondly, more specifically, to
} 9  the extent that what it's doing is operational and
}10  those are the decisions that require
}11  accountability, you want to even say is it the
}12  Board doing it, is it people appointed by the
}13  Board, is it the president or people under --
}14 MR. CLARK:  Right, I was just stressing
}15  the second question, you know, that -- I'm -- the
}16  question of how the Board is selected has a lot to
}17  do with what -- the role they play versus the
}18  subsidiary organizations and so forth and so on.
}19 MR. ZITTRAIN:  Yeah.
}20 MS. DYSON:  Yeah.  Well, with -- yeah,
}21  not everything is clear, but clearly we are more
}22  than -- we will be making policy decisions; Mike
}23  Roberts will be -- and his successor, as a more
}24  permanent president, will be carrying out the
}O'BRIEN & LEVINE COURT REPORTING SERVICES
}130
} 1  operational side of the business and making things
} 2  run and so forth and so on.  So it really is a
} 3  combination.  But we're an -- we are an initial
} 4  Board right now.  That's why we're called initial. 
} 5  It wasn't actually interim.  And one reason we're
} 6  an initial Board is because we are initiating a
} 7  lot of these policies about how we are governed
} 8  going forward.  So especially this initial Board
} 9  is very much concerned with defining exactly what
}10  we're talking about here:  Membership,
}11  accountability, procedures, the structure of the
}12  supporting organizations and so forth.
}
}Given the aggressive timetable established between the USG and NSI for
}running the testbed on multiple registrar registrations, and the
}expectation in that agreement that ICANN would establish accreditation
}guidelines, it doesn't seem off base to publish draft guidelines without a
}DNSO yet in place, no?  Or is this an argument for the speedier recognition
}of a DNSO to keep pace with these developments?  ...JZ
}
}At 04:20 PM 2/14/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
}>At 2/10/99, 11:35 PM, Dean Robb wrote:
}>>>We have heard "It's just temporary" over and over again, used to silence
}>>>fears and criticism. If the bylaws didn't stipulate that the ICANN Interim
}>>>Board was just temporary, and that they wouldn't make policy decisions, who
}>>>among us would have accepted their "temporary" approval by the NTIA?
}>>
}>>I seem to recall that in international politics, many a "temporary"
}>>violation of agreements was later renamed "fait accompli".
}>>
}>>I have not been involved in this process from the beginning, I'm not a
}>>world-re

[IFWP] Re: RFC 1591 and ccTLD's (was Draft new draft)

[Einar Stefferud]

This is now all the more pressing as we see what ICANN has in mind for
Registration, Certification, and Regulation of the entire Registrar
and Registry Industry, World Wide!

Yes, I know, ICANN has not exactly made it known that this is really
what they have in mind, but they also have not disavowed it either.

So, given all that I know about what is going on here, I strongly
suspect that the ICANN plan is to expand the controls being applied to
NSI registrars to all registries and registrars, such that no one can
get a DNS name at the TLD, or SLD, (or 3LD if that is the leel where
registrations are sold).  

So, I see ICANN using "The need to control the NSI Monopoly" to impose
monopoly regulation to the entire DNS!

Be sure to read those certification requirements very carefully.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:57:16 -0500:}

}I have argued in the past that the creation of new gTLDs is of critical
}importance precisely because some ccTLDs are so limited.  There are many in
}which you cannot register a name if you are a natural person (instead of a
}business), and some have restrictions where you can't get a name unless you
}are a customer of the phone company.  Therefore, *visibility* on the net,
}for many people, depends on open and accessible gTLDs.
}
}Antony
}
}P.S. Yes, RFC 1591 dates from 1994, and is out of date.  Yes, changes could
}be made.  No, it does not need to be jettisoned in favor of a vague and
}worrisome and wholly new principle of sovereignty.  The RFC should be used
}as a starting point from which to move forward in the DNSO, and until such
}time as it is modified it should continue to be recognized.
}
}
}[Einar wrote]
}> >So, before the roof caves in, we all need to be very careful to
}> >preserve our rights to use non-ccTLD DNS names, adn we have to be
}> >careful to avoid governments' capture of control of ICANN or the DNSO.
}> >
}> >It is already disurbing to see the current trends in the situation.
}> >
}[Joop wrote]
}> Yes. It is worrying.  I am afraid that Anthony, William and others are
}> sticking their head in the sand on this point.  Maybe this comes
}> from being
}> based in the U.S., where the trend is less visible. Kent is more realistic
}> in this respect.
}> New, free, self-governed gTLD's are of critical importance. Self-governed
}> ccTLD's need to be 100% above suspicion in order to escape from being
}> regulated.
}> RFC 1591 dates from 1994.   Things are changing fast.
}
}

[IFWP] Re: Can we make one list for the dnso discussion?

[Einar Stefferud]

Well, I have several times proposed using <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for this
singular purpose, since it has been rescued, and even suggested
adoption of the ORSC civil discourse rules, with a new panel of
referees to handle complaints.  I even nominated the referees, but I
forget who they were.  I recall that they were people who seemed to
care a great deal about the referees being fairminded and fair.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:18:42 +1200:
}
}Dear all,
}
}Many are getting sick of the need for crossposting.
}What about the first goodwill compromise to make and choose one list for
}this DNSO compromise discussion?
}
}Would all listmembers agree to be merged on one list?
}
}Volonteer to set it up?  
}Polite behaviour rules?
}Joop Teernstra 
}[EMAIL PROTECTED]
}http://www.imachination.com

[IFWP] Re: Amendments to Paris Draft

[Einar Stefferud]

I think this is a fine idea, and in addition please add some other
things that have been proposed.

Like, make sure that Fair Hearing Panels can be initiated by petition
to the Names Council (or maybe also to the General Assembly) after due
consideration given to the petition.  

This need not require that a Fair Hearing Panel petition must be
granted, but that it must be heard and considered with due process.

I do not recall what is the status of Fair Hearing Panels in the Paris
Draft, so I might be way off base in this message.  Please let me know
if I am so.

I do recall that in the AIP/ORSC draft, FHP had been converted
(reduced) into a tool for stopping or interrupting a Research
Committee Reporting Process and that a call for a Fair Hearing Panel
would force a panel to be formed and that action on the involved
report would be stopped until the FHP was competed.  This would be far
too draconian for my tastes.

The original, and remaining, concept of Fair Hearing Panels is to
assure a Fair Hearing to people who greatly fear not being hearable.
My suggestion here above addresses this aspect, and does not gum up
the works in doing so.

Please respond to this message with information about the status of
this FHP proposal.  I have sent various messages about it to various
places, and I do not have a clue as to whether it has been giving a
hearing or not;-)...

I also have often proposed that some Specific Fair Hearing Panels be
established in the DNSO Application to ICANN to avoid wasting time
getting them started.  The two I have mentioned are:

1.  Regional Fair Hearing Panel to reduce the pressure for extreme
efforts to balance regional voting power on the Names Council.
it is going to be impossible on any Council smaller than the UN
General Assembly to properly assure all regions (large and small)
of being heard.

2.  DNS History Fair Hearing Panel (might better be a Research
Committee as it requires serious research of the history) to
develop policies to deal with the past and move toward the
future.  It is very disturbing to think that the ICANN BoD may
have already decided the future of the DNS without doing any such
research, and without any ICANN membership or DNS fair hearings.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:09:08 -0500:
}
}As all the major sponsors of the proposal appear to support it, and hearing
}that the amendments will answer many of the issues raised here, as of this
}weekend, I'll be officially editing the draft to include the amendments
}proposed in the joint letter by AIP and NSI which accompanied the Paris
}draft application and which is available on the web site at
}dnso.association.org.
}
}Sincerely,
}Andrew
}-- 
}Andrew Q. Kraft, MAIP
}Executive Director, Association of Internet Professionals (AIP)
}Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}Phone:  310-724-6589
}More Info:  http://www.association.org/

Re: [IFWP] Market Structure Failure

[Einar Stefferud]

Said TM "experts" discount all TLDs as distinguishing one SLD name
from another, so they want to reduce the number of TLDs to only one.

And of course as soon as they achieve this, they will have shifted the
entire problem down one level to the 3LD level, because with only one
TLD, all SLD names are equivalent to being TLDs, and they will have to
go after the next level down.

The reality is that the TM folks can only massage their problem up and
down the DNS tree, but cannot make it go away, until they accept that
higher level names qualify and distinguish lower level names from each
other.

And, when this reality dawns on them, they will see that more TLDs
will in fact solve their problems by providing lots of qualifiers and
differentiators.  How many "qualifier" categories does TM law already
recognize?  Why should DNS have any fewer the TM?  Why not lots more?

The market structure failure remains the primary cause of the NSI
monopoly, regardless of what TM interests think, or want to do about
it.  If there were (originally) more TLDs to compete with NSI, then
NSI would not be the monopoly that it is now.  And, the longer the
Market structure Failure continues, the longer it will take to unravel
the problems.

But, in any case, the root of the DNS problems we are facing is found
in the limited number of gTLDs that are now allowed.  That is why so
many ccTLDs are being sucked into the gTLD market vacuum and used as
gTLDs, in spite of their supposed non-gTLD "mission" in life.

So, where in all of the grand ICANN schemes is the ICANN solution for
the root of the problem?  Namely the Market Structure Failure problem?

Let me guess: Oh Yes, There it is -- Monopoly Cartel Control of the
entire DNS, with 10's of thousands of registered and certified
registrars and a few carefully controlled shared registries!

How better to extract ICANN taxes from all concerned?

Cheers...\Stef

PS:  NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

>From your message Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:04:52 -0800 (PST):
}
}Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
}
}>My candidate for the main meta problem is that:
}
}>The US Govt Created a Market Structure Problem (only 3 useful gTLDs)
}>by not applying proper oversight to the evolution of the DNS, and thus
}>spawned a Monopoly (NSI), whose very existstence many people think is
}>"the problem".
}
}According to what some of the trademark experts have written, even if there
}were more TLDs, they would not be sufficient to properly identify all
}trademarked names in their appropriate contexts.  So it seems to me
}more of a technological limitation than a market structure failure.
}
}However, I agree that the USG did not provide sufficient oversight in the
}decision to grant NSI the right to charge for domain names.
}
}--gregbo

[IFWP] Re: Who in ISOC supports the DNSO.ORG Draft? (was Re: Whos is on that draft)

[Einar Stefferud]

I believe that everyone on the AIP/ORSC side of the Paris Draft
Adoption conclusion stands for the change that Bret proposed and cited
below.  Is it still on the boards for inclusion?

When is the drafting attempt going to be mde to come up with a meld of
the two applications?  This change belongs in that attempt, as it is a
widely agreed aupon change on both sides.

BTW, given the time pressures, I think it is absolutely critical to
get going ot putting together a proposed meld draft, rather then be
standing around gossiping about "maybe some oen should do something"!

So, I nominate Bret and AIP to take their best shot and put it out for
discussion.  Until we have something real proposed to look at and
discuss, we can only continue to wander in the Sinai.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:59:12 +1200:
}
}At 17:43 12/02/99 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
}>Bret,
}>
}>You wrote:
}>> Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
}>> 
}>> >In my view a big diff is the veto-power of one group (registries).
}>> >That does not fit at all with my view of equality.
}>> 
}>> How about the modified version of this language that was included in the 
}>> Joint Appendix forwarded by the AIP and NSI with the AIP cover letter? It 
}>> removes the "veto-power" aspect of the rule. Does that address the 
}>> concern?
}>> 
}>It does, indeed.
}>(IMHO, at least)
}>
}>Also, I am confident that a large part of the signatories of the Paris Draft
}>are confortable with it, as well as (most of?) the signatories of the
}>Washington Draft.
}>
}Roberto and all,
}
}I was never happy with that (semi) veto-clause in the first place. Removal
}will make me more comfortable with the Paris Draft.
}
}
}Joop Teernstra LL.M.  
}Democratic Association of  Domain  Name  Owners
}http://www.democracy.org.nz 
}

[IFWP] Re: ICANN's Defective Competition Guidelines, etc (was Accredita

[Einar Stefferud]

Jeff -- If you know thew answer to your question better than I do,
then please answer if for yourself.

I am not at all interested in playing 20 questions with you.

Over and out;-)...\Stef

>From your message Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:37:16 -0800 (PST):
}
}
}No he didn't.  Because the information contains information of a private
}nature, I need him to state that it is ok to post that information, clearly and
}concisely.  I've emailed him privately asking for this permission, not
}surprisingly he won't answer those mails.
}
}I did not personally collect this data, but someone else did, and in order for
}them to grant permission post it, they insist that he specifically state that
}he permits the posting of this private information.
}
}It will lay to rest all doubt as to Jeff.
}
}If it were my decision alone, I'd post it up on my personal website, and be
}done with it.  Personally, I don't see the problem, legal or otherwise, and
}think that if anything there is an obligation to post it.
}
}The person with the information in on this list, and if he will just send it to
}me, I'll post it up today and take all responsibility for it myself.
}
}
}
}On 11-Feb-99 Frank Rizzo wrote:
}>  At 1:29 AM -0800 2/10/99, William X. Walsh wrote:
}> >If you truly have nothing to hide, and you want to stick to the corner you
}> >just
}> >painted yourself into (that we should seek out information we desire on you
}> >on
}> >our own) then now give permission for that information that has been
}> >sought out
}> >about you to be published for all to see.
}> >
}> >It is easily independently verifiable by anyone wishing to verify it.
}> >
}> >I will await your permission.
}>  
}>  Come on already. He gave you explicit permission. For the love of baby
}>  Jesus, post his identity. If he's a fraud, what do you have to worry about?
}>  I'm starting to side with Jeff. All you do is cast aspersions. If you have
}>  it, post the truth.
}>  
}>  Jeff, sign me up for the INEG Internet Steak Meeting in Arlon Texas. I'll
}>  be there with my lighter and all my shoes. I hope that they play Dark Star.
}>  
}>  _Rizzy.
}
}--
}E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}Date: 11-Feb-99
}Time: 14:30:54
}--
}"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
}of lawyers, hungry as locusts." 
}- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977

[IFWP] Re: ICANN's Defective Competition Guidelines, etc (was Accredita

[Einar Stefferud]

>From your message Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:47:20 +:
}
}Stef and all,

}  BTW Stef, what ever happened to what we had discussed regarding the NIST
}protest filing?  You seemed to have gone back to sitting on the fence again as
}Roeland had suggested back on Jan. 22nd.  Care to elaborate?
}

ORSC protested.  I beleive a copy of the protest was sent to the ORSC
list if not others.  I assumed that everyone saw it at the time.

At least two other parties also protested.

Neither the GAO or NIST or NTIA have given any direect signal of
resultant action, but I understand from 3rd parties that the GAO has
taken control of that contracting action, and that the GAO will
control whatever happens next.

We achieved our goal of calling it to the attention of the GAO in
order to assure that if a sole source contract is negotiated, that it
will be with direct involvement of the GAO, and will be done by the
rules.

Beyond that, we will just have to wait and see.

Cheers...\Stef