Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
Einar Stefferud a écrit: > I agree with this concern, and I suggest that the initial membership > be defined in some other more well defined way. One suggestion that > makes sense to me is "Anyone with a DNS Zone file to administer" to be > used to elect an INITIAL Names Council Yes, of course you would suggest this, since it puts ORSC into the driver's seat. Everyone else, who doesn't administer DNS zone files, will have another, very different suggestion about how the NC will be elected. And Einar Stefferud won't nevessarily be their NC chairman. By suggesting these selfish methods, you are now playing right into the hands of the DNSO.org, who have rightly accused you and the ORSC of playing the same sort of manipulative game of which you accuse them. The above suggestion of yours goes right along with your having copied other people's drafts to write ORSC drafts, of both the NewCo bylaws and the DNSO application. And who elected Einar Stefferud the leader and spokesperson of the Paris draft and of the DNSO? You are good when you are opposing other's wrong-thinking and wrong-doing, but when you think you have a little power you are as dangerous as those you accuse. It is a shame that you are tarnishing so soon the reputation of the Paris draft with these thoughtless and ill-advised pronouncements and suggestions from on high. I hope the AIP and the other supporters of the Paris draft will bring you down to earth before you throw disrepute on us all.
RE: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
I would have to see the specific wording, but my initial reaction is that the changes you suggest would largely answer my concerns (although I would still prefer explicitly defined initial constituencies), along with a revision to Section 5.9 similar to that suggested by AIP and NSI. I am not sure that a meld of the two drafts can be achieved without losing support from key players on each side, nor do I believe that I would be the best person to try to accomplish it. Einar Stefferud wrote: > > Good constructive and useful criticism as I read it;-)... > > >From your message Sun, 7 Feb 1999 10:42:42 -0600: > } > }William X. Walsh wrote: > } > }> I call for a vote of participants on this list for which draft > }> they support. > }> > }> It is time to vocalize your support, and clearly indicate who you > }> represent. > } > }OK, I'll bite: > } > }There are number of problems with the Paris draft. Section 2.1 > leaves the > }issue of who is eligible for DNSO membership up to ICANN by making it > }coextensive with ICANN's membership. It is not yet clear what > the makeup of > }this membership will be or whether it would be appropriate for the DNSO. > } > > I agree with this concern, and I suggest that the initial membership > be defined in some other more well defined way. One suggestion that > makes sense to me is "Anyone with a DNS Zone file to administer" to be > used to elect an INITIAL Names Council that is defined to have rather > limited powers to decide on plicy matters, but has lots of power to > set in motion both Research Committees and Fair Hearing Panels to > comence the work of sorting out the mess that the DNSO will have to > resolve. > > } > }Section 3.2 requires the General Assembly to "self-organize into diverse > }constituencies" without providing any mechanism for doing so. If > }discussions on these mailing lists are any indication, this is likely to > }generate endless squabbles about the proper number and type of > }constituencies that would likely not be resolved until ICANN > stepped in to > }impose a solution. > } > > This is one more reason to start with an Initial NC with limited > powers as suggested above. > > } > }The real show-stoppers are in Article V, specifically Sections > 5.8 through > }5.11. The "Fair Hearing" provisions of Sections 5.8, 5.10, and > 5.11 make it > }possible for any special interest or special interest group to > delay almost > }indefinitely any policy that they disagree with. Section 5.9 goes even > }further. It elevates the particular special interest group of registries > }above all others by giving it veto power and by requiring an essentially > }unachievable 3/4 supermajority of registries for approval. These > }provisions, taken individually and in toto, would make it nearly > impossible > }for the DNSO to produce any substantive policy recommendations > whatsoever. > }That is unacceptable to me. It is my hope and expectation that it will > }prove to be unacceptable to ICANN as well. > } > > Here I am in strong agreement that the whole concept of Fair Hearing > Panels has been subvertted by inavertant editing whcih converts them > into a mecahisim to be used to stop progress on any Research Committee > proposal that someone does not like. In his us, Fair Hearing Panels > become a mecahism for objaingin cort-like injunctive relief. > > My original concept was tht they would be a method by which DNSO (or > ICANN) would and could assure fair hearing and thus assure a hearable > voice to all concerned. My proposal called for Fair Hearing Panels to > be created upon a petition to the NC or the BoD, which immediately > guanatees that the NC or the BoD must read it and act upon it, and > cannot claim they never knew anything about it. Thus, guaranteeing > that any voice can at least be heard. > > Behond that, there was no requiremtn that anything or action be > stopped because of sucha request. It is my beleif that just exposing > the call for fair hearing and forcing the issue onto the table will be > enough to keep things from being done in secret where stakeholders > find themselves threatened. > > This needs further refinement, but I strongly object to the curent use > of Fair Hearing Panels for providing court like injunctive relief. > There was never any intention to creat a new court-like system! > > } > }The flaws in the Washington draft are relatively minor by comparison. > }Business interests are overrepresented, and there is no mechanism for > }individual users or domain holders to participate directly (Section I.B). > }It also fails to make clear whether Names Council members are > elected by the > }constituencies they represent or by the entire membership > (Section I.E). I > }regard the former approach as necessary to prevent the Names Council from > }being captured by a special interest group or groups > constituting a majority > }of the membership. > } > > So, lets meld the good parts of the "Wahington Draft" into the Paris >
RE: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
Michael Sondow wrote: > > Einar Stefferud a écrit: > > > I agree with this concern, and I suggest that the initial membership > > be defined in some other more well defined way. One suggestion that > > makes sense to me is "Anyone with a DNS Zone file to administer" to be > > used to elect an INITIAL Names Council > > Yes, of course you would suggest this, since it puts ORSC into > the driver's > seat. Everyone else, who doesn't administer DNS zone files, will have > another, very different suggestion about how the NC will be elected. And > Einar Stefferud won't nevessarily be their NC chairman. > How would this give control to ORSC? Every domain name holder directly or indirectly administers a DNS zone file. Are you sure you're not confusing "DNS zone" with "root zone"?
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
John B. Reynolds a écrit: > How would this give control to ORSC? Alright, perhaps my reaction was slightly exaggerated. Let's just say it's strictly in their interest, to the direct detriment of other interests, my own for example. > Every domain name holder directly or > indirectly administers a DNS zone file. Are you sure you're not > confusing "DNS zone" with "root zone"? No, the domain holders don't administer zone files. That's done by the ISPs and the layers above them in the hierarchy. My name isn't in my ISP's permissions file for changing RRs. I have no control over the MX records, or the CNAME aliases, or who is the secondary NS, or anything else to do with the zone files. I've been reading the BIND manual in my spare time. You can't kid me. This suggestion of a leader of ISPs and the layers above them disenfranchises simple domain holders like me, and the layers below in the tree. It's right in line with Einar Stefferud's former insistence that connectivity providers represent the users: a blatant misrepresentation of the facts, which are that the users, as pure consumers who gain nothing by increased costs up and down the hierarchy, are not represented by anyone in that hierarchy. But enough. Neither Einar Stefferud, nor Kent Crispin, nor Michael Heltzer, nor Dennis Jennings, nor anyone else is going to run the DNSO to the disadvantage of myself and people like me. Not so long as I can still speak and write and send e-mail messages.
RE: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
Michael Sondow wrote: > > John B. Reynolds a écrit: > > > Every domain name holder directly or > > indirectly administers a DNS zone file. Are you sure you're not > > confusing "DNS zone" with "root zone"? > > No, the domain holders don't administer zone files. That's done > by the ISPs > and the layers above them in the hierarchy. My name isn't in my ISP's > permissions file for changing RRs. I have no control over the MX > records, or > the CNAME aliases, or who is the secondary NS, or anything else to do with > the zone files. I've been reading the BIND manual in my spare time. You > can't kid me. You administer your zone indirectly by controlling which ISP runs it directly. You have the power to move your zone file to another provider, to your own server (assuming sufficient Internet connectivity), or to a service that would permit you to administer it directly.
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
Einar Stefferud wrote: >Here I am in strong agreement that the whole concept of Fair Hearing >Panels has been subvertted by inavertant editing whcih converts them >into a mecahisim to be used to stop progress on any Research Committee >proposal that someone does not like. I don't think that's a fair reading of the sections. A Fair Hearing allows an aggrieved party the opportunity to explain a problem, propose a better solution, and discuss the issues with the Research Committee. Nothing requires the Research Committee to accept the proposal or slow down the process. I've seen the reading that you give these sections voiced elsewhere on this mailing list a couple of times, and for the life of me, I don't see the language that is creating this misunderstanding. Can someone please point to the phrase that is creating this concern? -- Bret The language follows: 5.8 Fair Hearing Petition. If, after the First Request for Comments is published, any person, corporation, or organization (the "Petitioner") feels that the proposal outlined by the Research Committee either (i) places an unfair burden on the Petitioner's personal, business, or organizational interests, or (ii) is not in the best interests of the domain name system, the Petitioner may request a Fair Hearing. Each Petition for a Fair Hearing shall include (i) a detailed statement of the harm that would be caused if the proposal contained in the Request for Comments was adopted as policy; (ii) a specific reference to the language in the Request for Comments that would lead to the alleged harm; (iii) a specific proposal for new or modified language that would alleviate or minimize the alleged harm; and (iv) a statement of the Petitioner's professional or business interests that would be impacted in any way by the adoption of its proposed language. The Research Committee may either adopt the Petitioner's suggested language or hold a Fair Hearing. 5.10 Fair Hearing. A Fair Hearing required by Sections 5.8 or 5.11 shall allow the Research Committee and the Petitioner, its representatives and supporters to discuss and debate the issues raised in the Fair Hearing Petition. Fair Hearings shall be open to all DNSO members. The purpose of the Fair Hearing shall be to seek consensus on the issues raised. After a Fair Hearing has been held, the Research Committee shall report on the DNSO web site whether consensus was reached, and if so, what was agreed by those present. Fair Hearings shall be open in the same manner as Names Council meetings.
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
John B. Reynolds a écrit: > You administer your zone indirectly by controlling which ISP runs it > directly. Administer the zone indirectly? What are you talking about? Is this a game of semantics to you? It's a file. How do I change it's contents when it's on a server in the house or office of someone else, and I don't have write access? Would you like to tell everyone who may be witnessing this inane discussion just what in the name of mother McCreedy you're talking about? > You have the power to move your zone file to another provider Move the zone file? What, copy and paste it from one server to another? Is that how zone files are transferred? Horse-puckey! And even if it were, what average domain name holder even knows how to access zone files, or has access to a unix machine to do it with? > to your own server (assuming sufficient Internet connectivity) How many domain name holders have unix boxes with BIND running on them, or know how to configure BIND? Even the ISPs can't do it correctly. > or to a service > that would permit you to administer it directly. No such service exists. But I see your game. You're not interested in useful discussion, but in seeing if you can manipulate people. I won't waste any more time with you.
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
In message <001401be52fb$9ddc9320$010a@jbr>, "John B. Reynolds" writes: > Michael Sondow wrote: > > > > Einar Stefferud a écrit: > > > > > I agree with this concern, and I suggest that the initial membership > > > be defined in some other more well defined way. One suggestion that > > > makes sense to me is "Anyone with a DNS Zone file to administer" to be > > > used to elect an INITIAL Names Council > > > > Yes, of course you would suggest this, since it puts ORSC into > > the driver's > > seat. Everyone else, who doesn't administer DNS zone files, will have > > another, very different suggestion about how the NC will be elected. And > > Einar Stefferud won't nevessarily be their NC chairman. > > > > How would this give control to ORSC? Every domain name holder directly or > indirectly administers a DNS zone file. Are you sure you're not confusing > "DNS zone" with "root zone"? There is write permission to a zone file, but many can have it. I prefer the "Administrative Contact" of a zone. There are multiple levels of zone files. Root, TLD, Second Levels within the TLDS. Third and more levels within SLwTLD. Which ones are we thinking of? el
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 10:37:39PM -0500, Bret A. Fausett wrote: > Einar Stefferud wrote: > > >Here I am in strong agreement that the whole concept of Fair Hearing > >Panels has been subvertted by inavertant editing whcih converts them > >into a mecahisim to be used to stop progress on any Research Committee > >proposal that someone does not like. > > I don't think that's a fair reading of the sections. A Fair Hearing > allows an aggrieved party the opportunity to explain a problem, propose a > better solution, and discuss the issues with the Research Committee. > Nothing requires the Research Committee to accept the proposal or slow > down the process. Running the hearing slows down the process, intrinsically. A hearing takes time that would have been spent doing other things. As long as I am guaranteed a "fair hearing" at will, I can slow down the process. Put it this way -- what prevents the fair hearing from becoming a fillibuster? -- Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
All of them! (see Eberhard's question below;-)... I also agree that the initial members of the startup DNSO should be the Zone Administrators and not the Technical Contacts! And, for Michael's information, the fact that he has contractred with an ISP to do everythig for his DNS Zone, and not let him have password control of it is his decision and not a feature of the DNS! In my own case, I cvontrol all aspects of the content of my NMA.COM zone, and have arranged for its primary to be at ICS.UCI.EDU And secondaries at ARL.ARMY.MIL, FV.COM, and have arrranged to add VRX.COM some time in the near future, as FV.COM might go away some time soon. All these things are my choices, though I have to negotiate arrangements with all the primary and secondary server providers. And, yes, I could primary or secondary on my own system. Further, my primary and scondaries do not make any changes that I do not approve. Also, I am listed as the Admin, and Tech and billing contacts for my zone. Cheers...\Stef >From your message Mon, 08 Feb 1999 07:43:34 +0200: } }In message <001401be52fb$9ddc9320$010a@jbr>, "John B. Reynolds" writes: }> Michael Sondow wrote: }> > }> > Einar Stefferud a crit: }> > }> > > I agree with this concern, and I suggest that the initial membership }> > > be defined in some other more well defined way. One suggestion that }> > > makes sense to me is "Anyone with a DNS Zone file to administer" to be }> > > used to elect an INITIAL Names Council }> > }> > Yes, of course you would suggest this, since it puts ORSC into }> > the driver's }> > seat. Everyone else, who doesn't administer DNS zone files, will have }> > another, very different suggestion about how the NC will be elected. And }> > Einar Stefferud won't nevessarily be their NC chairman. }> > }> }> How would this give control to ORSC? Every domain name holder directly or }> indirectly administers a DNS zone file. Are you sure you're not confusing }> "DNS zone" with "root zone"? } }There is write permission to a zone file, but many can have it. } }I prefer the "Administrative Contact" of a zone. } }There are multiple levels of zone files. Root, TLD, Second Levels }within the TLDS. Third and more levels within SLwTLD. } }Which ones are we thinking of? } }el
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
At 09:49 PM 2/7/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote: >John B. Reynolds a écrit: >> Every domain name holder directly or >> indirectly administers a DNS zone file. Are you sure you're not >> confusing "DNS zone" with "root zone"? > >No, the domain holders don't administer zone files. That's done by the ISPs >and the layers above them in the hierarchy. My name isn't in my ISP's >permissions file for changing RRs. I have no control over the MX records, or >the CNAME aliases, or who is the secondary NS, or anything else to do with >the zone files. I've been reading the BIND manual in my spare time. You >can't kid me. Hello Michael, Not only do I manage all three MHSC zone files (MHSC.COM, MHSC.NET, and MHSC-SYSTEMS.COM), I also manage the DNSO.NET zone and my own IN-ADDR.ARPA zone. It doesn't stop there, I also run the ORSC root.zone. That's public access. In addition I have three private zones for our internal VPN usage, that are only accessible from within MHSC.NET, via private name servers. Anyone with knowledge, a Unix system, and a full-time Internet connection can do the same. One does not have to be an ISP. Pacific Bell, MCI, and Wells Fargo Bank also control their own zone files. ___ 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: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
Michael, John is right. In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Sondow writes: > John B. Reynolds a =E9crit: > > > You administer your zone indirectly by controlling which ISP runs it > > directly. > > Administer the zone indirectly? What are you talking about? Is this > a game of semantics to you? It's a file. How do I change it's > contents when it's on a server in the house or office of someone > else, and I don't have write access? Would you like to tell everyone > who may be witnessing this inane discussion just what in the name of > mother McCreedy you're talking about? It's nothing to get excited about. Let's take .NA as an example: the zone file sits on grumpy.net.na as per an agreement with a local ISP. Whether they give me physical write access is not the issue, rather that I decide what gets written into it. In practice it configured to use linux.lisse.na as hidden primary, or if my leased line is bothering me (or rather the municipality tries to light christmas trees frying half the town) I copy the file with scp. It does reload regularily. Write permission means the person who decides on the changes being made (Admin Contact or Technical Contact), not the person that actually makes the changes (staff member). Or take iciiu.org for example. ICIIU has probably a contract with perfekt.net. If you tell them you want another secondary (after making arrangements) they would enter the change and reload). > > > You have the power to move your zone file to another provider > > Move the zone file? What, copy and paste it from one server to > another? Is that how zone files are transferred? Horse-puckey! And > even if it were, what average domain name holder even knows how to > access zone files, or has access to a unix machine to do it with? Don't get excited. It's not the issue who knows what. It's the issue who has the right to make the decison. *IN PRACTICE* most often this is delegated to the Technical Contact. Moving the zone file means downloading a copy thereof, uploading it to the new server, making appropriate changes, reloading the server, informing NSI of the change, waiting for the delegation to change to the new server and then removing the old one altogether. > > > to your own server (assuming sufficient Internet connectivity) > > How many domain name holders have unix boxes with BIND running on > them, or know how to configure BIND? Even the ISPs can't do it > correctly. It's not the issue if someone indeed (*IN PRACTICE*) knows what he should know. Configuring bind is trivial. It's small things like incrementing serial numbers that are overlooked, which is why I do this with a perl script connected to my mySQL database. > > or to a service > > that would permit you to administer it directly. > > No such service exists. But I see your game. You're not interested > in useful discussion, but in seeing if you can manipulate people. I > won't waste any more time with you. Such services do exist. It is rather trivial to give you secure access to your own zone file, secure clients for Windoze and Macs exist. It's really not necessary to get excited about technical issues... It's much more interesting to talk about whether the commercial Technical Contact of a smal ccTLD is the decision maker or the travel agent in country that he hires as the Amdinistrative Contact, pro forma. el
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" wri tes: > At 09:49 PM 2/7/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote: > >John B. Reynolds a écrit: > > >> Every domain name holder directly or > >> indirectly administers a DNS zone file. Are you sure you're not > >> confusing "DNS zone" with "root zone"? > > > >No, the domain holders don't administer zone files. That's done by the ISPs > >and the layers above them in the hierarchy. My name isn't in my ISP's > >permissions file for changing RRs. I have no control over the MX records, or > >the CNAME aliases, or who is the secondary NS, or anything else to do with > >the zone files. I've been reading the BIND manual in my spare time. You > >can't kid me. Michael, that may be true, but is not the issue. whois ICIIU.ORG yields: Administrative Contact: Sondow, Michael (MS17032) [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 (718) 846-7482 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Wianecki, Chris (CW618) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (718) 318-6444 Billing Contact: Sondow, Michael (MS17032) [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 (718) 846-7482 Whether you contract with perfekt.net to have physical write access to the iciuu zone file is a matter of convenience (by way of contract between ICIIU and PERFEKT.NET) and maybe a matter of security. el
RE: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
Michael Sondow wrote: > > John B. Reynolds a écrit: > > > You administer your zone indirectly by controlling which ISP runs it > > directly. > > Administer the zone indirectly? What are you talking about? Is this a game > of semantics to you? It's a file. How do I change it's contents > when it's on > a server in the house or office of someone else, and I don't have write > access? Would you like to tell everyone who may be witnessing this inane > discussion just what in the name of mother McCreedy you're talking about? You contact with an ISP to create and maintain a zone file on your behalf. If you don't like what they do with it, you can move to another ISP or make other arrangements. Ultimate control remains vested in you. I don't see how I could make this any more clear than I already have. > > > You have the power to move your zone file to another provider > > Move the zone file? What, copy and paste it from one server to another? Is > that how zone files are transferred? Horse-puckey! And even if it > were, what > average domain name holder even knows how to access zone files, or has > access to a unix machine to do it with? As a practical matter, if you were to change ISPs, you would probably not want to move your existing file, because you would get a new IP address. As for how to access the information, there are DNS tools for DOS/Windows. I would guess that the "average domain name holder" possesses somewhat more technical knowledge than the average Internet user. > > > to your own server (assuming sufficient Internet connectivity) > > How many domain name holders have unix boxes with BIND running on them, or > know how to configure BIND? Even the ISPs can't do it correctly. Linux and BIND are both free software. The real sticking point is the requisite permanent Internet connection and static IP address. > > > or to a service > > that would permit you to administer it directly. > > No such service exists. But I see your game. You're not > interested in useful > discussion, but in seeing if you can manipulate people. I won't waste any > more time with you. > http://soa.granitecanyon.com .
RE: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
> You contact with an ISP to create and maintain a zone file on your behalf. > If you don't like what they do with it, you can move to another > ISP or make > other arrangements. Ultimate control remains vested in you. I don't see > how I could make this any more clear than I already have. Oops, should be "contract", not "contact".
RE: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
Bret A. Fausett wrote: > > Einar Stefferud wrote: > > >Here I am in strong agreement that the whole concept of Fair Hearing > >Panels has been subvertted by inavertant editing whcih converts them > >into a mecahisim to be used to stop progress on any Research Committee > >proposal that someone does not like. > > I don't think that's a fair reading of the sections. A Fair Hearing > allows an aggrieved party the opportunity to explain a problem, propose a > better solution, and discuss the issues with the Research Committee. > Nothing requires the Research Committee to accept the proposal or slow > down the process. I've seen the reading that you give these sections > voiced elsewhere on this mailing list a couple of times, and for the life > of me, I don't see the language that is creating this misunderstanding. > Can someone please point to the phrase that is creating this concern? > > -- Bret > > The language follows: > > 5.8 Fair Hearing Petition. > > If, after the First Request for Comments is published, any person, > corporation, > or organization (the "Petitioner") feels that the proposal outlined by the > Research Committee either (i) places an unfair burden on the Petitioner's > personal, business, or organizational interests, or (ii) is not in the > best > interests of the domain name system, the Petitioner may request a Fair > Hearing. > Each Petition for a Fair Hearing shall include (i) a detailed statement > of the > harm that would be caused if the proposal contained in the Request for > Comments > was adopted as policy; (ii) a specific reference to the language in the > Request > for Comments that would lead to the alleged harm; (iii) a specific > proposal for > new or modified language that would alleviate or minimize the alleged > harm; and > (iv) a statement of the Petitioner's professional or business interests > that > would be impacted in any way by the adoption of its proposed language. The > Research Committee may either adopt the Petitioner's suggested language > or hold > a Fair Hearing. > > 5.10 Fair Hearing. > > A Fair Hearing required by Sections 5.8 or 5.11 shall allow the Research > Committee and the Petitioner, its representatives and supporters to > discuss and > debate the issues raised in the Fair Hearing Petition. Fair Hearings > shall be > open to all DNSO members. The purpose of the Fair Hearing shall be to seek > consensus on the issues raised. After a Fair Hearing has been held, the > Research Committee shall report on the DNSO web site whether consensus was > reached, and if so, what was agreed by those present. Fair Hearings shall > be > open in the same manner as Names Council meetings. > 5.11 Further Review of Changes Whenever a proposal has been changed as a result of the preceding processes, any changes resulting from such processes shall be republished on the DNSO website and subject to review under the prior provisions of this section. My concern is that this could pave the way for repeated invocations of 5.8 as a filibuster tactic.
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
Kent Crispin wrote: >Running the hearing slows down the process, intrinsically. A hearing >takes time that would have been spent doing other things. As long as >I am guaranteed a "fair hearing" at will, I can slow down the >process. If a hearing catches and corrects a problem before the process moves too far down the road, then it has actually *saved* time, as that obstacle won't have to be faced later after the policy is more fully developed or when it is implemented. No one claims that this doesn't add some time to the process. But it does not slow the process down "indefinitely," which is all I was trying to address. And really were talking about a couple of weeks here. You need to send notice to the community at large that you'll be holding a hearing, and then set aside a day to hold it. That's it. >Put it this way -- what prevents the fair hearing from becoming a >fillibuster? Because there is no procedural mechanism permitting filibusters. If you keep talking, the members of the Research Committee will simply pick up and leave. Or at least that's the way it should work. If that's unclear, then perhaps we can add language giving the committee discretion to open and close discussions. -- Bret Original series of posts: >On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 10:37:39PM -0500, Bret A. Fausett wrote: >> Einar Stefferud wrote: >> >> >Here I am in strong agreement that the whole concept of Fair Hearing >> >Panels has been subvertted by inavertant editing whcih converts them >> >into a mecahisim to be used to stop progress on any Research Committee >> >proposal that someone does not like. >> >> I don't think that's a fair reading of the sections. A Fair Hearing >> allows an aggrieved party the opportunity to explain a problem, propose a >> better solution, and discuss the issues with the Research Committee. >> Nothing requires the Research Committee to accept the proposal or slow >> down the process.
RE: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
John B. Reynolds wrote: > 5.11 Further Review of Changes > > Whenever a proposal has been changed as a result of > the preceding processes, any changes resulting from > such processes shall be republished on the DNSO > website and subject to review under the prior > provisions of this section. > >My concern is that this could pave the way for repeated invocations of 5.8 >as a filibuster tactic. Fair point. A couple of thoughts. You only get the "preceding processes" if there has been a change in the policy, so if the Research Committee disagrees with the concerns and keeps the draft the same, this provision cannot be invoked. So at some point, the policy will become fixed, and this will no longer apply. I know there's been a previous discussion about whether you draft rules tightly (expecting abuse and trying to prevent it up front) or loosely (allowing flexibility, seeing what happens, and amending the rules later if they're abused). This looks like a place where the latter approach was taken. In any event, the language you pointed out could be clearer. I'd be interested in thoughts about how it could be corrected and how to balance the concerns noted above. -- Bret
RE: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
Translation: Expediency is more important than fairness David Schutt > > Running the hearing slows down the process, intrinsically. A hearing > takes time that would have been spent doing other things. As long as > I am guaranteed a "fair hearing" at will, I can slow down the > process. > > Put it this way -- what prevents the fair hearing from becoming a > fillibuster? > > > > > > -- > Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, > and you'll be > [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain >
RE: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
Not a good example, my browser timed out. There are lots of experimental and/or educational systems out there, I'm more interested in commercial services that can take a spike without gasping. David Schutt > Linux and BIND are both free software. The real sticking point is the > requisite permanent Internet connection and static IP address. > > > > > > or to a service > > > that would permit you to administer it directly. > > > > No such service exists. But I see your game. You're not > > interested in useful > > discussion, but in seeing if you can manipulate people. I won't > waste any > > more time with you. > > > http://soa.granitecanyon.com .
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > At 09:49 PM 2/7/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote: >> John B. Reynolds a écrit: > >>> Every domain name holder directly or indirectly administers a DNS zone >>> file. Are you sure you're not confusing "DNS zone" with "root zone"? >> >> No, the domain holders don't administer zone files. That's done by the >> ISPs and the layers above them in the hierarchy. My name isn't in my >> ISP's permissions file for changing RRs. I have no control over the MX >> records, or the CNAME aliases, or who is the secondary NS, or anything >> else to do with the zone files. I've been reading the BIND manual in >> my spare time. You can't kid me. > > Hello Michael, > > Not only do I manage all three MHSC zone files (MHSC.COM, MHSC.NET, and > MHSC-SYSTEMS.COM), I also manage the DNSO.NET zone and my own IN-ADDR.ARPA > zone. It doesn't stop there, I also run the ORSC root.zone. That's public > access. In addition I have three private zones for our internal VPN usage, > that are only accessible from within MHSC.NET, via private name servers. > Anyone with knowledge, a Unix system, and a full-time Internet connection > can do the same. One does not have to be an ISP. Pacific Bell, MCI, and > Wells Fargo Bank also control their own zone files. I am not an ISP. I run my own root zone and nameservers which I use, and which are used by several other people who want to use their own TLD's, mostly to stop spamming. I delegate the TLD's to them directly, and they control the zone files for them, yet they don't lose their ability to use .com, .net, .gov, etc. -- Alex Kamantauskas Tugger Networks
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
In message <000801be5376$4f8dec20$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David Schutt" wr ites: > Translation: Expediency is more important than fairness No, that was a 3 on th Kent-Meter. el
RE: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
At 2/8/99, 09:27 AM, John B. Reynolds wrote: > > 5.11 Further Review of Changes > > Whenever a proposal has been changed as a result of > the preceding processes, any changes resulting from > such processes shall be republished on the DNSO > website and subject to review under the prior > provisions of this section. > >My concern is that this could pave the way for repeated invocations of 5.8 >as a filibuster tactic. Only if the FHP changes the wording on the proposed policy. Otherwise, there is no opportunity for further appeals. Jay.
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 09:45:28AM -0500, Bret A. Fausett wrote: > Kent Crispin wrote: > >Running the hearing slows down the process, intrinsically. A hearing > >takes time that would have been spent doing other things. As long as > >I am guaranteed a "fair hearing" at will, I can slow down the > >process. > > If a hearing catches and corrects a problem before the process moves too > far down the road, then it has actually *saved* time, as that obstacle > won't have to be faced later after the policy is more fully developed or > when it is implemented. No one claims that this doesn't add some time to > the process. But it does not slow the process down "indefinitely," which > is all I was trying to address. I am not talking about there being just *one* hearing. As soon as the first FH concludes, the second one will be requested, and then after that the third, and so on. As far as I can see, there is nothing to stop an infinite regress. > > And really were talking about a couple of weeks here. You need to send > notice to the community at large that you'll be holding a hearing, and > then set aside a day to hold it. That's it. For the first one. > >Put it this way -- what prevents the fair hearing from becoming a > >fillibuster? > > Because there is no procedural mechanism permitting filibusters. If you ^^ "Preventing" is the word that should be there. > keep talking, the members of the Research Committee will simply pick up > and leave. Or at least that's the way it should work. If the RCs can ignore the hearings at will, then the hearings in general are useless, and they might as well be stricken from the document. The strength of the "dissenting opinion" language in the B/M/W draft is that it guarantees a voice to dissent from the very beginning -- no hearings are even needed. > If that's unclear, > then perhaps we can add language giving the committee discretion to open > and close discussions. Obviously, giving the committee discretion in this matter negates the value of the hearing panels to begin with. -- Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
At 2/8/99, 11:48 AM, Kent Crispin wrote: >On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 09:45:28AM -0500, Bret A. Fausett wrote: >> Kent Crispin wrote: >> >Running the hearing slows down the process, intrinsically. A hearing >> >takes time that would have been spent doing other things. As long as >> >I am guaranteed a "fair hearing" at will, I can slow down the >> >process. >> >> If a hearing catches and corrects a problem before the process moves too >> far down the road, then it has actually *saved* time, as that obstacle >> won't have to be faced later after the policy is more fully developed or >> when it is implemented. No one claims that this doesn't add some time to >> the process. But it does not slow the process down "indefinitely," which >> is all I was trying to address. > >I am not talking about there being just *one* hearing. As soon as >the first FH concludes, the second one will be requested, and then >after that the third, and so on. As far as I can see, there is >nothing to stop an infinite regress. Hi Kent, That's not how the process works. Please read the Paris Draft before making any further inaccurate statements. Thanks, Jay.
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
Roeland M.J. Meyer a écrit: > Anyone with knowledge, a Unix system, and a full-time Internet connection > can do the same. Do the average domain name holders have the knowledge, a Unix machine, and an Internet connection of their own? If not, what is the point to this discussion?
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit: > the zone file sits on grumpy.net.na as per an agreement with a local > ISP. Whether they give me physical write access is not the issue, > rather that I decide what gets written into it. The average client of an ISP, that is, the average domain name holder, cannot tell the ISP what to put into their zone file. I've had trouble with every single one of the five ISPs I've used because of this, and I've heard the same stories from everyone I know. The same exact story from every single domain name holder I know: that the ISP will NOT do what the client asks, when it's a matter of changing the zone file. Your situation or that of Roeland Meyer or John Reynolds has nothing to do with this. You are not average domain name holders. Far from it. This discussion is about average domain name holders. So your personal experience as the NIC for .NA doesn't apply here. > Write permission means the person who decides on the changes being > made (Admin Contact or Technical Contact), not the person that > actually makes the changes (staff member). No sir. Not true. Write permission means that you, not somebody else, but YOU, can go in and change what's in that file. It doesn't mean that you have to go and convince soneone else, a techie who doesn't give a damn about setting up the service that he agreed to give you, because after you paid the year's fees he decided not to bother. It means that you don't have to deal with that, but can go in and do it yourself. If you know how. Which the end-users don't. > Or take iciiu.org for example. ICIIU has probably a contract with > perfekt.net. If you tell them you want another secondary (after making > arrangements) they would enter the change and reload). Who knows what they would do? The ISPs do what they want. They don't have to tell the client. And the client doesn't know enough, or doesn't have access, and can't check on what the ISP does or change it. And these people are going to tell us users that they represent our interests? > It's not the issue who knows what. It's the issue > who has the right to make the decison. *IN PRACTICE* most often this > is delegated to the Technical Contact. It's not delegated to the tech contact. It's arrogated by the tech contact. There's a big, big difference. The only ISP who lets the client have control over the zone file is pgmedia, where the client is not only the admin and billing contacts but also the tech contact, and there is a web-based, user-friendly GUI for altering the RRs in the zone file. With other ISPs, it's the tech who decides what goes into file. And his boss, the owner of the ISP, won't tell him to put in a change or a new service for the client unless he wants to. The client has nothing to do with it. I have been the constant subject of this extortion, at five ISPs, and everyone I know has, too. > Moving the zone file means downloading a copy thereof, uploading it to > the new server, making appropriate changes, reloading the server, > informing NSI of the change, waiting for the delegation to change to > the new server and then removing the old one altogether. Yeah? And how does the average domain name holder accomplish this? Again, we're not talking about computer programmers or hackers here, we're talking about people who do business or some other activity on the Web. How do they download a copy of the zone file that's got their records in it? There are to my knowledge no user-friendly interfaces between zone files on a Unix machine and Windows, not that allow me to download the zone file, change it, and reload it onto another server via the Internet. If you know of a program that will let me do that, I would be VERY happy to hear about it.
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 12:16:50PM -0500, Jay Fenello wrote: > At 2/8/99, 11:48 AM, Kent Crispin wrote: > > > >I am not talking about there being just *one* hearing. As soon as > >the first FH concludes, the second one will be requested, and then > >after that the third, and so on. As far as I can see, there is > >nothing to stop an infinite regress. > > > Hi Kent, > > That's not how the process works. > > Please read the Paris Draft before making > any further inaccurate statements. John Reynolds just quoted chapter and verse about how the language permitted repeated hearings, and Bret just allowed as to how it might be good to clean up that language. It is certainly possible that I could make a mistake -- there are lots of documents floating around, and it sometimes is hard to keep track of them all. If I do make a mistake I will apologize. But it appears that in this case I was accurate. -- Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Sondow writes: > The average client of an ISP, that is, the average domain name > holder, cannot tell the ISP what to put into their zone file. I've > had trouble with every single one of the five ISPs I've used because > of this, and I've heard the same stories from everyone I know. The > same exact story from every single domain name holder I know: that > the ISP will NOT do what the client asks, when it's a matter of > changing the zone file. Michael, one reason is that many ISP's, especially the new ones, are run by people who rate 4 to 5 on the Kent-Meter. It's the same here, by the way, one of the biggest dialup ISP's in South Africa sells "The Internet" in what is called a Big Black Box, which you can order form the Pizza delivery service. They are unable to fill in an application template to have their domain registered under .com.NA. (I am waiting for the other one to apply for "DNS in a Can" so you can guess what their marketing line is :-)-O) If I needed a zone file hosted elsewhere, I'd ask the ISP concerend beforehand how this is going to work and write a memorandum of understanding. ANd I only work with ISP's that rate a 1 or less on the Kent-Meter. > Your situation or that of Roeland Meyer or John Reynolds has nothing > to do with this. You are not average domain name holders. Far from > it. This discussion is about average domain name holders. So your > personal experience as the NIC for .NA doesn't apply here. Actually it does. It's called capacity building. And, I have some genuine experience in it. It is a real problem, I do concede, but it's not an intrinsic DNS problem, rather a customer service problem. el
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
Kent Crispin wrote: >If the RCs can ignore the hearings at will, then the hearings in >general are useless, and they might as well be stricken from the >document. I don't think they can ignore the hearings at will, but they need to be able to exercise their professional judgment about what is a real concern and what is not. >The strength of the "dissenting opinion" language in the B/M/W draft >is that it guarantees a voice to dissent from the very beginning -- >no hearings are even needed. I'm intrigued by the dissenting opinion concept, and it appears that both the BMW draft and the Paris Draft have tried to address a real problem with two different approaches. I favor the Paris Draft approach primarily because it gives the DNSO a time and place to try to work out differences or problems *before* the proposal goes to the ICANN Board. I think the value of a "dissenting opinion" comes if those problems are still unresolved after the hearing process is complete. Perhaps there's a need for both concepts. >> If that's unclear, >> then perhaps we can add language giving the committee discretion to open >> and close discussions. > >Obviously, giving the committee discretion in this matter negates the >value of the hearing panels to begin with. I disagree here. Not every problem will require the same amount of time to address. It seems perfectly reasonable to allow the Research Committee discretion to give one problem three hours, another one hour, and another 15 minutes. Some problems may take an entire day. The Committee should have some discretion to set limits that are fair and proportionate to the problem being addressed. -- Bret
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
At 12:16 PM 2/8/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote: >Roeland M.J. Meyer a écrit: > >> Anyone with knowledge, a Unix system, and a full-time Internet connection >> can do the same. > >Do the average domain name holders have the knowledge, a Unix machine, and >an Internet connection of their own? If not, what is the point to this >discussion? Actually, this is a very interesting question. At one time the answer was an unqualified "yes". This was before NSI started marketing dot COM and the rise of the web. Now many users are strictly dependent on their ISP for this. This presents a problem for the ISP and SLD registration software does not exist and many ISP have to add DNS changes via hand editing process. For a domain that may be on a LAN, with a lot of workstation movement, this becomes a time-intensive nightmare for the ISP. There is some argument that one can use a Windows machine for primary DNS. At MHSC, we've never tried this. We've always found either Linux or OS/2 to be much more reliable, for server operations. It is very certain that in order to serve DNS, one needs a static IP address for at least two name servers, according to the RFCs. For those in dynamic IP land, this becomes a serious problem. They must find, or pay for, a host with a permanent static IP connection. This is the primary barrier to entry. With such a host, one can arrange secondary DNS services with ones ISP, as part of the "bandwidth" arrangement. This provides the second name server. Note that the primary can still be behind a dynamic IP connection. MHSC, in the early daze, did exactly this. It is called a ghosted connection (We had a part-time ISDN connection to InterNex at the time) and everything is spooled at the ISP site. We still retain a variation of this for our private TLDs, many of which are using UUCP-style connections (they are ghosts). The down-side is that it takes a fair amount of technical expertise to maintain such a connection, on both sides of the link. Many ISPs have lost the capability to do this (Internex sure has and so has Netcom, our current upstream does not have this expertise either). The result is that now the customer has to supply the relevant expertise. This is just barely workable. In addition, it also takes additional server capacity. MHSC has about 90 GB of RAID5 spool space for this. ___ 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: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
Roeland M.J. Meyer a écrit: > There is some argument that one can use a Windows machine for primary DNS. I'm a typical end-user. I have a laptop running Windows95. There are configuration pop-ups for TCP/IP and DNS confirguration. But I've never seen a book anywhere, and I've been looking for over a year, that explains how to use those capabilities. > At MHSC, we've never tried this. We've always found either Linux or OS/2 to > be much more reliable, for server operations. I've been told that even WindowsNT wasn't completely compatible with BIND. I looked through the WindowsNT DNS server manual once, but it looked mind-boggling. The trouble with all those pop-ups and stuff is that you can't see what it's doing, and it gives you no access to the files. Someone on one of the lists said there was a program for Wndows95 that allowed full lookup and Unix file facilities, but I've never seen or heard of it. And, you know, the ISPs don't want to give us shell accounts any more. PPP is so much easier for them to set up, and they don't have to worry about people tampering with their files, or looking into their directories. So even if an end-user learns how to change the records, there just isn't any way to do it. > It is very certain that in order to serve DNS, one needs a static IP > address for at least two name servers, according to the RFCs. For those in > dynamic IP land, this becomes a serious problem. They must find, or pay > for, a host with a permanent static IP connection. This is the primary > barrier to entry. With such a host, one can arrange secondary DNS services > with ones ISP, as part of the "bandwidth" arrangement. I have a static address. Actually, I have three, because I have three SLDs. But I can just imagine what my ISP would say if I told him I was going to do the primary DNS myself. He'd have a fit. Although I'd like to, frankly. For the first few months of service, I was losing about one out of every four e-mails, because the records for my domain names were written all wrong into the zone file. The ISP never read the part in the manual about not using aliases in the A and MX records. I only found out what was wrong because an engineer at the .MX NIC in Monterrey, after the DNSO.org conference, took a look at the zone file at my ISP and told me it was all wrong. There's still no authoritative host for iciiu.org, if you do a lookup. This is the the end-users go through all the time.
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
Einar Stefferud a écrit: > And, for Michael's information, the fact that he has contractred with > an ISP to do everythig for his DNS Zone, and not let him have password > control of it is his decision and not a feature of the DNS! > > In my own case, I cvontrol all aspects of the content of my NMA.COM > zone, and have arranged for its primary to be at ICS.UCI.EDU And > secondaries at ARL.ARMY.MIL, FV.COM, and have arrranged to add VRX.COM > some time in the near future, as FV.COM might go away some time soon. > > All these things are my choices, though I have to negotiate > arrangements with all the primary and secondary server providers. > And, yes, I could primary or secondary on my own system. > > Further, my primary and scondaries do not make any changes that I do > not approve. > > Also, I am listed as the Admin, and Tech and billing contacts for my > zone. Well, isn't that nice? I'm very happy for you, Stef. So long as you're set up fine, the hell with the 1,000,000 users who haven't got your connections and your technical understanding, huh?
Re: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
What you don't understand is that I do not have the technical understanding at the detailed level that is required to get it all right, but my mail forwarder at ics.uci.edu is upportive and only puts in the NMA.COM zone file what I agree to have put there. He controls the passward, but does not do anything I do not want done. On the other hand, I do not argue with him about the details. I arrange for the secondary services of FV.COM and ARL.ARMY.MIL, but there is no magic involved. Both are just former clients;-)... In fact, ARL.ARMY.MIL has been my secondary since I first got my NMA.COM registration using the Registrar support of Geoff Goodfellow who pioneered the concept of offering Registrar Services in 1987. My last contract with ARL.ARMY.MIL was in 1987 with Steve Wolff who left in mid contract to take over Dennis Jennings NSF management job at NSF. FV.COM is operated by my friends at First Virtual Holdings Inc, which has recently changed its name to MessageMedia, so I will someday be dropping the FV.COM secondary and replace it with somethign at VRX.NET as Richard Sexton has offered to provide secondary support. If you were to ask Richard nicely, he would no doubt offer to support your DNS name with secondary backup too. He does this for lots of people who ask for it. I net the Eberhard woudl do the same if you ask nicely. So, there you are with 2 suggestions for secondaries already. BTW, have you asked your ISP if they will let you choose your own secondaries? Have you even discussed the idea with them that yuou might like to understand how you might have more say in how they handle you DNS server support? If not, then you shodul not be acting like you know all about how it does or does not work. Cheers...\Stef >From your message Tue, 09 Feb 1999 02:16:57 -0500: } }Einar Stefferud: } }> And, for Michael's information, the fact that he has contractred with }> an ISP to do everythig for his DNS Zone, and not let him have password }> control of it is his decision and not a feature of the DNS! }>=20 }> In my own case, I cvontrol all aspects of the content of my NMA.COM }> zone, and have arranged for its primary to be at ICS.UCI.EDU And }> secondaries at ARL.ARMY.MIL, FV.COM, and have arrranged to add VRX.COM }> some time in the near future, as FV.COM might go away some time soon. }>=20 }> All these things are my choices, though I have to negotiate }> arrangements with all the primary and secondary server providers. }> And, yes, I could primary or secondary on my own system. }>=20 }> Further, my primary and scondaries do not make any changes that I do }> not approve. }>=20 }> Also, I am listed as the Admin, and Tech and billing contacts for my }> zone. } }Well, isn't that nice? I'm very happy for you, Stef. So long as you're se= }t }up fine, the hell with the 1,000,000 users who haven't got your connectio= }ns }and your technical understanding, huh?
RE: Useful Comments Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
Michael Sondow wrote: > It's not delegated to the tech contact. It's arrogated by the > tech contact. > There's a big, big difference. The only ISP who lets the client > have control > over the zone file is pgmedia, where the client is not only the admin and > billing contacts but also the tech contact, and there is a web-based, > user-friendly GUI for altering the RRs in the zone file. With other ISPs, > it's the tech who decides what goes into file. And his boss, the owner of > the ISP, won't tell him to put in a change or a new service for the client > unless he wants to. The client has nothing to do with it. I have been the > constant subject of this extortion, at five ISPs, and everyone I know has, > too. > Hurricane Electric (www.he.net), my provider for this domain name, also allows clients to edit their zone files.
