Re: .iq [ was: Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN ]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Bill Woodcock wrote: ...whereas post-redelegation, .iq is administered by the Iraqi communications ministry from Bhagdad, rather than by Palestinians from Texas. Seems like a clear improvement to me. -Bill That's great. So now {

Re: .iq [ was: Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN ]

Not that it matters, but Hamas is the government of parts of Palestine, no matter how much heartburn this gives some people, and the Elashis are diaspora Palestinians. And they did violate US laws in the US. Ah well, maybe they will get deported when they get released from prison, just lik

Re: .iq [ was: Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN ]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Bill Woodcock wrote: ...whereas post-redelegation, .iq is administered by the Iraqi communications ministry from Bhagdad, Current Iraq government exists because there is substantial US military presence in the country. Lets assume that at some future point US gets tired

Re: .iq [ was: Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN ]

David, Before turning to your certainty that laws are self-explanitory and not nuanced, I should mention soething I forgot. The Elashi case rattled the Export Controls Defense bar, because the Elashis didn't actually send anything to Libya, their buyer was some computer broker in Malta, and that

Re: .iq [ was: Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN ]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:38:43AM -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams at a VSAT somewhere wrote: > It all comes down to pretending a PC is a supercomputer, An ordinary PC, by today's standards average, is defined by US law as a supercomputer, legally a munition ("weapon of war"). Wether you yourself b

Re: .iq [ was: Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN ]

> And they did violate US laws in the US. An export regulation, one normally punished by a fine. > Ah well, maybe they will get deported when they get released from prison, > just like their wives. There is an interesting register of export violaters, and quite a few are foreign nationals, and

Re: .iq [ was: Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN ]

Bill, I forgot to mention that the idiot Brit who wanted .iq was going to run it -- all of it -- off of generators from inside the Green Zone. I don't know if my notes made a bit of difference, but I advised that ICANN not redel and open the adverse redel can unnecesarily. I'm not sure if I un

Re: .iq [ was: Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN ]

> > For those who care about excesses of zeal, the Elashi brothers (operators > > as well as sponsor delagees of .iq) of someplace in Texas, were charged with > > giving money to Hamas or a charity linked to Hamas, and sending a PC to > > Syria, > > and parts of a PC -- perhaps a mouse pad -- to

Re: .iq [ was: Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN ]

> Have you got an opinion on .mm? Last December it so happened that > all their servers (in the UK, which isn't part of Burma, or Burma > Shave, or ...) were dark. If those facts were present today, would > you be ready to delta dot? My inclination has been to solve problems r

Re: .iq [ was: Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN ]

Bill, Have you got an opinion on .mm? Last December (when Vint and I did exchange notes on getting India to allow relief workers into the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and some British embassy in Baghdad guy who wanted to get .iq for the Occupation regime-de-jour) it so happened that all their ser

Re: .iq [ was: Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN ]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Eric Brunner-Williams at a VSAT somewhere wrote: For those who care about excesses of zeal, the Elashi brothers (operators as well as sponsor delagees of .iq) of someplace in Texas, were charged with giving money to Hamas or a charity linked to Hamas, and sending a PC to Syr

Re: .iq [ was: Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN ]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > I suppose I should mention that ICANN redelegated .iq for some mumble > reason, compare, .pn. > Not that it matters, but Hamas is the government of parts of Palestine, > no matter how much heartburn this gives some people, a

Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN

# Paul, if we ever get DNSSEC deployed, what will/should OSRN return for # # dig ns . # # --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb i don't know ORSN's plans. i believe that the standard testbed methodology (and bill manning would be the one to correct me here,

.iq [ was: Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN ]

> it's enough for me that they're going to do it no matter what you (or i) say, > and that they're doing it responsibly (without any namespace pollution). if > ORSN is afraid war is going to break out somewhere and that ICANN might delete > the ccTLD's for countries that are part of the "axis of

Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Vixie writes: >it's enough for me that they're going to do it no matter what you (or i) say, >and that they're doing it responsibly (without any namespace pollution). if >ORSN is afraid war is going to break out somewhere and that ICANN might delete >the ccTL

Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN

# I understood that you're indifferent to _their_ reasons. I'm curious about # _your_ reasons. Solely to learn and for the stats? I couldn't deduct that # from fm.vix.com. internet governance ain't what it will be. anyone who wants to keep name universality in place as the system evolves, can as

Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Paul Vixie wrote: > > # > you must have misread me. see http://fm.vix.com/ today. > # > # I've read it. Twice now. I'd like some help on what part I've misread ? > > "i'm indifferent to their reasons, as long as they don't add any new TLD's..." I understood that you're indi

Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN

# > you must have misread me. see http://fm.vix.com/ today. # # I've read it. Twice now. I'd like some help on what part I've misread ? "i'm indifferent to their reasons, as long as they don't add any new TLD's..." # I don't think the independence argument holds, as explained by my previous #

Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Paul Vixie wrote: > > # > > It is *not* the same as what you've been advocating. > # > > # > indeed, it is not. ... > # > # I don't get this. You pretend there is a difference between ICANN / VeriSign > # / US-DoC and universal IANA namespace. They are one and the same. > >

Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN

# > > It is *not* the same as what you've been advocating. # > # > indeed, it is not. ... # # I don't get this. You pretend there is a difference between ICANN / VeriSign # / US-DoC and universal IANA namespace. They are one and the same. you must have misread me. see http://fm.vix.com/ today

Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > I don't regard this as good, but note this from the ORSN FAQ: > > > > * Has ORSN additional TLDs like .DNS, .AUTO? > > > > No. ORSN is a "Legacy Root" and 100% compatible with ICANN's > > root zone. > > > > and > > > > Furthermore,

Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN

> I don't regard this as good, but note this from the ORSN FAQ: > > * Has ORSN additional TLDs like .DNS, .AUTO? > > No. ORSN is a "Legacy Root" and 100% compatible with ICANN's > root zone. > > and > > Furthermore, no additional (alternative) top level domains >

Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Dambier writes: > >Interesting: > I don't regard this as good, but note this from the ORSN FAQ: * Has ORSN additional TLDs like .DNS, .AUTO? No. ORSN is a "Legacy Root" and 100% compatible with ICANN's root zone. and

Paul Vixie serving ORSN

Interesting: regards, Peter and Karin Original Message From: Markus Grundmann/ORSN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:03:56 +0200 Organization: ORSN, Open Root Server Network Subject: [ORSN.TECH] We Are Complete List-Archive: