[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga-full] Re: [Nc-tlds] Re: DNSO Names Council decides it can discount andignore its working groups
I appreciate the comments by Paul Garin and Dr. Joe Baptista. With
respect to the .union proposal, I believe at this point it is something
that the labor unions will have to address. I've taken an interest in
several non-commercial TLD proposals, including .union, in part to shape
ICANN rules on new TLDs, and also to provide some information to union
members on this issue. I just wanted to make it clear that at this
point, CPT or Essential Information does not have plans to apply to
ICANN for a .union registry, and we hope that the union community will
do so on its own behalf, it not right now , in the not distant future.
We are more likely to be involved in proposals for other civil
society TLDs.
Jamie
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> There's a few problems with the namespace roots which I'll spell out here.
>
> 1. Non of the namespace root servers provide for zone transfers of the
> root. Therefore it is impossible to determine what tld space is in them.
>
> 2. Lack of co-operation - when John Hunt enumerated the namespace he
> attempted on numerous occassions to confirm information with
> namespace. Your people ignored him. Lack of co-operation in namespace is
> a sure fire way to lose peoples interest.
>
> John Hunts work in archives at http://www.earth-net.net/GTLD/
>
> 3. According to John's notes - which are still maintained in my private
> files, he contacted all of your tld contacts. these were the people you
> solicited for namespace creation. Non of these people had been contacted
> by you, no have they ever heard anything from namespace. Alot of them
> feel used. Instead of keeping these resources you have ostrasized them.
>
> 4. When one attempts to check the soa on any namespace root server - one
> get's the IANA soa. This is not a proper method of operating a root
> file. If there are problems in the root it should return an soa which
> identifies namespace as the authority - not iana.
>
> 5. The union people have already been advised by me that .union is in
> conflict with your namespace root zone.
>
> 6. I suggest you give up .union to James - according to the hunt records
> .union was created by one of your boys - so that would be an easy thing to
> do:
>
> Top Level Domain: .union
> Root Server Confederation: name.space
> Status: Authoritative - Prior use
> Uniform Resource Locator: http://namespace.pgmedia.net/
> Whois Server: swhois.net
> Contacts: admin@pgmedia.net
>
> and in closing Paul - it would be the right thing to do. .union should be
> run by the unions and not pgmedia/namespace. You should simply offer to
> include them in your roots - and I think everyone else (i speak of the
> alternate root servers) will also agree to support .union accordingly.
>
> You have 500 or more gtlds in your root - any your not making any money on
> them - all you've spend money on is legal fees. So think paul - think
> carefully - because your gesture can serve to break the icann monopoly.
>
> Regards
> Joe baptista
>
> Regards
> Joe Baptista
>
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Paul Garrin wrote:
>
> > The TLD "union." has been operational on Name.Space
> > servers since 1996. We will be more than happy to
> > work with James Love, the unions, etc. to service
> > this TLD.
> >
> > Registrations can be done online at
> > https://secure.name-space.com/registry
> >
> > New registrants may choose to register for the
> > first year for free.
> >
> > (this is not an ad)
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Paul Garrin
> > Name.Space
> >
> > >
> > > I think James it's time for you to setup .union and have it listed with
> > > the independent root servers. Get it working - get union people using it
> > > and viola - you might get icanns attention.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > joe baptista
> > >
> > > On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Michael Sondow wrote:
> > >
> > > > Remember what I was telling you, Jamie, about the pointlessness of
> > > > playing cards with people who use their own deck?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe the INTA, WIPO, and other IPC lawyers who run the DNSO will
> > > > let you use .UNION if you agree that they can have all the SLDs they
> > > > want off the top?
> > > >
> > > > > From: "Mark C. Langston" <mark@bitshift.org>
> > > > > To: wg-c@dnso.org
> > > > > Subject: [wg-c] 1447PDT 4/18, DNSO NC made all our work irrelevant
> > > > > Cc: ifwp@lists.org
> > > > >
> > > > > In the teleconference just now, they decided:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) That WGs are not the voice of the community, and that reports that
> > > > > go to the ICANN BoD should reflect their constituencies wishes instead
> > > > > (several almost sotto voce comments were heard regarding the fact that
> > > > > "just anyone" can participate in the working groups, and the results
> > > > > should be discounted),
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) That new gTLDs should be introduced (Yes: 14, No: 3 Abs: 0), but
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) That it shouldn't be 6-10 (Yes: 5, No: 9, Abs: 2)
> > > > >
> > > > > They're probably going to act on WG-B's report next, and wholeheartedly
> > > > > support the Sunrise proposal, because all the "dissenters" were those
> > > > > unrepresented rabble who you find in open processes, and the voices
> > > > > being heard couldn't possibly reflect the community.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pat yourselves on the back, folks. We've just wasted a year of our
> > > > > lives to have a group of lawyers decide that _THEY_ should be making
> > > > > these decisions, and to hell with our work if they don't agree with it.
> > > > >
> > > > > And just so you know, one of the staunchest and most vocal of those
> > > > > speaking up regarding just tossing our results was the ever-present
> > > > > Mr. Sheppard, of the Sheppard/Kleinman document, and co-NC liason to
> > > > > WG-B.
> > > > >
> > > > > They've just aptly demonstrated that the working groups are meaningless.
> > > > > We could have had just as much influence if the NC itself came up with
> > > > > the report, and then opened it to public comment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, this particular NC teleconference isn't archived anywhere
> > > > > and wasn't webcast, due to "budgetary considerations". Must be the
> > > > > US$75k they're having to spend for a Secretariat, huh?
> > > > >
> > > > > One of these days, there's going to be a _real_ threat to the
> > > > > stability of the Net, and there's not much the mighty IP Constituency
> > > > > and their deep pockets can do about it. Keep throwing your muscle
> > > > > around like this, and you may find that the people who know how to
> > > > > operate the border routers, the switches, the servers hosting
> > > > > mission-critical services have had their fill of your antics,
> > > > > organize, and go on strike. And unlike a factory floor, your chances
> > > > > of finding scabs and strikebreakers to come in and run the machinery
> > > > > for you are significantly smaller.
> > > > >
> > > > > - --
> > > > > Mark C. Langston
> > > > > mark@bitshift.org
> > > > > Systems & Network Admin
> > > > > San Jose, CA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ============================================================
> > > > Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
> > > > Tel. (718)846-7482 Fax: (603)754-8927
> > > > ============================================================
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Non-Commercial Top Level Domains mailing list
> > > > nc-tlds@lists.essential.org
> > > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-tlds
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Non-Commercial Top Level Domains mailing list
> > > nc-tlds@lists.essential.org
> > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-tlds
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > Get Free Private Encrypted Email https://mail.lokmail.net
> > Switch to Name.Space: http://namespace.org/switch
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Non-Commercial Top Level Domains mailing list
> > nc-tlds@lists.essential.org
> > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-tlds
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Non-Commercial Top Level Domains mailing list
> nc-tlds@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-tlds
>
=============================================
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367 | http://www.cptech.org
Washington, DC 20036 | love@cptech.org
Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176
=============================================
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html