[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga-full] Re: [IFWP] Re: [Nc-tlds] Re: DNSO Names Council decides it can discount and ignore its working groups
Internet evolution in action.
Paul, why don't you provide TLD nameservice for .UNION and I'll
stick it in the ORSC root, and we'll find Jamie some RS (registration
services) and DS (Directory services) support. Under Jamie's direction
in the IS role the .UNION indfrastructure and community can get
off to a good start.
At 10:13 PM 4/18/00 -0400, !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
>>
>
>
>
--
rich@rd.sexton http://ph-1.613.473.1719
It's about travel on expense accounts to places with good beer. - BKR
--
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