From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #25 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Saturday, March 4 2000 Volume 01 : Number 025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 19:00:11 -0500 From: Kendall Dawson Subject: re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT I think that Jon's initial draft is clearly worded and accurately summarizes the activity of WG-C during the last 8 months. I am a new member to the group and appreciate the thorough history of the issues. I do have a vested interest in the outcome of gTLD's and, for the record, would like to state my views: 1) I support the consensus position - new gTLDs should be added. 2) I think that ICANN should start with a roll out of 6 - 10 gTLDs immediately with an upfront commitment to roll out many more during the next couple of years. (I also agree that there should be a brief evaluation period to gauge technical stability) 3) I do NOT agree with the position that deployment should be delayed until after implementation of the uniform dispute resolution procedure, improved domain name registration procedures, and protection for so-called famous marks. As another member of the community once stated: "It was never intended that the domains were a 'brand'. Domains were to find hosts (IP addresses), not to fulfill trademark applications. Therefore this property "right" doesn't really exist, as it can be changed at any moment because its a technical problem in ultimate reality, despite the sociopseudolegal impediments to making that change." I strongly agree with this statement. I look forward to participating in future votes and discussion threads as a member of WG-C. I expect strong support for ICANN and gTLD's in Cairo. Sincerely, Kendall Dawson kendall@paradigm.nu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 12:59:45 +1100 From: "Rothnie, Warwick" Subject: RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT Mallesons Stephen Jaques Confidential communication   Kendall Dawson stated: >As another member of the community once stated: >"It was never intended that the domains were a 'brand'. Domains were to >find hosts (IP addresses), not to fulfill trademark applications. >Therefore this property "right" doesn't really exist, as it can be >changed at any moment because its a technical problem in ultimate >reality, despite the sociopseudolegal impediments to making that >change." >I strongly agree with this statement. It would be difficult to encapsulate the problem better. Domain names have become much more than mere addresses (if they could ever have been described as that once the decision to replace number with alpha-numeric strings was made) and consequently an awful of lot of "businesses" are being put to enormous expense by the propagation of this misleading claim. This is not just a problem for giant transnational corporations. It is widespread. The longer those "designing" the domain name system refuse to recognise this, the easier it is to condemn the addition of more gTLDs as a cynical attempt by those who register domain names to make profits at everyone else's expense. Warwick A Rothnie Partner Mallesons Stephen Jaques Melbourne Direct line (61 3) 9643 4254 Fax (61 3) 9643 5999 - -----Original Message----- From: Kendall Dawson [mailto:kendall@motif1.obs-us.com] Sent: Friday, 3 March 2000 11:00:AM To: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT I think that Jon's initial draft is clearly worded and accurately summarizes the activity of WG-C during the last 8 months. I am a new member to the group and appreciate the thorough history of the issues. I do have a vested interest in the outcome of gTLD's and, for the record, would like to state my views: 1) I support the consensus position - new gTLDs should be added. 2) I think that ICANN should start with a roll out of 6 - 10 gTLDs immediately with an upfront commitment to roll out many more during the next couple of years. (I also agree that there should be a brief evaluation period to gauge technical stability) 3) I do NOT agree with the position that deployment should be delayed until after implementation of the uniform dispute resolution procedure, improved domain name registration procedures, and protection for so-called famous marks. I look forward to participating in future votes and discussion threads as a member of WG-C. I expect strong support for ICANN and gTLD's in Cairo. Sincerely, Kendall Dawson kendall@paradigm.nu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:26:38 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT > As another member of the community once stated: > > "It was never intended that the domains were a 'brand'. Domains were to > find hosts (IP addresses)... ...and to find e-mail exchangers, to find names for addresses, to find latitude/longitude coordinates, to find H.323 voice-over-IP "gateways", to find services, to find host types, to find text, to find public keys etc etc. One must always remember that DNS is not simply a name-to-address lookup facility, it is much, much more - indeed DNS is a fairly generalized distributed database facility in which structured textual names are used as lookup keys for wide, and increasing variety of record types. By-the-way, to respond to another post on this thread: I would hope that the statement that characterizes the advocacy of the addition of new TLDS as being "a cynical attempt by those who register domain names to make profits at everyone else's expense." was an unfortunate slip of the keyboard. It is clear to me that those of us who believe that the TLD space should be expanded are not operating out of an attempt for financial gain. Indeed, just like businesses who use domain names, or attorneys who charge their clients money to protect trademarks, I do not find financial gain to be dishonerable. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 22:04:40 -0500 From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." Subject: RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT Karl, Speaking of the proverbial slip of the keyboard... ;-) I noticed you used the terms "dishonerable" and "attorneys" in the same sentence. Hey, it happens. Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. www.cyberspaces.org rod@cyberspaces.org > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Karl > Auerbach > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 9:27 PM > To: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT > > > > > As another member of the community once stated: > > > > "It was never intended that the domains were a 'brand'. Domains were to > > find hosts (IP addresses)... > > ...and to find e-mail exchangers, to find names for addresses, to find > latitude/longitude coordinates, to find H.323 voice-over-IP "gateways", to > find services, to find host types, to find text, to find public keys etc > etc. > > One must always remember that DNS is not simply a name-to-address lookup > facility, it is much, much more - indeed DNS is a fairly generalized > distributed database facility in which structured textual names are used > as lookup keys for wide, and increasing variety of record types. > > > By-the-way, to respond to another post on this thread: I would hope that > the statement that characterizes the advocacy of the addition of new TLDS > as being "a cynical attempt by those who register domain names to make > profits at everyone else's expense." was an unfortunate slip of the > keyboard. > > It is clear to me that those of us who believe that the TLD space should > be expanded are not operating out of an attempt for financial gain. > Indeed, just like businesses who use domain names, or attorneys who charge > their clients money to protect trademarks, I do not find financial gain to > be dishonerable. > > --karl-- > > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 22:44:15 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT Jon, I'll make this brief and only address one (repeated) item in the draft. The text of Position Paper E calls for ... registry delegation to, and registry operation by, the Indigenous Nations and Peoples of North America. The draft reads at two places ... operated for the benefit of North American indigenous peoples. Please change the draft text in both places from ... operated for the benefit of ... to ... operated by ... Thanks, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 22:50:43 -0500 (EST) From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT Will do. Jon On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Eric Brunner wrote: > Jon, > > I'll make this brief and only address one (repeated) item in the draft. > > The text of Position Paper E calls for > > ... registry delegation to, and registry operation by, the > Indigenous Nations and Peoples of North America. > > The draft reads at two places > > ... operated for the benefit of North American indigenous > peoples. > > Please change the draft text in both places from > > ... operated for the benefit of ... > to > ... operated by ... > > Thanks, > Eric > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 17:06:31 +0900 From: Dave Crocker Subject: re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT At 06:26 PM 3/2/2000 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: >One must always remember that DNS is not simply a name-to-address lookup >facility, it is much, much more - indeed DNS is a fairly generalized Sorry, DNS is only and specifically a name/address mapping service. Other services are theoretically possible but none has every established large-scale. We really do need to distinguish between hope and reality. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 14:22:08 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Re: [wg-c] FW: ADNS Press Release At 12:49 02.03.00 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: >=========================================== >R O E L A N D M . J . M E Y E R > > > http://www.businesswire.com/webbox/bw.030100/200610011.htm this is an alternate root proclaiming that they have reached 350.000 hits in its first month. For comparision, the ballpark figure for the "ICANN" root name servers is 3000 to 5000 requests per second per server - so the monthly figure there is around 101.088.000.000 (10E11) requests per month for all the 13 root name servers. The distance isn't that big - the traffic on ADNS just has to double 18 times. Harald - -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:37:34 -0800 From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] FW: ADNS Press Release That sort of traffic is rather easy to accomodate. The point is that there are other root-registry operations getting ready to launch, on the launch pad, or already launched. In the future, we will not have any choice but to deal with multi-part roots. Technology follows business, which follows the customer. =========================================== R O E L A N D M . J . M E Y E R > -----Original Message----- > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no] > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 5:22 AM > To: rmeyer@mhsc.com; Wg-C@Dnso. Org > Subject: Re: [wg-c] FW: ADNS Press Release > > > At 12:49 02.03.00 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > > > >=========================================== > >R O E L A N D M . J . M E Y E R > > > > > http://www.businesswire.com/webbox/bw.030100/200610011.htm > > this is an alternate root proclaiming that they have reached 350.000 hits > in its first month. > > For comparision, the ballpark figure for the "ICANN" root name servers is > 3000 to 5000 requests per second per server - so the monthly figure there > is around > 101.088.000.000 (10E11) requests per month for all the 13 root > name servers. > > The distance isn't that big - the traffic on ADNS just has to > double 18 times. > > Harald > > -- > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway > Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 10:23:00 -0800 From: "Josh Elliott" Subject: RE: [wg-c] FW: ADNS Press Release I don't think showing that .01% of root traffic resides in alternate root should lead to the conclusion that customers are flocking over there. I don't think anyone has yet proven to show that a multiroot system is 1) a technically viable alternative to the current system and 2) necessary to resolve the customer demand for alternative TLDs. Are we not trying to figure out how to accomodate this demand through the introduction of new gTLDs in the current root system? > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > Roeland M.J. Meyer > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 9:38 AM > To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Wg-C@Dnso. Org > Subject: RE: [wg-c] FW: ADNS Press Release > > > That sort of traffic is rather easy to accomodate. The point is that there > are other root-registry operations getting ready to launch, on the launch > pad, or already launched. In the future, we will not have any > choice but to > deal with multi-part roots. Technology follows business, which follows the > customer. > > =========================================== > R O E L A N D M . J . M E Y E R > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no] > > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 5:22 AM > > To: rmeyer@mhsc.com; Wg-C@Dnso. Org > > Subject: Re: [wg-c] FW: ADNS Press Release > > > > > > At 12:49 02.03.00 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > > > > > > >=========================================== > > >R O E L A N D M . J . M E Y E R > > > > > > > http://www.businesswire.com/webbox/bw.030100/200610011.htm > > > > this is an alternate root proclaiming that they have reached > 350.000 hits > > in its first month. > > > > For comparision, the ballpark figure for the "ICANN" root name > servers is > > 3000 to 5000 requests per second per server - so the monthly > figure there > > is around > > 101.088.000.000 (10E11) requests per month for all the 13 root > > name servers. > > > > The distance isn't that big - the traffic on ADNS just has to > > double 18 times. > > > > Harald > > > > -- > > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway > > Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no > > > __________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 13:49:17 -0500 (EST) From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] reposted for Kendall Dawson Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:44:38 -0500 From: Kendall Dawson Subject: re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT I think that Jon's initial draft is clearly worded and accurately summarizes the activity of WG-C during the last 8 months. I am a new member to the group and appreciate the thorough history of the issues. I do have a vested interest in the outcome of gTLD's and, for the record, would like to state my views: 1) I support the consensus position - new gTLDs should be added. 2) I think that ICANN should start with a roll out of 6 - 10 gTLDs immediately with an upfront commitment to roll out many more during the next couple of years. (I also agree that there should be a brief evaluation period to gauge technical stability) 3) I do NOT agree with the position that deployment should be delayed until after implementation of the uniform dispute resolution procedure, improved domain name registration procedures, and protection for so-called famous marks. As another member of the community once stated: "It was never intended that the domains were a 'brand'. Domains were to find hosts (IP addresses), not to fulfill trademark applications. Therefore this property "right" doesn't really exist, as it can be changed at any moment because its a technical problem in ultimate reality, despite the sociopseudolegal impediments to making that change." I strongly agree with this statement. I look forward to participating in future votes and discussion threads as a member of WG-C. I expect strong support for ICANN and gTLD's in Cairo. Sincerely, Kendall Dawson kendall@paradigm.nu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:05:19 +0100 (MET) From: DNSO Listadmin Subject: [wg-c] General Assembly Cairo Meeting on 8 March 2000, agenda [ To: ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org ] [ To: council@dnso.org, wg-b, wg-c, wg-d, wg-e ] [ from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000308.GAcairo-agenda.html ] ICANN/DNSO DNSO General Assembly Cairo Meeting on 8 March 2000 - agenda ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3 March 2000 From Roberto Gaetano, GA Chair Date, time and webcast 1. The DNSO General Assembly meeting in Cairo will be held on 8 March 2000, 9:00 - 12:00, [@ Cairo Sheraton, Saladin Hall] . 2. The GA will be webcast by Berkman Center, thanks to Ben Edelman edelman@law.harvard.edu Access will be via http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/cairo as usual. Requires RealPlayer 5.0 or later and a 14.4Kbps or faster modem. Agenda 1. Status report a. General Assembly report A status report from the Chair on the general situation of the GA, the main problems and issues b. GA-list report A status report from GA-Listadmin on the GA-list, rules in effect, ... 2. Main issues a. GA Membership * how shall GA Membership be related to ICANN Membership ? * how shall GA Membership be related to GA-list subscription ? * outreach b. Organizational matters * relationship between GA and NC * GA Tasks - Task Groups to be started immediately, charter thereof, volounteers, ... 3. Planning (Business Plan, deadlines, ...) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Information from: © DNSO General Assembly ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:19:01 -0800 From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] FW: ADNS Press Release Actually, we've figured it out, technically, years ago. The problem is now pure politics. A number of us are running alternate root servers. We even have email gateways to the alternate TLDs. The advent of multi-part roots is a direct consequence of a failure to add new TLDs, to the roots, years ago. What you are propounding is a myth propogated by the opposition, those that do not want ANY new TLDs added to the roots. It is pure FUD. The only reason that we've gotten this far is the presence of new root server players. That provided the political imperative to make this possible. Else, WG-C wouldn't even exist. BTW, if you read "DNS and BIND", third edition, you will note that those running a firewall (most corporations and ALL ISPs) are running their own roots anyway. They are already dealing with a form of multi-part roots, in production operations. =========================================== R O E L A N D M . J . M E Y E R > -----Original Message----- > From: Josh Elliott [mailto:jelliott@tucows.com] > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 10:23 AM > To: rmeyer@mhsc.com; Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Wg-C@Dnso. Org > Subject: RE: [wg-c] FW: ADNS Press Release > > > I don't think showing that .01% of root traffic resides in alternate root > should lead to the conclusion that customers are flocking over there. I > don't think anyone has yet proven to show that a multiroot system is 1) a > technically viable alternative to the current system and 2) necessary to > resolve the customer demand for alternative TLDs. Are we not trying to > figure out how to accomodate this demand through the introduction of new > gTLDs in the current root system? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > > Roeland M.J. Meyer > > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 9:38 AM > > To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Wg-C@Dnso. Org > > Subject: RE: [wg-c] FW: ADNS Press Release > > > > > > That sort of traffic is rather easy to accomodate. The point is > that there > > are other root-registry operations getting ready to launch, on > the launch > > pad, or already launched. In the future, we will not have any > > choice but to > > deal with multi-part roots. Technology follows business, which > follows the > > customer. > > > > =========================================== > > R O E L A N D M . J . M E Y E R > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no] > > > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 5:22 AM > > > To: rmeyer@mhsc.com; Wg-C@Dnso. Org > > > Subject: Re: [wg-c] FW: ADNS Press Release > > > > > > > > > At 12:49 02.03.00 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > > > > > > > > > >=========================================== > > > >R O E L A N D M . J . M E Y E R > > > > > > > > > http://www.businesswire.com/webbox/bw.030100/200610011.htm > > > > > > this is an alternate root proclaiming that they have reached > > 350.000 hits > > > in its first month. > > > > > > For comparision, the ballpark figure for the "ICANN" root name > > servers is > > > 3000 to 5000 requests per second per server - so the monthly > > figure there > > > is around > > > 101.088.000.000 (10E11) requests per month for all the 13 root > > > name servers. > > > > > > The distance isn't that big - the traffic on ADNS just has to > > > double 18 times. > > > > > > Harald > > > > > > -- > > > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway > > > Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no > > > > > > > __________________________________________ > NetZero - Defenders of the Free World > Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at > http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:24:04 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT > >One must always remember that DNS is not simply a name-to-address lookup > >facility, it is much, much more - indeed DNS is a fairly generalized > > Sorry, DNS is only and specifically a name/address mapping service. Sorry, you ought to look at the types of records, from A to LOC to TXT. > Other services are theoretically possible but none has every established > large-scale. MX (mail exchanger) records aren't "large-scale"? PTR records aren't "large-scale"? CNAME records aren't "large-scale"? The DNS never was and is not now simply for name to IP addresses. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 14:30:01 -0500 From: "Winer, Jonathan" Subject: [wg-c] Kendall Dawson's thoughts, protection of famous names and marks I too am a new member to the group and found Jon Weinberg's summary of extraordinarily utility. I wish to weigh in briefly on a few points: 1) I would prefer that deployment take into account mechanisms for protection for famous marks/names. People can have different positions on the ideological issue of whether someone has a "right" to a name conferred by the domain name system or otherwise. But it may also be useful to weigh what kind of system is likely to create the least amount of wasted human energy, social, political, and legal stress. Why invite multijurisdictional fights over what may be alleged to be confusing, pirated, or willfully misleading? I believe it would be better to have some means for differentiation and protection when world-familiar names, whether commercial or non-commercial, "Red Cross," "Red Crescent," "Amnesty International" marks or names are involved if it is possible. Thus strong continued support for Phillip Sheppard's balanced criteria of certainty, honesty, differentiation, competition, diversity, semantics, multiplicity, and finally very importantly, simplicity. 2) I leave it to the technical experts to judge whether evaluation periods are needed to determine technical stability, but it seems fair to suggest that such periods, if not overly long, can be protective to the infrastructure as a whole. NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (404-881-7000) or by electronic mail (postmaster@alston.com), and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. ======================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 14:52:48 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: RE: [wg-c] FW: ADNS Press Release Josh, Most of us, even the glacial WG-C participants, are "trying to figure out how to accomodate [some] demand through the introduction of new gTLDs in the current root system", however we have our share of unusual participants who find significance, whether alarm or attraction, in ephemera. The 40 or so new-to-WG-C (since the December vote list-freeze) can figure out for themselves why sundry alternate-rooters "contribute" to attempts to add to the ICANN-root. One works for NSI, so that is a no-brainer. Others are anti-ICANN (or more broadly not keen on CORE, ICANN, or any institutional capacity for binding policy making, governmental, multi-lateral, or Postel cloning), another no-brainer. Still others opportunistically anticipate the viability of business or social models sooner (or better) outside of the unique DNS root. Aside from getting them to self-identify and flesh out their agenda, I don't see much point in bothering with them. Productive discourse has been tried, Dave, Kent or I have, with no discernable effect. Cheers, ("chearZ" if recourse is made to some quasi-random alternate root) Eric ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 12:37:17 -0800 (PST) From: T Vienneau Subject: RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT The Draft is well prepared and the history very useful (another newcomer posts). I fully support the consensus position on Issue One — Should There Be New gTLDs? I support with reservation the consensus position on Issue Two — What Should be the Nature of the Initial Rollout? My reservation is that we are leaving two very contentious issues untouched, namely what process will be used to identify the initial rollout of gTLDs (who and what) and over what timeframe will they be rolled out (when). The issues of who and what continues to be throughly explored. I propose that we impose a timeframe on the process and ourselves, draft as follows: ICANN begin the new gTLD test within the next 6 months. Then hold a 6 - 12 month technical review and observation period followed by a rolling release of gTLDs which meet whatever criteria we end up with. Timothy Vienneau __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 23:19:11 +0100 (MET) From: DNSO Listadmin Subject: [wg-c] DNSO Names Council Cairo Meeting on 8 March 2000 - agenda [ To: ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org ] [ To: council@dnso.org, wg-b, wg-c, wg-d, wg-e ] [ from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000308.NCcairo-agenda.html ] ICANN/DNSO DNSO Names Council Cairo Meeting on 8 March 2000 - agenda ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3 March 2000 Date, time and webcast 1. The DNSO Names Council meeting in Cairo will be held on 8 March 2000, 14:00 - 17:30, [@ Cairo Sheraton, Saladin Hall] . 2. The GA will be webcast by Berkman Center, thanks to Ben Edelman edelman@law.harvard.edu Access will be via http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/cairo as usual. Requires RealPlayer 5.0 or later and a 14.4Kbps or faster modem. Agenda 1. NC Chair report 2. Budget report 3. GA report 4. ICANN staff summary 5. Intake Commitee 6. Report from working groups: WGD, WGB, WGE and WGC ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Information from: © DNSO Names Council ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 08:07:59 +0900 From: Dave Crocker Subject: RE: [wg-c] FW: ADNS Press Release At 09:37 AM 3/3/2000 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: >.... In the future, we will not have any choice but to >deal with multi-part roots. Technology follows business, which follows the >customer. That sort of prediction and that sort of business "analysis" are no doubt comforting, but the former is as firm as all predictions for which there is no history to support it, and the latter is as simplistic as saying that to get world peace, we simply need to decide to have it. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:41:44 -0800 From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] FW: ADNS Press Release > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Dave > Crocker > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 3:08 PM > > At 09:37 AM 3/3/2000 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > >.... In the future, we will not have any choice but to > >deal with multi-part roots. Technology follows business, which > follows the > >customer. > > That sort of prediction and that sort of business "analysis" are no doubt > comforting, but the former is as firm as all predictions for > which there is > no history to support it, and the latter is as simplistic as > saying that to > get world peace, we simply need to decide to have it. I don't know where you got a former and latter part out of my statement. The second sentence was intended to amplify the first. Perhaps I need to re-phrase? What I meant to say is that business needs determine what, of the available technology, gets used and when. Further, that customer needs and requirements are what drives busines needs. Customers need more name space, some businesss see the alternate root space as a viable means to give the customer what they want, technology follows. The golden rule of marketing; find out what the customer wants ... give it to them ... any way you can. Those who do this, succeed. Those who do not, fail. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 19:00:56 -0500 From: Paul Garrin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Kendall Dawson's thoughts, protection of famous names and marks Dear Jonathan, I agree with your points regarding reasonable "famous mark" protection. As a new TLD registry and operator active since 1996, Name.Space, Inc. has in place a famous names policy and has enforced it on many occasions, all well documented and accepted willingly by the offenders without protest. This is not to say that any such policy will be perfect and airtight, but it is a place to begin and when practiced in good faith by registries/registrars it is possible to provide a reasonable balance between free expression, fair use in commerce, and trademark protection. Our experience and practice over the past four years indicates that this works. Best regards, Paul Garrin Founder/CEO Name.Space, Inc. http://name-space.com For general policy please see: http://name-space.com/policy > I too am a new member to the group and found Jon Weinberg's summary of > extraordinarily utility. > I wish to weigh in briefly on a few points: > > 1) I would prefer that deployment take into account mechanisms for > protection for famous marks/names. People can have different positions on > the ideological issue of whether someone has a "right" to a name conferred > by the domain name system or otherwise. But it may also be useful to weigh > what kind of system is likely to create the least amount of wasted human > energy, social, political, and legal stress. Why invite multijurisdictional > fights over what may be alleged to be confusing, pirated, or willfully > misleading? I believe it would be better to have some means for > differentiation and protection when world-familiar names, whether commercial > or non-commercial, "Red Cross," "Red Crescent," "Amnesty International" > marks or names are involved if it is possible. Thus strong continued support > for Phillip Sheppard's balanced criteria of certainty, honesty, > differentiation, competition, diversity, semantics, multiplicity, and > finally very importantly, simplicity. > > 2) I leave it to the technical experts to judge whether evaluation periods > are needed to determine technical stability, but it seems fair to suggest > that such periods, if not overly long, can be protective to the > infrastructure as a whole. > ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #25 *************************