From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #57 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Wednesday, March 22 2000 Volume 01 : Number 057 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:06:23 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] Registrant thresholds (was: more on non-shared gTLDs) Rick, My suggestion to you (again, to avoid some dreary WG-C "event" which now that Milt has chimed in, is beyond avoiding) is to ask the Registrar Constituency to answer your question, assuming it both clear and useful. I pointed out to you that your question could use some improvement, economic handwaving being preferable (IMO) over trolling absolutism. Please do that then get back to me on your odd suggestion that the least prudent handwaving is the better handwaving, or more starkly intellectually vacuous, that the compelling policy issue before WG-C is both registrant maximization, yet we are not charged with, nor have yet discovered that this only requires a single new gTLD, distinguishable from .COM in name only. [I've considered writing "Position Paper Z", a "sink the (NSI) Bismark" since early November, but who in WG-C actually cares about the monopoly other than the PPD co-signers? Who would give up what they are so quick to try and take from Indians, to act sincerely on their principles, not just the agreeable bits of their principles?] Now, there are 10^4 Indigenous polities in North America, 10^5 corporations, non-profits, schools, etc., some 3x10^6 Status Indians, and another similar size Non-Status population, and while Kent Crispin is the only co-signer of Position Paper E in WG-C, the privileged population of North America is not dominated politically by its racists, so if operated rationally the .NAA registry should reach approximately 10^7 registrants. When I wave my hands about the 10^5 number, I'm just being prudent. However, was size ever the issue? We (Indians) are certain it is who has policy responsibility and what that policy is that are the issues. Rick, you do recall that Meuller, Ambler, Walsh and Meyer, all Americans, all opposed any extention of the namespace to American minorities? You do see where the registrar-centric undistinguished volume maximizing market preference will lead ICANN, if allowed? Where "market principles" will lead ICANN, if allowed? You'll want to put two rounds behind the ear of the geographic diversity principle in passing, if you plan on going dowm the volume-first rathole, and anything else that gets in your way. For the forseeeable future, the "general internet community" is both white, and US resident. If it were in fact otherwise, WG-C would be a so much more interesting place to think and work. Kitakitamatsinopowaw, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:14:57 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Registrant thresholds (was: more on non-shared gTLDs) >Rick, you do recall that Meuller, Ambler, Walsh and Meyer, all Americans, >all opposed any extention of the namespace to American minorities? Pardon me, but please do not put words in my mouth. I am, in fact, not opposed to any extension of the namespace to American minorities. Not supporting your specific proposal does not mean that I feel the idea, as a concept, is without merit. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:17:37 +1200 From: Joop Teernstra Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs At 21:13 20/03/00 -0500, James Love wrote: > There are lots of groups that will be seeking to use ICANN to >enforce a variety of policies. This was raised in Strasbough last >thursday in a meeting of the European Parliament. I was there. This >has nothing to do with TLDs. It has to do with ICANN's power and >control over domain registrations. The US government has already asked >ICANN to eliminate the "mickey mouse" type registrations and to find the >true name of the domain owners, and also to address trademark issues. I >think this is only the beginning of ICANN as an enforcement tool for >governments. This is an observation, not an endorsement. > And this is what many have foreseen and what has brought many concerned individuals into the DN arena. Saying "it ain't so" is no going to be particularly helpful. The only way to deal with the inevitable creep of ICANN's mission is to make sure that *all* interests, non-commercial and individual, are fairly represented in the policy-initiating Names Council and on the ICANN Board. - --Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , founder of the Cyberspace Association, the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners http://www.idno.org (or direct:) http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:30:20 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Registrant thresholds (was: more on non-shared gTLDs) - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 21-Mar-2000 Eric Brunner wrote: > Rick, you do recall that Meuller, Ambler, Walsh and Meyer, all Americans, > all opposed any extention of the namespace to American minorities? You do > see where the registrar-centric undistinguished volume maximizing market > preference will lead ICANN, if allowed? Where "market principles" will lead > ICANN, if allowed? Eric, if you are going to make thinly veiled accusations of Racism, I suggest you make sure you include only factual comments in your accusations in the future. The next time you do this, you may find yourself on the wrong side of a slander suit. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE41xb88zLmV94Pz+IRAsJGAJ9oWBfPxgP3Slsu4MhV8TQrD/iuLgCcD5aN uQhAAfAP3cd10AUdpSCNJww= =G+/V - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:31:41 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Registrant thresholds (was: more on non-shared gTLDs) - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 21-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: >>Rick, you do recall that Meuller, Ambler, Walsh and Meyer, all Americans, >>all opposed any extention of the namespace to American minorities? > > Pardon me, but please do not put words in my mouth. I am, in fact, not > opposed to any extension of the namespace to American minorities. > > Not supporting your specific proposal does not mean that I feel the > idea, as a concept, is without merit. > Not to mention that he has absolutely no knowledge of our collective ancestries. This type of reverse bigotry should not be tolerated or catered to, and anyone who participates in it should be treated harshly. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE41xdM8zLmV94Pz+IRArf8AJ0QoGAjw28tBy9r7EyK0oYNelJquQCfR/II bWPOkxgECM+ibqTBMalzvhY= =Fglh - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 09:34:55 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Re: [wg-c] The IAB statement on sharing DNS domain registires At 10:41 20.03.00 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: >The IAB statement on DNS has absolutely no bearing on the policy question >of diversity of ownership of operators of DNS in the ICANN franchise root. I agree with the statement as written above. As long as we agree that we're talking about a single root, where the set of registrations is managed under a single ruleset, the IAB statement has no bearing on how that root is administered. Ownership of operators is not part of the IAB statement. Harald IAB member ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:42:09 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Registrant thresholds (was: more on non-shared gTLDs) Hello Eric, The vail hiding this accusation is mighty thin, son. You might also want to check the color of your own thin skin, before accusing one, whom has a significan proportion of Malaysian genes, of racism. If you are truely red then you and I are closer cousins than you might think, or that you'll feel comfortable with . I suggest that you go off, like a good ol' boy, and do your homework. Then return and start talking straight sense. You might want to swear off gilding the verbal lily while you're at it. It only confuses us poor dolts that try and read your scrawls. I also formally noted my support for my American Indian cousins, even while I argued against the inclusion of NAA, as a new TLD, at the time. I just don't agree with you that your paper is the means to do it. Not in WG-C, at any rate. This does not make me a racist. I must say that you have some stones, to send in a TLD application as a WG-C position paper, like you did last October. They must be solid brass, for you to continue to press that issue. > Rick, you do recall that Meuller, Ambler, Walsh and Meyer, > all Americans, > all opposed any extention of the namespace to American > minorities? > ... the "general internet community" > is both white, > and US resident. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:17:53 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Registrant thresholds (was: more on non-shared gTLDs) - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 21-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: > I also formally noted my support for my American Indian cousins, even while > I argued against the inclusion of NAA, as a new TLD, at the time. I just > don't agree with you that your paper is the means to do it. Not in WG-C, at > any rate. This does not make me a racist. I must say that you have some > stones, to send in a TLD application as a WG-C position paper, like you did > last October. They must be solid brass, for you to continue to press that > issue. His paper was way out of line. The goal of this workgroup was to establish a policy on the creation of new TLDs, not to dictate what those TLDs would be. He wanted a result, as long as that result included an expressed agreement that HIS proposed TLD would be introduced. It was certainly the most selfish position I have seen presented by any member of this workgroup, including those who are here to oppose the creation of any new TLD. At least they are pretty plain about their position. I prefer their honest efforts to block, than to deal with someone whose agenda includes labeling people who disagree with him as racists. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE410xR8zLmV94Pz+IRAiSEAJ4/3PIwcF1gHywLvJcFDagttXV+bACeOdLz z5t4q5cOFkAJxdwUee3loSI= =Cdcy - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 06:04:05 -0500 (EST) From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, William X. Walsh wrote: > > Rather than giving everyone the .edu, it would make more sense to > > create more TLDs. > > So instead you have Network Solutions deciding what is or is not a valid > educational institution. Great solution, and has been proven not to work > very well. The number of bogus processed registrations under .edu have been up > considerly. I see reports of new ones every month. The issue of who should enforce a TLD restriction is an important one, and I think the NSI experience has shown that one can have problems if the decision maker has the wrong incentives. Most of the issues you raise here and elsewhere in your missive concern too little enforcement. I suggestion that you just eliminate enforcement altogether is one solution. It's certainly not our position. The view that there should be no enforcement is a an interesting position. My guess is that it will not gain much support in the non-commerical constituency, but that remains to be seen. A policy of non enforcement is of course a policy. If NSI isn't going a good job of enforcement, then it should have the registry taken away. > Why not let the consumers decide for themselves what the meaning of those > strings of characters mean to them? If you mean, let anyone use .edu, .int, .gov or .mil, this would basically devalue the TLD. Look, if you want lots of gTLDs, and I think this is a good idea (lets have thousands), go for it. But to stop anyone from a having a restricted TLD doesn't make sense to me, particularly when it is possible to expand the TLD space so much. [snip] > >> I don' t know what you are referring to here, but ICANN's sole > >> function is technical coordination. > > > > Well, I don't see that what we are discussing here is strickly > > technical. > > But it should be. ICANN's charter, is the Board continues to try and remind us > and the press, is TECHNICAL COORDINATION. They cannot have it both ways. > Either ICANN changes their charter and their contract with the USG to become a > global policy structure for Internet Governance, or they leave those issues > where they belong, OUTSIDE of the technical coordination of the Internet's > protocols, numbers, and names. > Ok. If you think the decision to approve .sucks, .union, .isnotfair, etc is a strickly technical decision fine. Or if you think the issue of restricted versus open TLDs is strickly technical, fine. I guess you can say its a technical decision, if you want. After all, lets allow anyone to use the word, "technical." ;-) > You think ICANN is eliminating anonymity? I registered a domain > just two weeks ago under a pseudonym. I did it for a real purpose. > ICANN has no process or authority to change that, and nothing it has > done up until now has prevented that. Nor should they. ICANN has told IP owners that it will enforce the requirements that the Whois gives acurate information on who owns a domain. This is from a report by Steve Metalitz, after a Jan 27, 2000 meeting with ICANN staff: "ICANN is initiating a 'comprehensive compliance review program' to make sure that accredited registrars . . . are fulfilling th obligations they assumed in their accreditation agreements. The goal is to mak such compliance policing a "core competence" of ICANN. . . . I intervened in strong support of the need for ICANN to ensure that accredited registrars are in compliance with their obligations, particularly regarding WHOIS." http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2000q1/000047.html FTC Commissioner Mozelle Thompson, at the Feb TACD meetings and in Strasbough last thrusday, and Andrew Pincus of DOC at the Feb TACD meeting, both indicated that the US government was asking ICANN to provide truthful information on domain registrations -- names of real people, "not Mickey Mouse or something," in order to faciliate law enforce actions. The FTC said the US government has submitted comments on this topic to ICANN in writing. At the Cario meeting, Esther seemed to be saying that this wasn't an issue, because a real person could register a domain and let others use it. I think it is clear that this isn't the same as anonymous registration. I'm not saying this is a justified policy, or that it isn't. I think the IP owners and law enforcement authorities have legitimate interests, as do groups that favor free speech and privacy. But it does seem to be a "policy" issue, that cannot be avoided. Either ICANN will or will not require truthfull whois information, to make domain owners more accountable for web contents, and subject to various legal actions. Next, you just have to ask, what will the legal obligations be on people who register domains that are said to engage in activities that are deemed illegal or to generate liabilities of various types. NSI has already crossed this bridge, and taken back domains at the request of governments. (According to the US FTC last week). > > The suggestion was made in Strasbough, last week, that ICANN be > > required to put provisions into its contracts that it would permit > > courts in any country to order a domain be removed. Apparently NSI has > > been doing this for a while already, but the new competitive registry > > system makes this less of a "one stop shopping" issue for court orders. > > That suggestion can be made, but that suggestion is wrought with > problems. A court in Germany has absolutely no authority over me, > and if ICANN removes my domain name on the order of a German court, > ICANN is going to find it on the wrong side of a lawsuit about my > rights to due process. They can make the agreement say whatever > they want, but when those provisions are ruled unlawful in a court, > they will provide no protection for ICANN or it's Board of Directors > when they are held responsible for their actions. Maybe you should take a look at the pending Hague Convention on private law, or talk to a lawyer about the cross border enforcement actions. The world is becoming a smaller place, and even US citizens have to think about laws in other countries. I'm not sure how this will be avoided. Certainly not by wishful thinking. I was in Paris this weekend, and reading about the UK use of its rather restrictive crown copyright laws to bring civil actions against a former M15 employee living in Paris who was publishing state secrets on the Internet. The UK strategy was to bring civil actions against the former employee, and seek to have them enforced. Jamie - -------------------------- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:01:59 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] Ambler/Meuller/Walsh/Meyers on .NAA Since there seems to be some selective memory issues, and people new to the list wouldn't know where to look, a few of WG-C's less elevating bits of enlightened self-interest: IODesigns (Ambler) vs .NAA http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg01959.html No geographic or ethnic charters progress until all geographic or ethic charters progress together. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg01988.html Subsequent correspondence summarized, and http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg01979.html Meuller vs .NAA http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg01968.html No specific charters until open-market competitive model is established, and no distinct non-commercial operational policy tolerated. DSo (Walsh) vs .NAA http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg02227.html No minority charters. MHSC (Meyer) vs .NAA http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg02229.html No non-white charters. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg02245.html Non-ICANN process (alternate root "gTLD") implementations take precedence over ICANN process proposals. Kitakitamatsinopowaw, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:43:41 -0500 From: "Martin B. Schwimmer" Subject: [wg-c] IPv6 from internetnews.com: BT Offers Free IPv6 Trial March 21, 2000 By uk.internet.com staff International News Archives [London] BT is teaming up with Microsoft to trial an IPv6 network, the next generation internet protocol which will create an infinite number of new web addresses. full story at: http://www.internetnews.com/intl-news/article/0,1087,6_324351,00.html @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:43:21 -0500 From: James Love Subject: [wg-c] non-commercial TLDS We are of course interested in the issue of non-commercial TLDs, and are working with other NGOs to see if there is any consensus on some basic issues for nc/tlds. There will be some meetings in Washington, DC at the end of this month and in April to discuss specific proposals, that we are just beginning to organize a bit. I've created a discussion list called nc-tlds, that is open. I created this for people in the NGO community that are not necessarily experts in every phase of DNS management, and maybe in some cases never even heard of DNS, or TLDs. (The WG-C list list is pretty technical for many people). People who are interested in this issue from WG-C or elsewhere are welcome to lurk or contribute to the list, if they want, even if they don't work for a non profit organization. I'm just now creating the list, so there isn't any traffic just yet. Jamie listinfo at http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-tlds ======================================================= James Love, Director | http://www.cptech.org Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367 | voice: 1.202.387.8030 Washington, DC 20036 | fax: 1.202.234.5176 ======================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:03:55 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Ambler/Meuller/Walsh/Meyers on .NAA My comment was that I felt it unfair to give one ethnic group priority over another. Nothing near being against a domain for yours (or any) ethnic group. The summary is yours, and as such, is your opinion. I don't agree with it. Indeed, you seem to have drawn conclusions out of a hat. Indeed, the final message you quote summarizes my position nicely - I think ALL ethnic groups should get TLDs, not just "yours." That doesn't mean that "yours" should not. If anything, YOU are the one being ethnocentric - I would think that you would champion TLDs for all ethnic groups. I think you owe me an apology. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Brunner" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 9:01 AM Subject: [wg-c] Ambler/Meuller/Walsh/Meyers on .NAA > > Since there seems to be some selective memory issues, and people new to > the list wouldn't know where to look, a few of WG-C's less elevating bits > of enlightened self-interest: > > IODesigns (Ambler) vs .NAA > http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg01959.html > No geographic or ethnic charters progress until all geographic or ethic > charters progress together. > http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg01988.html > Subsequent correspondence summarized, and > http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg01979.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:40:32 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Ambler/Meuller/Walsh/Meyer on .NAA > MHSC (Meyer) vs .NAA > http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg02229.html > No non-white charters. Sorry son, that's not what it says. I'll grant, you had the backbone to post the original message. But, as I said, your proposal was definite proof that you had some stones. > http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg02245.html > Non-ICANN process (alternate root "gTLD") implementations > take precedence > over ICANN process proposals. Also, not what it says. I simply argued for ANY process over ad hoc additions, like your NAA proposal. > Kitakitamatsinopowaw, > Eric How does a WASP get to represent AmerInds anyway, blondie? BTW, are you aware that the California tribes just got skinned again (res-based casinos)? ------------------------------ Date: 21 Mar 2000 14:08:45 -0500 From: megacz@cmu.edu Subject: [wg-c] Excellent suggestion from slashdot -- apparently not in 10-23 report Forgive me if this is a FAQ; I'm new to the WG. I can't take credit for what follows; I saw it on a slashdot.org comment, but the comment was moderated WAY down, so very few people probably read it. Why not permit an unlimited number of TLD's, on the condition that nobody can *own* a TLD. Hence I can buy smith.family (and implicitly, *.smith.family), but NOT *.family. I would be able to do this even if nobody else had ever registered a name under the family TLD. The nice part is that it brings the trademark dispute back into proper focus. Apple computer does NOT have a god-given right to everything with the word "Apple" on it -- they have a right to everything with the word "Apple" on it WITHIN THE CONTEXT of the personal computer industry. Hence, apple.computers would obviously belong to Mr. Jobs' company, while apple.landscaping would belong to the guy down the street who will redo your front yard. I'm not suggesting a new dispute resolution process; just a namespace change that would make dispute resolution infinitely simpler. AFAIK no other solution breaks down trademarks *by industry*, as the trademark law explicitly states (or if they do, they allow for a finite number of industries, which can become cumbersome in the future). I dunno, I saw a lot of elegance in it. I read the 10-23 WG-C report, and Prop. B seems to come *close* to this, but doesn't step out and overtly state the fact that individuals could [implicitly] create new TLD's and that a TLD can't be *owned*. Is this a FAQ, an idea currently being considered, or a new concept on this list? If there are any known problems with it, what are they? - aj - -- "Nobody has any 'Rights'. We are entitled only to Liberties" Adam Megacz -- for current phone/postal, see http://www.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/finger?q=megacz@andrew.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:36:27 -0500 From: Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [wg-c] Ambler/Meuller/Walsh/Meyers on .NAA Here is what I said, in direct refutation of Eric's assertion. Contemplate the issue of Eric's honesty. "In an open market system, Eric and his council(s) could come to ICANN with a technically valid proposal for registry at any time, and the policy and geographic scoping applied to registration would be theirs to decide. ICANN would neither endorse nor amend it. The presumption under our system would be that Eric would get his registry unless there was something illegal, technically unworkable or financially suspect. " Eric Brunner wrote: > Since there seems to be some selective memory issues, Indeed. > Meuller vs .NAA > http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg01968.html > No specific charters until open-market competitive model is established, > and no distinct non-commercial operational policy tolerated. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:41:33 -0500 From: Craig Simon Subject: Re: [wg-c] Excellent suggestion from slashdot -- apparently not in 10-23 report Adam, You might want to take another look at F, which proposes that no property rights would inhere in a gTLD. Like you and others here, I also would prefer lots of new gTLDS, but Group-C had trouble reaching a consensus on tough questions, so we settled on the idea of 6-10 for starters, and then waiting and seeing. Who would "own" them (the "public", chartering organizations, private parties, or some mix of these) is still up in the air, as far as I can tell. Craig ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:35:25 -0800 From: Josh Elliott Subject: RE: [wg-c] whois - opperational issues && new gTLDs see uwhois.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Rick > H Wesson > Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 10:48 AM > To: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: [wg-c] whois - opperational issues && new gTLDs > > > > > I know some folks don't like how the whois got distributed when NSI > Registry went into "shaired" mode. > > How do folks propose the whois service to work with additional > registraies > running new gTLDs. > > > -rick > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:48:16 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] IPv6 > [London] BT is teaming up with Microsoft to trial an IPv6 network, the next > generation internet protocol which will create an infinite number of new > web addresses. IPv6 has many good things and there were recent announcements on it from major players (Microsoft and Cisco among them). But to set one thing straight: IPv6 does have enough address space to enumerate every electron in the universe. However, IPv6 brings little magic to the issue of coelescing routing tables, hence it will continue to be very important that addresses be allocated in accordance with the existing topology of the net. End-user allocations of addresses may not need to be as tightly constrained as they are with IPv4, but there will still have to be a rational allocation system. As far as DNS and IPv6 - the increase in addresses will have little impact on the DNS name space(s). And to the extent that IPv6 addresses occupy 4x the number of bytes as IPv4 addresses, the 13 server per zone limit in DNS will be squeezed more as IPv6 comes about unless the ancient and obsolete 512 byte limit on DNS packets is relaxed. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:28:45 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] IPv6 > But to set one thing straight: IPv6 does have enough address space to > enumerate every electron in the universe. You absolutely sure about that? - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:41:16 -0500 From: Paul Garrin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Excellent suggestion from slashdot -- apparently not in 10-23 report This is precisely the model put in place by Name.Space since 1996. Please see http://name.space.xs2.net/policy Old news, but good news. regards, Paul Garrin Founder/CEO Name.Space, Inc. http://name.space http://name.space.xs2.net > > Forgive me if this is a FAQ; I'm new to the WG. > > I can't take credit for what follows; I saw it on a slashdot.org > comment, but the comment was moderated WAY down, so very few people > probably read it. > > Why not permit an unlimited number of TLD's, on the condition that > nobody can *own* a TLD. Hence I can buy smith.family (and implicitly, > *.smith.family), but NOT *.family. I would be able to do this even if > nobody else had ever registered a name under the family TLD. > > The nice part is that it brings the trademark dispute back into proper > focus. Apple computer does NOT have a god-given right to everything > with the word "Apple" on it -- they have a right to everything with > the word "Apple" on it WITHIN THE CONTEXT of the personal computer > industry. Hence, apple.computers would obviously belong to Mr. Jobs' > company, while apple.landscaping would belong to the guy down the > street who will redo your front yard. I'm not suggesting a new dispute > resolution process; just a namespace change that would make dispute > resolution infinitely simpler. AFAIK no other solution breaks down > trademarks *by industry*, as the trademark law explicitly states (or > if they do, they allow for a finite number of industries, which can > become cumbersome in the future). > > I dunno, I saw a lot of elegance in it. I read the 10-23 WG-C report, > and Prop. B seems to come *close* to this, but doesn't step out and > overtly state the fact that individuals could [implicitly] create new > TLD's and that a TLD can't be *owned*. > > Is this a FAQ, an idea currently being considered, or a new concept on > this list? If there are any known problems with it, what are they? > > - aj > > -- > "Nobody has any 'Rights'. We are entitled only to Liberties" > Adam Megacz -- for current phone/postal, see > http://www.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/finger?q=megacz@andrew.cmu.edu > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 22:09:20 -0500 (EST) From: James Love Subject: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed There are a large number of proposals for TLDs. If ICANN begins with the WG-C proposal of 6 to 10 testbed TLDs, it will be pretty hard to decide which TLDs go first. Assuming that the testbed is simply the first step in a real expansion of the TLD space (as were the first testbed registrars for .com, .net and .org), it may not be extremely important which ones go first, but it will probably be important enough to be controversial. I propose the decision making be decentralized. I would recommend 3 be selected by the business/registrar constituencies, 3 by the non-commercial domain holders, and 3 selected by the ICANN at large members, in an online vote. That's 9, and the 10th could be selected in some other way. Perhaps a lottery by those with "pioneer" proposals, or something else. This would provide a simple way to reduce the power that any one group would have, and it would probably also lead to some diversity in the types of management structures considered in the first round. Jamie - ----------------------- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:36:29 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 22-Mar-2000 James Love wrote: > > There are a large number of proposals for TLDs. If ICANN begins with > the WG-C proposal of 6 to 10 testbed TLDs, it will be pretty hard to > decide which TLDs go first. > > Assuming that the testbed is simply the first step in a real expansion > of the TLD space (as were the first testbed registrars for .com, .net > and .org), it may not be extremely important which ones go first, but it > will probably be important enough to be controversial. > > I propose the decision making be decentralized. I would recommend 3 be > selected by the business/registrar constituencies, 3 by the > non-commercial domain holders, and 3 selected by the ICANN at large > members, in an online vote. That's 9, and the 10th could be selected in > some other way. Perhaps a lottery by those with "pioneer" proposals, or > something else. This would provide a simple way to reduce the power > that any one group would have, and it would probably also lead to some > diversity in the types of management structures considered in the first > round. This whole thing is based on the supposition that the top level domains should be selected independent of the registry applications. I think that an application process should be created, the applications include the TLD proposal, and each application is considered on its merits. This is really the only fair way of doing it. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE42D+98zLmV94Pz+IRAt+dAJ4mJB5ADnyCO5kBpy9OTcReGpY+MgCfTbbs sLs98N027IxwlgJxiD00rmE= =RI3M - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:51:56 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed On Tue, Mar 21, 2000 at 10:09:20PM -0500, James Love wrote: > > There are a large number of proposals for TLDs. If ICANN begins with > the WG-C proposal of 6 to 10 testbed TLDs, it will be pretty hard to > decide which TLDs go first. > > Assuming that the testbed is simply the first step in a real expansion > of the TLD space (as were the first testbed registrars for .com, .net > and .org), it may not be extremely important which ones go first, but it > will probably be important enough to be controversial. > If my concerns bear fruit, the 6-10 will be the only expansion to occur unless and until we all go through this same process again in a year or two. Though it may sound paranoid, it's not entirely unreasonable to believe this. Therefore, I'd place additional importance on the selection of the initial 6-10 testbed TLDs. > I propose the decision making be decentralized. I would recommend 3 be > selected by the business/registrar constituencies, 3 by the > non-commercial domain holders, and 3 selected by the ICANN at large > members, in an online vote. The ICANN At-Large membership does not yet exist, by ICANN's own bylaws (req. 5,000). Furthermore, ICANN's move to usurp what little power-by-proxy the At-Large membership had by deciding they would choose which At-Large members would become Directors, and limiting that number to 5 has effectively demolished what little legitimacy the At-Large membership might have enjoyed. Thowing the vote open to the At-Large "membership" at this point would be about as effective as polling the DNSO general assembly on the matter. I furthermore am VERY uncomfortable with doling out decisions piecemeal to the various constituencies, and I won't be at all surprised if other constituencies who you haven't listed join me in that concern. The decision should be a very simple one: Is there any technical reason why the propposed gTLD should not exist (NOTE: This concerns only a proposed gTLD, not its prospective hosting registry)? If there is no reason, then the gTLD should be accepted. Then, the same question should be asked of a prospective registry petitioning to host the gTLD. The two petitions should be submitted separately and considered separately and impartially. > That's 9, and the 10th could be selected in > some other way. Perhaps a lottery by those with "pioneer" proposals, or > something else. Why not a lottery for all? After all, it's only random 3-character strings. > This would provide a simple way to reduce the power > that any one group would have, and it would probably also lead to some > diversity in the types of management structures considered in the first > round. > Actually, I think your proposal, however well-intentioned, provides significant power to certain groups while excluding others. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #57 *************************