From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #81 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Tuesday, April 11 2000 Volume 01 : Number 081 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 09:44:54 +0200 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles Jon, Thanks for your work on this. I support your re-draft of the principles and the further clarification to principle 1. So the principles as revised by WG C now read: Proposed rough consensus item #1: The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. Proposed rough consensus item #2: Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of the following principles : 1. Meaning: An application for a TLD should explain the significance of the proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that the new TLD will be perceived by the relevant population of net users. The application may contemplate that the proposed TLD string will have its primary semantic meaning in a language other than English. 2. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism for charter enforcement where relevant and desired. 3. Differentiation: The selection of a TLD string should not confuse net users, and so TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by the marketing and functionality associated with the string. 4. Diversity: New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding Internet community. They should serve both commercial and non-commercial goals. 5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. 6. Competition: The authorization process for new TLDs should not be used as a means of protecting existing service providers from competition. Proposed rough consensus item #3: WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:12:19 +0200 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles The debate on the nature of competition and whether the differentiation principle curtails competition is a key debate. The basic point of disagreement seems to be as follows: Is the strongest competitor to dot com a replica of dot com or something that is different to dot com? The replica argument is that dot com has a privileged position today and needs a competitor with a similar position. But this answers just one aspect of competition. Competition is dynamic and time is another aspect. Dot com has first mover advantage. A replica will be always be weaker. The market will consider it second best unless the competitor offers something more. The differentiation argument recognises that strong competition comes from the new entrant offering something better - "value added". Consider, any off-line example. Do car manufacturers produce copies or do they try to make better cars in the same category? Do brands of soap powder claim to be the same or better than each other by way of formulation? The differentiation principle seeks to ensure competition to dot com will add value to the name space not imitation. Dot com's key advantage is that it is first mover. Its key weakness is that it lacks differentiation, it leads to confusion, it is known as the home of the international bank but also the pornographer. Different can be wide or narrow. That is the choice of the registry. There is nothing in the latest Weinberg draft of the principles to stop .web, .biz or .naa so long as their proponents have an idea about what they want to achieve with these names. We have the opportunity to move away from the anarchy of dot com. Lets take it. Philip ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 01:28:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Mark's Proposal - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11-Apr-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > b) the entry is administered by folks at "lanminds.com". > > We could stop, here, since that sufficiently shows that Simon's > demonstration did NOT show anything at all about the ability to resolve > .info. However... whois.arin.net also shows that IP address to be in a block delegated to lanminds.com by Sprint, and I can see no connection to CORE whatsoever. Simon, I hope you have an answer to this, because this really does go directly to your credibility. I've given you the benefit of the doubt in not checking your other "facts" you have presented, and debated the principles rather than the accuracy. Perhaps that was a mistake on my part. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ 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/ iD8DBQE48uI28zLmV94Pz+IRAm//AJ0ftQ7+VfIow8C4arUHjzEGYLQcwQCeNWLL TsTNG/9Z/6TbyfaejnqicFU= =SIcm - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 07:34:24 -0400 From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." Subject: RE: [wg-c] S/K principles Your point is well-taken. I agree that adding value to the TLD namespace should promote competition. I disagree that the nature of that competition should be guided by ICANN rather than market forces. I think it is implicit that potential SLD registrants will seek out preceived value in the additional TLDs whether we call them replicas of *.com or something else. If we are careful not to use language that could be interpreted as protecting the *.com TLD, then the consumers of SLDs may continue to privilege *.com or seek value elsewhwere; either way it is their choice, and we will not have added confusion to that process. Jon's revision is a good example of clear language that gets us to the point where we seem to agree we should be. 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 > Philip Sheppard > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 4:12 AM > To: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles > > > The debate on the nature of competition and whether the differentiation > principle curtails competition is a key debate. The basic point of > disagreement seems to be as follows: > > Is the strongest competitor to dot com a replica of dot com or something > that is different to dot com? > > The replica argument is that dot com has a privileged position today and > needs a competitor with a similar position. But this answers just > one aspect > of competition. Competition is dynamic and time is another aspect. Dot com > has first mover advantage. A replica will be always be weaker. The market > will consider it second best unless the competitor offers something more. > > The differentiation argument recognises that strong competition comes from > the new entrant offering something better - "value added". Consider, any > off-line example. Do car manufacturers produce copies or do they > try to make > better cars in the same category? > Do brands of soap powder claim to be the same or better than each other by > way of formulation? > > The differentiation principle seeks to ensure competition to dot com will > add value to the name space not imitation. Dot com's key advantage is that > it is first mover. Its key weakness is that it lacks differentiation, it > leads to confusion, it is known as the home of the international bank but > also the pornographer. Different can be wide or narrow. That is the choice > of the registry. There is nothing in the latest Weinberg draft of the > principles to stop .web, .biz or .naa so long as their proponents have an > idea about what they want to achieve with these names. We have the > opportunity to move away from the anarchy of dot com. Lets take it. > Philip > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 08:32:29 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles Responding to Philip Sheppard's two contributions at the closing bell. - ------- Forwarded Messages > The debate on the nature of competition and whether the differentiation > principle curtails competition is a key debate. The basic point of > disagreement seems to be as follows: > > Is the strongest competitor to dot com a replica of dot com or something > that is different to dot com? > > The replica argument is that dot com has a privileged position today and > needs a competitor with a similar position. But this answers just one aspect > of competition. Competition is dynamic and time is another aspect. Dot com > has first mover advantage. A replica will be always be weaker. The market > will consider it second best unless the competitor offers something more. > > The differentiation argument recognises that strong competition comes from > the new entrant offering something better - "value added". Consider, any > off-line example. Do car manufacturers produce copies or do they try to make > better cars in the same category? > Do brands of soap powder claim to be the same or better than each other by > way of formulation? > > The differentiation principle seeks to ensure competition to dot com will > add value to the name space not imitation. Dot com's key advantage is that > it is first mover. Its key weakness is that it lacks differentiation, it > leads to confusion, it is known as the home of the international bank but > also the pornographer. Different can be wide or narrow. That is the choice > of the registry. There is nothing in the latest Weinberg draft of the > principles to stop .web, .biz or .naa so long as their proponents have an > idea about what they want to achieve with these names. We have the > opportunity to move away from the anarchy of dot com. Lets take it. An alternative phrasing is that WG-B, Sheppard, Kleiman, Meuller, and any one else placidly putting their chop on S/K simply got their priorities wrong -- being friendly to cute names is not equivalent to attempting to create a market in which NSI evolves over time from monopoly to something else. The issue isn't whether any draft "stops" some sectorially suggestive or well-known gTLD proposal, but whether this working group adopts a position that ICANN ought not authorize any possible registry/registrar model to undertake to establish one or more brands and to market these brands, distinguished from NSI brands only by a differentiation in label and by differentiation in non-sectorially-specific characteristics. A brand of "moc" with a _lower_price_ product is out under S/K A brand of "ocm" with a _PKI_bundled product is out under S/K A brand of "mco" with a _higher_price_ product is out under S/K A brand of "omc" with a _ISP/web/OS/hardware_ product is out under S/K A brand of "cmo" with a _profits_to_charity_ product is out under S/K ... If there were a "Position Paper Z", calling for a cease-fire between all the scratching, bitting, squabling, sordid collection of rabid skunks and half-wits which have taken up arms in the DNS Wars to open a registry this year and get simple parity with NSI's annual turn-over by the simplist and most expeditious means possible, S/K would stop that. Of course, the "THE_MARKET_WILL_PROVIDE" voice-from-a-bush has the same effect, as does the "ANY_ROOT_BUT_ICANN" chorus-of-hermitic-clams, and the "CAPITALIZATION_OPTIONAL_ME_FIRST" cacophany-of-sparrows. Philip wants to lead WG-C away from anarchy. This is a different leadership proposition than one which leads away from monopoly. Offering different leadership propositions from those addressing monopoly appears to be WG-C's best and brightest product. Philip does have my admiration, his proposal that ICANN carry on in the large the charming activity that has passed for "work" in WG-C for the past two months has been more effectively marketed than any other proposal, including mine, that we simply start without principles or blinders and get accustomed to creating new registries. - ------- Message 2 > Jon, > Thanks for your work on this. I support your re-draft of the principles and > the further clarification to principle 1. > > So the principles as revised by WG C now read: > > Proposed rough consensus item #1: > > The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open > TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. Philip and all the rest of the IP chorus have voted against this every time it has been on the table. Why is it on the table again? > Proposed rough consensus item #2: > > Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical > constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of > the following principles : > > > 1. Meaning: An application for a TLD should explain the significance of > the proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that the new > TLD will be perceived by the relevant population of net users. The > application may contemplate that the proposed TLD string will have its > primary semantic meaning in a language other than English. Fairly innocuous though string-centric, as the interesting questions are operational. A harmless parlor game for non-actors on the remote periphery of the DNS Wars who think creating a registry or a brand is as simple as having a "good idea". Vanity labels in the root instead of in SLDs, where they are now. Oblig NAA check -- "na'a" means "mom" in Siksika, and is also an acronym for "North American Aboriginal" -- a label Indians/Aleuts/Inuits/Metis/... can live with. The contemplated perception of net users is that the TLD is a pan-tribal public-service institution, the root of on-line Indian Country, and offering a higher level of trust than competing service and product bundles marketed by non-Indians, and a broader level of service than tribal specific or for-profit service and product bundles. > 2. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism for > charter enforcement where relevant and desired. Ignoring Milt's creative claim that policy transforms the policed into property, this is better than simply harmless pretense. What is missing is a link from the policy and/or jurisdictional enforcement mechanism specific to the delegated registry, and the mechanism specific to the delgation registry. There is little point pretending that here we are not simply dealing with some variation on first-come-first-served, where the temporal scope of policy is restricted to "time of SLD application", but grappling with the larger problem of ongoing law enforcement, hence of a creation of registry-specific private law, derived from a delegating private law. Oblig NAA check -- self-selection, registrar scrutiny, 3rd-party challenge, recourse to the UDRP, and final recourse to the registry operator or the designates of the operator, a Contract Tribal Court. > 3. Differentiation: The selection of a TLD string should not confuse net > users, and so TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by > the marketing and functionality associated with the string. A blunder. A stupid way of saying that WG-C works for NSI, but isn't smart enough to manage to get paid to do so. Marketing is not just a catchy label, it is the product, services and process of P&S creation and support. I guess it is natural for clods in the trademarks professions to think that marks alone are marketing. Oblig NAA check -- the word "Belgian" does not appear in the label "NAA", but net users looking for the Union of Norway, Andorra and Austria may experience some discomfort. > 4. Diversity: New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding > Internet community. They should serve both commercial and non-commercial > goals. Why is this here? This has already been established by WG-C and the US DoC's colored papers. Oblig NAA check -- Indians are poorly served by NSI, the IANA, or the .CA registry operator. > 5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for > malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. Does anyone have a fraction of a clue as to what this means? Is it honest to pretend to know what this means? Oblig NAA check -- dishonest non-Indians will be encouraged to use the .BE ccTLD, not the .NAA gTLD. Dishonest Indians will be offered their choice of being shot or made Belgian. It's traditional. > 6. Competition: The authorization process for new TLDs should not be used > as a means of protecting existing service providers from competition. More wasted space. As if denial were a substitute for difference. Oblig NAA check -- we're wasting time playing three card monty. > Proposed rough consensus item #3: > > WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop > policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. I'll wait on the IETF work, thanks. If the NC wants to waste resources it is always free to do so. - ------- End of Forwarded Messages Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 07:32:12 -0700 (PDT) From: T Vienneau Subject: RE: [wg-c] S/K principles By way of example is our intent that: (1) The principles would prevent the .cor domain for corporations because its to close to .com with a similar intended use, but that we would allow .cam for attached web cameras because, although the string is similar the intended content is different? Or (2) are we saying that both strings are too close to .com and should not be used? I believe the current wording in principle 3. points towards the first example, but there is a lot of room for interpretation. ⴭⴭ伭楲楧慮 Today's comments on the principles raise two issues. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:54:42 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] list rules Four people managed to post 54 messages yesterday. This is a profound inconvenience for the rest of us, who are trying to get some work done. Once more, a reminder: Ground rules for the working group include basic courtesy and respect for others, and a limit of any subscriber's postings to *two per day.* Persistent violators (you know who you are) will be sanctioned. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:13:37 -0400 From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles Philip Sheppard wrote: > > The debate on the nature of competition and whether the differentiation > principle curtails competition is a key debate. The basic point of > disagreement seems to be as follows: > > Is the strongest competitor to dot com a replica of dot com or something > that is different to dot com? > > The replica argument is that dot com has a privileged position today and > needs a competitor with a similar position. But this answers just one aspect > of competition. Competition is dynamic and time is another aspect. Dot com > has first mover advantage. A replica will be always be weaker. The market > will consider it second best unless the competitor offers something more. Frankly, I think that .com is a pretty dull last name. .biz doesn't do much for me either. I can see why people are fighting over .web. I would guess it would be popular, and maybe even more popular than .com for new registrations. .global, .world. .zone, .new, .nouveau, .nuovo, or .nuevo .etc might work pretty well too. I'm not a market expert, but I certain think .com isn't "winning" because it is such a cool name. > > The differentiation argument recognises that strong competition comes from > the new entrant offering something better - "value added". Consider, any > off-line example. Do car manufacturers produce copies or do they try to make > better cars in the same category? > Do brands of soap powder claim to be the same or better than each other by > way of formulation? > > The differentiation principle seeks to ensure competition to dot com will > add value to the name space not imitation. Dot com's key advantage is that > it is first mover. Its key weakness is that it lacks differentiation, it > leads to confusion, it is known as the home of the international bank but > also the pornographer. Different can be wide or narrow. That is the choice > of the registry. There is nothing in the latest Weinberg draft of the > principles to stop .web, .biz or .naa so long as their proponents have an > idea about what they want to achieve with these names. We have the > opportunity to move away from the anarchy of dot com. Lets take it. > Philip I really think the addition of differentiated domains will be very important. There is a problem, however, with the perception that a .flowers TLD will not expand the name space very much, given the huge demand for new name space. So when you talk about 6 to 10 TLDs, including non-commerical TLDs, and we talk about .usedcars or .flowers, then it seems as though no one will do anything about the NSI monopoly (or the ccTLD cartel). There is a big anticompetitive/antitrust issue here. And I don't think ICANN can act to protect monpolies and cartels without some criticism. Indeed, we have asked the FTC to look at this issue, and I can report that the FTC is in fact looking at this issue. Now, I do recognize the existing trademark owners have an issue with protecting their trademarks in the .com clone space. Not only the big fish, but small fish too. I think that Xmission.com has a pretty legitimate concern about protecting the use of Xmission, which is hardly a generic term. Maybe there are ways of addressing this in the .com clone space that go beyond the UDRP. What I would do for the test bed, is to have each applicant for the test bed make their own proposals for how they would deal with the trademark issues. Maybe they will come up with some good ideas, and the testbed could also be a testbed for this. Jamie ======================================================= 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, 11 Apr 2000 11:11:31 -0400 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] list rules It's a little too little and a little too late. There are those of us who react to the kind of mass postings of yesterday by selecting the whole mass and recycling it. It might have been different had I been at the console and seen the messages as they came in, but sme of us were at the Small Business Administration's roundtable on Famous Mark Protection, and therefore were in no position to see the flood. >>> Jonathan Weinberg 04/11/00 10:54AM >>> Four people managed to post 54 messages yesterday. This is a profound inconvenience for the rest of us, who are trying to get some work done. Once more, a reminder: Ground rules for the working group include basic courtesy and respect for others, and a limit of any subscriber's postings to *two per day.* Persistent violators (you know who you are) will be sanctioned. Jon ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:29:18 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT As promised, here is a set of three consensus calls. Please note that these are *three separate items*, and that you need to vote on them *separately*. That is, it won't work to send in a response that says "I vote yes," or "I vote no." Rather, you need to vote yes or no on *each* of the three items. The deadline for voting is Monday, April 17 at 4 pm UTC (6 pm in Brussels, noon in New York, 9 am in Los Angeles, 1 am the following day in Tokyo). I want to urge *everyone* in the WG to weigh in on these three items. If you like ‘em, vote yes. If you don't, vote no. There's nothing wrong with a proposed consensus item failing if the members of the WG, having decided that it's a bad idea, vote against it. But there's something very wrong with an item failing because too few of the WG members bother to cast a vote at all. Here are the three items. PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of the following principles : 1. Meaning: An application for a TLD should explain the significance of the proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that the new TLD will be perceived by the relevant population of net users. The application may contemplate that the proposed TLD string will have its primary semantic meaning in a language other than English. 2. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism for charter enforcement where relevant and desired. 3. Differentiation: The selection of a TLD string should not confuse net users, and so TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by the marketing and functionality associated with the string. 4. Diversity: New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding Internet community. They should serve both commercial and non-commercial goals. 5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. 6. Competition: The authorization process for new TLDs should not be used as a means of protecting existing service providers from competition. PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 100 11:14:53 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > On 10-Apr-2000 John Charles Broomfield wrote: > > There are many CORE registars that have gone to great lengths to NOT accept > > preregistrations or create queues and indicate that so far there is no > > definite signal on when or if any new TLDs will be added to the roots. By > > your reasoning, CORE is morally pure because of the great lengths that these > > registrars (that also make up CORE) have taken to indicate this. Of course, > > it is neither one nor the other. Creating queues and accepting > > preregistrations is an activity completely outside the scope and independent > > of any agreement with CORE. > > Then those who refuse to flush out their queues should be prohibited from > participation in the roll out. Nice ideal, and I agree completely with the principle. Personally I think that charging for putting people in a queue is sleazy at least. Unfortunately, it is not a workable ideal, and only has face value. Just in the same way that outsiders start bombarding registrars when they feel that a name is about to become available, by sending constant registration requests for the same name, once a TLD is announced, there will be a lot of people who will decide that they want a particular name and will start bombarding registrars for business.* or whatever, with the expectation to be the first one there the moment that TLD requests are accepted, if it were accepted only from the moment that it goes live. It would be similar to what happens with the bombarding for a name that has become available through lack of payment etc, except that at point 0 instead of just having a handful of bombarding (as happens today on a daily basis), you'd have widespread bombarding all around. Probably generating (unwillingly?) as a side effect widespread denial of service. Please note that this is JUST a hypothesis, and I'm not saying "it WILL be like this", just that I think that it's a likely possibility. You know when they have these great sales at places like Harrods, they usually announce "Sale beginning 12 April at 9am" (or whatever date they want), now, often you find people queueing up outside sometimes for a day or so outside the store (same thing when some concert or sporting event is announced and the start of ticket sales is announced), sometimes for even longer. The people that show up before the official start generally have a natural tendency to organize themselves into queues. Does that mean that the Harrods sale started before? Does it mean that the concert organizers are preselling tickets? No, it just means that as they have announced that something will occur, some people want to have the best possible shot at getting what they want. The sporting event organizers are not condoning spending nights outside the stadium in advance of the ticket sales, though they may find it reasonable to create some sort of security to guarantee no mobs (that the queues will not become unruly). If you break up queues forming beforehand, and you forbid people to gather in advance, you are likely to find yourself with an unruly mob the instant that the sale begins, as they'd all rush the boothes. I think that the similarity is valid. Queues for registrations of SLDs in new TLDs *will* form. Either in an orderly manner, and be dealt with in a round robin basis, or some entrepreneur will come up with a way to bombard sistematically all registrars and put the system at risk, while profitting himself. Forbidding taking money for queue placement is (from my POV) regulating how registrars do business. Also, how do you guarantee that registrars are not privately creating their queues ANYWAY? It would be nice to say "let's all be good boys, and treat day 0 as any normal day" but the reality is that there WILL be a flood on day one. It's up to us how to deal with that initial onset. Yours, John. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 17:48:27 +0200 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles In reply to T Vienneau's question for me the real purpose of the principles is to draw attention to just this sort of possible confusion. So, the answer (as answered by me or any other member of WG C) is not so important. However, if i was to be the interpreter of these principles for this question I would agree with T Vienneau and say .cor is confusingly similar to .com in such a context. Philip ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 100 11:41:59 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] The Issues At Hand > I see, thank you. > In that case, we also believe that companies such as IOD > and CORE, who set up infrastructure under the then-current > policies and procedures are, if nothing else, victims of > history, and they (nor their customers) should not be > penalized as a result. To penalize (as far as I understand it) means to hand out a penalty, or to less the party worse off than it was before. Today IOD sells ".web" registrations in ITS ".web" which is not visible in the legacy roots. To continue the status quo (ie, continue to keep IOD's ".web" out of the legacy roots) is not penalizing IOD. Adding a ".web" which does not belong to IOD to the legacy roots is not penalizing IOD, as they currently do not have a TLD of their own in the legacy roots. Trying to characterize IOD as a victim is convenient to IOD, but far from the truth. IOD's business may be affected by the fact that current "customers" (though maybe "dupes" as in having being duped would be closer to the truth) would suddenly cease to be fooled into believing that IOD has the right to force ".web" into any set of nameservers that it deems fit, but one could hardly consider that penalizing IOD. In fact, you could call it competition! Do you want a registration in IOD's ".web" visible at IOD servers, or do you want a registration in the more open ".web" visible on the legacy servers (and in most places throughout the world -better than American Express!-)? > The issue of specialized zones that come pre-populated, and > the possibility of private zones that are currently populated > (for example, .ATT or .MCI or .IBM) should be considered as > well. If IOD owns ".web", they can put whatever they want in it. If IBM owns ".ibm", then so can they. Presumably "ownership" or responsibility for a ".web" will fall onto ICANN, so it will be their rules as to what and how goes in there. Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 100 11:47:45 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Mark's Proposal You are talking about a reverse delegation. What is the relevance of this? I have just setup: - --- $nslookup 213.16.5.251 Server: manta.outremer.com Address: 206.48.63.51 Name: another.stupid.example Address: 213.16.5.251 - --- Which should be resolvable all over the world in the same way. If you query ANY server about 213.16.5.251 it will tell you that the name of that machine is "another.stupid.example". Don't try resolving "another.stupid.example" to it's IP address because that (of course) won't work. You can put whatever you want in a reverse delegation. Irrelevant. And you are supposed to be configuring DNS? Yours, John Broomfield. > At 10:58 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: > > >You do a query on your own DNS server and get a hit on .info. > > OK, let's use one of your servers (you relay your mail through this one, > right?): > > [simon@vaio simon]$ date > Tue Apr 11 06:23:59 GMT 2000 > [simon@vaio simon]$ nslookup 208.1.127.5 joy.songbird.com > Server: joy.songbird.com > Address: 208.184.79.7 > > Name: berk.serv.nic.info > Address: 208.1.127.5 > > Now let's use one of the ISI servers: > > [simon@vaio simon]$ nslookup 208.1.127.5 ns.isi.edu > Server: darkstar.isi.edu > Address: 128.9.128.127 > > Name: berk.serv.nic.info > Address: 208.1.127.5 > > Now let's try a couple of reliable MIL servers: > > [simon@vaio simon] nslookup 208.1.127.5 ns1.arl.mil > Server: ns1.arl.mil > Address: 128.63.16.4 > > Name: berk.serv.nic.info > Address: 208.1.127.5 > > [simon@vaio simon] nslookup 208.1.127.5 dcmdw.dla.mil > Server: dcmdw.dla.mil > Address: 131.68.3.1 > > Name: berk.serv.nic.info > Address: 208.1.127.5 > > >Somehow that is supposed to prove something about CORE? > > Yes, absolutely, and very conclusively. > > >At 09:29 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote: > >>At 03:17 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: > >>>CORE has *no* presold TLDs. > >> > >>How do you explain the following *FUNCTIONAL* DNS records (maybe DNS for > >>a CORE registry TLD server being carried by an alternate root?): > >> > >>[simon@vaio simon]$ date > >>Tue Apr 11 04:32:07 GMT 2000 > >>[simon@viao simon]$ nslookup 208.1.127.5 > >>Server: vaio.higgs.net > >>Address: 204.80.101.90 > >> > >>Name: berk.serv.nic.info > >>Address: 208.1.127.5 > > > Best Regards, > > Simon > > -- > I hope you're taking good notes. 'Coz history will be reported differently. > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:24:58 -0400 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT Subject to the reservation that I believe that coercive voting is not a substitute for the development of consensus, and that in fact no such consensus has come to exist..... PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. I object to the form of the item but believe that there should be both open and chartered TLDs in the rollout provided registry operators and registrars present themselves for them. PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of the following principles : ...No.... PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. ...No....if we're going to enlarge the set of characters that the DNS can resolve, there's no good reason not to do it here. ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 09:33:19 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Mark's Proposal >lanminds.com is not part of CORE and is not listed by ICANN. > >And, therefore, Simon's supplied example does not demonstrate anything at >all about CORE or the IANA root. According to CORE's own documents, lanminds.com is a CORE member and registrar. Christopher ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 09:39:08 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT At 11:29 AM 4/11/00 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: >PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE > > The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, > from open >TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. No. Do one thing at a time. This is all already FAR too complicated. The original goal was to create competition for com/net/org. Restricted TLDs constitute and entirely new and separate task. Adding them is just one more way to ensure much more delay. >PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO > > Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current > technical >constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of >the following principles : No, as "criteria". As points of information to be supplied by those promoting the TLD, the list is probably fine. Absent any means of applying these "criteria" objectively and mechanically, they serve only as more fodder for divisive debate and, therefore, more delay. For example, how will criterion 3 be tested, without at least sampling Internet users? >PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE > > WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to > develop >policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. Yes. =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #81 *************************