Subject: Re: delegation mechanism, Re: Trees have one root

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:39:05 -0700

I have edited the to/cc to eliminate the duplicates.  Enough is enough;-)...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I just want to clarify one aspect of what Ed Gerck said, by replying 
to his message to the IETF as included below.

ORSC has never added any TLD that already existed in the IANA cum ICANN root.

Perhaps some predecessors committed such acts before ORSC was formed, 
but certainly never since ORSC was established.

One of our policies has always been to reject any attempt of anyone 
to introduce any collisions among all known TLDs.  We have also 
worked successfully to to resolve all conflicts that threatened to 
"cleanliness" of the ORSC root.  This was done mostly be Richard 
Sexton tracking down the historical facts of each case and cajoling 
conflict prone parties to find some way to resolve their conflicts. 
I musty say I am very impressed with his results, and of course with 
his efforts.

But, we also understand that completeness of inclusion is a very 
important aspect, thus, the ORSC root servers also carry all the TLDs 
that exist in the ICANN root.
Root service users should be required to decide between two 
non-intersecting global root subsets!  At least one alternative 
should be a full meld of the whole DNS namespace.

So, the ORSC objective is (and has been since the ORSC confederation 
was activated) active in being both inclusive, and opposed to 
allowing conflicts.  Thus users of the ORSC roots see "the Whole 
Internet" and users of the ICANN root see the ICANN subset of the 
Internet.

All of this went very well until ICANN chose to add a new TLD that 
conflicted with our ORSC .BIZ TLD which was a long time member in 
good standing in the ORSC "family.

We and others tried to find some way to resolve the conflict, but 
have not (until just today) been able to even exchange a singe 
message about this situation with anyone from ICANN.  We are hopeful 
that we might now be able to make some progress in resolving this 
collision.  We are and have always been dedicated to resolving 
conflicts so as to avoid populating any root service with a 
conflicted TLD.

It has been and is hard work to maintain our policy position, but our 
ORSC members have been strongly supportive of our conflict handling 
policy, and had it not been for unilateral ICANN actions, there would 
be no conflicts now.  With some cooperation, we surely could have 
found some way to avoid the .BIZ conflict.

Those of you who like to blame ORSC for all things bad about the DNS 
may not like to learn who it was that "broke the DNS peace" but that 
will not change the historical facts.  You will just have to live 
with the facts of history.

In the meantime, we hope to find a  way to resolve things in the near future.

The current problem is purely political, and can be resolved with 
cooperative, collegial coordination.  That is all that is needed.

All the other problems discussed here by Ed are certainly very 
important, but it is also important to clear the decks of the current 
political problems that stand in the way of sensible discussions.

Until these other technical problems are resolved, we still need to 
find a reasonable way to live together on this planet.

Cheers...\Stef

At 3:14 PM -0700 7/29/02, Ed Gerck wrote:
>All:
>
>The DNS is indeed defined as a hierarchical tree and thus must
>have only one root.  It will not work with more than one root.
>
>What Richard and Stef are saying, in short, is in agreeement with
>that in the sense that they recognized you would need an  *additional*
>control structure in order to use multiple roots AND the DNS.
>
>But, adding multiple roots will NOT do away with the single root --
>as Brian noted. That additional control structure for the "multiple
>roots" must still be controlled by someone -- and here is where we
>go back in a circle, Brian notes.
>
>However, what Richard is saying would  create a delegation mechanism
>to the root, for those who want to use it. Those who do not want to use
>it, would still see only the DNS root.  Richard is not solving the DNS
>control problem, he is just proposing a way to create a delegation
>mechanism that is entirely optional for the user to see.
>
>That said, this logic implies that operators of root A cannot complain if
>operators of root B define a TLD that conflicts with a TLD in root A.
>Thus, operators of an alternate root cannot complain if the DNS operators
>add .BIZ to the DNS TLDs and control it. An alternate root operator could
>also add .COM to their namespace and control it.  Operators of intranets
>do it all the time.
>
>Cheers,
>Ed Gerck

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 00:34:55 -0700

At 11:39 PM 7/31/2002 -0700, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>conflicted with our ORSC .BIZ TLD which was a long time member in good 
>standing in the ORSC "family.

Stef,

This federation that you are describing was formed without any involvement 
of IANA/ICANN.  It was done entirely independently.

So the idea that IANA/ICANN was somehow obligated to coordinate its own 
activities with an independent effort is a very basic non sequitur.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 04:38:22 -0400

> of IANA/ICANN.  It was done entirely independently.

Very true.  It's also true that if I refuse to answer the phone, I will
not have any phone conversations. 

> activities with an independent effort is a very basic non sequitur.

A case could be made that if ICANN was even *pretending* to serve the public
interest, they could at least enter into a *discussion* with the ORSC people.
Of course, we all know they won't even do that with their OWN board of
directors without a court order.

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 16:19:04 +0200

>directors without a court order.

I am sorry to repeat it (and I will try not to say it too many times 
again): the terms of the ".arpa" sub global namespace delegation are 
described in RFC 920 by Jon Postel himself. The creation of ".biz" (as 
.info and others) are not permitted under that delegation. However ICANN 
obviously acted in this along with the DoC recommendation. The question is: 
should ICANN obey the USG or comply with the initial ITU community 
agreement - FCC included. ".biz" could have been a way to make 
Justice/Congress commit on this.

We all are confronted to the age of a stantard agreement which works well 
but of which the involved parties forgot a long ago the standard, the 
rationales, their rights and their duties.

Solution 1. we forget about it and build it anew. Then ICANN, ccTLDs, gTLDs 
lare level with ORSC, New.net, etc. We will need an international forum 
where to discuss and settle a new agreement: this can only be the ITU. I am 
not sure we want that.

Solution 2. we keep going, we trace back the old legitimacies to avoid 
unnecessary wars and most of all we talk together until we reach a global 
common understanding. ICANN in publishing the ICP-3 document shown it wants 
to root in its "permanent" policy, but they also plainly show they want 
neither to consider legitimacies nor to talk.

Solution 3. we keep going but we rebuild anew. This seems to be the 
impossible ICANN policy in building their Intercontract system. It 
obviously does not work and leads to strong oppositions.

The reason why I join the IETF debate is that I think technology may be the 
response. The same as the namespace agreement has aged, the same the 
technology has aged. We are endlessly arguing on old stuff. Aftyer 20 
years, we need a clean sheet review of the DNS, based on today and future 
users' needs. IMHO this goes into two directions: a new DNS core system 
analysis (DNS.2) and an extended DNS services (DNS+) logic. IMHO in going 
ahead in that two directions (as the iDNs show the path) we will soon 
discover that the ICANN preoccupations and solutions are totally outdated 
by what we will uncover and specify.

Obviously we will meet the same kind of oppositions to DNS.2/DNS+ than was 
met for IPv6. The question is then to know if this effort will be carried 
within the IETF or not. I think DNS.2 cannot be specified outside of the 
IETF but a DNS.1.B can. Most of DNS+, which comes before / aside / on top 
of the DNS, can be privately developped, but without proper integration. 
This would lead to a large number of proprietary solutions and to large 
splits in the usage of the network.

So the question is not to know if we have to make that effort or not, but 
if it will be a clean move or not. To take a comparison, situation in the 
DNS today is like if IPv8 was the only option.
Sorry to have been long. This all I had to say.
jfc

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 10:16:40 -0700

>interest, they could at least enter into a *discussion* with the ORSC people.

One of the tests of an idea that is required in the IETF pertains to 
scaling.  So, please apply your thought to the general case.  It means that 
ICANN would be legitimizing anyone and everyone who chooses to start an 
independent activity.  This is a very bad idea for the stability of the DNS.

It makes far more sense for ICANN to literally ignore independent 
activities.  And that is exactly what ICANN has done.  To ignore them means 
that ICANN does not pay any attention at all to those other 
activities.  This includes ICANN treating the IANA/ICANN name space as 
self-contained, as in fact it is.  Hence, the only "collisions" that ICANN 
should pay attention to are collisions within the IANA/ICANN DNS.

Independent activities are, after all, independent.  They choose to work 
without coordinating with ICANN and they are free to do that.  (Contrary to 
Stef's interpretation, my comments are about registries and root 
administrators, not about users.)

What makes no sense at all is for these folks to act independently and then 
make a post hoc claim that ICANN is somehow obligated to coordinate with 
them.  Apply hour logic equally.  Why were these folk not, themselves, 
obligated to first do pre hoc coordination with ICANN?

>directors without a court order.

1.  On the contrary, the Board seems to work quite well amongst itself.  If 
anything, Karl's rogue behavior underscores how well the rest of the Board 
members operate, including some recent unanimous votes.  This suggests that 
other 'populist' Board members are able to play well with others.  Karl is 
the only one who is not.  Indeed he has shown a very consistent behavior of 
preferring to play to the cameras and reporters, rather than pursue his 
complaints by talking to the people he disagrees with.

2.  Note that Karl won the suit, but lost the war.  He is now subject to 
the conditions that ICANN had originally wanted to apply for his 
access.  The only difference is that now Karl is under a court order to 
conform to those rules.

d/

----------

---

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:03:37 -0400 (EDT)

This statement quoted below, in which it is alleged that Karl Auerbach got
only what he'd previously been offered, is flatly contradicted by the text
of the judicial decision. It is, quite simply, utterly false.  In fact,
almost the reverse is true: what ICANN got is almost exactly what Karl
offered them months ago (the only differences being he has to give 10 days
notice to disclose instead of 7, and some documents must be inspected on
the premises). The judge stated that in several material respects, what
ICANN sought violated California law. 

See the text of the decision for yourself at
http://cryptome.org/auerbach-icann.htm

See also http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=883 for a subsequent
development.

One does not have to be a lawyer to understand what the following means:
the court said ICANN's position "violates both section 6334 and Bylaws
Article V, Section 21 because it deprives Auerbach of the inspection
rights he has under law and imposes such unreasonable requirements as
having to sign a confidentiality agreement and having to pursue burdensome
review in any effort to enforce his inspection rights".

A few choice quotes from the court decision (note, Respondent == ICANN and
the "Inspection Procedures" were ICANN's attempt to restrict a director's
access to info):

[A]
"Respondent contends that inspection rights of directors may be restricted
by corporate inspection procedures and cites Chantiles v. Lake Forest II
Master Homeowners Ass'n (1995) 37 Cal.Ap.4th and Havlicek v.
Coast-to-Coast Analytical Services, Inc. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1844 in
support of its position.

Neither section 6334 nor section 6336(a) provide for or permit a
corporation to impose restrictive conditions on directors' inspection
rights and burdensome review when such rights are denied."

[B]

"Having considered the applicable law and the undisputed facts presented
herein, the court concludes that paragraphs 3, 5, and 6 of the Inspection
Procedures conflict with section 6334 and Art. V, §21 of the Bylaws by
unreasonably restricting directors' access to corporate records and
depriving directors of inspection rights afforded them by law.

Furthermore, Lynn's 10/5/01 letter violates both section 6334 and Bylaws
Article V, Section 21 because it deprives Auerbach of the inspection
rights he has under law and imposes such unreasonable requirements as
having to sign a confidentiality agreement and having to pursue burdensome
review in any effort to enforce his inspection rights.

Additionally, the Inspection Procedures here apparently have not even been
adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors, but were promulgated by an ad hoc
group of functionaries consisting of the Audit Committee, Louis Touton,
Diane Schroeder, and Lynn (Auerbach Dec. Ex. 17, 18, 21).

Based on the undisputed facts, there is no triable issue as to any
material fact and Petitioner Auerbach is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law granting his Petition for Writ of Mandate. "

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Dave Crocker wrote:
[...]

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 12:08:48 -0700 (PDT)

The following concerns my lawsuit against ICANN and highly incorrect
misstatements made on this list about the outcome of that action.

I have no intention of turning this into a thread, but I do feel that I'm
within the bounds of etiquitte by sending a corrective e-mail.

> access.  The only difference is that now Karl is under a court order to 

The writer of the above paragraph has his facts completely wrong.  He is
doing nothing more than parrotting back ICANN's quite misleading press
release.

ICANN lost utterly and totally - not a single issue advocated by ICANN was
adopted by the court.  The court granted my motion for summary judgement.  

ICANN's so-called "procedures" and the "restrictions" issued under those
procedures were rejected by the court with a kick that would be the envy
of a world cup champion.

ICANN is trying to spin its complete loss into some sort of Pollyanna
story about how the result is what ICANN wanted all long.  If this is
really what ICANN wanted, then ICANN ought to have acquiesed to my offer
to them back in September of last year.

ICANN's apologists can chose to deceive themselves, it is their right to
make themselves deaf, dumb, and blind.  However anyone who choses to look
at the actual filings and orders will quickly perceive that the court
order invalidates the rules and restrictions that ICANN attempted to
impose - those rules and restrictions are now gone in a court-ordered
flash of light and smoke.  And ICANN's attempt to self-decree that it can
bind and gag a Director has been made equally vacuous.

The writer of the quoted paragraph seems to have a complete
non-comprehension of the duties, obligations, and rights of a corporate
Director.

I am merely doing what the directors of Enron ought to have done - I am
attempting to look at the raw information and make my own evaluations
rather than relying on the highly processed and self-serving packages that
ICANN management purveys.

Under the court's order ICANN must start delivering materials by tomorrow,
August 2 - a mere 20 months after I first requested them.

		--karl--

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 15:31:02 -0400

> access.  The only difference is that now Karl is under a court order to 

Ahh... that explains why an ICANN spokescreature said ICANN is considering
appealing the judgement.

---

From: Bruce Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:20:09 +0200 (CEST)

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> described in RFC 920 by Jon Postel himself.

Request For Comment number 920 is simply a now historic record of a policy
statement between the IAB and the DARPA in 1984 regarding establishment of
Top Level Domains, and had a focus predominately on USA-based
organisations.

> The creation of ".biz" (as
> .info and others) are not permitted under that delegation.

A strict reading of this now 18 year old document, status 'UNKNOWN', gives
the initial (ie, there could be more) Top Level Domains as:

  Initial Set of Top Level Domains
   The initial top level domain names are:

   [list of arpa, gov, edu, com, mil, org, and possible ISO-country-code]

Further down, it explicitly states that new top level domains could be
created:

   Top Level Domain Registrar

      As the registrar for top level domains, the NIC is the contact
      point for investigating the possibility of establishing a new top
      level domain.

So, your statement regarding the creation of '.biz' and others being
impossible is incorrect, as ICANN, for better or for worse, appears to be
the current Registrar for the Top Level Domain ('.') for the time being,
and can (under RFC920) investigate and by extension implement, new top
level domains.

> where to discuss and settle a new agreement: this can only be the ITU. I am

I'm an idealist.  In a world where I am God-Emperor, organisations have
their domain name in 'orgname.orgtype.country-code'.  If they straddle a
goodly number of countrys, then they might be permitted to also have
'orgname.orgtype.int', if they're lucky, and provide me with a reasonable
facsimile of my long-dead love/advisor/whatever [1].

However, that is not this world, and is a good example of why I don't do
policy.

May I remind you that this is the Internet _Engineering_ Task Force.  The
IETF's task is to propose and implement technical solutions for the
Internet.  Political arguments on meta designs such as who should control
the Top Level Domain(s) or why some organisation with an amusing acronym
should not be in control, whilst an amusing and non-productive way to
wile away an afternoon, should not be part of the IETF discussions.

Alternative Roots are just that, Alternatives, or more accurately, amusing
Non-Portable Fragmented Extensions of the Current Root.

- -- 
  Bruce Campbell.                                 My opinions are my own.

  [1] This is a reference to the Frank Herbert _Dune_ series.

---

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 17:17:14 -0400 (EDT)

ICANN is not the controlling body for the ".".  That role belongs to the
US Dept. of Commerce.  It chooses to take ICANN's advice, but has no duty
to do so. Lengthy legal details at:

http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann-main.htm
or
http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann.pdf

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Bruce Campbell wrote:

[...]
> the current Registrar for the Top Level Domain ('.') for the time being,

Where does it say that?  It's DoC!

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 17:17:14 -0400

--On Thursday, 01 August, 2002 22:20 +0200 Bruce Campbell
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I am sorry to repeat it (and I will try not to say it too
>> many times again): the terms of the ".arpa" sub global
>> namespace delegation are described in RFC 920 by Jon Postel
>> himself.
> 
> Request For Comment number 920 is simply a now historic record
> of a policy statement between the IAB and the DARPA in 1984
> regarding establishment of Top Level Domains, and had a focus
> predominately on USA-based organisations.
>...

Two additions to Bruce's comments...

(i) While I was not involved in the discussions leading up to,
or surrounding, RFC 920, I do have some recollections from
earlier and subsequent periods.  Given those recollections, and
what 920 actually says, I find it fairly difficult to believe
that any part of that RFC was motivated by a name-space-division
agreement between Jon and/or the ICCB/IAB and a collection of
operators of systems based on OSI or other protocols.   Note
that the first real section of 920 ("The Purpose of Domains")
says:

	The purpose and expected use of domains is to divide the
	name management required of a central administration and
	assign it to sub-administrations.  There are no
	geographical, topological, or technological constraints
	on a domain. The hosts in a domain need not have common
	hardware or software, nor even common protocols.

This doesn't sound to me like the sort of name space subdivision
that Jefsey indicates occurred.   If such an agreement did exist
and 920 documented that agreement, it would be most unusual for
920 to avoid calling it out.

I hope that Joyce will comment on her recollections when she
considers that appropriate.

(ii) As a DNS name allocation policy document, RFC 920 was
effectively superceded by RFC 1591.   I was involved in the
formulation and writing of 1591, as were several people who I
assume follow this list.  I am certain that there were no
discussions during that process about any commitments to name
space constraints or divisions as the result of prior
international agreements.

      john

---

From: Peter Deutsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 14:24:38 -0700

g'day,

Several folks have commented on the part of Dave's message
referring to Karl's lawsuit but I didn't see any response to
his opening remarks, which I think are actually more
relevant for this list.

> should pay attention to are collisions within the IANA/ICANN DNS.

Without passing judgement on the quality of any single
request for interaction I can't see how, given the mandate
that ICANN claims for itself, it can be argued that ICANN
can or should ignore requests for interaction from folks not
already under the tent.

From their website:

"ICANN has been recognized by the U.S. and other governments
as the global consensus entity to coordinate the technical
management of the Internet's domain name system,..."

Are you actually saying that if someone comes up with a
relevant idea outside the scope of ICANN's current efforts
they can and should ignore it? By this train logic you could
argue that the IETF should also "literally ignore
independent activities". Work with the ITU? Nah, that might
harm the Internet. Work with W3C? Nope, too destabilizing to
what's already in place for HTTP. You seem to be arguing
that because  we can assume that at least some of those
requests for interaction are going to be a waste of time, we
need to ignore them all...

> obligated to first do pre hoc coordination with ICANN?

This reasoning leads to a classic "Catch-22". You want to do
something not relevant to a large enough portion of the
community, or for which benefits are not yet visible or
quantifiable, so you can't get sign-on and traction within
the larger umbrella organization. But if you elect to work
independently, you will then be barred from "returning to
the fold", because you aren't already part of the ICANN
sphere of influence before you started. Sounds like a recipe
for stagnation and a guarantee that such an organization
becomes an impediment to innovation, if you ask me...

In contrast, folks come to the IETF with work at various
stages of completion seeking interactions. In some cases it
makes sense to say "sorry, not relevant or worth the effort
on our part" but in some cases interaction takes place, even
if the work was begun, or even completed, completely outside
the scope of the IETF. What should matter is the relevance
of the work to the organization's mandate, and the impact
such work might have compared to other that might get done.

You certainly can't assume a priori that you will never
interact with the rest of the world just because they didn't
get started under your particular umbrella because you can't
assume any organization or single group of people have a
lock on good ideas. In the case of ICANN, which specifically
has a mandate to be a coordinating and consensus-building
body, I find your assertion that it should *never* attempt
coordination with anyone not already inside the tent to be a
recipte for harm, to say the least, since it would encourage
schisms and prevent access to good ideas that might be
germinated outside your own particular hothouse.

Note, I don't suggest that you need to guarantee a
favourable reception to every person who attempts to crawl
under the tent, but to claim that it might be appropriate to
ban *any* interactions with outsiders is breathtaking in its
hubris. I do hope I'm missing something here, Dave...

				- peterd

-- 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Peter Deutsch                       [email-masked]
    Gydig Software

         "Mr. Fawlty! Me no want to work here any more!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 14:32:37 -0700

At 12:08 PM 8/1/2002 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>  He is

(Why is it that someone who claims such a major victory finds it necessary 
to engage in such non-stop hyperbole and misirection?)

Actually, I was "parroting" reports from MSNBC, CNET, and other news 
agencies.  They summarized the facts of the Judge's decision.  And the 
Judge's tentative ruling summarizes the relevant facts leading in to the 
case.

Correlating  between what ICANN wanted back then and what Karl is 
permitted, now, is not all that difficult.

In particular, the two points I cited stand out:

         The reports are consistent in citing that Karl review only paper 
copies at the ICANN offices and that Karl give 10 day's notice.

         Those were the two factual points that I made.

Perhaps Karl can explain how all of  his media buddies got it so wrong?

d/

----------

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 17:46:59 -0400 (EDT)

> to do so. Lengthy legal details at:

well i hate to say in the end the legal argument amount to alot of
jibberish.  i appreciate your hard work on behalf of the community but
your idea of control is flawed.  thats what happens when one spends more
time looking at law and misses the technical details.  everyone has made
that mistake.

the "." is in the control of the end users.  thats who has always been in
charge of ".".  the DOC is irrelevant with respect to control.  it's a
consumer choice.

now if every government on this planet wants to regulate what *.* their
users use - then i say fine - thats an experiment i would love to see
happen.  better then the fireworks i see all the time at del crary park.

but failing that complete technical control of "." is in the hands of the
internets end users.  thats where the power in "." resides.

regards
joe baptista

---

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 17:48:54 -0400 (EDT)

I translate this to mean that (1) we can point to any root we want (true,
but not real relevant for Joe Clueless User) and/or (2) the root servers
could choose to mirror something other thand the DOC root (true in theory
but not real likely in practice, cf. discussion of root server operators
in
http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/formandsubstance.pdf

[My last comment on this thread today, I promise]

-- 
**NOTE: 7/31-8/14 law.miami.edu will have random downtime due to
"network upgrades".  Mail will bounce, and www.law.tm will 404.**

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 14:53:08 -0700

At 05:17 PM 8/1/2002 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>to do so.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practise.

In practise, there is.

d/

----------

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 20:53:32 -0400

>adopted by the court.  The court granted my motion for summary judgement.  

both parties requested summary judgment

>to them back in September of last year.

no, ICANN would have preferred to stick with the procedures that were
established. However it seems appropriate to point out that the principal
difference between the procedures adopted by ICANN's audit committee and
the procedures recommended by the court differed primarily in the manner
in which differences of opinion as to the releasability of material 
considered confidential by ICANN would be settled. ICANN recommended an
internal procedure that, if not agreed by the director wishing to release
them, would then be settled in court. Your proposal, that was recommended
with one modification by the court, required ICANN to seek judicial remedy
if given a 10 day warning, it disagreed with the director's proposal to 
release. In your original proposal you suggested a 7 day period. 

>bind and gag a Director has been made equally vacuous.

Karl, restrictions are still there. If a director wishes to release
information held to be confidential by ICANN, ICANN has a 10 day period in 
which to seek judicial review and restraint. At least that is the way I
understand the order.

>ICANN management purveys.

Karl, even under the procedures adopted by ICANN to accommodate full review
while protecting confidential information allowed you and any director full 
access to corporate records. The court did NOT validate unlimited ability of
any director to unilaterally release confidential information. In no case did
ICANN seek to restrict actual access to documents but only to assure proper
assessment of the releasability of anything considered confidential.

>August 2 - a mere 20 months after I first requested them.

some material is not deliverable but only viewable/copyable at the ICANN site.

vint

>                --karl--

Vint Cerf
SVP Architecture & Technology
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 18:28:51 -0700

vint,

so tell me, vint.  maybe i am bit slow here, but.  as icann is a
shepherd of the public trust, other than personnel data, which are
obviously confidential, why is icann not fiscally and procedurally
transparent?  why did there need to be any of this pool-pah in the
first place?  was there a critical shortage of controversy?

randy

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 21:32:13 -0400

karl's initial request was for unlimited access (fine) AND ability to release without limit any material he saw fit. ICANN responded with a procedure to protect confidentiality. Karl never took advantage of that (others did) but instead sued. I would note that his position as to access/release changed, at least as I understand it, after the suit was filed.

Vint

Vint Cerf

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 18:46:47 -0700

> karl's initial request was for unlimited access (fine) AND
> ability to release without limit any material he saw fit. ICANN
> responded with a procedure to protect confidentiality. Karl never
> took advantage of that (others did) but instead sued. I would
> note that his position as to access/release changed, at least as
> I understand it, after the suit was filed.

these are details of yet another cat fight into which icann has
wandered in its ever-unsatisfied desire for pool-pah.  i was trying
to look above that.  what fiscal or procedural matters of icann
(other than personnel data, which are usually well-protected
anyway) preclude simple transparency?  why don't you just simply
publish the stuff at a detailed level on the web [0]?

randy

---

[0] - e.g. afnog's financial *details*, not summary, down to the
      dollar are on a public web site.  e.g.
      <http://www.nsrc.org/AFNOG-2000-Final.html>
      <http://www.nsrc.org/AFNOG-2001-Final.html>
      i don't think 2002 is finalized yert

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 03:21:00 +0200

> > predominately on USA-based organisations.

Bruce perfectly rendered what I said and what is the RFC 920: an historic 
record of what had been agreed or contracted with "other systems" (cf. RFC 
921).

The only interest if that it puts that contracts on the records: WorldCom 
is not able to find back - up to now - the contract which registered 
"arapa" with the FCC licensed value added carrier Tymnet. It is true it was 
for the US namespace but through the FCC licensed IRCs' interconnect 
agreements in the common frame of the ITU treaties, it was into 
tInternational namspace.

However, this whole thread is related to the IETF/ICANN position IRT the 
alt(sic)root. So, to the ICP-3 doctrine which claims its legitimacy from 
being permanent since a starting point : "The DNS was originally deployed 
in the mid-1980s" with a link to  the RFC 921. RFC 921 describes the DNS 
implementation according to the RFC 920 rules description.

I have no position on a matter I consider as totally outdated. But I 
observe that today everything is hampered at the DNSO and at the IETF (in 
spite of efforts of many of who you are a leading figure) due to a 
confusion between the DNS system and the public domain it applies to.

So I say:

- either we want to be religious about it like ICP-3, then we must accept 
that ICANN's lelgtimacy comes from the registration of the ".arpa" domain 
under standard FCC terms with the rights and constraints reported in RFC 
920. This will have some impacts on ccTLD, NSI contract and willl gives 
different legitimacies to the at(sic)root.

- or (as Bruce calls for it) we drop all this blablabla and we start 
talking about serious technical issues (my solution 4) through a clean 
sheet analysis of the technical problems at hand. I only suggest we do not 
forget all this, to not repeat the same mistake of forgetting about ITU 
world. As a network we are more concerned by ITU than by WIPO!

I am interested in DNS.2, DNS+ and the service of the users service. Not in 
old disputes. Am I wrong?

>(i) While I was not involved in the discussions leading up to, or 
>surrounding, RFC 920, I do have some recollections from earlier and 
>subsequent periods.  Given those recollections, and what 920 actually 
>says, I find it fairly difficult to believe that any part of that RFC was 
>motivated by a name-space-division agreement between Jon and/or the 
>ICCB/IAB and a collection of operators of systems based on OSI or other 
>protocols.

Who talks about OSI and protocols? Let have fun at "com/net" coined as a 
joke in Heindhoven (NL) to be NSI's billions :-)

We talk about the monthly bill of the "arpa" account - under FCC approved 
rates - which included for free my support of a few British, Argentinean or 
Japanese people wanting to access "the nets" though their local data service.

But we are also talking of some, puting things in jeopardy on silly 
pretensions. We are blocked for 2 years for some projects in Europe because 
ICANN wants to "negotiate" the 100 chars of ".eu" in the master file.

I am very polite and patient, but this is crazy, all the more when you know 
the joke the use of ISO 3166 2 letters codes comes from...

>I hope that Joyce will comment on her recollections when she considers 
>that appropriate.
>
>(ii) As a DNS name allocation policy document, RFC 920 was effectively 
>superceded by RFC 1591.

Respectfully, this is no UDRP. The good faith in managing "arpa" is not 
questioned. The point is just that a domain name has been rgeistered, not 
the whole registry purchased. It was a license, not the code..

>I was involved in the formulation and writing of 1591, as were several 
>people who I assume follow this list.  I am certain that there were no 
>discussions during that process about any commitments to name space 
>constraints or divisions as the result of prior international agreements.

I know... a very good RFC for the network, but which left ccTLDs and Govs 
without common guidelines. This disinterest is usual with value added 
customers: you do not commit to any agreement, you respect the way the 
treaties and regulating bodies have established. But when you grow you 
happen to share in this.

This is what ICANN tries to sort now. Mike Robert's letter to Govs, GAC 
involvement, call of Stuart Lynn, ITU increasing involvement, China, EU, 
today's protestation to the DoC.

But IMHO this is not IETF cup of tea anymore?
jfc

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:01:12 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, vinton g. cerf wrote:

> karl's initial request was for unlimited access (fine) AND ability to
>release without limit any material he saw fit. ICANN responded with a
>procedure to protect confidentiality. Karl never took advantage of that
>(others did) but instead sued. I would note that his position as to
>access/release changed, at least as I understand it, after the suit was
>filed.

i hear the scredders humming - sounds like stereo - icann at one end of
the country, the doc at the other.

daddy vinton while we watch the show will there be milk and cookies?

vint - i feel sorry for ya.  good luck.

regards
joe baptista

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 19:38:21 -0700

At 06:46 PM 8/1/2002 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>wandered in its ever-unsatisfied desire for pool-pah.

Randy, are any of the other players in this bit of opera ever responsible 
for creating the problems?  Does it matter that such folk have no interest 
in serious discussion and compromise?

Does it matter that we get assertions of fact that are proved wrong, are 
then re-asserted and again proven to be wrong, only to THEN have someone 
switch the topic and start blaming ICANN for pool-pah, whatever the heck it is?

In other words, does it matter that the only real public activity that 
folks participate in with ICANN is to attack it.  Sort of like you seem 
inclined to do this week.

Do personnel matters matter?  Should ICANN worry about protecting 
them?  (And, no, your glib reference to the them is not enough, 
Randy.  ICANN is faced with a Board member who is consistently and wholly 
rogue.  That creates a rather significant challenge, unless ICANN chooses 
to act only after Karl causes whatever damage he can.)

Do contractual matters matter?  Will living in a pure fishbowl affect 
contracts?  (Hint:  The answer is yes.)

Given that nearly all the folks dealing with ICANN seem inclined either 
towards hyper-politics or hyper-criticism, what are the chances that 100% 
transparency will cripple what little is left of ICANN's ability to get any 
work done at all.  (Hint:  The answer is 100%)

Or, perhaps, we all ought to remember that ICANN is supposed to pay some 
attention to an activity of critical infrastructure and ought to be allowed 
an occasional ability to focus on such matters.

And since you seem to be fond of citing Jon's method of managing that 
infrastructure, perhaps you will take note that he balanced community 
discussion with private discussion.  He did not conduct all of that 
oversight in a fishbowl.

d/

----------

---

From: Gordon Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 23:02:28 -0400

Dave Crocker got the rebuke from karl and michael froomkin he so 
richly deserved.  It's too bad you had to come to his defense.

>karl's initial request was for unlimited access (fine) AND ability 
>to release without limit any material he saw fit.

Vint you are mistaken.  please document you assertion.  I have 
followed karls statements very carefully and he has been extremely 
careful to say that he never asserted such a right.  Cite your source 
please.

>  ICANN responded with a procedure to protect confidentiality.

it took ICANN 10 months to come up with a procedure that had karl 
signed it would have been an effective gag order

>  Karl never took advantage of that (others did)

I understand there was one other  a director named davidson who 
signed and then  looked at the records, said golly gee i  don't see 
anything here karl you just aren't a team player.   well VINT no 
kidding karl sure isn't a team player.....  he was elected on a 
platform that ICANN need to be cleaned up.

>  but instead sued. I would note that his position as to 
>access/release changed, at least as I understand it, after the suit 
>was filed.
>
>Vint

I am sure he will speak for himself but it is my understanding that 
his position on release of records NEVER changed.

Karl gets records in  non confidential records that are in electronic 
form tomorrow VINT,   records ICANN considers 'confidential' he will 
inspect on sight.  I think it will be interesting to see whether the 
general ledger is withheld as confidential.

BUT VINT, lets look at the court record OK rather than make 
convenient but erroneous assertions.

Having considered the applicable law and the undisputed facts 
presented herein, the court concludes that paragraphs 3, 5, and 6 of 
the [ICANN] Inspection Procedures conflict with section 6334 and Art. 
V, §21 of the Bylaws by unreasonably restricting directors' access to 
corporate records and depriving directors of inspection rights 
afforded them by law.

Cook:  Vint, that is the judge saying ICANN's procedures were illegal.

Furthermore, Lynn's 10/5/01 letter violates both section 6334 and 
Bylaws Article V, Section 21 because it deprives Auerbach of the 
inspection rights he has under law and imposes such unreasonable 
requirements as having to sign a confidentiality agreement and having 
to pursue burdensome review in any effort to enforce his inspection 
rights.

Additionally, the Inspection Procedures here apparently have not even 
been adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors, but were promulgated by 
an ad hoc group of functionaries consisting of the Audit Committee, 
Louis Touton, Diane Schroeder, and Lynn (Auerbach Dec. Ex. 17, 18, 
21).

Cook: Vint:  sounds like the judge is saying that the procedures you 
are complaining about were never taken up by the board of which you 
are chair but were promulgated by ICANN staff.

Sad to see you defending this charade.

the judge concluded:

Based on the undisputed facts, there is no triable issue as to any 
material fact and Petitioner Auerbach is entitled to judgment as a 
matter of law granting his Petition for Writ of Mandate.

Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

A Writ shall issue, the terms to be determined at the hearing after argument.

====
Vint you should download the PDF cited by Michael Froomkin which

-- 
========================================================
The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609)
882-2572 (phone & fax) [email-masked]  Subscription info & 
prices at   http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml    Summary of 
content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml 
Here Comes Asset Based Telecom
A 120 page  - Aug Sept issue available at http://cookreport.com/11.05-6.shtml
========================================================

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 00:07:16 -0400 (EDT)

> work done at all.  (Hint:  The answer is 100%)

sounds broken.

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:04:28 -0400

ICANN may receive information from vendors, for example, that is considered 
proprietary - that deserves protection as much as personnel information.

An enormous amount of ICANN material is published on the web - more, I imagine,
than a great many other non-profit organizations.

vint

Vint Cerf

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 21:13:39 -0700

> ICANN may receive information from vendors, for example, that is
> considered proprietary - that deserves protection as much as
> personnel information.

understood.  i am sure you can find at least three other obscure
and uninteresting examples of information which needs to be
confidential.  red herring.

please point us to *detailed* financial disclosure.  again, take a
look at the afnog reports, down to who flew where when.

> An enormous amount of ICANN material is published on the web -
> more, I imagine, than a great many other non-profit
> organizations.

and less than a great many.  but icann is not just a non-profit.
it is the shepherd for a global public trust.  its disclosure
transparency should be in the top 1%.  transparency dispells
distrust as no amount of email and pontification can.  icann should
try it.

randy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 21:55:06 -0700

At 09:13 PM 8/1/2002 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>transparency dispells

Randy, evidently you have not been paying much attention.  No about of 
action from ICANN has been acceptable.  No amount of 
inaction.  Ever.  Everything has been used solely as grist for the 
criticism mill.

As you call for ICANN to be in the top 1%, make sure you are comparing it 
to the right sampling of organizations.  Name some other organizations that 
not only have global infrastructure responsibilities, but organizations 
that have those responsibilities and are subject to such constant abuse and 
politicization.

d/

----------

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 00:49:23 -0700

I cannot help but observe:

A simple rule of thumb with which to read the enclosed message is;
If you want top know what your opponent  is doing,
listen carefully to what he says (in public) about what you are doing;-)...

The enclosed message tells us very clearly what ICANN is actually doing.

Enjoy the translation;-)...\Stef

PS:  Yes, spinning the truth into falsity is a fascinating game...\S

At 7:38 PM -0700 8/1/02, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Randy, are any of the other players in this bit of opera ever 
>responsible for creating the problems?  Does it matter that such 
>folk have no interest in serious discussion and compromise?
>
>Does it matter that we get assertions of fact that are proved wrong, 
>are then re-asserted and again proven to be wrong, only to THEN have 
>someone switch the topic and start blaming ICANN for pool-pah, 
>whatever the heck it is?
>
>In other words, does it matter that the only real public activity 
>that folks participate in with ICANN is to attack it.  Sort of like 
>you seem inclined to do this week.
>
>Randy.  ICANN is faced with a Board member who is consistently and 
>wholly rogue.  That creates a rather significant challenge, unless 
>ICANN chooses to act only after Karl causes whatever damage he can.)
>
>Do contractual matters matter?  Will living in a pure fishbowl 
>affect contracts?  (Hint:  The answer is yes.)
>
>Given that nearly all the folks dealing with ICANN seem inclined 
>either towards hyper-politics or hyper-criticism, what are the 
>chances that 100% transparency will cripple what little is left of 
>ICANN's ability to get any work done at all.  (Hint:  The answer is 
>100%)
>
>Or, perhaps, we all ought to remember that ICANN is supposed to pay 
>some attention to an activity of critical infrastructure and ought 
>to be allowed an occasional ability to focus on such matters.
>
>And since you seem to be fond of citing Jon's method of managing 
>that infrastructure, perhaps you will take note that he balanced 
>community discussion with private discussion.  He did not conduct 
>all of that oversight in a fishbowl.
>
>d/
>
>----------

---

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:44:28 -0400 (EDT)

> both parties requested summary judgment

Yes.  And almost all of ICANN's was denied, and almost all of Karl's
granted.  Your point being?

[...]
> considered confidential by ICANN would be settled. ICANN recommended an

To the extent this is an accurate identification of the "principle"
difference, it is also one where the differnce between the two views is
substantial, and ICANN had its head handed to it on a plate.

At INET, I tried to warn you this would happen.  You clearly had been
advised otherwise.  That was very bad advice.  You were so bought into it
that you wouldn't even take the time to listen to *why* I thought what I
thought.  That was not prudent.

> release. In your original proposal you suggested a 7 day period. 

This is what we in the legal profession would call a sop for ICANN.  If
your lawyers are telling you differently, I submit you are again badly
advised.

> which to seek judicial review and restraint. At least that is the way I

True.  More importantly, a director has --and has at all relevant times
had -- an independent, personal, duty to act in his best understanding of
what's best for the entity.  That is one which the law doesn't allow him
to delegate.  Or sign away, as ICANN proposed.

> any director to unilaterally release confidential information. In no case did

Nor did Karl assert that non-existent unlimited right to release anything.
Rather he asserted his stautory right to exercise independent judgment,
rather than having it illegally constrained by a proceedure adopted in
violation of both law and ICANN's by-laws.  Doesn't that finding bother
you?  Illegal.  Violation of by-laws.  Doesn't it make you wonder whether
other things you have been told by the same people who drafted this
illegal document are within the by-laws might not be? Wouldn't it be
prudent to worry about that now?  Once bitten, twice shy?

The "unlimited right" you mention was never part of the case.  Your
lawyers tried to create this straw man.  It was clearly falsified by the
evidence, and the judge didn't waste any time on it.  If this is what your
lawyers told you the case is about, as opposed to it merely being a
desperation litigation tactic ("blacken the enemey"), which is what it
looked like, then you have been very badly advised.  I suggest you read
Karl's pleadings.  Or have an outside lawyer not affiliated with this
proceeding, or with your current advisors' law firm, read them.  And also
the trial transcript. Then have a very serious and frank discussion with
your professional advisors.

> assessment of the releasability of anything considered confidential.

The law provides for this already in the duties that constrain directors.
Karl went the extra mile before the suit was filed, offering 7 days notice
before disclosure.  The law does not require that (although it's a
sensible and prudent thing for a director to offer under these
circumstances). The court said, 'make it 10'.  

> some material is not deliverable but only viewable/copyable at the ICANN site.

I trust that ICANN will make every effort to be cooperative and to
implement both the letter and the spirit of the court's order.  It would
be nice to hear you say that.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 14:06:25 -0400

> US Dept. of Commerce. 

The US DoC may claim that role, but they have no right to it.
The Internet is international, not some plaything of the US government.

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:24:28 -0500

Thus spake "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>
> The Internet is international, not some plaything of the US government.

The US DoC operates, directly or indirectly, 6 of the 13 root servers, including
A.  Whether it is "right" or not is irrelevant -- the DoC has the power to do
whatever it wants to the root.

S

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 14:33:23 -0400

> The US DoC operates, directly or indirectly, 6 of the 13 root servers,
> including A.  Whether it is "right" or not is irrelevant -- the DoC has 
> the power to do whatever it wants to the root.

we REALLY need to rectify that situation.  perhaps what we need are large
numbers of alternate roots that DON'T try to define new TLDs but which
exist solely to prevent the US government from exerting control...

Keith

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:00:55 -0400 (EDT)

> exist solely to prevent the US government from exerting control...

bingo - have i just seen a sign of intellegent life on the planet?  praise
god.

of course one must also consider the security issues

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200204/msg00123.html

regards
joe baptista

---

From: Peter Deutsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 12:07:13 -0700

> exist solely to prevent the US government from exerting control...

Oh, great - you've just proposed an alternate root!!!  :-)
:-) :-)

|
                                                           /
\
                                                         
/   \
                                                        
/     \
                                                          
|||
                                                          
|||
                                                          
|||
                                                          
|||
                                                          
|||
                                                       
|||||||||

				- peterd

--

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:10:21 -0400 (EDT)

> [My last comment on this thread today, I promise]

or 3) joe clueless gets an education and switches to an appropriate route.
i was once a joe clueless long before you joined the picture along with
the other 300 million users who are online today.  you too were a joe
clueless once and now you have gratuated to froomkin cluedin.

i admit - these days most of the internet population is very juvenile.
most of you are in your pre teens in terms of internet development age.
but that will change - alot of froomkin clued in types are on the way.

so don't ever discount joe clueless or be so presumptive as to discount
them.  as i have said - and as it has been cleared shown - control of the
"." is in the hands of joe clueless internet users - so in the end they
hold the power irrespective of law.

regards
joe

---

From: Peter Deutsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 12:11:14 -0700

Oh bother, the word wrapping spoiled my ASCII art. Let me
have one more try at it...

			- peterd

Peter Deutsch wrote:
> Oh, great - you've just proposed an alternate root!!!  

:-) :-) :-)

     |
    / \
   /   \
  /     \
    |||
    |||
    |||
    |||
    ||| 
 |||||||||

--

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:11:29 -0500

> exist solely to prevent the US government from exerting control...

Let's not forget you wouldn't have an Internet without the US Govt.

IMHO, we should elminate (or at least close) all of the gTLDs except "arpa" and
"int" and let each country handle its own ccTLD however it sees fit.  With the
exception of the .au mess, I haven't seen any ccTLD policy decision come out of
IANA/ICANN which was remotely questionable.

As much as everyone loves bashing the US Govt, I don't see anything the DoC has
done which wasn't in the interests of the Internet community.  I think we can
all imagine how things would look if we handed the root over to ISO, or the ITU,
or the UN, or some other similarly "qualified" international organization.

S

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:30:02 -0400

> Let's not forget you wouldn't have an Internet without the US Govt.

the way it happened, the US Gov't played a fundamental role.  but 
something like the Internet would have happened anyway because all 
of the pieces were in place.  without the US Government projects
it might have taken longer for some technology to emerge as the 
leader.  but there were other similar technologies being developed 
elsewhere.  something like the Internet was bound to happen.

> As much as everyone loves bashing the US Govt, I don't see anything the DoC
> has done which wasn't in the interests of the Internet community.  

if they'd been acting in the Internet community's interests then NSI
would have lost control of the root years ago.

> I think we can all imagine how things would look if we handed the root 
> over to ISO, or the ITU, or the UN, or some other similarly "qualified" 
> international organization.

It's not difficult to imagine a better result from say ITU than the current 
ICANN.  And I don't say that out of admiration for ITU...

I was supportive of the idea of ICANN, and I still support ICANN reform
as the most likely way of solving the current set of problems - not that 
I see any sign of such reform happening.   But ICANN has still been a huge
disappointment, and at this point I think it will be very difficult for 
ICANN to gain the trust that it needs in order to work effectively.

Of course part of the disappointment comes from ICANN's having to deal with 
the organizational structure that was forced on it.  And that is are largely 
due to efforts and influence of the US Government. Such influence was 
hardly in the interest of Internet users.

Keith

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:31:33 -0400

> or 3) joe clueless gets an education and switches to an appropriate route.

Now, much as I would love to be able to advocate a "network driver's license",
it's pretty unreasonable to expect that a person learn about the ORSC/ICANN
battle to understand why he can't reach http://www.walmart.com

Or are you also advocating that they understand BGP so they know what happens
to their packets?

Or did you want them to be able to Just Hit Enter and actually have it WORK?

> hold the power irrespective of law.

It's never been "shown" to my knowledge.  Keep in mind that a large part of
the user community thinks the root is called .AOL

% dig . ns | grep 'IN       A' | awk '{print "root@"$1}'
[email-masked].
[email-masked].
[email-masked].
[email-masked].
[email-masked].
[email-masked].
[email-masked].
[email-masked].
[email-masked].
[email-masked].
[email-masked].
[email-masked].
[email-masked].

That's who *REALLY* controls '.'.  I doubt any of them qualify as "Joe Clueless"

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 12:51:03 -0700

When Ira Magaziner, on behalf of the US government, unilaterally declared
the US had the right and responsibility to "privatize" the Internet, no
foreign government made any complaints that I'm aware of.  In fact, I
suspect they were happy to have someone to blame.

Water under the bridge.

On 8/2/02 11:06 AM, "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> -
> This message was passed through [email-masked], which
> is a sublist of [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed.
> Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:01:02 -0400 (EDT)

> battle to understand why he can't reach http://www.walmart.com

well the orsc does see walmart ... even when .com went off air, we were
surfing.

> Or did you want them to be able to Just Hit Enter and actually have it WORK?

no need for all of that. just follow instructions.  if they can bake
from a recepie book they have the power to master and control access
to namespace. which see

http://www.pacroot/updatedns.shtml

or if your on the limited usg namespace - try

http://www.pacificroot.com/updatedns.shtml

> % dig . ns | grep 'IN       A' | awk '{print "root@"$1}'

how novel ... i remember that one from 5 years ago.  hows it been going
over there ... i use this one ...

.                       172800  IN      NS      GROOT.PACROOT.
.                       172800  IN      NS      MROOT.PACROOT.
.                       172800  IN      NS      OROOT.PACROOT.
.                       172800  IN      NS      SROOT.PACROOT.
.                       172800  IN      NS      TROOT.PACROOT.
.                       172800  IN      NS      AROOT.PACROOT.
.                       172800  IN      NS      BROOT.PACROOT.
.                       172800  IN      NS      CROOT.PACROOT.
.                       172800  IN      NS      DROOT.PACROOT.

and i also know this one works

.                       518400  IN      NS      NY.ALTERNIC.ORG.
.                       518400  IN      NS      NY.KASHPUREFF.ORG.
.                       518400  IN      NS      UK.DNSPROS.NET.
.                       518400  IN      NS      GA.AKULA.COM.
.                       518400  IN      NS      NY.DNSPROS.NET.

we also have born

.                       86400   IN      NS      b.root.tld-nic.net.
.                       86400   IN      NS      a.root.tld-nic.net.

lets not forget some of icanns friends at idns

.                       518400  IN      NS      C.I-DNS.NET.
.                       518400  IN      NS      D.I-DNS.NET.
.                       518400  IN      NS      A.I-DNS.NET.
.                       518400  IN      NS      B.I-DNS.NET.

and who can leave out new.net - which claims 20% resolution of the planet

.                       518400  IN      NS      NS3.NEWDOTNET.NET.
.                       518400  IN      NS      NS1.NEWDOTNET.NET.
.                       518400  IN      NS      NS2.NEWDOTNET.NET.

the anarchist at opennic are still there

.                       518400  IN      NS      ns2.opennic.glue.
.                       518400  IN      NS      ns3.opennic.glue.
.                       518400  IN      NS      ns4.opennic.glue.
.                       518400  IN      NS      ns6.opennic.glue.
.                       518400  IN      NS      ns7.opennic.glue.
.                       518400  IN      NS      ns8.opennic.glue.
.                       518400  IN      NS      ns0.opennic.glue.
.                       518400  IN      NS      ns1.opennic.glue.
.                       518400  IN      NS      ns10.opennic.glue.
.                       518400  IN      NS      ns11.opennic.glue.

and the orsc has been mentioned on the list many times.

.                       172800  IN      NS      G.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
.                       172800  IN      NS      H.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
.                       172800  IN      NS      I.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
.                       172800  IN      NS      J.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
.                       172800  IN      NS      A.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
.                       172800  IN      NS      B.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
.                       172800  IN      NS      C.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
.                       172800  IN      NS      E.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.
.                       172800  IN      NS      F.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC.

i'm sure i left out alot more.

> That's who *REALLY* controls '.'.  I doubt any of them qualify as "Joe Clueless"

what we have clarified here is who does not control '.' - no monopoly
exists on '.' - and that in the end joe clueless has the power to control
namespace.

and we should start respecting that and get our stories straight so
that when joe clueless clues in were ready.  we don't want to end up
looking foolish - do we?

regards
joe baptista

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:20:47 -0400 (EDT)

> > The Internet is international, not some plaything of the US government.

the excuses and appologies begin.  lets clarify this.  no one in the us
government appropriately briefed anyone about the ramifications or
security issues behind the root. don't you know someone who knows someone
who knew jon postel and may have provided assistance when postel
highjacked the root from root server A to F.  maybe highjacked is too
strong a term .. i think the appologists claimed it was an experiment.

the only excuse i'll accept is outright ignorance on the part of the
United States Government administration and executive branches.  i do
beleive they had no idea how explosive control of root would be and the
power behind the root.

but the postel experiment of highjacking the root from A to F should of
alerted someone in the loop that the potential security implications and
potential privacy violations were immense when one controlled root.

the postel god is dead and the fools who would crown themselves are
drowning.  we have been left without leaders to root.  icann could of been
it but now it is too late.

i was consulted recently by one of doc's pacs on icann.  one of the
question i got back was if i were to save icann how would i go about it.
the only honest answer to that was that it could not be saved.  it's
simply too late and there are too many special interests at ICANN & DOC
trying to shield themselves from liability.

and these special interests are desparately trying to sell the icann lemon
to world governments for no better reason then to limit legal liability
and responsibility - this while corporate america starts jailing
executives.  the tension is high.  the risks are great ... and were
watching the end of the show.

regards
joe

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 16:22:47 -0400

> foreign government made any complaints that I'm aware of. 

perhaps they knew better than to cater to his delusions by responding to 
them at all.

Keith

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:55:09 -0700 (PDT)

% security issues behind the root. don't you know someone who knows someone
% who knew jon postel and may have provided assistance when postel
% highjacked the root from root server A to F.  maybe highjacked is too
% strong a term .. i think the appologists claimed it was an experiment.

	It did not go to "F"
	
--bill

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:59:39 -0400 (EDT)

> % strong a term .. i think the appologists claimed it was an experiment.

where did it go?

joe

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:01:29 -0700

At 3:31 PM -0400 8/2/02, [email-masked] wrote:
[snip]...[snip]... [snip]...[snip]... [snip]...[snip]... [snip]...[snip]...

>That's who *REALLY* controls '.'.  I doubt any of them qualify as 

No Way does the world think that .AOL is the root.

Maybe they think that .AOL.COM is the only useful domain name, but 
even AOL was too dumb to figure out that getting .AOL would solve a 
lot of the problems they have trying to round up the likes of AOL.BR, 
and such.

There is nothing wrong with .AOL and .IBM and .MSN solving their DNS 
registry problems by getting TLDs for themselves, as compared with 
warping ICANN into a protection device for the Intellectual 
Properties that use their trademarks.
but, AOL is missing lots of things so none of this is even slightly odd.

Cheers...\Stef

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:09:54 -0400 (EDT)

> lot of the problems they have trying to round up the likes of AOL.BR,

exactly.  namespace is a very large place - there's room for everyone.

> but, AOL is missing lots of things so none of this is even slightly odd.

a nice perfect way of organizing namespace.  you look sort of like vint.
a little plastic surgery and bingo ... the orsc can replace you with vint
at icann.  thats one way of saving icann .. put you in charge - but it's
only going to happen covertly.  maybe the cia would like to save the
reputation of the USG and covertly put you in charge as vint.

regards
joe

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 14:10:53 -0700

Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> writes:

> action from ICANN has been acceptable.  No amount of inaction.  Ever.
> Everything has been used solely as grist for the criticism mill.

This argument is completely bogus.  It's semantically equivalent to
arguing that ICANN is being unfairly criticized and using as the
foundation of your argument the assertion that the criticism of ICANN is
unfair.

Your words only make sense to someone who already believes that ICANN has
gone to heroic efforts to try to satisfy their criticism.  If you believe
that ICANN has put almost all of its energy into obfuscation and
attempting to avoid public accountability, then this argument obviously
isn't persuasive since ICANN has, by that belief, never *tried* anything
effective to address criticism.  So of course what ICANN has done has not
been acceptable.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:13:09 -0700

>That's who *REALLY* controls '.'.  I doubt any of them qualify as 

Not so;-)...  "." is the total collection of all TLDs in what ORSC 
calls the Inclusive Root.

"." is just an abstraction, and it has no (other) name or management handle.

"." is, indeed, whatever DNS server that people point to with their 
local password controlled TCP/IP set-up panels and /etc files all 
around the Internet.

This is what creates one of the most responsive democratic 
technologies of all time.
I, and all other users of the Internet, get to vote early and often 
for our candidate for "." just as called for in the DNS standards.

And, there is no way that I can see for anyone, Govt or non-Govt, to 
control where Internet users choose to point for "." service.

So, at the bottom line, ICANN and DoC are only dreaming about 
controlling the use of domain names in the Internet.

Cheers...\Stef

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 17:38:52 -0400

> for our candidate for "." just as called for in the DNS standards.

*I* get to vote early and often. *You* get to vote early and often.  Most of
the other 50-60 frequent posters here get to vote early and often.  Most
of the 30,000 or whatever subscribers *probably* get to vote early and often.

The vast majority of the half a billion people online get their votes done via
DHCP'ed proxy by their ISP, early and often.

Anybody who's ever had to work a help desk and explain to a Windows user
which IP goes in the nameserver and which IP goes in the default gateway
knows that letting the users vote early and often is a guaranteed operational
nightmare.  That nightmare is why DHCP exists. ;)

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 17:52:05 -0400

> exactly.  namespace is a very large place - there's room for everyone.

no, that's just stupid. 

It never ceases to amaze me that people think that the solution for
ICANN is to create something even worse.

Keith

---

From: "Matt Larson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 18:02:37 -0400

> would have lost control of the root years ago.

Network Solutions (and its acquirer, VeriSign) do not "control the
root".  VeriSign Global Registry Services generates the root zone twice
a day, but the contents of the root zone do not change without the
blessing of the US DoC.

Matt
--
Matt Larson <[email-masked]>
VeriSign Global Registry Services

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 18:05:30 -0400

> a day, but the contents of the root zone do not change without the

and the US DoC makes sure that VeriSign continues to have a monopoly
on the most popular gTLDs and the ability to exact tribute from those 
who have names in those TLDs.  perfect arrangement.

Keith

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:27:03 -0700

>nightmare.  That nightmare is why DHCP exists. ;)

++++++++++++++++
Hi Valdis;-)...

So, most people give proxy rights to their ISP, or to Bill Gates, or 
Steve Case.

But, they don't give it to ICANN, or to ORSC, since ICANN and ORSC 
are candidates and are neither voters nor proxies.

So, control still goes to the voters who may or may not know what 
they are voting for.  So, what is news about that?   When, in your 
experience, did that stop happening?

The question was:
	Who has the controlling power, whether they use knowingly or not

Lots of people who care are voting for ORSC roots, which is their right to do.
And lots of people who care vote for ICANN.

That is all that matters in terms of discovering who has control of what.
ICANN does not have control of the voters, and neither does ORSC.

If one day the Internet Voters discover that they have control, if 
they will just exercise their rights, they just might start voting 
smart, instead of dumb as you suggest.

One way to get to this "smart" result is to let ICANN run its course 
without hindrance.  This is my favorite ploy;-)...  Just stand aside 
and let them run their course.  The finish line is a cliff, and they 
are most welcome, in my view, to win the race.  Especially so since 
they have so diligently tried to rig the race;-)...
Life does have it's little ironies, after all;-)...

And, after ICANN goes over the cliff, the Internet will survive just 
fine, as it has all through the ICANN debacle.

Long long ago, I tried to help ICANN, per request from Esther Dyson. 
She asked me to assist their new ICANN Public Relations Firm 
(Ogalvie&???).  So, I corresponded with them, but all I managed to do 
was warn them about stupid stuff, and help them to thus pull the wool 
over everyone's eyes.  So, I departed the scene and have since left 
them to flounder on their own power, in their race for the cliff.

At this point I consider ICANN more or less irrelevant, except that I 
feel strong urges to be sure I do not fall victim to domain slamming 
or hijacking under the flakey ICANN managed registrar processes.

So, I hope all y'all enjoy the race -- especially the finish;-)...\Stef

PS:  Just for fun, as a little reward for reading this far, you might 
want to read "Orwell's Revenge" as it tells a parallel story:

		http://www.phuber.com/huber/orwell/orwells.html

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:44:10 -0700

>foundation of your argument the assertion that the criticism of ICANN is

Evidently you have not had the pleasure of trying to conduct a constructive 
dialogue with someone who has no interest in constructive dialogue.

Instead, such folk look only for reasons to attack you.  They distort what 
you say.  They find conspiracy theories to explain your actions, 
independent of the facts.  And so on.

It is nothing like the tautology you suggest.

>that ICANN has put almost all of its energy into obfuscation and

Thank you for validating my characterization of the kinds of people ICANN 
must deal with.

d/

----------

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 16:09:46 -0700

Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> writes:

> Evidently you have not had the pleasure of trying to conduct a
> constructive dialogue with someone who has no interest in constructive
> dialogue.

> Instead, such folk look only for reasons to attack you.  They distort
> what you say.  They find conspiracy theories to explain your actions,

I can believe that all of this happens.

However, ICANN has now been found to be engaging in illegal activity to
obstruct the ability of an independent director to perform his oversight
responsibilities.  This has been established in a court of law.

That, as far as I'm concerned, pretty much puts a period at the end of the
argument.  ICANN is wrong.  End of story.  If they want to salvage
reputation after this, they're going to need to start *apologizing* for
their actions really fast, not trying to put some sort of Polyanna PR spin
on it in public fora.

> Thank you for validating my characterization of the kinds of people
> ICANN must deal with.

I had no opinion at all of ICANN for a very long time.  I'm generally in
favor of single-root DNS.  I think that any organization like ICANN is
going to have a very tough time of it.

I then started seeing more and more outlandish statements from ICANN
insiders.  Statements directly from them, not statements from their
opposition.  From that, I started developing a slowly more negative
opinion of ICANN.

Now this.  Now I have about the same opinion of ICANN that I have of any
other organization that uses illegal tactics to obscure the public
accountability of the organization.  And until I see a non-weaseling
apology and a clear change of direction from ICANN, that will likely
continue to be my opinion of them.

If this issue were really as minor as some ICANN defenders have claimed,
they would have made the whole thing go away many months ago.  That the
issue was apparently important enough to argue at this length in court
indicates to me that statements belittling its significance are quite
likely simple lies.

I'm still watching and listening and if someone can present evidence that
the legal decision was actually wrong, I can of course still change my
mind.  But the arguments presented on this mailing list by yourself and by
Vint Cerf are not doing that; rather, they are further cementing my
negative opinions of the organization.

You have absolutely no reason to care one whit what I think of ICANN, as
I'm a complete nobody in both the IETF and Internet operations world.  So
I'll go back to lurking now.  But really, if you're going to defend an
organization, please provide a real defense rather than circular
reasoning.  I would like to see more light cast on the argument, but
circular defenses are pure heat.

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 19:11:16 -0400 (EDT)

> them to flounder on their own power, in their race for the cliff.

i remember ... but you know so many people have mentioned ester was a
backstaber.  she's a pr girl.  and i'm sure we have seen all her
backpeddling pr blaming icann for this and that.  icann is begging to feed
on itself.

did they ever ask practical question while they held your ear - i.e.
security and privacy issues in root operations ... and the dangers to
operating a root?

regards
joe

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 16:29:34 -0700

> responsibilities.  This has been established in a court of law.

Someone has correctly pointed out to me that the activities were found to
be improper rather than illegal, or in other words civil rather than
criminal.  While this doesn't change my opinion, that's a valid point, and
my language was sloppy.  My apologies.

---

From: Gordon Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 20:31:18 -0400

>criminal.

Don't let them push you around with their efforts to confuse and 
obfuscate Russ.   what you were told is wrong.

Yes some infractions of law are regarded as less serious and are 
triable  as civil infractions other matters more serious are regarded 
as felonies and triable in criminal courts.  For something to be 
"illegal" it may  fall under either civil or criminal jurisdiction. 
Karl's suit is being heard in civil court.  The judge ruled that the 
actions of ICANN of which Vint Cerf is Chairperson of the Board of 
Directors unreasonably restricted "directors' access to corporate 
records and depriving directors of inspection rights afforded them by 
law."

That's not 'improper'  it's illegal.

When one is ticked for doing 40 mph in a 25 mph zone is one ticketed 
for improper speeding?  Or illegal speeding?

>  While this doesn't change my opinion, that's a valid point, and

You owe apologies to no one.  As Michael Froomkin wrote here earlier 
today to Vint Cerf:

Instead of a clear statement from Vint Cerf that ICANN will now act 
fully and gracefully  to carry out the directions of the Superior 
Court of Los Angeles, we have unknown list members (surely not Dave 
Crocker!?) skulking around convincing self admitted 'novices' that 
they have errored by using the term illegal when the action was 
really only 'improper'.

Please read 
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=883&mode=thread&order=0 on 
why ICANN should think twice before appealing

Why ICANN Has No Good-Faith Reason to Appeal
Posted by michael on Thursday, August 01 @ 09:10:52 MDT
Contributed by michael

ICANN has a few days left to decide whether to appeal and also seek 
to stay the California court order requiring it to turn over 
documents to Karl Auerbach. The appeal is as of right; if California 
works like the states I know about, the appellate court's stay of a 
trial court's order is discretionary, but not uncommon. The 
temptation to try to play out the clock must be intense since 
Auerbach's term ends soon, and ICANN has ensured that it will have no 
troublesome outsiders on its board in the future. But a new court 
decision issued two days ago demonstrates why ICANN's appeal would 
not be a sound legal decision.

On July 30, 2000 -- coincidentally one day after the decision in the 
Auerbach case -- a California court of appeal decided a case which 
demonstrates in conclusive terms why any appeal of the Auerbach 
decision by ICANN is certain to fail. Although this court is not the 
one whose jurisdiction would cover an appeal Auerbach v. ICANN, and 
hence this is not legally controlling I am certain that the other 
appellate districts in California would find it persuasive and follow 
it. Indeed, given that the decision concerns rights of access to 
documents in a for-profit company, the case for the director's rights 
can only be stronger in a non-profit, public benefit corporation. 
After this, surely now it is clear beyond debate (if somehow it 
wasn't already) that any further attempt to delay by ICANN would not 
just be without legal foundation, but in very bad faith.

Here's the relevant part of the text of that decision:

Saline v. Superior Court
2002 WL 1752820
Cal.App. 4 Dist.,2002.

MOORE, J.

Petitioner Joseph Saline, a member of the board of directors of real 
party in interest Commonwealth Energy Corporation (CEC), seeks a writ 
of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order restricting 
Saline's access to corporate records and directing that he keep the 
contents of the records confidential. Saline argues the order runs 
afoul of Corporations Code section 1602 and constitutes an unlawful 
prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment of the United 
States Constitution. CEC responds that the restrictions the court 
imposed are "just and proper" under Corporations Code section 1602, 
given Saline's alleged misbehavior and conflicts of interest. We hold 
that the trial court failed to make the findings necessary to justify 
the limitation on Saline's right to corporate documents and that a 
prior restraint on his speech has no legal basis. We therefore grant 
the petition.

[snip]

also

Grab this PDF and read it and you will see what it is like to have to 
deal with Joe Sims.  As professor Froomkin said here earlier today he 
tried to warn Vint at INET last month but Vint was not ready to 
listen and by the looks of it still isn't ready to listen.

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 21:53:51 -0400 (EDT)

Nonsense. The court clearly states that ICANN's actions were in
violation of the laws of the state of California, where ICANN is
situated and incorporated (and inviolation of ICANN's own corporate
by-laws). That's plenty illegal for me.

ICANN certainly has a difficult task but they would be getting a lot
more sympathy from me if they would simply admit they completely lost
their case in court instead of instead of engaging is such obvious spin
doctoring.

Donald
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       [email-masked]
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   [email-masked]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 16:29:34 -0700
> From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
> To: ietf <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: Correcting an incorrect assertion.  Was: Re: delegation
>     mechanism...
>

---

From: Caitlin Bestler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 22:21:29 -0500

On 8/2/02, Gordon Cook wrote:

>Grab this PDF and read it and you will see what it is like
>to have to deal with Joe Sims.  As professor Froomkin said
>here earlier today he tried to warn Vint at INET last
>month but Vint was not ready to listen and by the looks of
>it still isn't ready to listen.
>

As a U.S. Citizen I found this to be an interesting and
persuasive document.

However, isn't this a political discussion?

The technical issues are whether you can have a single name
space without a single algorithm/authority for resolving
conflicts, and the mechanism(s) for distributing that
information.

Debating the first point quickly resembles discussions of
square circles and perpetual motion machines. Everytime it
is pointed out that the lack of a single algorithm/authority
would mean that there was no longer a single name space the
topic shifts and has a tendency to focus on the *identity*
of those currently in charge of that namespace.

All of which is irrelevant.

I would suggest that those who believe ICANN is a problem
should spend their time writing their congressisonal
representatives. It is not a technical issue.

---

From: Gordon Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 00:08:14 -0400

>Caitlin asked:

Larry Lessig has shown his books Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace 
and  in the Future of Ideas that you attempt to pretend that laws and 
politics and economics have no effect on technical issues at your 
peril.  You may want to study your  Lessig before you tell the rest 
of us to write our congress critters.

But look, I can't impose ideas on anyone so I really don't wish to 
debate the issue.  it quickly turns into way too much of a black hole 
for gobbling up time.  After four years of observing  ICANN I will 
say that we are now seeing sea change in the attitudes of many people 
who have long been willing to give ICANN the benefit of the doubt and 
now are no longer willing to do so.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 00:02:24 -0700

>% strong a term .. i think the appologists claimed it was an experiment.

I rather like the idea that Jon managed that service for about 10 years, 
from its inception, and then is declared to have hijacked, it in the course 
of his continuing to do that management.

And folks wonder why anyone would be skeptical about running ICANN in a 
fishbowl.

d/

----------

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 01:37:07 -0700

Hello Dave Crocker;-)...

Again, your message describes precisely what you did to me personally 
over a several year period of stalking beginning with your work with 
IAHC and continuing into the establishment of ICANN.  I finally 
choked it off by simply never responding directly to anything you say 
or do.  But, here I find that you are right on the money;-)...

I had been seeking a properly correct description of what you were 
doing, and using my theory that one's enemy often attributes to you, 
what he is doing himself, I now have a perfect description of the 
tools and the technique of your trade.

Dave - I cannot thank you enough for explaining how you do it all so well.

I think I will print it up and frame it on my office wall.

And now back into my mode of not responding directly;-)...\s

Cheers;-)...\Stef

At 3:44 PM -0700 8/2/02, Dave Crocker wrote:

[snip]... [snip]... [snip]... [snip]... [snip]... [snip]... [snip]... [snip]...

Evidently you have not had the pleasure of trying to conduct a 
constructive dialogue with someone who has no interest in 
constructive dialogue.

d/

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 01:57:22 -0700

See below for my comment:

>representatives. It is not a technical issue.

Been there, Done that, and it did no good whatsoever.
Even did more than that, by complaint to the GAO, which there-upon
caused the DoC to revise its mode of handing over the deal to ICANN,
and to instruct ICANN to talk with ORSC, which ICANN never did, or
at most did nothing that we suggested that they do, like open up and
accept Domain Name Holder's input.

So, now it is too late for any of that, and ICANN is well on its way
to its final resting place at the bottom of the cliff that they have
been racing to reach before any of us can catch them;-)...

Hopefully they will simply take care of themselves before much longer.
they have certainly done a fine job of it in dealing with Karl;-)...

So, Onward!  Enough of this looking back;-)...\Stef

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 21:30:29 -0400

> peril.

You'll note that he didn't post that here.

Thanks for not littering,

Melinda

---

From: Gordon Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 22:12:32 -0400

Sigh....OK Melinda.... let me draw you a map

>>  and  in the Future of Ideas that you

YOU....plural...... caitlin and fellow IETF engineers......

No of course Caitlin did not specifically say that...... but, by 
asking what technologists were doing discussing something 
political.... THE HORROR,..... he raises the engineering point of 
view that tends to abhor involvement in political discussions.

Lessig has offered a powerful critique of the problems that view can lead to.

I think that the vast majority of readers of this list have looked at 
ICANN as a political animal whose behavior was something they wanted 
nothing to do with.  I also think that ICANN's behavior has now 
become so egregious in the attempts of its spokespeople on this list 
to deflect the findings of the superior court that ICANN had violated 
the law in refusing a director the right legally stipulated by 
california to inspect IACNN's book that they finally couldn't take it 
any more and as Donald Eastlake did, they stood up and expressed 
their strong dismay.

Vint Cerf as co-author of TCP/IP has one of the most important 
technology achievements of the past century to his credit.  It has 
been really sad to see him now in the new century contribute his 
reputation to the defense of this "entity" named ICANN.  As 'captain' 
of the ICANN  board it's sad to see him so determined to go down with 
his ship.

>  attempt to pretend that laws and

Not sure what your point is.  Caitlin suggested that IETF should 
stick to its engineering and ignore what appeared to be just a 
political matter.  I pointed out that Lessig in his two books has 
demonstrated very eloquently that engineers will ignore politics at 
their peril.

>Thanks for not littering,

??????

your point?

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: 03 Aug 2002 23:15:00 -0400

Gordon Cook <[email-masked]> writes:
> Not sure what your point is.  Caitlin suggested that IETF should stick
> to its engineering and ignore what appeared to be just a political
> matter.  I pointed out that Lessig in his two books has demonstrated
> very eloquently that engineers will ignore politics at their peril.

Perhaps we prefer to keep our politics on other mailing lists where we
manage our political activities, and make contributions to EFF and
such, rather than spending our time on endless long debates on the
main IETF mailing list.

.pm

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 08:15:18 -0400

> Not sure what your point is.

"Let me draw you a map."

Just because something is interesting or important or smells
wonderful doesn't mean that this is the correct forum for
discussing it.  I agree with Caitlin that this is not the
right place to be holding a political discussion about an
external body.

Melinda

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 11:37:13 -0700

>right place to be holding a political discussion about an
+++++++++

Hi Melinda --

The root problem with your analysis is that the IETF/IAB had a large 
role in the establishment of ICANN and in blessing its actions.
So here I will redraw your map to include some critical omissions.

In fact, the issue of IAB blessing the formation of ICANN in the first
place was specifically and formally discussed on this IETF list as a 
formal action in gaining a so called broad consensus of the working
group level of the IETF for blessing the formation of ICANN with its
initial mission which has led to the current situation.

So, it is now appropriate for this mailing list to review the results
and to discuss the issues that have therefrom arisen, whether the 
issue is formally placed on the agenda of this list or not.  The IAB 
put this issue here, and here it shall remain until it is somehow 
taken off.

What you do not seem to see is that the IETF/IAB long ago slipped into
being political in nature, and there is nothing anyone can do about it
short of having a political discussion here on the question of 
whether or not the IETF/IAB should be involved in political 
activities.  The simple fact is that the IETF is active in political 
affairs.

It was the deliberate actions of the IAB at the Chicago IETF to 
secure IETF blessings for the formation of ICANN that conclusively 
led me to end my long period of IETF meeting attendance.  The current 
outcome of those actions are what we now see unfolding.

It is important to note that the appointment (selection?) of the IETF 
sponsored member of the ICANN Board of Directors is announced and 
discussed here, to the extent that it enjoys any public discussion.
Therefore, the IETF/IAB bears some responsibility for the current 
situation.  Is there any report of the actions of the IETF/IAB 
selected member of the ICANN BoD?  Such might exist, but if so, I 
have missed seeing it or any notice there-of.

So, I now wish to ask you a basic question:

Are you objecting to the way the past political actions of the 
IETF/IAB have turned out (e.g., the ICANN MESS) or advocating the 
concept that the IETF should now somehow cease being a political 
action organization.

Or are you just upset to find out what has been and is really going 
on here?  The problem is that getting out of this situation requires 
open political discussion somewhere in a designated IETF forum.  This 
assumes that the IETF participants now want to get out of their 
political role.

Among other things, the IETF/IAB leaders who got us into this mess 
are no longer in a position to control the outcome, so perhaps the 
current leadership might find a way to declare a withdrawal, but to 
do so will require continued political discussion somewhere...

The unfortunate fact is that we are where we are because of past 
actions that cannot now be erased, or ignored.  So, there are some 
really critical issues that need to be discussed somewhere, perhaps 
in a new incarnation of the POISED WG that sorted out the issues of 
the great Boston Tea Party a decade ago.  Those were clearly 
political issues.

It is hard in the world of the Internet, where the results of IETF 
technical decisions lead to major disruptions of the social and 
economic  activities of the world, to totally ignore those 
disruptions as though they are not attributable to the IETF/IAB.

I suspect it is going to take another Boston Tea Party inspired 
"poised" kind of effort to right the overturned canoe.  Perhaps you 
can get this issue placed on the next open IETF or IAB plenary 
session at the next IETF meeting.  Perhaps the poised WG should be 
convened every 10 years to review the situation that has resulted 
from to previous Poised effort.

10 years appears to be a natural period of the natural Internet 
paradigmatic shift cycle.  The issues that the IETF now works on have 
obvious political outcomes, whether you like politics or not.  The 
new paradigmatic shift that is occurring has risen above the 
technical base to impact the whole realm of interpersonal trust and 
the problem of inducing trust in across the Internet.  So, at this 
point, the issue of whether we can or should trust ICANN, or anyone 
else with our future is on the table.  We can deal with it, or ignore 
it.  We have a choice.

Another factor is that a significant number of ICANN advocates are 
still with us here in this list, and it is unlikely that they will go 
away because of your call for removal of political issues from 
discussion here.

Actually my bet is that they will try to stifle open discussion of 
these issues here if they do not like the direction that discussion 
takes.  But, they are the ones that made this bed, so they should be 
among the ones to sleep in it.

So, quite frankly, I do not know how to suggest extraction of the 
IETF from current political discussions in an open IETF discussion 
list.

Maybe some of the IETF leadership team can think of a way.
I suspect it will require some kind of fresh start.

Clearly the IETF has come to a major turning point in its history.

Cheers...\Stef

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: 04 Aug 2002 15:05:29 -0400

> role in the establishment of ICANN and in blessing its actions.

Even were that once true (and it isn't really the case), I'd say it is
far from clear that the discussion here serves any purpose. Even if
the IETF had a potential role (which is also far from clear), it would
be unreasonable to have a discussion of this heat and length on the
main IETF list.

.pm

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 16:14:34 -0400

> concept that the IETF should now somehow cease being a political 

The IETF is an engineering body.  

If you'd like we can also revisit the decision to privatize
NSFNet, but perhaps we should take it to the aft working
group mailing list - it could do with some activity.

Melinda

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 11:34:57 -0700

At 02:03 PM 8/1/2002 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>of the judicial decision. It is, quite simply, utterly false.

Rather than reiterating court text that is irrelevant to my point, let's
note the key strictures:

  *      Karl may not copy confidential materials nor may he remove them
from ICANN.

  *      Karl must give 10 days notice before making information public.

This latter point is nicely telling, because it suggests that the court
also has some concern about Karl's likely "independence" of action.

d/

----------

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 18:20:19 -0400

Dave Crocker wrote:

>         The reports are consistent in citing that Karl review only
> paper copies at the ICANN offices and that Karl give 10 day's notice.

The report I first read said that he should get copies of most material,
but ICANN could restrict him to reviewing confidential materials onsite.
 But now I can't find that report, and, looking at the court order
(<http://www.eff.org/Cases/Auerbach_v_ICANN/20020729_superior_court_ruling.html>),
I see that, although the judge has decided to issue the writ Karl
requested, the court hasn't actually determined the terms of the writ.
 So I'm not sure where the "10 days notice" came from.

-- 
/===========================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]  |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com|
|Centiv            |My opinions are my own. |
|===========================================|
|Know your limits, then destroy 'em.        |
\===========================================/

---

From: Tom Lord <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 19:10:48 -0700 (PDT)

This message, in contrast to most to this list, deserves a very large
flood of here here.   BUT NOTE:  if you agree, please post just the
"here here" and otherwise respect the available bandwidth of the list.

-t

   X-Authentication-Warning: ietf.org: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
   From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
   Cc: ietf <[email-masked]>
   Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 18:28:51 -0700
   Sender: [email-masked]
   Precedence: bulk
   X-Loop: [email-masked]
   X-UIDL: 80cd1ff3c23e7806a5f9c07cf8585232

   vint,

   randy

---

From: Tom Lord <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 19:22:46 -0700 (PDT)

why don't you just simply publish the stuff at a detailed level on the
	web [0]?

Here here!

-t

---

From: Tom Lord <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 20:56:36 -0700 (PDT)

> folks participate in with ICANN is to attack it.

Yes it matters.  That's the crux of the essense.

Word for the day:  "legitimacy".

	> work done at all.  (Hint:  The answer is 100%)

Bummer.

-t

---

From: Tom Lord <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT)

So your basic claim is that those responsibilities are incompatible
with transparency?

I can't even imagine what a supporting argument for such an obviously
ridiculous claim might look like, so please -- surprise me with one.

Gee willikers -- ICANN lucked into what is obviously a gosh damn
important function.  ICANN supposedly emerged out of a community of
hard-headed, socially responsible engineers.  There is no room for
equivication here.  There is no room for pity.  Be a shining example,
for gosh sakes -- how hard can it be?

If you bend over backwards to achieve legitimacy, I'd bet and hope
that most of us will bend over backwards to support you.

-t

   X-Authentication-Warning: ietf.org: majordom set sender to [email-masked] using -f
   X-Sender: [email-masked]
   Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 21:55:06 -0700
   From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
   Cc: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>, ietf <[email-masked]>
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
   Sender: [email-masked]
   Precedence: bulk
   X-Loop: [email-masked]
   X-UIDL: f42b15e9a64afd8ecabe4c2387bd3275

   d/

   ----------

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:50:51 -0400

>or 3) joe clueless gets an education and switches to an appropriate route.
Requiring users to "get an education" is not a valid option.  Basic rule
of design: don't require the users to learn anything that's not relevant
to getting their tasks done.  Adding to their cognitive load for zero
gain (as in the case of coping with alternate roots) is unacceptable.

-- 
/===========================================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]                  |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com                |
|Centiv            |My opinions are my own.                 |
|===========================================================|
|Stupid, adj.: Losing $25 on the game and $50 on the instant|
|replay.                                                    |
\===========================================================/

---

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:19:42 -0400 (EDT)

Yesterday, ICANN started, in a very timid way, to do just that. 
http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-04aug02.htm

One hypothesis for the delay: "... a quick peek at ICANN's Employment
Policies and Related Materials suggests one possible reason: at the time
Karl asked for them, many of the standard employee procedures one might
expect didn't exist."

More at
 http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=888

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:45:38 -0700

Hi Keith --- You are getting closer to understanding what is going on.

Someone has previously noted that the real control point of the "."
is in the hands of all the individual users of the DNS, who as I have
pointed out "Vote Early and Often" for their favorite root service.
While most of them are docile and just do what someone says to do to
make their computer work on the net, more and more of them are
getting the message that doing so is neither necessary nor
appropriate to their usage objectives.

So, in some ways you are correct that we are doing it to assert our
rights as Internet Users objecting to the dictatorial modes of DNS
"management" if anyone can call what DoC and ICANN are doing
"management";-)...

But, I want to pick one nit with your statement.

ORSC is not doing any of this just to be disruptive and contrary.

Speaking correctly, ORSC is not running an "alt root" in any way that
resembles what those who claimed to be running "Alt" Roots did when
they were active.

ICANN and others persist in using the term "alt" in large part
because they want to tag present efforts of ORSC with the past
nonsense of the earlier "Alt" efforts.

In the place of those rather destructive efforts from the early days,
ORSC has managed to eliminate all conflicts among the non-ICANN TLDs,
except for those cases when ICANN has deliberately created new TLDs
in conflict with existing ORSC TLDs.
We are still trying to find a way to discuss these remaining issues
with the involved parties to seek resolution.

The current ORSC behavior and policies are fully in keeping with the
notion that conflicting DNS names are a bad thing given the present
condition of the DNS system standards, and we have dedicated a lot of
effort in the task of removing conflicts by working with the
conflicting parties to resolve the conflicts and reduce them to
single TLD registries.

Were we to join the ICANN efforts to just stamp them out, the
situation would be much much worse with simple anarchy ruling the DNS.

So, we would all appreciate you help in setting the record straight
with regard to whether ORSC is advocating "Alt" roots.

Thanks for your suppoort;-)...\Stef

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 15:23:55 -0700

Hello Melinda;-)...

It is your assertion, that "The IETF is an engineering body"
which assertion standing by it's self does not make it true.
Your assertion  certainly matches any description of the origins and
first years of the IETF, but does not match the result of 17 or so
years of IETF/IAB/ISOC meetings and mailing list discussions.

The facts of history are restricted to records of actual events.
The current "crisis" if that is what it is, seems to be related to
certain recent events in the life of ICANN, in which certain IETF
parties have been significantly involved.

Some of the ICANN chickens have come home to roost.

The privatization of NSFnet by Steve Wolfe was a master stroke by any
comparison to ICANN.  Among other things, it actually works, although
it surely needs to adjust with its changing market.

What I "like" or "dislike" is of no consequence in this IETF list
discussion.  I am not advocating anything specific, other than that
IETF pay some attention to historic reality, if IETF can find some.

The IETF got itself into its current situation.
It is nobody else's fault that the IETF is where it is.
Diverting the topic is not likely to help resolve anything.
Correcting the current problems is job for IETF,
as it was a party to creating the mess,
and IETF is impacted by the resulting situation.
So, dealing with the resulting impacts is a job for IETF.
No one else is going to ride to the rescue of IETF.

I am just trying to shed some helpful light on the issues,
by calling a spade a spade, when I see one.

Hopefully IETF will find a way to escape from Alice's Wonderland,
Also Known As The Land of ICANN.

Cheers...\Stef

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 15:56:52 -0700

Ah Hah;-)...  Yes, All this heat and length is not necessary, if only
we could foresee which brief comments are correct and on the point.

So, who do you nominate to provide us with the essence of the issues?

Perhaps we should just all agree that whatever happened with ICANN
is indeed very unfortunate and all agree to forget that IETF had
anything to do with it.

That sounds really interesting as a way to resolve the situation,
so I herewith propose seriously that we all "Just Do It!".

		Nike was Right!

I will start by ending my participation now, as you recommend;-)...

I hope all others here will follow your lead, as I am doing;-)...\Stef

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 12:29:10 -0400

> From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>

It actually doesn't, unless you consider things like NATs and
the disruption of the basic design model (i.e. the
increasing visibility of borders between networks) to be
"working."  Furthermore, it's more on-topic than is
discussion of ICANN - if nothing else, ICANN discussions
reliably bring out people who otherwise have nothing else to
say about the substantive work of the IETF.

> by calling a spade a spade, when I see one.

Why aren't you doing it on the aft mailing list?

Melinda

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 01:40:48 -0700

Well, D'Crock old buddy;-)...  Good to see you are stalking me still.
I was beginning to think that maybe you had lost your taste for stalking.

So, I shall break my long standing rule and reply to you directly
just this once.

We don't seem to agree that the user might well enjoy having some
choices that you would like to keep them from having, and since there
is a market demand and no law against meeting said market demand, the
natural fulfillment events follow.

Every user of the ORSC root service has decided to install the IP
address of an ORSC root server in their own password controlled DNS
settings file, and you and your buddies have no tool other than
stalking and badgering to inhibit them from making their choice.

Thanks you for the opportunity to point this out to a large number of
knowledgeable people.

It is like an election, only in this case, voting early and often
(with every DNS query) is the appropriate mode of behavior.

Further, .BIZ was the 2nd new TLD approved by Jon Postel back in
1996, so it had a very legitimate birth, which ICANN has chosen to
ignore.

So, now then, who died and made you king?

Enjoy your crown while you have it.  Just remember, when you run over
someone just because they are in your way, it is not a good way to
make friends and influence people.  Sometimes other people take note
of your Kingly behavior.

Cheers...\Stef

At 12:34 AM -0700 8/1/02, Dave Crocker wrote:
>This federation that you are describing was formed without any
>involvement of IANA/ICANN.  It was done entirely independently.
>
>So the idea that IANA/ICANN was somehow obligated to coordinate its
>own activities with an independent effort is a very basic non
>sequitur.
>
>d/
>
>----------

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:02:09 -0400 (EDT)

> pointed out "Vote Early and Often" for their favorite root service.

exactly - i've been pointing this out for years  .. there is no monopoly -
control is in the hands of the end user.

what really gets to me is all the legal decisions, abstracts and summaries
that rely on the false assumption of monopoly which most in the legal and
political communities have been sold on by icann.  and what is icann's
liability for deceiving these people.

regards
joe baptista

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 13:15:54 -0400

> ICANN supposedly emerged out of a community of
> hard-headed, socially responsible engineers.

where in the world did you get that idea?

ICANN emerged from extremely dirty politics, in which the socially
responsible engineers were generally coerced to play along.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 13:19:18 -0400

> ORSC is not doing any of this just to be disruptive and contrary.

perhaps that is not ORSC's intent.  but by promoting new TLDs that
aren't usable everywhere, ORSC *is* being disruptive and contrary.
in effect it is saying "ICANN doesn't function the way *we* want it 
to, it is okay for us to disrupt applications that depend on consistent
behavior of DNS".  that's not socially responsible behavior.  nor does  
ICANN's behavior excuse ORSC's.

Keith

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:22:35 -0700

I have been trying hard to drop out of this thread but your 
assumptions are simply false.

Please point to one of such disruption that you claim ORSC is 
causing, which is not in fact caused by others.

Cheers...\Stef

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 15:27:03 -0400

> causing, which is not in fact caused by others.

ORSC is advertising different TLDs than the root.

of course you'll claim that this is someone else's problem.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 17:09:19 -0400

> The world is full of bad addresses, on and off the net,
> including bad ICANN domain addresses, not caused by ORSC.

indeed.  but that hardly excuses ORSC from contributing to the problem.

> So, this presents ORSC with some market barriers, but you have not yet
> cited a single real case of disruption for anyone.

ORSC is *trying* to disrupt the net.  whether it succeeds is a different
question.  don't expect ICANN or IETF to help.

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:02:58 -0700

People who elect to use ORSC addresses know full well what are the
limits, and they do not generally use them to hand out to people that
cannot use them.

So, this discussion is entirely based on hypothetical and imaginative
problems, as far as I can see.  Please find a real case to discuss.

Cheers...\Stef

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 01:33:48 -0700

Hello Keith --

>question.  don't expect ICANN or IETF to help.

Please cite a real case of success at our supposed motive of disruption.

If you cannot point to one, then I claim that you don't know of any,
and that you have an overly active imagination.

I herewith clearly say that our motive is most certainly NOT to
disrupt the Internet (like some other people I could mention, and
have mentioned).

We are not even trying to disrupt ICANN.
They do  a good job of disrupting it all by themselves.

Please recall that I told you clearly in prior private messages that
I do not wish to continue this conversation in the IETF mailing list.
I wish to help terminate this IETF list thread, as I committed to do
several messages back.

But, since you insist on making these silly charges on this public
list, I challenge you to produce an instance of success at your
claimed motives, or concede that you do not have a clue as to our
motives.

For all who are paying any attention, I clearly state that I do not
wish to continue this exchange with Keith making false statements
which I must counter or let them stand in public.

But, as long as he insists on making false charges, I will continue
to deny them.

Cheers...\Stef

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 17:22:09 -0400

> Please cite a real case of success at our supposed motive of disruption.

OK.  You can count this one of two ways:

1) One "real case" for each TLD that ORSC has deployed that ICANN hasn't
(include .BIZ in there).

2) Zero - but in that case, you have to acknowledge that ORSC is an ignorable
player that doesn't actually matter to anybody.

You can't have it both ways - if ORSC is used enough that it matters, then
by definition every use of a TLD that isn't in ICANN's root is disruptive.
The only way that can be NOT disruptive is if ORSC isn't used....

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 16:01:47 -0700

Thanks for narrowing the discussion down to some potential facts.

Your item 1) is hypothetical in terms of showing disruption.  You 
have not identified any instance of disruption, so I will ignore it 
till someone shows some indication of disruption caused by the mere 
existence of non-conflicting TLDs outside the reach of ICANNic 
blessing.

We need to note the fact of the collision around .BIZ, and we are 
ready to discuss ways to resolve it any time ICANN (or its .BIZ 
Franchisee) wishes to engage in serious discussions.  By our 
reckoning, .BIZ was created by legitimate IANA actions, and is at 
least as legitimate now as .WEB, and deserves better treatment than 
it has received.  But, please take note that ORSC has no control of 
the .BIZ registry (aside from the decision to include it in the ORSC 
root).  Any resolution has to be between the two registry operators 
(or their agents).  They are the parties with vested interests at 
stake.

Now for your item 2).

Should small market segments should be destroyed, just because they are small?
What will be gained?  What will be lost?  Where would the Internet be 
if this argument had been made in 1973 (it was), or '75, or '80, or 
'87?

The ORSC supporters are obviously not in the game to make great 
fortunes, like some TLD registries you might mention.  And our ORSC 
participants are not getting rich supporting ORSC.  Admittedly it is 
not a profitable business.
Fortunately we have no stockholders;-)...

ARPAnet was also not profitable.  Neither was USENET?
Is NETNEWS profitable now?   Does it matter?  What is the problem?

I have been asking our detractors for some evidence of actual 
disruption being caused by  the existence of ORSC TLDs, which 
disruption might be eliminated by elimination of the ORSC TLD's 
existence.

I still have not seen one that stands up under review.	Cheers...\Stef

At 5:22 PM -0400 8/6/02, [email-masked] wrote:
>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
>
>Attachment converted: Viking5:Untitled 1 (????/----) (00006F33)

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 16:27:13 -0700

>player that doesn't actually matter to anybody.

ORSC is ignorable.  Not because it doesn't matter but because it is 
independent.  It has always been independent, and it is entirely reasonable 
for it to remain so.

So, ignoring it is simply to respect its independence.

d/

----------

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:04:38 -0500

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg16912.html
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Einar Stefferud" <[email-masked]>
> Franchisee) wishes to engage in serious discussions.
=========

Stef,

What "collision around .BIZ" are you referring to ?

Each SLD.BIZ owner that currently desires to participate in the
"toy" 32-bit IPv4 Proof-of-Concept (POC) experiments is free to
do so. That will build a base of .BIZ owners. There may be 50 or 60
thousand serious .BIZ owners at some point. Those owners can then
work together to move beyond the experimental POC .BIZ testing,
to 128-bit DNS .BIZ services. Name-by-name, the SLD.BIZ namespace
can take shape and grow, with no collisions. Collisions at the SLD.TLD
POC level are ignored (i.e. rejected) in the 128-bit DNS. There can be
no so-called collisions, unless people support improperly configured
servers. A serious 128-bit DNS .BIZ Registry would not support that,
and the software prevents it.

Looking at the .BIZ TLD server clusters below, in the dominant 32-bit
DNS providers, one can see that an SLD.BIZ owner simply has to make
sure that pointers to their nameservers are in all of the TLD clusters below
to make sure they are coherent in this early testing phase, also called, the
Proof-of-Concept phase. It is a way to boot-strap the .BIZ TLD and to
find interested owners. Are you a serious .BIZ owner ?

Looking at the technical aspects of the information below, one can clearly
see that there is a reliability flaw in the usage of the .BIZ TLD to support itself.
TLD Clusters should use a mixture of other TLDs to make sure that they do
not collapse under a shared fate scenario, or a single-point-of-corporate failure.
As an example, a more robust TLD Cluster will have servers from .COM, .NET,
and some of the more stable TLDs. Using all of the same TLD and the same
TLD as the TLD itself, is a very bad idea. With lawyers designing TLD server
arrangements, rather than engineers, that sort of thing can happen. This why .BIZ
is only in the Proof-of-Concept experimental phase. No serious telecommunications
engineer would allow such a configuration to be part of critical infrastructure.

Since the mid-90s, the .BIZ TLD has grown from nothing to what it is today.
It clearly has a long way to go before being considered ready for 128-bit DNS
deployment. It may get there or it may not. The marketplace and the technology
can rapidly pass companies by, that do not keep up or keep pace.

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
0:212     BIZ

======================================================

http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=BIZ&submit=Submit
.BIZ - NS Resource Records.
Click on any NS RR link below to do a ServerScan.

ANIC : AlterNIC : 160.79.129.192
VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 3. 
BIZ. 6D IN NS c.gtld.BIZ.
BIZ. 6D IN NS d.gtld.BIZ.
BIZ. 6D IN NS e.gtld.BIZ.
BIZ. 6D IN NS f.gtld.BIZ.
BIZ. 6D IN NS a.gtld.BIZ.
BIZ. 6D IN NS b.gtld.BIZ.

BORN : Business Oriented Root Network : 213.70.103.18
VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 6. 
BIZ. 2D IN NS C.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS D.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS E.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS F.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS A.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS B.GTLD.BIZ.

CINICS : Common Interest Network Information Center Society : 216.15.192.130
Result = No Response

iDNS : i-DNS.net International : 208.184.174.7
VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 6. 
BIZ. 2D IN NS E.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS F.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS A.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS B.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS C.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS D.GTLD.BIZ.

LRS : Legacy Root Servers : 198.41.0.4
VueDig Results : Answer = 6 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 6. 
BIZ. 2D IN NS F.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS A.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS B.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS C.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS D.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS E.GTLD.BIZ.

NSpace : Name.Space : 209.48.2.11
VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 1 : Additional = 0. 
.BIZ not found.

Nnet : New.net Inc : 206.132.100.42
VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 6 : Additional = 6. 
BIZ. 1D IN NS B.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 1D IN NS C.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 1D IN NS D.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 1D IN NS E.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 1D IN NS F.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 1D IN NS A.GTLD.BIZ.

ONIC : The OpenNIC Project : 131.161.247.226
VueDig Results : Answer = 4 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 4. 
BIZ. 2D IN NS ns4-pacroot.opennic.glue.
BIZ. 2D IN NS ns1-pacroot.opennic.glue.
BIZ. 2D IN NS ns2-pacroot.opennic.glue.
BIZ. 2D IN NS ns3-pacroot.opennic.glue.

ORSC : Open Root Server Confederation : 199.166.24.1
VueDig Results : Answer = 3 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 3. 
BIZ. 1H IN NS NS.ROOTFIX.NET.
BIZ. 1H IN NS NS1.ADNS.NET.
BIZ. 1H IN NS NS2.ADNS.NET.

ORSN : Open Root Server Network : 217.146.140.67
VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 6 : Additional = 6. 
BIZ. 2D IN NS F.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS A.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS B.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS C.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS D.GTLD.BIZ.
BIZ. 2D IN NS E.GTLD.BIZ.

TINC : The Internet Namespace Cooperative : 64.6.65.10
Result = No Response

TPR : The PacificRoot : 204.107.129.2
VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2. 
BIZ. 2D IN NS ns2.adns.net.
BIZ. 2D IN NS ns1.adns.net.
=============================================

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 20:55:47 -0700

Hi Jim -- YaButt --

Your 128 bit Universe is orthogonal (at this time) to our poor old 32 
bit toy Internet.

Besides, I am pushing the point that the conflict remains because of 
TICANNic insularity (head in sand,) and fear of recognizing ORSC;-)...

I am not a .biz domain holder, and have no interest in being one.
I have all the name space I need (for now) with NMA.COM.

I understand your position and have no problems with it.

I am just not prepared to play with it.

Cheers...\Stef

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:10:32 -0500

----- Original Message ----- 

Stef,

With all due respect, you may be missing the simple fact that the sum total
of serious SLD.BIZ owners will determine the fate of .BIZ. Since you are
not part of that "tribe" or population, it may be hard to recognize that the
"roots" do not matter. If you were, you would recognize that you would
have two (or more) private nameservers supporting queries for your SLD.BIZ
name. A serious .BIZ owner would make sure that all paths lead to their
nameservers when queries are made for SLD.BIZ. Once a query comes
to their servers, they do not care how it got there. Many ISPs point directly
at the TLD Clusters, and do not need or use any "root". Roots provide hints
to help bootstrap people, once a TLD Cluster is located, it knows about
itself and one can track changes to it by asking it, not an out-of-date "root".
An ISP can also fail-over to the other .BIZ Cluster, if the first Cluster they
are tracking goes away. Yes, yes, I know, big companies like Enron and
Worldcom do not ever fail. Just ignore that and keep your head in the sand.
I doubt that serious .BIZ owners will want to risk a single-point-of-corporate
failure. That is likely why there are two Proof-of-Concept .BIZ Registries.
Register in BOTH, and your "toy" Internet works. There is then no "collision"
for your SLD.BIZ name, which you choose not to own.

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:53:45 -0500

----- Original Message ----- 
> I have all the name space I need (for now) with NMA.COM.

It looks like operators are standing by, ready to take your order, if you change your mind.
You might ask if you get a large fries as a bonus...also, you might want to check to see
if they register you in BOTH of the .BIZ 32-bit Proof-of-Concept Registries. For some
period of time, one of those Registries was not even operational, despite people's claims
about their Registry prowess.

http://www.thepricedomain.com/index.php?domainlist=biz

http://www.powerpipe.com....$7.99
http://www.10-domains.com...$9.00
http://www.webhero.com....$9.95
http://www.registerfly.com....$9.99
http://www.iaregistry.com...$11.95
http://www.totalregistrations.com....$12.00
http://www.namesecure.com....$12.00
http://www.domaininvestigator.com....$12.47

It may be a long time before the .BIZ "tribe" works together to deploy
commercial-grade, 128-bit DNS services. In the interim, there appears
to be plenty of work to do to make that happen for .COM. I hope you
consider protecting your NMA.COM name in the 128-bit DNS .COM
Registry.

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 22:04:50 -0700

At 05:13 PM 8/6/2002 -0700, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>When you ignore pedestrians in the street while driving and kill them,
>you have not done what is called "A good thing".

The operative word I used was "independent".

The ORSC is working with an independent name space.  It created an 
independent name space, as it was free to do.  It has been independently 
administering it.  So ORSC and ICANN are driving on indepednent name highways.

No collisions are possible BETWEEN the two, independent activities.

If ORSC has a problem with the policies it has chosen for its independent 
activity, it is free to change them.  No one is preventing them from making 
that change.  Certainly not ICANN.

All of this changes, of course, if  someone tries to force an overlap of 
these otherwise independent name spaces.

Oh.  That's right.  That's what ORSC has independently chosen to do and is 
now trying to retroactively fix by claiming the need for some sort of 
meta-name space administration that overlaps ORSC with ICANN.

d/

----------

---

From: Wonko_The_Sane <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 22:33:04 -0800

Why does ome have to pay for domain names?    Ok, guess I am too much romanced 
from the fidonet days when you can be listed for free. 

Need to free it up, too capitist oriented. damages communities.

-Wonko

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 01:41:25 -0500

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Einar Stefferud" <[email-masked]>

> I fully realize the your way of doing it can work in due course, but 
> I still do not want any .biz domains, just because I have enough (for 
> myself) already;-)...
> 
> I am not saying anything bad about your arrangements and I wish you 
> al he success in the world with it, because it looks like a solution 
> to the lack of cooperation elsewhere in the universe;-)...
> 

Stef,

It is not *my* arrangement. It is the arrangement of the .BIZ community.
They have collectively, [one SLD.BIZ name at a time], decided to create
the situation they have. Keep in mind they are just testing. They are just
doing Proof-of-Concept experiments. They can not harm anyone, they
are isolated on the "toy", 32-bit, IPv4 TOS=0 network.

Assuming there are eventually some serious SLD.BIZ owners, they can
then be identified more easily. They can collectively work to upgrade their
services from the trivial 32-bit DNS variety, to the 128-bit DNS services.
It may take a long time before that happens, because, you may have noticed,
there are not many .BIZ web-sites out there. Look at the so-called .BIZ
Registrars, they do not even use .BIZ names.
http://www.thepricedomain.com/index.php?domainlist=biz

As for other arrangements, freedom-loving people are routing around the damage...
http://www.New.Net
http://www.NewRoot.com
http://www.Name-Space.com
http://www.MOX1.com

To move beyond the IPv4 TOS=0 Internet, is now very easy.
The RIRs may not like it....they want to sell/lease people blocks of addresses...
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2002-07/msg00020.html
"Nothing in ip6.arpa unless managed by the RIRs."

You might want to check to see who owns IN-ADDR.BIZ
and whether it is properly registered in both of the .BIZ Registries....

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 08:18:06 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wonko_The_Sane" <[email-masked]>
To: "ietf" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: 0:212 BIZ

> Need to free it up, too capitist oriented. damages communities.

Many companies want to pay for domain names. They want to pay to have
their nameservers properly managed. In some cases, they package the entire
process in with their hosting and other Internet services. Also, someone has
to pay for all these people to be flown around, first-class, to I* society meetings.
0:0 .ARPA is a very expensive domain to maintain.

If you want to help encourage the free name approach, you might want to
check out MOX.

http://www.MOX1.com
http://MOX.INC.new.net
or
http://www.MOX.INC

Other places to look are....
http://www.NameSlinger.com
http://www.New.Net
http://www.NewRoot.com
http://www.Name-Space.com

.ONLINE will be getting a second Registry in September.
That is also a popular new TLD. It will be useful for the people
starting "virtual ISPs" where they assume that people have an
always-on, IPv4 connection, with a dynamic 32-bit address for
a site-prefix, and then expand the address space using that.

http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/icann-current/msg00342.html
10514 INC
9264 ONLINE
7288 NET
6472 USA
4481 GROUP
4101 WEB
3891 TECH
3077 UK
2762 DESIGN
2570 SYSTEMS
==========
http://www.adns.net
CHICAGO, July 1, 2002

ADNS is pleased to announce that The AtlanticRoot Network (ARNI) has picked ADNS to provide domain registry services for its
top-level domains BIZ, COM2, ETC, NOT and ONLINE. ADNS will take over registry operations today, July 1, 2002 at 00:01 UTC.
===

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB
5:194     INC

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:13:40 -0700

Well, there are varieties of  ignoring.

Warning!  This is an serious attempt at constructive discussion;-)...  Warning!

At 4:27 PM -0700 8/6/02, Dave Crocker wrote:
>independent.  It has always been independent, and it is entirely
>reasonable for it to remain so.
>

The same kind of logic applies to other areas of life where
collisions may occur.

This issue was dealt with (somewhere) in the US Constitution by
making it unconstitutional for even the US Govt to engage in a
"taking away" without reasonable compensation.

So, I suspect ignorance (of the concept of, or the fact of an act of
taking away) will not suffice to make it right to "take away" from
someone in ignorance.

Just a little critical additional logic to consider.

The fact that ORSC does not mind being ignored by a lot of people
does not mean that you are welcome to run us down in the cross walk.

I trust that you were not issuing a license to kill;-)...  But it is
a close call.

Cheers...\Stef

PS:  I regret not being able too somehow warp this into a technical issue...\s

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 22:45:47 -0700

Best...\Stef

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 11:49:12 -0400

> you have not done what is called "A good thing".

you're right.  when pedestrians deliberately walk in front of moving 
vehicles and get killed, I don't call it "a good thing".

I call it "natural selection".

Keith

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 09:51:10 -0700

>I call it "natural selection".

++++++
Great!  Good show!  Now we know where you all stand on this issue;-)...

Shall I presume that by now you have picked off a few for yourself,
since they are fair game in your mind;-)...  Explains a lot of things?

I suggest you not play that game here in California.
The dumb clods out here don't make that distinction.
Pedestrians actually have right of way outside crosswalks.

Onward.  Get a few natural selectees for me while you are at it.
I always brake for pedestrians;-)...  Guess I must be a throwback.

Ya just gotta love it!-)...\Cheers...\\Stef

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 20:10:24 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 11:34:57 -0700
> From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
> To: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law <[email-masked]>
> Cc: ietf <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: delegation mechanism, Re: Trees have one root
>

THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO READING THE TEXT OF THE COURT DECISION. I
believe that Michael Froomkin's characterization of it is entirely
correct, that ICANN should be publicly apologizing to Karl. No doubt you
are of a different opinion. This is not going to be settled by a bunch
of posts which say "Nyah, Nyah, I'm right and you're wrong." Peple MUST
read the court case.  I also think they should note that all those
saying ICANN lost totally are telling them to read the whole decision of
the court, a neutral third party, and all those saying that ICANN
actually won, are telling people not to bother themselves reading what
the court said but to just consider a particular spin on one or two
small facets of the court decision, facets that are meaningless without
the full context.

>   *      Karl may not copy confidential materials nor may he remove them

The final decision is worded in such a way as to imply that if Karl
wants copies of confidential material, ICANN should make them for him
rather than him copying them himself. Perhaps the court thought he might
not want carry a Xerox machine in one his back.  The decision clearly
indicates that he is trusted to disclose confidential material to his
agents and advisors which indicates that the court does not agree with
the way you and others have tried to characterize Karl as a raving
maniac.

> also has some concern about Karl's likely "independence" of action.

No, this point is particularly insignificant. It is the usual
combination of splitting of differences and the universal conspiracy of
lawyers. After all, if the court hadn't thrown some sop to ICANN,
ICANN's lawyers might have had some trouble collecting their fees from
ICANN on the theory they didn't do them any good. By providing something
(even if a measily 3 day extenstion), the judge, also a lawyer, "for
professional reasons" gives the ICANN lawyers something to point at they
can claim they gained their client as justification for their fees
should the matter of paying ICANN's lawyers ever get to court.
	The 7 day notice that Karl had offered, when under California
notice he was under no obligation to offer any notice at all, indicates
how far he was willing to go to try to satisfy the illegal demands of
ICANN management. Despite blowing away all of ICANNs agrument, the court
still came through with a decision inbetween that asked for by the two
parties, even if almost identical to what Karl asked for, thus
"splitting the difference".  I've read Federal Communications Commission
decsions where, for example, AT&T petitioned for a 90 day delay in
something, the FCC totally blew away all of AT&T's arguments and ruled
against every point they made, but still ended up granting a 1 day
delay. That's just the way things work and one of the reasons people
sometimes take the most extreme position they can conceive of, on the
grounds that they will never get all of what they ask for anyway.

> d/

Becasue you don't like someone and/or don't like their opinions is not a
good reason to presume they will violate their duty as the director of a
corporation and is not a good reason to act illegally towards them.
	ICANN can run around spinning this like crazy and trumpet the
measly 3 extra days notice they got as a tremendous victory. That's one
of the things getting a sop lets you do.
	Morally and in the eyes of public opinion, ICANN has stabbed
itself and the longer it refuses to admit it was wrong, the deader ICANN
becomes.

Donald

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:06:10 -0400 (EDT)

> ICANN is to create something even worse.

why would you say it's worst?

regards
joe

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:08:21 -0400 (EDT)

> of his continuing to do that management.

well he did redirect the root - said it was a big experiment.  so if he
didn't redirect it to F - where did it go?

> And folks wonder why anyone would be skeptical about running ICANN in a

in the beggining operating ICANN in a fishbowl would of worked - but now
it's too late for that.  failure is by now guranteed.

regards
joe baptista