From owner-apple Tue Jul 1 01:07:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id BAA17992 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 01:07:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from unir.corp (root@[207.32.128.74] (may be forged)) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id BAA17984; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 01:07:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from webster.unety.net (webster.unety.net [207.32.128.58]) by unir.corp (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA14169; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 10:57:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: by webster.unety.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BC8545.950B13A0@webster.unety.net>; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:05:55 -0500 Message-ID: <01BC8545.950B13A0@webster.unety.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'David R. Conrad'" , "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" Cc: "apple@apnic.net" Subject: RE: I am not happy with IANA's policy (so what?) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:05:54 -0500 Encoding: 18 TEXT Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk On Monday, June 30, 1997 8:16 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc@apnic.net] wrote: @ @ BTW: I also am not happy with the IANA's policies. However, I'm still @ waiting for an implementable alternative (of which I don't consider @ Jim Fleming's proposal to allocate /8s to each state in the US a @ viable one) @ With IPv8, each State gets its own 32 bit address space. The IPv4 Core Transport Network is simply used for transport. Each group that has its own /32 or /16 does not need many IP addresses on that core network to be connected. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From owner-apple Tue Jul 1 16:59:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id QAA03851 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 16:59:38 +0900 (JST) Received: from uxmail.ust.hk (root@uxmail.ust.hk [143.89.14.30]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id QAA03845 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 16:59:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from mmueller.ust.hk ([143.89.231.19]) by uxmail.ust.hk with SMTP id <102432-3673>; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 16:02:16 +0800 Message-ID: <33B8AC56.5BE6@usthk.ust.hk> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 16:05:58 +0900 From: Milton Mueller Reply-To: milton@usthk.ust.hk X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apple@apnic.net CC: dns-law@wia.org Subject: Re: ITU Press Release: Council Endorses ITU Role in Internet Top Level Domain Names References: <33B80AC9.237583FB@itu.int> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Having read this press release I see it as confirmation of what many of us have contended all along, which is that the ITU is using the TLD issue to achieve a far broader role for itself in Internet governance. The ITU has claimed that it is "just a depository" of the MoU, but clearly this is just a first step for an institution that fears it is losing control of telecommunications in general and is seeking a new role for itself in the era of digital telecoms. One may think this is bad or good, but it is high time for IAHC and ITU people to stop being coy about this, and for the rest of us to think seriously about the long term implications of using the ITU as the institutional base for Internet administration. Pay special attention to these passages: >The delegates from France and Switzerland underlined the special >role the ITU had to play in the future development of the Internet, >being the international telecommunication organization par >excellence. The ITU was praised for the initiative taken on account >that having failed to do so would have meant a lost opportunity for >the Union to be involved in a very important issue. >Adding its voice to the discussion, the delegate of Pakistan said he >believed the Internet would be of great importance in the future, and >that is was vital that the ITU play a leadership role in this area. Robert Shaw wrote: > > Hi, > > Below is an ITU press release announcing the ITU's Admininstrative > Council's Endorsement of the ITU's Role in Internet Top Level Domain > Names. The reference on the ITU web site is > http://www.itu.int/PPI/press/releases/1997/itu-11.html > From owner-apple Tue Jul 1 17:36:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id RAA04254 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 17:36:28 +0900 (JST) Received: from sigma.itu.ch (sigma.itu.ch [156.106.128.30]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id RAA04249 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 17:36:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from ties.itu.ch (ties.itu.ch) by ITU.CH (PMDF V5.0-6 #16074) id <01IKPWTBDM6K936SO8@ITU.CH>; Tue, 01 Jul 1997 10:37:56 +0200 Received: from none.itu.ch (slip139-92-111-158.gen.ch.ibm.net [139.92.111.158]) by ties.itu.ch (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA24001; Tue, 01 Jul 1997 10:37:55 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 10:41:08 -0700 From: Robert Shaw Subject: US Department of Commerce Request for Comments on Domain Names To: gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org, newdom@ar.com, domain-policy@lists.internic.net, apple@apnic.net, pab-submit@gtld-mou.org Message-id: <33B94134.E7146CC6@itu.int> Organization: ITU MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0b5 [en] (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <33B80AC9.237583FB@itu.int> Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk References: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/new.html and http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dn5notic.htm and http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/dn5press.htm "Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names: The Department of Commerce requests comments on the current and future system(s) for the registration of Internet domain names. The Department invites the public to submit written comments in paper or electronic form by August 18, 1997. Resolution of these issues will affect the future operation of the National Information Infrastructure (NII) and the Global Information Infrastructure (GII). (Press Release)" Robert -- Robert Shaw (shaw@itu.int) Advisor, Global Information Infrastructure International Telecommunication Union (http://www.itu.int) Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland From owner-apple Tue Jul 1 21:49:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id VAA06572 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 21:49:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from jakarta.regex.com (jakarta.regex.com [207.106.122.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id VAA06567 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 21:49:28 +0900 (JST) Received: (qmail 25969 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1997 12:41:41 -0000 Received: from yapcs-r2.iscs.nus.sg (HELO yapcs-r2) (137.132.85.230) by tjt.or.id with SMTP; 1 Jul 1997 12:41:41 -0000 Message-ID: <33B8FD1A.2517483D@tjt.or.id> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 20:50:34 +0800 From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" Organization: VLSM-TJT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; Linux 2.0.29 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apple@apnic.net Subject: Re: I am not happy with IANA's policy (so what?) References: <199706301316.WAA25020@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk > I suspect this is the wrong forum. The point was: there was this religious leader who asked (challenged) another cult spokesman through this apple mailing-list to point out the ones who are not happy with his religion policy. Here I stand-up: "I am not happy with your apostle's policy". > A likely better place is "Policies And Guidelines > for the Assignment of Network numbers" , > to subscribe, send a message body of "subscribe" to > pagan-request@apnic.net. > [...] > If you have suggestions on how we can do so, feel free to > propose them (to pagan@apnic.net please). If you do not, > sniping at the sidelines is perhaps not particularly > constructive. There is no point to get involved in the pagan list: I do not belong to any vested interest clique -- who will listen to me? > BTW: I also am not happy with the IANA's policies. Apparently he himself is not happy too with his apostle's policy. In case someone is curious why I am not happy, I will disclose some points. However, those points have nothing to do with *right* or *wrong* -- they are more related with happiness or not: 1. Something like RFC-1591, RFC-2050, and gTLD-MoU should have been released in the late 1980-s or early 1990-s after the ARPANET ceased. At that time, there were less smart-greedies. 2. It was obvious that NFS will never pay the system forever. However, when everything was "free", there were fewer problems. Once NSI started to charge, the Pandora box has been opened. Why did not a part of the domain registry fund be used for improving the global Internet policy? 3. IANA is letting the IP addresses registries "out of control". This case is quite a common practice in the third world: first a clique is set, than justifications were based on its own members. And those 200 members are not charity organizations in anyway. There is no direct way for the registry to care about the public interest. It will follow its members' order. Based on its members' approval, the registry is not a pure "service provider" anymore: it is selling "authority". And I blame IANA for this. tabe, --- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - CEO VLSM-TJT - http://www.tjt.or.id/rms46 From owner-apple Tue Jul 1 22:13:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id WAA06685 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 22:13:57 +0900 (JST) Received: from fractal.chaos.com (fractal.chaos.com [206.5.17.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id WAA06677 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 22:12:39 +0900 (JST) Received: from [206.5.17.2] by fractal.chaos.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id fa014019 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 09:14:40 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970701091439.00958100@fractal.chaos.com> X-Sender: amr@fractal.chaos.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 b2 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 09:14:39 -0400 To: milton@usthk.ust.hk From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: ITU Press Release: Council Endorses ITU Role in Internet Top Level Domain Names Cc: apple@apnic.net, dns-law@wia.org In-Reply-To: <33B8AC56.5BE6@usthk.ust.hk> References: <33B80AC9.237583FB@itu.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Milton, >Having read this press release I see it as confirmation >of what many of us have contended all along, which is that >the ITU is using the TLD issue to achieve a far broader >role for itself in Internet governance. The ITU has claimed This can also be seen in Shaw's recent article entitled "Internet Domain Names and the ITU" in the ITU's current Inter.Act issue mailed in mass to it's constituencies. He says "[t]he ITU's role in these Internet related areas should not come as a surprise. Whether it concerns international freephone numbers, geostationary satellite slots or spectrum for the next generation of low earth orbit satellites (LEOS), the ITU has often played a role in harmonization of the allocation of global (and often scarce) telecommunications resources." This is a classic ITU top-down view of the world (see below). Although mention is made of "self-governance," the issue is also begged by posing the question "who decides who makes the rules," knowing full well that the ITU as an instrument of sovereigns can unilaterally make that decision, and that only sovereigns have any decision making power in the ITU. A copy is available at (256k GIF) See also a historical-analytical paper "ITU Models and the Quest for the Internet" at >Pay special attention to these passages: >>The delegates from France and Switzerland underlined the special >>role the ITU had to play in the future development of the Internet, Note also that France and Switzerland have historically been the ITU's strongest supporters in using the Union to maintain telecom monopolies and cartels - as well as to oppose the emergence and growth of the Internet. That they support top-down ITU control should come as no surprise. cheers, --Tony From owner-apple Mon Jul 14 15:19:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id PAA09895 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 15:19:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from merki.connect.com.au (merki.connect.com.au [192.189.54.36]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id PAA09889 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 15:18:57 +0900 (JST) From: Online@aba.gov.au Received: from janus.UUCP (uucp@localhost) by merki.connect.com.au with UUCP id QAA25317 (8.8.5/IDA-1.6 for apple@apnic.net); Mon, 14 Jul 1997 16:21:19 +1000 (EST) Received: by janus.aba.gov.au (5.65/1.2-eef) id AA17492; Mon, 14 Jul 97 15:50:48 +1000 X400-Received: by mta abamta in /PRMD=ausgovaba/ADMD=telememo/C=au; Relayed; 14 Jul 97 15:50:47 +1000 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ausgovaba/ADMD=telememo/C=au; Relayed; 14 Jul 97 16:05:23 +0000 Date: 14 Jul 97 15:50:48 +1100 Delivery-Date: 14 Jul 97 15:50:48 +1100 Message-Type: Multiple Part X400-Originator: Online@aba.gov.au X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=ausgovaba/ADMD=telememo/C=au;XGW-970714160523+0000-15724] X400-Recipients: apple@apnic.net Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text Message-Id: <0714160523-News Release: ABA joins international gr* @MHS> Importance: normal Subject: News Release: ABA joins international gr Autoforwarded: FALSE To: apple@apnic.net Priority: normal Conversion: Allowed Conversion-With-Loss: Allowed Alternate-Recipient: Prohibited Content-Identifier: News Release: AB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk For the information of those on the APPLE mailing list here is a news release released by the ABA today. The media contact is Donald Robertson, ABA Manager Media & PR, ph (02) 9334 7980. All other comments or enquiries should be directed to either myself or Ms Kaaren Koomen, Manager On-line Services. If anybody is interested in a Word version of the news release, please contact me and I will e-mail you one. David ------------------------------------------------------ News Release NR 68/1997 For immediate release ABA JOINS INTERNATIONAL GROUP ON INTERNET CONTENT RATING The Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) has welcomed the developments in international cooperation on issues relating to use of the Internet announced at a conference in Europe last week. "The ABA is particularly pleased a number of key organisations have agreed to establish an international working group on content rating. The ABA will be a participant in this group," said Mr Peter Webb, ABA Chairman. The European Commission, in three individual declarations by European Ministers, business leaders and users, has endorsed the proposed global rating systems as a way of empowering users and protecting children. This approach has also featured in the statements by the US Secretary of Commerce and the Japanese State Secretary for International Trade and Industry. "The ABA welcomes this endorsement, and the proposal that self-regulation and technical solutions, such as voluntary content filtering and rating, should play a central role in content control," Mr Webb said. "The ABA is concerned with identifying measures which will provide children with a protective framework for on-line services such as is available in other sectors like broadcasting, cinema and video and computer games." "The ABA has long been taking an active role in worthwhile measures for Internet regulation which represent practical responses to community concerns," he added. "Flexibility in regulatory arrangements needs to be the hallmark of this work." Ministers of 29 European countries agreed on a number of key principles at the 'Global Information Networks' Ministerial conference in Bonn, Germany, held from 6-8 July 1997. There was broad consensus between European Ministers, industries and users on the key issues and solutions for the development of on-line services. These issues include safety, security, and flexibility of systems and regulation. Apart from the ABA, the organisations to be involved in the working group on content rating include the Recreational Software Advisory Council (USA) and Internet Content Rating for Europe (INCORE). INCORE has as its core partners ECO Forum (Germany), Internet Watch Foundation (UK) and Childnet International (based in UK). Media contact: Donald Robertson, ABA Manager Media & PR, ph (02) 9334 7980. 14 July 1997 (end) Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA): http://www.dca.gov.au/aba/hpcov.htm RSAC: http://www.rsac.org Childnet International: http://childnet.mdx.ac.uk/childnet Internet Watch: http://www.internetwatch.org.uk European Commission page "Promoting Best Use, Preventing Misuse": http://www2.echo.lu/best_use/best_use.html Global Information Networks conference page: http://www2.echo.lu/bonn/conference ------------------------------------------------------ David Goldstein Project Officer, On-line Services Australian Broadcasting Authority e-mail: online@aba.gov.au URL: http://www.dca.gov.au/aba/hpcov.htm phone: +61 2 9334 7938 fax: +61 2 9334 7799 post: PO Box Q500 QVB SYDNEY NSW 1230 AUSTRALIA ______________________________ From owner-apple Tue Jul 15 09:29:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id JAA15547 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 09:29:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id JAA15542 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 09:29:31 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-3615.singnet.com.sg [165.21.152.99]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA19622 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 08:31:52 +0800 (SST) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 97 08:26:16 Subject: FW: Phnom Penh, 8 July 1997, noon To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Dear apple users, Here is a posting from our fellow APPLe user, Norbert Klein who is still in Cambodia. This is his attempt to make sure other views on the situation are heared. I wish to support his efforts, and wish him well. Laina RG Chair, APPLe GetIT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I did not post before as I saw you have all the reports from major news agencies copied to soc.culture.cambodia anyway. But the fact that there were so many reports shows that the reported total cutoff of communication was not so total. On our e-mail system, we experienced "busy" signals on international phone lines only from Saturday mid morning to two hours after midnight Saturday/Sunday. But it continues to be difficult to call out, as obviously many people try to call at the same time. But it is equally difficult to make local calls, as the gateway switches between the different phone systems are obviously overloaded. What has happened is in the reports - but some of the news sounds more dramatic than the situation is for many people ("foreigners crowding in the Cambodiana Hotel seven people to one room" - I have no reason to doubt it, but from visits in close walking distance, and from local telephone contacts with friends - both Cambodians and foreigners - I know that probably the majority of people, both Cambodians and foreigners, are in their homes and not rushing to the Cambodiana). But on the other hand those whose friends and family members lost their lives, those who were wounded, those who had their houses blown to pieces or burnt or looted - probably no reporting can sufficiently describe the despair. What happened on Saturday and Sunday did not come as a sudden surprise. There had been provocations from many sides. There was the 30 March grenade attack, and subsequent leaks that the FBI report casts suspicion on Hun Sen's bodyguards. Funcinpec had split, with the Toan Chay faction receiving visible support from CPP. Especially tensions had been building up in relation to the secret negotiations with the Khmer Rouge in Anlong Veng since many weeks; the remark by Prince Ranariddh during a visit to the north-west in a former KR region, that he came without his bodyguards because he is among old friends (as reported in the English language press); the importation of containers with weapons by the First Prime Minister, while declaring in the import documents the contents to be "spare parts" (the containers were duly marked "Explosives!" by the suppliers); the request by the French embassy to have the troops guarding the FUNCINPEC headquarters in its vicinity exchanged with a different unit (as reported in the press) because the unit on duty was composed of former KR fighters; and the invitation to Khieu Samphan to join the NUF alliance led by FUNCINPEC - all such events happened before the Second Prime Minister challenged the First Prime Minister to say if he wants to continue the coalition government, or if he wants to join the opposition. Then small armed confrontations started, which quickly escalated during Saturday afternoon. Now it is mostly quiet again since Sunday evening - many bigger shops and offices are still closed, while those who depend on a daily income as small scale sellers or craftsmen work again. Some areas of town, for example towards the airport, are still off limits. The people had been evacuated by troops or police since the area was near where shells were falling. Looting followed and people think it is still going on. None political party is composed of a membership of saints, and they have all had political alliances in the past which are the subject of on-going accusations: Hun Sen was in the Khmer Rouge until part-way through the Khmer Rouge regime, and then received support from the Vietnamese at a later stage. Ranariddh was in coalition with the Khmer Rouge until the early 1990's. Etc. And stories fly around and stir up more hatred now: 'KR troops are in Phnom Penh'. 'Vietnamese troops are in Phnom Penh'. I have not seen any. My plea to anyone in a position of leadership in Cambodia, and to anyone with influence in the Cambodian community - which includes all of you giving information and elaborating your opinions in SOC.CULTURE.CAMBODIA - is to support that decisions and actions are made not on the basis of persons but rather on the basis of laws which rule everyone - the strong and the weak alike. This principle is one of the biggest causalities in the events of the recent past. Norbert Klein Open Forum Information Exchange Phnom Penh/CAMBODIA -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/15/97 Time: 8:26:16 AM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Tue Jul 15 09:32:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id JAA15568 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 09:32:20 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id JAA15563 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 09:32:17 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-3615.singnet.com.sg [165.21.152.99]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA06732 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 08:34:38 +0800 (SST) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 97 08:30:20 Subject: FW: Phnom Penh, 14.7.97 To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Here is a more recent excerpt of a letter from Norbert in Cambodia on what is happening. We are after all connected, and what goes on there should concern us too. Laina RG --- On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 22:15:42 +0700 Norbert Klein wrote: We are fine, it is quiet again. The political situation is not yet settled, though this is also progressing, with the return of the Foreign Minister today, a member of the royalist party of Prince Ranariddh. The US and German embassies try to talk us (my wife is a US citizen) into leaving the country as soon as possible "for security reasons", and those who are on a Japanese, US or German government funded program's payroll are forced to leave, even against their will - or they will lose employment. Because of our e-mail system (we have now over 350 users and are the biggest system in the country) I know a lot of persons and institutions. Even very important educational or health related programs - e.g. the US Maternal and Child Health Program where we recently installed a LAN and linked it up to our system - have to close down, also the crucial Cambodia Environment Management Program at the Ministry of Environment (under a Minister who is from the royalist party and who continues in office) which depends so far on US and Canadian support is being shut down as the expatriate advisers are forced to leave by orders of the funders, and the Cambodian staff who have been trained and strengthened for their task are now facing a dead end road, because their salaries will no longer be underwritten as the US government is "suspending" cooperation for at last one month, and a possible three months period is under public discussion. But once things have been derailed, it is difficult to start again. I am grateful for every avenue where a message other than the one from the three governments mentioned above and the like-minded media can be shared. Norbert -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/15/97 Time: 8:30:20 AM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Tue Jul 15 22:50:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id WAA20113 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:50:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from sigma.itu.ch (sigma.itu.ch [156.106.128.30]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id WAA20108 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:50:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from ties.itu.ch (ties.itu.ch) by ITU.CH (PMDF V5.0-6 #16074) id <01IL9RV4YWCU9S3ZXJ@ITU.CH>; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 15:52:31 +0200 Received: from none.itu.ch (slip139-92-111-94.gen.ch.ibm.net [139.92.111.94]) by ties.itu.ch (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA03481; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 15:52:19 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 15:55:56 +0200 From: Robert Shaw Subject: Update on gTLD Registrar Application Process To: gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org, newdom@ar.com, domain-policy@lists.internic.net, apple@apnic.net, tld-admin@ripe.net, dns-wg@ripe.net, dns@intiaa.asn.au, pab-submit@gtld-mou.org Message-id: <33CB816C.68165A33@itu.int> Organization: ITU MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0b5 [en] (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Hi, There has been an update on the http://www.gtld-mou.org site. As always, for latest news, click on "Latest News" Of specific interest: 1. There is a near-final draft of the "Application Form to Qualify to sign the CORE-MoU Submitted to the Internet Council of Registrars (CORE)" which is available from http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/apply.htm The application process for applying to become a new gTLD Registrar under the aegis of the gTLD-MoU framework is not yet open. However, the target release date for the final application form is within the next week after which the current application form foresees approximately a 90 day application period (replacing the previously planned 60 day period). Also new is that the application form foresees that CORE will begin "start-up" activities 30 days after the beginning of acceptance of applications. In order to act as a gTLD registrar, the draft application process foresees the following steps: (i) Submit a completed application form and application fee within the application period; (ii) Have the application be deemed acceptable; (iii) After the application has been deemed acceptable, sign the CORE-MoU, and thereby become a member of CORE; (iv) Conform to the operational and technical requirements determined by CORE for registrars; (v) Begin registration activities. After the commencement of registration activities by CORE, only Registrars may remain members of CORE. Registrars, and only Registrars, shall participate in the on-going activities of CORE. Potential gTLD Registrar applicants are encouraged to carefully read the application form. The application form makes reference to the DNS Walk program. The version on the http://www.gtld-mou.org site will be updated with a more robust version before the application process starts. The application form also makes reference to the CORE-MoU. The version on the http://www.gtld-mou.org site will be updated before the application process starts. Robert -- Robert Shaw (shaw@itu.int) Advisor, Global Information Infrastructure International Telecommunication Union (http://www.itu.int) Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland From owner-apple Wed Jul 16 00:56:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id AAA21011 for apple-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:56:26 +0900 (JST) Received: from ren.globecomm.net (ren.globecomm.net [207.51.48.3]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA21006 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:56:23 +0900 (JST) Received: from bhelfant.globecomm.net ([207.51.49.11]) by ren.globecomm.net (8.8.5/8.8.0) with SMTP id LAA10269; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 11:58:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970715115858.01129dd0@globecomm.com> X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 11:58:58 -0400 To: Robert Shaw , gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org, newdom@ar.com, domain-policy@lists.internic.net, apple@apnic.net, tld-admin@ripe.net, dns-wg@ripe.net, dns@intiaa.asn.au, pab-submit@gtld-mou.org From: Bob Helfant Subject: Re: Update on gTLD Registrar Application Process In-Reply-To: <33CB816C.68165A33@itu.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Can I assume that between the posting that are considering a 60 or 90 day processing period and this email, you have received overwhelming support for the 90 day period. I didn't see much of it on this list so I can assume that everyone reponded privately. At 03:55 PM 7/15/97 +0200, Robert Shaw wrote: >Hi, > >There has been an update on the http://www.gtld-mou.org site. > >As always, for latest news, click on "Latest News" > >Of specific interest: > >1. There is a near-final draft of the "Application Form to Qualify to >sign the CORE-MoU Submitted to the Internet Council of Registrars (CORE)" >which is available from http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/apply.htm > >The application process for applying to become a new gTLD Registrar >under the aegis of the gTLD-MoU framework is not yet open. However, >the target release date for the final application form is within >the next week after which the current application form foresees >approximately a 90 day application period (replacing the previously >planned 60 day period). Also new is that the application form foresees >that CORE will begin "start-up" activities 30 days after the beginning >of acceptance of applications. > >In order to act as a gTLD registrar, the draft application process >foresees the following steps: > >(i) Submit a completed application form and application fee within > the application period; > >(ii) Have the application be deemed acceptable; > >(iii) After the application has been deemed acceptable, sign the > CORE-MoU, and thereby become a member of CORE; > >(iv) Conform to the operational and technical requirements determined > by CORE for registrars; > >(v) Begin registration activities. > >After the commencement of registration activities by CORE, only >Registrars may remain members of CORE. Registrars, and only Registrars, >shall participate in the on-going activities of CORE. > >Potential gTLD Registrar applicants are encouraged to carefully read >the application form. > >The application form makes reference to the DNS Walk program. The >version on the http://www.gtld-mou.org site will be updated with a >more robust version before the application process starts. > >The application form also makes reference to the CORE-MoU. The >version on the http://www.gtld-mou.org site will be updated before >the application process starts. > >Robert >-- >Robert Shaw (shaw@itu.int) >Advisor, Global Information Infrastructure >International Telecommunication Union (http://www.itu.int) >Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland > > From owner-apple Wed Jul 16 01:52:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id BAA21370 for apple-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 01:52:58 +0900 (JST) Received: from smtp (MAILGATE@[207.38.215.2] (may be forged)) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id BAA21365 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 01:52:37 +0900 (JST) From: kconnolly@evw.com Message-Id: <199707151652.BAA21365@teckla.apnic.net> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 12:53:03 -0500 To: apple@apnic.net, dns-wg@ripe.net, dns@intiaa.asn.au, domain-policy@lists.internic.net, gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org, newdom@ar.com, pab-submit@gtld-mou.org, robert.shaw@itu.int, tld-admin@ripe.net, bhelfant@globecomm.net Subject: PAB Re: Update on gTLD Registrar Application Process -Reply MIME-version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: TFS Gateway /222000000/222050764/222002948/222082480/ Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Bob Helfant wrote: >>> "bhelfant@globecomm.net" 07/15/97 12:21pm >>> Can I assume that between the posting that are considering a 60 or 90 day processing period and this email, you have received overwhelming support for the 90 day period. I didn't see much of it on this list so I can assume that everyone reponded privately. {snip} Online, it's sometimes impossible to tell for sure where the naivete ends and the sarcasm begins. However, we know all too well that the apathy that pervades this list pretty well precludes "overwhelming support" for anything, so it seems safe to conclude that Bob's remarks are sarcastic. I know that there has from time to time been a lack of civility on this lis= t.=20 Lord knows, I have on occasion contributed to that lack. But I am also all too well aware that nothing deters participation in online discussions more conclusively than incivility. The fact that I would just as lief put=20= Jay Fenello's tuchas in the hoosegow does not change the fact that I would enjoy doing so _politely_. So . . . please take this note as a reminder that if we're sincere about striving for the widest possible participation in PAB activities, we should refrain from engaging in sarcasm, character assassination (of PAB Members ) and other unpleasantness. Sincerely, Kevin J. Connolly From owner-apple Wed Jul 16 04:07:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id EAA22177 for apple-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 04:07:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.3]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id EAA22172 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 04:07:42 +0900 (JST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA17667; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 14:07:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: from kcx-ks5-07.ix.netcom.com(204.30.70.167) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma017653; Tue Jul 15 14:07:11 1997 Message-ID: <33CB5CD8.32CA@ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 12:19:52 +0100 From: Jeff Williams Organization: IEG. INC. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Helfant CC: Robert Shaw , gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org, newdom@ar.com, domain-policy@lists.internic.net, apple@apnic.net, tld-admin@ripe.net, dns-wg@ripe.net, dns@intiaa.asn.au, pab-submit@gtld-mou.org Subject: Re: Update on gTLD Registrar Application Process References: <3.0.1.32.19970715115858.01129dd0@globecomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Bob, Bob Helfant wrote: > > Can I assume that between the posting that are considering a 60 or 90 day > processing period and this email, you have received overwhelming support > for the 90 day period. I didn't see much of it on this list so I can > assume that everyone reponded privately. My understanding is that the 60 to 90 day period is still under scrutiny and disagreement. No consensus at this point. > > At 03:55 PM 7/15/97 +0200, Robert Shaw wrote: > >Hi, > > > >There has been an update on the http://www.gtld-mou.org site. > > > >As always, for latest news, click on "Latest News" > > > >Of specific interest: > > > >1. There is a near-final draft of the "Application Form to Qualify to > >sign the CORE-MoU Submitted to the Internet Council of Registrars (CORE)" > >which is available from http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/apply.htm > > > >The application process for applying to become a new gTLD Registrar > >under the aegis of the gTLD-MoU framework is not yet open. However, > >the target release date for the final application form is within > >the next week after which the current application form foresees > >approximately a 90 day application period (replacing the previously > >planned 60 day period). Also new is that the application form foresees > >that CORE will begin "start-up" activities 30 days after the beginning > >of acceptance of applications. > > > >In order to act as a gTLD registrar, the draft application process > >foresees the following steps: > > > >(i) Submit a completed application form and application fee within > > the application period; > > > >(ii) Have the application be deemed acceptable; > > > >(iii) After the application has been deemed acceptable, sign the > > CORE-MoU, and thereby become a member of CORE; > > > >(iv) Conform to the operational and technical requirements determined > > by CORE for registrars; > > > >(v) Begin registration activities. > > > >After the commencement of registration activities by CORE, only > >Registrars may remain members of CORE. Registrars, and only Registrars, > >shall participate in the on-going activities of CORE. > > > >Potential gTLD Registrar applicants are encouraged to carefully read > >the application form. > > > >The application form makes reference to the DNS Walk program. The > >version on the http://www.gtld-mou.org site will be updated with a > >more robust version before the application process starts. > > > >The application form also makes reference to the CORE-MoU. The > >version on the http://www.gtld-mou.org site will be updated before > >the application process starts. > > > >Robert > >-- > >Robert Shaw (shaw@itu.int) > >Advisor, Global Information Infrastructure > >International Telecommunication Union (http://www.itu.int) > >Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland > > > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com From owner-apple Thu Jul 17 15:15:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id PAA15048 for apple-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 15:15:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from merki.connect.com.au (merki.connect.com.au [192.189.54.36]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id PAA15043 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 15:15:25 +0900 (JST) From: Online@aba.gov.au Received: from janus.UUCP (Uaba@localhost) by merki.connect.com.au with UUCP id QAA20999 (8.8.5/IDA-1.6 for apple@apnic.net); Thu, 17 Jul 1997 16:17:39 +1000 (EST) Received: by janus.aba.gov.au (5.65/1.2-eef) id AA23962; Thu, 17 Jul 97 16:04:25 +1000 X400-Received: by mta abamta in /PRMD=ausgovaba/ADMD=telememo/C=au; Relayed; 17 Jul 97 16:04:22 +1000 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ausgovaba/ADMD=telememo/C=au; Relayed; 17 Jul 97 16:19:18 +0000 Date: 17 Jul 97 16:04:25 +1100 Delivery-Date: 17 Jul 97 16:04:25 +1100 Message-Type: Multiple Part X400-Originator: Online@aba.gov.au X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=ausgovaba/ADMD=telememo/C=au;XGW-970717161918+0000-21726] X400-Recipients: apple@apnic.net Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text Message-Id: <0717161918-ABA Chairman welcomes White House announ* @MHS> Importance: normal Subject: ABA Chairman welcomes White House announ Autoforwarded: FALSE To: apple@apnic.net Priority: normal Conversion: Allowed Conversion-With-Loss: Allowed Alternate-Recipient: Prohibited Content-Identifier: ABA Chairman wel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk For the information of those on the Apple mailing list, here is an Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) new release from today. If you wish to have a Word version of this news release, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards David ---------- News Release NR 69/1997 For immediate release ABA Chairman welcomes White House announcement on Internet The Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Authority has welcomed yesterday_s statement from U.S. President Bill Clinton on regulation of content on the Internet. "An American policy position was essential following the demise of the Communications Decency Act in the U.S. Supreme Court," Mr Webb said. "President Clinton_s strategy of enforcing existing child pornography and obscenity laws in cyberspace, endorsing the deployment of blocking software and Net content rating systems and improving parental education about how to use such technologies at home closely mirrors the ABA_s approach over the past 18 months," he said. Mr Webb also welcomed the news that Netscape will include PICS (the Platform for Internet Content Selection software) in the next version of its browser and the news that IBM will sponsor RSAC (the U.S. Recreational Software Advisory Council). RSAC has developed one of the most sophisticated rating systems for Internet content, RSACi. "The ABA looks forward to working with RSAC and the European-based INCORE organisation on the international working group on content rating announced last week," Mr Webb said. "President Clinton_s statement and this week_s announcement of a national framework for on-line content regulation in Australia by the Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator Alston and the Attorney-General, Mr Williams, gives renewed impetus to the global convergence of views on this difficult issue," he said. Media contact: Donald Robertson, ABA Manager, Media and PR on (+61 2) 9334 7980 or . 17 July 1997. (end) ------------------------------------------------------ David Goldstein Project Officer, On-line Services Australian Broadcasting Authority e-mail: online@aba.gov.au URL: http://www.dca.gov.au/aba/hpcov.htm phone: +61 2 9334 7938 fax: +61 2 9334 7799 post: PO Box Q500 QVB SYDNEY NSW 1230 AUSTRALIA ______________________________ From owner-apple Thu Jul 17 16:40:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id QAA15461 for apple-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 16:40:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id QAA15456 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 16:40:51 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-5520.singnet.com.sg [165.21.161.72]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA03399 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 15:43:12 +0800 (SST) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 97 15:36:11 Subject: Content regulation To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Thank you ABA for providing APPLe with your new release. It is very interesting to see how countries have been relooking the issues of content regulation, and coming close to what really works and what is generally objectionable. It will be interesting to see if there are any other countries who have been taking on this apporach and relooking their original draconian content regulations. To some extent, I feel that the US CDA was a strong catalyst for many countries to adopt these regulations in the first place. It was almost if the US can do it, so can we (although I recognise there were many other REAL reasons behind them). Maybe Ang Peng Hwa, an expert on content regulation can share his views on what has been going on in this region over this last year. Are countries moving forward or backwards in their regultaions and policies? Laina RG ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/17/97 Time: 3:36:11 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Thu Jul 17 17:49:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id RAA15970 for apple-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:49:57 +0900 (JST) Received: from merki.connect.com.au (merki.connect.com.au [192.189.54.36]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id RAA15965 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:49:54 +0900 (JST) From: Online@aba.gov.au Received: from janus.UUCP (Uaba@localhost) by merki.connect.com.au with UUCP id SAA06466 (8.8.5/IDA-1.6 for apple@apnic.net); Thu, 17 Jul 1997 18:52:16 +1000 (EST) Received: by janus.aba.gov.au (5.65/1.2-eef) id AA24527; Thu, 17 Jul 97 18:33:34 +1000 X400-Received: by mta abamta in /PRMD=ausgovaba/ADMD=telememo/C=au; Relayed; 17 Jul 97 18:33:30 +1000 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ausgovaba/ADMD=telememo/C=au; Relayed; 17 Jul 97 18:48:24 +0000 Date: 17 Jul 97 18:33:33 +1100 Delivery-Date: 17 Jul 97 18:33:33 +1100 Message-Type: Multiple Part X400-Originator: Online@aba.gov.au X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=ausgovaba/ADMD=telememo/C=au;XGW-970717184824+0000-11840] X400-Recipients: apple@apnic.net Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text Message-Id: <0717184824-ABA Chairman welcomes White House announ* @MHS> Importance: normal Subject: ABA Chairman welcomes White House announ Autoforwarded: FALSE To: apple@apnic.net Priority: normal Conversion: Allowed Conversion-With-Loss: Allowed Alternate-Recipient: Prohibited Content-Identifier: ABA Chairman wel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk For the information of those on the Apple mailing list, here is an Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) new release from today. If you wish to have a Word version of this news release, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards David ---------- News Release NR 69/1997 For immediate release ABA Chairman welcomes White House announcement on Internet The Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Authority has welcomed yesterday_s statement from U.S. President Bill Clinton on regulation of content on the Internet. "An American policy position was essential following the demise of the Communications Decency Act in the U.S. Supreme Court," Mr Webb said. "President Clinton_s strategy of enforcing existing child pornography and obscenity laws in cyberspace, endorsing the deployment of blocking software and Net content rating systems and improving parental education about how to use such technologies at home closely mirrors the ABA_s approach over the past 18 months," he said. Mr Webb also welcomed the news that Netscape will include PICS (the Platform for Internet Content Selection software) in the next version of its browser and the news that IBM will sponsor RSAC (the U.S. Recreational Software Advisory Council). RSAC has developed one of the most sophisticated rating systems for Internet content, RSACi. "The ABA looks forward to working with RSAC and the European-based INCORE organisation on the international working group on content rating announced last week," Mr Webb said. "President Clinton_s statement and this week_s announcement of a national framework for on-line content regulation in Australia by the Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator Alston and the Attorney-General, Mr Williams, gives renewed impetus to the global convergence of views on this difficult issue," he said. Media contact: Donald Robertson, ABA Manager, Media and PR on (+61 2) 9334 7980 or . 17 July 1997. (end) ------------------------------------------------------ David Goldstein Project Officer, On-line Services Australian Broadcasting Authority e-mail: online@aba.gov.au URL: http://www.dca.gov.au/aba/hpcov.htm phone: +61 2 9334 7938 fax: +61 2 9334 7799 post: PO Box Q500 QVB SYDNEY NSW 1230 AUSTRALIA ______________________________ From owner-apple Thu Jul 17 23:09:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id XAA17286 for apple-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:09:32 +0900 (JST) Received: from izanagi.glocom.ac.jp (root@izanagi.glocom.ac.jp [202.32.71.134]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id XAA17281 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:09:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from [202.32.248.78] (dyn78.glocom.ac.jp [202.32.248.78]) by izanagi.glocom.ac.jp (8.8.5/3.4W5/GLOCOM) with SMTP id XAA06649 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:11:53 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Macintosh Eudora Pro Version 2.1.3-Jr2 Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:11:25 +0900 To: apple@apnic.net From: ajp@glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Subject: report on the Harrods domain name case (UK) Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk For info, Adam Source: Lovell White Durrant, Computer, Communications & Media Newsletter, Spring 1997 http://www.lovellwhitedurrant.com/compcomm/spri1997/ccm_07.htm March 1997 Harrods domain name case At the end of last year, Mr Justice Lightman gave one of the few decisions in England so far on the legality of "hijacking" Internet domain names. Harrods, the well-known store, had registered the Internet domain name "Harrods.co.uk" with Network Solutions Inc, the company which contracts to provide registration services of Internet domain names. Another company, UK Network Services Limited, subsequently registered "Harrods.com" as a domain name (along with some 50 other names corresponding to well-known companies). Harrods invoked the dispute resolution procedures of Network Solutions Inc and the "Harrods.com" domain name was suspended in March last year. In August 1996, Harrods sued UK Network Services Limited for registered trade mark infringement and passing off. By the time of the hearing, in December, the defendants were no longer legally represented and did not appear at the hearing. In their absence, Mr Justice Lightman found in favour of Harrods and granted injunctions restraining the defendants from infringing Harrods' registered trade marks and passing themselves off as being connected with Harrods by use of the mark Harrods. He also ordered them to "take all available steps to hand the domain name over to Harrods". In the absence of the defendants, the judge did not give a reasoned judgment (and therefore much needed guidance in this area), so it would be unwise to draw too many conclusions. Nevertheless, his comment that the acts complained of "clearly constituted infringement of Harrods' trade marks and passing off" indicate how the English Courts may approach domain name hijacking cases in the future. Whilst the approach of Mr Justice Lightman is consistent with his approach in Glaxo Plc v Glaxowellcome Limited [1996] FSR 388 which involved a dispute over the registration of a company name at Companies House, the similarities of the cases are superficial only: companies are creatures of statute and the courts clearly have an inherent power to ensure that the Companies Acts are not being abused by the registration of companies with names where others have goodwill in those names and the registering party then demanding a price for changing the name. An Internet domain name registration is a private law matter based on contract. Interestingly, in the Glaxo/Wellcome case, the only defendant that appeared did so in person and thus full legal argument of the issues did not take place. Domain name hijacking cases aside, we are still have no guidance on how domain disputes should be dealt with where two or more parties have a legitimate interest in the name in question. A recent example of this in the United States can be seen in the Roadrunner case (Roadrunner Computer Sys., Inc v. Network Solutions, Inc., No 96cv413 (E.D Va) where a number of companies had registered and common law rights in the name Roadrunner but naturally only one could register as roadrunner.com. It is therefore rather timely that WIPO has set up a group of experts to conduct a study on trade marks and Internet domain names, the first session of which met in Geneva in mid-February. The WIPO study is intended to recommend solutions acceptable to trade mark owners, Internet service providers and Internet users. Conor Ward From owner-apple Fri Jul 18 01:32:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id BAA18471 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 01:32:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id BAA18466 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 01:32:25 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-5407.singnet.com.sg [165.21.161.27]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA29506 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 00:34:44 +0800 (SST) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 97 00:24:05 Subject: GLTDs and ITU members To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk I am interested in obtaining views from others in this region on how they look at the GLTDs issue and that of the IAHC. I understand that the ITU Council endorsed the role of ITU as the depository and that the US has asked for member countries to give comments on the substance of the MoU within 60days, i.e. by next month. I also understand that the US government may be giving out a Notice of Inquiry on the governance issue and how to solve it internationally. Meanwhile, WIPO is having a consultative committe to discuss ots role as the dispute resolution body...the next meeting is to be in Geneva on the 1st Sept. Question I ask, is what is the impact of all these efforts, AlterNIc, IAHC and the US government on this region. Which effort should we support and how will it affect us to support the "wrong" one (one that in the long run may prove not to have the legal legitimacy required for commercial security)? Will one of them (even if "wrong") gain momentum and begin to get support and then gain legitimacy??? Another question, do you think the 7 GLTDs solve the problem. Do we need more, do we need more competition, or is there another solution to this whole DNS mess? I would appreciate comments from participants of APPLe from this region, preferably. I am trying to make sense of all that is going on, from a practical business point of view.. how does it impact your business and which do you support? These are some issues are feel that are crucial to the growth of electronic commerce in this region. Laina RG ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/18/97 Time: 12:24:05 AM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Fri Jul 18 09:36:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id JAA21359 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:36:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id JAA21354 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:35:58 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-4116.singnet.com.sg [165.21.153.132]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA15755 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:38:18 +0800 (SST) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 97 08:31:10 Subject: US Notice of Inquiry To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Here is a posting of the US Notice of Inquiry (thanks Tony for this input). Please read it and share your comments both directly to the US government and on this list. If we received enough comments , we may be able to input it collectively (even if no concsensus, the aim is to channel AP views which has not before been heared), either under APIA, APNIC or APPLe. In either case, it is important that feedback from this region be shared with the US. Please participate. Laina RG ................ [The filing date of this Notice is July 1, 1997 and the publication date in the Federal Register is July 2, 1997.] Billing Code 3510-60 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [Docket No. 970613137-7137-01] Request for Comments on the Registration and Administration of Internet Domain Names AGENCY: Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice; request for public comment. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce requests comments on the current and future system(s) for the registration of Internet domain names. The Department invites the public to submit written comments in paper or electronic form.(1) DATES: Comments must be received by August 18, 1997. ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to Patrice Washington, Office of Public Affairs, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Room 4898, 14th St. and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for electronic access and filing addresses and further information on submitting comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Bruening, NTIA, (202) 482-1816. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access and Filing Addresses The address for comments submitted in electronic form is dns@ntia.doc.gov. Comments submitted in electronic form should be in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, or ASCII format. Detailed information about electronic filing is available on the NTIA website, http://www.ntia.doc.gov. Further Information on Submitting Comments Submit written comments in paper or electronic form at the above addresses. Paper submissions should include three paper copies and a version on diskette in the formats specified above. To assist reviewers, comments should be numbered and organized in response to questions in accordance with the five sections of this notice (Appropriate Principles, General/Organizational Framework Issues, Creation of New gTLDs, Policies for Registries, and Trademark Issues). Commenters should address each section on a separate page and should indicate at the beginning of their submission to which questions they are responding. Background The rapid growth in the use of the Internet has led to increasing public concern about the current Internet domain name registration systems. According to Internet Monthly Report, registration of domain names within a few top-level domains (.com, .net, .org) has increased from approximately 400 per month in 1993 to as many as 70,000 per month in 1996, the overwhelming majority in the .com category. The enormous growth and commercialization of the Internet has raised numerous questions about current domain name registration systems. In addition, the present system will likely undergo modification when the National Science Foundation's cooperative agreement (NSF agreement) with Network Solutions Inc. to register and administer second-level domains for three top-level domains expires in 1998. Resolution of these issues will also affect the future operation of the National Information Infrastructure (NII) and the Global Information Infrastructure (GII). The United States Government played a central role in the initial development, deployment, and operation of domain name registration systems, and through the NSF agreement as well as Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) agreement(s) continues to play a role. In recent years, however, Internet expansion has been driven primarily by the private sector. The Internet has operated by consensus rather than by government regulation. Many believe that the Internet's decentralized structure accounts at least in part for its rapid growth. The Government has supported the privatization and commercialization of the Internet through actions such as the transition from the NSFNET backbone to commercial backbones. The Government supports continued private sector leadership for the Internet and believes that the transition to private sector control should continue. The stability of the Internet depends on a fully interconnected and interoperable domain name system that must be preserved during any transition. Various private sector groups have proposed systems for allocating and managing generic top level domains (gTLDs). The Government is studying the proposals and the underlying issues to determine what role, if any, it should play. The Government has not endorsed any plan at this time but believes that it is very important to reach consensus on these policy issues as soon as possible. The United States Government seeks the views of the public regarding these proposals and broader policy issues as well. Specifically, the Government seeks information on the following issues: A. Appropriate Principles The Government seeks comment on the principles by which it should evaluate proposals for the registration and administration of Internet domain names. Are the following principles appropriate? Are they complete? If not, how should they be revised? How might such principles best be fostered? a. Competition in and expansion of the domain name registration system should be encouraged. Conflicting domains, systems, and registries should not be permitted to jeopardize the interoperation of the Internet, however. The addressing scheme should not prevent any user from connecting to any other site. b. The private sector, with input from governments, should develop stable, consensus-based self-governing mechanisms for domain name registration and management that adequately defines responsibilities and maintains accountability. c. These self-governance mechanisms should recognize the inherently global nature of the Internet and be able to evolve as necessary over time. d. The overall framework for accommodating competition should be open, robust, efficient, and fair. e. The overall policy framework as well as name allocation and management mechanisms should promote prompt, fair, and efficient resolution of conflicts, including conflicts over proprietary rights. f. A framework should be adopted as quickly as prudent consideration of these issues permits. B. General/Organizational Framework Issues 1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of current domain name registration systems? 2. How might current domain name systems be improved? 3. By what entity, entities, or types of entities should current domain name systems be administered? What should the makeup of such an entity be? 4. Are there decision-making processes that can serve as models for deciding on domain name registration systems (e.g., network numbering plan, standard-setting processes, spectrum allocation)? Are there private/public sector administered models or regimes that can be used for domain name registration (e.g., network numbering plan, standard setting processes, or spectrum allocation processes)? What is the proper role of national or international governmental/non-governmental organizations, if any, in national and international domain name registration systems? 5. Should generic top level domains (gTLDs), (e.g., .com), be retired from circulation? Should geographic or country codes (e.g., .US) be required? If so, what should happen to the .com registry? Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about International Standards Organization (ISO) country code domains? 6. Are there any technological solutions to current domain name registration issues? Are there any issues concerning the relationship of registrars and gTLDs with root servers? 7. How can we ensure the scalability of the domain name system name and address spaces as well as ensure that root servers continue to interoperate and coordinate? 8. How should the transition to any new systems be accomplished? 9. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area? C. Creation of New gTLDs 10. Are there technical, practical, and/or policy considerations that constrain the total number of different gTLDs that can be created? 11. Should additional gTLDs be created? 12. Are there technical, business, and/or policy issues about guaranteeing the scalability of the name space associated with increasing the number of gTLDs? 13. Are gTLD management issues separable from questions about ISO country code domains? 14. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area? D. Policies for Registries 15. Should a gTLD registrar have exclusive control over a particular gTLD? Are there any technical limitations on using shared registries for some or all gTLDs? Can exclusive and non-exclusive gTLDs coexist? 16. Should there be threshold requirements for domain name registrars, and what responsibilities should such registrars have? Who will determine these and how? 17. Are there technical limitations on the possible number of domain name registrars? 18. Are there technical, business and/or policy issues about the name space raised by increasing the number of domain name registrars? 19. Should there be a limit on the number of different gTLDs a given registrar can administer? Does this depend on whether the registrar has exclusive or non-exclusive rights to the gTLD? 20. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area? E. Trademark Issues 21. What trademark rights (e.g., registered trademarks, common law trademarks, geographic indications, etc.), if any, should be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain names? 22. Should some process of preliminary review of an application for registration of a domain name be required, before allocation, to determine if it conflicts with a trademark, a trade name, a geographic indication, etc.? If so, what standards should be used? Who should conduct the preliminary review? If a conflict is found, what should be done, e.g., domain name applicant and/or trademark owner notified of the conflict? Automatic referral to dispute settlement? 23. Aside from a preliminary review process, how should trademark rights be protected on the Internet vis-a-vis domain names? What entity(ies), if any, should resolve disputes? Are national courts the only appropriate forum for such disputes? Specifically, is there a role for national/international governmental/nongovernmental organizations? 24. How can conflicts over trademarks best be prevented? What information resources (e.g. databases of registered domain names, registered trademarks, trade names) could help reduce potential conflicts? If there should be a database(s), who should create the database(s)? How should such a database(s) be used? 25. Should domain name applicants be required to demonstrate that they have a basis for requesting a particular domain name? If so, what information should be supplied? Who should evaluate the information? On the basis of what criteria? 26. How would the number of different gTLDs and the number of registrars affect the number and cost of resolving trademark disputes? 27. Where there are valid, but conflicting trademark rights for a single domain name, are there any technological solutions? 28. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this area? William M. Daley Secretary ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. This request for public comment is not intended to supplant or otherwise affect the work of other public advisory groups, established under law. ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/18/97 Time: 8:31:10 AM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Fri Jul 18 09:53:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id JAA21425 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:53:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id JAA21420 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:53:42 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-4116.singnet.com.sg [165.21.153.132]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA05378 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:56:02 +0800 (SST) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 97 08:43:02 Subject: US Notice of Inquiry- please submit replies To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk For those interested in giving detailed views, please fill in the questionaires and send them to me at laina@getit.org. Please do however continue to give general comments on this list so we can generate good discussion on these issues. We may be able to uncover other issues not covered in the questionnaire and give this also as an input. Looking forward to fruitful discussions. Laina RG Chair APPLe From owner-apple Fri Jul 18 12:04:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id MAA22330 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:04:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from singapura.singnet.com.sg (singapura.singnet.com.sg [165.21.10.10]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id MAA22324 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:04:55 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (mathias@localhost) by singapura.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.7.2) with SMTP id LAA14542; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:07:03 +0800 (SST) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:07:02 +0800 (SST) From: Mathias Koerber X-Sender: mathias@singapura.singnet.com.sg Reply-To: mathias@staff.singnet.com.sg To: Adam Peake cc: apple@apnic.net Subject: Re: report on the Harrods domain name case (UK) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-Disclaimer: I don't speak for anyone except for myself (and to myself sometimes) Organization: SingNet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Adam Peake wrote: | Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:11:25 +0900 | From: Adam Peake | To: apple@apnic.net | Subject: report on the Harrods domain name case (UK) | | For info, | | Adam | Aren't these two domain names mixed up in the report?? | Source: Lovell White Durrant, Computer, Communications & Media | Newsletter, Spring 1997 | | http://www.lovellwhitedurrant.com/compcomm/spri1997/ccm_07.htm | | March 1997 | Harrods domain name case | | At the end of last year, Mr Justice Lightman gave one of the few | decisions in England so far on the legality of "hijacking" Internet | domain names. Harrods, the well-known store, had registered the | Internet domain name "Harrods.co.uk" with Network Solutions Inc, the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | company which contracts to provide registration services of Internet | domain names. | | Another company, UK Network Services Limited, subsequently registered | "Harrods.com" as a domain name (along with some 50 other names ^^^^^^^^^^^ | corresponding to well-known companies). Harrods invoked the dispute | resolution procedures of Network Solutions Inc and the "Harrods.com" | domain name was suspended in March last year. [...] Mathias From owner-apple Fri Jul 18 12:34:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id MAA23131 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:34:27 +0900 (JST) Received: from exchange2.ntu.edu.sg ([155.69.1.31] (may be forged)) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id MAA23125 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:34:24 +0900 (JST) Received: by EXCHANGE2 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:43:44 +0800 Message-ID: <6262D2BDE3E6D01186B508002BB487E10BB5D5@EXCHANGE2> From: Ang Peng Hwa To: "'apple@apnic.net'" Subject: RE: Content regulation Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:43:42 +0800 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk At Laina's invitation. . . >Maybe Ang Peng Hwa, an expert on content regulation can share his >views on what has been going on in this region over this last year. Are >countries moving forward or backwards in their regultaions and >policies? Well, it is a loaded question. Forward is good. Backwards is bad. (Is it even subliminal as the use of "ward" is American aka New World and "wards" is British or Old World? :-) ) I presented a paper at INET (http://www.isoc.org/isoc/whatis/conferences/inet/97/proceedings/B1/B1_3 .HTM) in which I concluded that countries are regulating with a lighter hand then they initially announced. But I also said that for now, what decides the degree of content regulation is what I call "legal culture". The classic case being South Korea, which is deathly afraid of a North Korean invasion. Under its National Security Law, South Koreans cannot express sympathy towards the North Koreans. There has been active censorship in that messages that even question whether the North Korean subs really ran aground in the South have been deleted. Those who posted the messages were "interviewed" by the authorities. Will the South Koreans relax this rule in South Korean because a South Korean outside of the country can post an identical message? My view is that it will not. You can't blame the South Koreans for being paranoid when the North has dug tunnels into the South. As Woody Allen said: just because you are paranoid does not mean they will not get you. Adopting the legal culture approach means that countries will regulate Internet content in a manner similar to that of another country that has a similar legal culture. It is not surprising to me therefore that Australia has backed the new Clinton proposal. Australia has a free speech clause in its constitution. Also, I was at the ASEAN Internet Forum last year in which Peter Webb, head of ABA, and Dianne Martin, prez of RSACi then, gave their views on content regulation. Peter had recommended the PICS approach. As far as I can recall, no ASEAN country seemed particularly excited about the approach. My take on it is that the Australian approach, which as I have mentioned in earlier postings I regard highly because of the quality of the outputs, is a little too alien for ASEAN. However, there are two possible "hopeful" (?) (sideways?) development that could make the Australian approach viable. First, Australia has recommended an international conference on Internet content regulation. It will not address *all* the issues but at least it sets some common denominators. Countries who want to go further can then decide if they want to pay the additional costs for such regulation. Second, at INET'97 there was a presentation by an Australian working in a certain country on PICS-aware proxy servers where sites can be tagged with different grades of severity of violence, sex, nudity, political communication, etc. This would actually combine PICS with individual level content regulation. The country in question is, of course, Singapore. FWIW, and to answer the question about the direction of regulation, Singapore is moving away from censorship of Internet content. There could be some changes in a couple of months. Regards, Peng Hwa ANG From owner-apple Sat Jul 19 00:16:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id AAA27373 for apple-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:16:49 +0900 (JST) Received: from sigma.itu.ch (sigma.itu.ch [156.106.128.30]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA27366 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:16:39 +0900 (JST) Received: from ties.itu.ch (ties.itu.ch) by ITU.CH (PMDF V5.0-6 #16074) id <01ILE05T9U4K9UM18F@ITU.CH>; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 16:32:32 +0200 Received: from none.itu.ch (slip139-92-111-139.gen.ch.ibm.net [139.92.111.139]) by ties.itu.ch (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA32285; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 16:32:26 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 16:35:59 +0200 From: Robert Shaw Subject: gTLD Registrar Application Process Open To: gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org, newdom@ar.com, domain-policy@lists.internic.net, apple@apnic.net, tld-admin@ripe.net, dns-wg@ripe.net, dns@intiaa.asn.au, pab-submit@gtld-mou.org Message-id: <33CF7F4F.AF0DF87@itu.int> Organization: ITU MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0b5 [en] (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <33CB816C.68165A33@itu.int> Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Hi, There has been an update on the http://www.gtld-mou.org site. As always, for latest news, click on "Latest News" Of specific interest: 1. The application process to become a gTLD Registrar is now open from July 18 - October 16, 1997. The "Application Form to Qualify to sign the CORE-MoU Submitted to the Internet Council of Registrars (CORE)" is available from http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/apply.htm 2. The application form makes reference to the CORE-MoU. The version on the http://www.gtld-mou.org site has been updated. Robert -- Robert Shaw (shaw@itu.int) Advisor, Global Information Infrastructure International Telecommunication Union (http://www.itu.int) Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland From owner-apple Sat Jul 19 00:24:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id AAA27450 for apple-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:24:58 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA27443 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:24:53 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-3722.singnet.com.sg [165.21.152.138]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA15026 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 23:26:59 +0800 (SST) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 97 21:45:44 Subject: FW: ITS European Regional Conference, Leuven, Aug. 29-31, 1997 To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us or check our website: http://www.fhw-berlin.de/~jmueller/its.html Yours sincerely, Karin Goihl ************************************************************************* * ITS European Regional Conference Preliminary Program as of July 15, 1997 August 29-31, 1997, in Leuven, Belgium, at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in collaboration with the 24th EARIE Meeting, Aug. 31 - Sept. 3, 1997 Friday, August 29, 1997 9.00 Welcoming Remarks 9.15-10.45 Opening Plenary Session Ian Morfett, BT, Title to be announced Marcel Haag, European Commission, DG IV EU Competition Law and Access Regulation in the Telecommunications Sector L. Waverman, LBS, LECG/M. Schankerman, LSE, EBRD Asymmetric Regulation and Competition in Multimedia Markets 10.45-11.00 Coffee Break 11.00-12.30 R1 Regulation I Brigitte Preissl, DIW, Germany Evaluation of Telecommunications Regulation in Europe Roland Doll, Deutsche Telekom, Germany Market Dominance - A Basis for Regulation in Telecommunications M.-J. Schachter-Radig, ARCIS Mediacom GmbH, Munich Market Makers in European Telecommunications: Investors and Regulators TS2 Substitution Effects of Upcoming Services/Products H. Gaglia, OTE, Greece/D. Yannelis, Uni. of Piraeus ISDN Services in Greece: Current Status and Future Prospects Morton Falch, CTI, Technical Uni. of Denmark Introduction of EDI in the Public Sector Michel Rogy/Elke Bantleon, Eutelis Consult Towards Best Practice in Making QoS Commitments to Customers: The Case of Voice Telephony 12.30-14.00 Lunch Break 14.00-15.30 M2 The Policy Challenge of Mediamatics - The Convergence of MEDIA and TeleMATICS (Panel Discussion Chair: Michael Latzer, Academy of Sciences, Austria) Peter Alexiadis, Squires Saunders Dempsey Maria Berger, European Parliament Jacques Briquemont, EBU Daniel Zimmermann, ACT P. Vittet-Philippe, European Commission - DG XIII MO1 Mobile Services I Bengt G. Moelleryd, Stockholm School of Economics Mobility - A Driver for Entrepreneurial Users in Mobile Communications Daniel Tewes, WIK, Germany The Potentials and Risks of Network Independent Service Providers Tommaso Valletti, LSE, U.K., Title to be announced 15.30-16.00 Coffee Break 16.00-17.30 R2 Regulation II C. Waddams Price, Warwick Business School, U.K. Liberalising the Residential Telecoms Markets in the U.K.: Distributional Effects Barbara Cherry, Northwestern University, U.S.A. Universal Service Obligations: Comparison of the United States with the European Union Guenter Knieps, Albert-Ludwigs-Uni. Freiburg, Germany Market Entry in the Presence of a "Dominant" Network Operator in Telecommunications M1 Multimedia Kiyoshi Nakamura, Waseda University/George Yarrow, Campbell Cowie Structural Change and Policy Issues of Japan's Broadcasting Jose Maria Beneyto, Gomez-Acebo & Pombo Digital Decoder Dispute in Spain M. Colombo/P. Garrone, Politecnico di Milano Capabilities in the Multimedia Regime: The Case of Telecommunications Operators G. Fuchs/H.-G. Wolf, Akademie fuer Technikfolgenabschaetzung, Germany Regional Economies, Interactive Television and Interorganisational Networks Saturday, August 30, 1997 9.00-10.30 IC1 Interconnection I Antonio N. Leite/V. Santos/Maria do C. Seabra Instrument Insufficiency in Access-Pricing Regulation in Telecommunications Jutta Merkt, Albert-Ludwigs-Uni. Freiburg, Germany A Note on Unbundling Requirements for Telecommunications Networks S. Stuermer, o.tel.o/E.-O. Ruhle, RWE Telliance GmbH, Germany Resale of Local Telecommunications Services MO2 Mobile Services II C. Cayetano/R. Baudin/E. Alonso, Telefonica Moviles, Spain The Effect of the Slow Frequency Hopping in a Mature GSM Network Nathalie Barberis/L. Benzoni, ENST, France Modelling Vertical Differentiation as the Key Factor in Providing Compatibility: The Case of Roaming with (GSM-DCS) Dual-band Systems 10.30-11.00 Coffee Break 11.00-12.30 IC2 Interconnection II Paul von Hehn, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Brussels Negotiating Interconnection Agreements in Germany Anders Henten/Knud Erik Skouby, CTI, University of Denmark Interconnection in Denmark Michael Ryan, Coudert Brothers, U.K. Using Interconnection Rates to Promote the Building of Infrastructure: Some Legal and Economic Issue TS4 The Internet/Trade in Services Jose R. Nogueira/Jose C. Cavalcanti, Universidad Federal de Pernambuco Brazil Pricing Network Services when Distribution Matters: The Case of the Internet Thomas Kiesling, Global One, Brussels Internet Services M. Freudebeul-Krein/A. Freytag, Institut fuer Wirtschaftspolitik an der Universitaet zu Koeln Telecommunications and WTO-Discipline: An Assessment of the WTO-Agreement on Telecommunication Services 12.30-14.00 Lunch Break 14.00-15.30 IC3 Interconnection III Helge Schaefer, Feddersen Laule Scherzberg & Ohle Hansen Ewerwahn, Germany The Position of the Service Provider between "Special Network Access" and "Interconnection" in the Framework of the EU Regulations M.Smeers, Uni. Catholieke de Louvain, Belgium On Legal and Economic Aspects of Interconnection ST1 Competition in the Local Loop F. Safertal, Hughes Network Systems, Prague Technical Challenges with Implementation of Large Digital Wireless Local Loop Systems Edgar Schnorpfeil, Thyssen Telecom AG, Germany Lessons Learnt from the Thyssen WLL Deployment: Basic View on Customer Access Pekka Nykaenen, Omnitele Ltd, Finland Wireless Access in Different Business Environments 15.30-16.00 Coffee Break 16.00-17.30 Regulation Panel ST2 Effects of Restructuring I Alfons Keuter, WIK, Germany Winners and Loosers - Sectoral Employment Effects of Liberalization and Privatization in the German Telecommunications Market 1996-2005 Donald Hicks, Uni. of Texas at Dallas Can the Telecom Equipment Industry Afford Accelerating Technical Advance? Sunday, August 31, 1997 9.00-10.30 TS3 Demand Modelling T. Perez-Amaral/T. Garin-Munoz, Universidad Complutense de Madrid Econometric Modelling of Spanish Very Long Distance International Calling David Cracknell, BT, U.K. Demand Modelling: Recent Results Tommaso Valletti Title to be announced IF2 The Role of Telecommunications Infrastructure Toru Mori, Nagoya City University/Masatsugu Tsuji, Osaka Uni./Masaaki Teshima, Meijo Uni. A Comparison of the Regional Information Policies of Local Governments of Japan and the U.S. David Salant, LECG, U.S.A. Spectrum Auctions 10.30-11.00 Coffee Break 11.00-12.30 ST3 Effects of Restructuring II Staffan Hulten, Stockholm School of Economics Windows of Opportunities for Different Mobile Services: A Look at International Experience Bert Sadowski, MERIT, Maastricht, Belgium The Institutional Foundations of Market Entry: A Comparative Analysis for Telecommunication Development IF1 Infrastructure Policies Friedrich Kraemer, Telecommunications Investment Advisory Services, Germany The Role of Foreign Direct Investment Operators and Local Governments in Transition Countries S. Udrizar Lezcano, Uni. Nacional del Nordeste Customer Trends and Post-Privatization Behavior in Mid-size Emerging Markets: A Survey in Northern Argentinia Bruce Laidlaw, BMP International Ltd., London Restructuring and Upgrading Infrastructure: A Comparison between Russia and the Ukraine Nanja Strecker, University of Karlsruhe, Germany The Current Transformation of the Brazilian Telecommunications Sector: Reconstructing, Liberalisation and Privatisation 13.30 Registration for a guided tour of Leuven 14.15 Guided tour of Leuven offered by the municipality ********************************************************** Please address questions to : Prof. Dr. Juergen Mueller, c/o FHW Badensche Str..50-51, D-10825 Berlin Tel. +49 30 89789-662, Fax. +49 30 89789-200 Email: jmueller@fhw-berlin.de For the abstracts of the papers and more information on ITS and ongoing events, please check our homepages: http://www.fhw-berlin.de/~jmueller/its.html ************************************************************************** Travel arrangements are handled by: Agri Reizen, Attn.: Hilde Demessemaeker Parijsstraat 50, B-3000 Leuven Tel: +32 16 24 38 40, Fax: +32 16 24 38 02 Email: agri@pophost.eunet.be ************************************************************************** For information on the EARIE Conference please see the enclosed program and http://www.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/congres/earie.htm ************************************************************************** ITS REGIONAL Conference in Leuven, Aug. 29-31, 1997 REGISTRATION FORM Please return as soon as possible to: Prof. Dr. Juergen Mueller or Karin Goihl c/o DIW Koenigin-Luise-Str. 5 14195 Berlin, Germany tel: +49 30 89789 662, fax: +49 30 89789 200 email: jmueller@fhw-berlin.de Family name:_____________________________ First name:________________________________ Title:_____________________________________ Institution:________________________________ Street:___________________________________ Postal code & City:_________________________ Country:__________________________________ Telephone:________________________________ Telefax:__________________________________ Email:__________________________________ Registration Fee: up to July 31, 1997 after July 31, 1997 DM 450 DM 500 students DM 200 DM 250 Payment Due: August 1, 1997 Payment By: please mark the relevant box o o Check enclosed (Payable to ITS) o Cash Card Card Company: Card No: Expiration Date: Signature: Only American Express, Visa and Euro/Mastercard are accepted. Please add 5% credit card fees. o Bank Transfer (add DM 20), to: Deutsche Kredit- und Handelsbank P.O. Box 110649, D-10711 Berlin Account # 3001640010 (ITS), Bank Code 101 202 00 Indicate the participant's name. Cancellations received prior to August 20, 1997 will be subject to DM 50 administration fee. No refund will be made for cancellations after that date. PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS AND NEW PHONE/FAX NUMBERS! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Prof. Dr. Juergen Mueller Fachhochschule fuer Wirtschaft / Deutsches Institut fuer Berlin School of Economics (FHW) Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW) -------------------------------- ------------------------- Badensche Str. 50-51 Koenigin-Luise-Str. 5 D-10825 Berlin / Germany D-14195 Berlin / Germany phone: +49-30-85789-145 phone: +49-30-89789-662 fax: +49-30-85789-199 or -149 (voice mail) fax: +49-30-89789-200 -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/18/97 Time: 9:45:44 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Sat Jul 19 00:55:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id AAA27754 for apple-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:55:05 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA27749 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:55:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from fpfzqlga (ts900-4730.singnet.com.sg [165.21.155.82]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA27947; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 23:55:02 +0800 (SST) Message-Id: <199707181555.XAA27947@mallow.singnet.com.sg> From: "G Leong" To: , "Adam Peake" Cc: Subject: Re: report on the Harrods domain name case (UK) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 23:37:42 +0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk To be frank, I cannot see how the judge could have concluded that the registation of "harrods.co.uk" constituted an infringement of Harrod's trade mark and that the registrant had passed themselves off as connected with Harrods, the departmental store. In the first place, Harrods had sued on a multiple number of heads of action. Secondly, it is unlikely that the registrant had used the word "harrods" as a trade mark to indicate their goods and/or services. I do not recall any report which indicated the area of trade which the defendant was involved in. Thirdly, in order to show that the defendant had indeed passed themselves off as being connected with Harrods the store would mean that the defendants had conducted some business activity under that name and had misrepresented that their business was somehow connected with the store. As I understood the facts of the case, none of these factors were proved. Harrods the store had been involved in law suits in the past where they sued other parties for passing themselves off as being connected with them. However, in those cases, Harrods could show that the defendants in those cases conducted some business activity under that name. Did UK Network conduct any business at all other than to register the domain name? I could be wrong about the above, and if so, I would welcome any correction. Gilbert Leong ---------- > From: Mathias Koerber > To: Adam Peake > Cc: apple@apnic.net > Subject: Re: report on the Harrods domain name case (UK) > Date: Friday, 18 July 1997 11:07 > > On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Adam Peake wrote: > > | Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:11:25 +0900 > | From: Adam Peake > | To: apple@apnic.net > | Subject: report on the Harrods domain name case (UK) > | > | For info, > | > | Adam > | > > Aren't these two domain names mixed up in the report?? > > | Source: Lovell White Durrant, Computer, Communications & Media > | Newsletter, Spring 1997 > | > | http://www.lovellwhitedurrant.com/compcomm/spri1997/ccm_07.htm > | > | March 1997 > | Harrods domain name case > | > | At the end of last year, Mr Justice Lightman gave one of the few > | decisions in England so far on the legality of "hijacking" Internet > | domain names. Harrods, the well-known store, had registered the > | Internet domain name "Harrods.co.uk" with Network Solutions Inc, the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | company which contracts to provide registration services of Internet > | domain names. > | > | Another company, UK Network Services Limited, subsequently registered > | "Harrods.com" as a domain name (along with some 50 other names > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > | corresponding to well-known companies). Harrods invoked the dispute > | resolution procedures of Network Solutions Inc and the "Harrods.com" > | domain name was suspended in March last year. > [...] > Mathias From owner-apple Sat Jul 19 15:07:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id PAA03188 for apple-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 15:07:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id PAA03183 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 15:07:00 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-2502.singnet.com.sg [165.21.157.118]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA24708; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 14:09:06 +0800 (SST) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 97 00:17:25 Subject: Re: report on the Harrods domain name case (UK) To: mathias@staff.singnet.com.sg, Adam Peake , G Leong Cc: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Unless of course, the UK has a similar law as the US- Dilution. For well known names, you don't actually have to prove actual infringements. Just the use of it suffices (from what I understand in the US cases). This just goes to prove that there is no universal approach to trademamrk law, and infringement in each country will be treated differently. Without a universal trademark law, I am not sure how the WIPO expects to be the dipute resolution centre. We cannot run away from the fact that domain names are global and trademark law is not. Which is why I want to explore if there are other solutions to the problem, rather than necesarily endorsing that all domain names= trademarks. Directory services, use of numbers, more user friendly browsers that bypass the need for urls, etc... Maybe we should be spending our efforts here, than using trademark laws which just excaberates the problem, not solve it. Creating more GLTDs and still recognising trademarks, will just mean that compnaies who can afford it will register and grab every new GLTD created to avoid the use of their name in the first place. (IBM, for example, would still want ibm.firm, ibm.net, ibm.web, etc. and may even not allow ibm bicycles.com to exist.) Laina RG --- On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 23:37:42 +0800 G Leong wrote: To be frank, I cannot see how the judge could have concluded that the registation of "harrods.co.uk" constituted an infringement of Harrod's trade mark and that the registrant had passed themselves off as connected with Harrods, the departmental store. In the first place, Harrods had sued on a multiple number of heads of action. Secondly, it is unlikely that the registrant had used the word "harrods" as a trade mark to indicate their goods and/or services. I do not recall any report which indicated the area of trade which the defendant was involved in. Thirdly, in order to show that the defendant had indeed passed themselves off as being connected with Harrods the store would mean that the defendants had conducted some business activity under that name and had misrepresented that their business was somehow connected with the store. As I understood the facts of the case, none of these factors were proved. Harrods the store had been involved in law suits in the past where they sued other parties for passing themselves off as being connected with them. However, in those cases, Harrods could show that the defendants in those cases conducted some business activity under that name. Did UK Network conduct any business at all other than to register the domain name? I could be wrong about the above, and if so, I would welcome any correction. Gilbert Leong ---------- > From: Mathias Koerber > To: Adam Peake > Cc: apple@apnic.net > Subject: Re: report on the Harrods domain name case (UK) > Date: Friday, 18 July 1997 11:07 > > On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Adam Peake wrote: > > | Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:11:25 +0900 > | From: Adam Peake > | To: apple@apnic.net > | Subject: report on the Harrods domain name case (UK) > | > | For info, > | > | Adam > | > > Aren't these two domain names mixed up in the report?? > > | Source: Lovell White Durrant, Computer, Communications & Media > | Newsletter, Spring 1997 > | > | http://www.lovellwhitedurrant.com/compcomm/spri1997/ccm_07.htm > | > | March 1997 > | Harrods domain name case > | > | At the end of last year, Mr Justice Lightman gave one of the few > | decisions in England so far on the legality of "hijacking" Internet > | domain names. Harrods, the well-known store, had registered the > | Internet domain name "Harrods.co.uk" with Network Solutions Inc, the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | company which contracts to provide registration services of Internet > | domain names. > | > | Another company, UK Network Services Limited, subsequently registered > | "Harrods.com" as a domain name (along with some 50 other names > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > | corresponding to well-known companies). Harrods invoked the dispute > | resolution procedures of Network Solutions Inc and the "Harrods.com" > | domain name was suspended in March last year. > [...] > Mathias -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/19/97 Time: 12:17:25 AM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Sat Jul 19 18:24:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id SAA04313 for apple-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 18:24:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from mawar.singnet.com.sg (mawar.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.19]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id SAA04307 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 18:24:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from camelot (ts900-7116.singnet.com.sg [165.21.165.68]) by mawar.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA00381; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 17:27:06 +0800 (SST) Message-Id: <3.0.2.16.19970719173647.3227fd8e@singnet.com.sg> X-Sender: camelot@singnet.com.sg X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (16) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 17:36:47 To: laina@singnet.com.sg, mathias@staff.singnet.com.sg, Adam Peake , G Leong From: Rajesh Sreenivasan Subject: Re: report on the Harrods domain name case (UK) Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 00:17 7/19/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: >This just goes to prove that there is no universal approach to >trademamrk law, and infringement in each country will be treated >differently. Without a universal trademark law, I am not sure how the >WIPO expects to be the dipute resolution centre. We cannot run away from >the fact that domain names are global and trademark law is not. I think it is worth noting in this regard, the recent Singapore govt. press release (last month, I believe) announcing that the changes pushed for in TRIPS (Trade Related Apects of Intellectual Property Rights) will be implemented in Singapore by way of "appropriate" amendments to the Trade Marks Act. This (TRIPS) was envisaged as a first step in globalising certain elements of trademark laws. As things stand, all signatories to this agreement (It was also part of the WTO deal too), would amend their domestic trademark laws by 2000 to inter alia protect "famous" marks in respect of dissimilar goods and services. Such protection has been available in the US for the Internet since (and by analogous cases arguably before) the Hasbros (Candyland) case. It was not made expressly clear in the press release whether or not this particular aspect of trademark dilution will be adopted in our proposed amendments to Singapore's TM Act, but I do not believe that nations can be cavalier in this regard. I wish I could go into the details of TRIPS but I would rather let all have a browse through it on your own at the following URL:- http://itl.irv.uit.no/trade_law/documents/freetrade/wta-94/art/iia1c.html Scan downw to "Article 16 - Rights conferred" for the express provisions extending TM protection to the dilution scenario as exercised in US and UK. As WTO signatories, the local amendments to our TM Act should therefore be in line with this. This logic seems to solve one problem, but opens up another hornets nest IMHO as to what would constitute a "famous" trademark ... more food for thought. But if the US has the guts to go ahead with the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995:- http://www.law.georgetown.edu/lc/internic/trademarks/dilut1.html and leave it to the courts to decide whether a mark is "famous" based on 8 fundamental terms, I don't think the proposition of other jurisdictions taking a similar tact would be misplaced. Certainly, the fact that TRIPS is binding now on all WTO signatories means that it is just a matter of time before dilution laws become commonplace worldwide. Or am I giving International treaties too much credit ... :). >Creating more GLTDs and still recognising trademarks, will just mean >that compnaies who can afford it will register and grab every new GLTD >created to avoid the use of their name in the first place. (IBM, for >example, would still want ibm.firm, ibm.net, ibm.web, etc. and may even >not allow ibm bicycles.com to exist.) I was quite interested in the proposed ".tm" gTLD in the recent IAHC deliberations. One of the arguments put forth at the IAHC was that this gTLD would be where all the big boys are to park their trademarked sites which will open up all other existing gTLD's to a free for all. Alarm bells galore for sure. Web browsers could be configured to search for official sites of "famous" brands only under the .tm gTLD. Now despite it's inherent flaws, I'd like to explore the question (still unanswered):- Is it technically feasible? France certainly seems to be pretty happy with it. I was kinda hoping that SGNIC would be smitten by the idea too, but I guess it is early days yet with the gTLD-MOU. Regards Rajesh Sreenivasan http://www.singnet.com.sg/~camelot From owner-apple Sun Jul 20 09:44:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id JAA09499 for apple-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 09:44:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id JAA09494 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 09:43:57 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-5411.singnet.com.sg [165.21.161.31]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA12076; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 08:46:14 +0800 (SST) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 97 19:02:38 Subject: Re: report on the Harrods domain name case (UK) To: laina@singnet.com.sg, mathias@staff.singnet.com.sg, Adam Peake , G Leong , Rajesh Sreenivasan Cc: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Thanks Rajesh for bringing our attention to the TRIPs agreement. Yes, it does "internationalise" trademarks to some extent, at least to signatories. Worth studying to see the scope of its application and whether it is forum specific- i.e.not applicable within WIPO (?). With the globalisation of the world economy, it is time anyway for these global international laws. Question still remains- is there another solution to the problem. First who defines "famous" and if famour marks can bar others from using their names, then creating new GLTDs will not solve much would it. Laina RG --- On Sat, 19 Jul 1997 17:36:47 Rajesh Sreenivasan wrote: At 00:17 7/19/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: >This just goes to prove that there is no universal approach to >trademamrk law, and infringement in each country will be treated >differently. Without a universal trademark law, I am not sure how the >WIPO expects to be the dipute resolution centre. We cannot run away from >the fact that domain names are global and trademark law is not. I think it is worth noting in this regard, the recent Singapore govt. press release (last month, I believe) announcing that the changes pushed for in TRIPS (Trade Related Apects of Intellectual Property Rights) will be implemented in Singapore by way of "appropriate" amendments to the Trade Marks Act. This (TRIPS) was envisaged as a first step in globalising certain elements of trademark laws. As things stand, all signatories to this agreement (It was also part of the WTO deal too), would amend their domestic trademark laws by 2000 to inter alia protect "famous" marks in respect of dissimilar goods and services. Such protection has been available in the US for the Internet since (and by analogous cases arguably before) the Hasbros (Candyland) case. It was not made expressly clear in the press release whether or not this particular aspect of trademark dilution will be adopted in our proposed amendments to Singapore's TM Act, but I do not believe that nations can be cavalier in this regard. I wish I could go into the details of TRIPS but I would rather let all have a browse through it on your own at the following URL:- http://itl.irv.uit.no/trade_law/documents/freetrade/wta-94/art/iia1c.html Scan downw to "Article 16 - Rights conferred" for the express provisions extending TM protection to the dilution scenario as exercised in US and UK. As WTO signatories, the local amendments to our TM Act should therefore be in line with this. This logic seems to solve one problem, but opens up another hornets nest IMHO as to what would constitute a "famous" trademark ... more food for thought. But if the US has the guts to go ahead with the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995:- http://www.law.georgetown.edu/lc/internic/trademarks/dilut1.html and leave it to the courts to decide whether a mark is "famous" based on 8 fundamental terms, I don't think the proposition of other jurisdictions taking a similar tact would be misplaced. Certainly, the fact that TRIPS is binding now on all WTO signatories means that it is just a matter of time before dilution laws become commonplace worldwide. Or am I giving International treaties too much credit ... :). >Creating more GLTDs and still recognising trademarks, will just mean >that compnaies who can afford it will register and grab every new GLTD >created to avoid the use of their name in the first place. (IBM, for >example, would still want ibm.firm, ibm.net, ibm.web, etc. and may even >not allow ibm bicycles.com to exist.) I was quite interested in the proposed ".tm" gTLD in the recent IAHC deliberations. One of the arguments put forth at the IAHC was that this gTLD would be where all the big boys are to park their trademarked sites which will open up all other existing gTLD's to a free for all. Alarm bells galore for sure. Web browsers could be configured to search for official sites of "famous" brands only under the .tm gTLD. Now despite it's inherent flaws, I'd like to explore the question (still unanswered):- Is it technically feasible? France certainly seems to be pretty happy with it. I was kinda hoping that SGNIC would be smitten by the idea too, but I guess it is early days yet with the gTLD-MOU. Regards Rajesh Sreenivasan http://www.singnet.com.sg/~camelot -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/19/97 Time: 7:02:38 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Sun Jul 20 18:00:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id SAA11344 for apple-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 18:00:58 +0900 (JST) Received: from mawar.singnet.com.sg (mawar.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.19]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id SAA11339 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 18:00:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from camelot (ts900-3327.singnet.com.sg [165.21.151.143]) by mawar.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA02016; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 17:03:06 +0800 (SST) Message-Id: <3.0.2.16.19970720171258.2c2776d2@singnet.com.sg> X-Sender: camelot@singnet.com.sg X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (16) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 17:12:58 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Rajesh Sreenivasan Subject: Re: report on the Harrods domain name case (UK) Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 19:02 7/19/97, you wrote: >Question still remains- is there another solution to the problem. First >who defines "famous" If we were to follow the American model in the form of their Federal Trademark Dilution Act 1995, then the onus of deciding whether or not a mark is famous is left to the courts on a case by case basis, but the act sets out the 8 criteria's necessary for the court's consideration to decide whether or not a mark is "famous". See (A) to (H) below:- QUOTE: ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ USC Title 15 - Commerce Chapter 22 - Trademarks Sect 1125(c) (c) Remedies for dilution of famous marks (1) The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection. In determining whether a mark is distinctive and famous, a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to-- (A) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark; (B) the duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods or services with which the mark is used; (C) the duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the mark; (D) the geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used; (E) the channels of trade for the goods or services with which the mark is used; (F) the degree of recognition of the mark in the trading areas and channels of trade used by the marks' owner and the person against whom the injunction is sought; (G) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties; and (H) whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register. ____________________________________________________________________________ _____ UNQUOTE. Please note that the above is only the relevant part of Sect 1125. The full provision (which cites statutory exceptions) can be read at:- http://www.law.georgetown.edu/lc/internic/trademarks/1125(c).html I'm looking forward to seeing to what extent our (Singapore)legislators will follow this equitable model in the proposed amendments to the TM Act. Would a more ridgid system be imposed with regards to the definition of "famous"? A ridgid definition would allow for more certainty in the law, but would that be wise in the case of an inherently subjective term such as "famous"? I don't think so. >and if famous marks can bar others from using their >names, then creating new GLTDs will not solve much would it. Well the ".tm" gTLD might be a possible solution to the problem don't you think? i.e. the parties who failed in their bid in the ".tm" heirachy are still not stopped from using the "prohibited" name in the other gTLD's. TM laws would only protect the ".tm" heirachy. Hence Mr. McDonald can have his domain and so can Industrial Bearings Manufacturers. But just not in the ".tm" gTLD. I think you can now see why I still want to pursue this angle of adopting ".tm" ... :). I know it's fraught with pitfalls, but I feel that they can be worked through, well that's my optimistic opinion. It's a bold, some might say outlandish move, but can we afford to be conservative in such a volative, dynamic and soon to be ubiquitous medium as the Internet? Toughie that. Have a nice weekend! :) From owner-apple Mon Jul 21 07:44:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id HAA15943 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 07:44:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from armstrong.apic.net (armstrong.apic.net [203.22.101.20]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id HAA15938 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 07:44:43 +0900 (JST) Received: from boss.apic.net (boss.apic.net [203.22.102.40]) by armstrong.apic.net (8.8.6/APIC-2.1) with SMTP id IAA27639 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 08:46:59 +1000 (EST) X-Org: The Asia Pacific Internet Company Pty. Ltd. X-URL: http://www.apic.net/ Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970721085015.0072d104@mail.apic.net> X-Sender: bala@mail.apic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 08:50:15 +1000 To: apple@apnic.net From: Bala Pillai Subject: "Week from Hell for the Net" - PC World (fw) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk "Week from Hell for the Net" - PC World (fw) Source: http://www.pcworld.com/cgi-bin/database/body.pl?ID=970718173259 July 18, 1997 As far as we can tell, today the Internet worked as well as it usually does. And that's news after several days of nationwide crashes caused by errant backhoes and programming errors. But the day isn't over yet. "You can expect more problems," says Mark Winther, an analyst with IDC/Link in New York. "There's no way the Internet can expand fast enough to accommodate the kind of growth we've been seeing." The most recent and most serious of the week's problems began early Thursday morning when a worker at Network Solutions, Inc., the company that assigns and maintains a list of U.S. Internet addresses, reportedly ignored an alarm and allowed several corrupt files to be sent out to the network. The error caused countless numbers of e-mail messages to bounce and kept many users from connecting to sites on the Web. Based in Herndon, Virginia, Network Solutions maintains the main registry of Internet addresses, called InterNIC, under a five-year contract with the National Science Foundation. Its de facto monopoly of this function has been criticized recently, and this latest incident is likely to add fuel to that fire, said analyst Ron Rappaport of Zona Research in Redwood City, California. "Whether that criticism is justified or not, this should be a wake-up to NSI," he said. One critic is Dave Crocker, a computer consultant and the founder of the Internet Mail Consortium. Crocker told the Associated Press that NSI's level of service is unacceptable. "The fact that they are growing quickly is not an excuse for this. The rate of errors they are having would not be tolerable for any other professional organization doing a technical task," he said. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it may investigate NSI's domination of domain names. The NSI-related problem was compounded hours later by an accident near Laurel, Maryland, when a backhoe operator cut a fiber optic cable, forcing Internet traffic and long-distance telephone calls to be rerouted. Yet another interruption of Internet service occurred Wednesday, when a backhoe cut a fiber optic trunk between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. How much of the week's problems were caused by random human error, and how much by the fallibility of an overloaded network, is unclear. But what's certain, said Rappaport, is this: "Anyone who thinks the Internet is up to par as a business-critical medium is wrong. forwarded by:- bala pillai* bala@sydney.net*the asia pacific internet co, sydney V I R T U A L C O M M U N I T Y E X P E R T S for info send blank ph:+61 2 9419 5333 fax: + 61 2 9419 5155 From owner-apple Mon Jul 21 08:40:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id IAA16122 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 08:40:40 +0900 (JST) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id IAA16117 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 08:40:38 +0900 (JST) Received: from slimnote (d51.netgate.net [205.214.160.85]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA19114 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 19:05:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970720162541.00bf33d4@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 16:25:41 -0700 To: apple@apnic.net From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: Re: "Week from Hell for the Net" - PC World (fw) In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970721085015.0072d104@mail.apic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk >"Week from Hell for the Net" - PC World (fw) >Source: http://www.pcworld.com/cgi-bin/database/body.pl?ID=970718173259 >... >One critic is Dave Crocker, a computer consultant and the founder of >the Internet Mail Consortium. Crocker told the Associated Press that >NSI's level of service is unacceptable. "The fact that they are growing >quickly is not an excuse for this. The rate of errors they are having >would not be tolerable for any other professional organization doing a >technical task," he said. Here's some detail to my criticism: Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 12:03:08 -0700 To: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, nanog@merit.edu From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Good Timing for .COM Problems ? At 02:16 PM 7/20/97 -0400, David Mercer wrote: >Seems to me that NSI have shown that their training procedures don't work, That's not the problem. The problem is bad procedures, not the failure to follow them correctly. The procedures should have prevented the operator from installing the update, absent serious overrides. Since it is far, far more dangerous to add a bad update than it is to delay the update, the procedures should have prevented the update as soon as the update data failed any of its validity tests. To override preventative mechanisms should require the intervention of senior operations staff. In other words, besides requiring a positive override, it should require additional staff who are not part of the regular, daily activity. Merely issuing passive alarms that can be ignored is representative of basic ignorance about well-understood operator human factors. I said well-understood. That, of course, means that one must use designers knowledgeable in such matters. NSI didn't. That's a management error, not an operator error. >I personally don't find their assurance that such duties will now be Indeed, you shouldn't. It's more important to change the procedures than it is to change the staff. d/ -------------------- Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org From owner-apple Mon Jul 21 13:05:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id NAA17753 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 13:05:38 +0900 (JST) Received: from uxmail.ust.hk (root@uxmail.ust.hk [143.89.14.30]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id NAA17744 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 13:05:15 +0900 (JST) Received: from mmueller.ust.hk ([143.89.231.20]) by uxmail.ust.hk with SMTP id <102278-14499>; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 12:08:15 +0800 Message-ID: <33D2D389.1DDE@usthk.ust.hk> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 12:12:09 +0900 From: Milton Mueller Reply-To: milton@usthk.ust.hk X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rajesh Sreenivasan CC: apple@apnic.net Subject: Re: report on the Harrods domain name case (UK) References: <3.0.2.16.19970719173647.3227fd8e@singnet.com.sg> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Rajesh: Your proposal for a .tm TLD is eminently reasonable but I'm afraid it would not solve anything. IPR holders who are concerned with dilution would fight against the use of "their" name in ANY tld, and in fact that would be a perfectly logical course of action if you accept the validity of the concept of dilution. Harrods, clearly, wants to control the use of the term "Harrods" whether it is in .tm or .uk or .com. It is in their economic interest to extend trademark protection as far as possible. It is inconceivable that they would be satisfied to register the name in .tm and then sit back and watch the rest of the world register it in 150 other tlds. The problem is the concept of dilution itself and the (flawed) premises underlying its application to domain naming. Carl Oppedahl, a US lawyer who has been litigating to defend small companies broadsided by big trademark interests, put it this way: "The steps to follow to "zero out domain-name conflicts" are, first, to educate the Internet community (and the legal community) that mere text identicality between a domain name and a trademark does not give rise to trademark liability. That it is commonplace to find two or three or a dozen companies all with the same name." That's the only solution. .tm Rajesh Sreenivasan wrote: > > At 00:17 7/19/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: > > >This just goes to prove that there is no universal approach to > >trademamrk law, and infringement in each country will be treated > >differently. Without a universal trademark law, I am not sure how the > >WIPO expects to be the dipute resolution centre. We cannot run away from > >the fact that domain names are global and trademark law is not. > > I think it is worth noting in this regard, the recent Singapore govt. press > release (last month, I believe) announcing that the changes pushed for in > TRIPS (Trade Related Apects of Intellectual Property Rights) will be > implemented in Singapore by way of "appropriate" amendments to the Trade > Marks Act. > > This (TRIPS) was envisaged as a first step in globalising certain elements > of trademark laws. As things stand, all signatories to this agreement (It > was also part of the WTO deal too), would amend their domestic trademark > laws by 2000 to inter alia protect "famous" marks in respect of dissimilar > goods and services. Such protection has been available in the US for the > Internet since (and by analogous cases arguably before) the Hasbros > (Candyland) case. > > It was not made expressly clear in the press release whether or not this > particular aspect of trademark dilution will be adopted in our proposed > amendments to Singapore's TM Act, but I do not believe that nations can be > cavalier in this regard. > > I wish I could go into the details of TRIPS but I would rather let all have > a browse through it on your own at the following URL:- > > http://itl.irv.uit.no/trade_law/documents/freetrade/wta-94/art/iia1c.html > > Scan downw to "Article 16 - Rights conferred" for the express provisions > extending TM protection to the dilution scenario as exercised in US and UK. > As WTO signatories, the local amendments to our TM Act should therefore be > in line with this. > > This logic seems to solve one problem, but opens up another hornets nest > IMHO as to what would constitute a "famous" trademark ... more food for > thought. But if the US has the guts to go ahead with the Federal Trademark > Dilution Act of 1995:- > > http://www.law.georgetown.edu/lc/internic/trademarks/dilut1.html > > and leave it to the courts to decide whether a mark is "famous" based on 8 > fundamental terms, I don't think the proposition of other jurisdictions > taking a similar tact would be misplaced. > > Certainly, the fact that TRIPS is binding now on all WTO signatories means > that it is just a matter of time before dilution laws become commonplace > worldwide. Or am I giving International treaties too much credit ... :). > > >Creating more GLTDs and still recognising trademarks, will just mean > >that compnaies who can afford it will register and grab every new GLTD > >created to avoid the use of their name in the first place. (IBM, for > >example, would still want ibm.firm, ibm.net, ibm.web, etc. and may even > >not allow ibm bicycles.com to exist.) > > I was quite interested in the proposed ".tm" gTLD in the recent IAHC > deliberations. One of the arguments put forth at the IAHC was that this > gTLD would be where all the big boys are to park their trademarked sites > which will open up all other existing gTLD's to a free for all. Alarm > bells galore for sure. > > Web browsers could be configured to search for official sites of "famous" > brands only under the .tm gTLD. Now despite it's inherent flaws, I'd like > to explore the question (still unanswered):- Is it technically feasible? > France certainly seems to be pretty happy with it. I was kinda hoping that > SGNIC would be smitten by the idea too, but I guess it is early days yet > with the gTLD-MOU. > > Regards > > Rajesh Sreenivasan > http://www.singnet.com.sg/~camelot From owner-apple Mon Jul 21 18:23:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id SAA20428 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 18:23:39 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id SAA20423 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 18:23:35 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-4005.singnet.com.sg [165.21.153.89]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA29150; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 17:24:22 +0800 (SST) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 97 07:40:22 Subject: RE: "Week from Hell for the Net" - PC World (fw) To: apple@apnic.net, Bala Pillai X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk --- On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 08:50:15 +1000 Bala Pillai wrote: "Week from Hell for the Net" - PC World (fw) Source: http://www.pcworld.com/cgi-bin/database/body.pl?ID=970718173259 July 18, 1997 Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it may investigate NSI's domination of domain names. ---------------------------------------- Hmm.. interesting. Could this also mean that IANA is also under investigation, since NSI is a contractor of IANA. If so, then it will be interesting to see if the membership solution proposed for ARIN, RIPE and APNIC and their membership to IANA alone will solve the problem. Usually, private initiatives with potential "monopoly" and "regulatory" roles will be open to Antitrust questions. It is only if done with the necessary governmental blessings, or sufficient openness, that antitrust will not apply. Interesting to see how the US Justice Department will handle this..it may also open RIPE to some investigation under European competition laws?????? Laina RG ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/20/97 Time: 7:40:22 AM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Mon Jul 21 22:20:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id WAA21745 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 22:20:57 +0900 (JST) Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [149.174.206.135]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id WAA21740 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 22:20:54 +0900 (JST) Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.2) id JAA11174; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:22:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:22:20 -0400 From: "David W. Maher" <72135.1272@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: report on the Harrods domain name case (UK) To: "INTERNET:laina@singnet.com.sg" Cc: APPLe Message-ID: <199707210922_MC2-1B3E-D885@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina May I suggest a more careful reading of the administrative challenge panel guidelines which are posted on gtld-mou.org. The IAHC (no= w iPOC) thought long and hard about the dilution problem. The ACP procedure= s will not supplant the jurisdiction of any court, but will offer a quick a= nd inexpensive way for trademark owners to resolve disputes in many instance= s where access to courts would be difficult because of different parties in= different jurisdictions. In addition, the ACP procedures will offer the owners of globally famous marks a means of protecting their marks without= grabbing a domain name registration in every new domain. If a mark is registered in enough countries, and if the ACP agrees, a globally famous mark can be barred from all gTLDs except for the owner of the mark. Even this procedure could be overruled by a court having jurisdiction. The dilution issue, and other conflicts in national trademark law= , are addressed in my paper delivered at INET97. The title is "Trademark La= w: will it scale?" David Maher From owner-apple Mon Jul 21 23:55:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id XAA22973 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 23:55:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from uxmail.ust.hk (root@uxmail.ust.hk [143.89.14.30]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id XAA22967 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 23:55:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from mmueller.ust.hk ([143.89.231.37]) by uxmail.ust.hk with SMTP id <102215-14499>; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 22:58:10 +0800 Message-ID: <33D36BEC.280E@usthk.ust.hk> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 23:02:20 +0900 From: Milton Mueller Reply-To: milton@usthk.ust.hk X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apple@apnic.net Subject: US Legal decision on domain names Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk > > The Court begins with the observation that "unlike a > patent or copyright, a trademark does not confer on > its owner any rights in gross or at large." MDT Corp. > v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 1028, > 1032 (C.D. Cal. 1994) (citing Traeger v. Gordon-Allen, > Ltd., 71 F.2d 786, 768 (9th Cir. 1934)); see also > Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publications, 28 > F.3d 769, 777 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting that "unlike > copyright and patent owners, trademark owners have > no rights in gross"). Therefore, the law does not > per se prohibit the use of trademarks or service marks > as domain names. Rather, the law prohibits only uses > that infringe or dilute a trademark or service mark > owner's mark. Moreover, innocent third party users of > a trademark or service mark have no duty to police the > mark for the benefit of the mark's owner. MDT, 858 F. > Supp. at 1034. Consequently, the mere fact that a person > registered a SKUNK WORKS or a variation thereof as a > domain name does not mean that the person infringed or > diluted Lockheed's mark. (Lockheed Martin Corp. v. > NSI, 96-cv-7438, C.D. Cal., March 19, 1997.) From owner-apple Tue Jul 22 00:27:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id AAA23641 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 00:27:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA23634 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 00:27:53 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-4127.singnet.com.sg [165.21.153.143]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA20856 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 23:30:14 +0800 (SST) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 97 13:31:03 Subject: FW: Re: GLTDs and ITU members To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk --- On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:52:28 +0900 Martyn Williams wrote: At 00:24 07/18/97, you wrote: > >I am interested in obtaining views from others in this region on how >they look at the GLTDs issue and that of the IAHC. > >I understand that the ITU Council endorsed the role of ITU as the >depository and that the US has asked for member countries to give >comments on the substance of the MoU within 60days, i.e. by next month. >I also understand that the US government may be giving out a Notice of >Inquiry on the governance issue and how to solve it internationally. >Meanwhile, WIPO is having a consultative committe to discuss ots role as >the dispute resolution body...the next meeting is to be in Geneva on the >1st Sept. > >Question I ask, is what is the impact of all these efforts, AlterNIc, >IAHC and the US government on this region. Which effort should we >support and how will it affect us to support the "wrong" one (one that >in the long run may prove not to have the legal legitimacy required for >commercial security)? Will one of them (even if "wrong") gain momentum >and begin to get support and then gain legitimacy??? Some quick thoughts, bound to prompt a response The Alternic has, I think, shown that it is not responsible enough for the job by hijacking the DNS last weekend, so people trying to access internic.net was taken to its site. That, coupled with the down right childish attitudes that were displayed on the itld mailing list that was operational a few months ago (sorry I don't remember the name, it closed anyway) don't put them that high on my list of possibles. They seem to be in it for the money .... But then again, the ITU wants to gets its hands on the regulatory side of things and not miss out on being a big part of the Internet. From my experience, they haven't seriously adopted the Internet internally yet since they can't email press releases, but insist on mailing them to me (something which costs a dollar a message and delays it five days, whereas the Internet is free and instant) so it seems a case of wanting to extend their powers, than seriously having the best wishes of the internet at heart. The IAHC, well I actually like them. They are certainly more professional than AlterNIC and they seem to be moving in the right direction, but many people seem to hate their plan ... >Another question, do you think the 7 GLTDs solve the problem. Do we need >more, do we need more competition, or is there another solution to this >whole DNS mess? Good question. On the trademark side of things, I don't think these do much to help the situation. Many big companies will simply grab domain names so they can't be used by others and speculators will also register names to sell later. I don't understand (and someone can explain why this is a bad idea) why the InterNIC doesn't demand money before it registers a domain. This would surely put a stop to the registering of thousands of domains by people just wanting to hold them until the payment period is up. As for trademarks, while these continue to be registered on a national basis, there will always be disputes. I once suggested (and no one told me why this was good or bad) the adding of a national identifier in the itlds. For example, take ABC TV ,,,,, the Internic would issue us.abc.com to the American network while the Australian could get au.abc.com and the Japanese network could get jp.abc.com . If the Internic retained control of ABC.COM and began issuing these third levels, the international problems would disappear and the national disputes could at least be dealt with by national copyright laws. There are probably many flaws in my thinking and I'm sure this will all be corrected in follow-up posts. I think one of the worst things about this whole subject is that there is so much going on, and so much is involved in it, that it is very difficult to follow, unless you devote a lot of time to it. Martyn -- Martyn Williams |Internet : martyn@twics.com Shimizu, Japan |Internet : martyn@newsbytes.com |CompuServe : 74777,1301 http://www.twics.com/~martyn |Fax : 0543-64-0199 -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/20/97 Time: 1:31:03 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Tue Jul 22 00:31:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id AAA23729 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 00:31:50 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA23723 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 00:31:48 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-4127.singnet.com.sg [165.21.153.143]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA05134 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 23:34:09 +0800 (SST) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 97 13:34:25 Subject: FW: Re: The domain name conflict challenge To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Just for the benefit of apple users who may not have known the context in which Milton's quote of the US case came from. Laina RG --- On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 04:32:05 -0600 Carl Oppedahl wrote: At 11:56 AM 07/21/97 +0900, Milton Mueller wrote: >Simon: > >I think the point Carl is trying to make is that trademark >holders who are trying to protect themselves against "dilution" >do not care a whit what industrial category TLD "their" >name appears in. They just don't want the name to be used >by anybody in any context other than themselves. Yes. >This is particularly problematical, as Carl points out, in >cases involving "made-up" names. That is, Exxon is not >going to be deterred from suing etc., if someone >registers "Exxon.telco" simply because Exxon is not a >telephone company. That's right. Or, is not *yet* a telephone company. (Companies sometimes diversify.) >You are correct, however, that the assumption that there is >ONE commercial TLD and that companies can reasonably expect >users to type in a company name and have their browser fill in >the rest is an artifact of the current system. As long >as this assumption is operative there IS no good solution >to the trademark-dns conflict. Yes, although some guarded optimism is called for: with each passing day, more and more of the Internet community become sophisticated enough to appreciate that "guessing" a domain name is often a waste of time and that search engines exist. >The solution is to >encourage a large expansion of TLD space. The new TLDs >should NOT form a controlled and limited vocabulary. >People should view the SLD and TLD and other parts of the >name as semantic expressions that point them to a site, >nothing more. A "large expansion of TLD space" will simply make it harder to remember domain names. By itself, it won't solve the problem. Only education (and the scrapping of NSI's flawed Policy) will solve the problem. >Trademark should not come into the picture at >all unless "passing off" (i.e. fraud) is involved. > >If you are interested in a reasonable solution >that maintains maximum flexibility for the future growth of >the Internet, fight against the extension of the "dilution" >concept to domain names. Fortunately, there is some visible progress which will hopefully propagate through the legal systems and user consciousness of the world. Consider the following court opinion as an indication of such progress. This judge clearly understands both of your points. The Court begins with the observation that "unlike a patent or copyright, a trademark does not confer on its owner any rights in gross or at large." MDT Corp. v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 1028, 1032 (C.D. Cal. 1994) (citing Traeger v. Gordon-Allen, Ltd., 71 F.2d 786, 768 (9th Cir. 1934)); see also Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publications, 28 F.3d 769, 777 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting that "unlike copyright and patent owners, trademark owners have no rights in gross"). Therefore, the law does not per se prohibit the use of trademarks or service marks as domain names. Rather, the law prohibits only uses that infringe or dilute a trademark or service mark owner's mark. Moreover, innocent third party users of a trademark or service mark have no duty to police the mark for the benefit of the mark's owner. MDT, 858 F. Supp. at 1034. Consequently, the mere fact that a person registered a SKUNK WORKS or a variation thereof as a domain name does not mean that the person infringed or diluted Lockheed's mark. (Lockheed Martin Corp. v. NSI, 96-cv-7438, C.D. Cal., March 19, 1997.) -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/20/97 Time: 1:34:25 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Tue Jul 22 00:46:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id AAA23984 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 00:46:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA23978 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 00:45:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from slimnote (d45.netgate.net [205.214.160.79]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA13748; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 11:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970721084318.00d82388@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 08:43:18 -0700 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: RE: "Week from Hell for the Net" - PC World (fw) Cc: apple@apnic.net, Bala Pillai In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina, At 07:40 AM 7/20/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: >Hmm.. interesting. Could this also mean that IANA is also under >investigation, since NSI is a contractor of IANA. No. The investigation is focussed on NSI. Remember that their roles and actions are quite different. NSI is profit-oriented and operates in an entirely closed manner. IANA is funded for cost-replacement only and has long operated with considerable community input and review. (It's also worth noting that the IANA funding by NSI is a very small amount of the IANA budget and pertains to the .US administration, rather than any of the other IANA work.) >It is only if done with the necessary governmental blessings, or >sufficient openness, that antitrust will not apply. Exactly. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org From owner-apple Tue Jul 22 01:32:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id BAA24778 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 01:32:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from fractal.chaos.com (fractal.chaos.com [206.5.17.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id BAA24772 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 01:32:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from [206.5.17.2] by fractal.chaos.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id xa015233 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 12:35:08 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970721123508.00c26da0@fractal.chaos.com> X-Sender: amr@fractal.chaos.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 12:35:08 -0400 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: IANA history Cc: apple@apnic.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina, Perhaps the best comprehensive history on this subject and the associated relationships, responsibilities and funding was prepared by Mike StJohns, and remains the status quo today. Mike - until he left the government a year or so ago - was the key person in DARPA who was actually responsible for IANA - where the buck stopped. You can note from the framing of the current US federal inquiry that it's the transition of this responsbility, among others, that are under consideration. --tony >Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 19:33:42 -0400 >Sender: ietf-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US >From: Michael StJohns >Subject: Re: Authority over IANA & IP #s was Re: 206.82.160.0/22 > >Generally, we like to keep a low profile - unless there's a problem. HWB's >basically correct about the history. Let me explain my current >understanding of where everything sits. Keep in mind at least parts of >this have been disputed even within the US feds. Also, the dates and >details may be a little off. > >The number space began life as a part of the ARPA "toy" internet. The >number space was managed by the NIC at SRI under a contract with the >Defense Communications Agency (which was managing the ARPANet under an >agreement with ARPA) until that contract was recompeted in '88. At that >time the numberspace management was transfered to the Internic under a >contract (cooperative agreement) with NSF. At this point the DOD basically >transfered "ownership" of the number to the Federal Networking Council >(actually, it may have been to its predecessor the FRICC - I don't remember >the timing). The understanding was that the DOD would continue to have >first call on the number space IF they needed it, but that block and other >delegations would be done by the Internic in consultation with the IANA, >EOWG, IEPG etc. As new schemes have come into being (e.g. subnetting, >CIDR) the gov't folks have basically ratified (mostly by silence) the use >of the space. The deal with the DOD having first call on the space was to >ensure that the DOD didn't give away the space and then have to start >paying for it. The deal today is that the FNC (as the representative US >organization) continues to own the space, but chooses to limit its control >over the space to issues (e.g. paying for numbers) that it considers >critical. Although the Internic performs the registrar function it does >this as an agent of the US Gov't and does not own the space nor does it own >the registration data. The registration function (at the top level >delegation) for numbers has been funded by the US Gov't since its inception >- first by ARPA and DOD, then by NSF. > >The name space is another matter. In approx 1986, as a result of the >growth of the HOSTTABLE (can you believe all the names on the used to fit >into one file?) the Internet began the deployment of the DNS system. (The >internet at this time was about 50 networks total). At this time of its >life, the majority of hosts on the internet were still connected through >either the ARPANet or the MILNet - the growth of the NSFNet centric >internet was yet to come. The initial DNS deployment was limited to the >non-country TLDs (e.g. MIL, COM, GOV, EDU, NET, ORG - INT came later) - >this was corrected rapidly with the introduction of the country TLDs. All >of the TLDs were considered "undelegated" at the time. Shortly after this >deployment started, I wrote the policies for the .MIL domain which limited >registrations to the US DOD and described the rules for second level >registrations (e.g. independent service or agency such as ARMY or Joint >Chiefs of Staff - JCS) - this was the first delegation of the non-country >TLDs. Keep in mind, the registration function was still vested at the SRI >NIC which was being paid for mainly by the Defense Data Network program at >DCA with some contributions from ARPA related to ARPANet operational costs. >Its unclear whether DCA or ARPA would claim ownership of the root domain, >but it definitely vested within the US DOD. Ownership of the root domain >was transfered to the FNC at the same time as the numberspace was >transfered and upon recompetition of the NIC contract the registration >function for root and the undelegated TLDs was transfered to the Internic. >Registrations within .MIL transfered at the same time, but this was due to >the fact the DDN NIC contract was won by the same organizations. > >The third delegation of a TLD was made circa '88 - EDU to the NSF (INT was >made to ARPA previous to this, but that's a very long story) in keeping >with its mission and connections program goals. .GOV was also delegated at >this time - to the US Gov't. The FNC finally issued a policy RFC covering >the .GOV registrations this year. At this time, COM, ORG and NET remain >undelegated at this time which basically places policy control for them >under the root authority which remains with the FNC. The notes above about >ownership of the Internic database etc apply here as well. > >I was a program analyst at the Defense Data Network Program Management >office at DCA from 85 to 89. As such, I was responsible for the NIC >contract and directing the technical work there. The GOV, EDU, MIL and INT >domains were delegated at my direction at that time - Steve Wolff at NSF >agreed to accept policy control over EDU at NSF at that time. I currently >sit on the FNC exec committee. > >All of the above notwithstanding the general mode of operation has been to >let the community work out the issues as they occur. Unfortunately, >sometimes the gov't has had to make decisions and give directions to its >contracts, either without community input or against community >recommendations due either to legal, financial or other issues. The feds >continue to fund the Internic and the IANA and have fiduciary and program >responsibilities due to this. > >Please! Take all of the above with a grain of salt - my general feeling is >that the feds feel they are holding the numbers and namespace in trust for >the community and really do have the internets best interests (e.g. >continued operation) at heart. > >Mike From owner-apple Tue Jul 22 01:37:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id BAA24886 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 01:37:09 +0900 (JST) Received: from unir.corp (root@[207.32.128.74] (may be forged)) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id BAA24880 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 01:37:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from webster.unety.net (webster.unety.net [207.32.128.58]) by unir.corp (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA21579; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 11:25:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: by webster.unety.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BC95CA.3327A5A0@webster.unety.net>; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 11:35:33 -0500 Message-ID: <01BC95CA.3327A5A0@webster.unety.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'Dave Crocker / IMC'" , "laina@singnet.com.sg" Cc: "apple@apnic.net" , Bala Pillai Subject: RE: "Week from Hell for the Net" - PC World (fw) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 11:35:32 -0500 Encoding: 62 TEXT Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk On Monday, July 21, 1997 10:43 AM, Dave Crocker / IMC[SMTP:dcrocker@imc.org] wrote: @ Laina, @ @ At 07:40 AM 7/20/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: @ >Hmm.. interesting. Could this also mean that IANA is also under @ >investigation, since NSI is a contractor of IANA. @ @ No. The investigation is focussed on NSI. @ @ Remember that their roles and actions are quite different. NSI is @ profit-oriented and operates in an entirely closed manner. IANA is funded @ for cost-replacement only and has long operated with considerable community @ input and review. @ @ (It's also worth noting that the IANA funding by NSI is a very small @ amount of the IANA budget and pertains to the .US administration, rather @ than any of the other IANA work.) @ @ >It is only if done with the necessary governmental blessings, or @ >sufficient openness, that antitrust will not apply. @ @ Exactly. @ @ d/ @ -------------------- @ Dave Crocker @ Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 @ 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 @ Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org @ @ Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org @ @ Reference material...from the InterNIC Timeline ... March 1992 Original NSF Solicitation May 1992 Original NSI Proposal October 1992 Modified NSI Proposal "Network Solutions believes NSF's objectives will be met most effectively by the award of the bulk of the services to a single contractor." "Network Solutions proposes Mr. Jon Postel as the IANA Manager and Chairman of the Advisory Panel for the NREN NIS Manager project. He will provide services as an employee of USC's Information Sciences Institute (ISI), subcontractor to Network Solutions." AT&T Proposal ... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From owner-apple Tue Jul 22 13:03:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id NAA01266 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 13:03:12 +0900 (JST) Received: from diablo.cisco.com (diablo.cisco.com [171.68.223.106]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id NAA01259 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 13:03:09 +0900 (JST) Received: from bgreene-pc.cisco.com ([171.68.85.150]) by diablo.cisco.com (8.8.5/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with SMTP id VAA06695 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 21:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bgreene-pc.cisco.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC9696.37AA4DE0@bgreene-pc.cisco.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:55:58 +0800 Message-ID: <01BC9696.37AA4DE0@bgreene-pc.cisco.com> From: Barry Raveendran Greene To: "'APPLe'" Subject: FW: [fwd] MCI Releases Internet Policy Paper Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:29:12 +0800 Encoding: 35 TEXT Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk FYI >Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 19:34:26 -0700 (PDT) >Subject: ATM News Digest, v4n138 > >ATM News Digest July 22, 1997 Volume 4, Number 138 >Sponsored by Madge Networks > [snip] MCI RELEASES INTERNET POLICY PAPER MCI published a 42-page "Internet Policy Vision" paper that it said should serve as a blueprint for public and corporate Internet policymakers. Major principles outlined in the MCI document include the following: critical Internet issues should be addressed by market-based private solutions rather than government mandates; social goals should not be applied to Internet policies without careful examination on whether they are possible technologically; and full Internet seamlessness requires a consistent global commercial and legal framework. The document also defines MCI's position and policies on Internet privacy, encryption. Domain Name reform, spamming and online gambling. MCI noted that its 622Mbps Internet backbone now carries more than 140 terabytes of data per week and that it plans to double backbone capacity in 1998. (http://www.mci.com/aboutus/company/news/internetpolicy/contents.shtml) MCI, July 21, 1997 [snip] From owner-apple Tue Jul 22 17:12:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id RAA03198 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 17:12:05 +0900 (JST) Received: from armstrong.apic.net (armstrong.apic.net [203.22.101.20]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id RAA03188 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 17:11:26 +0900 (JST) Received: from boss.apic.net (boss.apic.net [203.22.102.40]) by armstrong.apic.net (8.8.6/APIC-2.1) with SMTP id SAA28296; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 18:13:41 +1000 (EST) X-Org: The Asia Pacific Internet Company Pty. Ltd. X-URL: http://www.apic.net/ Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970722181637.00c5d2b4@mail.apic.net> X-Sender: bala@mail.apic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 18:16:37 +1000 To: aim@apic.net, apple@apnic.net From: Bala Pillai Subject: PR: New Domain Registrar Applications Opens (fw) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk **forwarded message** Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:36:45 -0400 Reply-To: isoc@ISOC.ORG Sender: The Internet Society From: Don Heath Subject: Press Release Comments: To: isoc-membership@info.isoc.org To: Multiple recipients of list ISOC-MEMBERSHIP FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For more information contact: Internet Society 12020 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston, VA 20191-3429 TEL 703-648-9888 FAX 703-648-9887 E-mail registrars@isoc.org http://www.gtld-mou.org http://www.isoc.org COMPETITION FOR INTERNET DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION NEAR; APPLICATIONS TO BECOME A REGISTRAR OPENS WASHINGTON, DC, July 21, 1997 -- Self-regulation of the Internet took a step forward today with the announcement that applications to become a registrar of Internet domain names will be accepted. The action, announced by the interim Policy Oversight Committee (iPOC), is expected to result in the establishment of competitive registrars worldwide. A plan recommended by the predecessor to iPOC, the Internet Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC), calls for the creation of new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) and the selection of additional registrars from around the world. Each will compete to register Internet domain names under the new gTLDs. Currently there is one registrar, Network Solutions, Inc., for the three existing gTLDs, .com, .net, and .org. It is expected that those gTLDs will become assimilated into the new plan in April, 1998. The IAHC recommendation was adopted with the signing of the generic Top Level Domain-Memorandum of Understanding (gTLD-MoU), which is designed to effect Internet self-regulation in the registration of generic domain names. The IAHC, some of whose members are participating in the iPOC, concluded in February, 1997, that seven new gTLDs would be added to the Internet addressing system. Currently, there are approximately 145 organizations that are signatories or intended signatories to the gTLD-MoU. Each registrar will be entitled to register domain names in all of the new gTLDs for Internet users anywhere in the world. Principles of free market and competition will apply in the new system, and registrars will compete among themselves for pricing, service and reliability. The new system also introduces domain name "portability," meaning that consumers will be able to switch among registrars keeping their domain name. A Council of Registrars (CORE), made up of all the new registrars, will administer the central databases and provide stability and consistency to the system. "We are gratified to see the results of this open process," said David Maher, chair of the iPOC and a senior partner with the law firm of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, in Chicago. "There were months of open discussion and significant modifications of the first proposals. The entire process was initiated by the Internet Society (ISOC) and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and we were guided throughout by their principles," he added. To become a gTLD registrar, applicants must submit an application form (available at ) and supporting documentation before October 16, 1997, to Arthur Andersen LLP, which will receive the applications. The decision when to reopen the process for submitting applications to qualify as registrars, will be made in the future. Each application must be accompanied by a US$10,000 application fee. To qualify, an applicant must show a certain level of available capital and commercial liability insurance, and must have a functioning domain name. They must further commit to having the equivalent of five full time employees in the registration activities. Applicants which are selected as a result of the application process must sign a CORE Memorandum of Understanding (CORE-MoU) outlining their rights and responsibilities in the registration business and as a member of CORE. Before beginning registration activities, they must also conform to operational and technical requirements that will be determined by CORE. CORE is expected to begin start-up activities and preparations for registration on August 15, 1997, prior to the closing of the application period, with its membership consisting of the applicants who have qualified as registrars at that time. Later applicants will join CORE as they are qualified as registrars. The first task of CORE will be to design and coordinate the technology and operational requirements for putting the registration system on-line later this year. ABOUT THE GTLD-MOU The generic Top Level Domain-Memorandum of Understanding (gTLD-MoU) is the international governance framework in which policies for the administration and enhancement of the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) are developed and deployed. This includes, among other things, the addition of new gTLDs, selection of new domain name registrars, and development of equitable dispute resolution mechanisms for conflicts between parties concerning rights to domain names. The gTLD-MoU attempts to balance the many (and often disparate) interests of the many stakeholders in the Internet DNS. Toward that goal, the MoU is intentionally designed to be open-ended and will be adapted to evolving requirements. The MoU is an explicit recognition of a need to formalize the consultative policy framework for continued evolution of the Internet DNS. # # # # # # # # <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Donald M. Heath President/CEO Internet Society Join the Internet Society 12020 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 210 TEL +703 648 9888 Reston, VA 20191-3429 USA FAX +703 648 9887 <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> From owner-apple Wed Jul 23 16:43:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id QAA19343 for apple-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 16:43:08 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id QAA19338 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 16:43:05 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-6024.singnet.com.sg [165.21.162.108]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA15145 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 15:45:25 +0800 (SST) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 97 15:42:54 Subject: FW: Section B - general/organizational framework To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Some food for thought from another list. Any comments? Laina RG --- On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 22:07:56 -0400 Tony Rutkowski wrote: Continuing through the inquiry proceeding, the first set of numbered questions deal with general and organizational framework issues. The first few questions deal with the current framework and systems. I found it interesting today that a senior European official conveyed the view that Europeans had no problems with the existing arrangements for the near term - that indeed their concerns dealt with IAHC initiative. This definitely counters the sometimes heard argument that international constituencies are somehow provoking change. The later questions in the group deal with a transition options and boundaries. ------ QUESTIONS 1. The existing scheme just grew by default with very little thought or consideration - probably the inevitable result of closed processes. As a result, there are a small group of TLDs that have organizational connotations, and a much larger group that have geopolitical connotations. By contrast, various agent naming standards groups have given the matter rigorous consideration and developed a system of flexible naming ontologies. The agent environment is potentially much more complex and varied than the relatively simple one dimensional existing DNS environment. Since we're now at a fairly significant point of establishing future directions, shouldn't policymakers, industry, and users use the occasion to take a somewhat broader, harder look at what purpose the DNS will be serving in the future, and what the ontology (i.e., structure of naming) should be for that future? 2. Given the overwhelming success and stability of the existing DNS, shouldn't serious pause and significant reflection take place before moving to any new arrangements? 3. Would anyone care if the existing arrangements just continued, together with some entrepreneurial experimentation? 4. Isn't it foolish to even consider notions of retiring domains from circulation given an enormous free market investment in existing domains by hundreds of thousands of users? 5. Isn't continued reference to 2-letter geopolitical identifiers as ISO (the correct name is International Organization for Standardization) codes an open invitation for never ending trouble and intrusion of national authorities? Considering the Internet is basically a distributed information system, the identifiers aren't really tied to any physical notion of geographical exercise of sovereignty. Didn't the DOD-IANA make a big mistake in even taking the Internet toward this direction in recent years? Isn't is desirable to have multiple geopolitical identifiers? 6. Isn't the most significant underlying legal and public policy issue that of antitrust? Isn't this whole proceeding nothing more than a matter of controlling a market in Internet naming and root server services? Aren't the existing vendors of root-server services, and BIND software subject to significant liabilities under antitrust laws? Wouldn't the whole proceeding benefit from parting the veil and dealing with the entire subject in antitrust terms? --amr -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/23/97 Time: 3:42:54 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Wed Jul 23 16:59:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id QAA19492 for apple-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 16:59:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id QAA19487 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 16:58:59 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-6024.singnet.com.sg [165.21.162.108]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA25320; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 16:01:19 +0800 (SST) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 97 15:44:11 Subject: Re: report on the Harrods domain name case (UK) To: "INTERNET:laina@singnet.com.sg" , "David W. Maher" <72135.1272@compuserve.com> Cc: APPLe X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk --- On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:22:20 -0400 "David W. Maher" <72135.1272@compuserve.com> wrote: >Laina >The ACP procedures will not supplant the jurisdiction of any court, >but will offer a quick and >inexpensive way for trademark owners to resolve disputes in many >instances >where access to courts would be difficult because of different parties >in >different jurisdictions. David, just a question for sake of clarification. You say that the ACP will offer a solution where access to courts will be difficult. Yet, when I read the guidelines it says that all registries will contract with their domain name customers that they MUST use ACP and the WIPO centre. Isn't that creating a monopoly of a dispute settlement forum? Also, since all registries HAVE to make customers agree to this, does this not leave the parties to choice as is normal in contracts where both can chose their fora? Also the guidelines say since there is no international law on this matter, the WIPO centre will have to turn to national and regional laws..(of which they do not claim competence over)...again isn't the choice of law normally agreed to by parties in a contract,or determined by normal conflicts of law rules, not imposed to them by a third fora? Also, what if a domain dispute is between two holders from the same country or region, would not a national or regional dispute centre be in a better position to resolve the issue?? Having a central point coordinating verdicts that all agree to abide by of course has its value, but making it the mandatory forum?? I don;t know. Maybe it could be the coordinating centre of other fora where decisions are filed, and registrars agree to abide by if WIPO registers the decision... or something of that like??? >In addition, the ACP procedures will offer the >owners of globally famous marks a means of protecting their marks >without >grabbing a domain name registration in every new domain. If a mark is >registered in enough countries, and if the ACP agrees, a globally >famous >mark can be barred from all gTLDs except for the owner of the mark. >Even >this procedure could be overruled by a court having jurisdiction. > In a cursory reading it seems to me that this mechanism merely protects those MNCs who are the ones in any case with the money to file in several jurisdictions. Now they can save this money because WIPO will adopt the US laws of dilution to protect them.`Those small and medium enterprises, with difficulty to prove an internationally known brand will either not be able to claim a domain name (blocked by one of these famous marks) or not be able to defend others from "diluting" their names. Just some questions I am groping with. Do see some validity in the attempt to overcome the lack of international law, but am not sure that endorsing a monopoly "regulatory" (PoC) and monopoly fora, is necessarily the way to go. from what I understand, in order to be a "regulator" it has to be legitimately elected or legitimately open. I am still trying to find out how we can salvage this from the current situation. Laina RG -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/23/97 Time: 3:44:11 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Thu Jul 24 12:10:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id MAA26185 for apple-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:10:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from exchange2.ntu.edu.sg ([155.69.1.31] (may be forged)) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id MAA26180 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:10:51 +0900 (JST) Received: by EXCHANGE2 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:08:44 +0800 Message-ID: <6262D2BDE3E6D01186B508002BB487E10BB608@EXCHANGE2> From: Ang Peng Hwa To: "'APPLe'" Subject: FW: Call for Papers for Internet book Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:08:41 +0800 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Folks, Below is a call for papers for a book on the Internet. Regards, Peng Hwa ANG -----Original Message----- From: MariaNgLeeHoon@idrc.org.sg [SMTP:MariaNgLeeHoon@idrc.org.sg] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 1997 6:09 PM To: Pan-CL@pan.idrc.org.sg; PANALL@pan.idrc.org.sg Subject: Call for Papers Maria Ng Lee Hoon Coordinator, Pan Asia Networking Asia Regional Office International Development Research Centre=20 E-mail: MariaNgLeeHoon@idrc.org.sg Fax: (65) 235-1849; Phone: (65) 235-1344 URL: http://www.PanAsia.org.sg ------------- Original Text From: David GLOVER@ASRO@IDRC CRDI, on 24/07/97 10:04: To: Maria@ASRO@IDRC CRDI This might interest you. Regards, Cathy --------- From: C=3DUS/A=3DINTERNET/DDA=3DID/aprenetlist(a)nautilus.org, on = 1997/07/24 12: 13 AM: To: David GLOVER@ASRO@IDRC CRDI; ASROZOOM@IDRC CRDI ASRO1@Servers=20 [C=3DUS/A=3DINTERNET/DDA=3DID/aprenetlist(a)nautilus.org] Delivered: Thu Jul 24 00:13:57 1997 ----------------------------- [X.400 Text Follows]=20 ----------------------------- CALL FOR PAPERS The United Nations University is seeking potential authors for an upcoming=20 book entitled, International Organizations and the Internet: the Role of=20 the United Nations in the Next Century. =20 Specifically, the UNU is seeking potential authors to write on the Internet as a democratizing force; the role of Women and the Internet; the Internet and development in Africa, Central Europe, Russia, and Asia; and the Internet's role in peace and governance.=20 See announcement below. Abstracts should be emailed to Dana Fisher < by August 1. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THE INTERNET: The Role of the United Nations in the Next Century Dana R. Fisher and German T. Velasquez, Editors As the 21st century approaches, people from all sectors of society are asking how the new technologies of electronic communication will affect the world. With globalization, international organizations, including the United Nations, play an ever-increasing role in managing communication and education between both countries and organizations. Thus, how the United Nations uses this communication technology as we move into the next century has huge implications well beyond the organization itself.=20 International Organizations and the Internet: the Role of the United Nations in the Next Century will address the growth of the new technology and the United Nations=92 use of the new technology in the coming century. It will cover issues ranging from the social implications of the growth of the Internet and case studies of how the United Nations already takes advantage of the new technology.=20 Topics will include: A. Growth of the Internet and the social implications of this growth B. UN=92s use of the Internet for:=20 * international development=20 * democratizing projects=20 * the role of women in society=20 * sustainable development * community participation=20 * disaster mitigation The book will be separated into 8-10 chapters each ranging from 20-30 pages. =20 Expected length << 300 pages=20 --- Dana R. Fisher Visiting Scholar United Nations University Tokyo, Japan fisher@hq.unu.edu 81-03-3499-2811 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Asia Pacific Regional Enviornment Network (APRENet) Distributed by the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development http://www.nautilus.org *To unsubscribe to APRENet, please send a message to aprenet_mgr@nautilus.org with the following text in the body of the message:=20 unsubscribe aprenetlist < From owner-apple Thu Jul 24 18:24:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id SAA28674 for apple-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 18:24:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id SAA28667 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 18:24:50 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-4114.singnet.com.sg [165.21.153.130]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA19373 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:27:11 +0800 (SST) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 97 17:03:33 Subject: Some queries for IAHC To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Now that the application for Registries are open, I have some questions. Firstly, I notice that the fee for application is quite high US$10,000. Also the applicant has to have at least US$300,000 liquid capital, be from a country signatory to WIPO conventions, etc. Does this not rule out many dveloping countries if not small players in other countries? Secondly, what gives CORE the right to charge such exhorbitant amounts for something involving a "public resource" and who bestowed upon it and POC to be custodians of the "public trust". Is there accountability, and is this a mechanism, for a closed group and their approved participants, to make money off a public trust/ Thirdly, what confuses me is that despite the recognition that this is a public trust and public interest is to be considered, and even with the PAB with signatory participation, ultimate decision making falls on the PoC which signatories have no right to elect (it is a nominated group- thereby preserving the IAHC's powers). Also any changes advised to be made by PAB, and CORE and agreed by POC still have to be agreed by ISOC and IANA- i.e. still a hierarichal structure. >From my understanding, public bodies are elected by the public to preserve their interest- they are not self appointed nor self perpetuating. Why not have the signatories elect the POC and delink ultimate authority from ISOC and IANA- PLEASE explain the justification of this. Fourth question- how are "market forces" a term used in the IAHC paper used here? Where is the competition? Would appreciate clarifications to some of these questions, as I try to make sense on how we should respond to what is happening. Laina RG ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/24/97 Time: 5:03:34 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Thu Jul 24 22:14:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id WAA29661 for apple-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:14:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from fractal.chaos.com (fractal.chaos.com [206.5.17.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id WAA29656 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:14:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from [206.5.17.2] by fractal.chaos.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id fa015449 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:16:07 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970724091606.00a28e50@fractal.chaos.com> X-Sender: amr@fractal.chaos.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:16:06 -0400 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: Some queries for IAHC Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina, >Would appreciate clarifications to some of these questions, as I try to >make sense on how we should respond to what is happening. There was a great article the other day in the USA papers about an outfit that was selling parcels of property on the moon via the Internet. The IAHC gambit is in the same category. That's where the "competition" is - selling Internet cyberturf. :-) The same maxim applies: caveat emptor. cheers, --Tony From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 03:03:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id DAA02022 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 03:03:49 +0900 (JST) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id DAA02017 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 03:03:46 +0900 (JST) Received: from slimnote (d102.netgate.net [205.214.160.140]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA05594; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:51:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970724104011.0071763c@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:40:11 -0700 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: Re: Some queries for IAHC Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina, At 05:03 PM 7/24/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: >Now that the application for Registries are open, I have some questions. I'll try to offer some reasonable answers to your laundry list of questions. The real concern about my engaging in such an effort is that your choice of loaded words like "exorbitant" and your inclusion of numerous questions which have been asked and answered many, many times on this list and several others does not leave me sanguine that this discussion thread has been initiated for constructive information exchange. As you pointed out to me on this list some months ago, it is necessary to pursue discourse in a polite manner and I agree with you. That is what makes the tone and style and timing of your note so puzzling. So as to the true and honest purpose of this exchange, I'll return THAT to YOU as a question. There is nothing in your queries involving new information. At the least, why wait until now to ask the questions, rather than sooner? >Firstly, I notice that the fee for application is quite high US$10,000. >Also the applicant has to have at least US$300,000 liquid capital, be >from a country signatory to WIPO conventions, etc. Does this not rule >out many dveloping countries if not small players in other countries? The fee was reduced by half, quite some time ago, when we did away with the lottery and opened up the registration process to all qualified applicants. (Also to aid in constructive discourse I would like to note that it is always easy to oppose and it is very difficult to propose. Along with raising questions about the many facets of the gTLD MoU let me strongly encourage you to suggest superior alternatives, with accompanying detail needed to make such suggestions concrete.) The fee is necessary because participating in a global infrastructure does involve significant costs. As an example, the work of the committee itself has been quite expensive even though all of the committee members are volunteers. The cost of setting up the shared repository service will also be costly. Eventually I suspect that it will be possible to reduce these requirements substantially, but early market entry costs often are high. In this case, the major reason for needing to have substantial financial qualifiers is twofold. One is that the effort is new and the work is on essential infrastructure, so that the first participants need to have the resources necessary to fund the changes. The second is that the effort needs to be credible as a counter to the US$ 50 million per year of revenue that NSI is currently achieving. When trying to counter such well-funded competition, it is almost always necessary to have adequate, basic funding. The financial requirements are roughly comparable to a very modest high-tech startup funding basis. Criteria always do leave some people out. That's their purpose. As always happens when people impose requirements, some of those who are left out are not the targets of the filtering. In this case, the financial criteria are for the purpose of establishing adequate financial solvency. The purpose of the treaty signatory requirement is to give a basis for the administrative challenge panel mechanisms which attempt to assist in the very difficult topic of domain name conflicts which have become so nettlesome. >Secondly, what gives CORE the right to charge such exhorbitant amounts >for something involving a "public resource" and who bestowed upon it and >POC to be custodians of the "public trust". Is there accountability, and >is this a mechanism, for a closed group and their approved participants, >to make money off a public trust/ Well, let me begin by saying that I stopped beating my wife long ago and I think it is in very poor taste of you to ask me about it. Now that I've responded to the tone and style of your question, let me further repeat request that follow-up notes be written with less effort to incite and inflame and more effort at legitimate dialogue. The gTLD MoU work has been underway for 10 months and it is truly tiresome to still be treated to queries which are frankly impolite. To seek constructive content: The domain name system has been under the management authority of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) since its inception more than 10 years ago. The question of gTLD expansion and administration was under community review and debate for two years, with no strong consensus achieved. As happens when important problems prove intractable, a "select" committee was commissioned under the authority of IANA to work on the problem. That committee was the IAHC. So, the authority comes from the group that is in charge of the DNS. (It might be the source of a cheap thrill to return a volley which says that IANA is NOT in charge, but it is not a valid retort since such a challenge represents a lack of knowledge and understanding about Internet management. I am not suggesting that you, Laina, would be interested in leading the discussion down such a fruitless and frivolous path, but others have been inclined to do so many times and I thought it worthwhile to anticipate that they might wish to do it again. To them I suggest: don't bother to demonstrate such basic ignorance about the operation and management of the net. Constructive dialouge does require some effort, so please make the effort.) Asking whether there is accountability suggests that the structure established by the gTLD MoU hasn't been described and debated many times already, since the answer is not merely yes but massively yes. There is so much accountability that the plan is also heavily criticized for TOO MUCH structure. I guess there is no pleasing some folks. Public oversight is achieved by having a small oversight committee to ensure that the details of public interest are achieved and a larger "community" advisory body to ensure the broadest possible basis for review and comment. As to the latter part of this question, I don't know which "closed group" making money you are asking about. If it is a question about the members of the oversight committee making money, they answer is "not hardly". In fact, involvement in that job so far has been a matter of considerable income loss for a number of the committee members. There is no reason to expect that to change. If the question is about the registrars, themselves, then the answer is quite explicitly yes. The problem with the question as you formed it is the term "closed group". Little about this structure and its operation is particularly closed. Quite the opposite. So with some trepidation as to the form of your response I'll ask that you please re-phrase your question. >Thirdly, what confuses me is that despite the recognition that this is a >public trust and public interest is to be considered, and even with the >PAB with signatory participation, ultimate decision making falls on the >PoC which signatories have no right to elect (it is a nominated group- >thereby preserving the IAHC's powers). Also any changes advised to be >made by PAB, and CORE and agreed by POC still have to be agreed by ISOC >and IANA- i.e. still a hierarichal structure. Creating a global, public structure is a bit of a challenge, as I'm sure you can appreciate. To create such a structure and have it achieve a state of reliable operation quickly there are some choices that must be made. In particular, it is necessary to defer basic items of debate for later. "Defer" does not mean ignore; it means defer. As you have been demonstrating so well, almost every detail of an ambitious plan can be roundly and soundly challenged. To pursue and discuss and resolve such matters takes time. Time is at a premium for this matter since it has been subject to public debate for 3 1/2 years. There are a number of factors that make it urgent to get the changes made now, rather than wait for every debatable detail to be completely and fully resolved. (As if such an eventuality is possible.) It is easy for some to treat this matter only as an academic or public policy concern and therefore to view time constraints as irrelevant. Unfortunately there is a running, global service which is overdue for these changes and we need to give priority to the operational requirements. As details need further debate, they will get it. The question of POC makeup and the methods of selecting its membership are just two of the basic and important matters that can and should be debated carefully and at length. The current scheme for selecting POC members was felt to be a reasonable and useful expedient for starting operation. Suggestions for changes are explicitly welcome and have already happened. For example, the PAB has just elected representatives to participate in POC. A number of us have explicitly asked for direct and thorough public discussion about additional changes that are deemed appropriate. To date I have not seen this question pursued but perhaps you would like to lead that consideration and formulate an alternative proposal? Also please permit me to offer a basic lecture about the way decisions are usually made for the Internet: The Internet is a community which tends to rely on broad "rough" consensus rather more than most public structures. I will note that the word "rough" has two, very different meanings. One concerns the "approximate" nature of the assessment method. The other is well demonstrated by the tone and style of your own note. Nonetheless, this model has proved remarkably successful. As the net grows, the details of the rough consensus model need modification, but its essence remains. This model is, of course, simply a direct democracy model. It has layers of representation and indirection but it involves a demonstration of "the consent of the governed" as an explicit part of making major decisions, such as the gTLD MoU. It is often difficult to measure the rough consensus when opposing sides are especially animated, aggressive and even nasty, as they are on this topic. However, difficult does not mean impossible. The model is based on trust. The Internet's operational community has a strong basis for trust in IANA and ISOC. The former has a stellar record over many years. The latter has had a rocky start but has been making significant, constructive contributions in a number of arenas and, in my opinion, deserves particular commendation for taking the initiative and funding the start of the gTLD MoU effort. (For reference, I was a founding member of ISOC but have not been a fan of it over most of its history. So I do not assign plaudits to it lightly.) >>From my understanding, public bodies are elected by the public to >preserve their interest- they are not self appointed nor self >perpetuating. Why not have the signatories elect the POC and delink >ultimate authority from ISOC and IANA- PLEASE explain the justification >of this. As I said earlier, this is a topic worthy of, and requiring, extensive discussion. Your suggestion has been made by a number of people. Perhaps it's the right answer and perhaps it isn't. When that discussion is pursued and resolved we will be able to assess the changes to the selection process that are appropriate. Until then, we will be able to get work done and start operation of a competitive and shared registration service, rather than having to wait and -- if nothing else -- further entrench the current monopoly position of the one and only existing registrar. >Fourth question- how are "market forces" a term used in the IAHC paper >used here? Where is the competition? Anyone with basic financial resources can become a gTLD registrar and compete against all the other gTLD registrars. Competition will be based on price and service, rather than on artificial control over an infrastructure resource. If you don't think that's meaningful competition, I would be most interested to hear your rationale. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 04:05:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id EAA03042 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 04:05:32 +0900 (JST) Received: from fractal.chaos.com (fractal.chaos.com [206.5.17.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id EAA03033 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 04:05:26 +0900 (JST) Received: from [206.5.17.2] by fractal.chaos.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id fa015475 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:07:36 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970724150736.00a40970@fractal.chaos.com> X-Sender: amr@fractal.chaos.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:07:36 -0400 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: Some queries for IAHC Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina, Since this is a discussion group on law, and in light of responses to your question, it is plain that the IAHC group is attempting to establish market entry conditions and take a very active role in manipulating and controlling the marketplace in DNS services. This was not a problem in the past because this was occurring under the US-DOD. It is, of course, a fundamental underlying issue in the US government inquiry proceeding looking at a transition from the existing arrangements. Private groups who attempt to exercise broad powers in governing a marketplace fall within the ambit of laws pertaining to racketeering, influence peddling, and conspiracy to restrain trade. The IAHC scheme would seem to run afoul of antitrust laws in the U.S. at both federal and state levels - which is doubtlessly why the IAHC group is attempting to run the operation out of Switzerland where there is some degree of immunity. It would be useful to understand the extent to which similar antitrust laws would apply in the Asia-Pacific region to this kind of activity. Although some will doubtlessly criticize the discussion of these matters - you certainly appreciate the fundamental significance of the legal issues. cheers, --Tony From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 06:30:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id GAA05664 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 06:30:11 +0900 (JST) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id GAA05659 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 06:30:08 +0900 (JST) Received: from slimnote (d103.netgate.net [205.214.160.141]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA15117; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970724142900.006fd4b8@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:29:00 -0700 To: Tony Rutkowski From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: Re: Some queries for IAHC Cc: laina@singnet.com.sg, apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970724150736.00a40970@fractal.chaos.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Tony, At 03:07 PM 7/24/97 -0400, Tony Rutkowski wrote: >IAHC group is attempting to establish market entry >conditions and take a very active role in manipulating >and controlling the marketplace in DNS services. The gTLD MoU creates a competitive market, where there currently is only a monopoly. So, rather than focusing on the activity as controlling market entry it's probably more useful to focus on market creation. To the extent that the terms and conditions of registrar authorization remain a serious irritation to one, it is worth noting that the terms and conditions have been subject to ongoing public review AND considerable modification based on that review. The fee used to be US$ 20,000. It is now half that. There used to be a limit to the number of initial registrars. Now there isn't. There used to be a lottery. Now there isn't. And so on. As alternatives become available or as conditions permit, requirements will be reduced... as they have been already. >This was not a problem in the past because this was >occurring under the US-DOD. It is, of course, a fundamental >underlying issue in the US government inquiry proceeding Tony has been consistently using the wrong formal term for the US government's activity. It is not an "inquiry" but, rather, a request for comments. The US government has not indicated anything other than it is seeking comments. It has not stated any expectation -- much less any intent -- that it will take any action. Consequently, characterizing the US government's current review process as somehow having certain and basic impact on the gTLD MoU DNS work is misleading at best. The US government is very powerful, of course, and it could choose to do any number of very powerful things. It has so far taken no action which will alter the continued progress of the gTLD MoU work and there is not yet any reason to believe that will change. Quite the contrary. >looking at a transition from the existing arrangements. >Private groups who attempt to exercise broad powers in >governing a marketplace fall within the ambit of laws >pertaining to racketeering, influence peddling, and >conspiracy to restrain trade. It would, of course, be helpful to this point of view if we could find a signficant base of others of like mind. Instead we find a strong consensus emerging that the Internet needs to develop private governance mechanisms, rather than use a governmental basis. Perhaps that is why Tony's much-admired Ira Magaziner said that the gTLD MoU work is very much in line with the direction of development sought by the US White House. Characterizing the gTLD MoU work with alaundry list of inflammatory criminal labels makes for good copy but bad reporting. >The IAHC scheme would seem to run afoul of antitrust laws This view, too, would benefit from having any significant support. Tony has been touting this view for many months and one is hard-pressed to find substantive support among others with the relevant expertise. In fact, when confronted with public debate by someone having expertise, Tony has shown a tendency to terminate discussion. As recently as last week, wasn't it Tony? >doubtlessly why the IAHC group is attempting to run the >operation out of Switzerland where there is some degree >of immunity. It would be useful to understand the extent So now Tony is assessing our "doubtless" intentions. Well, OK. Forgive me for expressing some doubt about a doubtless assessment. Let's start by observing that many months ago, Tony himself suggested that things be based in Switzerland. We're not proud. We'll take a good idea from anywhere, including Tony. But no, now that we are following this excellent suggestion, Tony's not happy with it. The DNS is an international service. As such, it's legal foundation should have an much international flavor and basis to it as is possible. In this case, that clearly means establishing the gTLD MoU structure in a legal jurisdiction which has considerable history for international organizations. Switzerland is hardly a difficult choice under that circumstance. I'm not an expert is such matters but I do not, offhand, know of a better venue. The US is, perhaps, the LEAST appropriate jurisdiction. cheers, d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 08:05:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id IAA06177 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:05:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from fractal.chaos.com (fractal.chaos.com [206.5.17.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id IAA06172 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:04:58 +0900 (JST) Received: from [206.5.17.2] by fractal.chaos.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id qa015486 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:07:13 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970724190712.00a6b350@fractal.chaos.com> X-Sender: amr@fractal.chaos.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:07:12 -0400 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: FYI Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970724142900.006fd4b8@imc.org> References: <3.0.3.32.19970724150736.00a40970@fractal.chaos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina, I'm interested in substantive, peer discussions with you and others in the AP region on the legal issues and merits, rather than having yet another exhibit of obnoxious and arrogant IAHC spinmeistering on yet another list to kill opposition discussion. Enough said. This is why the federal proceeding is so central - it's a legitimate, standard international policy making proceeding - as you are more than familiar with over the years - and widely supported by industry and users. The best guess is that the many agencies involved will effect a transfer of present US government responsibilities to an open industry-user led group similar to the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA), plus some bilateral and multilateral coordination and open representation. Almost identical facts and actions existed attendant to the AT&T breakup. Virtually all the gTLD use is confined to North America, and the problems essentially confined to that environment - as has been repeatedly pointed out by representatives all over the globe. In addition, it's clear that the .US domain much be made to function adequately. The NANPA kind of arrangement provides substantial antitrust shielding (which is arguably the primary underlying issue) and seems to have worked very effectively. cheers, --Tony From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 08:49:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id IAA06471 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:49:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id IAA06466 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:48:58 +0900 (JST) Received: from slimnote (d103.netgate.net [205.214.160.141]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA21697; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970724165020.00a33284@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:50:20 -0700 To: Tony Rutkowski From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: Re: FYI Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970724190712.00a6b350@fractal.chaos.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19970724142900.006fd4b8@imc.org> <3.0.3.32.19970724150736.00a40970@fractal.chaos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Tony, Rutkowski wrote: >exhibit of obnoxious and arrogant IAHC spinmeistering >on yet another list to kill opposition discussion. Yes indeed, professional discourse is difficult. Nonetheless, I do encourage your to find a way to engage in it. It's worth the effort. Really. Such a vituperative tone isn't at all necessary. But then I notice that, as has been true so many times in the past, you do not offer any substantive responses to my comments. I would think that the fact that I countered your own (mis)representations would prompt you to provide a basis for justifying your various claims. You know, evidence of the support for your views in the expert legal community. Etc. Instead you are repeating exactly the same pattern you've displayed frequently. Namely you quickly refuse to pursue substantive discussions with those not agreeing with your position. You did it last week with a legal expert on another list and you do it today. One who espouses such strongly stated views should be willing to discuss them. Yet this time, as so many in the past, you dodge the opportunity, using nasty labels as the excuse. >Enough said. Hmmmm. Most odd that you think so. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 12:03:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id MAA07376 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:03:55 +0900 (JST) Received: from diablo.cisco.com (diablo.cisco.com [171.68.223.106]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id LAA07338; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:59:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from bgreene-pc.cisco.com ([171.68.85.152]) by diablo.cisco.com (8.8.5/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with SMTP id TAA02802; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bgreene-pc.cisco.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC98E8.56692FE0@bgreene-pc.cisco.com>; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 10:48:50 +0800 Message-ID: <01BC98E8.56692FE0@bgreene-pc.cisco.com> From: Barry Raveendran Greene Subject: APRICOT III Feb 16-22 - Preliminary Announcement Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 10:18:22 +0800 Encoding: 80 TEXT Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk [Apologies for the Duplicates] Asia & Pacific Rim Internet Conference on Operational Technologies APRICOT III Manila, Philippines 14-20 February, 1998 Throughout Asia, Internet Service Providers, Backbone & Regional Networks, Web Hosting Facilities, Firewalls, and Private Intranets, are being installed at a staggering pace. The organizations responsible are under tremendous pressure to master the skills and policies necessary to operate & maintain these increasingly complex systems. APRICOT's mission is to satisfy this need for information. The week long summit consists of seminars, workshops, tutorials, conference sessions, birds-of-a-feather (BOFs), and other forums with the goal of spreading and sharing the knowledge required to operate the increasingly complex Asia Pacific Internet topology. APRICOT week is also the week the Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC) and the Asia & Pacific Internet Association (APIA) annual membership meetings. . The First APRICOT was held in Singapore January 1996. It was attended by over 280 people from 18 different countries, all involved in delivering Internet Services. . The Second APRICOT was held in Hong Kong in January 1997 and included 630 people from 25 countries. . APRICOT's mission is to address the critical need to develop and advance the skills and understanding necessary to grow a robust Internet infrastructure in the Asia-Pacific region. . APRICOT is not just another 'pure-promotional' Internet conference; APRICOT brings networking experts together with those who can benefit most from their expertise. . The people who attend APRICOT are the real people building the Internet in the Asia & Pacific region. Many of best Internet engineers attend APRICOT either to teach, present, or do their own "networking." For More Information Watch http://www.apricot.net for upcoming final program and registration information OR send a message to apricot-info@apricot.net OR call APNIC +81 3 5500-0480 OR Fax APNIC at +81 3 5500-0481 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Example Program from APRICOT II Hong Kong (January 1997): January 27 & 28 - Tutorials - Introductory and Advanced Sessions Covering: . Administering Email, News, and other Interactive Services . The Domain Name System, Security, & General UNIX Systems Administration topics . WWW Servers - Administration & Programming . Basic TCP/IP Networking & Router Configuration . Advanced Router topics, Routing Protocols & Interexchanges . Content Control & Censoring Technologies January 29 & 30 - Conference - Tracks will include: . Network Operations . Applications and Services . Internet Policy and Legal Issues . Business of and on the Internet January 31 - The Asia Pacific Network Information Center Meeting -- -- -- Barry Raveendran Greene | || || | Senior Consultant | || || | Corporate Consulting Engineering | |||| |||| | tel: +65 738-5535 ext 235 | ..:||||||:..:||||||:.. | e-mail: bgreene@cisco.com | c i s c o S y s t e m s | From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 12:40:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id MAA07590 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:40:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id MAA07585 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:40:27 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-6408.singnet.com.sg [165.21.163.92]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA21379 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:42:48 +0800 (SST) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 97 11:34:28 Subject: EU position on IAHC in May'97 To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Here is an excerpt from RIPE meeting on IAHC. Interesting that EU also has similar concerns on legitimacy. Definitely an issue to be worked on. FW: RIPE 27 TLD BoF minutes (for full details please look at www.ripe.net) 7. Christopher Wilkinson gave a presentation on the EU Commission view of recent IAHC /gTLD developments and the points that they raise. His presentation points were as follows: - Once the IAHC published the MoU the EU were asked to be a signatory. The EU declined since it was not in agreement with many items in the MoU. For example, The lottery for registries, the structure if iPOC nTLD members of CORE, the governance of IANA, and question marks about a solid legal base. - The Commisssion was surprised by the anouncement of a signing ceremony in Geneva. They did not sign since they needed more time and did not want to weaken their bargaining position by signing and MoU that they did not fully agree with. It was also noteworthy that neither the US government, the ITU, or any EU telcos signed. - They were also surprsied that after such publicity surrounding the signing of the MoU that almost straight after the Geneva meeting that a substantial amount of content was changed. The Commission although surprised were happy at the changes, especially the abandoning of the lottery system. - The commission still feels that the whole TLD issue is best left to industry self-regulation. - The newly formed iPOC is very similar is personalities to the IAHC. The new iPOC chair is David Maher. He will be going to Geneva on 29 May for a WIPO conference and afterwards is willing to Brussels for a meeting with the Commission about gTLDs. - The Commission wanted to see a stable global Internet industry that was protected from dispute. They felt that transition to this International structure would need co-ordination of the US government. - The OECD are reviewing the IAHC report.When asked by Rob Blokzijl who the EU commission were already in contact with besides the US government Christopher Wilkinson replied that they had had contact with Japan, but no other Asian countries. ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/25/97 Time: 11:34:28 AM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 15:41:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id PAA08475 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:41:10 +0900 (JST) Received: from nico.telstra.net (nico.telstra.net [139.130.204.16]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id PAA08470 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:41:05 +0900 (JST) Received: from sdup.telstra.net (scotch-finger.aarnet.edu.au [139.130.204.8]) by nico.telstra.net (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id QAA20116; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:41:27 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19970725164053.007091b4@nico.telstra.net> X-Sender: gih@nico.telstra.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:40:53 +0000 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Geoff Huston Subject: Re: EU position on IAHC in May'97 Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970724224736.00c7803c@imc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina, As you no doubt note from the subject of the message you reposted, this particular posting is just 2 days shy of being a record of a meeting held two months ago. We've seen a lot of developments since that date, including the public notice of Christopher Wilkinson being considered as an IAB nominee to the POC (presumably with his express permission, and with his express desire for such a level of involvement both personally and by virtue of his responsibilities within the EU). Given all these developments across a busy June and July, that I'm sure you are only too well aware of Laina, I must admit to being curious as to why you percieve that this well aged meeting report contains new issues which have not already been well circulated and widely worked on by many folk operating within many forums. Perhaps rather than making the general comment that you've chosen with this message you could answer my curiouity by sharpening up your introductory observation to more specific and timely matters. No doubt it would help me if you could cite more recent sources as background to your apparnet concerns. I'd also offer the view that this would also allow the apple forum to work with a forward outlook rather than to replough already well turned and perhaps already historically archived turf. Regards, Geoff Huston iPOC member, expressing personal views >>From: laina@singnet.com.sg >>Date: Fri, 25 Jul 97 11:34:28 >>Subject: EU position on IAHC in May'97 >>To: apple@apnic.net >>Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net >> >> >>Here is an excerpt from RIPE meeting on IAHC. Interesting that EU also >>has similar concerns on legitimacy. Definitely an issue to be worked on. >> >>FW: RIPE 27 TLD BoF minutes (for full details please look at >>www.ripe.net) >> >>7. >>Christopher Wilkinson gave a presentation on the EU Commission view of >>recent IAHC /gTLD developments and the points that they raise. His >>presentation points were as follows: ... From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 15:56:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id PAA08540 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:56:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id PAA08535 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:56:10 +0900 (JST) Received: from slimnote (d62.netgate.net [205.214.160.98]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA05670 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 02:46:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970724235705.00d3caf0@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 23:57:05 -0700 To: apple@apnic.net From: laina@singnet.com.sg (by way of Dave Crocker / IMC ) Subject: Re: Some queries for IAHC Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 02:42 PM 7/25/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: > >Hi Dave, > >I did intend to post my response on apple but somehow did not, I wonder >if you could post my reply and your recent one, as I think others can >benefit from your clarifications. Per Laina's request, I'm hereby reposting a note she sent me and will also repost my response to this note. /Dave Crocker - - - - - My apologies Dave, I did not mean to come across so strong. Yes, these are not new issues as you rightly pointed out, but as I am putting together a paper on these issues, I found myself reading every single line and word and discovering some issues I never had seen before. I am seeking clarifications, and really should have toned them down a little. Sorry! >The fee is necessary because participating in a global infrastructure >does >involve significant costs. OK. At 02:42 PM 7/25/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: > >Hi Dave, > >I did intend to post my response on apple but somehow did not, I wonder >if you could post my reply and your recent one, as I think others can >benefit from your clarifications. >As an example, the work of the committee itself >has been quite expensive even though all of the committee members are >volunteers. The cost of setting up the shared repository service will >also be costly. You are getting remibursed now from what I read from these application monies, right? >In >this case, the financial criteria are for the purpose of establishing >adequate financial solvency. The purpose of the treaty signatory >requirement is to give a basis for the administrative challenge panel >mechanisms which attempt to assist in the very difficult topic of >domain >name conflicts which have become so nettlesome. OK. >Asking whether there is accountability suggests that the structure >established by the gTLD MoU hasn't been described and debated many >times >already, since the answer is not merely yes but massively yes. There >is so >much accountability that the plan is also heavily criticized for TOO >MUCH >structure. I guess there is no pleasing some folks. Well actually I was asking the question more from the issue of how will management of this money be effectuated, will signatories be able to see how the funds are spent etc. Also, since POC is not elected, accountability becomes even more of an issue. Usually, either it is a membership body where the members chose to pay and elect a Board the right to determine how the monies are spent, or it is a duly elected government body which has the right to colect money in the public interest. I am trying to see if this exists here too. >Public oversight is achieved by having a small oversight committee to >ensure that the details of public interest are achieved and a larger >"community" advisory body to ensure the broadest possible basis for >review >and comment. Even more reason why the POC to be nominated and elected by signatories and not be an appointed group. >As details need further debate, they will get it. The question of POC >makeup and the methods of selecting its membership are just two of the >basic and important matters that can and should be debated carefully >and at >length. The current scheme for selecting POC members was felt to be a >reasonable and useful expedient for starting operation. Suggestions >for >changes are explicitly welcome and have already happened. For example, >the >PAB has just elected representatives to participate in POC. A number >of us >have explicitly asked for direct and thorough public discussion about >additional changes that are deemed appropriate. To date I have not >seen >this question pursued but perhaps you would like to lead that >consideration >and formulate an alternative proposal? Thanks Dave for enlightening me about the fact that the PAB elects now the POC. Can you please elaborate on this. How were nominations made, how were elections done, etc. Is this a procedural change, etc. I think in many ways, Dave, this is an issue that goes to the crux of legitimacy. So the IAHC may not have started off legitimately etc, but they have a solution that many call "lesser of the evils". I feel legitimacy can in some way be solved, if the POC is nominated and elected by the signatories. Also I would prefer to see either the IANA and ISOC oversight role be limited to specific issues rather than a blanket overall top of the policy hierachy on all policy changes, OR to have IANA and ISOC as advisory bodies only. The aim would be to create a true membership structure, with advisory bodies comprising interested stakeholders such as international orgs, governments, trade associations, and IANA and ISOC. i.e. structure= -POC (nominated and elected by signaotries) ! PAB??--------- ! -----------Advisory Board (IANA, ! ISOC, ITU, WIPO, etc) ! CORE(registrars) ! ! ! signatories This may certainly help correct some of the existing legitimacy problems. Otherwise, it would seem as if the IAHC is perpetuating itself if only it has the right to nominate and elect. (may have antitrust implications here). > Competition will be based >on price and service, rather than on artificial control over an >infrastructure resource. Agreed. What I was asking also was competition in the creation of gTLDs. Right now, although gTLDS registries are more than just NSI, the creation of gTLDS are still predetermined. I understand, that Paul Vixie had in the past suggested that he can modify the BIND software to allow for servers to ppoint at multiple root servers. I was curious whether such development to allow competition will in fact be encouraged or stiffled by the gTLD-MOU. Thank you for having taken the time to respond, and I hope through further clarifications, we can be better informed. Laina RG -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/25/97 Time: 10:55:52 AM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------ From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 15:56:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id PAA08548 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:56:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id PAA08543 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:56:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from slimnote (d62.netgate.net [205.214.160.98]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA05674 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 02:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970724235815.00cb6c8c@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 23:58:15 -0700 To: apple@apnic.net From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: Re: Some queries for IAHC Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk This is the note I sent is response to Laina's own response. I'm reposting it to the apple list at Laina's suggestion. /Dave crocker At 10:55 AM 7/25/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: >seeking clarifications, and really should have toned them down a little. I would wish for a sociologist, or the like, to review the group dynamics that have accompanied this topic, in every single forum. There is something quite mysterious about its ability to engender such difficult exchanges. >>As an example, the work of the committee itself >>has been quite expensive even though all of the committee members are >>volunteers. The cost of setting up the shared repository service will >>also be costly. > >You are getting remibursed now from what I read from these application >monies, right? For those needing the assistance, expenses are currently being reimbursed by ISOC. Most of the participants are wholly funded by the organizations which employ them. However, for those of us not having a salary, the time is entirely donated and not in the least compensated. The loss of billable hours for the 3 of us who are consultants has been quite substantial. Personally, it bothers me to have to refer to this since we are all doing this as community service and are glad to be able to help. But the efforts to impugn our character require engaging in this unfortunate clarification. In any event, yes the fees also are intended to offset these development costs. Since registrars are seeking commercial gain, it has not been a controversial point to expect them to fund this formative work. >Well actually I was asking the question more from the issue of how will >management of this money be effectuated, will signatories be able to see >how the funds are spent etc. Also, since POC is not elected, >accountability becomes even more of an issue. Usually, either it is a POC doesn't really spend money. CORE does. I do not know what the formal reporting requirements are for CORE. There are quite a few details that still need to be specified. This is probably one of them and I think that it would be good to raise it. Frankly, the PAB is the best forum since it is currently the only venue for sustained and focused discussion about gTLD MoU details. (Officially, gtld-discuss should be, too, but there is far too much noise on that channel to get anything constructive accomplished.) >membership body where the members chose to pay and elect a Board the >right to determine how the monies are spent, or it is a duly elected >government body which has the right to colect money in the public >interest. I am trying to see if this exists here too. You are quite right that this structure is distinctive nature. We tried to take the essence of the model used by the IETF decision process and apply it to this related-but-different environment. Two things need to be kept in mind: Accountability ultimately rolls up to "the community" and it is fully expected to add, remove and modify procedures as everyone learns how to operate this structure. By "the community" I do mean the general and open Internet community. Since that's a bit difficult to assess, as we see every day, the PAB is formally intended to serve that purpose. Hence, as reporting requirements are developed by folks, they should be discussed and adopted. As long as they do not intrude on the legitimate rights to privacy of the registrars (or anyone else, of course) and do not impose inappropriate costs, I'd say such desires are fair game. >>Public oversight is achieved by having a small oversight committee to >>ensure that the details of public interest are achieved and a larger >>"community" advisory body to ensure the broadest possible basis for >>review >>and comment. > >Even more reason why the POC to be nominated and elected by signatories >and not be an appointed group. There is some support for that view developing. I think the actual dynamics of selecting POC members is more complicated. Basically it is a matter of defining the constituencies to be represented and that drawing from them. One could have all POC members come from the PAB but there might be an even broader base of input if some participants come from other sources. The thing to keep in mind is that almost all of the organizations naming representatives, at this point, are themselves public-interest groups. As a consequence it might be helpful to preface any recommendations for changes to the procedures with a description of the procedural or content failings experienced so far. It is always possible to design changes to a system, but change is expensive and very risky, so it's good to have a reason. A good, solid reason. For example one could look at the IETF process and note that it is wildly different from similar processes and then dictate that it should be made the same. But the IETF process works rather better than most of the others and making those changes puts that performance at risk. >Thanks Dave for enlightening me about the fact that the PAB elects now >the POC. Can you please elaborate on this. How were nominations made, >how were elections done, etc. Is this a procedural change, etc. Sorry, no. I didn't mean to imply that that was the current situation. Currently, most of the members of POC are selected by the same organizations which selected members for the IAHC. My comment about PAB was that they have asked for a place (actually for 2 places) on the POC and they are being given them. Not the whole membership. 2 slots. >... Also I would prefer to see either the IANA >and ISOC oversight role be limited to specific issues rather than a >blanket overall top of the policy hierachy on all policy changes, OR to >have IANA and ISOC as advisory bodies only. Please elaborate. What are the problems in their performance so far which causes you this concern, or what eventuality is the problem? >The aim would be to create a true membership structure, with advisory >bodies comprising interested stakeholders such as international orgs, >governments, trade associations, and IANA and ISOC. Please keep in mind that IANA has overall authority for the DNS, as it does for some other Internet administrative issues like IP address assignment. It does not, therefore, make sense to relegate it to a purely advisory role. >This may certainly help correct some of the existing legitimacy >problems. Otherwise, it would seem as if the IAHC is perpetuating itself You will not, perhaps, be surprised to hear that while I'm aware of the discomfort the current selection process causes some people, I do not view it as a "problem". This is because I think it has worked extremely well and is likely to continue to work well. On the other hand, I'm not at all opposed to careful modification of it, to give a stronger basis for input. >if only it has the right to nominate and elect. (may have antitrust >implications here). The IAHC, per se, and the members of the IAHC have no say whatsoever in the specific choices for POC membership. It is (most of) the organizations which named those IAHC members who do the choosing. In other words, WE haven't perpetuated OURSELVES at all. And remember that most of us are not "from" the organizations which named us and we have no particular allegiance to those organizations. And to repeat this important point again, note that most of those organizations are, themselves, public interest groups. One might or might not like a particular organization but that does not change its underlying basis for serving the public interest. >Agreed. What I was asking also was competition in the creation of gTLDs. >Right now, although gTLDS registries are more than just NSI, the >creation of gTLDS are still predetermined. This is due to operational and legal concerns. There is a matter of uncertainly amongst the technical community about the upper limit to the number of TLDs that can be added without causing operational problems. Highly knowledgeable and responsible opinions have been offered wildly differemt numbers. My own operations experience says that in the face of reasonable uncertainty one must invoke the physician's creed: first do no harm. That is put into practise by adding TLDs relatively slowly. Now 7 is slower than necessary for this purpose. 30 would be fine according to everybody. But the particularly low number of 7 is due to the legal concern. So far, trademark attorneys claim to have a very serious problem "policing" the space. We believe that the gTLD space under the MoU will be far, far easier to police than NSI has made possible, but we need to demonstrate that, first. Afterwards, it will probably be no great difficulty in scaling up the number, gradually and regularly, to make the space much wider. >I understand, that Paul Vixie had in the past suggested that he can >modify the BIND software to allow for servers to ppoint at multiple root >servers. I was curious whether such development to allow competition >will in fact be encouraged or stiffled by the gTLD-MOU. There already are multiple root servers, so I would have to know the context of the comment from Paul and to get more of the detail. >Thank you for having taken the time to respond, and I hope through >further clarifications, we can be better informed. Glad to. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 16:14:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id QAA08683 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:14:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from main.harryelias.com.sg (root@main.harryelias.com.sg [203.127.73.225]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id QAA08678 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:14:38 +0900 (JST) Received: from mkhoo.harryelias.com.sg ([192.168.0.151]) by main.harryelias.com.sg (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id PAA08419; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:05:41 +0800 Message-Id: <199707250705.PAA08419@main.harryelias.com.sg> From: "Melvin Khoo" To: , "Dave Crocker / IMC" Cc: Subject: Re: Some queries for IAHC Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:16:22 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1008.3 X-MimeOle: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE Engine V4.71.1008.3 Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Dave, -----Original Message----- From: Dave Crocker / IMC ---snip >>Thirdly, what confuses me is that despite the recognition that this is a >>public trust and public interest is to be considered, and even with the >>PAB with signatory participation, ultimate decision making falls on the >>PoC which signatories have no right to elect (it is a nominated group- >>thereby preserving the IAHC's powers). Also any changes advised to be >>made by PAB, and CORE and agreed by POC still have to be agreed by ISOC >>and IANA- i.e. still a hierarichal structure. > > Creating a global, public structure is a bit of a challenge, as I'm sure >you can appreciate. To create such a structure and have it achieve a state >of reliable operation quickly there are some choices that must be made. In >particular, it is necessary to defer basic items of debate for later. >"Defer" does not mean ignore; it means defer. As you have been >demonstrating so well, almost every detail of an ambitious plan can be >roundly and soundly challenged. To pursue and discuss and resolve such >matters takes time. Time is at a premium for this matter since it has been >subject to public debate for 3 1/2 years. There are a number of factors >that make it urgent to get the changes made now, rather than wait for every >debatable detail to be completely and fully resolved. (As if such an >eventuality is possible.) > > It is easy for some to treat this matter only as an academic or public >policy concern and therefore to view time constraints as irrelevant. >Unfortunately there is a running, global service which is overdue for these >changes and we need to give priority to the operational requirements. > > As details need further debate, they will get it. The question of POC >makeup and the methods of selecting its membership are just two of the >basic and important matters that can and should be debated carefully and at >length. The current scheme for selecting POC members was felt to be a >reasonable and useful expedient for starting operation. Suggestions for >changes are explicitly welcome and have already happened. For example, the >PAB has just elected representatives to participate in POC. A number of us >have explicitly asked for direct and thorough public discussion about >additional changes that are deemed appropriate. To date I have not seen >this question pursued but perhaps you would like to lead that consideration >and formulate an alternative proposal? I appreciate that the gist of what you are describing is a bootstrap process. Many times, we need such measures. However, the question that Laina raises is a fundamental point which I feel has to be addressed right from the start in order to gain the confidence and *trust* of the internet public, and I believe that details such as this issue and the apparent lack of accountability is one of the main reasons why there has been so much mistrust, criticism and negative reactions. You do say that to date you have not seen this question pursued. Perhaps it should rigourously be pursued and a mechanism or plan put in place as part of the bootstrap process so that it is clear and understood by everybody. After all, the gTLD-MoU implementation will have a very great impact on the future of the internet not just as a solution to the DNS / trademark issues, but also on governance issues. Melvin Khoo From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 17:46:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id RAA09522 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 17:46:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id RAA09517 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 17:46:28 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-3304.singnet.com.sg [165.21.151.120]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18847; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:48:46 +0800 (SST) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 97 16:40:57 Subject: Re: EU position on IAHC in May'97 To: laina@singnet.com.sg, Geoff Huston Cc: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Thanks Geoff for that clarification, and it is because I knew it was an old comment that I noted it in the heading. I was hoping someone could give updates to their position or whether IAHC has dealt with those issues. Yes, I did know Chris Wilkenson was nominated and even if he has accepted does not mean EU does not still have the same concerns. Having them on the PoC, I hope will mean that these issues will be addressed. As for your comment on rehashing the issues on the list, I will only like to add that unlike yourself who is an isider and has been through all the issues, to many others this may NOT be a rehash. Many have been silent on the list as they try and understand the issues- which I am trying to do too. If I am a little slow in understanding the issues- my apologies and I call on you to be patient with me and others like me. Thanks. Laina RG --- On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:40:53 +0000 Geoff Huston wrote: Laina, As you no doubt note from the subject of the message you reposted, this particular posting is just 2 days shy of being a record of a meeting held two months ago. We've seen a lot of developments since that date, including the public notice of Christopher Wilkinson being considered as an IAB nominee to the POC (presumably with his express permission, and with his express desire for such a level of involvement both personally and by virtue of his responsibilities within the EU). Given all these developments across a busy June and July, that I'm sure you are only too well aware of Laina, I must admit to being curious as to why you percieve that this well aged meeting report contains new issues which have not already been well circulated and widely worked on by many folk operating within many forums. Perhaps rather than making the general comment that you've chosen with this message you could answer my curiouity by sharpening up your introductory observation to more specific and timely matters. No doubt it would help me if you could cite more recent sources as background to your apparnet concerns. I'd also offer the view that this would also allow the apple forum to work with a forward outlook rather than to replough already well turned and perhaps already historically archived turf. Regards, Geoff Huston iPOC member, expressing personal views >>From: laina@singnet.com.sg >>Date: Fri, 25 Jul 97 11:34:28 >>Subject: EU position on IAHC in May'97 >>To: apple@apnic.net >>Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net >> >> >>Here is an excerpt from RIPE meeting on IAHC. Interesting that EU also >>has similar concerns on legitimacy. Definitely an issue to be worked on. >> >>FW: RIPE 27 TLD BoF minutes (for full details please look at >>www.ripe.net) >> >>7. >>Christopher Wilkinson gave a presentation on the EU Commission view of >>recent IAHC /gTLD developments and the points that they raise. His >>presentation points were as follows: ... -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/25/97 Time: 4:40:57 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 18:05:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id SAA09698 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:05:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from uxmail.ust.hk (root@uxmail.ust.hk [143.89.14.30]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id SAA09690 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:04:42 +0900 (JST) Received: from BMZ049 ([143.89.57.74]) by uxmail.ust.hk with SMTP id <102518-14440>; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 17:00:05 +0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970725090050.190770c8@pop.ust.hk> X-Sender: milton@pop.ust.hk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 17:00:50 +0800 To: apple@apnic.net From: Milton Mueller Subject: How I learned to stop worrying and love the IAHC Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk I sense a flawed assumption in the discussion surrounding IAHC that needs to be aired and analyzed. The IAHC is setting itself up as "the" future administrator of TLD space. Much of the debate and discussion surrounding it proceeds on the assumption that it will inherit the central authority role once held by the US-based organizations (basically, IANA). This assumption of a mono-administrative system could be factually untrue. And even if it were *possible* for IAHC to assume this role, it may also be *undesirable* for it do so. A lot depends on the US proceeding and how it handles IANA and NSI. It seems highly unlikely to me that NSI is just going to go away. I think we need to start thinking seriously about the gTLD MoU *not* as the new (but more open and international) monopoly, but as one substantial player in what will, or should, evolve as a heterogeneous system of domain name administration, in which coordination takes place through rules rather than internally through the decisions of an organization. I hope that the US proceeding will, and definitely believe that it should, prepare the way for an open system in which new TLDs can, subject to various criteria, be continuously created by entrepreneurs in response to whatever demand for them exists. This should be a decentralized, market-driven process constrained only by certain critical resource constraints (i.e., no name collisions, etc.), not an administrative process controlled by a single organization. One can make a fairly strong case that number allocation needs to be centralized. I have never seen any convincing argument why domain name registration and TLD creation need to be centralized. I see no reason why an open system need be mutually exclusive to the operation of the IAHC's MoU. I am of course open to enlightenment on this subject. Indeed, within such a system the MoU's shared registry system may prove to be a strong competitive advantage (the same cannot be said of its trademark protection procedures, which would rapidly be eliminated, I suspect, by a truly competitive market for registrations). Obviously, the IAHC now must *compete* for the allegience of Internet users and operators. (Despite what one might think from their use of Dave Crocker as a PR spokesman), they seem genuinely interested in winning over the community. Why should it suddenly cease competing once it establishes registries? M I L T O N M U E L L E R ------------------------------------------------------ m i l t o n @ u s t h k . u s t . h k From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 18:36:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id SAA09912 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:36:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id SAA09907 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:35:58 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-3304.singnet.com.sg [165.21.151.120]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA02527; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 17:38:19 +0800 (SST) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 97 17:27:41 Subject: RE: How I learned to stop worrying and love the IAHC To: apple@apnic.net, Milton Mueller X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk For there to be true competition in TLD registries, as you say can exist, is that servers should be able to point to different root servers. Sure as you say, there is no reason why there cannot be competition, but right now, most ISP servers all point to one only. Unless the AlterNics etc with their new TLDs and root servers have others pointing to them, they are not global i.e. it becomnes having several different Internets not interconnected. I get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the IAHC proposal was set up to preserve IANA and ISOC role and control over this one root server. I understand that Paul Vixie had given the Internet community an ultimatum to solve the DNS issue...or he will create software to allow servers to point to multiple root servers. Why I ask, should not this be the case? Is there any reason, as in telephony to have only one root server??? Why can't the likes of Paul Vixie help root registry competiiton to thrive? Is it all that bad? Will the Internet break up or will this just break up IANA control?? Please Internet gurus, any answers to this. Laina RG --- On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 17:00:50 +0800 Milton Mueller wrote: >A lot depends on the US proceeding and how it handles IANA and NSI. >It seems highly unlikely to me that NSI is just going to go away. >I think we need to start thinking seriously about the gTLD MoU *not* as >the >new (but more open and international) monopoly, but as one substantial >player in what will, or should, evolve as a heterogeneous system of >domain >name administration, in which coordination takes place through rules >rather >than internally through the decisions of an organization. >This should be a decentralized, market-driven process >constrained only by certain critical resource constraints (i.e., no >name >collisions, >etc.), not an administrative process controlled by a single >organization. >One can make a fairly strong case that number allocation needs to be >centralized. I have never seen any convincing argument why domain name >registration and TLD creation need to be centralized. M I L T O N M U E L L E R ------------------------------------------------------ m i l t o n @ u s t h k . u s t . h k -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/25/97 Time: 5:27:42 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 22:15:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id WAA10985 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:15:46 +0900 (JST) Received: from info.isoc.org (listserv.isoc.org [198.6.250.9]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id WAA10980 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:15:42 +0900 (JST) Received: from linus.isoc.org (mailhub.isoc.org [192.168.1.10]) by info.isoc.org (8.8.2/8.8.2) with ESMTP id JAA14128; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:21:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from latitude.isoc.org (latitude.isoc.org [192.168.1.45]) by linus.isoc.org (8.8.5/8.8.2) with SMTP id JAA10025; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:15:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970725091934.00c52d14@linus.isoc.org> X-Sender: heath@linus.isoc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:19:34 -0400 To: laina@singnet.com.sg, apple@apnic.net From: Don Heath Subject: Re: EU position on IAHC in May'97 Cc: christopher.wilkinson@bxl.dg13.cec.be In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 11:34 AM 7/25/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: > >Here is an excerpt from RIPE meeting on IAHC. Interesting that EU also >has similar concerns on legitimacy. Definitely an issue to be worked on. Of course I don't speak for the EU, but since this was the reported position in MAY, perhaps it has changed somewhat?? Two months is a long time in this issue. Perhaps if there is someone on the list who could address this from the EU, they may care to update us? I copied Christopher Wilkinson for his information. Don > >FW: RIPE 27 TLD BoF minutes (for full details please look at >www.ripe.net) > >7. >Christopher Wilkinson gave a presentation on the EU Commission view of >recent IAHC /gTLD developments and the points that they raise. His >presentation points were as follows: > > - Once the IAHC published the MoU the EU were asked to be a > signatory. The EU declined since it was not in agreement with >many > items in the MoU. For example, The lottery for registries, the > structure if iPOC nTLD members of CORE, the governance of IANA, >and > question marks about a solid legal base. > > - The Commisssion was surprised by the anouncement of a signing > ceremony in Geneva. They did not sign since they needed more >time > and did not want to weaken their bargaining position by signing >and > MoU that they did not fully agree with. It was also noteworthy >that > neither the US government, the ITU, or any EU telcos signed. > > - They were also surprsied that after such publicity surrounding >the > signing of the MoU that almost straight after the Geneva meeting >that > a substantial amount of content was changed. The Commission >although > surprised were happy at the changes, especially the abandoning >of the > lottery system. > > - The commission still feels that the whole TLD issue is best > left to industry self-regulation. > > - The newly formed iPOC is very similar is personalities to the > IAHC. The new iPOC chair is David Maher. He will be going to >Geneva > on 29 May for a WIPO conference and afterwards is willing to >Brussels > for a meeting with the Commission about gTLDs. > > - The Commission wanted to see a stable global Internet industry > that was protected from dispute. They felt that transition to >this > International structure would need co-ordination of the US > government. > > - The OECD are reviewing the IAHC report.When asked by Rob > Blokzijl who the EU commission were already in contact with >besides > the US government Christopher Wilkinson replied that they had >had > contact with Japan, but no other Asian countries. > > >------------------------------------- >Name: Laina Raveendran Greene >E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg >Date: 7/25/97 >Time: 11:34:28 AM > >This message was sent by Chameleon >------------------------------------- > > > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Donald M. Heath President/CEO Internet Society Join the Internet Society 12020 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 210 TEL +703 648 9888 Reston, VA 20191-3429 USA FAX +703 648 9887 <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 22:39:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id WAA11090 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:39:15 +0900 (JST) Received: from fractal.chaos.com (fractal.chaos.com [206.5.17.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id WAA11085 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:39:12 +0900 (JST) Received: from [206.5.17.2] by fractal.chaos.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ba015497 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:40:30 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970725094029.0097e910@fractal.chaos.com> X-Sender: amr@fractal.chaos.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:40:29 -0400 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: EU position on IAHC in May'97 Cc: christopher.wilkinson@bxl.dg13.cec.be, apple@apnic.net, heath@info.isoc.org In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970725091934.00c52d14@linus.isoc.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina, >Of course I don't speak for the EU, but since this was the reported >position in MAY, perhaps it has changed somewhat?? Two months is >a long time in this issue. Perhaps if there is someone on the list >who could address this from the EU, they may care to update us? I believe Chris is still here in Washington DC, so he may not be able to easily reply. As of Tuesday, he still maintained his concerns. Since his demarche' regarding the IAHC is what in part resulted in the interagency DNS proceeding, the current focus is on the proceeding, as well as the ITU's internal "NOI" among governments. cheers, --Tony From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 22:57:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id WAA11207 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:57:15 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id WAA11202 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:57:12 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-4517.singnet.com.sg [165.21.154.133]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA16447; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 21:59:20 +0800 (SST) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 97 21:56:36 Subject: Re: EU position on IAHC in May'97 To: laina@singnet.com.sg, Tony Rutkowski Cc: christopher.wilkinson@bxl.dg13.cec.be, apple@apnic.net, heath@info.isoc.org X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Any information exists about this "ITU internal NOI" you refer to?? Would like to know. LAina RG --- On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:40:29 -0400 Tony Rutkowski wrote: Laina, >Of course I don't speak for the EU, but since this was the reported >position in MAY, perhaps it has changed somewhat?? Two months is >a long time in this issue. Perhaps if there is someone on the list >who could address this from the EU, they may care to update us? I believe Chris is still here in Washington DC, so he may not be able to easily reply. As of Tuesday, he still maintained his concerns. Since his demarche' regarding the IAHC is what in part resulted in the interagency DNS proceeding, the current focus is on the proceeding, as well as the ITU's internal "NOI" among governments. cheers, --Tony -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/25/97 Time: 9:56:36 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 23:29:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id XAA11437 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 23:29:15 +0900 (JST) Received: from fractal.chaos.com (fractal.chaos.com [206.5.17.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id XAA11432 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 23:29:12 +0900 (JST) Received: from [206.5.17.2] by fractal.chaos.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id fa015501 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 10:31:30 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970725103129.0097e860@fractal.chaos.com> X-Sender: amr@fractal.chaos.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 10:31:29 -0400 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: EU position on IAHC in May'97 Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina, >Any information exists about this "ITU internal NOI" you refer to?? >Would like to know. As you know, once things get into the ITU, the Members assume control and it's difficult to get access to information, much less shape or predict where things are going. They would presumably proceed using the usual one-country, one-vote process. There are a significant number of Administrations not known for Internet friendliness, so the outcome is problematic. My understanding is that there are actually two proceedings occurring - one short term regarding the MoU involving only the Council Members, and another longer term regarding Internet governance policy. I'll attempt to get additional information and disseminate it. For reference, the current Council Members are: --------------------------------------------------- The Council (1995-1998) : Total 46 members Region A (Americas): 8 seats Argentina Bahamas Brazil Canada Chile Cuba Mexico USA Region B (Western Europe): 8 seats Denmark France Germany Italy Portugal Spain Switzerland United Kingdom Region C (Eastern Europe): 5 seats Bulgaria Poland Romania Russia Ukraine Region D (Africa): 13 seats Algeria Benin Burkina Faso Cameroon Cape Verde Egypt Kenya Mali Morocco Nigeria Senegal South Africa Tanzania Region E (Asia & Australasia): 12 seats Australia China India Indonesia Japan Korea (Rep) Kuwait Pakistan Philipines Saudi Arabia Thailand Viet Nam ---------------------------------------------------- cheers, --Tony From owner-apple Fri Jul 25 23:49:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id XAA11674 for apple-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 23:49:36 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id XAA11669 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 23:49:33 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-1719.singnet.com.sg [165.21.159.135]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA28521; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:51:42 +0800 (SST) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 97 22:45:25 Subject: Re: EU position on IAHC in May'97 To: laina@singnet.com.sg, apple@apnic.net, Don Heath Cc: christopher.wilkinson@bxl.dg13.cec.be X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Thanks Don for forwarding the message to Chris so that he can update us himself. Laina RG --- On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:19:34 -0400 Don Heath wrote: At 11:34 AM 7/25/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: > >Here is an excerpt from RIPE meeting on IAHC. Interesting that EU also >has similar concerns on legitimacy. Definitely an issue to be worked on. Of course I don't speak for the EU, but since this was the reported position in MAY, perhaps it has changed somewhat?? Two months is a long time in this issue. Perhaps if there is someone on the list who could address this from the EU, they may care to update us? I copied Christopher Wilkinson for his information. Don > >FW: RIPE 27 TLD BoF minutes (for full details please look at >www.ripe.net) > >7. >Christopher Wilkinson gave a presentation on the EU Commission view of >recent IAHC /gTLD developments and the points that they raise. His >presentation points were as follows: > > - Once the IAHC published the MoU the EU were asked to be a > signatory. The EU declined since it was not in agreement with >many > items in the MoU. For example, The lottery for registries, the > structure if iPOC nTLD members of CORE, the governance of IANA, >and > question marks about a solid legal base. > > - The Commisssion was surprised by the anouncement of a signing > ceremony in Geneva. They did not sign since they needed more >time > and did not want to weaken their bargaining position by signing >and > MoU that they did not fully agree with. It was also noteworthy >that > neither the US government, the ITU, or any EU telcos signed. > > - They were also surprsied that after such publicity surrounding >the > signing of the MoU that almost straight after the Geneva meeting >that > a substantial amount of content was changed. The Commission >although > surprised were happy at the changes, especially the abandoning >of the > lottery system. > > - The commission still feels that the whole TLD issue is best > left to industry self-regulation. > > - The newly formed iPOC is very similar is personalities to the > IAHC. The new iPOC chair is David Maher. He will be going to >Geneva > on 29 May for a WIPO conference and afterwards is willing to >Brussels > for a meeting with the Commission about gTLDs. > > - The Commission wanted to see a stable global Internet industry > that was protected from dispute. They felt that transition to >this > International structure would need co-ordination of the US > government. > > - The OECD are reviewing the IAHC report.When asked by Rob > Blokzijl who the EU commission were already in contact with >besides > the US government Christopher Wilkinson replied that they had >had > contact with Japan, but no other Asian countries. > > >------------------------------------- >Name: Laina Raveendran Greene >E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg >Date: 7/25/97 >Time: 11:34:28 AM > >This message was sent by Chameleon >------------------------------------- > > > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Donald M. Heath President/CEO Internet Society Join the Internet Society 12020 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 210 TEL +703 648 9888 Reston, VA 20191-3429 USA FAX +703 648 9887 <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/25/97 Time: 10:45:25 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Sat Jul 26 00:51:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id AAA12684 for apple-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 00:51:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from fractal.chaos.com (fractal.chaos.com [206.5.17.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id AAA12677 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 00:50:57 +0900 (JST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by fractal.chaos.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ja015505 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:53:15 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970725115314.009787c0@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:53:14 -0400 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Comment Templates for DNS Proceeding Cc: apple@apnic.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Comment templates for the DNS proceeding are available at: HTML* RTF* WinWord95 WinWord97 ASCII These are in the customary format of a professional submission and set up for "filling in the blanks" and submit. Instructions for submitting are found with the template. * Note the HTML and RTF templates are provided only for conversion purposes, as the comments must be submitted in WinWord, WordPerfect, ASCII, or paper formats. NB. The filing deadline is 1700 hrs EDT (UTC-4), 18 Aug 1997. An archive file of moderated discussions on the proceeding and the issues occurring on the wia.org dns-law list is available at: cheers, --Tony From owner-apple Sat Jul 26 00:56:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id AAA12774 for apple-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 00:56:08 +0900 (JST) Received: from fractal.chaos.com (fractal.chaos.com [206.5.17.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id AAA12769 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 00:56:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by fractal.chaos.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id la015507 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:58:19 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970725115819.009ba380@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:58:19 -0400 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Comment Templates for DNS Proceeding (URL CORRECTION) Cc: apple@apnic.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Comment templates for the DNS proceeding are available at: HTML* RTF* WinWord95 WinWord97 ASCII These are in the customary format of a professional submission and set up for "filling in the blanks" and submit. Instructions for submitting are found with the template. * Note the HTML and RTF templates are provided only for conversion purposes, as the comments must be submitted in WinWord, WordPerfect, ASCII, or paper formats. NB. The filing deadline is 1700 hrs EDT (UTC-4), 18 Aug 1997. An archive file of moderated discussions on the proceeding and the issues occurring on the wia.org dns-law list is available at: cheers, --Tony From owner-apple Sat Jul 26 02:15:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id CAA13563 for apple-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 02:15:39 +0900 (JST) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id CAA13551 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 02:15:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from slimnote (d25.netgate.net [205.214.160.57]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA24809 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:09:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970725083245.00cb851c@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:32:45 -0700 To: apple@apnic.net From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: Re: EU position on IAHC in May'97 In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970725103129.0097e860@fractal.chaos.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Folks, At 10:31 AM 7/25/97 -0400, Tony Rutkowski wrote: >usual one-country, one-vote process. There are a >significant number of Administrations not known >for Internet friendliness, so the outcome is >problematic. Let's make sure we start from the correct base of information: * There has already been one member-based review of the ITU involvement and it was roundly and soundly supportive. Tony forgets to mention this. * On the other hand, there is so far no evidence of broad-based non-support. The assessment that the current processes are problematic because there are some members whoa re critical is like observing that there are crazy drivers on the road and that crossing the street is problematic. It is theoretically a true statement, but one should also note the actual likelihood of that outcome. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org From owner-apple Sat Jul 26 02:15:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id CAA13557 for apple-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 02:15:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id CAA13552 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 02:15:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from slimnote (d25.netgate.net [205.214.160.57]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA24802; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970725082638.00cb851c@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:26:38 -0700 To: "Melvin Khoo" From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: Re: Some queries for IAHC Cc: , In-Reply-To: <199707250705.PAA08419@main.harryelias.com.sg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 03:16 PM 7/25/97 +0800, Melvin Khoo wrote: >process. Many times, we need such measures. However, the question that >Laina raises is a fundamental point which I feel has to be addressed right ... >You do say that to date you have not seen this question pursued. Perhaps it >should rigourously be pursued and a mechanism or plan put in place as part >of the bootstrap process so that it is clear and understood by everybody. Melvin, Let me try to make entirely clear that I agree with you completely that this issue -- and quite a few others involving the gTLD MoU structure and process -- and fundamental, and that discussion about them is necessary. There are two problems: Time and participation. The time needed for such a discussion is extensive. Yet we have considerable urgency and 3 1/2 years of history. Worse, the discussion does not happen because you or Laina or I happen to think it's important. It happens because community participants choose to pursue it. Simply saying "it should happen" does not make it happen. Shall we wait forever until the community chooses to pursue this discussion? I think not. As with product development, it is always possible to make improvements. Yet if one spends all one's time making improvements, one spends no time making sales. We need the operation NOW. We need to then make improvements to the running system, rather than wait -- potentially forever -- for all of the many concerns and issue to be ironed out in infinite detail. I realize that this may seem unsatisfying to some, and especially to those who are new to the discussion. The point that I must emphasize is that there are always new participants. While it is essential to add such people to the group, it is equally important not to ignore the history or the urgency. The fact that there are new people should not be a reason for causing delay. It is also very, very important to note that any system, especially a complex social organism as defined in the gTLD MoU, can be modified in many ways. There are an inifinite number of changes we can choose to make. Yet change is expensive and very risky. We need to make changes that are the result of an identified problem. To that end I ask what problems there are which make this particular point of such great concern. Let me suggest that the primary discomfort you are feeling is due to lack of familiarity rather than with our having the wrong structure or process. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org From owner-apple Sat Jul 26 03:00:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id DAA13995 for apple-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 03:00:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from fractal.chaos.com (fractal.chaos.com [206.5.17.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id DAA13988 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 03:00:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from [206.5.17.17] by fractal.chaos.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id xa015519 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:03:01 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970725140300.00a3f5a0@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:03:00 -0400 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: ITU Inquiries Cc: apple@apnic.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina, It's apparent that the IAHC crowd still doesn't understand what the ITU is or how it functions, in addition to the usual spinmeistering. The following is quoted from Telecommunications Report Daily, 27 June - the most venerable of the Washington telecom newsletters, and based on both Geneva reporter scouting and briefings in both Geneva and Washington with government representatives present. It comports with information generally well known in the industry in Washington. >GENEVA--The International Telecommunication Union's Council has >approved plans for a second World Telecommunication Policy Forum >(WTPF) to be held in Geneva March 16-18, 1998. The general topic >will be telecom trade, according to an ITU spokeswoman. During a >session late last night, the ITU Council also accepted a U.S. >proposal to conduct an inquiry into the ITU's role in >volunteering to act as depository for a memorandum of >understanding on registration of generic Internet top-level >domain names that has drawn opposition from some online industry >interests in the U.S. (TR, May 5). ..... >The ITU Secretariat's role in the global memorandum of >understanding (MOU) on Internet "generic top-level domain" (gTLD) >name registrations will be the subject of a 60-day inquiry to be >conducted by Council Chairman Mauricio Bossa, a member of >Argentina's Comision Nacional de Comunicaciones. Mr. Bossa's >inquiry stems from a proposal, which was approved unanimously, by >Richard C. Beaird, Senior Deputy Coordinator International >Communications and Information Policy at the State Department. It was also indicated that this may go to the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference next year where all 185 member governments have the opportunity to adopt Internet related norms and resolutions. So there are actually three different ITU normative activities to now track that are Internet related. Dicey times. cheers, --Tony From owner-apple Sat Jul 26 04:54:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id EAA14974 for apple-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 04:54:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id EAA14969 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 04:53:58 +0900 (JST) Received: from slimnote (d43.netgate.net [205.214.160.77]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA02328; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970725112505.00f56188@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:25:05 -0700 To: Tony Rutkowski From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: Re: ITU Inquiries Cc: laina@singnet.com.sg, apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970725140300.00a3f5a0@mail.netmagic.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Tony, At 02:03 PM 7/25/97 -0400, Tony Rutkowski wrote: >It's apparent that the IAHC crowd still doesn't >understand what the ITU is or how it functions, >in addition to the usual spinmeistering. If one looks over your pattern of responses to me, lo these many months, one finds that you are both free with labels, mistatement and misdirection, as well as being largely unwilling to engage in any meaningful exchange. We see this, again, in your last two responses to my notes. You continue to make no effort to respond to my factual assertions. Instead, we see your above judgemental hand-wave, followed by a quoted article which contains not one word that contradicts anything I said. While I know it's difficult, Tony, it really would help if you could try both to stay on point and to be directly responsive: 1. How long has it been since you worked at ITU? Why is it that you feel your knowledge of ITU is better than that of Bob Shaw, the ITU employee who is on the IAHC/iPOC, and better than that of the Secretariat General of the ITU and the rest of his staff? 2. There is a difference between conducting an inquiry/review, or the like, and having any substantive reason for expecting a negative outcome. Please provide something concrete upon which a reasonable person can believe your bias towards that negative outcome. Small additional point: The gTLD MoU process continues apace. Applications for being registrar are now being accepted. If this process is as bogus as Tony believes, why is it that there has not been any intervention by an authority? Would it not be rather irresponsible of those authorities to let this process continue if there were plans to disrupt or abort it? Oh. I said no effort to intervene. I'm wrong. There was one. One lawsuit was pursued. The complainant dropped the suit after the judge roundly chastised him and after he was threatened with having to pay for the other sides' expenses. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org From owner-apple Sat Jul 26 10:22:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id KAA16757 for apple-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 10:22:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id KAA16752 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 10:22:02 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-6707.singnet.com.sg [165.21.164.59]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA13618; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 09:24:22 +0800 (SST) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 97 09:03:32 Subject: Re: ITU Inquiries To: Tony Rutkowski , Dave Crocker / IMC Cc: laina@singnet.com.sg, apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Dave, I am sure Bob is indeed knowleadgeable on how the ITU works being a current employee, but can I please assure you that those who used to work there may still know how it works through their member delegations,.In fact for your information, very few internal employees of ITU are allowed to sit in during Council sessions,or any other meetings for that matter. Unless things have changed copnsiderably from the time I worked there, usually internal staff do NOT necessarily know how the ITU works unless it is their job to know. It is delegates who know best. Anyway, information I received from other delegates confirm Tony's statement..not that I am saying this just to support him. As far as I know, and what I was told, when Bob was involved in IAHC he was nominated by Pekka to be observer for ITU but with no authority to act on behalf of ITU. ITU staff, including Sec Gen cannot do anything without the mandate of the member countries. Once the MOU was formulated, Sec Gen therefore tabled it at Council (which can decide on policy and budget etc) and Council merely approved the role of ITU as depository of the gTLD MOU. As far as I know, the US and others wanted time to look thought the substance to se of they apporvd the substance of the MOU. Countries are busy looking at it now. Never was there a full endorsement of IAHC nor of ITU's role (as the ITU press release seem to imply- "ITU Council approves ITU's role in Top Level Domains") I have heared and do know that some countries do have strong reservations to this initiative, becasue it does not fall within the normal procedures. Sure you will get applicants to be registrars, but there will always be those who can afford and want a grab at this potential golden goose. This does not mean that it is endorsed as a good proposal. Don't be surprised subsequently, to have countres waking up to this, and suing the registrar in their country or "nationalising" it. Applicants also seeing the various systems, will also take up suits more easily. Many countries have just taken over NICs run by private individuals and are running it by government or government sponsored bodies. They certainly will not appreciate a private individual bypassing them AND making money from it!! Let's`see how things go, but I think countries are only slowly waking up to the implications of the MOU. Only time will tell if the MOU approach is indeed a stable one free from litigation and uncertainty. (That's the reason I push for the legitmacy issue- if we help solve it now we will have less problems in the future and this stability/predictability is what the commercial world needs). Laina RG -0700 Dave Crocker / IMC wrote: 1. How long has it been since you worked at ITU? Why is it that you feel your knowledge of ITU is better than that of Bob Shaw, the ITU employee who is on the IAHC/iPOC, and better than that of the Secretariat General of the ITU and the rest of his staff? 2. There is a difference between conducting an inquiry/review, or the like, and having any substantive reason for expecting a negative outcome. Please provide something concrete upon which a reasonable person can believe your bias towards that negative outcome. Small additional point: The gTLD MoU process continues apace. Applications for being registrar are now being accepted. If this process is as bogus as Tony believes, why is it that there has not been any intervention by an authority? Would it not be rather irresponsible of those authorities to let this process continue if there were plans to disrupt or abort it? Oh. I said no effort to intervene. I'm wrong. There was one. One lawsuit was pursued. The complainant dropped the suit after the judge roundly chastised him and after he was threatened with having to pay for the other sides' expenses. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/26/97 Time: 9:03:32 AM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Sat Jul 26 13:44:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id NAA17253 for apple-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 13:44:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from nico.telstra.net (nico.telstra.net [139.130.204.16]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id NAA17248 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 13:44:50 +0900 (JST) Received: from sdup.telstra.net (gorp.telstra.net [203.50.0.66]) by nico.telstra.net (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id OAA22036; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 14:46:08 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19970726144329.00703ff0@nico.telstra.net> X-Sender: gih@nico.telstra.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 14:43:29 +0000 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Geoff Huston Subject: Re: EU position on IAHC in May'97 Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Thanks for your note Laina. I must admit that after a quite vocal reaction from the EU some months ago there has been a period of relative silence - at least in terms of public comment - from this area. In the interim we heard a US position espoused at an INET97 keynote which applauded the efforts in this area to continue the Internet alongs the lines of an effective and open self regulatory environment, voiced by Ira Magaziner to the conference. But as I've noted the public position of the EU has been quiet for some two months as far as I can see, with only Christopher Wilkinson's acceptance to be considered as an IAB nominee to the POC as being a visible signal of a desire from the EU to be actively angaged in the further development of this process (at least thats how I have interpreted his acceptance to be considered as a POC member). However as I pointed out in my original note its an area which is moving at some pace and I'd be as interested as you to see more recent EU public statements on this area, in as much as I'd also be interested to see the comments from other national and regional regulatory and public policy areas, as this is a topic which will be publically debated some some time yet, without doubt. Kind regards Geoff Huston iPOC member, expressing personal views From owner-apple Sun Jul 27 04:03:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id EAA20972 for apple-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 04:03:27 +0900 (JST) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id EAA20967 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 04:03:21 +0900 (JST) Received: from slimnote (d48.netgate.net [205.214.160.82]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA09591; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 15:04:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970726115754.00d54f40@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 11:57:54 -0700 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: Re: ITU Inquiries Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 09:03 AM 7/26/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: >the time I worked there, usually internal staff do NOT necessarily know >how the ITU works unless it is their job to know. It is delegates who >know best. I assume you mean that it's the delegates who know best how the decisions by members are made. Presumably the staff doing work are the most familiar with how they do that work? (We could wander down a curious and highly unproductive path, here, to no one's enjoyment or benefit.) My point in raising the original question was to note that the repetitious, strong assertions which are being made about the ITU suffer from having: * few visible facts to support them * a very significant milestone of member review which counters them * current employees of the ITU being more likely to have current information about the operation (and the politics) of the ITU than are previous employees This does not guarantee that current employees are correct and previous employees are wrong but it does (or should) bias one's expectations. Certitude of tone in critical assertions and steadfast refusal to acknowledge contradictory information suggest a core weakness to a position. That seems to apply strongly with respect to the many assertions about ITU conspiracy and ITU discontent. >Anyway, information I received from other delegates confirm Tony's >statement..not that I am saying this just to support him. As far as I There is, to my knowledge, only one public basis for assessing member positions and that was a review which roundly and soundly approved the action taken by the Secretary General. I've no doubt there are specific members who are opposed. This is a topic and activity which is a lightning rod for opposition. (Lightening rod, indeed. It attracts all sorts of flashy, hot, short-attention participants.) However the nature of rough consensus (and most other kinds) is that unanimity is sought but never achieved. Having "some" members who are opposed does not in any way indicate the presence of a force which will cause the ITU to alter its role. If there are data to the contrary, that data have yet to be made public. >know, and what I was told, when Bob was involved in IAHC he was >nominated by Pekka to be observer for ITU but with no authority to act >on behalf of ITU. ITU staff, including Sec Gen cannot do anything Indeed he did not. That is why any commitments on behalf of ITU were carefully coordinated with ITU management. We didn't add anything to the plan which the Secretary General had not already approved. >without the mandate of the member countries. Once the MOU was As noted by the ITU member committee which reviewed the action, there is a reality of timeliness and potentially missed opportunity which warrant taking initiative. They strongly applauded the Secretary General's initiative in this case. >formulated, Sec Gen therefore tabled it at Council (which can decide on >policy and budget etc) and Council merely approved the role of ITU as I must contest your use of the word "merely". I don't have a copy of their statement but I recall it as being far, far more strongly positive. >depository of the gTLD MOU. As far as I know, the US and others wanted >time to look thought the substance to se of they apporvd the substance Yes they do and well they should. Of necessity, countries move slowly. That is yet another reason for having the governance work being done as a private sector initiative. At the start of this project, I assumed that governments should and would formally sign up to the MoU. Over time it has become clear that the best role for government is one of minimal intervention, providing only the essential legal backstop against disruptive actions. (E.g., prosecuting anyone who attempts or succeeds at breaking the system.) In that model, the ITU role is exactly right. It gives symbolic but strong support by acting as depository but does not have basic authority over actual specification or operation. (That statement is, of course, a bit off the mark, since they also get to sit on the POC and therefore do have some formal role in the authority activity.) >of the MOU. Countries are busy looking at it now. Never was there a full >endorsement of IAHC nor of ITU's role (as the ITU press release seem to >imply- "ITU Council approves ITU's role in Top Level Domains") We could, I suppose, debate the precise meaning of the statement coming from the initial review. I'm inclined to think that the ITU headline is entirely accurate. The language in their public statement certainly looks like "approval" to me. Extremely strong approval, at that. However, it is also certainly true that there is a follow-on review by the entire membership. >I have heared and do know that some countries do have strong >reservations to this initiative, becasue it does not fall within the As I noted, there are always "some" opponents to any activity which is important and/or complicated. "Some" does not mean "all" or even "most". >Don't be surprised subsequently, to have countres waking up to this, and >suing the registrar in their country or "nationalising" it. Applicants With hundreds of countries, I'm disinclined to be surprised at one or another of them doing almost any activity at all. The diversity amongst countries is important. Some countries think that content control over publications is abhorrent. Others believe it is essential. This is not a case of choosing between them. Some countries will, no doubt, take actions to prohibit their citizens from participating in the gTLD MoU activity; others will not. As to the ITU's role, we all await data which show an explicit likelihood or fact of rejection for its role as depository. So far, we there is one public point of reference and it was strongly positive. >Only time will tell if the MOU approach is indeed a stable one free from >litigation and uncertainty. (That's the reason I push for the legitmacy Alas, I think there are few who expect it to be free of litigation. Lawyers are, after all, quite good at finding all sorts of reasons to press a case. Ultimately the test of the activity is basic stability and improvement in the areas it seeks to change. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org From owner-apple Sun Jul 27 15:02:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id PAA23394 for apple-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 15:02:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id PAA23389 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 15:02:03 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-6528.singnet.com.sg [165.21.163.144]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA27132; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 14:04:21 +0800 (SST) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 97 09:32:27 Subject: Re: ITU Inquiries To: laina@singnet.com.sg, Dave Crocker / IMC Cc: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Dave Crocker / IMC wrote: >>formulated, Sec Gen therefore tabled it at Council (which can decide on >>policy and budget etc) and Council merely approved the role of ITU as > I must contest your use of the word "merely". I don't have a >copy of >their statement but I recall it as being far, far more strongly >positive. Sure there was statements in regard to ITU's role in the Internet and praise to Sec for its initiative, but this is different from giving Secretariat additional powers- this will be tabled at next Plenipotentiary in 1998. > (That statement is, of course, a >bit off the mark, since they also get to sit on the POC and therefore >do >have some formal role in the authority activity.) Hmm...From what I read, and I stand to be corrected by Bob, The Council has not given the Secretariat the authority to sit on the PoC. Does this mean that Bob will continue to work as an individual there or as observer, which it legally would seem so or do you anticipate Council appointing someone to sit on the PoC on behalf of ITU. As far as I know, this has not been done yet. >I'm inclined to think that the ITU headline is >entirely accurate. The language in their public statement certainly >looks >like "approval" to me. Extremely strong approval, at that. Be careful who you say that too. The headlines did say "ITU Council approves ITU's Role in Internet Top Level Domain Names" - avery broad statement although inside details clarified it to mean only as depository. Also Council minutes say approves "Role as depository"" Many countries are OK about supporting ITU's support of the Internet, e.g. as depository but are still wondering how and whether the ITU should be involved. They also have not made positions on IAHC in particular, so before you interpret what they said, be careful about interpreting what they supposedly agreed to. I have read the Council minutes and checked with people who attended the meeting, and it clearly states that that ITU's role as depository was approved and now members will look at the other substance of the MOU. I don;t think the ITU members will appreciate others interpreting what they did and did not approve.(let's therefore use the Council minutes as the final word;-)) Laina RG -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/27/97 Time: 9:32:28 AM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Sun Jul 27 15:31:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id PAA23453 for apple-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 15:31:26 +0900 (JST) Received: from uxmail.ust.hk (root@uxmail.ust.hk [143.89.14.30]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id PAA23448 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 15:31:21 +0900 (JST) Received: from mmueller.ust.hk ([143.89.231.30]) by uxmail.ust.hk with SMTP id <102817-7559>; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 14:34:33 +0800 Message-ID: <33DADEDE.5634@usthk.ust.hk> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 14:38:38 +0900 From: Milton Mueller Reply-To: milton@usthk.ust.hk X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apple@apnic.net Subject: Re: How I learned to stop worrying and love the IAHC References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina: laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: > > For there to be true competition in TLD registries, as you say can > exist, is that servers should be able to point to different root > servers. Actually this is a separate issue. I think we could have integrated/ monopoly number allocation and root server administration and still have competing TLDs. The root administrator could just set up a procedure to allow registrars to establish an exclusive claim to a TLD name. Suppose that the incremental cost of adding a new TLD is X. The root administrator could simply say, "whoever bids X gets to administer a TLD. We don't decide what the string is, the bidders do. In case of conflicting claims, it's FCFS (first come first served) or, we auction the right off to the highest bidder." In order to avoid massive land grabs, additional procedural limits could be enforced, e.g., one TLD to an organization, no more than 30 new ones authorized in a year, etc. Maybe even performance bonds. The point is that the process of new TLD-formation could be an open process driven by external, entrepreneurial initiative, not a closed process managed internally by ISOC/IANA. > I get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the IAHC proposal was set > up to preserve IANA and ISOC role and control over this one root server. Of course. > I understand that Paul Vixie had given the Internet community an > ultimatum to solve the DNS issue...or he will create software to allow > servers to point to multiple root servers. Why I ask, should not this be > the case? David Conrad and I had some interesting exchanges about this. Uncontrolled multiplication of root servers does seem to raise the danger of net fragmentation, if different versions of the BIND software are around and ISPs become confused about which one to use or lag behind. Bit the universal connectivity of the net is in many ways self-reinforcing, in that the network externality benefits to be gained from maintaining it are so huge. At worst, uncontrolled root servers create short-term coordination problems that could be very irritating to users and operators. But I'm not convinced that this process of pointing to root servers, too, couldn't be opened up while avoiding fragmentation if the proper procedures were put into place. THIS IS A VITAL ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE AIRED AND EXPLORED, not pre-empted by a rush to create an inalterable fait accompli or dismissed as an insane fantasy. > Please Internet gurus, any answers to this. Yes, we need Internet gurus but the key issues, in my opinion, are the *economics* of the industry. What are the possible efficiency gains or gains from innovation if the dot administration and TLD services are opened up and made competitive? What are the possible losses in instability, administrative complexity, discoordination, etc.? Internet gurus in my experience have very little to say about this. From owner-apple Sun Jul 27 17:22:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id RAA24042 for apple-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 17:22:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id RAA24036 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 17:22:10 +0900 (JST) Received: from slimnote (d1.netgate.net [205.214.160.33]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA29087; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 04:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970727012631.00c0d88c@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 01:26:31 -0700 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: Re: ITU Inquiries Cc: laina@singnet.com.sg, apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 09:32 AM 7/27/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: >Sure there was statements in regard to ITU's role in the Internet and >praise to Sec for its initiative, but this is different from giving >Secretariat additional powers- this will be tabled at next >Plenipotentiary in 1998. Laina, I am now quite confused. The question pertained to support, not a "granting of powers". Support for the action was declared and strongly. I think it would be very difficult to read your above statement as disagreeing with this assessment, unless the word "praise" is subject to an interpretation with which I am not familiar. That was the only question being asked. Let's try to clarify one point at a time. >Hmm...From what I read, and I stand to be corrected by Bob, The Council >has not given the Secretariat the authority to sit on the PoC. Does this The MoU provides for ITU participation in POC. As with all of the other positions from other groups naming representatives to the POC, the basis by which those representatives are chosen and the directions they are given is left to the needs and whims of the naming organizations. >Be careful who you say that too. The headlines did say "ITU Council >approves ITU's Role in Internet Top Level Domain Names" - avery broad >statement although inside details clarified it to mean only as >depository. Also Council minutes say approves "Role as depository"" Laina, I remain at a loss to understand what real and substantive concerns you are pursuing. The headline cites a fact. The primary role that the ITU holds for the MoU is as the depository. This is what we have constantly tried to point out, to one and all, in spite of the efforts by others to claim that this is all somehow an ITU conspiracy to take over the DNS. You appear to be concerned about additional, fine-grained points. I don't understand the useful purpose for raising them now. Since you have been tending to raise a distinction but not to give your reason or to state the implication, this is all getting quite confusing. There is, no doubt, a constructive point you are trying to raise, but it eludes me. The ending paragraph of your last note seems to focus on what was NOT said in the Council minutes. Given that you seemed previously to interpret what WAS said as non-support, it is not clear what benefit accrues from jumping from one view to the next. You stated that your reason for pursuing these questions was to clarify matters. Since we seem to have just spent considerable energy clarifying the question of support, it will probably help if we settle on that fact and not move so quickly to undermine it. The question of whether there was support was raised. It is clear that there was strong support expressed. There is a review in process and there is no public information to indicate how it will come out. Rumors abound, but rumors are worth the paper they are printed on. Is there anything of substance that is missing from the preceding paragraph? d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org From owner-apple Sun Jul 27 21:44:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id VAA24683 for apple-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 21:44:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from fractal.chaos.com (fractal.chaos.com [206.5.17.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id VAA24678 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 21:44:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from [206.5.17.2] by fractal.chaos.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id wa015544 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 08:46:12 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970727084612.0098d300@fractal.chaos.com> X-Sender: amr@fractal.chaos.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 08:46:12 -0400 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: ITU Inquiries Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970727012631.00c0d88c@imc.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina, > Laina, I remain at a loss to understand what real and substantive concerns >you are pursuing. The headline cites a fact. The primary role that the >ITU holds for the MoU is as the depository. This is what we have >constantly tried to point out, to one and all, in spite of the efforts by >others to claim that this is all somehow an ITU conspiracy to take over the >DNS. Inevitably Crocker monologues get to the point of accusing people of ulterior motives and not dealing with the "real and substantive" as defined according to Dave. There are rather significant legal, policy, and institutional issues involved here that are patently obvious - and remain the subject of the three different proceedings now underway in the ITU about its jurisdiction and role over the Internet, analysis in the ITU Legal Adviser's office, European Community and OECD initiatives, activities underway in several US government agencies, the inquiry proceeding, and continuing interaction with the industry. All of this is not occurring simply because the an office is holding a piece of paper. If that were the case, the parties involved could have held on to the paper themselves and never involved the ITU. As with all actions by a U.N. treaty organization, there are major implications associated with their assertion of jurisdiction, holding and circulating international agreements for signature, the establishment of broad new norms regarding the Internet in an intergovernmental agreement, and in dealing with the subsequent issues that Shaw describes as the "who decides who makes the rules" in his article about the ITU and domain names sent to a cross-section of the ITU community as the ITU IS Department's resident Internet policy person, and presumably blessed by ITU General Secretariat management. cheers, --Tony From owner-apple Mon Jul 28 04:30:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id EAA26378 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 04:30:52 +0900 (JST) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id EAA26373 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 04:30:49 +0900 (JST) Received: from slimnote (d1.netgate.net [205.214.160.33]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA07405 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 15:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970727123123.00b5bc64@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 12:31:23 -0700 To: apple@apnic.net From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: Re: How I learned to stop worrying and love the IAHC In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970725090050.190770c8@pop.ust.hk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Folks, At 05:00 PM 7/25/97 +0800, Milton Mueller wrote: >to be aired and analyzed. The IAHC is setting itself up as "the" future >administrator of TLD space. This is factually incorrect on three counts: 1. The IAHC work pertained to gTLDs only. Interestingly, the work has occasionally been criticized for being too limited and not attending to a variety of other DNS and IANA issues, so you can imagine how ironic it is to see the assertion that the work goes beyond gTLDs. 2. The gTLD MoU specifies policy change veto authority by IANA and ISOC. This is entirely in keeping with the role that IANA has played for more than 10 years and that ISOC has developed with respect to Internet Standards. While most of the details of the IAHC plan are new, the nature of the IANA and ISOC roles are not in the least innovative and do not diminish their authority. Rather than replacing IANA and ISOC authority, the IAHC work was pursued as their agent. In fact it is IANA and ISOC signatures which enabled the gTLD MoU. 3. Most of the individuals on the IAHC are not going to be on the permanent POC and only about 1/3 of the individuals on the IAHC had direction from or particular allegiance to the organization that named them to the IAHC. In other words, statements which suggest that we did something which perpetuated our own role is quite simply wrong. >...Much of the debate and discussion surrounding it >proceeds on the assumption that it will inherit the central authority role >once held by the US-based organizations (basically, IANA). Given the above responses to your the erroneous statements, please provide the data which explains this remarkable conclusion. >A lot depends on the US proceeding and how it handles IANA and NSI. This is a favorite chant of opponents but it misses some basic points: The US administration has stated quite publicly that it is seeking private initiative in this arena. Further the current US proceeding is a rather mild process of gathering comments, with no attendant statements of intent to take any action at all. The US government is quite powerful and therefore is, of course, capable of doing many things including affecting the gTLD MoU structure and process. For that matter, most large governments are. However stating that much rests on the US government is to ignore the fact that the gTLD MoU process is proceeding quite independently of the US government. And this appears to be very much in line with US White House desires. >It seems highly unlikely to me that NSI is just going to go away. We are in complete agreement that they can choose to be a major factor, here. It will hinge on whether NSI (and its parent company, SAIC) wants to go down in history as being responsible for the fragmentation of the Internet. >player in what will, or should, evolve as a heterogeneous system of domain >name administration, in which coordination takes place through rules rather >than internally through the decisions of an organization. The model of multiple root systems -- better labeled multiple name systems -- that Milton, Laina and some others are showing some fondness for has been discussed many times in many venues. It also has been tested a number of times recently. There are technical realities which make it quite disastrous for the net to have more than one name system. That is, multiple roots = multiple and conflicting name systems. This is the basic point which is missed. If you have multiple, independent root systems, then you have completely independent name systems. Remember that the DNS is not an abstract name service. It is part of the basic Internet access structure. It maps those names to IP addresses. With multiple independent roots, who you get will depend upon who you ask. This is like having the effect of a telephone number depend entirely upon where you dial from. Such a system results in fragmentation and ambiguity. Fragmentation means that if you ask the wrong name server, you don't get anyone at all. Ambiguity means that you potentially get the wrong party. Global addressing schemes need global, central coordination to assure integrated and unique assignment. >I hope that the US proceeding will, and definitely believe that it should, >prepare the way for an open system in which new TLDs can, subject to various >criteria, be continuously created by entrepreneurs in response to whatever >demand for them exists. This should be a decentralized, market-driven process >constrained only by certain critical resource constraints (i.e., no name >collisions, Some degree of central coordination is required, to ensure uniqueness. I believe that this point is not at issue, but correct me if I'm wrong. Hence we are debating the question of "weight" for the central control, not its existence. That is, is the central control enforce a very simple set of policies (e.g., first-come-first-served) or does it enforce a more elaborate set? What is not generally realized is that IAHC would have preferred the former. The results of having only minimal central control, however, are not helpful for the Internet. NSI's track record, as well as the recent eDNS disaster demonstrated that rather well, with participants gaming the system unfairly. Exclusive name space control A prime directive the IAHC chose to pursue was to permit changing registrars without changing names. If a registry is given exclusive rights to a portion of the name space, competition is seriously impaired. At best, an end user can choose amongst competing registrars (competing TLDs) at the time of initial registration. After that, however, the end user is locked in to the particular registrar since the cost and damage of having to change domain names is considerable. Domain names are part of an organization's marketing presence and the cost of changing anything relating to that presence is difficult, expensive and risky. Over time, the performance of a registrar can change, due to management difficulties, change in ownership, or the like. Hence what was appealing about a registrar at the time of initial registration could well disappear and be replaced by serious problems. With an exclusive control model, the end user has no effective recourse. Public Resource The IAHC felt that Internet service would suffer if end-users could be held hostage by their registrars. Remember that this service is part of the operational infrastructure. We are not talking about an abstract issue. Misbehaviors by the DNS result in users failing to access resources. That is the reason for the POC and PAB public interest portion of the gTLD MoU structure. Shared Repository To ensure the ability to change registrars without having to change names, registrar sharing of access to TLD registration repositories is required. Computer science realities dictate that the repositories be operated by an independent third party. That is the reason for CORE. Scaling & Policing There is a general challenge to the limited number of new gTLDs that are being permitted by the gTLD MoU. Two forces dictate careful, incremental addition of new gTLDs: operational impact as names are added, and difficulties in trademark policing as the name space is increased. There is considerable disagreement among the senior technical community about the number of TLDs that can safely be added to the DNS. In the face of such legitimate disagreements, concern for operational reliability dictates a 'go slow' approach, adding names carefully and watching for problems. The matter of trademark policing depends on the ability to review new names easily. NSI has a policy which makes this difficult. The gTLD MoU structure will make it easier. As the trademark policing community learns to handle the larger name space, their concerns will be reduced. So, If someone can specify a DNS administrative mechanism which effects proper DNS operation and end-user name portability and the achieve the other requirements, using a different structure, it would be helpful if they would provide the specification. It is easy to state an idea and quite another thing to develop the details. The details of the IAHC plan are based on very basic and -- we believe -- entirely unavoidable operational and policy requirements for the Internet. If they can be satisfied with different and better mechanisms we would love to see them specified. What we note, instead, is many criticismsm but no alternative specifications. It is easy to oppose but difficult to propose. >Indeed, within such a system the MoU's shared registry system may prove >to be a strong competitive advantage (the same cannot be said of its trademark >protection procedures, which would rapidly be eliminated, I suspect, by a truly >competitive market for registrations). I cannot fathom the basis for this latter assertion, so it isn't possible to respond to it. >Obviously, the IAHC now must *compete* for the allegience of Internet users >and operators. (Despite what one might think from their use of Dave Crocker Tsk. Tsk. We were doing so well with maintaining constructive decorum. Let's try to refrain from the ad hominem approach, shall we? Not sure whether your language implies that I am a pawn and/or that I'm been given directives by others about public discussion. Neither is true, of course. Besides that, your assessment of my statements is simply wrong. Please remember that I wrote a substantial portion of the rules for the Internet Standards process and was a strong advocate for that model of decision making being applied to the IAHC effort. That model is based on "rough consensus", i.e., community support. If I or we felt that community support were not important, we would not be spending so much time in public discussion. Time that is quite expensive, I might add. >as a PR spokesman), they seem genuinely interested in winning over the >community. Why should it suddenly cease competing once it establishes >registries? I don't understand this question. What does it mean? At 05:27 PM 7/25/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: >servers. Sure as you say, there is no reason why there cannot be >competition, but right now, most ISP servers all point to one only. I hope that my above explanations were sufficient to make clear the quite serious problems with having multiple, independent name spaces. >I get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the IAHC proposal was set >up to preserve IANA and ISOC role and control over this one root server. To a degree, I'd agree with this assessment. The Internet is a running service. It is a critical, global resource and one should alter its administration and operation only very carefully. For those experienced in running services, there is a strong desire to make changes slowly and incrementally. Large-scale changes are avoided wherever possible. Given that IANA has been doing a quite fine job for more than a decade, there was no sense of need to challenge its authority. For that matter, the IAHC was established as a select committee at the request of IANA, so the committee was quite explicitly (and gladly) acting on IANA's behalf. At 02:38 PM 7/27/97 +0900, Milton Mueller wrote: >have competing TLDs. The root administrator could just set up a >procedure to allow registrars to establish an exclusive claim to >a TLD name. Suppose that the incremental cost of adding a new TLD is X. >The root administrator could simply say, "whoever bids X gets to >administer Over the course of the few messages in this thread, it appears that Milton has moved from "no central control" to "lightweight central control". I hope that my earlier explanation, above, is sufficient to make clear why a more substantive base of central control is necessary. I further hope that the disastrous experience with eDNS makes clear the problems that accompany the model that Milton is now espousing. The eDNS attempted exactly this sort of very lightweight central control model. As registrars started to game the system to their own benefit, it became clear that more and more rules and conditions needed to be put into place. Minimal central control is a beautiful and worthy dream. Unfortunately operational details make it only it dream. >Yes, we need Internet gurus but the key issues, in my opinion, are the >*economics* of the industry. What are the possible efficiency gains >or gains from innovation if the dot administration and TLD services >are opened up and made competitive? What are the possible losses in Let me stress that the key issue is operational integrity for the Internet. We have a running service. We need to keep it running. Any changes made to it need to be incremental and careful. We need to be especially careful that we do not turn the process of developing those changes into an academic exercise separated from operational realities. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org From owner-apple Mon Jul 28 06:15:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id GAA26872 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 06:15:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from unir.corp (root@[207.32.128.74] (may be forged)) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id GAA26867 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 06:15:41 +0900 (JST) Received: from webster.unety.net (webster.unety.net [207.32.128.58]) by unir.corp (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA07893; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 16:04:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: by webster.unety.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BC9AA8.2ABF61E0@webster.unety.net>; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 16:14:32 -0500 Message-ID: <01BC9AA8.2ABF61E0@webster.unety.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "apple@apnic.net" , "'Dave Crocker / IMC'" Cc: "'Adam Todd'" , "'Christopher Ambler'" , "'karl@mcs.net'" Subject: RE: How I learned to stop worrying and love the IAHC Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 16:14:30 -0500 Encoding: 374 TEXT Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Dave, I am sending a copy of this to Karl Denninger and Chris Ambler, two of the leading technical/business people involved in the eDNS Root Name Server Confederation. They may choose to pass this on to some of the other companies providing eDNS Root Name Servers. Even though they may not have the time (or interest) to counter your incorrect statements below, they may be interested to see that people still do not know how Root Name Server Confederations work. This is an educational problem that all technical people need to help with. I am also copying Adam Todd of Australia. He is currently developing a Root Name Server Confederation and has been having good success. Since this is the Apple list, I thought that people might be interested in those activities. Adam also has some mailing lists where he is keeping people posted on his developments. The number of Root Name Server Confederations in the world continues to grow. It appears that some will develop along country lines and others will be based on corporate and personal relationships. The Root Name Server Confederation approach supports both and encourages several people or groups to work together to provide an essential part of the Internet infrastructure. As you will note, Root Name Server Confederations take a long time to develop and only the strong survive. The ISPs vote on which survive via usage. People vote on ISPs by subscribing. As the U.S. Government gets out of the domain name business and hopefully the Root Name Server business, there will be groups and countries around the world that will be able to participate on an equal basis with each other via the world Root Name Server Confederation Round Table. That forum consists of all of the Root Name Server Confederation owners/operators who ultimately have to vote (with their servers) on the future of the content of the DNS data base. I just recently returned to the U.S. and I can tell you that people in other countries of the world are excited about finally having some say in the future of these matters. Rather than structure that participation around some artificial groups with geo-political interests, it is better to develop the structure based on the architecture of the Internet. This allows those people with the networks, routers and servers to make the decisions with input from their customers. As users of the Internet, no one can avoid being aligned with some particular Root Name Server Confederation. These alignments help to show how people feel about the way a particular Root Name Server Confederation is operated. I suggest that all people become more aware of what Root Name Server Confederation is providing them services and make sure that the choice is a concious one. If people do not like any of the Root Name Server Confederations then they are always free to start their own, as some countries are now doing. This ensures them a vote in the future of the Internet no matter where they are in the world. Unlike systems supported by groups that have no infrastructure invested, those votes are based on actual deployments of networks, routers and servers. This takes the decision making out of the hands of the traditional politicians and places it in the hands of the people that actually operate and use the Internet. These people have a very simple job to keep the various Root Name Server Confederatrions in synch, especially with more awareness from the TLD Name Server operators who also play a critical role. In summary, Root Name Servers are here to stay. It is better to be educated about how they really work as opposed to the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (F.U.D.) that is spread by people that want to try to maintain central control. An educated Internaut is in a better position to judge what is best for them instead of being told what is best for them by people who do not tell the whole story or an accurate story. Thanks for your time... Jim Fleming ...making nets work...since 1976... ===== On Sunday, July 27, 1997 2:31 PM, Dave Crocker / IMC[SMTP:dcrocker@imc.org] wrote: @ Folks, @ @ At 05:00 PM 7/25/97 +0800, Milton Mueller wrote: @ >to be aired and analyzed. The IAHC is setting itself up as "the" future @ >administrator of TLD space. @ @ This is factually incorrect on three counts: @ @ 1. The IAHC work pertained to gTLDs only. Interestingly, the work has @ occasionally been criticized for being too limited and not attending to a @ variety of other DNS and IANA issues, so you can imagine how ironic it is @ to see the assertion that the work goes beyond gTLDs. @ @ 2. The gTLD MoU specifies policy change veto authority by IANA and ISOC. @ This is entirely in keeping with the role that IANA has played for more @ than 10 years and that ISOC has developed with respect to Internet @ Standards. While most of the details of the IAHC plan are new, the nature @ of the IANA and ISOC roles are not in the least innovative and do not @ diminish their authority. Rather than replacing IANA and ISOC authority, @ the IAHC work was pursued as their agent. In fact it is IANA and ISOC @ signatures which enabled the gTLD MoU. @ @ 3. Most of the individuals on the IAHC are not going to be on the @ permanent POC and only about 1/3 of the individuals on the IAHC had @ direction from or particular allegiance to the organization that named them @ to the IAHC. In other words, statements which suggest that we did @ something which perpetuated our own role is quite simply wrong. @ @ >...Much of the debate and discussion surrounding it @ >proceeds on the assumption that it will inherit the central authority role @ >once held by the US-based organizations (basically, IANA). @ @ Given the above responses to your the erroneous statements, please provide @ the data which explains this remarkable conclusion. @ @ >A lot depends on the US proceeding and how it handles IANA and NSI. @ @ This is a favorite chant of opponents but it misses some basic points: @ The US administration has stated quite publicly that it is seeking private @ initiative in this arena. Further the current US proceeding is a rather @ mild process of gathering comments, with no attendant statements of intent @ to take any action at all. @ @ The US government is quite powerful and therefore is, of course, capable @ of doing many things including affecting the gTLD MoU structure and @ process. For that matter, most large governments are. However stating @ that much rests on the US government is to ignore the fact that the gTLD @ MoU process is proceeding quite independently of the US government. And @ this appears to be very much in line with US White House desires. @ @ >It seems highly unlikely to me that NSI is just going to go away. @ @ We are in complete agreement that they can choose to be a major factor, @ here. It will hinge on whether NSI (and its parent company, SAIC) wants to @ go down in history as being responsible for the fragmentation of the Internet. @ @ >player in what will, or should, evolve as a heterogeneous system of domain @ >name administration, in which coordination takes place through rules rather @ >than internally through the decisions of an organization. @ @ The model of multiple root systems -- better labeled multiple name systems @ -- that Milton, Laina and some others are showing some fondness for has @ been discussed many times in many venues. It also has been tested a number @ of times recently. There are technical realities which make it quite @ disastrous for the net to have more than one name system. That is, @ multiple roots = multiple and conflicting name systems. @ @ This is the basic point which is missed. If you have multiple, @ independent root systems, then you have completely independent name @ systems. Remember that the DNS is not an abstract name service. It is @ part of the basic Internet access structure. It maps those names to IP @ addresses. @ @ With multiple independent roots, who you get will depend upon who you ask. @ This is like having the effect of a telephone number depend entirely upon @ where you dial from. Such a system results in fragmentation and ambiguity. @ Fragmentation means that if you ask the wrong name server, you don't get @ anyone at all. Ambiguity means that you potentially get the wrong party. @ @ Global addressing schemes need global, central coordination to assure @ integrated and unique assignment. @ @ >I hope that the US proceeding will, and definitely believe that it should, @ >prepare the way for an open system in which new TLDs can, subject to various @ >criteria, be continuously created by entrepreneurs in response to whatever @ >demand for them exists. This should be a decentralized, market-driven @ process @ >constrained only by certain critical resource constraints (i.e., no name @ >collisions, @ @ Some degree of central coordination is required, to ensure uniqueness. I @ believe that this point is not at issue, but correct me if I'm wrong. @ Hence we are debating the question of "weight" for the central control, not @ its existence. That is, is the central control enforce a very simple set @ of policies (e.g., first-come-first-served) or does it enforce a more @ elaborate set? @ @ What is not generally realized is that IAHC would have preferred the @ former. The results of having only minimal central control, however, are @ not helpful for the Internet. NSI's track record, as well as the recent @ eDNS disaster demonstrated that rather well, with participants gaming the @ system unfairly. @ @ @ Exclusive name space control @ @ A prime directive the IAHC chose to pursue was to permit changing @ registrars without changing names. @ @ If a registry is given exclusive rights to a portion of the name space, @ competition is seriously impaired. At best, an end user can choose amongst @ competing registrars (competing TLDs) at the time of initial registration. @ After that, however, the end user is locked in to the particular registrar @ since the cost and damage of having to change domain names is considerable. @ Domain names are part of an organization's marketing presence and the cost @ of changing anything relating to that presence is difficult, expensive and @ risky. @ @ Over time, the performance of a registrar can change, due to management @ difficulties, change in ownership, or the like. Hence what was appealing @ about a registrar at the time of initial registration could well disappear @ and be replaced by serious problems. With an exclusive control model, the @ end user has no effective recourse. @ @ @ Public Resource @ @ The IAHC felt that Internet service would suffer if end-users could be @ held hostage by their registrars. Remember that this service is part of @ the operational infrastructure. We are not talking about an abstract @ issue. Misbehaviors by the DNS result in users failing to access @ resources. That is the reason for the POC and PAB public interest portion @ of the gTLD MoU structure. @ @ @ Shared Repository @ @ To ensure the ability to change registrars without having to change names, @ registrar sharing of access to TLD registration repositories is required. @ Computer science realities dictate that the repositories be operated by an @ independent third party. That is the reason for CORE. @ @ @ Scaling & Policing @ @ There is a general challenge to the limited number of new gTLDs that are @ being permitted by the gTLD MoU. Two forces dictate careful, incremental @ addition of new gTLDs: operational impact as names are added, and @ difficulties in trademark policing as the name space is increased. There @ is considerable disagreement among the senior technical community about the @ number of TLDs that can safely be added to the DNS. In the face of such @ legitimate disagreements, concern for operational reliability dictates a @ 'go slow' approach, adding names carefully and watching for problems. The @ matter of trademark policing depends on the ability to review new names @ easily. NSI has a policy which makes this difficult. The gTLD MoU @ structure will make it easier. As the trademark policing community learns @ to handle the larger name space, their concerns will be reduced. @ @ So, @ @ If someone can specify a DNS administrative mechanism which effects proper @ DNS operation and end-user name portability and the achieve the other @ requirements, using a different structure, it would be helpful if they @ would provide the specification. @ @ It is easy to state an idea and quite another thing to develop the @ details. The details of the IAHC plan are based on very basic and -- we @ believe -- entirely unavoidable operational and policy requirements for the @ Internet. If they can be satisfied with different and better mechanisms we @ would love to see them specified. What we note, instead, is many @ criticismsm but no alternative specifications. @ @ It is easy to oppose but difficult to propose. @ @ >Indeed, within such a system the MoU's shared registry system may prove @ >to be a strong competitive advantage (the same cannot be said of its @ trademark @ >protection procedures, which would rapidly be eliminated, I suspect, by a @ truly @ >competitive market for registrations). @ @ I cannot fathom the basis for this latter assertion, so it isn't possible @ to respond to it. @ @ >Obviously, the IAHC now must *compete* for the allegience of Internet users @ >and operators. (Despite what one might think from their use of Dave Crocker @ @ Tsk. Tsk. We were doing so well with maintaining constructive decorum. @ Let's try to refrain from the ad hominem approach, shall we? @ @ Not sure whether your language implies that I am a pawn and/or that I'm @ been given directives by others about public discussion. Neither is true, @ of course. @ @ Besides that, your assessment of my statements is simply wrong. Please @ remember that I wrote a substantial portion of the rules for the Internet @ Standards process and was a strong advocate for that model of decision @ making being applied to the IAHC effort. That model is based on "rough @ consensus", i.e., community support. If I or we felt that community @ support were not important, we would not be spending so much time in public @ discussion. Time that is quite expensive, I might add. @ @ >as a PR spokesman), they seem genuinely interested in winning over the @ >community. Why should it suddenly cease competing once it establishes @ >registries? @ @ I don't understand this question. What does it mean? @ @ @ At 05:27 PM 7/25/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: @ >servers. Sure as you say, there is no reason why there cannot be @ >competition, but right now, most ISP servers all point to one only. @ @ I hope that my above explanations were sufficient to make clear the quite @ serious problems with having multiple, independent name spaces. @ @ >I get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the IAHC proposal was set @ >up to preserve IANA and ISOC role and control over this one root server. @ @ To a degree, I'd agree with this assessment. The Internet is a running @ service. It is a critical, global resource and one should alter its @ administration and operation only very carefully. @ @ For those experienced in running services, there is a strong desire to @ make changes slowly and incrementally. Large-scale changes are avoided @ wherever possible. Given that IANA has been doing a quite fine job for @ more than a decade, there was no sense of need to challenge its authority. @ @ For that matter, the IAHC was established as a select committee at the @ request of IANA, so the committee was quite explicitly (and gladly) acting @ on IANA's behalf. @ @ @ At 02:38 PM 7/27/97 +0900, Milton Mueller wrote: @ >have competing TLDs. The root administrator could just set up a @ >procedure to allow registrars to establish an exclusive claim to @ >a TLD name. Suppose that the incremental cost of adding a new TLD is X. @ >The root administrator could simply say, "whoever bids X gets to @ >administer @ @ Over the course of the few messages in this thread, it appears that Milton @ has moved from "no central control" to "lightweight central control". I @ hope that my earlier explanation, above, is sufficient to make clear why a @ more substantive base of central control is necessary. I further hope that @ the disastrous experience with eDNS makes clear the problems that accompany @ the model that Milton is now espousing. The eDNS attempted exactly this @ sort of very lightweight central control model. As registrars started to @ game the system to their own benefit, it became clear that more and more @ rules and conditions needed to be put into place. @ @ Minimal central control is a beautiful and worthy dream. Unfortunately @ operational details make it only it dream. @ @ >Yes, we need Internet gurus but the key issues, in my opinion, are the @ >*economics* of the industry. What are the possible efficiency gains @ >or gains from innovation if the dot administration and TLD services @ >are opened up and made competitive? What are the possible losses in @ @ Let me stress that the key issue is operational integrity for the @ Internet. We have a running service. We need to keep it running. Any @ changes made to it need to be incremental and careful. We need to be @ especially careful that we do not turn the process of developing those @ changes into an academic exercise separated from operational realities. @ @ d/ @ @ -------------------- @ Dave Crocker @ Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 @ 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 @ Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org @ @ Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org @ @ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From owner-apple Mon Jul 28 06:19:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id GAA26890 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 06:19:53 +0900 (JST) Received: from brickbat9.mindspring.com (brickbat9.mindspring.com [207.69.200.12]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id GAA26885 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 06:19:49 +0900 (JST) From: Jay@Iperdome.com Received: from iperdome.per (user-37kb0dl.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.129.181]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA02756; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 17:19:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 17:19:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970727171657.4497ed30@mindspring.com> X-Sender: iquest1@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: apple@apnic.net Subject: Re: FW: How I learned to stop worrying and love the IAHC Cc: gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org, newdom@ar.com, edns-discuss@Mcs.Net, DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Forwarded by a concerned Netizen: >---------- >From: Dave Crocker / IMC[SMTP:dcrocker@imc.org] >Sent: Sunday, July 27, 1997 2:31 PM >To: apple@apnic.net >Subject: Re: How I learned to stop worrying and love the IAHC > >Folks, > >At 05:00 PM 7/25/97 +0800, Milton Mueller wrote: >>to be aired and analyzed. The IAHC is setting itself up as "the" future >>administrator of TLD space. > > This is factually incorrect on three counts: > >1. The IAHC work pertained to gTLDs only. Interestingly, the work has >occasionally been criticized for being too limited and not attending to a >variety of other DNS and IANA issues, so you can imagine how ironic it is >to see the assertion that the work goes beyond gTLDs. With no other Internet governance authority in place, it is *very* likely that the precedent set with domain names will apply in many other places. >2. The gTLD MoU specifies policy change veto authority by IANA and ISOC. >This is entirely in keeping with the role that IANA has played for more >than 10 years and that ISOC has developed with respect to Internet >Standards. While most of the details of the IAHC plan are new, the nature >of the IANA and ISOC roles are not in the least innovative and do not >diminish their authority. Rather than replacing IANA and ISOC authority, >the IAHC work was pursued as their agent. In fact it is IANA and ISOC >signatures which enabled the gTLD MoU. The issue is not with some IANA involvement, nor possibly even with some ISOC involvement, the big issue is this: How do the interests of the "Internet Community" get protected. Under your currently proposed regime, there is no representation for the displaced majority! >3. Most of the individuals on the IAHC are not going to be on the >permanent POC and only about 1/3 of the individuals on the IAHC had >direction from or particular allegiance to the organization that named them >to the IAHC. In other words, statements which suggest that we did >something which perpetuated our own role is quite simply wrong. Once again, the cards are stacked against the majority of the Internet Community. How can your plan be reconciled with some *fair* form of representative governance? Regards, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com From owner-apple Mon Jul 28 06:29:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id GAA26929 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 06:29:39 +0900 (JST) Received: from vrx.net (ns1.vrx.net [199.166.24.1]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id GAA26924 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 06:29:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from mbv1-ipl-ri36.kos.net(really [206.186.41.59]) by vrx.net via sendmail with smtp id for ; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 17:31:30 -0400 (EDT) (Smail-3.2.0.92 1997-Feb-9 #2 built 1997-Apr-8) Message-Id: Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 17:31:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: richard@vrx.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: apple@apnic.net From: "Richard J. Sexton" Subject: Why I worry about the IAHC Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 03:22 PM 7/27/97 -0500, Dave Crocker wrote: >Folks, > >At 05:00 PM 7/25/97 +0800, Milton Mueller wrote: >>to be aired and analyzed. The IAHC is setting itself up as "the" future >>administrator of TLD space. > > This is factually incorrect on three counts: > >1. The IAHC work pertained to gTLDs only. Interestingly, the work has >occasionally been criticized for being too limited and not attending to a >variety of other DNS and IANA issues, so you can imagine how ironic it is >to see the assertion that the work goes beyond gTLDs. In the DNS, there are three classes of domain names: 1) National sovereign These are the ISO-3166 country codes such as .us and .ca 2) Private TLD's Owned and administered by organizations with restrictive allocation policies. Not just anybody can get a name in this namespace: .gov, .edu, .mil, .int 3) International TLD's Currently .com, .net, .org These have so far been referred to as iTLD's, but IAHC likes to refer to them as gTLD's. It is true the IAHC does not assume authority over the entire domain name space, since classes 1) and 2) are not public space. Furthermore since the IAHC plan does not allow any other model to run in parallel this leads us to the conclusion that the MoU covers all usefull DNS space and all expansion into it (class 3) >2. The gTLD MoU specifies policy change veto authority by IANA and ISOC. >From my examination of the document all authority rests with the POC, the PAB is merely an advisory body that cannot make anything more than a suggestion. A 2/3'rd quorum of the POC is binding. Because the ITU has two positions on this council (one as "ITU" one as "respository of the MoU"), and the IANA and ISOC appoint more than one person each, the combination of ISOC, ITU and IANA have effective final authority by virtue of the 2/3 majority. There is no demonsterable consensus that indicates this is desired. There is *some* consensus that this is desirable, but it's not 100 or even 50% of the net and indeed in many cases the organizations FOR it, it can be shown that there is no consensus within that company for the IAHC, moreso the ISOC memebrship itself is not 100% behind this plan. In other words, the IANA decided that the IANA, ISOC and ITU should control everything. If it is claimed this was not the intention, then shame for not noticing this. >This is entirely in keeping with the role that IANA has played for more >than 10 years and that ISOC has developed with respect to Internet >Standards. While most of the details of the IAHC plan are new, the nature >of the IANA and ISOC roles are not in the least innovative and do not >diminish their authority. Rather than replacing IANA and ISOC authority, >the IAHC work was pursued as their agent. In fact it is IANA and ISOC >signatures which enabled the gTLD MoU. The IANA has no legal authority to do anything, legally it doesnt exist. It is beyond the scope of the ISOC as a 501 (c) 3 organization to sell franchises - and this MoU amounts to little more than selling for $10,000 passwords to their equivalent to the NSI domreg system and calling it "sharing". >3. Most of the individuals on the IAHC are not going to be on the >permanent POC Translation: they dumped the lawyers. >In other words, statements which suggest that we did >something which perpetuated our own role is quite simply wrong. Nonsense. The IAHC committee was to make a reccomendation to IANA. Rather then IANA passing it to IETF or the net at large to approve, the plan was just implemented. The plan, in essence reccommended the IAHC committee reconvene as the POC. It's a self executing plan. This is one of the US gov't major concerns with it. >>A lot depends on the US proceeding and how it handles IANA and NSI. > > This is a favorite chant of opponents but it misses some basic points: >The US administration has stated quite publicly that it is seeking private >initiative in this arena. Yes, and if the IAHC plan was as good as you'd like us to believe, they would have endorsed it. They refused to do so. In fact, the only national government to endorse the plan so far is Albania. It is also to be noted that the only entities that endored the preliminary IAHC plan in toto were those famous bastions of social responsability British Telcom and the country of China. >Further the current US proceeding is a rather >mild process of gathering comments, with no attendant statements of intent >to take any action at all. You're guessing at what might or might not happen. Since you are not in control, you have as much or little idea as anybody else. > The US government is quite powerful and therefore is, of course, capable >of doing many things including affecting the gTLD MoU structure and >process. For that matter, most large governments are. However stating >that much rests on the US government is to ignore the fact that the gTLD >MoU process is proceeding quite independently of the US government. And >this appears to be very much in line with US White House desires. So is the De Beers diamond cartel. They just can't step on US soverign soil without beeing immediately slapped with an anti trust suit. >>It seems highly unlikely to me that NSI is just going to go away. > > We are in complete agreement that they can choose to be a major factor, >here. It will hinge on whether NSI (and its parent company, SAIC) wants to >go down in history as being responsible for the fragmentation of the Internet. Sure, we can put them in the hall of shame along with the IAHC committee that seeks total control. > The model of multiple root systems -- better labeled multiple name systems >-- that Milton, Laina and some others are showing some fondness for has >been discussed many times in many venues. It also has been tested a number >of times recently. There are technical realities which make it quite >disastrous for the net to have more than one name system. That is, >multiple roots = multiple and conflicting name systems. It has never been tested on a wide scale. If, for example, NSI's a.root-servers.net secondaried "." from, say, a.edns-root.net, all edns domain names would instantly revolve globally. > This is the basic point which is missed. If you have multiple, >independent root systems, then you have completely independent name >systems. Remember that the DNS is not an abstract name service. It is >part of the basic Internet access structure. It maps those names to IP >addresses. A one line change in nsi's root would make the names work. All this talk of syncing root servers and multiple roots is a red herring. > With multiple independent roots, who you get will depend upon who you ask. > This is like having the effect of a telephone number depend entirely upon >where you dial from. Such a system results in fragmentation and ambiguity. > Fragmentation means that if you ask the wrong name server, you don't get >anyone at all. Ambiguity means that you potentially get the wrong party. Make all the names work in the legacy root per above. End of problem. > Global addressing schemes need global, central coordination to assure >integrated and unique assignment. Amazing how the internet actually got this far wothout one so far, isn't it. Or is that WHY it's grown this fast, this far? >>I hope that the US proceeding will, and definitely believe that it should, >>prepare the way for an open system in which new TLDs can, subject to various >>criteria, be continuously created by entrepreneurs in response to whatever >>demand for them exists. This should be a decentralized, market-driven >process >>constrained only by certain critical resource constraints (i.e., no name >>collisions, > > Some degree of central coordination is required, to ensure uniqueness. I >believe that this point is not at issue, but correct me if I'm wrong. >Hence we are debating the question of "weight" for the central control, not >its existence. That is, is the central control enforce a very simple set >of policies (e.g., first-come-first-served) or does it enforce a more >elaborate set? > > What is not generally realized is that IAHC would have preferred the >former. The results of having only minimal central control, however, are >not helpful for the Internet. NSI's track record, as well as the recent >eDNS disaster demonstrated that rather well, with participants gaming the >system unfairly. I notice you have no solution to the problem of what happens if I register 5 million names the first day. >Exclusive name space control > > A prime directive the IAHC chose to pursue was to permit changing >registrars without changing names. Ie, you can go to anybody that IAHC has sold a passord to the database computer to. > If a registry is given exclusive rights to a portion of the name space, >competition is seriously impaired. Not always true. This would depend on the policy surrounding that particular portion of the name space set by the registry that was allocated the portion in question. >Public Resource > > The IAHC felt that Internet service would suffer if end-users could be >held hostage by their registrars. Very convenient and marvelous hindsight, but a bit of credability would have been garnered if a solution to this problem had been devised by them when this problem first arose. Sorry if not everyone doesnt have the same confidence in your vision of how things might be run in the future. > Remember that this service is part of >the operational infrastructure. We are not talking about an abstract >issue. Misbehaviors by the DNS result in users failing to access >resources. That is the reason for the POC and PAB public interest portion >of the gTLD MoU structure. If one signs the MoU and cedes authority to the POC, then one can join the PAB and make nonbinding suggestons to them. Big deal. Anybody could send them email and make a suggestion, there's nothing special (or with any "teeth") about the PAB. >Shared Repository > > To ensure the ability to change registrars without having to change names, >registrar sharing of access to TLD registration repositories is required. >Computer science realities dictate that the repositories be operated by an >independent third party. That is the reason for CORE. Trandlation: we couldn figue out how to sell passwords to NSI's domreg system so we have to build our own from scratch. How's it going, anyway? Managed to get this to under 30 man years yet? That is the NSI accounting of their system. >Scaling & Policing > > There is a general challenge to the limited number of new gTLDs that are >being permitted by the gTLD MoU. Two forces dictate careful, incremental >addition of new gTLDs: operational impact as names are added, and >difficulties in trademark policing as the name space is increased. There >is considerable disagreement among the senior technical community about the >number of TLDs that can safely be added to the DNS. we know 1000 is safe, and 10,000 is pushing it. So far, 517 TLD's have been proposed in public. >In the face of such >legitimate disagreements, concern for operational reliability dictates a >'go slow' approach, adding names carefully and watching for problems. The >matter of trademark policing depends on the ability to review new names >easily. NSI has a policy which makes this difficult. The gTLD MoU >structure will make it easier. As the trademark policing community learns >to handle the larger name space, their concerns will be reduced. This is true whether it's 7 or 1000. > So, > > If someone can specify a DNS administrative mechanism which effects proper >DNS operation and end-user name portability and the achieve the other >requirements, using a different structure, it would be helpful if they >would provide the specification. Hahaha. I'll sell to CORE if you like. It surprises me you didn't stumpbe onto the obvious minor technological change required to make this a trivial task. Oh well. > It is easy to state an idea and quite another thing to develop the >details. The details of the IAHC plan are based on very basic and -- we >believe -- entirely unavoidable operational and policy requirements for the >Internet. If they can be satisfied with different and better mechanisms we >would love to see them specified. What we note, instead, is many >criticismsm but no alternative specifications. You will. > It is easy to oppose but difficult to propose. Not really. >>Obviously, the IAHC now must *compete* for the allegience of Internet users >>and operators. (Despite what one might think from their use of Dave Crocker > > Tsk. Tsk. We were doing so well with maintaining constructive decorum. >Let's try to refrain from the ad hominem approach, shall we? He has a very important point Dave, you and Perry are not the diplomats this position requires. > Besides that, your assessment of my statements is simply wrong. Please >remember that I wrote a substantial portion of the rules for the Internet >Standards process and was a strong advocate for that model of decision >making being applied to the IAHC effort. That model is based on "rough >consensus", i.e., community support. If I or we felt that community >support were not important, we would not be spending so much time in public >discussion. Your consensus would appear to be too rough. >Time that is quite expensive, I might add. There's always time to get it right. Thats no excuse, Dave. >At 05:27 PM 7/25/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: >>servers. Sure as you say, there is no reason why there cannot be >>competition, but right now, most ISP servers all point to one only. > > I hope that my above explanations were sufficient to make clear the quite >serious problems with having multiple, independent name spaces. If a true root server at, say, nsi, poited over here to resolve .foo and over there to resolve .bar and over somewhere else to resolve .frobozz there is not a problem. If all seemingly disparate groups of root servers secodaried "." form each other, all roots would be in sync. >>I get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the IAHC proposal was set >>up to preserve IANA and ISOC role and control over this one root server. > > To a degree, I'd agree with this assessment. The Internet is a running >service. It is a critical, global resource and one should alter its >administration and operation only very carefully. And this was fine up util the point they tried to sell franchises. Thet don't even HAVE a product yet. Show me the code, show me the registry show me you can actually get a TLD into a root server. At this point since you've climed many times you could get a new name into a root server but are way behind on your schedule to do so, I'm left with the impression now that about the only way you could do it would be to pay Kashpureff to do it for you. Semi :-) > For those experienced in running services, there is a strong desire to >make changes slowly and incrementally. Large-scale changes are avoided >wherever possible. Given that IANA has been doing a quite fine job for >more than a decade, there was no sense of need to challenge its authority. Confifence in the IANA has eroded since NSI began charging. There's no doubt they're very good at editig RFC's bu their handling of .us and .com has been apalling, arbitrary and capricious. They do not enjoy near 100% endoresment form the net at large any more. > For that matter, the IAHC was established as a select committee at the >request of IANA, so the committee was quite explicitly (and gladly) acting >on IANA's behalf. So is a gas pump jocky when he fills Posels car. So what? >At 02:38 PM 7/27/97 +0900, Milton Mueller wrote: >>have competing TLDs. The root administrator could just set up a >>procedure to allow registrars to establish an exclusive claim to >>a TLD name. Suppose that the incremental cost of adding a new TLD is X. >>The root administrator could simply say, "whoever bids X gets to >>administer > > Over the course of the few messages in this thread, it appears that Milton >has moved from "no central control" to "lightweight central control". I >hope that my earlier explanation, above, is sufficient to make clear why a >more substantive base of central control is necessary. I further hope that >the disastrous experience with eDNS makes clear the problems that accompany >the model that Milton is now espousing. The eDNS attempted exactly this >sort of very lightweight central control model. As registrars started to >game the system to their own benefit, it became clear that more and more >rules and conditions needed to be put into place. So how will IAHC handle this problem? >>Yes, we need Internet gurus but the key issues, in my opinion, are the >>*economics* of the industry. What are the possible efficiency gains >>or gains from innovation if the dot administration and TLD services >>are opened up and made competitive? What are the possible losses in > > Let me stress that the key issue is operational integrity for the >Internet. We have a running service. We need to keep it running. Any >changes made to it need to be incremental and careful. We need to be >especially careful that we do not turn the process of developing those >changes into an academic exercise separated from operational realities. Right. Lets see your code run for a year first. You know what they say about version 1 of things. Nonetheless, this again is a red herring. No new top level domains have ever been added, and once the paradigm shifts such that X number of new TLD's are available this is suffient of a significant change that it hardly matters is X is low, medium or large. It probably needs to be under 10,000, but Mockapteris has insinuated it could be unlimited. I can't think of a reson why one would want to do this, but obviously he's thought about it. From owner-apple Mon Jul 28 08:15:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id IAA27383 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 08:15:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id IAA27378 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 08:15:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from slimnote (d13.netgate.net [205.214.160.45]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA11972 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 19:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970727160519.00b48e00@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 16:05:19 -0700 To: apple@apnic.net From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: Re: Why I worry about the IAHC In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Folks, I have a dilemma. There is some serious effort at reasoned discussion on this list, but some of the notes being submitted are sufficiently lacking in factual basis as to create confusion. It would be better to ignore the really silly notes but one feels compelled to respond to the factual errors: At 05:31 PM 7/27/97 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote: >Furthermore since the IAHC plan does not allow any other model to run in To date, there has not been plan for "any other model" submitted for approval by IANA, so this statement has no behavioral basis; further my recollection is that there is nothing in the gTLD MoU or other documents which prevent creation other portions of the name space which are subject to other policy controls. Also, IANA controls the top of the name space, not the gTLD MoU. Consequently, the gTLD MoU cannot dictate that there be no other schemes. >>2. The gTLD MoU specifies policy change veto authority by IANA and ISOC. >>From my examination of the document all authority rests with the POC, the Then let me encourage a more careful reading. IANA and ISOC must sign changes to the gTLD MoU in order for those changes to take effect. >the combination of ISOC, ITU and IANA have effective final authority by The idea that any particular combination of representatives from any particular combination of naming organizations somehow represents a conspiracy to control the POC is particularly amusing to those of us who have been inside the workings of POC and created/watched/benefited-from/suffered-under its highly fluid dynamics. >In other words, the IANA decided that the IANA, ISOC and ITU should control The original decision about the list of naming organizations and number slots they would get was the result of a rather amorphous process amongst several organizations. Based on a comment from Jon Postel at that time, I am quite certain that IANA did not have final say over the makeup. >The IANA has no legal authority to do anything, legally it doesnt The IETF has no formal, documented authority either, yet is sets Internet technical standards and has done so since the start of the Internet. To repeat: IANA has more than 10 years of an authority basis. As attorneys well know, established practise is a powerful legal argument, even in the absence of a written agreement. That's why it is so unfortunate that some attorneys who are critical of this activity keep harping on the lack of documented authority but ignore the established practise. >exist. It is beyond the scope of the ISOC as a 501 (c) 3 organization A point that is often missed is that the source of this silly piece of argument was, himself, president of ISOC at the time it took on the same role for the IETF that it is taking on now for the gTLD MoU. >>3. Most of the individuals on the IAHC are not going to be on the >>permanent POC >Translation: they dumped the lawyers. This clever piece of analysis is all the more amusing by being quite wrong. >Nonsense. The IAHC committee was to make a reccomendation to IANA. That's what the IAHC did. IANA then signed the resulting MoU. >Rather then IANA passing it to IETF or the net at large to >approve, the plan was just implemented. The plan, in essence >reccommended the IAHC committee reconvene as the POC. The IETF is a technical standards body. It has no history of involvement in matters such as this and it has expressed no interest in being involved now. As to "the net at large" that happens to be pretty much what was done. >Yes, and if the IAHC plan was as good as you'd like us to believe, they ... >It is also to be noted that the only entities that endored the preliminary If anyone is interested in the details of CURRENT support, they are encouraged to review the list of signatories under . >>Further the current US proceeding is a rather ... >You're guessing at what might or might not happen. Since you are not in Quite the opposite. Contrary to the various claims that this is THE definite process for resolving matters I'm noting that there is nothing about the process which even suggests, much less promises, particular action. This means that many different outcomes are possible. >It has never been tested on a wide scale. If, for example, NSI's On the contrary. The telephone system used to have entirely independent addressing. You had to have a different telephone for each system. The fun resulting from such a system resulted in establishing telephone monopolies. We should look forward to the same type of problem if we propagate multiple DNS name spaces. In any event, this is not a matter of question whether a thing will scale to handle large numbers, such as exists for the NUMBER of TLDs. This is a straightforward fact of fragmentation and collision that is inherent in having multiple, independent name spaces. >A one line change in nsi's root would make the names work. All this Please describe the details of this data base management magic. >Make all the names work in the legacy root per above. End of problem. Sorry but that is simply making the name space a single name space. It's premise is that these various other and independent name services should be legitimized. Either they are legitimate by being independent or they require central coordination. Please be clear about the administrative model. >> Global addressing schemes need global, central coordination to assure >>integrated and unique assignment. > >Amazing how the internet actually got this far wothout one so far, isn't >it. Or is that WHY it's grown this fast, this far? Perhaps this is the essence of the problem with such opposition: It lacks any awareness of the historical facts: The Internet has ALWAYS had central authority over the name and address space. ... Well, much as I'd like to continue to correct the remaining errors in that note, this will have to suffice. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org From owner-apple Mon Jul 28 09:27:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id JAA27598 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:27:52 +0900 (JST) Received: from fractal.chaos.com (fractal.chaos.com [206.5.17.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id JAA27593 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:27:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from [206.5.17.2] by fractal.chaos.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ga015580 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 20:30:00 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970727203000.0097c430@fractal.chaos.com> X-Sender: amr@fractal.chaos.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 20:30:00 -0400 To: apple@apnic.net From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: Why I worry about the IAHC In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970727160519.00b48e00@imc.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk > Also, IANA controls the top of the name space, not the gTLD MoU. >Consequently, the gTLD MoU cannot dictate that there be no other schemes. The US government has controlled the namespace of the traditional root and contracted it out to USC. That's where the "authority" came from. The Federal inquiry background statement makes it fairly clear that this responsibility is retained and will be used in developing the transition to "...various private sector groups." >even in the absence of a written agreement. That's why it is so >unfortunate that some attorneys who are critical of this activity keep >harping on the lack of documented authority but ignore the established >practise. There is a written agreement - called a contract between the US DOD and USC, and it's been in place a long time. >>exist. It is beyond the scope of the ISOC as a 501 (c) 3 organization > > A point that is often missed is that the source of this silly piece of >argument was, himself, president of ISOC at the time it took on the same >role for the IETF that it is taking on now for the gTLD MoU. The only Internet Society roles vis-a-vis the IETF are: 1) providing liaison to other standards organizations because the IETF isn't incorporated (beginning in 1994), 2) paying for IESG liability insurance and legal counsel (beginning 1995), and 3) veto over IESG positions (beginning in 1996). If there is more, please let everyone know. Those functions are fully within the scope of the Society's Charter of Incorporation and consonant with 501(c)(3) status. There is no apparent Society nexus to the DOD-USC IANA function, nor is it clear how these kinds of broad operational functions comport with the scope of either the Society's charter or its IRS status. These are not new issues, but have been raised and the activities counseled against for some years by a number of the Society's more prominent Board members, particularly Bob Kahn. > Well, much as I'd like to continue to correct the remaining errors in that >note, this will have to suffice. Unfortunately, not long enough, I'm sure. Maybe...just maybe, we're not dealing with errors here, but rather with different views which collectively provide a richer perspective and a better understanding of the array of alternatives and pitfalls of certain courses of action. cheers, --Tony From owner-apple Mon Jul 28 11:47:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id LAA28194 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:47:32 +0900 (JST) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id LAA28189 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:47:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from slimnote (d118.netgate.net [205.214.160.156]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA16857; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 22:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970727192405.0070f3a8@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 19:24:05 -0700 To: Tony Rutkowski From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: Re: Why I worry about the IAHC Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970727203000.0097c430@fractal.chaos.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19970727160519.00b48e00@imc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 08:30 PM 7/27/97 -0400, Tony Rutkowski wrote: >> Also, IANA controls the top of the name space, not the gTLD MoU. >>Consequently, the gTLD MoU cannot dictate that there be no other schemes. > >The US government has controlled the namespace of the traditional This is where there is such an important difference shown between those with direct experience, versus those obtaining information by second-hand study. I repeat: Within the community of the Internet that does technical and operations work, there has been no ambiguity at all concerning IANA's authority. It is only recently that fresh arrivals to the scene seem to enjoy this doubt. The US government funded an activity but the authority chain has clearly been from the community at large and to IANA directly. It has not flowed through the US government for quite a few years. >There is a written agreement - called a contract between the US DOD >and USC, and it's been in place a long time. The written agreement describes the activities it is funding. It does not pertain to the authority chain. >The only Internet Society roles vis-a-vis the IETF are: 1) providing >liaison to other standards organizations because the IETF isn't >incorporated (beginning in 1994), 2) paying for IESG liability >insurance and legal counsel (beginning 1995), and 3) veto over >IESG positions (beginning in 1996). If there is more, please let >everyone know. Those functions are fully within the scope of Facinating. You don't even know the full list of capabilities you participated in setting up. Ah well. So much for attention to detail. At any rate, the list above is almost correct except for one minor error and one omission. The minor error is that ISOC approves the selections for the IAB, not the IESG. And the fourth responsibility for ISOC is that it must approve the IETF specifications for its standards process. These two approval activities are similar to its approval role for the policy document controlling the gTLD structure and process. >is it clear how these kinds of broad operational functions comport with >the scope of either the Society's charter or its IRS status. These One remains eager to hear from another legal expert who will substantiate your claim. You've been making it for quite a few months, yet we have not yet heard anyone else espouse it and we certainly haven't heard from the IRS expressing concerns. US 501(c)(3) tax-exempt corporations can and do perform an astonishing range of "public interest" activites. Having ISOC participate in oversight functions is hardly a stretching of the rules. cheers, d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org From owner-apple Mon Jul 28 12:37:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id MAA28459 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 12:37:26 +0900 (JST) Received: from vrx.net (ns1.vrx.net [199.166.24.1]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id MAA28454 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 12:37:21 +0900 (JST) Received: from mbv1-ipl-ri36.kos.net(really [206.186.41.59]) by vrx.net via sendmail with smtp id for ; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 23:39:09 -0400 (EDT) (Smail-3.2.0.92 1997-Feb-9 #2 built 1997-Apr-8) Message-Id: Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 23:39:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: richard@vrx.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: apple@apnic.net From: "Richard J. Sexton" Subject: Re: FW: Why I worry about the IAHC Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From: Dave Crocker / IMC[SMTP:dcrocker@imc.org] >Sent: Sunday, July 27, 1997 6:05 PM >To: apple@apnic.net >Subject: Re: Why I worry about the IAHC >At 05:31 PM 7/27/97 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote: >>Furthermore since the IAHC plan does not allow any other model to run in > > To date, there has not been plan for "any other model" submitted for >approval by IANA, You are wrong about this. Check again. >>>2. The gTLD MoU specifies policy change veto authority by IANA and ISOC. >>>From my examination of the document all authority rests with the POC, the > > Then let me encourage a more careful reading. IANA and ISOC must sign >changes to the gTLD MoU in order for those changes to take effect. >From the MoU: i. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) - 2 [IANA is four professors at the University of So. Calif.] ii. Internet Society (ISOC) - 2 [A small professional group accountable to no one.] iii. Representative of the Depository of this MoU - 1 [This is another seat for the ITU] iv. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) - 2 v. Council of Registrars (CORE) - 2 [CORE is an entity that answers to POC, so it has no public constituency. It is just another arm of POC.] vi. International Telecommunication Union (ITU) - 1 vii. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) - 1 viii. International Trademark Association (INTA) - 1 [12 total seats. ISOC, IANA and ITU control 50%] >>In other words, the IANA decided that the IANA, ISOC and ITU should control > > The original decision about the list of naming organizations and number >slots they would get was the result of a rather amorphous process amongst >several organizations. Based on a comment from Jon Postel at that time, I >am quite certain that IANA did not have final say over the makeup. > >>The IANA has no legal authority to do anything, legally it doesnt > > The IETF has no formal, documented authority either, yet is sets Internet >technical standards and has done so since the start of the Internet. As you point out, it doesnt set policy not try to get international treaties forged that circumvent sovereign laws such as the ITU is now doing on behalf of IAHC. > To repeat: IANA has more than 10 years of an authority basis. As >attorneys well know, established practise is a powerful legal argument, >even in the absence of a written agreement. That's why it is so >unfortunate that some attorneys who are critical of this activity keep >harping on the lack of documented authority but ignore the established >practise. IANA has vast experience editing RFC's and they do a splendid job of this. They have a suboptimal record of handling domain name issues. Where was the leadership to fix the preceived ills of NSI? The problems with .US ? >>exist. It is beyond the scope of the ISOC as a 501 (c) 3 organization > > A point that is often missed is that the source of this silly piece of >argument was, himself, president of ISOC at the time it took on the same >role for the IETF that it is taking on now for the gTLD MoU. I'm having a difficult time parsing this. >>>3. Most of the individuals on the IAHC are not going to be on the >>>permanent POC >>Translation: they dumped the lawyers. > > This clever piece of analysis is all the more amusing by being quite wrong. Nonsense. The IAHC committee, who had the power to "reccommend" anything had a large percentage of trademark lawyers. The POC, which holds the power is outlined above. The lawyers are gone. >>Nonsense. The IAHC committee was to make a reccomendation to IANA. > > That's what the IAHC did. IANA then signed the resulting MoU. Edited out of context. The IAHC made a reccomendation. It reccommended itself be in a position of total authority. As a memebr of thaty cabal, IANA signed the MoU, in effect, granting itselfthe power. There was no resonable review or consensus gathering step. Many poeple and organizations all over the world, with zero vested interest in domain names are vehemently opposed to the self executing IAHC plan. It would not surprise me if when tallied up, more people oppose it than support it. >>Rather then IANA passing it to IETF or the net at large to >>approve, the plan was just implemented. The plan, in essence >>reccommended the IAHC committee reconvene as the POC. > > The IETF is a technical standards body. It has no history of involvement >in matters such as this and it has expressed no interest in being involved >now. As time goes on, more and more interest in stoppint the IAHC plan materialises. I am led to beliebe Marshall Rose is spearheading this effort. >As to "the net at large" that happens to be pretty much what was done. Nonsense. The net at large is largely outraged by this sham of a plan. >>Yes, and if the IAHC plan was as good as you'd like us to believe, they >... >>It is also to be noted that the only entities that endored the preliminary > > If anyone is interested in the details of CURRENT support, they are >encouraged to review the list of signatories under . 145 companies that, with a very small number of exceptions have little relevance to the construction and operation of the Internet. The only thing they seem to have in common is obscurity. 9 organizations are ISOC chapters. Listing them this many times is dubious. 26 organizations (roughly 15%) listed there have chosen, still, not to sign. 6 (roughly 5%) have vested interets as domain registrars. 3 are members of the POC (noticably absent are the signatures of WIPO, ITU. IAB and IETF. One organization that signed owns shares in Alter.NIC and had several eDNS TLD's ans is largely responsible for NSI's IPO. Heding ones bests I guess. No matter what happens they stand to gain. Congratulations on getting the government of Albania to sign. You've got 101 real signatures these, and only two, Digital and uunet are meaningfull. Dec's management may do as it pleases, but if you ask their senoir technical staff, they are vehemently opposed to the MoU. I dare you to find 1% of Dec staff that approve of the MoU. While 101 is a nice number of Dalmations, it's hardly constitutes international consensus. >>>Further the current US proceeding is a rather >... >>You're guessing at what might or might not happen. Since you are not in > > Quite the opposite. Contrary to the various claims that this is THE >definite process for resolving matters I'm noting that there is nothing >about the process which even suggests, much less promises, particular >action. This means that many different outcomes are possible. Again, sheer speculation. >>It has never been tested on a wide scale. If, for example, NSI's > > On the contrary. The telephone system used to have entirely independent >addressing. You had to have a different telephone for each system. The >fun resulting from such a system resulted in establishing telephone >monopolies. We should look forward to the same type of problem if we >propagate multiple DNS name spaces. > > In any event, this is not a matter of question whether a thing will scale >to handle large numbers, such as exists for the NUMBER of TLDs. This is a >straightforward fact of fragmentation and collision that is inherent in >having multiple, independent name spaces. You brought up multiple independent name spaces. I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. >>A one line change in nsi's root would make the names work. All this > > Please describe the details of this data base management magic. I did. If you cant understand it form that then there is probably no hope. Others have understood with far less of an explanation. >>Make all the names work in the legacy root per above. End of problem. > > Sorry but that is simply making the name space a single name space. It's >premise is that these various other and independent name services should be >legitimized. Either they are legitimate by being independent or they >require central coordination. Please be clear about the administrative model. Again, you are not being clear and it's hard to discern what you're talking about here. >>> Global addressing schemes need global, central coordination to assure >>>integrated and unique assignment. >> >>Amazing how the internet actually got this far wothout one so far, isn't >>it. Or is that WHY it's grown this fast, this far? > > Perhaps this is the essence of the problem with such opposition: It lacks >any awareness of the historical facts: The Internet has ALWAYS had central >authority over the name and address space. It was there in theory, but never used. The top level names in the DNS havn't changed since it's inception and it *never dictated business policy or business model*. IAHC changes all that. For the worse. One of the more onerous things to come out of this is the selection of the ITU as the depository. The ITU is mandated by it's charter to charge for insrtruemnts in it's care. You can read about this on the ITU site. Go there and you can BUY a copy of the ITU's charter. They don't give that out for free. That may be the Internet way, but it's not the ITU's way. From owner-apple Mon Jul 28 13:04:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id NAA28647 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 13:04:39 +0900 (JST) Received: from armstrong.apic.net (office-gw.apic.net [203.22.102.254]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id NAA28642 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 13:04:36 +0900 (JST) Received: from boss.apic.net (boss.apic.net [203.22.102.40]) by armstrong.apic.net (8.8.6/APIC-2.1) with SMTP id OAA23160; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:06:55 +1000 (EST) X-Org: The Asia Pacific Internet Company Pty. Ltd. X-URL: http://www.apic.net/ Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970728140953.013e5424@mail.apic.net> X-Sender: bala@mail.apic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:09:53 +1000 To: "Richard J. Sexton" From: Bala Pillai Subject: Re: FW: Why I worry about the IAHC Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 11:39 PM 7/27/97 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote: >One of the more onerous things to come out of this is the selection of the >ITU as the depository. The ITU is mandated by it's charter to charge for >insrtruemnts in it's care. You can read about this on the ITU site. Go >there and you can BUY a copy of the ITU's charter. They don't give that >out for free. That may be the Internet way, but it's not the ITU's way. Just wondering, why the on-balance-perceived-as-unfriendly-to-the-Internet ITU as a depository? Why not ISOC itself (if need be a more perceived-as-accountable-to-the-Internet-users ISOC)? And yes, whether one likes it or not, the "ITU is *only* a depository" argument does not go down well and at this stage in the game, even if this mindset is only perception, perception is what counts. I have this feeling that the Johnny-come-lately ITU is one of the biggest factors against the emergence of consensus on this issue. As always, I stand to be corrected. cheers../bala bala pillai* bala@sydney.net*the asia pacific internet co, sydney V I R T U A L C O M M U N I T Y E X P E R T S for info send blank ph:+61 2 9419 5333 fax: + 61 2 9419 5155 From owner-apple Mon Jul 28 13:29:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id NAA28871 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 13:29:09 +0900 (JST) Received: from unir.corp (root@[207.32.128.74] (may be forged)) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id NAA28866 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 13:29:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from webster.unety.net (webster.unety.net [207.32.128.58]) by unir.corp (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA08624; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 23:17:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: by webster.unety.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BC9AE4.B7FF15A0@webster.unety.net>; Sun, 27 Jul 1997 23:27:58 -0500 Message-ID: <01BC9AE4.B7FF15A0@webster.unety.net> From: Jim Fleming To: Tony Rutkowski , "'Dave Crocker / IMC'" Cc: "apple@apnic.net" Subject: RE: Why I worry about the IAHC Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 23:27:57 -0500 Encoding: 40 TEXT Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk On Sunday, July 27, 1997 9:24 PM, Dave Crocker / IMC[SMTP:dcrocker@imc.org] wrote: @ At 08:30 PM 7/27/97 -0400, Tony Rutkowski wrote: @ >> Also, IANA controls the top of the name space, not the gTLD MoU. @ >>Consequently, the gTLD MoU cannot dictate that there be no other schemes. @ > @ >The US government has controlled the namespace of the traditional @ @ This is where there is such an important difference shown between those @ with direct experience, versus those obtaining information by second-hand Let's Summarize... Dave Crocker wrote some of the old rules and he does not want to see them changed and does not want to admit that the governance structure he helped design does not scale. Tony Rutkowski was the ISOC Executive Director prior to Don Heath and he had to try to make an organization run for the best interest of the Internet using those rules. It seems to me that writing the rules is easy. What is difficult to do is to make them work. As we see, not even Don Heath is capable of making the rules work. Instead, he invented new rules. He has also promised all sorts of things and has not delivered. Remember, there were going to be registries last March... The new structures that are being put into place are working. It should not be surprising that this would frustrate the old school people. Times change and people have to move forward. I suggest that people move forward. There is still much work to do. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From owner-apple Mon Jul 28 14:32:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id OAA29541 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:32:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from unir.corp (root@[207.32.128.74] (may be forged)) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id OAA29536 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:32:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from webster.unety.net (webster.unety.net [207.32.128.58]) by unir.corp (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA08749; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 00:20:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: by webster.unety.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BC9AED.8CC3CC60@webster.unety.net>; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 00:31:11 -0500 Message-ID: <01BC9AED.8CC3CC60@webster.unety.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "apple@apnic.net" Cc: "'Donald Heath'" Subject: RE: How I learned to stop worrying and love the IAHC Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 00:31:10 -0500 Encoding: 18 TEXT Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk On Sunday, July 27, 1997 12:38 AM, Milton Mueller[SMTP:milton@usthk.ust.hk] wrote: @ @ The point is that the process of new TLD-formation could be an open @ process driven by external, entrepreneurial initiative, not a closed @ process managed internally by ISOC/IANA. @ Yes, this is what many people have been saying. You might want to ask Don Heath why he has not helped to facilitate this as the CEO of the Internet Society. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From owner-apple Mon Jul 28 15:16:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id PAA29700 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:16:53 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id PAA29692 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:16:49 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-2401.singnet.com.sg [165.21.157.85]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA16488; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:19:09 +0800 (SST) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 97 11:54:15 Subject: Re: ITU Inquiries To: Dave Crocker / IMC Cc: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Dave, Our supposed debate here seems to stem from the confusion over the word "support". I am looking at it from the legal and technical point of view of what this support was for and what was authorised (Powers of Sec Gen and organisation especially role in PoC). As far as I know and have confirmed from those who attended the Council meeting, they agreed to (supported) the role of depository, not the gTLD MOU. They supported ITU's inititve again not meaning they agree to the substance of the MoU. Council members have deferred decision on substance and will relook ITU's role in the Internet arena (and therefore Sec Gen powers to act on behalf of org on these issues) in the next Plenipotentiary conference. ...Frankly I would prefer not to pursue this discussion further Dave, since you seem to feel that you know best how the ITU works and what the delegates decided on. And since I do not claim to be an ITU expert...I rest my case. Laina RG --- On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 01:26:31 -0700 Dave Crocker / IMC wrote: The MoU provides for ITU participation in POC. As with all of the other positions from other groups naming representatives to the POC, the basis by which those representatives are chosen and the directions they are given is left to the needs and whims of the naming organizations. >Be careful who you say that too. The headlines did say "ITU Council >approves ITU's Role in Internet Top Level Domain Names" - avery broad >statement although inside details clarified it to mean only as >depository. Also Council minutes say approves "Role as depository"" Laina, I remain at a loss to understand what real and substantive concerns you are pursuing. The headline cites a fact. The primary role that the ITU holds for the MoU is as the depository. This is what we have constantly tried to point out, to one and all, in spite of the efforts by others to claim that this is all somehow an ITU conspiracy to take over the DNS. You appear to be concerned about additional, fine-grained points. I don't understand the useful purpose for raising them now. Since you have been tending to raise a distinction but not to give your reason or to state the implication, this is all getting quite confusing. There is, no doubt, a constructive point you are trying to raise, but it eludes me. The ending paragraph of your last note seems to focus on what was NOT said in the Council minutes. Given that you seemed previously to interpret what WAS said as non-support, it is not clear what benefit accrues from jumping from one view to the next. You stated that your reason for pursuing these questions was to clarify matters. Since we seem to have just spent considerable energy clarifying the question of support, it will probably help if we settle on that fact and not move so quickly to undermine it. The question of whether there was support was raised. It is clear that there was strong support expressed. There is a review in process and there is no public information to indicate how it will come out. Rumors abound, but rumors are worth the paper they are printed on. Is there anything of substance that is missing from the preceding paragraph? d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/28/97 Time: 11:54:16 AM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Mon Jul 28 15:16:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id PAA29706 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:16:55 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id PAA29697 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:16:51 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-2401.singnet.com.sg [165.21.157.85]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA05447; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:19:12 +0800 (SST) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 97 12:15:25 Subject: Re: How I learned to stop worrying and love the IAHC To: apple@apnic.net, Dave Crocker / IMC X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk --- On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 12:31:23 -0700 Dave Crocker / IMC wrote: > Global addressing schemes need global, central coordination to >assure >integrated and unique assignment. > Some degree of central coordination is required, to ensure >uniqueness. Yes, I totally agree with you that global coordination is necessary (in fact look at my papers about learning from ITU's experience or even working within ITU-T for Internet Governance issues, presented at Harvard), but I am not necessarily convinced that global control is. Why can there not be multiple competitng TLD registrars coming up with TLDs according to market demand with the one root server administrator as coordinator to ensure uniqueness, or even multiple root servers with a coordinating body to ensure uniqueness and global connectivity. Just to give an anology to frequncy allocation and orbital slot allocations (which I agree may not necessarily be a good one). It is industry and not the ITU Secretariat which files for frequency or orbital slots they need. The ITU Secretariat then acts as a coordinating body to ensure there is no harmful interference. Only in certain instances where industry needs global allocations of frequency then again, the members (not the Secretariat) meets to decide allocations. This is clearly a more market oriented structure than the one of control I see -where IANA and ISOC with veto and control functions, and with POC deicding which new TLDs to generate,right?? Laina RG ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/28/97 Time: 12:15:25 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Mon Jul 28 15:16:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id PAA29711 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:16:57 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id PAA29704 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:16:54 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-2401.singnet.com.sg [165.21.157.85]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA23699; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:19:14 +0800 (SST) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 97 12:39:19 Subject: Can we deal with issues, not defend them? To: apple@apnic.net, Dave Crocker / IMC X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk I am sorry that this issue is turning into critisms of IAHC proposals and IAHC defending them. I was hoping we could have more of an open discussion and that points raised could be considered and not defended. Anything we can do to break this thread of defensive and offensive e-mails. How about going back to some of the suggestions I made to better the process, e.g. have the POC elected by the signatories and have limited veto powers for IANA and ISOC rather than blanket control???? Curious if this will solve some of the concerns people have. Laina RG PS I also notices another issue recently that concerns me a little. The original successful applicants will become members of CORE. Future applications to be registrars will then be approved by CORE. Would this not appear to be a cartel... how can you get existing registrars to decide who gets to be a registrar and join CORE? Should it not be decided by the members, POC (elected by members) or by an independent "auditing" firm?? From owner-apple Mon Jul 28 21:03:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id VAA01372 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 21:03:17 +0900 (JST) Received: from fractal.chaos.com (fractal.chaos.com [206.5.17.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id VAA01367 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 21:03:14 +0900 (JST) Received: from [206.5.17.2] by fractal.chaos.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ua015594 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 08:05:20 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970728080519.00983180@fractal.chaos.com> X-Sender: amr@fractal.chaos.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 08:05:19 -0400 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: ITU Inquiries Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina, >since you seem to feel that you know best how the ITU works and what the >delegates decided on. And since I do not claim to be an ITU expert...I >rest my case. Of course, you were merely one of the central figures behind the scenes at the ITU through some of the most significant events of the organization in recent years; as well as several other international organizations! :-) >From an organizational standpoint, however, it is an amazing testimony to the influence of the ITU IS dept - a development which is both good and bad. cheers, --Tony From owner-apple Mon Jul 28 21:50:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id VAA01627 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 21:50:19 +0900 (JST) Received: from intelsat1.intelsat.int (intelsat1.intelsat.int [164.86.100.3]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id VAA01622 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 21:50:16 +0900 (JST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by intelsat1.intelsat.int (8.6.10/8.6.10) id IAA07188; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 08:49:09 -0400 Received: from smtpgate.adm.intelsat.int(164.86.14.240) by intelsat1 via smap (V1.3mjr) id sma018994; Mon Jul 28 07:48:49 1997 Received: from Connect2 Message Router by smtpgate.adm.intelsat.int via Connect2-SMTP 4.30A; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 08:43:53 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 08:43:00 -0400 From: ivo essenberg Reply-To: Organization: INTELSAT To: apple@apnic.net, laina@singnet.com.sg Cc: esseni@smtpgate.adm.intelsat.int (ivo essenberg) Subject: re: Can we deal with issues, not defend them? Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859" Content-disposition: inline Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Connect2-SMTP 4.30A MHS/SMF to SMTP Gateway Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina, > How about going back to some of the suggestions I made to better the > process, e.g. have the POC elected by the signatories and have limited > veto powers for IANA and ISOC rather than blanket control???? One of the problems that have to be faced in a start-up phase is that there are no (or few signatories). As I asked during the meeting in April/May in Geneva, would a POC chosen by 10-20 members of PAB have been credible? Or do you have to wait for a larger membership? I don't think changing the composition of POC every 3 months to reflect the new composition of the PAB would work. The same goes for having PAB representatives on the POC. If the 20 first signatories had chosen, as a purely hypotetical example, MCI and Digital as their representatives on the POC, would the Internet community have been happy? I don't think so. I am sure, for having talked to the members of the IAHC many times (I was their webmaster for 7 months), that the composition of POC will evolve and will reflect the wishes of the PAB. I know the members of iPOC are very much willing to get input from the PAB to improve the system. I also know many Signatories have reservations about the MoU and I am sure these will be put forward. Just give it time for a "WORKING" PAB to form. I haven't kept up with the developments on the PAB front, but in the beginning, no procedures for their work were designed, as the IAHC did NOT want to impose any such procedural rules upon the PAB. The PAB thus needed time to self-organise before it could elect representatives. I don't know if this answers your question, but I hope it helps address the concerns of many people. Kind regards, Ivo Essenberg ---------------------------------------- Advanced Programs & Systems INTELSAT 3400 International Drive NW Washington DC 20008-3098 Phone: +1-202-944-7486 Fax: +1-202-944-8211 e-mail: ivo.essenberg@intelsat.int ------------------------------------------ From owner-apple Mon Jul 28 23:56:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id XAA02728 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:56:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id XAA02719 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:56:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from slimnote (d44.netgate.net [205.214.160.78]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA05893; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970728071902.00f4f938@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 07:19:02 -0700 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: Re: How I learned to stop worrying and love the IAHC Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina, At 12:15 PM 7/28/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: >Why can there not be multiple competitng TLD registrars coming up with TLDs according to market >demand with the one root server administrator as coordinator to ensure uniqueness, or even >multiple root servers with a coordinating body to ensure uniqueness and global connectivity. You have described what I am calling the "lightweight" model, in which new TLDs are assigned (presumably) on a first-come/first-served basis. 1. You do not indicate whether these TLDs are assigned to registrars on an exclusive basis or whether they are shared. Please note my previous comments concerning the very serious and negative impact on end-users by being locked-in to a single registrar. 2. Since we do not know what the operational impact will be on the DNS if we add very many new TLDs quickly, we have an obligation to add them carefully and incrementally, as I noted previously. I will also remind you of the very serious concern over trademark policing which your legal collegues have asserted so forcefully. This means that we cannot simply open the system up to any and all requests for new TLDs. On the other hand, it is important to remember that the current addition is only the first of many. This is the FIRST seven, rather than the ONLY seven. If you know a way to satisfy these two requirements while allowing the lightweight mechanism you describe, above, I would be quite interested in seeing the detailed specification for it. Once we get past concern about the number of new names and move, instead, to the manner in which they are chosen, I will repeat that the IAHC requested that the community develop a list, but none was forthcoming. So, we developed one on our own. To the extent that the registars who initially form CORE can develop a quick consensus about a different list, I would expect that list to be approved as a replacement for the one developed by the IAHC. >allocations. This is clearly a more market oriented structure than the one of control I see >-where IANA and ISOC with veto and control functions, and with POC deicding which new TLDs to >generate,right?? The frequency allocation model is often invoked for discussions such as these. There are not all that many activities in the world which are similar to the gTLD work and frequency allocation is certainly a reasonable example to explore. One of the most important differences between the gTLD challenge and the nature of frequency allocation is operational reliability. Each frequency has a single service, unrelated to the others. As long as the basic electronic keep each user from intruding on another frequency, it does not affect the overal "system" to have one or another user's service break. In the case of the gTLD MoU effort, we are making changes to an infrastructure service that is key to the operation of the entire Internet. If we break it, we break the entire Internet. This dictates very careful actions, most especially in the area of scaling up with new names. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org From owner-apple Mon Jul 28 23:57:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id XAA02738 for apple-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:57:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id XAA02727 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:56:28 +0900 (JST) Received: from slimnote (d44.netgate.net [205.214.160.78]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA05897; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970728074040.00f4f938@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 07:40:40 -0700 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: Re: Can we deal with issues, not defend them? Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina, At 12:39 PM 7/28/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: >Anything we can do to break this thread of defensive and offensive delightful suggestion. >How about going back to some of the suggestions I made to better the >process, e.g. have the POC elected by the signatories and have limited >veto powers for IANA and ISOC rather than blanket control???? As I've said often, this is one of a great many issues that can quite reasonably be discussed. In each case the discussion is certain to be quite lengthy. If we wait for all of those discussion to happen before proceeding, we will wait a very long time, indeed. Hence, there is an operational imperative to take immediate exception only with immediate problems and to pursue other issues as part of the evolutionary process designed in to the gTLD MoU. To decide whether there is an operational imperative, one must ask what critical problem will be fixed? What misbehavior in the current system is being demonstrated? As I noted, there are an infinite number of things to challenge and criticize in any complex design and the gTLD MoU is no exception. As a consequence, there needs to be a compelling basis for any particular criticism or challenge. In any event, the specific problem with requiring that PAB elect all of the POC, at this stage, is that PAB is formative. It is only just becoming an organized group with its own structure and processes. The nature of the specification process we took for the gTLD MoU was to defer any matter of risk we could. Relying on selection to be done from a nascent organization is inherently risky. >Curious if this will solve some of the concerns people have. For every aspect of the gTLD MoU, there is some constuency which is opposed. In general, I have been quite impressed with the desires of critics to ignore the need for overall balance -- and the difficulty of achieving it -- and, instead, to focus on one specific complaint or another. >PS I also notices another issue recently that concerns me a little. The >original successful applicants will become members of CORE. Future >applications to be registrars will then be approved by CORE. Would this Addition of registrars is controlled by POC, not CORE. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org From owner-apple Tue Jul 29 01:20:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id BAA04027 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 01:20:05 +0900 (JST) Received: from unir.corp (root@[207.32.128.74] (may be forged)) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id BAA04022 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 01:20:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from webster.unety.net (webster.unety.net [207.32.128.58]) by unir.corp (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA10833 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:08:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: by webster.unety.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BC9B48.080C36A0@webster.unety.net>; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:18:53 -0500 Message-ID: <01BC9B48.080C36A0@webster.unety.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'apple@apnic.net'" Subject: Shared vs. Exclusive TLDs Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:18:52 -0500 Encoding: 197 TEXT Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk One of the F.U.D arguments about TLD registries is that people are locked in. If you look at the way DNS works eventually people have to be locked in because their information has to go into a data base. Some company or group has to manage that data base. The IAHC based much of their plan (which has still not been implemented) on this F.U.D. and sold it to people that did not understand how the Registry Industry will develop. Here is a posting from last year that discusses why the shared vs. exclusive issue is not a big deal. The model below is playing itself out. NSI is developing channel partners as "premium ISPs". While this has been happening, the IAHC plan has not yielded any new TLDs or registries. Jim Fleming ==== ---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming@unety.net.] Sent: Friday, November 22, 1996 2:02 PM To: 'Multiple recipients of list DOMAIN-POLICY' Cc: 'New Newdom' Subject: Shared vs. Exclusive TLDs Many people have spent a lot of time debating and discussing the pros and cons of "shared" vs. "exclusive" Top Level Domains. Most of that discussion seems to come from technical people who have a strong jealousy factor and are primarily looking at how much money an EXCLUSIVE TLD registry will make, when they should be looking at market forces and the realities of the.... ...SHARED business world... ====== It is disturbing that these highly-vocal, technical people do not seem to have a grasp of how "exclusive" Top Level Domains will essentially become "shared" (which is what they claim they want) IF true market forces are ALLOWED to happen. Here is my opinion as to what will happen if these jealous technical people, who do not seem to have registry resources to make anything happen, would stop *helping* to prevent the Top Level Domain market from developing. (Actually, people need to stop "allowing" them to prevent progress) 1. A top level domain has to be "invented" and claimed by someone, it does not just develop because of spontaneous combustion. That claim has to include the ability and follow through, with public proof, of facilities, servers, networks, support people, etc. This is called "reduction to practice in the patent arena". All these fears about people with wireless lap-tops, dreaming up a TLD, claiming exclusive rights, and operating a registry out of the back seat of their car, without lifting a finger, is nonsense, and is delaying the Top Level Domain market. People need to move past that and focus on the *few* companies that are making Top Level Domains happen, now. 2. Once a Top Level Domain is adopted by some organization and is also adopted by the owners of the Root Name Servers, the organization will make the investments needed to operate a Registry. This is required because someone has to keep the central database of authority information for that Top Level Domain. Yes, that data base can be distributed and shared, but ultimately, someone has to be responsible for the contents and the accuracy of the contents. People are going to pay for that central authority to do a good job. How much they are going to pay will go DOWN, as more Top Level Domains become common. Supply and demand dictates this free market phenomenon. If technical people do not understand supply and demand, I suggest they take a course in Economics. 3. Once established, a Top Level Domain registry will have to develop a DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL, a sales force, a means to "funnel" customers to that registry. In the current Internet, the InterNIC is fortunate to have thousands of ISPs who act as "agents" and sell domain names for the InterNIC. The InterNIC currently does not pay those ISP agents a commission but in a FREE market system, commissions and other typical business fees will become a reality. This type of evolution will result in an "exclusive" TLD becoming "shared". Any TLD Registry with the qualifications to become a viable registry is going to recognize the need to reach out and develop channels. If they do not develop channels and "share" the wealth, then they will not grow past some minimal level, and other TLDs will gain more of the market share. In the end, market "share" is everything and in order to gain market share, a company has to "share". 4. Channel development will not be free (low cost) and the agents and agencies operating in the "shared" management of the Top Level Domain, will want THEIR piece of the pie. If they are not given any piece of the pie, and another TLD registry does share their pie, then agents (ISPs) and other people, who make up the channel, will gravitate to those TLD registries who do share the pie. 5. Based on what the Free Market is willing to pay, the size of the pie will be determined. This will be a dynamic process. If the pie is set at $50 per name per year from the consumer, then some small percentage of that will go to the "exclusive" registry operator and a larger percentage will go to the *channel* (the distributors, agents, sales people, ISPs, etc.). As the industry matures, pieces of the pie will be distributed to more and more players. In the face of competition, the "exclusive" registry operator will have to be careful about how many people are sharing the pie, but that is what all businesses have to face each day. Obviously, if more people want (or demand) pieces of the pie and the pie is exhausted, then the "exclusive" registry will cease to exist. The checks and balances (no pun intended) of the system have to be allowed to come into play. If people are not willing to trust the Free Market system then, no TLDs should be created, those that do exist should be turned off, ISPs might as well pull their plugs, and we can all call it a day. 6. Just as in the Travel industry, some registries may elect to make it easy for their Channel Partners to register consumers. After all, the easier it is for agencies to sign people up, the more business that generates. How these systems evolve and who pays for these systems is not needed to create new Top Level Domains at this time. That evolution should be left to the Free Market forces and will likely take years to fully mature. (As an aside, United Airlines did not start flying planes AFTER thousands of travel agents were deployed in small offices around the world, if they had waited for such an elaborate system, then no one would be flying today) 7. Finally, Root Name Server operators are going to be needed to support the TLD Registries and in order to continue to maintain the support of the Root Name Server operators, Top Level Domain Registries will have to PAY to be registered in the Root Name Servers. This will be yet another slice of that pie. How much of that pie ? No one can tell. That will probably depend on how badly the Top Level Domain Registry wants to be registered in a particular Root Name Server or confederation of Root Name Servers. That of course will depend on which ISPs use those Root Name Servers and how many customers those ISPs have. Again, the Free Market system should be allowed to set these amounts. In summary, an "exclusive" Top Level Domain Registry is going to find itself in the middle of a Free Market system where it has to divide the pie that it hopes to bake. It will only be able to do this via "sharing" and via the development of standard business relationships that exist in EVERY other industry on the planet, TV, Radio, Travel, Music, Software, Education, Banking, etc., etc., etc. I think that business people are getting very impatient watching a bunch of jealous, technical people trying to manipulate Free Market systems to their economic and intellectual advantage. It is time for business people to assemble and to get on with the creation of the business of the Top Level Domains. If people interfere with the investments that business people make, or attempt to undermine those businesses, then that has to be brought to the attention of the proper authorities who have been mandated by the people to deal with such violations of the law. Once again, as in the past, I suggest that people focus on the wide-spread deployment of commercial Root Name Servers. With commercial Root Name Servers operated by the business community, ISPs will have a stable platform to use to obtain essential Top Level Domain information. Top Level Domain Registries can then use those Root Name Servers to direct ISP customers to their TLD Name Servers. ISPs will be able to use these TLD Registries as alternatives to obtain domain names for their customers. Customers will enjoy a wider number of choices and everyone will "share" in the progress. Just because something starts with the "exclusive" idea of one individual or company, does not mean that it will not be "shared". -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming@unety.net JimFleming@unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From owner-apple Tue Jul 29 01:26:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id BAA04079 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 01:26:51 +0900 (JST) Received: from unir.corp (root@[207.32.128.74] (may be forged)) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id BAA04074 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 01:26:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from webster.unety.net (webster.unety.net [207.32.128.58]) by unir.corp (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA10850 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:15:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: by webster.unety.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BC9B48.FB97A020@webster.unety.net>; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:25:42 -0500 Message-ID: <01BC9B48.FB97A020@webster.unety.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'apple@apnic.net'" Subject: Movements vs. Plans Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:25:40 -0500 Encoding: 23 TEXT Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk The TLD Registry Industry is a "movement" not a "plan".... People keep asking for a plan, probably so that they can pick it apart. What people do not realize is that the plan is all around them and it is a movement and can not be documented with precision. The combination of direction setting by many people and the recording of history (hopefully accurate) will help to see the plan that is directing the movement. No one person has that plan. It is as if we all have a piece of a treasure map and we have to put the pieces together to see the plan...and when we do we become a movement... It is a shame that some people are stuck with their "plan" and they have not produced any results...that is not the fault of the people caught in the TLD Registry Industry movement...that movement waits for no person...or group... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From owner-apple Tue Jul 29 02:36:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id CAA04719 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 02:36:51 +0900 (JST) Received: from armstrong.apic.net (office-gw.apic.net [203.22.102.254]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id CAA04714 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 02:36:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from boss.apic.net (boss.apic.net [203.22.102.40]) by armstrong.apic.net (8.8.6/APIC-2.1) with SMTP id DAA22352 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 03:39:08 +1000 (EST) X-Org: The Asia Pacific Internet Company Pty. Ltd. X-URL: http://www.apic.net/ Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970729034145.00d34390@mail.apic.net> X-Sender: bala@mail.apic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 03:41:45 +1000 To: apple@apnic.net From: Bala Pillai Subject: AU/ISP: United Internet Industry Body Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk **forwarded message** From: Paul Montgomery Organization: APN Computing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) To: Link Discussion List , Aussie ISP Subject: [Oz-ISP] INTIAA & AIA have merged Sender: majordomo-owner@koala.aussie.net Reply-To: aussie-isp@aussie.net I am amazed that this has not come out by now, but I thought it would be good for ppl to know about the creation of the Australian Internet Council. I presume that the fact that there has been no Internet publishing of this information by the parties involved is simply an oversight. This is a story that will appear in PC Week Australia on August 1. One fact I did not mention in the story, but is perhaps more germane to these lists (sorry for X-posting), is that ISOC-AU were not invited to join, although Richard Cousins said in the press conference that they would be. Further info is included after the story. ___________________________________________________ ISP BODY TO FIGHT NET TAXES Merger of the INTIAA with the AIA strengthens the e-commerce lobby By Paul Montgomery A new peak industry council for Internet service providers will lobby government to ease regulations on “sex and tax” laws. The Australian Internet Council was formed this week as a merger of the Internet Industry Association of Australia (INTIAA) and the Australian Internet Alliance (AIA), which had represented the high and low ends of the ISP industry, respectively. One of the first duties of the AIC will be to lobby for free Internet trade at a summit with the Australian Tax Office. The merger is a strengthening of ISPs’ lobbying power in response to attacks on the Internet industry by government. These include the recent Senate committee recommendations on pornography for a costly censorship regime for online content, and the prospect of taxation on e-commerce. Richard Cousins, president of INTIAA, said both of the merged bodies had had a dialogue with government over several months on issues of pornography and taxation, holding regular meetings. The Tax Office summit comes at a time when the US government is saying it will not tax e-commerce transactions, putting pressure on other countries to follow suit. “Our concerns are to what extent Australian companies may lose out if we have a different tax regime here. If there are to be barriers in the way of e-commerce, we’ll be opposed to that,” Cousins said. “If the US is going to have a free trade zone, it will be very difficult for Australia to make a stand [on the issue].” Mark Hughes, spokesman for corporate e-commerce representative body Tradegate/ECA, said it was a valuable move. "I say good luck to it. It will be a consistent voice and be able to put ISPs’ views on content and taxation issues to the government." The merger follows a period of industry uncertainty. The AIA, which boasted 166 small ISPs as members, was formed in March in response to the threat of timed local data calls. “At the time, there was a need for representation, and it was felt that INTIAA was not doing its job. That was more a misunderstanding than anything else,” said Kevin Dinn, AIA president. “The AIC is much more reasonable, because with the board structure, the smaller ISPs can have a say.” The board will consist of four groups of three members of discrete sizes, based on revenue, plus an executive director. The Western Australian and South Australian Internet Associations will become associate members of the AIC. _________________________________________________ That's the end of the printed story. I've got some more info I couldn't fit in on the page. The membership fee structure is to be tiered, with four categories of membership paying different fees, from $250 to $20,000 according to Richard Cousins, although none of this is set in concrete. The former corporate members of intiaa will become members of AIC. I haven't seen anything on paper, but I ***think*** that mean nine ISP reps, three corporate and the one executive director, but I could be wrong and the companies might not have seats at all. That's all I've got in my notes, and I'm sure what is here will be set out in full in an official AIC release sooner or later. Just thought the inevitable debate should get off to an early start. ;-) -- Paul Montgomery, Net Journalist for PC WEEK AUSTRALIA (Computer Week) E: monty@apnpc.com.au Tel: +61 2 9936 8793 Fax: +61 2 9955 8871 --------------------------------------------------------------------- It's never over, she's the tear that hangs inside my soul forever. JB forwarded by:- bala pillai* bala@sydney.net*the asia pacific internet co, sydney V I R T U A L C O M M U N I T Y E X P E R T S for info send blank ph:+61 2 9419 5333 fax: + 61 2 9419 5155 From owner-apple Tue Jul 29 16:33:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id QAA10733 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 16:33:39 +0900 (JST) Received: from uxmail.ust.hk (root@uxmail.ust.hk [143.89.14.30]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id QAA10727 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 16:33:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from mmueller.ust.hk ([143.89.231.15]) by uxmail.ust.hk with SMTP id <103392-27074>; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 15:36:30 +0800 Message-ID: <33DD905C.3C57@usthk.ust.hk> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 15:40:28 +0900 From: Milton Mueller Reply-To: milton@usthk.ust.hk X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Fleming CC: "'apple@apnic.net'" Subject: Re: Shared vs. Exclusive TLDs References: <01BC9B48.080C36A0@webster.unety.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Jim: This is the most constructive contribution to this discussion I've seen yet. Thanks for passing it along. An additional question: Can the IAHC (the so-called gTLD MoU) be implemented in such a way that ensures that it is "just another TLD company" and does not have any privileged status? The description of existing ISPs as unwitting and unpaid "agents" of InterNIC was illuminating, but as long as this continues InterNIC's dominance is self-reinforcing. What are the commercial prospects of new TLDs under these circumstances? Jim Fleming wrote: > > From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming@unety.net.] > Sent: Friday, November 22, 1996 2:02 PM > To: 'Multiple recipients of list DOMAIN-POLICY' > Cc: 'New Newdom' > Subject: Shared vs. Exclusive TLDs > From owner-apple Tue Jul 29 17:01:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id RAA10988 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 17:01:15 +0900 (JST) Received: from uxmail.ust.hk (root@uxmail.ust.hk [143.89.14.30]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id RAA10982 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 17:01:09 +0900 (JST) Received: from mmueller.ust.hk ([143.89.231.15]) by uxmail.ust.hk with SMTP id <103376-27074>; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 16:04:02 +0800 Message-ID: <33DD96D8.19A5@usthk.ust.hk> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 16:08:08 +0900 From: Milton Mueller Reply-To: milton@usthk.ust.hk X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apple@apnic.net Subject: Re: How I learned to stop worrying and love the IAHC References: <3.0.1.32.19970728071902.00f4f938@imc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Dave Crocker / IMC wrote: > 2. Since we do not know what the operational impact will be on the DNS if > we add very many new TLDs quickly, we have an obligation to add them > carefully and incrementally, as I noted previously. I find this claim rather disingenuous. The IANA in 1987 decided to add 200 new TLDs at one stroke. They are called ISO-3166 codes. This truly bizarre coding scheme gives the Northern Mariana Islands (code: MP!?!) the same status as the Peoples Republic of China. The list also includes many countries who have been insufficiently developed to even have registrations. It's obvious that in operational terms, the current system has been gradually ADDING new TLDs to the list all the time, probably at a rate of much more than 7 per year. Question: what convoluted logic gives someone in the Heard and MacDonald Islands (code: HM) a "right" to a TLD but denies one to a real, competitive Internet service provider with a cool idea and thousands of willing customers? > I will also remind you > of the very serious concern over trademark policing which your legal > collegues have asserted so forcefully. This means that we cannot simply > open the system up to any and all requests for new TLDs. On the other > hand, it is important to remember that the current addition is only the > first of many. This is the FIRST seven, rather than the ONLY seven. Those "very serious concerns" are you know are the subject of intense legal and policy controversy. In my opinion, granting additional requests for TLDs is the best way to combat the irrational and irresponsible attempts to assert that textual identity = trademark infringement. From owner-apple Tue Jul 29 21:29:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id VAA12290 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 21:29:52 +0900 (JST) Received: from jakarta.regex.com (jakarta.regex.com [207.106.122.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id VAA12285 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 21:29:49 +0900 (JST) Received: (qmail 14386 invoked from network); 29 Jul 1997 12:21:23 -0000 Received: from yapcs-r2.iscs.nus.sg (HELO yapcs-r2) (137.132.85.230) by tjt.or.id with SMTP; 29 Jul 1997 12:21:23 -0000 Message-ID: <33DDE263.74E3F3B4@tjt.or.id> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 20:30:27 +0800 From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" Organization: VLSM-TJT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; Linux 2.0.29 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apple@apnic.net Subject: Re: Shared vs. Exclusive TLDs References: <01BC9B48.080C36A0@webster.unety.net> <33DD905C.3C57@usthk.ust.hk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Milton Mueller wrote: > Jim: > This is the most constructive contribution to this > discussion I've seen yet. Thanks for passing it along. IMHO: Most of Jim's contributions *ARE* usually constructive, however: - they are not always practical - some of them are in "re-run" mode that drive a certain "cult" crazy Anyway, (1) what is APPLE nowadays anyway ? (2) is it just an e-pub to chat ? (3) do we have any goals ? (4) it seems that there are more voices from outside the AP region? (5) how is APIA going on ? (6) any idea about what will happen with RFC-2050 ? Greetings from Bukit Gombak, lah! -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - CEO VLSM-TJT - http://www.tjt.or.id/rms46 ORGANIZING: How can I know what I think until I see what I say?[KW] From owner-apple Tue Jul 29 21:36:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id VAA12358 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 21:36:51 +0900 (JST) Received: from jakarta.regex.com (jakarta.regex.com [207.106.122.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id VAA12353 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 21:36:48 +0900 (JST) Received: (qmail 14452 invoked from network); 29 Jul 1997 12:28:31 -0000 Received: from yapcs-r2.iscs.nus.sg (HELO yapcs-r2) (137.132.85.230) by tjt.or.id with SMTP; 29 Jul 1997 12:28:31 -0000 Message-ID: <33DDE408.7284F8CA@tjt.or.id> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 20:37:40 +0800 From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" Organization: VLSM-TJT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; Linux 2.0.29 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apple@apnic.net Subject: Re: How I learned to stop worrying and love the IAHC References: <3.0.1.32.19970728071902.00f4f938@imc.org> <33DD96D8.19A5@usthk.ust.hk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Milton Mueller wrote: > They are called ISO-3166 codes. BTW: Some years ago, I did some research on ISO-3166. One of my findings was that they *ARE* actually not country codes, but "region"/"territory" codes. The ISO-3166 office in Berlin is not related with any international agent, however, they follow the UN definition of "region"/"territory". tabe, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - CEO VLSM-TJT - http://www.tjt.or.id/rms46 ORGANIZING: How can I know what I think until I see what I say?[KW] From owner-apple Tue Jul 29 22:03:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id WAA12616 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 22:03:28 +0900 (JST) Received: from fractal.chaos.com (fractal.chaos.com [206.5.17.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id WAA12610 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 22:03:23 +0900 (JST) Received: from [206.5.17.2] by fractal.chaos.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ea015682 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:05:40 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970729090539.00981a80@fractal.chaos.com> X-Sender: amr@fractal.chaos.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:05:39 -0400 To: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: How I learned to stop worrying and love the IAHC Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: <33DDE408.7284F8CA@tjt.or.id> References: <3.0.1.32.19970728071902.00f4f938@imc.org> <33DD96D8.19A5@usthk.ust.hk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Rahmat, >One of my findings was that they *ARE* actually not country >codes, but "region"/"territory" codes. >The ISO-3166 office in Berlin is not related with any >international agent, however, they follow the UN definition >of "region"/"territory". This is worth underscoring. the ISO is a private international organization (as opposed to an intergovernmental organization) that produces all kinds of identifiers for those maintaining information systems, and there isn't any defined legal binding with countries. Where it gets confused is that other organizations such as the ITU use the identifiers and do bind the them to countries in the context of their use under ITU treaty instruments for telecommunication networks and services. cheers, --Tony From owner-apple Tue Jul 29 23:52:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id XAA13726 for apple-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 23:52:32 +0900 (JST) Received: from unir.corp (root@[207.32.128.74] (may be forged)) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id XAA13720 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 23:52:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from webster.unety.net (webster.unety.net [207.32.128.58]) by unir.corp (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA14588; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:13:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: by webster.unety.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BC9C01.29F42DE0@webster.unety.net>; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:24:07 -0500 Message-ID: <01BC9C01.29F42DE0@webster.unety.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'milton@usthk.ust.hk'" Cc: "'apple@apnic.net'" Subject: RE: Shared vs. Exclusive TLDs Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:24:05 -0500 Encoding: 99 TEXT Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk On Tuesday, July 29, 1997 1:40 AM, Milton Mueller[SMTP:milton@usthk.ust.hk] wrote: @ Jim: @ This is the most constructive contribution to this @ discussion I've seen yet. Thanks for passing it along. @ @ An additional question: @ Can the IAHC (the so-called gTLD MoU) be implemented @ in such a way that ensures that it is "just another TLD @ company" and does not have any privileged status? @ As I have pointed out in the past, the ISOC/IAHC appears to the various Root Name Server Confederations as "just another TLD company". What is amazing is that the various Root Name Server Confederations have cut more slack to the ISOC/IAHC "company" than would ever be cut to a company walking in fresh. As an example, the eDNS Root Name Server Confederation actually "reserved" the non-conflicting TLDs that the ISOC/IAHC selected...as a professional courtesy for a few months....that was back in March...and of course the ISOC/IAHC has not followed through with their proposals. Any other "company" would have been tarred, feathered, and run out of town if they announced that they intend to start registries and ended up with nothing in place. That has not happened to the ISOC/IAHC. Instead, people have made excuses and now their only hope appears to be a U.S. Government bail-out where everything gets pushed under the rug. @ The description of existing ISPs as unwitting and unpaid @ "agents" of InterNIC was illuminating, but as long as this @ continues InterNIC's dominance is self-reinforcing. What are @ the commercial prospects of new TLDs under these @ circumstances? @ You have to separate InterNIC from NSI, they are not the same. In fact, AT&T has the registered trademark for the word "InterNIC". AT&T also is the NSF contractor for the Data Base Services (DS) part of the InterNIC. In theory, they control the data bases. NSI was just supposed to be the Registration Services (RS) part. They have expanded to fill all open opportunities. As an update on the ISPs as agents.... NSI has been recruiting ISPs as part of their own channel marketing program. There is more information on their web site. In my opinion, the commercial prospects of new TLDs have not been better. Some of the companies that made large investments in these areas are still on hold waiting for the U.S. Government to finish their investigations and to make some decisions. The only technical decision they can make is to remove their Root Name Servers from commercial use. This will make it clear to ISPs that the U.S. Government is no longer involved. NSI and USC/ISI have put new Root Name Servers in place in case this happens. The NSI plan to the NSF also indicates that they will be putting new servers in place for .COM, .NET and .ORG. That has not happened because those TLDs are still supported on the Legacy Root Name Servers. When the U.S. Government pulls out, the private sector will have to step in to fill the opportunities that are created. NSI has been handed a huge lead on a silver platter and which is likely part of the reason that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating their activities which will have to include USC/ISI. NSI funds the .US domain operated by Jon Postel....the IANA... Also...Jon Postel helped NSI obtain the InterNIC contract... October 1992 Modified NSI Proposal "Network Solutions believes NSF's objectives will be met most effectively by the award of the bulk of the services to a single contractor." "Network Solutions proposes Mr. Jon Postel as the IANA Manager and Chairman of the Advisory Panel for the NREN NIS Manager project. He will provide services as an employee of USC's Information Sciences Institute (ISI), subcontractor to Network Solutions." ======= -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From owner-apple Wed Jul 30 00:26:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id AAA14395 for apple-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 00:26:18 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA14390 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 00:26:13 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-2412.singnet.com.sg [165.21.157.96]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA26837; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 23:28:33 +0800 (SST) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 97 23:16:58 Subject: Re: Shared vs. Exclusive TLDs To: apple@apnic.net, "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Thanks Rahmat for the "putting into perspective question". Yes, I was hoping for more AP input when I threw out thoughts and questions for discussions. I am trying to compile AP views on the IAHC and therefore started throwing off ideas hoping others would follow. As for your questions. (1) APPLe is supposed to be a mailing list to exchange information and obtain clarifications from persons in the know, so as to better inform ourselves on what is going on out there. We currently have about 300 persons on the list. (2)Is there any goals- to help bring people and ideas together. Part of this goal includes having a face to face meeting once a year on useful topics, much as was done in Montreal and HK. (3) In line with APIA, there will separetly be an apple-apia list to focus on industry specific issues, for APIA members only. Work is currently underway to put together information briefing papers, and regulatory and policy databases for members as well. As this is an unmoderated list, (I merely act as facilitator), I cannot stop the flow of hidden agendas and debates from elsewhere. If anyone feels it is too much, feel free to stop it with messages such as this and perhaps even offer some suggestions on how we can move forward constructively. Thanks. Laina RG --- On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 20:30:27 +0800 "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" wrote: Milton Mueller wrote: > Jim: > This is the most constructive contribution to this > discussion I've seen yet. Thanks for passing it along. IMHO: Most of Jim's contributions *ARE* usually constructive, however: - they are not always practical - some of them are in "re-run" mode that drive a certain "cult" crazy Anyway, (1) what is APPLE nowadays anyway ? (2) is it just an e-pub to chat ? (3) do we have any goals ? (4) it seems that there are more voices from outside the AP region? (5) how is APIA going on ? (6) any idea about what will happen with RFC-2050 ? Greetings from Bukit Gombak, lah! -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - CEO VLSM-TJT - http://www.tjt.or.id/rms46 ORGANIZING: How can I know what I think until I see what I say?[KW] -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/29/97 Time: 11:16:59 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Wed Jul 30 13:55:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id NAA00612 for apple-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 13:55:23 +0900 (JST) Received: from uxmail.ust.hk (root@uxmail.ust.hk [143.89.14.30]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id NAA00607 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 13:55:08 +0900 (JST) Received: from mmueller.ust.hk ([143.89.231.19]) by uxmail.ust.hk with SMTP id <102453-18385>; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 12:24:23 +0800 Message-ID: <33DEB4DB.5952@usthk.ust.hk> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 12:28:27 +0900 From: Milton Mueller Reply-To: milton@usthk.ust.hk X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Crocker / IMC CC: apple@apnic.net Subject: Re: How I learned to stop worrying and love the IAHC References: <3.0.1.32.19970728071902.00f4f938@imc.org> <3.0.1.32.19970729190513.006e30c0@imc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Dave: Thank you for confirming my observation about the technical feasibility of adding larger numbers of TLDs. Always good when one can get someone with your technical expertise to clear up an issue like this. Dave Crocker / IMC wrote: > To be honest, though, there is no concern for adding up to 30 and not much > forceful concern over adding 100. The primary reason this first round of > gTLD additions is as small as seven, rather than 30, is trademark policy, > as has been described a number of times. > Milton Mueller From owner-apple Wed Jul 30 17:23:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id RAA03162 for apple-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 17:23:53 +0900 (JST) Received: from callandor.cybercash.com (callandor.cybercash.com [204.178.186.70]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id RAA03156 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 17:23:48 +0900 (JST) Received: by callandor.cybercash.com; id VAA03680; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 21:37:11 -0400 Received: from unknown(172.16.2.62) by callandor.cybercash.com via smap (3.2) id xmaa03671; Tue, 29 Jul 97 21:36:53 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970729190513.006e30c0@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 19:05:13 -0700 To: milton@usthk.ust.hk From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: Re: How I learned to stop worrying and love the IAHC Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: <33DD96D8.19A5@usthk.ust.hk> References: <3.0.1.32.19970728071902.00f4f938@imc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Milton, At 04:08 PM 7/29/97 +0900, Milton Mueller wrote: >Dave Crocker / IMC wrote: > >> 2. Since we do not know what the operational impact will be on the DNS if >> we add very many new TLDs quickly, we have an obligation to add them >> carefully and incrementally, as I noted previously. > >I find this claim rather disingenuous. The IANA in 1987 decided to add >200 new TLDs at one stroke. They are called ISO-3166 codes. This truly We could, perhaps, trade information about each other's basis and experience for making or judging operations decisions, but please be very clear that my own assessment is made neither easily nor lightly. In other words, contrary to your assessment, the claim is quite genuine. May I suggest that before dismissing it so casually and forcefully, you make at least a modicum of effort to understand it. Reasoned debate warrants at least SOME effort by both parties to achieve a mutual understanding. Now to the content: The Internet is 10 years older than it was in 1987. Given that it has doubled in size every 13 months, that means that the loads and dynamics to the current Internet are far, far different than they were 10 years ago. Perhaps more importantly, the 1987 Internet was still viewed as being a research and education tool. Today it is a global communications infrastructure. What was appropriate then is not necessarily appropriate now. >bizarre coding scheme gives the Northern Mariana Islands (code: MP!?!) >the same status as the Peoples Republic of China. The list also includes Milton, please explain why you think that a portion of the Internet naming scheme should give preference to one country over another. (I'm sure the readers of the apple list will be particularly interested in this answer.) While you are at it, please describe an alternate, superior scheme that you are recommending. Remember that it is always easy to criticize a plan and far more difficult to specify reasonable alternatives, and especially difficult to support the idea with detail. >system has been gradually ADDING new TLDs to the list all the time, >probably at a rate of much more than 7 per year. Indeed, this means that we know that 7 (or so) per year is not a problem and we don't know that more is not a problem. To be honest, though, there is no concern for adding up to 30 and not much forceful concern over adding 100. The primary reason this first round of gTLD additions is as small as seven, rather than 30, is trademark policy, as has been described a number of times. >Question: what convoluted logic gives someone in the Heard and MacDonald >Islands (code: HM) a "right" to a TLD but denies one to a real, >competitive >Internet service provider with a cool idea and thousands of willing >customers? I guess this will come as a surprise to you, but countries and governments have a different status in the world than do ISPs. Less glibly, let me point out that the ISO country code scheme is quite well-defined and bounded. The gTLD portion of the name space is entirely ill-defined. There is no obvious bound to the number and there is no obvious theory to the creation of names. This suggests being very careful about additions to it. Or, perhaps, you have a specification for gTLD name selection to offer? >Those "very serious concerns" are you know are the subject of intense >legal and policy controversy. In my opinion, granting additional >requests >for TLDs is the best way to combat the irrational and irresponsible >attempts to assert that textual identity = trademark infringement. Mostly, I agree with you, but that doesn't mean you or I or the gTLD MoU can ignore those concerns. Trademark attorneys are, after all, attorneys and it is quite dangerous to ignore a well-organized, powerful constituency of lawyers. -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org From owner-apple Wed Jul 30 22:27:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id WAA04750 for apple-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 22:27:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from jakarta.regex.com (jakarta.regex.com [207.106.122.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id WAA04742 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 22:26:58 +0900 (JST) Received: (qmail 27548 invoked from network); 30 Jul 1997 13:18:42 -0000 Received: from yapcs-r2.iscs.nus.sg (HELO yapcs-r2) (137.132.85.230) by tjt.or.id with SMTP; 30 Jul 1997 13:18:42 -0000 Message-ID: <33DF415B.69DB815F@tjt.or.id> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 21:27:55 +0800 From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" Organization: VLSM-TJT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; Linux 2.0.29 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apple@apnic.net Subject: Re: How I learned to stop worrying and love the IAHC References: <3.0.1.32.19970728071902.00f4f938@imc.org> <3.0.1.32.19970729190513.006e30c0@imc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Dave Crocker / IMC wrote: > Milton, please explain why you think that a portion of the > Internet naming scheme should give preference to one country > over another. Dear all: Please explain why you (may) think that 1.2 billion entities should be squeezed in a same space as the one of a couple of thousand entities ? Is it because of the "first come first served" paradigm ? cheers, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - CEO VLSM-TJT - http://www.tjt.or.id/rms46 ORGANIZING: How can I know what I think until I see what I say?[KW] From owner-apple Wed Jul 30 23:42:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id XAA05341 for apple-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 23:42:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from fractal.chaos.com (fractal.chaos.com [206.5.17.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id XAA05336 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 23:42:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from [206.5.17.2] by fractal.chaos.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ua015750 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 10:45:07 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970730104507.00987e90@fractal.chaos.com> X-Sender: amr@fractal.chaos.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 10:45:07 -0400 To: apple@apnic.net From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Useful reference tables Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Two new reference tables have been created. The INTERNET DNS HISTORICAL TIMELINE presents a timeline- style chronology, official actions and statistics plus other meetings and events occurring between the DNS's inception in 1985 and today. See DOMAIN NAME SERVICE AND PRODUCT PROVIDERS presents a listing of all existing and new companies, agencies, and organizations in the DNS Services and Product market, with URLs. National registration providers are omitted. See Information about any additions is appreciated. cheers, --Tony From owner-apple Wed Jul 30 23:57:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id XAA05402 for apple-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 23:57:18 +0900 (JST) Received: from unir.corp (root@[207.32.128.74] (may be forged)) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id XAA05396 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 23:57:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from webster.unety.net (webster.unety.net [207.32.128.58]) by unir.corp (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA17674; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:45:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: by webster.unety.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BC9CCE.C574E660@webster.unety.net>; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:55:54 -0500 Message-ID: <01BC9CCE.C574E660@webster.unety.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'Dave Crocker / IMC'" , "milton@usthk.ust.hk" Cc: "apple@apnic.net" , "'Multiple recipients of list DOMAIN-POLICY'" , "'newdom@ar.com'" Subject: Trademark Policy ? Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:55:53 -0500 Encoding: 39 TEXT Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk On Tuesday, July 29, 1997 9:05 PM, Dave Crocker / IMC[SMTP:dcrocker@imc.org] wrote: @ Milton, @ @ At 04:08 PM 7/29/97 +0900, Milton Mueller wrote: @ @ >system has been gradually ADDING new TLDs to the list all the time, @ >probably at a rate of much more than 7 per year. @ @ Indeed, this means that we know that 7 (or so) per year is not a problem @ and we don't know that more is not a problem. @ @ To be honest, though, there is no concern for adding up to 30 and not much @ forceful concern over adding 100. The primary reason this first round of @ gTLD additions is as small as seven, rather than 30, is trademark policy, @ as has been described a number of times. @ "trademark policy" ? Which policy would that be ? Is that what the trademark lawyers brought to the IAHC ? Did the ISOC guarantee the big companies and major religions that they would develop a plan that would make sure that top level domains like....SUN, MOON and MARS would never be allowed....???? BTW... How much do companies pay each year in ISOC membership fees ? also... Which companies do the various attorneys that control the iPOC represent ? Are they being paid to make sure the companies they represent do not have their trademarks turned into TLDs...unless of course, they want to... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From owner-apple Thu Jul 31 00:44:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id AAA06537 for apple-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:44:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA06531 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:44:26 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina.singnet.com.sg (ts900-6601.singnet.com.sg [165.21.164.21]) by mallow.singnet.com.sg (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA21245; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 23:46:44 +0800 (SST) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 97 23:29:21 Subject: RE: Trademark Policy ? To: "'Dave Crocker / IMC'" , "milton@usthk.ust.hk" , Jim Fleming Cc: "apple@apnic.net" , "'Multiple recipients of list DOMAIN-POLICY'" , "'newdom@ar.com'" X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Much as it sounds like a sarcastic question, it is something I have wondered about too. The way the IAHC proposal is set up now, is that: (1) all CORE Registrars have to agree to put disputes over domain names to the Administrative Challenge Panels and the WIPO Centre, and have to make their SLD applicants sign a contract that they will do so as well. They also agree to abide by decisions made. (2) The Adminsitrative Challenge Panel is then set up to implement the policy about alphanumeric strings which are similar to "internationally known" marks. Under the Substantive Guidelines of the ACP if a mark is registered in 45 countries or more in 4 geopgraphical zones, it is presumed to be "internationally known" (Note: How many small trademark holders can prove this???) Once proven as such, then the challenger can get the domain names he challenges removed, and all Registrars and their applicants have to abide by this decision. if a mark is registered in 75 countries or more, it is presumed to be "globally known" and it can ask for exclusion of its name from all TLDs!!! (again, prtoecting those who can afford to register worldwide anyway). They did provide that the SLD holder may be protected if he published his application over 60 days, and have sufficient rights...how sufficient is sfficient against registration of 45 to 75 countires? DILUTION LAW This law of general exclusion or exclusion to some names, is the law of "dilution" except that talks of "famous" or "wellknown" marks. This law protects big TM holders. Now, the IAHC proposal is "internationalising" this law (existing in US and only few other places) and applying to thewhole world. INTERESTING! All other trademark holders, have to go via the normal route of proving infringment, etc and they will use the WIPO Centre for mediation or arbitration. Here the uncertainties of which law to apply, etc will still prevade and it would seem unlikely that such holders will have as much protection as the big ones. Except for the fact that I know this was the position that David Maher was pushing from 1996 to protect his constituents in INTA, what was the justification of the other members, to adopt a non-universal (or not yet...see TRIPs) law and apply it in favour of big holders. Also why set up a separate procedure (the ACP) for them, while others have to use the normal procedures. Why make it easier for them, and not the smaller guys to protect their interests. Thank you in advance for any clarification you can provide. Laina RG --- On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:55:53 -0500 Jim Fleming wrote: Did the ISOC guarantee the big companies and major religions that they would develop a plan that would make sure that top level domains like....SUN, MOON and MARS would never be allowed....???? BTW... How much do companies pay each year in ISOC membership fees ? also... Which companies do the various attorneys that control the iPOC represent ? Are they being paid to make sure the companies they represent do not have their trademarks turned into TLDs...unless of course, they want to... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 7/30/97 Time: 11:29:21 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-apple Thu Jul 31 00:55:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id AAA06613 for apple-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:55:42 +0900 (JST) Received: from unir.corp (root@[207.32.128.74] (may be forged)) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA06608 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:55:32 +0900 (JST) Received: from webster.unety.net (webster.unety.net [207.32.128.58]) by unir.corp (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA17801; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 10:43:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: by webster.unety.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BC9CD6.EDC24EC0@webster.unety.net>; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 10:54:18 -0500 Message-ID: <01BC9CD6.EDC24EC0@webster.unety.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'Dave Crocker / IMC'" , "'David W. Maher'" , Jim Fleming , "'laina@singnet.com.sg'" , "milton@usthk.ust.hk" Cc: "apple@apnic.net" , "'Multiple recipients of list DOMAIN-POLICY'" , "'newdom@ar.com'" Subject: RE: Trademark Policy ? Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 10:54:17 -0500 Encoding: 118 TEXT Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina, These are very good questions. Thanks for the well written summary. Maybe David Maher, the current Chairperson of the iPOC and a former member of the IAHC can answer. I have written him several times but he claims that he can not answer questions from individuals. BTW, I have been told that David Maher was the attorney that made sure that McDonalds was able to get their name back...maybe David can verify that and explain any relationship that he has or had with McDonalds which is HQ'd down the street. Folks at McDonalds have told me that the company is terrified that they will have their name diluted on the Internet. I have heard the same about Disney. David...the floor is yours...and I hope that you speak for iPOC and the IAHC and the ISOC. The ISOC press release claims that you are their appointed person. Jim Fleming On Wednesday, July 30, 1997 6:29 PM, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: @ @ Much as it sounds like a sarcastic question, it is something I have @ wondered about too. The way the IAHC proposal is set up now, is that: @ @ (1) all CORE Registrars have to agree to put disputes over domain names @ to the Administrative Challenge Panels and the WIPO Centre, and have to @ make their SLD applicants sign a contract that they will do so as well. @ They also agree to abide by decisions made. @ @ (2) The Adminsitrative Challenge Panel is then set up to implement the @ policy about alphanumeric strings which are similar to "internationally @ known" marks. Under the Substantive Guidelines of the ACP @ @ if a mark is registered in 45 countries or more in 4 geopgraphical @ zones, it is presumed to be "internationally known" (Note: How many @ small trademark holders can prove this???) @ @ Once proven as such, then the challenger can get the domain names he @ challenges removed, and all Registrars and their applicants have to @ abide by this decision. @ @ if a mark is registered in 75 countries or more, it is presumed to be @ "globally known" and it can ask for exclusion of its name from all @ TLDs!!! (again, prtoecting those who can afford to register worldwide @ anyway). @ @ They did provide that the SLD holder may be protected if he published @ his application over 60 days, and have sufficient rights...how @ sufficient is sfficient against registration of 45 to 75 countires? @ @ DILUTION LAW @ This law of general exclusion or exclusion to some names, is the law of @ "dilution" except that talks of "famous" or "wellknown" marks. This law @ protects big TM holders. Now, the IAHC proposal is "internationalising" @ this law (existing in US and only few other places) and applying to @ thewhole world. INTERESTING! @ @ All other trademark holders, have to go via the normal route of proving @ infringment, etc and they will use the WIPO Centre for mediation or @ arbitration. Here the uncertainties of which law to apply, etc will @ still prevade and it would seem unlikely that such holders will have as @ much protection as the big ones. @ @ Except for the fact that I know this was the position that David Maher @ was pushing from 1996 to protect his constituents in INTA, what was the @ justification of the other members, to adopt a non-universal (or not @ yet...see TRIPs) law and apply it in favour of big holders. Also why set @ up a separate procedure (the ACP) for them, while others have to use the @ normal procedures. Why make it easier for them, and not the smaller guys @ to protect their interests. @ @ Thank you in advance for any clarification you can provide. @ @ Laina RG @ @ --- On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:55:53 -0500 Jim Fleming @ wrote: @ @ Did the ISOC guarantee the big companies and major @ religions that they would develop a plan that would make @ sure that top level domains like....SUN, MOON and MARS @ would never be allowed....???? @ @ BTW... @ How much do companies pay each year in ISOC membership fees ? @ also... @ Which companies do the various attorneys that control the @ iPOC represent ? Are they being paid to make sure the @ companies they represent do not have their trademarks @ turned into TLDs...unless of course, they want to... @ @ -- @ Jim Fleming @ Unir Corporation @ @ @ -----------------End of Original Message----------------- @ @ ------------------------------------- @ Name: Laina Raveendran Greene @ E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg @ Date: 7/30/97 @ Time: 11:29:21 PM @ @ This message was sent by Chameleon @ ------------------------------------- @ @ @ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation From owner-apple Thu Jul 31 09:49:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id JAA08980 for apple-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 09:49:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from pop.netgate.net (root@pop.netgate.net [204.145.147.7]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id JAA08974 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 09:49:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from slimnote (d21.netgate.net [205.214.160.53]) by pop.netgate.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA19819; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 21:18:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970730145454.00b077f0@imc.org> X-Sender: dhcmail@imc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 14:54:54 -0700 To: laina@singnet.com.sg From: Dave Crocker / IMC Subject: Re: Can we deal with issues, not defend them? Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Including a one-round private exchange with Laina, the following seems to be a full response to the concern she raises: At 12:39 PM 7/28/97, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: >PS I also notices another issue recently that concerns me a little. The >original successful applicants will become members of CORE. Future >applications to be registrars will then be approved by CORE. Would this >not appear to be a cartel... how can you get existing registrars to >decide who gets to be a registrar and join CORE? Should it not be >decided by the members, POC (elected by members) or by an independent >"auditing" firm?? The draft CORE MoU assigns to CORE the responsibility for authorizing new registrars, after this initial round. As Laina notes, they might choose to be quite self-serving and keep out new registrars, in order to reduce competition. This would seem to allow CORE (i.e., the registrars) an opportunity to be self-serving, against the public interet. I had missed the latest wording in the draft CORE MoU and so I apologize for not undertanding the basis of Laina's concern. After some research, here are the two responses which deal with the concern: 1. There are many transgressions which the CORE MoU does not explicitly list or prohibit. At base, such transgressions are violations of law and need not be dealt with explicitly in this document. If CORE failed to add new registrars, they would be operating against the public trust. Anti-trust actions would be appropriate. So, legal recourse would be well-founded. 2. POC has authority for the content of the CORE MoU. POC also has responsibility for on-going oversight of CORE. If CORE starts acting in a questionable or objectionable manner, POC can and will get involved and get the matter resolved. One line of action that is available to the POC is to change the wording of the CORE MoU. Hence if CORE misbehaves in the matter of registration, POC can change the CORE MoU to require whatever changes in behavior are needed. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee http://www.gtld-mou.org From owner-apple Thu Jul 31 10:12:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id KAA09087 for apple-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 10:12:05 +0900 (JST) Received: from armstrong.apic.net (office-gw.apic.net [203.22.102.254]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id KAA09081 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 10:11:37 +0900 (JST) Received: from boss.apic.net (boss.apic.net [203.22.102.40]) by armstrong.apic.net (8.8.6/APIC-2.1) with SMTP id LAA02335 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 11:13:53 +1000 (EST) X-Org: The Asia Pacific Internet Company Pty. Ltd. X-URL: http://www.apic.net/ Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970731111618.0115624c@mail.apic.net> X-Sender: bala@mail.apic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 11:16:18 +1000 To: apple@apnic.net From: Bala Pillai Subject: Internic takes Alternic to court (fw) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk **forwarded message** >Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 09:57:30 -0400 (EDT) >From: Cameo Wood >To: nanog@merit.edu >Subject: Internic takes Alternic to court >Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu > > After nearly a two-week spree, the hijack of the InterNIC Web site > ended when a lawyer representing Network Solutions Inc. delivered a > civil action lawsuit against Eugene Kashpureff, who is scheduled to > appear in court today at 9 a.m. EDT. > > Kashpureff, operator of the renegade top-level domain registry > AlterNIC, fooled most of the Net's nameservers into changing the > identity of the www.netsol.com and www.internic.net machines to that > of his own. Due to the distributed nature of the network, DNS may > still resolve to AlterNIC through some nameservers - even though for > Kashpureff, the gig is up. > > "I turned it off at 12 p.m. yesterday when that lawyer called me," > Kashpureff said Tuesday, not sounding as chipper as he did in earlier > times. Network Solutions Inc. filed suit in US District Court in > Alexandria, Virginia, seeking to shut down Kashpureff. > > Kashpureff denies most of the allegations and accusations. "I haven't > had time to get ready [for the hearing], due to the nature and the > speed of it," he said. "We do not intend to redirect the domain names > of the InterNIC or of Network Solutions any longer and will promise > the court not to do that, and hence they don't have any reason to take > any immediate action against me." > > Network Solutions, which is still in its pre-IPO quiet period, refused > to confirm or deny anything: "We still have no comment on that > situation," a spokesperson said. But apparently, it is swift and > vehement action that Network Solutions has called for. > > "The part I really want you to know, and the part that I want you to > care about," Kashpureff explains, is the contents of the 42-page civil > action itself - which calls for a complete seizure of all his computer > equipment, including any data on magnetic storage. > > "They're turning me into a child pornographer," he said. "Read just > how bad they're trying to rape me and the public - there's some very > inflammatory statements about .com, .net, and .org in this document > itself." > > While most network operators do not support Kashpureff's actions, his > protest of the InterNIC monopoly strikes a common chord in many, > including Aaron Abelard, who cites Network Solutions' unwillingness to > work toward a compromise in allowing more top-level domains. > > Karl Denninger, president of MCS Inc., which also < provides > alternative top-level domains, agrees. But he certainly doesn't agree > with Kashpureff's tactics. "I do not support this kind of terrorism," > he said. "This won't make me very popular with anyone over at the > AlterNIC camp, but I hope he does go to jail." bala pillai* bala@sydney.net*the asia pacific internet co, sydney V I R T U A L C O M M U N I T Y E X P E R T S for info send blank ph:+61 2 9419 5333 fax: + 61 2 9419 5155 From owner-apple Thu Jul 31 18:56:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id SAA14508 for apple-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 18:56:37 +0900 (JST) Received: from exchange2.ntu.edu.sg ([155.69.1.31] (may be forged)) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id SAA14502 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 18:56:34 +0900 (JST) Received: by EXCHANGE2 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 17:54:25 +0800 Message-ID: <6262D2BDE3E6D01186B508002BB487E162CA03@EXCHANGE2> From: Ang Peng Hwa To: "'apple@apnic.net'" Subject: RE: AU/ISP: United Internet Industry Body Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 17:54:21 +0800 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Bala, Thanks for the information about Australia. Was Australia even thinking about taxes on e-commerce? I'm just curious as to how much the spin doctors, with all due respect to them, had their day with the press release. It seems like the "no e-tax" angle was put in by the spin doctors to latch on the timeliness of the US position. Sorry if this sounds too cynical but my colleagues and I in Communication Studies do teach spin. :-) Regards, Ang Peng Hwa -----Original Message----- From: Bala Pillai [SMTP:bala@apic.net] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 1997 9:31 AM To: apple@apnic.net Subject: AU/ISP: United Internet Industry Body **forwarded message** From: Paul Montgomery Organization: APN Computing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) To: Link Discussion List , Aussie ISP Subject: [Oz-ISP] INTIAA & AIA have merged Sender: majordomo-owner@koala.aussie.net Reply-To: aussie-isp@aussie.net I am amazed that this has not come out by now, but I thought it would be good for ppl to know about the creation of the Australian Internet Council. I presume that the fact that there has been no Internet publishing of this information by the parties involved is simply an oversight. This is a story that will appear in PC Week Australia on August 1. One fact I did not mention in the story, but is perhaps more germane to these lists (sorry for X-posting), is that ISOC-AU were not invited to join, although Richard Cousins said in the press conference that they would be. Further info is included after the story. ___________________________________________________ ISP BODY TO FIGHT NET TAXES Merger of the INTIAA with the AIA strengthens the e-commerce lobby By Paul Montgomery A new peak industry council for Internet service providers will lobby government to ease regulations on "sex and tax" laws. The Australian Internet Council was formed this week as a merger of the Internet Industry Association of Australia (INTIAA) and the Australian Internet Alliance (AIA), which had represented the high and low ends of the ISP industry, respectively. One of the first duties of the AIC will be to lobby for free Internet trade at a summit with the Australian Tax Office. The merger is a strengthening of ISPs' lobbying power in response to attacks on the Internet industry by government. These include the recent Senate committee recommendations on pornography for a costly censorship regime for online content, and the prospect of taxation on e-commerce. Richard Cousins, president of INTIAA, said both of the merged bodies had had a dialogue with government over several months on issues of pornography and taxation, holding regular meetings. The Tax Office summit comes at a time when the US government is saying it will not tax e-commerce transactions, putting pressure on other countries to follow suit. "Our concerns are to what extent Australian companies may lose out if we have a different tax regime here. If there are to be barriers in the way of e-commerce, we'll be opposed to that," Cousins said. "If the US is going to have a free trade zone, it will be very difficult for Australia to make a stand [on the issue]." Mark Hughes, spokesman for corporate e-commerce representative body Tradegate/ECA, said it was a valuable move. "I say good luck to it. It will be a consistent voice and be able to put ISPs' views on content and taxation issues to the government." The merger follows a period of industry uncertainty. The AIA, which boasted 166 small ISPs as members, was formed in March in response to the threat of timed local data calls. "At the time, there was a need for representation, and it was felt that INTIAA was not doing its job. That was more a misunderstanding than anything else," said Kevin Dinn, AIA president. "The AIC is much more reasonable, because with the board structure, the smaller ISPs can have a say." The board will consist of four groups of three members of discrete sizes, based on revenue, plus an executive director. The Western Australian and South Australian Internet Associations will become associate members of the AIC. _________________________________________________ That's the end of the printed story. I've got some more info I couldn't fit in on the page. The membership fee structure is to be tiered, with four categories of membership paying different fees, from $250 to $20,000 according to Richard Cousins, although none of this is set in concrete. The former corporate members of intiaa will become members of AIC. I haven't seen anything on paper, but I ***think*** that mean nine ISP reps, three corporate and the one executive director, but I could be wrong and the companies might not have seats at all. That's all I've got in my notes, and I'm sure what is here will be set out in full in an official AIC release sooner or later. Just thought the inevitable debate should get off to an early start. ;-) -- Paul Montgomery, Net Journalist for PC WEEK AUSTRALIA (Computer Week) E: monty@apnpc.com.au Tel: +61 2 9936 8793 Fax: +61 2 9955 8871 --------------------------------------------------------------------- It's never over, she's the tear that hangs inside my soul forever. JB forwarded by:- bala pillai* bala@sydney.net*the asia pacific internet co, sydney V I R T U A L C O M M U N I T Y E X P E R T S for info send blank ph:+61 2 9419 5333 fax: + 61 2 9419 5155 From owner-apple Thu Jul 31 22:13:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) id WAA15340 for apple-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 22:13:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from jakarta.regex.com (jakarta.regex.com [207.106.122.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id WAA15335 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 22:13:01 +0900 (JST) Received: (qmail 11859 invoked from network); 31 Jul 1997 13:04:46 -0000 Received: from yapcs-r2.iscs.nus.sg (HELO yapcs-r2) (137.132.85.230) by tjt.or.id with SMTP; 31 Jul 1997 13:04:46 -0000 Message-ID: <33E08F8C.65DF3B2C@tjt.or.id> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 21:13:48 +0800 From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" Organization: VLSM-TJT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; Linux 2.0.29 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apple@apnic.net Subject: Re: Useful reference tables References: <3.0.3.32.19970730104507.00987e90@fractal.chaos.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Tony Rutkowski wrote: > The INTERNET DNS HISTORICAL TIMELINE presents a timeline- > style chronology, official actions and statistics plus other > meetings and events occurring between the DNS's inception > in 1985 and today. > See Thank you for your URLs .... BTW: It is said, that what is called "IDNIC", currently receives about 100 domain applications a month. Does anyone know, when InterNIC (or SRINIC/MILNIC) has received applications at that rate ? cheers, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - CEO VLSM-TJT - http://www.tjt.or.id/rms46 ORGANIZING: How can I know what I think until I see what I say?[KW]