- tld-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RFC 1591 and the IDNB
by JimFleming＠unety.net 09 Jun '98

09 Jun '98

According to the NEW IANA's web site, "all TLD administrators"[1] are required to follow RFC 1591. The link to RFC 1591 points to a document that describes the "Internet DNS Names Review Board (IDNB)"[2]. Can anyone answer the following questions ? 1. Who is on the IDNB ? 2. Where can the policies and proceedings of the IDNB be found ? 3. What has been the history of the IDNB's rulings ? Thanks, Jim Fleming [1] @@@@ http://www.iana.org/cctld.html "It is important that all TLD administrators follow the guidelines of RFC 1591. TLD administrators should treat this stewardship responsibility as a service to the global Internet community." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ [2] @@@@ http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt "The Internet DNS Names Review Board (IDNB), a committee established by the IANA, will act as a review panel for cases in which the parties can not reach agreement among themselves. The IDNB's decisions will be binding." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://207.32.159.1 1998 - The Year of the C+@ IS Coordinator for the AM Radio Station Registry - http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Tue Jun 9 13:41:51 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Policies...must be available for public inspection
by JimFleming＠unety.net 09 Jun '98

09 Jun '98

Do all of the so-called country code TLDs conform to this policy ? @@@@ http://www.iana.org/cctld-news1.html "2. Policy and Procedures" "The policies and procedures for the use of each contry code must be available for public inspection. Generally these are posted on web pages or made available for file transfer." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://207.32.159.1 1998 - The Year of the C+@ IS Coordinator for the AM Radio Station Registry - http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Tue Jun 9 13:26:22 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Who will be on the IANA Inc. "board"...??
by JimFleming＠unety.net 09 Jun '98

09 Jun '98

On Monday, June 08, 1998 11:45 AM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1 at IX.NETCOM.COM] wrote: <snip> @ @ We don't completely agree here. Rather let the Open Market Place @determine who is a board member by popular vote. @ Jeff, I think that people close to the IANA Inc. development have this under control. You might want to stay tuned to the following web page(s) for more information. <http://www.iana.org/aboutiana.html> As for the CEO of the new IANA Inc., I would remind you that the Registry Industry is a new industry. Many of the people in the industry are moving from one organization to another. With the multi-level-marketing (MLM) structure shown below, I would think that significant advancements will start happening inside of the organization to preserve continuity. IANA ARIN RIPE APNIC Note that ARIN is a notch "above" RIPE and APNIC because ARIN currently has control over the .ARPA TLD and all of the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone. I have a feeling that this will be moved to the new IANA Inc. and then ARIN will be at the same level as RIPE and APNIC. At the moment APNIC is being moved to Australia. One of the key people from RIPE is moving there to help run APNIC. I would not be surprised if other key people from RIPE do not transfer within the organizations above to take advantage of career opportunities. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://207.32.159.1 1998 - The Year of the C+@ IS Coordinator for the AM Radio Station Registry - http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Tue Jun 9 13:09:11 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Follow the money...
by JimFleming＠unety.net 07 Jun '98

07 Jun '98

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm The White Paper is out, as predicted, the U.S. Government *punted* the ball. They should have never picked up the ball if they did not intend to do anything useful with it. About all they have done is delayed the market place for a year, allowed the NSF to slip out the back door (while the Director of the NSF moves to the White House), and wasted everyone's time and money, including U.S. taxpayers that paid to fly these people around the world. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see that you will have no ability to influence the new IANA Inc. If you think you do, then I suggest you follow the leads below and I wish you the best of luck. Just remember, follow the money...it tells the whole story. Oh, and by the way...I suggest that you add up how much each of the various people have been paid since 1995 to help shape Internet Governance and who they have been paid by... that tells the whole story...look at the salaries of these "non-profit" prophets. I will continue to lead VOLUNTEERS in the creation of 8 new Top Level Domains. They will be named, G0, G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, and G7. Second-level names below each of those will be S0, S1, S2, ..., S254, S255. We will continue to work with the various RSCs to get these 8 TLDs listed. Also we will work with the Grass Roots people to get them listed. Hopefully, the entire effort will be 100% volunteers. In other words, this will truely be non-profit because it will be non-revenue and spear-headed by people who do not earn their living doing this volunteer work, that only occurs on the Internet, and not in smoke-filled rooms in Washington, D.C. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt I wish everyone luck that wants to follow the money. It is a natural human attraction and will provide you with a nice life at the expense of others. I suggest that people refer all of those interested in huge profits and multi-level marketing opportunities to the new private IANA Inc. The pyramid continues to be built using U.S. taxpayers money. As someone once told me, if you "play ball" with them, they will make you a millionaire. They are proud of the millionaires they have created and will no doubt be now turning them out in volume with the U.S. Government's blessing....all non-profit (non-tax) of course... Jim Fleming P.S. The NSF will be helping to start the entire mess all over again. If you want to get in on the ground floor of their next MLM adventure, check out... http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1998/nsf98121/nsf98121.htm @@@@@@ IANA Inc. leads to follow the money... @@@@@@@@@ > Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:30:09 -0500 > To: ip-sub-1 at majordomo.pobox.com > From: Dave Farber <farber at cis.upenn.edu> > Subject: IP: itag announcement > > The Chair of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Brian Carpenter, > and the Director of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), > Jon Postel, jointly announce the formation of the "IANA Transition > Advisors Group" (ITAG). > > The ITAG will serve as a set of senior advisors to the IANA during the > transition to a new organization with formal status as a non-profit > corporation with a board of directors. This group will cease to exist > when the board of directors of the new organization has its first > meeting. The members of the ITAG have declared themselves as not > candidates for the initial IANA board. > > The ITAG will consist of 6 members. The initial members(*) are: > > Randy Bush - Verio > Brian Carpenter - IBM UK > Dave Farber - U Penn > Geoff Huston - Telstra > John Klensin - MCI > Steve Wolff - Cisco > > * organization affiliation for identification purposes only. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ @@@@@@ http://www.aspeninst.org/ "WELCOME TO THE ASPEN INSTITUTE" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@ http://www.aspeninst.org/dir/current/releases/pr2298.html "DAVID R. JOHNSON NAMED DIRECTOR OF THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INTERNET POLICY PROJECT" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@ http://www.aspeninst.org/dir/polpro/CSP/C&S1.html Personnel Charles M. Firestone, Director Amy Korzick Garmer, Assistant Director Reed Hundt, Chair, Forum on Communications and Society David Johnson, Director, Aspen Institute Internet Policy Project Barbara Bimonte, Program Associate, IIS and Seminars Gia Nolan, Program Manager Elizabeth Golder, Program Coordinator Patricia Kirsch, Program Coordinator @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@ http://www.aspeninst.org/dir/polpro/CSP/Bios/RHbio.html Reed E. Hundt Chair, Forum on Communications and Society Communications and Society Program "Reed Hundt served as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from 1993-1997." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ http://www.aspeninst.org/dir/polpro/CSP/IPF/projdesc.html "Aspen Institute Internet Policy Project" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@ http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/Johnson.htm On April 28, 1998 at 9:30am, David R. Johnson, David W. Maher and Roger Cochetti met with Ira Magaziner, Gregory Chang and Karen Rose and presented the attached document, which was submitted by David Johnson and on behalf of David J. Farber in their individual capacities. drj david.johnson at counsel.com" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@ http://www.ilpf.org/confer/list.htm February 27, 1998 Aspen, Colorado, USA Aspen Institute Conference on the Internet A presentation entitled "Self Governance in Cyberspace: Domain Names Case Study" will be given by Roger Cochetti, Program Director - Policy & Business Planning IBM Internet Division @@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://207.32.159.1 IS Coordinator for the AM Radio Station Registry - http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Sun Jun 7 08:12:06 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Follow the money...
by JimFleming＠unety.net 07 Jun '98

07 Jun '98

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm The White Paper is out, as predicted, the U.S. Government *punted* the ball. They should have never picked up the ball if they did not intend to do anything useful with it. About all they have done is delayed the market place for a year, allowed the NSF to slip out the back door (while the Director of the NSF moves to the White House), and wasted everyone's time and money, including U.S. taxpayers that paid to fly these people around the world. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see that you will have no ability to influence the new IANA Inc. If you think you do, then I suggest you follow the leads below and I wish you the best of luck. Just remember, follow the money...it tells the whole story. Oh, and by the way...I suggest that you add up how much each of the various people have been paid since 1995 to help shape Internet Governance and who they have been paid by... that tells the whole story...look at the salaries of these "non-profit" prophets. I will continue to lead VOLUNTEERS in the creation of 8 new Top Level Domains. They will be named, G0, G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, and G7. Second-level names below each of those will be S0, S1, S2, ..., S254, S255. We will continue to work with the various RSCs to get these 8 TLDs listed. Also we will work with the Grass Roots people to get them listed. Hopefully, the entire effort will be 100% volunteers. In other words, this will truely be non-profit because it will be non-revenue and spear-headed by people who do not earn their living doing this volunteer work, that only occurs on the Internet, and not in smoke-filled rooms in Washington, D.C. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt I wish everyone luck that wants to follow the money. It is a natural human attraction and will provide you with a nice life at the expense of others. I suggest that people refer all of those interested in huge profits and multi-level marketing opportunities to the new private IANA Inc. The pyramid continues to be built using U.S. taxpayers money. As someone once told me, if you "play ball" with them, they will make you a millionaire. They are proud of the millionaires they have created and will no doubt be now turning them out in volume with the U.S. Government's blessing....all non-profit (non-tax) of course... Jim Fleming P.S. The NSF will be helping to start the entire mess all over again. If you want to get in on the ground floor of their next MLM adventure, check out... http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1998/nsf98121/nsf98121.htm @@@@@@ IANA Inc. leads to follow the money... @@@@@@@@@ > Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:30:09 -0500 > To: ip-sub-1 at majordomo.pobox.com > From: Dave Farber <farber at cis.upenn.edu> > Subject: IP: itag announcement > > The Chair of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Brian Carpenter, > and the Director of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), > Jon Postel, jointly announce the formation of the "IANA Transition > Advisors Group" (ITAG). > > The ITAG will serve as a set of senior advisors to the IANA during the > transition to a new organization with formal status as a non-profit > corporation with a board of directors. This group will cease to exist > when the board of directors of the new organization has its first > meeting. The members of the ITAG have declared themselves as not > candidates for the initial IANA board. > > The ITAG will consist of 6 members. The initial members(*) are: > > Randy Bush - Verio > Brian Carpenter - IBM UK > Dave Farber - U Penn > Geoff Huston - Telstra > John Klensin - MCI > Steve Wolff - Cisco > > * organization affiliation for identification purposes only. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ @@@@@@ http://www.aspeninst.org/ "WELCOME TO THE ASPEN INSTITUTE" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@ http://www.aspeninst.org/dir/current/releases/pr2298.html "DAVID R. JOHNSON NAMED DIRECTOR OF THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INTERNET POLICY PROJECT" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@ http://www.aspeninst.org/dir/polpro/CSP/C&S1.html Personnel Charles M. Firestone, Director Amy Korzick Garmer, Assistant Director Reed Hundt, Chair, Forum on Communications and Society David Johnson, Director, Aspen Institute Internet Policy Project Barbara Bimonte, Program Associate, IIS and Seminars Gia Nolan, Program Manager Elizabeth Golder, Program Coordinator Patricia Kirsch, Program Coordinator @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@ http://www.aspeninst.org/dir/polpro/CSP/Bios/RHbio.html Reed E. Hundt Chair, Forum on Communications and Society Communications and Society Program "Reed Hundt served as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from 1993-1997." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ http://www.aspeninst.org/dir/polpro/CSP/IPF/projdesc.html "Aspen Institute Internet Policy Project" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@ http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/Johnson.htm On April 28, 1998 at 9:30am, David R. Johnson, David W. Maher and Roger Cochetti met with Ira Magaziner, Gregory Chang and Karen Rose and presented the attached document, which was submitted by David Johnson and on behalf of David J. Farber in their individual capacities. drj david.johnson at counsel.com" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@ http://www.ilpf.org/confer/list.htm February 27, 1998 Aspen, Colorado, USA Aspen Institute Conference on the Internet A presentation entitled "Self Governance in Cyberspace: Domain Names Case Study" will be given by Roger Cochetti, Program Director - Policy & Business Planning IBM Internet Division @@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://207.32.159.1 IS Coordinator for the AM Radio Station Registry - http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Mon Jun 8 14:20:22 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

US Government White Paper Published
by Daniel.Karrenberg＠ripe.net 05 Jun '98

05 Jun '98

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm -------- Logged at Sun Jun 7 07:56:09 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

White Paper - Friday, June 5, 10:00 a.m.
by JimFleming＠unety.net 04 Jun '98

04 Jun '98

@@@ http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/dns604.htm COMMERCE DEPARTMENT TO RELEASE POLICY STATEMENT ON THE INTERNET DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM Policy Statement Will Lay Out Administration Policy on Management of Internet Names and Addresses WHAT: Becky Burr, associate administrator, National Telecommunications and Information Administration's Office of International Affairs, will hold a press conference to release a Policy Statement on the Internet Domain Name System (DNS) that will lay out the Clinton Administration's policy for the transition of DNS functions to the private sector. WHEN Friday, June 5, 10:00 a.m. WHERE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC Room 4830 (Use Entrance on 14th Street, NW) BACKGROUND: This policy statement is the culmination of a year long effort to develop a plan for the Federal government to phase out its management of the Internet Domain Name System. The Commerce Department has sought comment in two separate public notices on this issue. The notices and the public comments are available on the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) website at http://www.ntia.doc.gov. The Commerce Department's NTIA serves as the prinicipal adviser to the President, Vice President, and Secretary of Commerce on domestic and international communications and information issues. @@@@@@@@@@ -------- Logged at Fri Jun 5 17:00:28 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

RIPE Meeting Attendees
by JimFleming＠unety.net 28 May '98

28 May '98

RIPE finally published an updated list of the attendees at the recent meeting in Stockholm, Sweden. Here is the list sorted by TLD. As many people know, RIPE has been expanding into the TLD coordination business. In the past, they have focused on IPv4 allocations which some people tried to mislead the U.S. Government into thinking have nothing to do with domain names. People working on "neighbor nets" might want to note the people below for the various TLDs. Many of these people are IPv4 address-oriented people, yet they will clearly have to get into the TLD business as the Registry Industry matures. Likewise, people in the TLD Registry Industry will likely want to become more familiar with the IP address sales and leasing businesses. The people below may be able to help in that area. @@@ http://www.ripe.net/meetings/ripe/ripe-30/attend.html ?? Antonio Marquez Rediris AT Christian Panigl VUCC/ACOnet AT Gerhard Winkler VUCC / ACOnet AT Herbert Schoefbaenker Council Systems AT Wilfried Woeber UniVie - ACOnet BE Igor Sportmans Belgacom BE Pascal Delmoitie BELNET BE Patrick De Groote Unisource Belgium BE Stefano Previdi cisco Systems CH Felix Kugler SWITCH CH Marcel Schneider SWITCH CH Roger Gottsponer SWITCH CH ivan communod digital CM Denis Akam INTELCAM CM Jean Ernest Bikoe INTELCAM CM Raphael Tientcheu INTELCAM CZ Ingrid Ledererova InWay, a.s. CZ Petr Kral InWay, a.s. DE Andrea Kolek Deutsche Telekom AG DE Andreas Schachtner eco e.V. DE Anton Zur Evolution Systems DE Bernhard Kroenung regio[.NET] GmbH DE Berthold Paffrath Deutsche Telekom AG DE Bettina Kauth DFN-NOC DE Carsten Schiefner TCP/IP GmbH - Contrib.Net DE Christian Braun DENIC DE Christoph Gaertner o.tel.o communications DE David Pratt VIAG Interkom DE Dhouha Houssi DENIC DE Gerd Dopjans o.tel.o communications GmbH & Co DE Gert Doering SpaceNet DE Greg Cipollone Twinwave GmbH DE Ingo Stampe mediaWays DE Jan Czmok IPF.NET Service Provider GmbH DE Joachim Schmitz America Online Inc DE Jonas Luster easynet DV GmbH DE Kai Siering IS Internet Services GmbH & Co DE Klaus Landefeld Nacamar Group PLC DE Ludger Bornhorst Deutsche Telekom DE Martin Sieler Fraunhofer IIS-A DE Michael Beckmann POP Point of Presence DE Michael Froelich ECRC Network Services GmbH DE Michael van Elst Xlink Internet Consulting GmbH DE Oliver Doll UUNET Deutschland GmbH DE Peter Juffernholz Teleglobe GmbH DE Ruediger Kladt IPF.NET DE Ruediger Volk Deutsche Telekom AG DE S. Petra Zeidler Xlink Internet Service GmbH DE Stefan Maly MultiNET Services DE Thomas Trede Nacamar DE Volkmar Juergens POP Point of Presence DE Wolfgang Tremmel Xlink DE Wolfram Becker ECRC Network Services GmbH DK Frode Greisen Ebone DK Morten Christensen Tele Danmark Internet DK Sean Doran Ebone A/S DK Torben Bajlum Tele Danmark ES Daniel Diaz RedIRIS ES Javier Gonzalez Telefonica Transmision de Datos ES Manuel Garcia Acceso Sistemas de Informacion, s.a. EU Ambrose Magee RIPE NCC EU Bettina Schroeder RIPE NCC EU Chris Fletcher RIPE NCC EU Daniel Karrenberg RIPE NCC EU Eamonn McGuinness RIPE NCC EU Fay Howard RIPE NCC EU Graca Carvalho Cisco Systems Europe EU Henk Uijterwaal RIPE NCC EU James Aldridge EUnet EU Joao Damas RIPE NCC EU John Crain RIPE NCC EU Lee Wilmot RIPE NCC EU Maldwyn Morris RIPE NCC EU Mandy Jonkers RIPE NCC EU Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC EU Monica Cortes RIPE NCC EU Naomi de Bruyn RIPE NCC EU Paula Caslav RIPE NCC EU Pepa Tejedor RIPE NCC EU Sabrina Waschke RIPE NCC FI Arttu Laine EUnet Finland Oy FI Jorma Mellin Telia Finland Ltd FI Juha Oinonen CSC/FUNET FI Juha Paananen Telia Finland Oy FI Kristian Rastas Sonera Corporation FI Marko Memonen CSC-Tieteellinen Laskenta Oy FI Patrik Andersin Clinet Oy FI Petteri Helin Clinet Oy FI Sami Koskinen Clinet Oy FI Vesa Ruokonen Telia Finland Oy FR Alexandre Provost Groupe Ecritel France FR Annie Renard AFNIC (NIC France) FR Arnaud Lejeune Graphnet FR Beatrice Faure Groupe Ecritel France FR Christophe Cachat CEGETEL ENTREPRISES FR Daniele Bovio America Online, Inc. FR Etienne Ruch Siris FR Francis Dupont GIE DYADE FR Lionel GARENNE CEGETEL Entreprises FR Marc PICHON CEGETEL Entreprises FR Michael Hallgren Graphnet FR Nelly Denise SIRIS FR Paul Rolland Oleane FR Sylvain Kouda Siris GB Asquith Bonaparte JIPS NOSC (ULCC) GB Duncan Rogerson TEN-34 NOC GB Kevin Hoadley JANET GB Richard Sloan UUNET UK GR Manolis Chatzakis ICS-FORTH GR HU Attila Nyari Westel900 GSM. Mobile Teleco. HU Balazs Martos Hungarnet HU Janos Zsako BankNet IE Mike Norris HEAnet IS Marius Olafsson INTIS IT Andrea Mattasoglio CILEA IT Antonio-Blasco Bonito University of Pisa IT Daniele Vannozzi CNR IT Gian Luca Mattu Telecom Italia SpA IT Stefano Suin University of Pisa IT Vittore Casarosa CNR - IAT LU Thierry Coutelier Entreprise des P&T NL Armand Verstappen Demon Internet NL Boudewijn Nederkoorn SURFnet NL Diederik van Diggelen AT&T-Unisource NL Erik Lohr IBM Global Services NL Erwin d' Hont Demon Internet NL Hans van Duijne AT&T-Unisource NL Hans van der Molen AT&T-Unisource NL John Martin TERENA NL Marian Kruydenhof Unisource Business Networks b.v. NL Rob Blokzijl RIPE/NIKHEF NL Ronald van der Pol SURFnet NL Thomas Telkamp AT&T-Unisource NL henk smit cisco systems NO Hans Petter Holen SOL System AS NO Havard Eidnes UNINETT/NORDUnet NO Hogne Solvoll Telenor Nextel NO Steinar Grotterod Telia Registry Norge NZ Patrick O'Brien Domainz -- The New Zealand Internet Registry Ltd PL Konrad Plich TP S.A. - CST PL Maciej Kozlowski NASK PL Miroslaw Luc Research and Academic Network in Poland PL Wojtek Malek TP S.A. - CST PL Wojtek Sylwestrzak ICM PT Armando Domingues FCCN PT Rui Azevedo Matos Telepac RU Andrew Romanov RIPN RU Maria Stepanova RIPN SE Anders Hedlund Telia AB SE Anders Honkamaa pi.se AB SE Andreas Haggander Telia Network Services SE Anna Skyllberg Telia AB SE Bjorn Carlsson EBONE inc SE Carl Hamacher Telenordia SE Carl Moberg Telia Network Services SE Catherine Exelby FCI Telecommunications Corporation SE David Kvarnberg pi.se AB SE Dennis Wennstrvm Telenordia SE Eden Akhavi FCI Telecommunications Corporation SE Eric Ostberg Telenordia AB SE Eva Froelich NIC-SE SE Fredrik Nyman SwipNet SE Fredrik Widell Global One SE Gabrielle Eklund pi.se AB SE Gunilla Malmqvist Telenordia AB SE Gunnar Lindberg Chalmers University of Technology SE Hakan Hansson Telia Network Services SE Hans Niklasson SwipNet SE Helen Dagerus SwipNET SE Jan Guldborg Ebone Inc. SE Jorgen Larsson Telia AB Sektor Datakom SE Klara Rank pi.se AB SE Kurt Erik Lindqvist EUnet Sverige AB SE Lotta Flyman Telia Network Services SE Madeleine Gustafsson Telenordia AB SE Magnus Ahltorp Aladdin SE Michael Skutnabba Telenordia AB SE Mikael Eriksson KTH/IT SE Nisse Steen SwipNet SE Ola Winberg FMV SE Ove Landberg Swedish Armed Forces SE Patric Ostman Global One SE Per Lundberg Telecom Finland AB, SONERA AB SE Per-Olof Haettner FMV SE Peter Lothberg Stupi AB SE Peter Nilsson Global One SE Pontus Ekman pi.se AB SE Ragnar Lvnn Telenordia SE Rikard Hoglund Telia Network Services SE Sofia Hymnelius Telia AB SE Tomas Ahlstrvm Telia Ab SE Tomi Kortelainen KTH/IT SE Uno Staver FMV SE stockman bernhard Telianet SI Avgust Jauk ARNES SI Barbara Povse Golob ARNES SK Lubos Elias SANET SK Marian Durkovic CVTSTU/SANET SK Miroslav Vallo TELENOR Slovakia UA Alexander Milutin INFOCOM UA Yuri Demchenko Global Ukraine JV UK Anthony Turner Netcom UK Ltd. UK Darren Byrne Demon Internet Ltd. UK Darren Taylor Demon Internet Ltd. UK Denesh Bhabuta Demon Internet Ltd. UK Dr William Black Nominet UK UK Elliott Atkins REDNET Limited UK Geoffrey Sisson Nominet UK UK Ivan Beveridge Demon Internet Ltd. UK Keith Mitchell LINX UK Michael Behringer DANTE UK Paul Thornton LINX UK Peter Emptage Cisco Systems UK Richard Almeida Internet Network Services UK Sam Critchley UUNET UK Stephen Burley UUNET UK Steve Foster Global High Street Ltd US Carl Malamud Internet Multicasting Service US Craig Labovitz Merit Network, Inc. US David Kessens ISI US Dawn Martin ARIN US Deibler Danielle L. DIGEX, Incorporated US Dorian Kim Verio US Ed Kern DIGEX US Jake Khuon Merit Network, Inc. US Kim Hubbard ARIN US Mark McFadden Commercial Internet eXchange US Randy Bush Verio, Inc. US Robert C. Noland III UUNET Technologies US Robert Hinden Nokia US Tom Spindler Merit Network, Inc. US rekhter yakov Sisco systems @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -------- Logged at Tue Jun 2 11:02:03 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

DNS: The "Common Sense Concept"
by JimFleming＠unety.net 27 May '98

27 May '98

On Wednesday, May 27, 1998 12:19 AM, Jean-Christophe Praud[SMTP:jc.praud at ludexpress.com] wrote: @We are beginning to work similarly on the G3 (around Europe) Zone, with @AURSC. @ @Whoever "owns" a TLD in this zone can contact us at @dnsmaster at nicwine.net @for gTLDs implementation. @ @Best regards, @ @--- @Jean-Christophe PRAUD - LUDEXPRESS @NicWine : http://www.nicwine.net @ <snip> I am sure all of the fine people in the G3 region will do a great job and will introduce new and creative approaches to Internet G-overnance. One thing to look out for are people that want to add new TLDs. Whatever systems you decide upon should be inclusive and should welcome people. Hopefully, some of the neighbor net approaches will help to do this. A quick check of the list shows that your TLD (.WINE) is located between Denmark (.DK) and Morocco (.MA). You might want to focus on those two TLDs to create your "neighborhood". http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 3:210 DK (DENMARK) <--- ??? 3:211 MLT (MALTA) 3:212 VIDEO 3:213 WINE <------------------Jean-Christophe Praud 3:214 RAILWAY 3:215 BALLOON 3:216 SVK (SLOVAKIA-(Slovak-Republic)) 3:217 DNK (DENMARK) 3:218 GRC (GREECE) 3:219 INFO <---- Simon Higgs ? 3:220 PUNK <----------------- ISP/C Member ??? 3:221 SVN (SLOVENIA) 3:222 FLAT 3:223 STOCKHOLM 3:224 MA (MOROCCO) <---- ??? If you find that the names in your neighbor-net are not in use then they can be relabeled with new TLDs. You might want to label the entries that you know are available with a TXT record of "ALIAS:" in the DNS entries to show there is no label assigned. There once was an ISP/C board member that expressed an interest in .PUNK. His name was Chris ?. I think he changed his name and I lost track of him. Charles Smith might be able to help you locate him. As for some of the other TLDs in the neighbor net above, you might want to check with Simon Higgs on .INFO, that may be one he has running. Good luck to everyone in G3. Keep us posted with changes and as soon as your G3 TLD name servers are up we can query them to get the latest who's who in G3 info. Keep up the good work... - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net/IPv8 IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Wed May 27 09:24:55 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

DNS: The "Common Sense Concept"
by jc.praud＠ludexpress.com 27 May '98

27 May '98

We are beginning to work similarly on the G3 (around Europe) Zone, with AURSC. Whoever "owns" a TLD in this zone can contact us at dnsmaster at nicwine.net for gTLDs implementation. Best regards, --- Jean-Christophe PRAUD - LUDEXPRESS NicWine : http://www.nicwine.net Jim Fleming wrote: > > > In my opinion, this concept is the right one and should be labeled the > "Common Sense Concept" <http://www.columbia.edu/acis/bartleby/paine/> > as opposed to some replacement for a particular group's proposal. > The Common Sense Concept is compatible with the approach that I > have been suggesting for a long time. Here are the major components > that I feel are needed to make it work: > > 1. A Structured Root Built Around TLDs > 2. A 2+2+4 Trustee Structure to Provide Stewardship for the TLDs > 3. Neighbor Net Strategies of Self-Governance > > The following data file is used to illustrate the examples: > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > -------- Logged at Wed May 27 08:00:33 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

FW: The "Common Sense Concept"
by JimFleming＠unety.net 27 May '98

27 May '98

---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 6:37 AM To: DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET Cc: 'BBURR at ntia.doc.gov'; 'dns at iia.net.au'; 'Ira_C._Magaziner at oa.eop.gov' Subject: The "Common Sense Concept" On Tuesday, May 26, 1998 2:27 AM, Einar Stefferud[SMTP:Stef at nma.com] wrote: <snip> @ @This leads me to ask a very simple question: @ @ What is wrong with the concept of a confederation of @ interested parties forming up a self governing structure along @ the lines that I have outlined above. @ In my opinion, this concept is the right one and should be labeled the "Common Sense Concept" <http://www.columbia.edu/acis/bartleby/paine/> as opposed to some replacement for a particular group's proposal. The Common Sense Concept is compatible with the approach that I have been suggesting for a long time. Here are the major components that I feel are needed to make it work: 1. A Structured Root Built Around TLDs 2. A 2+2+4 Trustee Structure to Provide Stewardship for the TLDs 3. Neighbor Net Strategies of Self-Governance The following data file is used to illustrate the examples: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt ======================================================= 1. A Structured Root Built Around TLDs The notion of a Structured Root is very simple. You begin by creating a virtual auditorium or forum with a finite number of seats that are expected to accommodate as many likely participants will show up to participate. I have suggested that 2,048 "chairs" is more than enough. I know that 5 is not enough. Would any architect build an auditorium with 5 chairs ? On each seat you place the name of each TLD. You sprinkle the names into 8 major sections to spread the people around and to mix the country code TLDs in with the generic TLDs. Here is a sample of how the names can be placed on the seats. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt With 2,048 seats and 8 regions you have 256 seats per region. Each TLD is allowed 2 delegates (see #2 below) to the regional "meetings" which can happen in Cyberspace. Each of the 8 regions elects 2 delegates to the global meetings which means that 16 people come together from all over cyberspace to make global decisions which will be rare when you consider the Neighbor Net methods below. ======================================================= 2. A 2+2+4 Trustee Structure to Provide Stewardship for the TLDs In order to produce 2 delegates from each of the TLDs, I suggest that a 2+2+4 Trusteeship structure be used. In such a structure 8 people provide public stewardship for the TLD. They are like the trustees of a public library in a small town. Two of the people in the structure are considered to be the co-trustees. Each of those people have 2 back-ups and each of the back-ups have 2 back-ups. In my opinion that is plenty of depth to ensure that the TLD has stewardship in case someone dies, gets angry and disappears, etc. Here is an example of how the trusteeship might look. 6:224 AU (AUSTRALIA) 5 ____________________ 3 ____________________ 6 ____________________ 1 Robert Els (Elz?) 2 ____________________ 7 ___________________ 4 _____________________ 8 ____________________ Australia top-level domain (AU-DOM) Australian Research Network Computer Science University of Melbourne Parkville, Victoria 3052 AUSTRALIA Domain Name: AU Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Els, Robert (RE18) now at KNOWN.COM 61393748721 (FAX) 61393748724 ======================================================= 3. Neighbor Net Strategies of Self-Governance The Neighbor Net strategies are based on the common sense that comes from having people who are "sitting" near each other in the virtual auditorium working together. The Neighbor Net strategies are the most difficult for people to understand. I think this is partly because it is hard to show people sitting in a virtual auditorium with a flat ASCII file. When I show it with Java or C+@ animations, people seem to get it more quickly. The only way to explain it is via examples. Here are some editted pieces from discussions from the G6 region. 6:71 NZL (NEW-ZEALAND) 6:130 NZ (NEW-ZEALAND) As an example, you could view NZL as seat 6:71 in a large auditorium. You would contact the people sitting around you. .TK might be easy to find and also .TUV. Let's say you could locate people backing those TLDs. Then the three of you become the trustees for all of the TLDs in between. You might find the people backing .NOC and then you have a complete neighbor net because all of the seats are filled from .TK to .NZL. That becomes your local area to grow. 6:69 TK (TOKELAU) 6:70 NOC 6:71 NZL (NEW-ZEALAND) 6:72 GARAGES 6:73 FLOUR 6:74 FIELD 6:75 TUV (TUVALU) On the other side of you, between .NZL and .TUV you may have more work to do. If you find out that those TLDs (.GARAGES, .FLOUR, .FIELD) are no longer supported you might want to change the names and invite new people to join your neighbor net. G6 only has 256 TLDs to coordinate. By working together with all of the other people in that G-overnance region, you keep the thing together. Eventually, you will run across 6:130 NZ (NEW-ZEALAND) which is a little closer to home. Check out the neighbor net for that seat (6:130) and teach them how it works.... G6 will only be as good as the people there make it... ...have a ball... ====== In case you are more interested in New Zealand. You would find that seat 6:130 has NZ as shown here: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 6:115 LK (SRI-LANKA) 6:116 SCHOOL 6:117 MAJOR 6:118 RAMIE 6:119 FACT 6:120 MAKE 6:121 HARVEST 6:122 RAIN 6:123 MALT 6:124 PRIVATE 6:125 TON (TONGA) 6:126 CYBER 6:127 LKA (SRI-LANKA) 6:128 MAX 6:129 MWI (MALAWI) 6:130 NZ (NEW-ZEALAND) 6:131 MARKET 6:132 FJ (FIJI) If you work upwards and downwards looking for another 2-letter TLD you would find LK for SRI-LANKA and FJ for FIJI. Since there is only one seat between .NZ and .FJ you might want to locate the people backing the .MARKET TLD. This would complete that part of the neighbor net (or ring). >From there, you have more work to do or opportunity at the top of the list. Some of those TLDs might be easy to fill in and some may not. Again, as your governance policies get worked out, you can change the names above for the slots. Maybe .OZ is desired, or some other name. Be creative...have a ball... ====== Here is what is stored in the DNS for 7:240 .ARTS. Note that you have to look-up s240.g7 it is reversed. With this approach, we can scan the 2,048 combinations and figure out what TLD aliases are on each "seat". For example, in G6 we would look to your servers for S0.G6, S1.G6, S2.G6, ... S255.G6 to build the table of info for the TLDs. The TXT record has the TLD alias. The RP - Responsible Person record is used to point to a person's e-mail and web site. The other NS info provides typical nameserver delegation info for the TLD Name Servers. Adam Todd has been working on these sorts of delegations for the G6 region. He could delegate some to your name servers by delegating entries like S130.G6 for .NZ JF ==== ; <<>> DiG 2.1 <<>> s240.g7 any ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; Ques: 1, Ans: 5, Auth: 2, Addit: 1 ;; QUESTIONS: ;; s240.g7, type = ANY, class = IN ;; ANSWERS: s240.g7. 172800 SOA ns.unety.net. hostmaster.unety.net. ( 1998050506 ; serial 172800 ; refresh (2 days) 3600 ; retry (1 hour) 1728000 ; expire (20 days) 172800 ) ; minimum (2 days) s240.g7. 172800 NS skyscape.net. s240.g7. 172800 NS ns.skyscape.net. s240.g7. 172800 TXT "ALIAS: ARTS" s240.g7. 172800 RP jnh.skyscape.net. www.skyscape.net. ;; AUTHORITY RECORDS: s240.g7. 172800 NS skyscape.net. s240.g7. 172800 NS ns.skyscape.net. ;; ADDITIONAL RECORDS: skyscape.net. 148245 A 207.107.232.3 ;; Total query time: 23 msec ;; FROM: doorstep.unety.net to SERVER: default -- 207.32.128.1 ;; WHEN: Sun May 17 20:30:26 1998 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 25 rcvd: 216 ======================================================= SUMMARY: 1. Build a Virtual Auditorium to Hold All of the TLD Delegates 2. Draw Those Delegates from Trusteeships for Each TLD 3. Encourage the Decision Making to Happen in the Neighborhoods - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net/IPv8 IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Tue May 26 14:36:46 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

DNS: The "Common Sense Concept"
by dnsmaster＠nicwine.net 26 May '98

26 May '98

We are beginning to work similarly on the G3 (Europe) Zone, with AURSC. Whoever "owns" a TLD in this zone can contact us at dnsmaster at nicwine.net --- Jean-Christophe PRAUD - LUDEXPRESS Nicwine : http://www.nicwine.net Jim Fleming wrote: > > > In my opinion, this concept is the right one and should be labeled the > "Common Sense Concept" <http://www.columbia.edu/acis/bartleby/paine/> > as opposed to some replacement for a particular group's proposal. > The Common Sense Concept is compatible with the approach that I > have been suggesting for a long time. Here are the major components > that I feel are needed to make it work: > > 1. A Structured Root Built Around TLDs > 2. A 2+2+4 Trustee Structure to Provide Stewardship for the TLDs > 3. Neighbor Net Strategies of Self-Governance > > The following data file is used to illustrate the examples: > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > -------- Logged at Wed May 27 01:50:48 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

FW: Internet Governance and IANA
by JimFleming＠unety.net 26 May '98

26 May '98

---------- From: Daniel Karrenberg[SMTP:Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 5:24 AM To: RIPE Local Internet Registries WG Subject: Internet Governance and IANA ------- Forwarded Message Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 08:35:19 -0700 From: postel at ISI.EDU To: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Subject: Re: governance An update from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). IANA is continuing to provide the neutral, central coordinating functions for the global Internet. As we await the United States government's final statement on the "Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses" (also known as the "Green Paper"), we are in the process of reorganizing and restructuring the IANA organization. This process will create an independent, not-for-profit corporation. The new IANA will establish separate offices from the University of Southern California and its Information Sciences Institute, where IANA is now located. We are selecting legal representation and preparing initial bylaws and articles of incorporation. The bylaws are being constructed to allow for international representation on the board of directors by address registries, domain name registries and registrars, protocol organizations, and the user/industry community. Since the deadline for having this organized may not permit a fully representative board to be in place initially, we expect to create a transitional board who will then conduct a process to establish the first fully functioning board with world-wide representation of all constituencies. In the spirit of community self-governance, we welcome your advice and suggestions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------- End of Forwarded Message -------- Logged at Tue May 26 19:03:10 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

An Affordable Solution
by JimFleming＠unety.net 22 May '98

22 May '98

This should be pocket change for all of the 80+ CORE members the ITU, the ISOC, the IANA, ARIN, APNIC, and RIPE... @@@@ http://www.aspeninst.org/dir/polpro/CSP/IPF/projdesc.html "In February 1998, a group of 23 participants met to outline the first steps the Project must take ..." "The Internet Policy Project is seeking charter members, at a funding level of $25,000 annually." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ...even some individuals should be able to afford this. :-) - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net/IPv8 IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Fri May 22 13:54:04 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Making Your Voice Heard
by JimFleming＠unety.net 19 May '98

19 May '98

On Monday, May 18, 1998 11:52 AM, Berislav Todorovic[SMTP:BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu] wrote: <snip> @representatives. A single letter, signed by one person per country might @make much higher noise than some "isolated islands" of messages, written by @a few of us. Besides, like that - we can save time and energy! @ I am surprised that you did not select the vacation option in Stockholm, Sweden this week. :-) http://www.ripe.net/meetings/ripe/attend.html In the long run, using the Internet is more effective. Eventually, people are going to get tired of flying on airplanes around the world to meet the same people that they could have met via the Internet. The Internet saves "time and energy"... - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Tue May 19 17:03:43 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

A Man of Knowledge
by JimFleming＠unety.net 19 May '98

19 May '98

On Monday, May 18, 1998 1:33 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at memra.com] wrote: @On Mon, 18 May 1998, Jim Fleming wrote: <snip> @ @I take that back. I should have said that it is my studied opinion that @Jim Fleming is not _entirely_ demented, but is a paid agent provocateur @of the U.S. telco industry... @ Have you become a "Man of Knowledge" Michael ? @@@ ftp://ftp.earth.com/pub/archive/cc/castaneda-overview Carlos Castaneda Overview ========================= Version: 0.7 Last-Updated: Mon Jan 19 01:19:27 MST 1998 Email additions or changes to <sanders at earth.com> ... "Man of Knowledge A warrior who has become a sorcerer and who "sees" and "knows". The ultimate state of being, in total control over your being." ... @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Tue May 19 11:31:08 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

IPv8 and ATM
by JimFleming＠unety.net 19 May '98

19 May '98

On Monday, May 18, 1998 1:33 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at memra.com] wrote: @On Mon, 18 May 1998, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @> @It is my studied opinion that Jim Fleming is not demented, @ @> and IETF members to attack me and my family personally. I must @> say this is encouraging. Maybe I should ask Don Heath if I should @> still be concerned about his friends killing my parents with fire axes. @ @I take that back. I should have said that it is my studied opinion that @Jim Fleming is not _entirely_ demented, but is a paid agent provocateur @of the U.S. telco industry... @ @Obviously the man acts demented some of the time but I urge people to @be aware that he can be quite lucid when he wants to be and he should not @be dismissed as a simple lunatic. Don't let him manipulate you into @working on his agenda. If you are in government, take the time to seek out @opposing opinions so that you have something to weigh Fleming's statements @against. And if you are in the Internet industry, take the time to do some @work in the political arena because if you don't the telco monopolies will @rig the game in their favor as they have in the past. @ @-- @Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael at memra.com @http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website* @ @ Michael, Can review the posting below with everyone ? What does this mean ?..."If this person has a strong tonal then nagualism *IS* devil-worship/witchcraft/evil/etc." What does this mean ?..."Just feed them a good line about evil being the creation of the ego." What does this mean ?..."If you do this well, you will start out by bullshitting but then feel the intent of the spirit take over." What does this mean ?..."the warrior gives it his best shot and if he fails, he fails, but he doesn't give a damn anyway" What does this mean ?..."use the opportunity for some not-doing and stalking" ========================================================== From: michael at memra.com (Michael Dillon) Subject: Re: Nagualism vs. Otherisms Date: 17 Oct 1996 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <5476pq$gu3 at sidhe.memra.com> references: <199610171345.OAA00577 at gateway1.sema.co.uk> organization: Memra Software Inc. - Internet consulting - http://www.memra.com newsgroups: alt.dreams.castaneda In article <199610171345.OAA00577 at gateway1.sema.co.uk>, <Gordon.Morrison at mail.sema.co.uk> wrote: > >Does anyone have or know the whereabouts of a list of quotes by dJ, dG, CC >et al. which might help to convice someone with a strong Tonal that >Nagualism is NOT devil-worship/witchcraft/evil/etc.? If this person has a strong tonal then nagualism *IS* devil-worship/witchcraft/evil/etc. >You know the kind of stuff I mean - all the fundamental premises/beliefs of >the Warrior's way: quotes about paths with heart, impeccability, having to >believe, sorcery-is-a-dead-end-street etc. You should re-read all the books and collect this set of quotes yourself. Then publish it on the web. It won't convert fundamentalist Christians but it may be very useful as an introduction for those who find the books a bit intimidating. >but they've read snippets of stuff out of context and jumped to >their own conclusions. I just want a neat package containing the basics >presented *in context*.) Just feed them a good line about evil being the creation of the ego and nagualism is an attempt to move beyond the ego to see the world as it truly is, an emanation of the one God. Remind them that even Lucifer is nothing more than a fallen angel who has lost his way from the light. If you do this well, you will start out by bullshitting but then feel the intent of the spirit take over. At this point you will likely be amazed at how well you explain this stuff and will probably learn a thing or two. This, of course, assumes that you have enough energy to make your will the Eagle's will, or, to put it another way, assumes you have enough grace to let God's will be done through you. Funny how the choice of words can make two similar things seem miles apart, isn't it? BTW, the warrior gives it his best shot and if he fails, he fails, but he doesn't give a damn anyway. So don't be disppointed if this person doesn't hear a thing you say. If you have a hard time letting go of such a failure then use the opportunity for some not-doing and stalking. Let this person convert you to their religion, join their church, go to the meetings, go through the motions. You will no doubt encounter one or more small-fry petty tyrants in the process. Stalk them but always remember that when Don Juan stalked the foreman he never let the lady of the house suspect that he was anything other than what he pretended to be. -- Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com ========================================================= - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Tue May 19 05:45:20 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

IPv8 and ATM
by JimFleming＠unety.net 19 May '98

19 May '98

On Monday, May 18, 1998 3:22 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at memra.com] wrote: <snip> @ @It is my studied opinion that Jim Fleming is not demented, that he has a @specific goal in his provocateur activities and that he is likely being @paid to do this by the U.S. telco industry. By the way Michael, just because IPv8 was designed with ATM mind and IPv6 was designed to break ATM is not my fault. That was a choice made by the people behind IPv6, not me. I can not help it if the IPv6 designers did not understand advanced routing or where circuit switching comes into play. By them taking an anti-telco position as engineers, they cut off their nose to spite their face. Now you have to live with the result, not me. IPv4 and IPv6 are like railroad technology. They are determined to keep the cars on the track and travelling from one city to the next. It is called the World Wide Wait by consumers. IPv8 on the other hand is more like airline technology. We load the passengers (packets) and taxi like a railroad but then we allow the passengers to leave the tracks and fly via ATM circuit switching near the final destination where the passengers land on railroad tracks for final delivery. We use the best of both worlds. Some call that demented. I am glad to see that you have changed your mind from your previous attempts to work with other ISOC and IETF members to attack me and my family personally. I must say this is encouraging. Maybe I should ask Don Heath if I should still be concerned about his friends killing my parents with fire axes. What is the status of that Don ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Tue May 19 03:34:25 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

Internet Governance
by JimFleming＠unety.net 18 May '98

18 May '98

On Monday, May 18, 1998 2:05 PM, Scott Averbach[SMTP:saverbac at hway.net] wrote: <snip> @ @If you enjoy inventing things and seeing people communicate why not come up @with a proposal of your own for addressing issues rather than pointing @fingers? Wouldn't that be along your lines of thinking as stated below? @ Scott, You seem to be missing some key background information. You seem to be making the assumption that all of the Internet Governance issues are in the private sector and the U.S. Government has decided to stick its nose into these matters. This is not the case. For years, and still to this day, many people and companies are operating with U.S. Government contracts and funding. They derive their "authority" from the U.S. Government. Do not let them tell you otherwise. Also, note that they are gaining financially from being U.S. Government contractors. They never seem to want to mention that. They somehow have people fooled into thinking they are non-profit volunteers with a strong dedication to the Internet. This is hardly the case. All discussions are currently focused on the U.S. Government and its policies. This is being done because the U.S. Government does not always have a good working knowledge of the Internet. They allowed their contractors to get too far afield without the proper oversight. That is now going to change. How that changes and what the final result looks like will be influenced by all concerned citizens helping the U.S. Government find the best approach any collection of people can develop given the time alloted, which has been years. If the U.S. Government's solution is a 100% withdrawal of all funding, contracts, influence, etc. then I think that you will see a very different set of discussions. Until the time (which is reported to be soon) that the U.S. Government develops and states their position we have to operate under the assumption that all companies enganged in IPv4 allocations and Domain Name sales and service are part of the U.S. Government's arena and as such are subject to public scrutiny and the extra laws that many companies do not have to be concerned about. Just because you might desire to paint a picture that one or more companies or people are outside of the U.S. Government's boundaries, does not make it so. Also, because companies have not paid for the U.S. Government assets they are using, they have no right to claim those assets in case the U.S. Government decides to pull out of the Internet 100%. Those assets should be sold and are subject to all of the U.S. Government laws regarding the disposal of assets. I am sure that people from the U.S. Government will make this clear to companies that may think they are going to walk away with the assets without government supervision of a sale, even if it is a fire-sale and no one else bids. It still has to happen. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Tue May 19 03:21:42 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

More on Neighbor Net for .WINE
by JimFleming＠unety.net 18 May '98

18 May '98

On Monday, May 18, 1998 12:25 PM, Scott Averbach[SMTP:saverbac at hway.net] wrote: @One point/question remains unanswered from Michael Dillon's email. Are you @in fact being paid directly or indrectly from any company or organization to @continue these discussions and try to discredit the current @system/organizations that are in place for IPv4 addressing? @ I am compensated from the satisfaction that one obtains when people around the world communicate, especially using networks. That has been the way it has been for over 20 years. I invent things, I give them away, and I enjoy communication. I hope to continue. @What do you hope in attaining thourgh all these talks if you are not being @influeneced in continuing them? @Should I assume that the whole point of bringing this whole talk to light @was the announcement of ARIN's revenue during the first quarter? Why did @you wait till then before you started questioning everything. @ I have been questioning things for many, many years...long before ARIN. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Mon May 18 21:05:10 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

More on Neighbor Net for .WINE
by JimFleming＠unety.net 18 May '98

18 May '98

On Monday, May 18, 1998 3:22 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at memra.com] wrote: @On Mon, 18 May 1998, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @> @Jim is what one science fiction story termed an "agent provocateur" (where, @> @when the world is totally wired and everyone is on email, along comes a @> @person who talks the talk and walks the walk but is a bit demented and only @> @a few people can see thru his techno-mumbo-jumbo as being garbage). His @> @purpose in life is to drum up controversy and to have people run off in @> @directions that are unproductive. @ @It is my studied opinion that Jim Fleming is not demented, that he has a @specific goal in his provocateur activities and that he is likely being @paid to do this by the U.S. telco industry. His goal is to discredit the @Internet governance infrastructure in order to manipulate the U.S. @government into creating an FCC-like regulatory infrastructure for the @Internet. The U.S. telcos (and indeed national PTTs the world over) like @this sort of structure because they know that, with it they can control @the Internet by the same sorts of political manoeuverings they have @perfected over the past several generations. @ @So Hank is basically right that the best response is to take some time to @do more talking to government. However don't be misled by Jim's email spew @into thinking that a few emails to the right places will suffice. It is @far more effective to take the time to write a cogent discussion of the @issues and then snail-mail the document to the government agency. Or to @visit them in person for a face-to-face discussion. @ @-- @Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael at memra.com @http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website* @ @ Michael, Your participation in the development of the IAHC/CORE plan and Hank Nussbacher's role as a member of the IAHC committee are well known. Also, your involvement with the creation of ARIN and your role on the ARIN Advisory Council are well known. Also, your various attempts to commute from Canada and to work in the United States are well known. Your constant focus on the U.S. ISP marketplace is well known. Why don't you become a U.S. citizen ? Then you could have a larger voice with the U.S. Government. If that is not your pleasure, then I suggest that you lobby the Canadian government to carry your message to the U.S. Government. As for Mr. Nussbacher. He seems concerned that his voice is not being heard in Israel. Despite this, he clearly does not want other voices to be heard. Here is one small example. I selected this example because Mr. Nussbacher was recently trying to convince Annie Renard the .FR (France) TLD administrator not to listen to me. =================================== From: hank at interall.co.il (Hank Nussbacher) Subject: Re: CFV (Call for Votes) : Creation of the israel.francophones newsgroup Date: 18 Dec 1997 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <67bius$prk$1 at news.ibm.net.il> References: <3498F1B2.76DC at hotmail.com> <34993150.DF81644B at orbotech.co.il> Organization: Hank Nussbacher, consulting Newsgroups: israel.news.admin I vote against. Why not use IRC to talk frenchto each other? Why does there have to be a newsgroup to talk in French? -Hank =================================== In all of these cases, it seems clear that we have people like yourself and Mr. Nussbacher who are not working via their governments to make sure your voices are heard. Instead, you seem to think that you can enter the U.S. via electronic networks to dominate this marketplace and the U.S. Government. I have a feeling that the U.S. Government is on the look-out for this type of activity and will listen to their taxpayers before you or Mr. Nussbacher. If they do not, they then have to deal with U.S. taxpayers at the next election or in person. As a U.S. citizen and U.S. taxpayer my recommendation is for the U.S. Government to start dealing with other governments. This will allow them to have the Canadian government present a more balanced view from your country. Likewise, the same can be said for Israel. I encourage you to follow your own advice and contact YOUR government officials. Let the U.S. taxpayers and government officials work together on our own plan. We will let you know how it comes out. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Mon May 18 18:47:34 MET DST 1998 ---------

3 2

Making Your Voice Heard
by BERI＠etf.bg.ac.yu 18 May '98

18 May '98

>> I am not sure that Becky Burr and Ira Magaziner and the domain-policy list >> and the tld-wg list care about a 6 month old posting to 6 Israeli specific >> Usenet groups about an ISOC-IL conference, which has absolutely nothing to >> do with anything. TLD-WG, DOMAIN-POLICY, RIPE CENTR ... IPv8, eDNS, AlterNIC ... and then Jim Flemming! Being into Becky Burr's and Ira Magaziner's skin isn't so easy. Their feeling must be as awful as it would be if someone took them to the jungle and kicked them out of the jeep ... leaving them to the mercy of wild cats, snakes, bugs and other creatures! What will they do? Probably, the first thing to do would be to find a good place to hide and stay quiet. And that's exactly what they are doing: having so many sources of diverse information, without explicit knowledge about the historical and other circumstances which led to the current solutions in domain policies - they don't know who to listen to. So, they consider all our efforts just like "noise on the lines". Some people are well aware of that. So, the only thing they would do is to be persistive, to try to make people believe that their solution is "the best one". What can we do? Hide in a hole and pretend nothing is really happening? Or - make MUCH noise and risk that to be misunderstood, according to the Murphy's rule about arguing ("Never argue with a fool - people might not see the difference between the two of you")? In my personal oppinion - making noise is the solution, but doing it in organized manner! How? Simply - just like a RIPE CENTR response to the US Green Paper: writing single periodical messages to Ira Magaziner, Becky Burr and other political folks involved, which would be approved by all (or a majority of) TLD representatives. A single letter, signed by one person per country might make much higher noise than some "isolated islands" of messages, written by a few of us. Besides, like that - we can save time and energy! That was just my 0.1 YU dinars (= 0.0097 US$) ... ;-) Best regards, Beri .-------. | --+-- | Berislav Todorovic, B.Sc.E.E. | E-mail: BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu | /|\ Hostmaster of the YU TLD | |-(-+-)-| School of Electrical Engineering | Phone: (+381-11) 3221-419 | \|/ Bulevar Revolucije 73 | 3370-106 | --+-- | 11000 Belgrade SERBIA, YUGOSLAVIA | Fax: (+381-11) 3248-681 `-------' -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Mon May 18 18:38:04 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

More on Neighbor Net for .WINE
by JimFleming＠unety.net 18 May '98

18 May '98

On Monday, May 18, 1998 3:58 AM, Hank Nussbacher[SMTP:hank at ibm.net.il] wrote: @At 02:41 PM 5/15/98 +0200, Annie Renard wrote: @> @> In your previous mail you wrote: @> @> Until we get the entire list filled in, you may have @> to expand the diameter of your neighbor net to @> include more G:S slots. @> @> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt @> @> G:S TLD RP Web Site @> -------------------------------------------------- @> 3:207 FR (FRANCE) <------ @> 3:208 ATHENS @> 3:209 FLAKE @> 3:210 DK (DENMARK) <------- @> 3:211 MLT (MALTA) <----- @> 3:212 VIDEO @> 3:213 WINE <---------- jc.praud at ludexpress.com ?? web site ?? @> 3:214 RAILWAY @> 3:215 BALLOON @> 3:216 SVK (SLOVAKIA-(Slovak-Republic)) <----- @> 3:217 DNK (DENMARK) <----- @> 3:218 GRC (GREECE) <----- @> -------------------------------------------------- @> @> The following is a good source of leads for the above @> TLDs with the arrows. @> @> http://www.ripe.net/centr/tld.html @> @> For slots where we can not locate people, for example, @> 3:215 BALLOON, the people around that slot become @> the "managers" of the slot and help someone introduce @> a new TLD alias for the slot. @> @> For example, David Rogers might want to use that slot @> for the .LTD TLD he is working on. Via the neighbor net @> approach, people can easily find a slot and add a new @> TLD that does not conflict with other TLDs. This is very @> much like entering an auditorium with 2,048 seats, @> looking around, and asking people..."is that seat taken ?". @> @>>>> what is this raving ??? @ @Annie, @ @Jim is what one science fiction story termed an "agent provocateur" (where, @when the world is totally wired and everyone is on email, along comes a @person who talks the talk and walks the walk but is a bit demented and only @a few people can see thru his techno-mumbo-jumbo as being garbage). His @purpose in life is to drum up controversy and to have people run off in @directions that are unproductive. Becky Burr, Ira Magaziner, Wilkenson and @other political people cannot often differentiate people who know what they @are talking about and others who mention IPv8 and who sound knowledgable. @ @It is our responsibility to make sure that our voice is heard and not Jim's. @He emails more than we do, he is far more persistent than we are, but if we @fail to counter his "ravings" - we will soon see people discussing the @benefits of stargates and IPv8 galaxies and balloons. @ @-Hank @ Hank, Some people remember that you were a member of the Blue Ribbon IAHC. Just because you did not get mentioned in the list below does not mean that you are not remembered. ================= Here are the people that I feel are MOST responsible for the IAHC/CORE plan. I hope that history remembers what they have contributed in this area. 1. Jon Postel - IANA/USC/ISI 2. Don Heath - ISOC 3. Dave Crocker - IMC 4. Robert Shaw - ITU 5. George Strawn - NSF 6. David Maher - McDonalds 7. John Gilmore - EFF 8. Vinton Cerf - MCI 9. Michael Dillon - Priori 10. Gordon Cook - Cook Report 11. Perry Metzger - NY 12. Bill Manning - USC/ISI 13. Scott Bradner - ISOC 14. Ken Crispin - LBL 15. Rick Wesson - SF/CA ================= I find it interesting to read that you think your voice should be heard over others. In my opinion, your voice has been heard and many people have decided, on their own, to listen to other voices. This is what freedom and choice are all about, at least in the United States of America. You might want to keep that in mind over there in Israel. Also, you might want to note that your recent request to have me removed from the North American Network Operators (NANOG) mailing list (partly funded by U.S. Government grants) was not well received. I am curious why you think that you can sit over there in Israel and dictate who should and should not be on a public mailing list in the U.S. Is this the sort of thinking that came from being on the IAHC ? Please explain in more detail what you are trying to do... - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Mon May 18 15:00:20 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

Making Your Voice Heard
by hank＠ibm.net.il 18 May '98

18 May '98

At 07:54 AM 5/18/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: I am not sure that Becky Burr and Ira Magaziner and the domain-policy list and the tld-wg list care about a 6 month old posting to 6 Israeli specific Usenet groups about an ISOC-IL conference, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything. -Hank > >Hank, > >I do not think that people like myself and others should be >required to advertise your meetings of the the Internet Society >in Israel. I think that it is up to you to join the various open >discussions in these areas and tell people what you are doing. > >You and Scott Bradner should be pros at this by now. > >I am sorry that people may have missed your meeting below. >Maybe next year you can make it more widely known. That is >your job, not my job. > >In the meantime, we can try to make people aware that there >are many activities going on behind the scenes. Just because >myself and others are focused on the U.S. Government's >activities does not mean they are the only events that matter. >If you recall I recently pointed out an ISOC event that just >took place in Washington, D.C. <http://www.dcisoc.org>. >We try to make people aware of everything that is happening. >It helps to know in advance of the meeting. Also, be sensitive >to the fact that people are still free to choose whether they >want to attend your events and listen to you. > >Jim Fleming > > >======================== > >From: hank at interall.co.il (Hank Nussbacher) >Subject: Internet Society of Israel conference registration now open >Date: 08 Dec 1997 00:00:00 GMT >Message-ID: <66gama$q2i$4 at news.ibm.net.il> >Organization: Hank Nussbacher, consulting >Newsgroups: israel.amix,israel.internet,israel.irc,israel.jobs.misc,israel.lists.aix-il, israel.news.admin > > >The Internet Society of Israel is pleased to announce that registration to its >conference to take place on Jan 7th, 1998 at Kfar Hamacabiah is now open >at http://www.isoc.org.il/conf98 > >Registration can be done online via our secure server or you can contact >the conference organizers directly. > >This years guest speaker will be Scott Bradner who is an area chair in the >IETF, a member of the IESG and a Trustee of ISOC. He was also codirector >of the IETF IP next generation effort and is coeditor of "IPng: Internet >Protocol Next Generation" from Addison-Wesley. He also runs the famous >Harvard Benchmark Lab and is a weekly columnist for Network World. > >Hank Nussbacher >ISOC-IL Board member > >========================= > > >- >Jim Fleming >Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net >IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race >AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM > > -------- Logged at Mon May 18 15:49:12 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Making Your Voice Heard
by JimFleming＠unety.net 18 May '98

18 May '98

On Monday, May 18, 1998 9:33 AM, Hank Nussbacher[SMTP:hank at ibm.net.il] wrote: @At 07:54 AM 5/18/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @I am not sure that Becky Burr and Ira Magaziner and the domain-policy list @and the tld-wg list care about a 6 month old posting to 6 Israeli specific @Usenet groups about an ISOC-IL conference, which has absolutely nothing to @do with anything. @ @-Hank @ Since you are not sure, let me explain. You have been complaining that your voice is not being heard. I was pointing out that it is up to you and people like Scott Bradner to make sure your voice is heard. Now, you seem to prefer to do that by censoring people, by having people removed from the discussions. I suppose that would make it easier for you and Scott Bradner to be heard, but I do not think that is acceptable to the majority of people. As for being specific to Israel. You might want to work with the government officials in Israel to make sure that they formulate a policy that helps to make your voice heard louder in the U.S. That is something I do not think that you have done. I do not recall seeing anything from the government in Israel on the U.S. Government's web site where these comments get posted. Again...I do not think that it is my job to help you get your message out. I know that Scott Bradner submitted material to the U.S. Government because it is listed along with other "paper" submittals. Here is the URL. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/scanned/index.html As for submissions from you or Israel, I suggest that you provide the links to those. It is not our job to help you make your voice be heard. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Mon May 18 17:08:15 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Making Your Voice Heard
by JimFleming＠unety.net 18 May '98

18 May '98

Hank, I do not think that people like myself and others should be required to advertise your meetings of the the Internet Society in Israel. I think that it is up to you to join the various open discussions in these areas and tell people what you are doing. You and Scott Bradner should be pros at this by now. I am sorry that people may have missed your meeting below. Maybe next year you can make it more widely known. That is your job, not my job. In the meantime, we can try to make people aware that there are many activities going on behind the scenes. Just because myself and others are focused on the U.S. Government's activities does not mean they are the only events that matter. If you recall I recently pointed out an ISOC event that just took place in Washington, D.C. <http://www.dcisoc.org>. We try to make people aware of everything that is happening. It helps to know in advance of the meeting. Also, be sensitive to the fact that people are still free to choose whether they want to attend your events and listen to you. Jim Fleming ======================== From: hank at interall.co.il (Hank Nussbacher) Subject: Internet Society of Israel conference registration now open Date: 08 Dec 1997 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <66gama$q2i$4 at news.ibm.net.il> Organization: Hank Nussbacher, consulting Newsgroups: israel.amix,israel.internet,israel.irc,israel.jobs.misc,israel.lists.aix-il,israel.news.admin The Internet Society of Israel is pleased to announce that registration to its conference to take place on Jan 7th, 1998 at Kfar Hamacabiah is now open at http://www.isoc.org.il/conf98 Registration can be done online via our secure server or you can contact the conference organizers directly. This years guest speaker will be Scott Bradner who is an area chair in the IETF, a member of the IESG and a Trustee of ISOC. He was also codirector of the IETF IP next generation effort and is coeditor of "IPng: Internet Protocol Next Generation" from Addison-Wesley. He also runs the famous Harvard Benchmark Lab and is a weekly columnist for Network World. Hank Nussbacher ISOC-IL Board member ========================= - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Mon May 18 15:33:49 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

More on Neighbor Net for .WINE
by hank＠ibm.net.il 18 May '98

18 May '98

At 02:41 PM 5/15/98 +0200, Annie Renard wrote: > > In your previous mail you wrote: > > Until we get the entire list filled in, you may have > to expand the diameter of your neighbor net to > include more G:S slots. > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > > G:S TLD RP Web Site > -------------------------------------------------- > 3:207 FR (FRANCE) <------ > 3:208 ATHENS > 3:209 FLAKE > 3:210 DK (DENMARK) <------- > 3:211 MLT (MALTA) <----- > 3:212 VIDEO > 3:213 WINE <---------- jc.praud at ludexpress.com ?? web site ?? > 3:214 RAILWAY > 3:215 BALLOON > 3:216 SVK (SLOVAKIA-(Slovak-Republic)) <----- > 3:217 DNK (DENMARK) <----- > 3:218 GRC (GREECE) <----- > -------------------------------------------------- > > The following is a good source of leads for the above > TLDs with the arrows. > > http://www.ripe.net/centr/tld.html > > For slots where we can not locate people, for example, > 3:215 BALLOON, the people around that slot become > the "managers" of the slot and help someone introduce > a new TLD alias for the slot. > > For example, David Rogers might want to use that slot > for the .LTD TLD he is working on. Via the neighbor net > approach, people can easily find a slot and add a new > TLD that does not conflict with other TLDs. This is very > much like entering an auditorium with 2,048 seats, > looking around, and asking people..."is that seat taken ?". > >>>> what is this raving ??? Annie, Jim is what one science fiction story termed an "agent provocateur" (where, when the world is totally wired and everyone is on email, along comes a person who talks the talk and walks the walk but is a bit demented and only a few people can see thru his techno-mumbo-jumbo as being garbage). His purpose in life is to drum up controversy and to have people run off in directions that are unproductive. Becky Burr, Ira Magaziner, Wilkenson and other political people cannot often differentiate people who know what they are talking about and others who mention IPv8 and who sound knowledgable. It is our responsibility to make sure that our voice is heard and not Jim's. He emails more than we do, he is far more persistent than we are, but if we fail to counter his "ravings" - we will soon see people discussing the benefits of stargates and IPv8 galaxies and balloons. -Hank > Yours, > >--- > Annie Renard [nic at nic.fr] > AFNIC/NIC France > c/o INRIA domaine de Voluceau BP105, 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX, France > http://www.nic.fr/ > Personal Email: Annie.Renard at nic.fr > > -------- Logged at Mon May 18 14:27:34 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

ARIN's View of Magaziner's DCISOC Appearance
by mathias＠staff.singnet.com.sg 17 May '98

17 May '98

> On Sunday, May 17, 1998 11:45 AM, Mathias Koerber[SMTP:mathias at staff.singn > et.com.sg] wrote: > @> On Saturday, May 16, 1998 11:08 PM, Mathias Koerber[SMTP:mathias at staff. > sin > @> gnet.com.sg] wrote: > @> @This is not ARINs view of his comments, but a synopsis of his > remarks. > @> @Your subject line was misleading, but the article itself was > interesting, > @> @so thanks for reporting it here... > @> @ > @> <snip> > @> @> From: Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net> > @> @> To: arin-members at arin.net > @> @> Subject: Remarks by Ira Magaziner to DCISOC > @> > @> It was from ARIN's Member Services is that not from ARIN ? > @ > @Sure, but it did not contain anything akin to their VIEW of things, > @only a report of what was said. No ARIN opinion was voiced in that > piece! > @ > > Who wrote the material ? What does the material contain? A report or an opinion. Whose words are reported? > > > - > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net > IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race > AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Sun May 17 17:25:29 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

ARIN's View of Magaziner's DCISOC Appearance
by mathias＠staff.singnet.com.sg 17 May '98

17 May '98

> On Saturday, May 16, 1998 11:08 PM, Mathias Koerber[SMTP:mathias at staff.sin > gnet.com.sg] wrote: > @This is not ARINs view of his comments, but a synopsis of his remarks. > @Your subject line was misleading, but the article itself was interesting, > @so thanks for reporting it here... > @ > <snip> > @> From: Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net> > @> To: arin-members at arin.net > @> Subject: Remarks by Ira Magaziner to DCISOC > > It was from ARIN's Member Services is that not from ARIN ? Sure, but it did not contain anything akin to their VIEW of things, only a report of what was said. No ARIN opinion was voiced in that piece! > > > - > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net > IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race > AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Sun May 17 10:48:07 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

ARIN's View of Magaziner's DCISOC Appearance
by JimFleming＠unety.net 17 May '98

17 May '98

On Sunday, May 17, 1998 12:32 PM, Mathias Koerber[SMTP:mathias at staff.singnet.com.sg] wrote: @> On Sunday, May 17, 1998 11:45 AM, Mathias Koerber[SMTP:mathias at staff.singn @> et.com.sg] wrote: @> @> On Saturday, May 16, 1998 11:08 PM, Mathias Koerber[SMTP:mathias at staff. @> sin @> @> gnet.com.sg] wrote: @> @> @This is not ARINs view of his comments, but a synopsis of his @> remarks. @> @> @Your subject line was misleading, but the article itself was @> interesting, @> @> @so thanks for reporting it here... @> @> @ @> @> <snip> @> @> @> From: Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net> @> @> @> To: arin-members at arin.net @> @> @> Subject: Remarks by Ira Magaziner to DCISOC @> @> @> @> It was from ARIN's Member Services is that not from ARIN ? @> @ @> @Sure, but it did not contain anything akin to their VIEW of things, @> @only a report of what was said. No ARIN opinion was voiced in that @> piece! @> @ @> @> Who wrote the material ? @ @What does the material contain? A report or an opinion. @Whose words are reported? @ @ Since the material is not a "transcript", similar to what you might see from a court reporter or in a deposition it is the "view" of the person writing it. This may not be the way you view things in Singapore, but this is the common view from the U.S. where a free press has been in place for a long time. If you do assume that the ARIN view that was reported is equivalent to a transcript, then we have to agree to disagree, which is probably what we should have done long ago. I think that most people view the reporting that came from ARIN as their view of Magaziner's presentation. I am certain there are probably aspects which are left out. There are probably aspects that are given more emphasis than Magaziner intended. It is a shame that Magaziner and all of the people involved in these matters do not engage in mail list discussions. Then you would see exactly what they say and you could draw your own conclusions. Let's face it, most of the people trying to control the Internet resource allocation process are afraid of using the Internet. Why...???...I'll let you decide that... - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Mon May 18 08:41:07 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

ARIN's View of Magaziner's DCISOC Appearance
by JimFleming＠unety.net 17 May '98

17 May '98

On Sunday, May 17, 1998 11:45 AM, Mathias Koerber[SMTP:mathias at staff.singnet.com.sg] wrote: @> On Saturday, May 16, 1998 11:08 PM, Mathias Koerber[SMTP:mathias at staff.sin @> gnet.com.sg] wrote: @> @This is not ARINs view of his comments, but a synopsis of his remarks. @> @Your subject line was misleading, but the article itself was interesting, @> @so thanks for reporting it here... @> @ @> <snip> @> @> From: Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net> @> @> To: arin-members at arin.net @> @> Subject: Remarks by Ira Magaziner to DCISOC @> @> It was from ARIN's Member Services is that not from ARIN ? @ @Sure, but it did not contain anything akin to their VIEW of things, @only a report of what was said. No ARIN opinion was voiced in that piece! @ Who wrote the material ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Sun May 17 11:33:21 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

ARIN's View of Magaziner's DCISOC Appearance
by mathias＠staff.singnet.com.sg 17 May '98

17 May '98

This is not ARINs view of his comments, but a synopsis of his remarks. Your subject line was misleading, but the article itself was interesting, so thanks for reporting it here... > > @@@@@@ http://www.arin.net/archives/arin-members.9805 > > >From owner-arin-members Wed May 13 21:38:09 1998 > Received: (from majordom at localhost) by arin.net (8.8.5/8.8.0) id VAA28293 > > for arin-members-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 21:38:09 GMT > Received: (from pdenitto at localhost) by arin.net (8.8.5/8.8.0) id VAA28288 > > for arin-members at arin.net; Wed, 13 May 1998 21:38:08 GMT > Received: from localhost (memsvcs at localhost) by arin.net (8.8.5/8.8.0) > with > SMTP id VAA28264 for <arin-members at arin.net>; Wed, 13 May 1998 21:36:49 > GMT > Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 17:36:49 -0400 (EDT) > From: Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net> > To: arin-members at arin.net > Subject: Remarks by Ira Magaziner to DCISOC > Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980513173428.28092C-100000 at ops.arin.net> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Sender: owner-arin-members at arin.net > Precedence: bulk > > A Synopsis of Remarks Made by Ira Magaziner on the Topic of Internet > Governance > > Monday evening, May 11, 1998, Ira Magaziner, Senior Advisor to the > President for Policy Development, spoke on the topic of Internet > Governance before an audience assembled by the DC chapter of the > Internet > Society. His presentation addressed the subject from the perspective of > the U.S. Government and re-enforced previously stated positions that > support the decentralization and privatization of the Internet. > > It has been several months since the Green Paper (Improvement of > Technical > Management of Internet Names and Addresses) was published. During that > period, some 1500 pages of commentary, submitted in response to that > paper, have been reviewed and evaluated. By the end of this week, or > early > next week, Magaziner promised, the government will publish a White > Paper, > incorporating some of the suggestions submitted by the Internet community. > This would be "the implementing draft" for the upcoming transition. > While > carefully not divulging information in advance of publication, Magaziner's > presentation provided some insight into the general approach that the > government intends to take in the area of Internet governance. > > Referencing recent history and the role that government agencies played > in > launching the Internet, he told the group that the government still has > a > legal obligation with respect to Internet Governance but is eager to > effect a smooth transition that minimizes its future involvement. In the > past, he said, a technology of this sort would invite centralized > inter-governmental control. He illustrated this point with references to > industries such as telephone, radio and television. A highly regulatory > approach "does not make sense" today, according to Magaziner. Instead, > he > described the vision of the U.S. Government for the Internet as it > proceeds forward as relying on private sector leadership that is > decentralized and international in nature. > > Describing the non-profit organization that would assume responsibility > for Internet governance as the government's role was phased out, > Magaziner > outlined four areas of responsibility falling under that authority. The > first of these is the assigning of Internet Protocol (IP) address blocks > to the numbering authorities. The second area would be policy > decision-making in Domain Name issues and the third would be oversight > of > the management of root servers. The fourth area of responsibility would > be > the establishment of Internet protocol under IETF guidelines. > > One issue that emerged clearly from Magaziner's remarks is the > government's position that in the future, Domain Name registration > should > involve competition among registrars with shared access to generic > top-level domains. No specific details regarding plans for accomplishing > this goal were presented. > > The composition of the governing organization, based on the information > provided Monday evening, will closely resemble the structure outlined in > the original green paper. The government will recommend the inclusion > of > representatives from ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC on the Board. The government, > he emphasized, would not appoint the Board but would "recognize" the > Board > appointed by the Stakeholders. > > Elaborating on the nature of the appointed Board, Magaziner set forth > certain conditions that the new organization must meet to succeed. > First, > he said that the new organization must operate in a transparent manner > with by-laws that allow it to "re-form itself." It is also important for > the new organization to be incorporated under one legal authority to > ensure stability and hopefully avoid having questions settled by "twenty > different courts around the world." The new non-profit entity responsible > for governance must have the legal authority and credibility to withstand > the "inevitable lawsuits" that will occur. It must, he said, "be robust > enough to go forward." > > In addition, Magaziner said that the organization itself must be > international in scope and Stakeholder based. He expressed his belief > that > the European stakeholders have also accepted the underlying principles > behind the new governance structures and that consensus has been > achieved > in many important areas of concern. > > He is hopeful that by late summer, the new organization will get > underway. > He indicated that NSI's contract would not be renewed but that > negotiations with NSI would begin quickly following the issuance of the > white paper. The transition will occur, but the timetable will be > determined by events. The sooner the new organization becomes stable, > the > sooner the government will withdraw from an active role. The stability > of > the Internet is at stake and the government recognizes its responsibility > and authority to ensure that stability. The white paper will provide the > rules to bring about the transfer of control. > > In his remarks, Magaziner emphasized the need for balance in addressing > the multiple issues that presently confront the Internet community. > Issues > of taxes, tariffs, privacy, and intellectual property, he acknowledged, > create complexity and will require international consensus. > > Recognizing in his concluding remarks that none of us fully understands > what is happening as we enter this transition period, Magaziner indicated > that at least "we know enough to understand that we do not understand." > The key, he said, is in the creation of structures that are flexible > enough to evolve. He is also hopeful that groups of people willing to > take > on these challenges will emerge to take on leadership roles. > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > > - > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net > IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race > AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM > > * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request at apnic.net * -------- Logged at Sat May 16 22:19:04 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

ARIN's View of Magaziner's DCISOC Appearance
by JimFleming＠unety.net 16 May '98

16 May '98

On Saturday, May 16, 1998 11:08 PM, Mathias Koerber[SMTP:mathias at staff.singnet.com.sg] wrote: @This is not ARINs view of his comments, but a synopsis of his remarks. @Your subject line was misleading, but the article itself was interesting, @so thanks for reporting it here... @ <snip> @> From: Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net> @> To: arin-members at arin.net @> Subject: Remarks by Ira Magaziner to DCISOC It was from ARIN's Member Services is that not from ARIN ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Sun May 17 10:45:55 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

More on Neighbor Net for .WINE
by JimFleming＠unety.net 15 May '98

15 May '98

On Friday, May 15, 1998 7:41 AM, Annie Renard[SMTP:Annie.Renard at nic.fr] wrote: <snip> @--- @ Annie Renard [nic at nic.fr] @ AFNIC/NIC France @ c/o INRIA domaine de Voluceau BP105, 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX, France @ http://www.nic.fr/ @ Personal Email: Annie.Renard at nic.fr @ Did you have a question about IPv8 ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Sat May 16 22:09:46 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

More on Neighbor Net for .WINE
by JimFleming＠unety.net 15 May '98

15 May '98

Until we get the entire list filled in, you may have to expand the diameter of your neighbor net to include more G:S slots. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt G:S TLD RP Web Site -------------------------------------------------- 3:207 FR (FRANCE) <------ 3:208 ATHENS 3:209 FLAKE 3:210 DK (DENMARK) <------- 3:211 MLT (MALTA) <----- 3:212 VIDEO 3:213 WINE <---------- jc.praud at ludexpress.com ?? web site ?? 3:214 RAILWAY 3:215 BALLOON 3:216 SVK (SLOVAKIA-(Slovak-Republic)) <----- 3:217 DNK (DENMARK) <----- 3:218 GRC (GREECE) <----- -------------------------------------------------- The following is a good source of leads for the above TLDs with the arrows. http://www.ripe.net/centr/tld.html For slots where we can not locate people, for example, 3:215 BALLOON, the people around that slot become the "managers" of the slot and help someone introduce a new TLD alias for the slot. For example, David Rogers might want to use that slot for the .LTD TLD he is working on. Via the neighbor net approach, people can easily find a slot and add a new TLD that does not conflict with other TLDs. This is very much like entering an auditorium with 2,048 seats, looking around, and asking people..."is that seat taken ?". -------- Logged at Fri May 15 12:36:46 MET DST 1998 ---------

3 2

RIPE 30 TLD-WG: apology and draft agenda
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 15 May '98

15 May '98

Dear colleagues, due to exceptional pressure of work, I am unable to travel to RIPE 30, and so cannot chair the TLD-WG session. I am happy to say that Marcel Schneider of Switch has kindly agreed to act as deputy chairman. Thanks to him, the show can go on. Unfortunately, I am not able to provide the minutes of the previous meeting. However, a summary of the meeting has been available for a long time (http://www.ripe.net/wg/tld/summary-29.html). I believe that this reflects all the significant business of the meeting. The current workplan, as amended at RIPE 29 is also to be found on the TLD-WG website (http://www.ripe.net/wg/tld/workplan.html). I think it will be helpful if the meeting secretariate can arrange to have copies of these two documents available for participants. After discussion with Marcel, I would like to suggest the following draft agenda. 1. Administrivia - appointment of scribe - agreement of agenda 2. Matters arising from previous meeting at RIPE 29 - adoption of minutes (I suggest deferral - no minutes to hand) - review of action list (only outstanding is completed) 3a. Review of workplan 4. Presentation on RIPE CENTR (Fay Howard) 5. WHOIS proposal (Marcel Schneider) 6. Other business (if any) 3b. Review of Workplan in view of developments at meeting 7. Close I wish you all a good meeting, and look forward to seeing you in Edinburgh. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly (NO8) IE Domain Registry University College Dublin Computing Services -------- Logged at Fri May 15 13:08:28 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

ARIN's View of Magaziner's DCISOC Appearance
by JimFleming＠unety.net 14 May '98

14 May '98

@@@@@@ http://www.arin.net/archives/arin-members.9805

1 0

[apnic-talk] APNIC Director General: what is the catch?
by JimFleming＠unety.net 09 May '98

09 May '98

This is only one small example of why Internet Governance structures should take business models into consideration, as well as technical issues. In the IPv8 Plan there is no need for APNIC as an IPv4-only organization. The IPv8 address spaces are managed by the TLD authorities and the IPv4 address space is divided in a distributed way for management by the TLD authorities. APNIC might want to take the path that RIPE is taking. Namely, they are branching into the TLD arena with RIPE CENTR. This gives them the needed hooks into that area so that they have a viable business model for the future. If APNIC does that, they might be able to attract business people to properly manage the company and to provide the best service for the region. Jim Fleming On Friday, May 08, 1998 9:34 PM, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim[SMTP:rms46 at geocities.com] wrote: @Hello; @ @David R. Conrad wrote: @ @> Enclosed is the official APNIC Director General position posting. @ @So, the position is still empty? This is not the first time I saw @that announcement. Therefore, what is the catch? It seems, whether @we like it or not, that APNIC is Randy and Randy is APNIC. @ @ @> Feel free to recirculate where ever you feel appropriate. @ @I did it last time. It seems that it did not work. @ @ @> I _STRONGLY_ encourage anyone who has interest in the position @> to apply, regardless of whether or not you feel you meet all @> the requirements for the position. @ @There are not many fellows that understand both the technical part @and the policy/politic part of the issue. I am unfortunately @understand both. As I will not nominate myself (and thank you for @the big BOOBOO from behind), the closest Indonesian fellow that has @popped from my mind is Mr. Sanjaya from IndoInternet. @ @ @regards, @ @-- @Rahmat M.Samik-Ibrahim VLSM-TJT http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/6825 @-My clock display is QUALITATIVE:more sense,less positivist(m/tic)- @ @* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List * @* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic.net * @ @ - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race -------- Logged at Mon May 11 11:14:35 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

FW: .ITALY, .ROME, .PIZZA
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 05 May '98

05 May '98

---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming] Sent: Monday, May 04, 1998 6:22 PM To: 'DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET' Subject: .ITALY, .ROME, .PIZZA I wonder what http://www.Tombstone.Pizza would bring in terms of annual licensing fees to the Italian government ? ...not to mention the other thousands of Pizza companies... http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://vi.caribnic.net -------- Logged at Sat May 9 14:22:55 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

FW: .FRANCE, .PARIS, .RIVIERA
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 05 May '98

05 May '98

---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming] Sent: Monday, May 04, 1998 6:28 PM To: 'DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET' Subject: .FRANCE, .PARIS, .RIVIERA Would people from France opt for English TLDs or would they prefer French equivalents ? Will countries favor TLDs that generate revenue (registry fees) or stick with their cultural heritage ? http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://vi.caribnic.net -------- Logged at Tue May 5 01:35:26 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

100% Government Backed TLDs
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 04 May '98

04 May '98

On Sunday, May 03, 1998 7:50 PM, Adam Todd[SMTP:at at AH.NET] wrote: @Looks like the Domain Policy list is warming up for news on the Green Paper @results. @ Actually, I think that things are getting quiet and falling into place. People close to the new IANA Inc. formation report that there will NOT likely be any significant number of new TLDs added. Supposedly the IAHC/CORE group will be given the go ahead to compete with NSI. They will be required to have a Registrar/Registry situation that is similar to the WorldNIC/InterNIC transition that is taking place under the supervision of the U.S. Government. The rumor is that CORE will start with THREE TLDs, just like NSI. Apparently, government officials from Australia and Europe were able to convince the U.S. Government that they should be involved at the registry level. Since they will need time to get up to speed, the approach of giving only CORE the go ahead is a compromise. Essentially, the ISOC is given the status of being a psuedo government in this plan. After CORE gets rolling, and NSI continues to roll, people expect to see other governments making proposals to the IANA Inc. to have THREE TLDs added via a registry they back. This will provide the government-backed stability that some people feel is needed to protect consumers. It will also allow countries to break from the shackles of the ISO TLDs that they may not desire. As this evolves, it appears that ALL TLDs at the registry-level (not registrar) will end up with some government supervision. .COM, .NET, and .ORG will be U.S. supervised. The CORE registry will be supervised by Switzerland unless CORE moves to the U.S. following their upcoming May 14th meeting. All of the Country Code TLDs will be supervised by the countries involved, or so they say. In order for companies to get the new IANA Inc. to add new TLDs, this plan would require them to find a "country" (or government) to escort them and back their registries. If this plan comes to pass, this will likely cause small countries to come into the international spot-light as they are lobbied to support THREE new TLDs from some registry confederation that is willing to turn the TLDs over to the country for trusteeship as they proceed to develop the registrar level of operations. This plan results in the real money being made at the registrar level with "Internet taxes" going to the registry level and probably to the country that is backing the three-TLD confederation. Because of the size and dominance of the United States, it will be unlikely that any companies will be able to lobby them to add any more TLDs. They will be able to live off of the .COM, .NET, .ORG, .US, .MIL, and .GOV for a long time. This plan helps to take much of the pressure off of the proposed IANA Inc. Rather than deal with companies who bring attorneys, the IANA can deal with countries who bring ambassadors. The IANA has not had a good track-record for dealing with companies. Because of the DOD roots of the IANA, it should be more comfortable dealing with governments. This plan helps to encourage the wide-spread clean-up of the two-letter country code registries. There will likely be a surge in education as companies begin to educate the various governments about the Registry Industry in hopes of getting a government endorsement for their proposed TLDs. Rather than move the Internet further from government control, it will help to place it in the international government's hands more tightly. This placement is likely to help balance creativity and prudence in the selection of the TLDs. It is unlikely that a recognized government will come to apply for controversial TLDs. Their citizens would likely object. Despite the commercial value of a .XXX or .SEX, it is unlikely that these will appear. This frees the IANA Inc. from having to deal with the potential censorship issues. This plan can be best described as "the Postage Stamp Plan". Countries currently design and print colorful and creative postage stamps, which could be compared to TLDs. They do not print stamps that would be considered objectional. Instead, stamps tend to reflect cultural diversity but still maintain the official "look" that goes with government-sanctioned designs. If this plan comes to pass, it will likely signal a turning point for the IPv4 Internet. The IPv4 Internet was built around the edges of the "old-school" telecommunciations infrastructure. It leveraged off it, but avoided being pulled into the massive beauracracy (and cost) that goes with government control. If the plan plays out as expected, the IPv4 Internet will likely become a core collection of infrastructure that the average person can no longer touch. If this occurs, the only solution is to start to build around this core infrastructure. IPv8 was designed in anticipation of this evolution. It appears that it will be needed sooner rather than later, because apparently this plan will be moving forward between now and September 1998. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://vi.caribnic.net -------- Logged at Tue May 5 01:35:05 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Who is on the IDNB ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 03 May '98

03 May '98

On Sunday, May 03, 1998 9:55 AM, Richard J. Sexton[SMTP:richard at SEXTON.COM] wrote: @At 09:25 AM 5/3/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: @>As a web designer, you also have to be concerned. @>If you can NOT get names in .VI but other companies @>can, then you can not design web sites. Or...your @>customers may be forced to get a domain name @>via Netnames under co.vi and they may not want that. @ @>From: Hank Nussbacher[SMTP:hank at ibm.net.il] @> @>In your opinion? Want to make a mess of nTLDs as has happened to gTLDs? @>RFC1591 defines specific rules as to what is allowed or not allowed. @> @>To quote: @> The Internet DNS Names Review Board (IDNB), a committee @> established by the IANA, will act as a review panel for cases in @> which the parties can not reach agreement among themselves. The @> IDNB's decisions will be binding. @ @Well, it would seem to be a simple matter of sending an email to the @IDNB then, wouldnt it ? @ Who is on the IDNB ? Is that the same as the ITAG ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://vi.caribnic.net -------- Logged at Mon May 4 19:10:52 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

FW: .VI = Virgin Islands ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 03 May '98

03 May '98

---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming] Sent: Sunday, May 03, 1998 9:25 AM To: DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET Cc: 'Antitrust List'; 'antitrust at usdoj.gov'; 'Antony Van Couvering'; 'BBURR at ntia.doc.gov'; 'charles mueller'; 'Dan_Cohen at ntia.doc.gov'; 'dnrc-board at domain-name.org'; 'Dotty Sparks'; 'editor at vibj.com'; 'David Farber'; 'Hank Nussbacher'; 'Don Heath'; 'Ira_C._Magaziner at oa.eop.gov'; 'Ivan Pope'; 'jason at ICANECT.NET'; 'jlucas at UVI.EDU'; 'Peter deBlanc'; 'Jon Postel'; 'rhanscom at USVI.NET'; 'Steven Pitzl'; 'Steve Wolff'; 'zbvi at caribsurf.com' Subject: RE: .VI = Virgin Islands ? On Sunday, May 03, 1998 9:04 AM, Richard J. Sexton[SMTP:richard at SEXTON.COM] wrote: @>@@@ http://www.zbvi.vi @> @>"ZBVI is the principal commercial and only "AM" radio station in the British Virgin Islands." @ @Waitta minute. NetNames site said "companies must use .co.vi". @ @Whats going on here? @ @I think if I paid thousands of dollars to NetNames to "protect my name" @and they gave me, say netscape.co.vi, I'd be pretty annoyed if Microsoft @(say) obtained netscape.vi and put MSIE there. @ @Good thing the "government sets policy" and NetNames's Antony Van Couvering @stated. @ @.emacs anybody ? @ @ @ @-- @Richard J. Sexton | Cheap ISDN + T1 feeds. @richard at vrx.net | Creative domain names. @VRx Network Services, | CGI/Database programmer. @Toronto, Canada | Web design with an attitude. @+1 (613) 473-1719 | http://richard-resume.vrx.net @ @ As a web designer, you also have to be concerned. If you can NOT get names in .VI but other companies can, then you can not design web sites. Or...your customers may be forced to get a domain name via Netnames under co.vi and they may not want that. Hank Nussbacher over in Israel (not Illinois), and a member of the Blue Ribbon IAHC claims that this is all well-organized. If you recall, he wrote... ======================== ---------- From: Hank Nussbacher[SMTP:hank at ibm.net.il] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 2:46 AM To: Jim Fleming; 'tld-wg at ripe.net' Subject: Re: Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ? At 03:20 PM 4/27/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: In your opinion? Want to make a mess of nTLDs as has happened to gTLDs? RFC1591 defines specific rules as to what is allowed or not allowed. To quote: 3) The designated manager must be equitable to all groups in the domain that request domain names. This means that the same rules are applied to all requests, all requests must be processed in a non-discriminatory fashion, and academic and commercial (and other) users are treated on an equal basis. No bias shall be shown regarding requests that may come from customers of some other business related to the manager -- e.g., no preferential service for customers of a particular data network provider. There can be no requirement that a particular mail system (or other application), protocol, or product be used. 4) Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that the designated manager is the appropriate party. The IANA tries to have any contending parties reach agreement among themselves, and generally takes no action to change things unless all the contending parties agree; only in cases where the designated manager has substantially mis-behaved would the IANA step in. However, it is also appropriate for interested parties to have some voice in selecting the designated manager. There are two cases where the IANA and the central IR may establish a new top-level domain and delegate only a portion of it: (1) there are contending parties that cannot agree, or (2) the applying party may not be able to represent or serve the whole country. The later case sometimes arises when a party outside a country is trying to be helpful in getting networking started in a country -- this is sometimes called a "proxy" DNS service. The Internet DNS Names Review Board (IDNB), a committee established by the IANA, will act as a review panel for cases in which the parties can not reach agreement among themselves. The IDNB's decisions will be binding. ===== - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://vi.caribnic.net -------- Logged at Sun May 3 16:44:59 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.VI = Virgin Islands ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 03 May '98

03 May '98

On Saturday, May 02, 1998 9:30 PM, William X. Walsh[SMTP:william at TJNS.TJ] wrote: <snip> @ @The British Virgin Islands have their OWN 2 letter code, separate and @unique from the US Virgin Islands code. @ It makes no sense to carve up country code TLDs along hard and fast political boundaries. Those boundaries can change and people will want to continue to use their domain names. Stability of domain names is one of the arguments the ITU/ISOC/IAHC/POC/PAB/CORE use to justify their plan. How can they do that when the IANA (Jon Postel) plan for country codes does not support that ? Also, what is the purpose of having country codes if people ignore the boundaries ? @@@ http://www.zbvi.vi "ZBVI is the principal commercial and only "AM" radio station in the British Virgin Islands." @@@@@@@@@@@ Again...just so people are clear...I suggest that a TLD like .VI should cover the "region" known as the Virgin Islands and I also suggest that the stakeholders be the ones that determine the future of the TLD, not the IANA (Jon Poste). The stakeholders are the <SLD>.VI owners, in my opinion. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://vi.caribnic.net -------- Logged at Sun May 3 16:44:52 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

The Many Faces of .VI
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 30 Apr '98

30 Apr '98

Shown below are the ~50 names active in the .VI TLD DNS. It is unclear if this is all of the names "registered" because some people could claim that unlisted names also exist. If we assume there are no unlisted names, then the "owners" of the 50 names below are the "stakeholders" for the .VI TLD. The .VI TLD is a good TLD to use for discussion purposes because people can get their hands around 50 stakeholders as opposed to 2,000,000+ owners in .COM. There are at least five known uses of the .VI TLD: 1. .VI - United States Virgin Islands 2. .VI - Virgin Islands 3. .VI Text Editor Users 4. .VI Roman Numeral for 6 5. .VI - Very Intelligent or Very Important (short for VIP) If you take all of the names below and apply .VI to the right side and a WWW to the left side, you can start to classify the names below into the above five categories. For example, WWW.ALEXIS.VI. Which of the above five categories does that fall into ?....and most importantly, does it matter ? ALEXIS AMCUP AMENT AQUAMAN ARMOUR BCPHOTO BUSHTEA BVIMALL BXICARIBBEAN CAROLLEE CHARTERBOAT CO CROIX DAVIDJONES DIUSVI FANTASIA HOTELBOYNES ISLANDVIDEO IYC JNET JOHN LOCATION MARRIOTT MARRIOTT-FR MARRIOTT-MS MORRETT OCTAGON PISSARRO PRISCO ROLEXREGATTA ROTARY ROYALCARIBBEAN SANDDOLLAR SHIPS SOCCER-MASTERS ST-CROIX ST-JOHN ST-THOMAS STCROIX STJOHN STTHOMAS SUNREALTY THOMAS TRADEWINDS VISIT WEDUS WINDSURFING WSTA YACHTS ZBVI ===== As the 2 letter TLDs begin to join the other generic TLDs or vice versa, the market and marketing forces will help to define what a TLD means to people. No matter what it means, the <SLD>.TLD owners are the stakeholders and they have a right an responsibility to make sure that their TLD administration is handled in the manner they prefer. Their collective voice should be used to guide the direction the TLD takes. Let their voices be heard. Whomever they are... -------- Logged at Fri May 1 11:52:21 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Small Name Services Providers
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 30 Apr '98

30 Apr '98

On Tuesday, April 28, 1998 10:19 PM, Peter deBlanc[SMTP:pdeblanc at usvi.net] wrote: @Thanks Bob, for your comments on this interesting concept. I have always @promoted public service internet access. In fact, my paper for the @Internet Society conference in Hawaii in 1995 was about a funding model @for public internet access in developing countries. After spending 5 @years working for the United Nations in such countries in the Caribbean, @It became clear that some method was needed to bridge the gap between @"information haves" and information have-nots". I am all in favor of @profitable enterprise. And I subscribe to the concept that pro bono @service is a responsibility of the mature professional. @ Peter, Do you have any plans to evolve the .VI DNS system to a more production-oriented structure ? As you can see below there are various levels delegated in your TLD Name Servers. This makes it more difficult to have a volume interface similar to the InterNIC where all .COM entries look like the CO.VI entry below: $ORIGIN vi. co IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. While entries like the following may make sense for a TLD registry that caters to a small number of domains that you are hosting or familiar with, this might be expensive to maintain in a volume (production) situation. ships IN A 208.200.189.167 In other words, one would expect that the name SHIPS.VI would cause an entry with a minimum of 2 name servers (as CO.VI has) and then the delegate for SHIPS.VI would be responsible for handling the traffic for that zone. At the present this is handled on the .VI "root" TLD Name Servers. I bring this up because now is the time to clean-up the .VI zone before it grows. It may be difficult or impossible to do that later. I am interested in your plans to bring the .VI TLD Name Servers to a point where it has a production-grade structure. I am also interested in the criteria for names being entered below the .VI TLD. I have heard the "Free Net" arguments that names are provided for worthy causes. I have also heard the argument that commercial companies should be under CO.VI. As shown below, there does not seem to be a consistent policy for the .VI TLD. What is the current policy for names directly under .VI. Can one assume that ALL names currently under .COM could also be registered under .VI, if those owners desired ? Free Nets seem to have a way of developing Free-Form policies that few people can articulate. Maybe you can work with Bob Allisat on articulating the policy for the .VI TLD. Thanks... Jim Fleming ============================== ; BIND version named 4.9.3-P1 Tue Jan 23 15:41:55 GMT 1996 ; BIND version polk at forge.BSDI.COM:/usr/src/usr.sbin/named/named ; zone 'vi' last serial 0 ; from 198.6.1.65 at Wed Apr 29 14:11:39 1998 $ORIGIN . vi IN SOA ns1.octagon.net. hostmaster.usvi.net. ( 1998042604 21600 1800 1728000 43200 ) IN NS auth00.ns.uu.net. IN NS auth01.ns.uu.net. IN NS ns.ripe.net. IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. $ORIGIN vi. alexis IN A 208.200.189.133 $ORIGIN alexis.vi. www IN CNAME alexis.vi. $ORIGIN vi. marriott-fr IN A 208.200.189.171 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN marriott-fr.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.171 $ORIGIN vi. tradewinds IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.141 $ORIGIN tradewinds.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.141 $ORIGIN st-croix.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN vi. prisco IN MX 5 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.156 $ORIGIN prisco.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.156 $ORIGIN vi. rotary IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.139 $ORIGIN rotary.vi. www IN CNAME rotary.vi. $ORIGIN vi. imi IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. ac IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. pissarro IN A 208.200.189.164 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN pissarro.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.164 $ORIGIN stjohn.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN vi. credit IN NS ns1.webservices.net. IN NS ns2.webservices.net. marriott IN A 208.200.189.170 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN marriott.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.170 $ORIGIN vi. sanddollar IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.190 $ORIGIN sanddollar.vi. www IN CNAME sanddollar.vi. $ORIGIN vi. ament IN A 208.200.189.165 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN ament.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.165 $ORIGIN vi. bxicaribbean IN A 208.200.189.187 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN bxicaribbean.vi. www IN CNAME bxicaribbean.vi. $ORIGIN st.thomas.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN vi. gov IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. soccer-masters IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.178 $ORIGIN soccer-masters.vi. www IN CNAME soccer-masters.vi. $ORIGIN vi. coconutcoaststudios IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. rolexregatta IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.173 $ORIGIN rolexregatta.vi. www IN CNAME rolexregatta.vi. $ORIGIN vi. islands IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. wedus IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.184 $ORIGIN wedus.vi. www IN CNAME wedus.vi. $ORIGIN vi. morrett IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN morrett.vi. chad IN A 204.199.0.98 $ORIGIN vi. co IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. ships IN A 208.200.189.167 $ORIGIN ships.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.167 $ORIGIN vi. location IN MX 10 mail.location.vi. IN MX 20 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.166 $ORIGIN location.vi. mail IN A 204.199.1.240 IN MX 10 mail.location.vi. IN MX 20 noc.usvi.net. www IN A 208.200.189.166 $ORIGIN vi. hotelboynes IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.162 $ORIGIN hotelboynes.vi. www IN CNAME hotelboynes.vi. $ORIGIN vi. wsta IN A 208.200.189.144 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN wsta.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.144 $ORIGIN vi. falcon IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. CarolLee IN MX 5 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.160 $ORIGIN CarolLee.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.160 $ORIGIN vi. octagon IN A 208.200.189.150 IN MX 10 octagon.usvi.net. IN MX 20 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN octagon.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.150 $ORIGIN vi. amcup IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.179 $ORIGIN amcup.vi. www IN CNAME amcup.vi. $ORIGIN vi. armour IN MX 10 rutabaga.armour.vi. IN MX 20 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.183 $ORIGIN armour.vi. impossibleapple IN A 204.199.0.92 peach IN A 204.199.0.95 chocolate IN A 204.199.0.94 cherry IN A 204.199.0.93 rutabaga IN A 204.199.0.90 www IN CNAME armour.vi. mincemeat IN A 204.199.0.97 pumpkin IN A 204.199.0.96 lemon IN A 204.199.0.91 $ORIGIN st.john.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN vi. yachts IN A 208.200.189.132 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN yachts.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.132 $ORIGIN st-thomas.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN vi. marriott-ms IN A 208.200.189.172 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN marriott-ms.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.172 $ORIGIN vi. zbvi IN A 208.200.189.169 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN zbvi.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.169 $ORIGIN vi. davidjones IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.191 $ORIGIN davidjones.vi. www IN CNAME davidjones.vi. $ORIGIN vi. k12 IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. $ORIGIN stcroix.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN vi. royalcaribbean IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.10 $ORIGIN royalcaribbean.vi. www IN CNAME royalcaribbean.vi. $ORIGIN st.croix.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN st-john.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN vi. gv IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. islandvideo IN A 208.200.189.155 IN MX 0 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN islandvideo.vi. www IN CNAME islandvideo.vi. $ORIGIN vi. fantasia IN A 208.200.189.147 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN fantasia.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.147 $ORIGIN vi. diusvi IN A 208.200.189.177 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN diusvi.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.177 $ORIGIN vi. jnet IN A 146.226.2.198 IN HINFO "i80586" "FreeBSD" IN MX 0 jnet.vi. $ORIGIN jnet.vi. www IN CNAME jnet.vi. $ORIGIN visit.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN vi. tti IN MX 0 noc.usvi.net. org IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. $ORIGIN stthomas.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN vi. aquaman IN MX 10 mail.islands.vi. IN A 208.200.189.186 $ORIGIN aquaman.vi. www IN CNAME aquaman.vi. $ORIGIN vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. windsurfing IN A 208.200.189.157 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN windsurfing.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.157 $ORIGIN vi. iyc IN A 208.200.189.168 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN iyc.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.168 $ORIGIN vi. charterboat IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.181 $ORIGIN charterboat.vi. www IN CNAME charterboat.vi. $ORIGIN vi. bcphoto IN A 208.200.189.176 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN bcphoto.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.176 $ORIGIN vi. sunrealty IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.182 $ORIGIN sunrealty.vi. www IN CNAME sunrealty.vi. $ORIGIN vi. vitelcom IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. test IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. bvimall IN A 208.200.189.135 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN bvimall.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.135 $ORIGIN vi. bushtea IN A 208.200.189.148 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN bushtea.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.148 ===================================== - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://vi.unir.net -------- Logged at Thu Apr 30 14:56:10 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

(Fwd) CENTR Technical Workshop
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 29 Apr '98

29 Apr '98

I forward for information an interesting announcement from the RIPE CENTR Project co-ordinator. Please note the restrictions on size. Niall O'Reilly ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 19:14:07 +0200 From: Fay Howard <fay at ripe.net> Subject: CENTR Technical Workshop To: centr at ripe.net, Timo.Tuuli at thk.fi, Grete.Duna at uninett.no Dear CENTR participants/ccTLDs, Following the positive response at last week's CENTR meeting to the idea of TLD workshops, I am beginning arrangements for the first which will be: Technical Workshop for ccTLDs 25 - 26 June 1998 Venue: RIPE NCC Office, Singel 258, Amsterdam. It is proposed to hold the workshop over two days starting lunch time on Thursday, 25 June and finishing lunchtime on Friday, 26 June. Lunch will be provided on both days and dinner arranged for the Thursday evening. Transport and accommodation costs will be the responsibility of the workshop participants. Places will be limited to 18. If more than 18 applications are received, it will be necessary to limit attendance to one per TLD with preference given to TLDs who have committed to support RIPE CENTR in 1998(first come first served basis). If applications are well in excess of 18 it may be possible to run the workshop again at a later date. The workshop, which is aimed at staff involved in the operational side of running a TLD, will encourage discussion and exchange of experiences. Below are listed some topics to be covered but suggestions for other items are welcomed. Please contact me if you require any further information. If you would like to attend or to nominate suitable colleagues, please complete the application details given at the end of this mail and return to me. Fay Howard RIPE CENTR Project Manager Topics for the Workshop: Registry Databases Each TLD administrator keeps a database of registrations. The technical implementation of this database seems to be differing widely. Under this topic short case studies are presented and a general exchange of experiences follows. Aspects to be covered include - implementation of registry database - human interfaces - generation of DNS zone files - genertaing charging information - statistics Request Tracking TLD administrators process requests for additions, changes and deletions to the TLD registry. How are these requests received? How are they tracked while being processed? How are they documented for future reference? Experiences with request tracking systems. Aspects to be covered include - request origination e-mail / phone / bulk (registrars) - request tracking - human interfaces (external/internal) - request documentation / filing - statistics DNS Operations TLD administrators are responsible for the operation of TLD name servers. There are numerous technical aspects to this. We will look at operational experiences and get some technical presentations about developments in bind software. - zone file maintenance - primary nameserver - secondaries - software issues (bind) - security - load statistics - current developments of NS software (bind) Secure DNS Developments are under way to use public key cryptography to authenticate the origin of DNS zone information in a hierarchical manner. TLD administrators play a key role in its deployment because they are close to the root of the hierarchy. We will present an overview of this new technology and exchange views on its impact on operational procedures. - what ? - why ? - status - operational consequences ---------------------ooooooooOoooooooo--------------- APPLICATION Please complete the following and return to fay at ripe.net Name: Organization: Country: Job Function: Suggestions for Topics to be included other than those mentioned: If space permits or a repeat workshop is arranged, I would also like to nominate: Name: Organization: Country: Job Function: --------------------oooooooOooooooo---------- -------- Logged at Thu Apr 30 03:03:38 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Small Name Services Providers
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 29 Apr '98

29 Apr '98

On Tuesday, April 28, 1998 10:19 PM, Peter deBlanc[SMTP:pdeblanc at usvi.net] wrote: @Thanks Bob, for your comments on this interesting concept. I have always @promoted public service internet access. In fact, my paper for the @Internet Society conference in Hawaii in 1995 was about a funding model @for public internet access in developing countries. After spending 5 @years working for the United Nations in such countries in the Caribbean, @It became clear that some method was needed to bridge the gap between @"information haves" and information have-nots". I am all in favor of @profitable enterprise. And I subscribe to the concept that pro bono @service is a responsibility of the mature professional. @ @You (all on the list) may be interested in reading my paper, "Networking @the Caribbean via the VIP FreeNet" @ @at http://www.usvi.net/cobex/inet95 @ People might also be interested in this lecture or other similar developments in the Virgin Islands and the Caribbean. @@@@ http://bviwelcome.com/limin/upcome.html May 8 - COLLEGE LECTURE SERIES - Lecture at 5:30 p.m) "Small Island Developing States in the Global Economy: Can the BVI Be a model for the development of other island economies?" by Pierre Encontre of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development based in Switzerland. Information: 284-494-4994 (date tentative @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://vi.unir.net -------- Logged at Wed Apr 29 12:36:47 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 29 Apr '98

29 Apr '98

Dear Mr. Nussbacher, As a distinguished member of the Blue Ribbon IAHC panel that developed the ITU/ISOC/IAHC/CORE/POC/PAB proposal your comments carry a lot of weight. It is nice to see that you are still active in these forums. It is also nice that the European community supports these discussions via RIPE. As you know, there are many debates going on with respect to the management of Top Level Domains. The United States Government has decided to help bring an end to the confusion caused by the IAHC and the attempts to move the control of domains to Switzerland and the ITU. The U.S. Government, via the Department of Commerce has published its Green Paper outlining their proposals. Many people have commented in open forums like these. As the final plans for the U.S. Government's actions come together, there are many details that need to be worked out. As I have pointed out below, there could be problems in not addressing the 2 letter (so-called country code) TLDs more directly in the USG process. One of the main reasons is that 2 letter TLDs are quickly becoming generic. I offer <http://this.is> and <http://www.internet.tm> as only a couple of examples. One of the other major problems is the perception on the part of the consumers that government agencies "back" the operations of the 2 letter TLDs. We all know this is not the case, and in my opinion it would be wrong to have consumers mislead into thinking that a registration in a TLD will be MORE stable than so-called gTLDs. In looking for an example, the United States Government does not have to venture far from home. They can turn to the United States Virgin Islands (.VI) where Bill Clinton and his family regularly vacation. In looking at the .VI TLD several questions can be asked. Which government controls that TLD ? Is it the local USVI government or the United States Federal Government ? Also, the question should be raised about local stakeholder participation. If you happen to visit the Virgin Islands or some of the web sites, you might find that local people have a perception that the .VI TLD will be blown away with a hurricane and therefore the .COM/.NET/.ORG domains are preferred. Beyond this, there is another local issue and that is, does the .VI TLD cover the "Virgin Islands" or just the U.S. Virgin Islands ? Again, if you return to the local culture and you consult with truely local inhabitants, you will find that the term Virgin Islands for them implies BOTH the U.S. and British Virgin Islands. They view the government boundaries that have been imposed as legal but not cultural. This is EXACTLY the view that many Internet leaders try to claim should be the basis for domain boundaries. It seems inconsistent for people to be claiming that domains cover a group of stakeholders and do not stop at government and legal boundaries, and then turn around and claim that some TLDs (like the 2 letter ones) do have hard legal/government boundaries. It also seems inconsistent to have many 2 letter TLDs which are now truely generic, while people try to claim they are still tied to a government. In closing, I suggest that the United States Government use the United States Virgin Islands (.VI) TLD as an example to guide the rest of the world. As the U.S. rolls out its Department of Commerce rules, I would hope they make sure that ALL of the United States conforms to those rules. It would not be correct for the U.S. to be imposing rules on the rest of the world when they do not follow them themselves. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation P.S. With regard to your comments about Unir. You might be interested to know that Unir intends to help "build up" and beef up current TLD registries. and future TLD registries. With over 240 TLDs currently recognized by the U.S. Government there is need for everyone in the Registry Industry to try to help bring it to a higher level of operational excellence. Unir will continue to try to do that despite your viewpoint. On Tuesday, April 28, 1998 2:46 AM, Hank Nussbacher[SMTP:hank at ibm.net.il] wrote: @At 03:20 PM 4/27/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @In your opinion? Want to make a mess of nTLDs as has happened to gTLDs? @RFC1591 defines specific rules as to what is allowed or not allowed. @ @To quote: @ @3) The designated manager must be equitable to all groups in the @ domain that request domain names. @ @ This means that the same rules are applied to all requests, all @ requests must be processed in a non-discriminatory fashion, and @ academic and commercial (and other) users are treated on an equal @ basis. No bias shall be shown regarding requests that may come @ from customers of some other business related to the manager -- @ e.g., no preferential service for customers of a particular data @ network provider. There can be no requirement that a particular @ mail system (or other application), protocol, or product be used. @ @4) Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that @ the designated manager is the appropriate party. @ @ The IANA tries to have any contending parties reach agreement @ among themselves, and generally takes no action to change things @ unless all the contending parties agree; only in cases where the @ designated manager has substantially mis-behaved would the IANA @ step in. @ @ However, it is also appropriate for interested parties to have @ some voice in selecting the designated manager. @ @ There are two cases where the IANA and the central IR may @ establish a new top-level domain and delegate only a portion of @ it: (1) there are contending parties that cannot agree, or (2) the @ applying party may not be able to represent or serve the whole @ country. The later case sometimes arises when a party outside a @ country is trying to be helpful in getting networking started in a @ country -- this is sometimes called a "proxy" DNS service. @ @ The Internet DNS Names Review Board (IDNB), a committee @ established by the IANA, will act as a review panel for cases in @ which the parties can not reach agreement among themselves. The @ IDNB's decisions will be binding. @ @Believe me, if a gov't finds that some Unir organization has appropriated @it's nTLD and is running it into the ground - they will find the way to take @it over. @ @Everyone, Jim has always been and always will be an "agent provocateur". @Lets just ignore his ramblings and leave the matter alone. @ @-hank @ @ @> @>People seem to have no problem allowing the 2 letter TLDs @>to be grandfathered to have immunity from the Green Paper @>and the U.S. Government. The assumption appears to be @>that the 2 letter TLDs have been delegated to individuals, @>companies and in some cases governments with care. This @>is not necessarily the case. @> @>In my opinion, the 2 letter TLDs should be treated as generic @>tags and should not be given a pass when it comes to requirements @>for stable governance and operational excellence. If this is not @>done, consumers may be mislead that 2 letter TLDs have the @>same industry oversight via the IANA Inc. and self-regulation. @>Consumers may find that they are subjected to arbitrary policies, @>predatory price increases and shoddy operations unless they @>are warned that 2 letter TLDs are immune from IANA Inc. oversight. @>This will not be a good thing and may cause well-run 2 letter @>TLDs to suffer because of the unsatisfactory practices of a few, @>poorly managed 2 letter TLDs. @> @>Of course, part of the problem is defining what poorly managed @>means. In some parts of the world business practices may be @>tolerated that are not common in the U.S. For example, people @>may choose to discriminate based on a variety of reasons. One @>of the most obvious is that companies supporting the government @>obtain <SLD>.TLD registrations and those that do not are excluded. @> @>Much of this assumes that the government is the current delegate @>of the 2 letter TLDs. As the domain name debates rage on we @>find more and more that governments do not have a clue what is @>happening with the 2 letter TLD that was supposedly delegated to @>them. Instead, we find that the 2 letter TLDs have been casually @>delegated to people and companies that gave the right impression @>of representing the government or local people but who actually @>use the TLD for their own business purposes. @> @>None of these things can be easily fixed and there may be no @>need to fix them IF the consumer is alerted to this situation. @>Unfortunately, the Green Paper and the IANA Inc. might end @>up sending the wrong message if they require generic TLDs to @>be held to one standard while 2 letter TLDs are immune. In my @>opinion, all of the TLDs should be held to the same high standards @>of business ethics and operational integrity as agreed upon @>by the Registry Industry. The question remains as to how to do @>this...? @> @>To date much of the focus has been on ADDING TLDs to the @>legacy Root Name Servers that the U.S. Government supports. @>Before TLDs are added, there may have to be a review of the @>existing TLDs to see where they stand from a business ethics @>and operational standards point of view. In some cases, 2 letter @>TLDs may need to be removed from the legacy Root Name @>Servers. How this should be handled needs to be debated by @>the people actively involved in the Registry Industry. @> @> - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://vi.unir.net -------- Logged at Tue Apr 28 22:46:40 MET DST 1998 ---------

3 2

Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ?
by hank＠ibm.net.il 28 Apr '98

28 Apr '98

At 03:20 PM 4/27/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: In your opinion? Want to make a mess of nTLDs as has happened to gTLDs? RFC1591 defines specific rules as to what is allowed or not allowed. To quote: 3) The designated manager must be equitable to all groups in the domain that request domain names. This means that the same rules are applied to all requests, all requests must be processed in a non-discriminatory fashion, and academic and commercial (and other) users are treated on an equal basis. No bias shall be shown regarding requests that may come from customers of some other business related to the manager -- e.g., no preferential service for customers of a particular data network provider. There can be no requirement that a particular mail system (or other application), protocol, or product be used. 4) Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that the designated manager is the appropriate party. The IANA tries to have any contending parties reach agreement among themselves, and generally takes no action to change things unless all the contending parties agree; only in cases where the designated manager has substantially mis-behaved would the IANA step in. However, it is also appropriate for interested parties to have some voice in selecting the designated manager. There are two cases where the IANA and the central IR may establish a new top-level domain and delegate only a portion of it: (1) there are contending parties that cannot agree, or (2) the applying party may not be able to represent or serve the whole country. The later case sometimes arises when a party outside a country is trying to be helpful in getting networking started in a country -- this is sometimes called a "proxy" DNS service. The Internet DNS Names Review Board (IDNB), a committee established by the IANA, will act as a review panel for cases in which the parties can not reach agreement among themselves. The IDNB's decisions will be binding. Believe me, if a gov't finds that some Unir organization has appropriated it's nTLD and is running it into the ground - they will find the way to take it over. Everyone, Jim has always been and always will be an "agent provocateur". Lets just ignore his ramblings and leave the matter alone. -hank > >People seem to have no problem allowing the 2 letter TLDs >to be grandfathered to have immunity from the Green Paper >and the U.S. Government. The assumption appears to be >that the 2 letter TLDs have been delegated to individuals, >companies and in some cases governments with care. This >is not necessarily the case. > >In my opinion, the 2 letter TLDs should be treated as generic >tags and should not be given a pass when it comes to requirements >for stable governance and operational excellence. If this is not >done, consumers may be mislead that 2 letter TLDs have the >same industry oversight via the IANA Inc. and self-regulation. >Consumers may find that they are subjected to arbitrary policies, >predatory price increases and shoddy operations unless they >are warned that 2 letter TLDs are immune from IANA Inc. oversight. >This will not be a good thing and may cause well-run 2 letter >TLDs to suffer because of the unsatisfactory practices of a few, >poorly managed 2 letter TLDs. > >Of course, part of the problem is defining what poorly managed >means. In some parts of the world business practices may be >tolerated that are not common in the U.S. For example, people >may choose to discriminate based on a variety of reasons. One >of the most obvious is that companies supporting the government >obtain <SLD>.TLD registrations and those that do not are excluded. > >Much of this assumes that the government is the current delegate >of the 2 letter TLDs. As the domain name debates rage on we >find more and more that governments do not have a clue what is >happening with the 2 letter TLD that was supposedly delegated to >them. Instead, we find that the 2 letter TLDs have been casually >delegated to people and companies that gave the right impression >of representing the government or local people but who actually >use the TLD for their own business purposes. > >None of these things can be easily fixed and there may be no >need to fix them IF the consumer is alerted to this situation. >Unfortunately, the Green Paper and the IANA Inc. might end >up sending the wrong message if they require generic TLDs to >be held to one standard while 2 letter TLDs are immune. In my >opinion, all of the TLDs should be held to the same high standards >of business ethics and operational integrity as agreed upon >by the Registry Industry. The question remains as to how to do >this...? > >To date much of the focus has been on ADDING TLDs to the >legacy Root Name Servers that the U.S. Government supports. >Before TLDs are added, there may have to be a review of the >existing TLDs to see where they stand from a business ethics >and operational standards point of view. In some cases, 2 letter >TLDs may need to be removed from the legacy Root Name >Servers. How this should be handled needs to be debated by >the people actively involved in the Registry Industry. > > >- >Jim Fleming >Unir Corporation >IBC, Tortola, BVI > >http://www.nic.vi > > > > -------- Logged at Tue Apr 28 19:43:34 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0