From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Tue Mar 13 09:35:26 2001 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:35:26 +0100 Subject: A work item? Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010313093507.042da3b0@localhost.ripe.net> >X-Recipient: >Delivered-To: nanog-outgoing at merit.edu >X-Sender: hank at max.ibm.net.il >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 >Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:03:14 +0200 >To: nanog at merit.edu >From: Hank Nussbacher >Subject: Statements against new.net? >Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu >X-Loop: nanog > > >Do any ISPs or web hosting companies have publically available statements on their web sites stating that they will not support the new new.net domains and why they won't? I am getting more requests from users to change our DNS root servers to support this and wanted to see what others tell their users. Any IETF/ICANN statement available? > >Thanks, >Hank > > From mally at mally.net Tue Mar 13 09:44:15 2001 From: mally at mally.net (Mally Mclane) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 08:44:15 +0000 (GMT) Subject: A work item? In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010313093507.042da3b0@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > >Do any ISPs or web hosting companies have publically available statements on their web sites stating that they will not support the new new.net domains and why they won't? I am getting more requests from users to change our DNS root servers to support this and wanted to see what others tell their users. Any IETF/ICANN statement available? > > Speaking from my experience, the new.net idea has been rubbished both on uknot (a list which consists of a lot of the UK Internet Industry movers'n'shakers) and ecdiscuss, it's also been rubbished a lot in the press. I wouldn't advise anyone to start reconfiguring their nameservers. Just be patient and wait for ICANN ;) Regards, Mally Mclane From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Tue Mar 13 09:49:04 2001 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:49:04 +0100 Subject: A work item? In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010313093507.042da3b0@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010313094823.00e1c810@localhost.ripe.net> Apparently a misunderstanding. I meant work in the sense of Hank's message, e.g. raising awareness that this is wubbish. At 09:44 AM 13.3.01, Mally Mclane wrote: >On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > >> > >> >Do any ISPs or web hosting companies have publically available statements on their web sites stating that they will not support the new new.net domains and why they won't? I am getting more requests from users to change our DNS root servers to support this and wanted to see what others tell their users. Any IETF/ICANN statement available? >> > > >Speaking from my experience, the new.net idea has been rubbished both on >uknot (a list which consists of a lot of the UK Internet Industry >movers'n'shakers) and ecdiscuss, it's also been rubbished a lot in the >press. > >I wouldn't advise anyone to start reconfiguring their nameservers. Just be >patient and wait for ICANN ;) > > >Regards, > > >Mally Mclane From bruce.campbell at apnic.net Tue Mar 13 10:02:23 2001 From: bruce.campbell at apnic.net (Bruce Campbell) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 19:02:23 +1000 (EST) Subject: A work item? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Mally Mclane wrote: > On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > > Do any ISPs or web hosting companies have publically available > > > statements on their web sites stating that they will not support the > > > new new.net domains and why they won't? I am getting more requests > > > from users to change our DNS root servers to support this and wanted > > > to see what others tell their users. Any IETF/ICANN statement > > > available? A brief Google search produces the following (fairly concise and hefty) document: http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann.pdf > Speaking from my experience, the new.net idea has been rubbished both on > uknot (a list which consists of a lot of the UK Internet Industry > movers'n'shakers) and ecdiscuss, it's also been rubbished a lot in the > press. It comes down to - alternative roots break the accepted consistency of the existing hierarchial DNS structure. Unfortunately, there are many crackpots (yes, we get a few who perceive that APNIC has a slightly different role than it does) who take a lot of explaining in order to get the above simple idea through their heads ;) --==-- Bruce. Speaking for myself. From msondow at iciiu.org Tue Mar 13 14:32:01 2001 From: msondow at iciiu.org (Michael Sondow) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 08:32:01 -0500 Subject: A work item? References: Message-ID: <3AAE2151.76A741F2@iciiu.org> Bruce Campbell wrote: > It comes down to - alternative roots break the accepted consistency of the > existing hierarchial DNS structure. Quite right. The hierarchy, together with the authoritarianism and monopolistic practices it permits, must be preserved at all costs. > Unfortunately, there are many crackpots (yes, we get a few who perceive > that APNIC has a slightly different role than it does) who take a lot of > explaining in order to get the above simple idea through their heads You're absolutely right. Everyone who doesn't agree that you and the others at the RIRs should control who gets IP addresses and can be an ISP, and thus dictate to them what nameservers they use, is a crackpot. These idiots just can't get it through their thick heads that you should have dictatorial powers over their channels of communication. M.S. From jaap at sidn.nl Thu Mar 15 21:32:20 2001 From: jaap at sidn.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 21:32:20 +0100 Subject: A work item? In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:35:26 +0100. <4.3.2.7.2.20010313093507.042da3b0@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <200103152032.f2FKWKH40880@bartok.sidn.nl> > >Do any ISPs or web hosting companies have publically available statements on their web sites stating that they will not support the new new.net domain s and why they won't? I am getting more requests from users to change our D NS root servers to support this and wanted to see what others tell their use rs. Any IETF/ICANN statement available? > There is at leastone statement somewhere on the ICANN we. Also, there is RFC 2836 ``IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root''. jaap From Robert.Shaw at itu.int Fri Mar 16 11:57:29 2001 From: Robert.Shaw at itu.int (Shaw, Robert) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:57:29 +0100 Subject: A work item? Message-ID: Despite the stated technical merits of a single root, I think one needs to reflect on the implications that a few of the world's largest ISPs appear to have made a business decision to use a superset of the ICANN/US Department of Commerce's root zone. It's claimed that the US had about 100 million Internet users in December 2000. According to New.net's numbers (which needs to be confirmed), about 16% of those can now use their alternative root. If this percentage continues to grow, ICANN's ability to control what goes into the DNS would seem to be constrained. Robert -- Robert Shaw ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland From jaap at sidn.nl Fri Mar 16 13:57:38 2001 From: jaap at sidn.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:57:38 +0100 Subject: A work item? In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:57:29 +0100. Message-ID: <200103161257.f2GCvdH42625@bartok.sidn.nl> Despite the stated technical merits of a single root, I think one needs to reflect on the implications that a few of the world's largest ISPs appear to have made a business decision to use a superset of the ICANN/US Department of Commerce's root zone. Which big ones? I've never seen any official message about this. It's claimed that the US had about 100 million Internet users in December 2000. According to New.net's numbers (which needs to be confirmed), about 16% of those can now use their alternative root. I've seen various claims by various alternative root operators. None have been confirmed by independent research as far as I know. jaap From Robert.Shaw at itu.int Fri Mar 16 14:19:55 2001 From: Robert.Shaw at itu.int (Shaw, Robert) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:19:55 +0100 Subject: A work item? Message-ID: > Despite the stated technical merits of a single root, > I think one needs to reflect on the implications that > a few of the world's largest ISPs appear to have made > a business decision to use a superset of the ICANN/US > Department of Commerce's root zone. > > Which big ones? I've never seen any official message about this. See www.new.net/about_us_partners.tp. Earthlink and Netzero have been listed as the US' second and third largest ISPs (according to http://www.ispworld.com/isp/TRI_census.htm). That's not even counting Excite at Home. > > It's claimed that the US had about 100 million Internet > users in December 2000. According to New.net's numbers > (which needs to be confirmed), about 16% of those can now > use their alternative root. > > I've seen various claims by various alternative root operators. None > have been confirmed by independent research as far as I know. New.net claims that 16 million users can resolve their TLDs based on their partnerships with ISPs (like I said, this needs to be confirmed independently). 16 million of 100 million is 16%. Robert -- Robert Shaw ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland From randy at psg.com Fri Mar 16 14:26:13 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 05:26:13 -0800 Subject: A work item? References: <200103161257.f2GCvdH42625@bartok.sidn.nl> Message-ID: > a few of the world's largest ISPs appear to have made > a business decision to use a superset of the ICANN/US > Department of Commerce's root zone. > > Which big ones? I've never seen any official message about this. the only folk who say this are in the marketing department of the new.dns fools and a few misguided and/or misinformed net.politicians. > I've seen various claims by various alternative root operators. None > have been confirmed by independent research as far as I know. folk who think this nonsense is viable are doomed to relive history. the same rogue namespace silliness was tried in fidonet and failed a decade ago. randy From Francis.Dupont at enst-bretagne.fr Fri Mar 16 15:57:51 2001 From: Francis.Dupont at enst-bretagne.fr (Francis Dupont) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:57:51 +0100 Subject: A work item? In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:57:29 +0100. Message-ID: <200103161457.f2GEvpA21263@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> In your previous mail you wrote: Despite the stated technical merits of a single root, => the merits are not only technical, the Internet simply doesn't work with an incoherent root zone. I think one needs to reflect on the implications that a few of the world's largest ISPs appear to have made => the I for these ISPs no more stands for Internet. a business decision to use a superset of the ICANN/US Department of Commerce's root zone. => the survival of the Internet should not be a tool in a battle against ICANN/US DoC... It's claimed that the US had about 100 million Internet users in December 2000. According to New.net's numbers (which needs to be confirmed), about 16% of those can now use their alternative root. => I don't believe these numbers. New.net is a player in this silly game and is biased. If this percentage continues to grow, ICANN's ability to control what goes into the DNS would seem to be constrained. => as a French-speaker I have still troubles with the word control (French meaning is subtlely different)... So what is control in your statement? International Telecommunication Union => what about a parallel phone numbering system? (:-) Regards Francis.Dupont at enst-bretagne.fr PS: about the deep question: there is not enough free time to enter in these silly games. From Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl Fri Mar 16 16:29:16 2001 From: Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl (Piet Beertema) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 16:29:16 +0100 Subject: A work item? In-Reply-To: "Your message of Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:19:55 +0100 " Message-ID: > New.net claims that 16 million users can resolve their TLDs > 16 million of 100 million is 16%. I do claim that 79 million users can resolve the TLD's which are listed in new.root. See http://www.new.root/ for convincing evidence. If you can't resolve the URL, you're in the "wrong" root. So much about claims... Piet From Robert.Shaw at itu.int Fri Mar 16 16:45:42 2001 From: Robert.Shaw at itu.int (Shaw, Robert) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 16:45:42 +0100 Subject: A work item? Message-ID: > => the merits are not only technical, the Internet simply > doesn't work with an incoherent root zone. I agree with you. I'm only an observer of what's happening. > I think one needs to reflect on the implications that > a few of the world's largest ISPs appear to have made > > => the I for these ISPs no more stands for Internet. History is full of examples of ISPs (e.g. AOL) who attempted to "garden wall" customers. Offering "enhanced" DNS is likely to be just one more business tool they use. It's just an observation - one may think it's wrong but that doesn't necessarily stop them from doing it. > If this percentage continues to grow, ICANN's ability to > control what goes into the DNS would seem to be constrained. > > => as a French-speaker I have still troubles with the word control > (French meaning is subtlely different)... So what is control > in your statement? It means that with any significant user base under an alternative root TLD, ICANN may be constrained from entering that TLD in the root - e.g., see http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,42373,00.html "During recent ICANN meetings, Cerf said that the existence of new "unauthorized" domains could lead ICANN -- in order to reduce potential ambiguity -- not to approve any similar domain name itself." > => what about a parallel phone numbering system? (:-) Sovereigns control the allocation of the E.164 numbering plan. Robert -- Robert Shaw ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland From msondow at iciiu.org Sat Mar 17 23:17:16 2001 From: msondow at iciiu.org (Michael Sondow) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 17:17:16 -0500 Subject: Charges Against ICANN In Australia Over TLDs Message-ID: <3AB3E26C.B14F5B94@iciiu.org> From: Len Lindon Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 21:35:41 +1100 To: Cc: "domain-policy at open-rsc.org" Subject: .court in court Federal Court of Australia considers .court TITLE: Lindon v Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers CITATION: [2001] FCA 265 URL: http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/feddec/0/20011/0/FD002270.htm Justice Alan Goldberg on 9 March 2001 at Melbourne: > 8 In general terms, the complaint which lies behind the proceeding is > that the applicant seeks to enable there to be access over the Internet to > what he calls two non-colliding name spaces, ".human rights" and ".court", > which he has sought to set up and operate. He alleges in the statement of > claim that ICANN and the other respondents, other than the Commission and the > Commission's officer, will be holding a series of meetings, including in > particular a meeting starting this day and ending on 13 March 2001 in > Melbourne, and that they are engaging in conduct, or will engage in conduct, > that constitutes a contravention of ss 45, 45B, 45D, 45DA, 45E and 46 of the > Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ("the Act"). It is further alleged that their > conduct constitutes attempting to contravene such provisions, aiding, > abetting, counselling or procuring a person to contravene such provisions, > inducing or attempting to induce a person to contravene such provisions, being > directly or indirectly knowingly concerned in, or party to those > contraventions and conspiring with others to contravene such provisions. > > 9 It will be immediately appreciated that these are serious allegations. > The particulars of the conduct which are then set out are that the proposed > first to tenth respondents will do three things: > > * fail to allow the immediate recognition and resolution of all existing > non-colliding name spaces as currently recognised and resolved by the many > existing root service providers; > > * support the US government legacy root service as the sole and > exclusive root service provider for the whole Internet; > > * actively promote the extinguishment of all other, that is non-ICANN, > name spaces and all other non-US government legacy root service providers. > > 10 There is then an allegation that the Commission has failed to > investigate the allegations which the applicant has made in respect of the > proposed first to tenth respondents and has failed, accordingly, to prepare > any enforcement measures. > > 11 The relief which is sought in the application is a mandatory > injunction, interlocutory and final, ordering the proposed first to > tenth respondents forthwith to recognise and resolve all existing > non-colliding name spaces as currently recognised and resolved by the many > existing root service providers, and an injunction restraining them from any > conduct supporting the US government legacy root service as the sole and > exclusive root service provider for the whole Internet and actively promoting > the extinguishment of all other non-colliding name spaces and all other root > service providers. > > 12 A mandatory injunction, interlocutory and final, is also sought > against the Commission and one of its officers requiring them forthwith to > conduct an expeditious investigation into competition in the markets for > Internet root service providers and non-colliding name space service > providers. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 176 of 2001 BETWEEN: LEN LINDON Applicant AND: INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS First Respondent LOUIS TOUTON Second Respondent VINT CERF Third Respondent ESTHER DYSON Fourth Respondent ICANN MELBOURNE MEETINGS HOST COMMITTEE Fifth Respondent au DOMAIN ADMINISTRATION LTD Sixth Respondent TONY STALEY Seventh Respondent GREG CREW Eighth Respondent CHRIS DISSPAIN Ninth Respondent PROFESSOR PETER GERRAND Tenth Respondent AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION Eleventh Respondent MICHAEL COSGRAVE Twelfth Respondent JUDGE: GOLDBERG J DATE OF ORDER: 9 MARCH 2001 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE