[35345] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mathew Butler)
Wed Mar 7 06:36:17 2001
Message-ID: <F062E72E4BA2D4119F1700B0D03D205F3B49@mail.tonbu.com>
From: Mathew Butler <mbutler@tonbu.com>
To: 'William Allen Simpson' <wsimpson@greendragon.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:30:26 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0A6FA.015079E0"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C0A6FA.015079E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
etoy.com versus etoys.com.
-Mat Butler
-----Original Message-----
From: William Allen Simpson [mailto:wsimpson@greendragon.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 12:26 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Paul A Vixie wrote:
> > ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder.
>
> Besides producing a UDRP that allows trademark interests to convienently
> reverse-hijack domains
Awhile back, somebody made a similar accusation. So, I spent the
better part of a weekend reviewing a selection of UDRP decisions.
Quite frankly, I didn't find a single one that seemed badly reasoned.
Could someone point to a "reverse-hijacked" domain decision?
> and the selection of a handful of lackluster
> TLDs from a pool of applicants
Here, I will agree. My observation is that they chose lackluster
TLDs to avoid controversy on this, the first introduction of new
TLDs in a dozen years.
More will be forthcoming as operational experience is gained. And
that's our area of expertise -- operational -- isn't it?
> paying a non-refundable 50k fee in a
The fee was always (and I'm going back to IETF, IAHC, and various
other discussions) expected to be non-refundable. Pay as you go.
Nobody else pays for your cost to operate. Very libertarian.
Apparently, you've never optioned property.... Or supplied a
performance bond.
> completely arbitrary and capricious process,
Really? In the legal sense? What proof do you offer?
> perhaps you could point to
> some of the many successes of ICANN as an organization?
The public participation around the world has far outstripped anything
I'd ever expected. On that basis alone, it's a success.
Yes, I wish that things were moving faster. I wish that the fully
envisioned board had been selected. I wish that there was more
sunshine. But, I realise that not every citizen on the planet has
the same adversarial bent in their civilization, and that some even
consider collegial closed meetings more civilized!
We've added some good people in the elections, and I have high hopes.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQCVAwUBOqVHh9m/qMj6R+sxAQGr8gQAgZC83rFcxOzQx13APCRlVmEXANHf/OMN
rfiaAvZCW0Pq3mTt2/8roffizEZYQzN2cK/Y6pkyJj/9Le04t6FzFCbOdh8gdLjv
E6XPu3AplDXbqNLZ38uN+A8lN9rnjhlkb7NuIvmGDF4zG6pj3YLrlhzEYQnxCyWW
MIGSB9blde4=
=QQ8G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------_=_NextPart_001_01C0A6FA.015079E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>etoy.com versus etoys.com.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-Mat Butler</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: William Allen Simpson [<A HREF="mailto:wsimpson@greendragon.com">mailto:wsimpson@greendragon.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 12:26 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: nanog@merit.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Patrick Greenwell wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Paul A Vixie wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Besides producing a UDRP that allows trademark interests to convienently</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> reverse-hijack domains </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Awhile back, somebody made a similar accusation. So, I spent the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>better part of a weekend reviewing a selection of UDRP decisions. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Quite frankly, I didn't find a single one that seemed badly reasoned. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Could someone point to a "reverse-hijacked" domain decision?</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> and the selection of a handful of lackluster</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> TLDs from a pool of applicants </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Here, I will agree. My observation is that they chose lackluster </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>TLDs to avoid controversy on this, the first introduction of new </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>TLDs in a dozen years. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>More will be forthcoming as operational experience is gained. And </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>that's our area of expertise -- operational -- isn't it?</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> paying a non-refundable 50k fee in a</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The fee was always (and I'm going back to IETF, IAHC, and various </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>other discussions) expected to be non-refundable. Pay as you go. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Nobody else pays for your cost to operate. Very libertarian. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Apparently, you've never optioned property.... Or supplied a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>performance bond.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> completely arbitrary and capricious process, </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Really? In the legal sense? What proof do you offer?</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> perhaps you could point to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> some of the many successes of ICANN as an organization?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The public participation around the world has far outstripped anything </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>I'd ever expected. On that basis alone, it's a success.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Yes, I wish that things were moving faster. I wish that the fully </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>envisioned board had been selected. I wish that there was more </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>sunshine. But, I realise that not every citizen on the planet has </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the same adversarial bent in their civilization, and that some even </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>consider collegial closed meetings more civilized!</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>We've added some good people in the elections, and I have high hopes.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <<A HREF="http://www.pgp.com" TARGET="_blank">http://www.pgp.com</A>></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>iQCVAwUBOqVHh9m/qMj6R+sxAQGr8gQAgZC83rFcxOzQx13APCRlVmEXANHf/OMN</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>rfiaAvZCW0Pq3mTt2/8roffizEZYQzN2cK/Y6pkyJj/9Le04t6FzFCbOdh8gdLjv</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>E6XPu3AplDXbqNLZ38uN+A8lN9rnjhlkb7NuIvmGDF4zG6pj3YLrlhzEYQnxCyWW</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>MIGSB9blde4=</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>=QQ8G</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C0A6FA.015079E0--
