From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #5 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Sunday, February 6 2000 Volume 01 : Number 005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 10:14:31 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs Dave, My only disagreement is whether the EU need an entry in iso3166, and as a practical matter, having an entry is the only visible mechanism to have standing to request delegation of administrative authority to liais on DNS issues and operate a TLD registry. However, that said, (and I covered most of the ground in mail to the wg-c public archive last July, see http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-gtlds/Archives/msg00000.html for most of the gory details), there are two issues I see: 1. the IANA considerations one, does iso3166 exhaust the set of 2 octect ASCII encoded lables in the DNS root, or are the non-allocated lables reserved to the discretion of the IANA? 2. the UNSD considerations one, does an identifier exist in "Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use, Rev 4" (United Nations publication, Sales No. 98.XVII.9 in English, French, Russian, Spanish, Chinese and Arabic) which is able to be mapped (via the "Terminology Bulletin No. 347/Rev.1: Country Names" accepted usage) to iso3166 for the regional jurisdiction (territoriality) applicant? The first is answered (reply to JF), the second is answered by in part in ST/ESA/STAT/SER.M/49/Rev.4/WWW (26 August 1999). Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 15:02:37 +0100 From: Dave Crocker Subject: [wg-c] IODesign history My reason for responding to Chris' original note was for the benefit of those not familiar with this tired topic. Chris is insisting on rehashing the details. I'll keep my counter-response as brief and will end my part of this thread: At 08:26 AM 2/5/2000 , Christopher Ambler wrote: >The source is the late Jon Postel. >The witnesses are Mr. Eugene Kashpureff, Mr. Marc Hurst, >... Notably, Jon said he carefully did not attend the referenced meeting. (As I recall, he told me that there were efforts to call him into it and he pointedly declined.) Equally notably is that simply listing attendees does not verify their support for Chris' claim. A copy of the result of the closest "objective" test on this issue is available is documented at . Chris will raise various objections to this citation, of course. The reason Chris is so forceful about this issue is that he cites it as a legal basis for entrance into the IANA DNS. Noitably, IODesign ignored direction from Postel to remove this claimed authorization from their web page. >Additionally, there are posted messages from the late Jon >Postel to the "newdom" lists, also suggesting that those >who wished to create new TLDs create their own roots. > >There are also suggestions, though some might say they were >posted in jest, from IAHC members posted to the IAHC list. Chris appears to have difficulty distinguishing a personal and informal observation that if one wishes to do something, they should go do it, versus "formal authorization". By contrast Postel was quite careful, over the 15 years of his creation and stewardship of IANA, to make formal declarations quite formally, often in a way that created self-conscious humor amongst recipients. >I don't question the late Jon Postel's authority in this >instance. Boy does that qualifier speak volumes! d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA Gong Xi Fa Cai / Selamat Tahun Baru Cina ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 15:17:01 +0100 From: Dave Crocker Subject: [wg-c] ICANN Power At 01:03 PM 2/5/2000 , Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > 1. Kent writes: > >It is not clear at this point that ICANN has the power to create a > >new TLD of any kind -- recall that it is DoC that currently holds the >... > I think this is quite mistaken. I'm writing from the dubious > perspective >of having worked closely with all of the USG players on this issue, most Jonathan, I believe your are failing to distinguish de jure from de facto power. Yes, ICANN appears to have formal authority, although the de jure reality has not been formally tested. In any event, the process is entirely crippled. There has been a concerted effort to create new gTLDs for more than FIVE YEARS and none have been created. ICANN is no longer brand new and none have been created. The best guess that anyone is offering is another year. But it turns out that is the usual amount cited when one has no idea what process will actually make it happen or when. So the estimate is meaningless. >But I'm quite confident that if a new gTLD proposal runs the gauntlet of >the ICANN process, it will be approved by USG. And I think that ICANN And the problem is that there IS NO ICANN process for this. Not really. Hence the various constituencies seeking infinite delay have an extremely effective sandbox. Those seeking new gTLDs do not. Five years of history substantiate my claim. If you are so certain your opinion is correct, then you should be able to provide an equally convincing basis. > 2. Kent points out that we haven't done much to develop the > processes for >the introduction of new TLDs, and he's right -- it's nice that we've got >recommendations about the need for new TLDs, and about the size of the >initial rollout, but that's only the first step. We still have before us >issues including: What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD I do not know how many development or specification efforts you have been involved in, but my experience over the last 25 years is that those taking more than a year to produce anything substantive almost always fail. In this case, we are two years down the ICANN path and have nothing except the vaguest of agreements, on which no substantial action can be taken. Further, we have fresh evidence that event the simplest enhancement to the system (.eu) will be resisted strongly. (Resistance sometimes is cast as support, albeit support that distracts or creates convoluted processes certain to fail.) > The fault for this, over the past few weeks, has been mine -- > I've had the Oh, I suppose one might criticise your effectiveness as chair. It's always appealing to think that some other leader could have done better, and it's sometimes correct. But the issue is not a matter of weeks but many, many months, and a pattern of participant behavior that makes logical sequencing of the work, and focusing on each stage, impossible, absent a significant change in the process of the discussion. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA Gong Xi Fa Cai / Selamat Tahun Baru Cina ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 17:51:40 +0100 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs At 04:14 PM 2/5/2000 , Eric Brunner wrote: >My only disagreement is whether the EU need an entry in iso3166, and Oh. My strongly held and asserted opinion is entirely based on their getting into that table. The whole idea that IANA had in using that table is to off-load the "interesting" problem to the maintainers of that ISO table. If EU is in the table, there is a standard IANA mechanism. Just turn the crank and out pops another ccTLD, > 1. the IANA considerations one, does iso3166 exhaust the set > of 2 octect ASCII encoded lables in the DNS root, or are Whether there can be 2-letter codes outside of ones in the ISO table is, perhaps, an amusing question to pursue, but I believe it is irrelevant to this issue. Unless EU wants a TLD but is not listed in the ISO table. And THEN we have the whole mess of policy issues that people have been enjoying raising. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA Gong Xi Fa Cai / Selamat Tahun Baru Cina ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 12:09:17 -0500 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Crocker" > > The problem with that perspective is that it seeks to ignore all IANA > history and on-going processes. It shows no real concern for making > progress, instead focusing on the opportinities provided in an abstract > sandbox for inventing new procedures. > > This is much like saying "you did a great job for 15years, now we will > ignore your work and start all over." Dave: I think the truth lies in the middle. Certainly IANA established precedents in RFC 920 and 1591 for the delegation of TLDs. No one I know of wants to ignore those precedents because regardless of one's policy perspective throwing them out would make things less predictable and (politically) stable. However, at the time of RFC 920 there were about 300 hosts on the Internet, and in 1994, when 1591 was drafted, Jon Postel was just beginning to struggle, none too successfully, with the political and economic forces set in motion by the commercialization of the web. In my opinion IANA and ISOC never adjusted successfully to the problems posed by commercialization. It should be obvious that IANA lost the ability to define procedurs for the addition of new TLDs between 94 and 97. Draft Postel (1996), which proposed adding 150 new TLDs to the root, was endorsed by both Postel and the Internet Society Board, and yet, it did not happen. The gTLD-MoU was also endorsed by Postel, ISOC, and even ITU and INTA, yet its proposed new TLDs were not added. Clearly, there was a need for a new institution and new processes. ICANN and its DNSO were supposed to be the solution to that problem. Commerce Dept specifically delegated the task of adding new TLDs to ICANN's DNSO. It is in the White Paper. DNSO is not an "abstract sandbox," it is supposed to be the solution of three years of rancourous debate over delegation authority. And it is a debate that the European Commission played a major role in shaping the outcome of. In particular, it was the EU that insisted that no new TLDs be created until a new, representative international organization was established. > .EU is being pursued within the ccTLD umbrella. ccTLDs pertain to > governments and similar authorities. The European Union clearly and simply > fits within that scope. That leaves only the two, strictly procedural > questions of its having an entry in the ISO table and the EU clearly > designating its administrative authority for liaising on DNS issues. There > are few issues within IANA/ICANN that could be clearer or simpler. On very narrow, technical grounds, one could say that if the Europeans succeed in getting .EU added to the ISO-3166 list that they can get a TLD. But for anyone who's aware of the history and attuned to the policy implications, this is an extraordinary act of bad faith and manipulation. There are probably 50 other regional and international entities that could apply on similar terms. This process could succeed in politicizing and corrupting the ISO list as well. m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 21:29:55 +0100 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs At 06:09 PM 2/5/2000 , Milton Mueller wrote: >I think the truth lies in the middle. Certainly IANA established precedents While such language sounds like nice compromise, I did not define two end-points, nor did you. Hence reference to a "middle" has no obvious meaning. Nor does anything that followed in your note make clear what you meant. >and in 1994, when 1591 was drafted, Jon Postel was just beginning to >struggle, none too successfully, with the political and economic forces set >in motion by the commercialization of the web. In my opinion IANA and ISOC >never adjusted successfully to the problems posed by commercialization. A meaningful range of software products for the net started appearing in 1987 and commercial services started around 1990. By 1994, there were estimated to be 2 million users of the net. So suggesting that somehow IANA had not been "dealing" with the relevant changes to the net prior to that is simply wrong. (As a small aside it is worth noting that documents of the type cited tended to document established procedure rather than define new ones.) >Internet Society Board, and yet, it did not happen. The gTLD-MoU was also >endorsed by Postel, ISOC, and even ITU and INTA, yet its proposed new TLDs >were not added. Clearly, there was a need for a new institution and new >processes. It is not at all clear why you have chosen to offer your summary of general IANA/DNS history, rather than attend to specifics of .EU admission. In fact, your note contains no specifics at all in that regard, other than a vague reference to "policy implications" and "bad faith", without offering any basis or detail about either. But since you introduced the question of history: The loss that you refer to was the direct result of intervention by Ira Magaziner. He nicely and fully de-stabilized the previously well-established position of IANA. Had he not intervened, the gTLDs-Mou would have been fully implemented. The unpublished U.S government multi-agency task force recommended support of the gTLD-MoU, but Magaziner knew better. Hence we continue to have no new gTLDs and now find people challenging the addition of ccTLDs. Failing to find a way to counter the considerable political power that Magaziner wielded can hardly be classed as a failure of IANA or Postel to respond to the commercialization of the net. >ICANN and its DNSO were supposed to be the solution to that problem. >Commerce Dept specifically delegated the task of adding new TLDs to ICANN's >DNSO. It is in the White Paper. DNSO is not an "abstract sandbox," it is >supposed to be the solution of three years of rancourous debate over >delegation authority. And it is a debate that the European Commission played >a major role in shaping the outcome of. In particular, it was the EU that >insisted that no new TLDs be created until a new, representative >international organization was established. The White Paper does no such thing. Since you claim otherwise, I request that you cite the specific supporting text, and caution that text in the White Paper is quite sensitive to proper use within context. I'll also note that the White Paper is more in the style of guidance than dictate. And lastly, nothing about any of this supports changing well-established policy. >On very narrow, technical grounds, one could say that if the Europeans >succeed in getting .EU added to the ISO-3166 list that they can get a TLD. Yeah, that's the trouble with having established procedure and then trying to follow it. The only counter-punch left to critics is to complain that the action is valid only on "narrow, technical grounds". This nicely misses the philosophical basis for ccTLDs, which EU entirely conforms to. Oh, I suppose that one can use narrow, technical grounds, to debate and contest the term "country", but one attuned to the intended philosophy knows full well that it pertains to a class of entities, such as governments, sovereignties, and the like. The EU definitely is such a thing. >But for anyone who's aware of the history and attuned to the policy >implications, this is an extraordinary act of bad faith and manipulation. One would think that being so well attuned to "policy implications" (whatever that might mean) would cause one to be extremely cautious about CHANGING established policy for an infrastructure service. >There are probably 50 other regional and international entities that could >apply on similar terms. This process could succeed in politicizing and >corrupting the ISO list as well. The fact that they haven't applied is supposed to serve as a reason to prevent EU addition? What a strange logic. Oh, and one should note the humor inherent in worrying about politicizing a list of "country" codes, given the rather massive amount of politics already present in the concept, never mind practise, of countries. And again one should note that that was why IANA cite presence in that list as necessary and sufficient: It moves the difficult (read: political) issues elsewhere. So I guess that means that those worried about politicization of an ISO process should talk with ISO. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA Gong Xi Fa Cai / Selamat Tahun Baru Cina ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 13:03:56 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >But since you introduced the question of history: The loss that you >refer to was the direct result of intervention by Ira Magaziner. >He nicely and fully de-stabilized the previously well-established >position of IANA. Had he not intervened, the gTLDs-Mou would have >been fully implemented. This is your opinion. I, and many others happen to know you're wrong. But then we've known that for quite some time. You're so predictable, Dave, that's what makes you so fun to taunt. Christopher - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord. iQA/AwUBOJyQPMkU7GoO9fgUEQIVagCgyxiqJwdT3R5ZA5W4OOAq9dcBenMAnRJs V5+VM582ZTvI0HsII1iyMYjz =vd/n - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 13:25:25 -0800 From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: [wg-c] Adding EU This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01BF6FDC.7633D5A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Since everyone has added their two-cents, including my prior non-statement, I offer the following rubric; There is no current process for adding new gTLDs to the roots. The ccTLD mechanism is indeed the ISO list, period. Those not on the ISO list are gTLDs. EU is not in the ISO list. All sorts of rhetoric and personal preferences aside, EU should not be granted until they either get added to the ISO list or we finish defining the process for adding new TLDs. Any other course is out-of-band and should be ignored. That being said, we must be careful that EU doesn't simply get PO'd and set up it's own root system. It would behoove us to hurry up and get productive. =========================================== R O E L A N D M. J. M E Y E R - ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01BF6FDC.7633D5A0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="winmail.dat" eJ8+IhkVAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEGgAMADgAAANAHAgAFAA0AGQAAAAYACgEB A5AGACAHAAAmAAAACwACAAEAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAB4AcAAB AAAACgAAAEFkZGluZyBFVQAAAAIBcQABAAAAFgAAAAG/cB+D6Zd/W4rbNxHTmmEAwE8ancwAAAIB HQwBAAAAFQAAAFNNVFA6Uk1FWUVSQE1IU0MuQ09NAAAAAAsAAQ4AAAAAQAAGDgDeEHUfcL8BAgEK DgEAAAAYAAAAAAAAADqld7Lj1dMRmmAAwE8anczCgAAACwAfDgEAAAACAQkQAQAAAMsCAADHAgAA 6AMAAExaRnWRHgZMAwAKAHJjcGcxMjUWMgD4C2BuDhAwMzNPAfcCpAPjAgBjaArAc/BldDAgBxMC gwBQEG9JBxMgQgtgY2sCgH0lCoF2CJB3awuAZDR9DGBjAFALAwu1BgALgGPQZSBldgSQeQIgFkAT EPAEIGFkAQBkIHQIaGVpBcB0d28tYxYwAjBzLCAWEQpAZIELgGcgbXkgcAUQJQWxbgIgLXMBkHRl OweAAjAsCqIKhAqASSCubwEgBJAXgiACEGwJACMD8BkRcnViBRBjO30aulQXoAlwGJAEIBnQIN5j CHAJcAIwGWFvFjAEET8CEAXAFzEZAhbAB+BnVHRMRAQgdB6gG/IDYG/dGGAuCuMd4x6wYyDBGTDn BZAQ8AMAc20eUhShCeCBF3MgSVNPIGwEAK8akBlgBnEEcC4dpm8RIP8ZwQVAAiAkKxcgHjEgsyV1 /EVVHlQFQAuAJCsldRq08kEcUCBzCREEIBuQHMB/F6AhEB0BFyAUsCUCKyBu/xNxGXABEB4hFiEX EQCQAQDLGIAogXMl8HVsF3AmQrpiJ6FyAHAaQBdwdQIwvwMRF5EZUBewF5EFwGcRMO8XJiEkJvcF sXccEQuABAD8aCABATMBGREb8h9PIFT7J9MRYG4ZUCGgMLIFoAhwJyYRHmEIYHQtG5AtYs8sQixC LnUvIWlnGdAJcV8qGx4AGjAvERkCcwtwZLMYgDLBbXUnUS8hYyeBnmYuoBeBOkEogWRvB5DsbicF QACQbQtQGVAw8phQTyc35TEBdXAYkHR0JythdwOgIYIrEHn3GhAaUCHQSQVAGAA4dCXw7m8WcC/A IPNoHtEZUD7h9yxCMPI0MWQU8C/wFnAqG/kK8yA9RM9F30ZmGrUAQMUH8CAkkEUgTBFgB7CuICLQ BdAh0Eoh0E1IQXpZSEFSRAkCshrDFBEAAUtwAAMAAW4AAAAACwABgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYA AAAAA4UAAAAAAAADABCACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAABShQAAJ2oBAB4AEoAIIAYAAAAAAMAA AAAAAABGAAAAAFSFAAABAAAABAAAADkuMAAeABOACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA2hQAAAQAA AAEAAAAAAAAAHgAUgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAN4UAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAB4AFYAIIAYA AAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADiFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAALABaACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAACC hQAAAQAAAAsAQ4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAA6FAAAAAAAAAwBFgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAA AEYAAAAAEIUAAAAAAAADAEaACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAARhQAAAAAAAAMAR4AIIAYAAAAA AMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABiFAAAAAAAAAwBbgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAAYUAAAAAAAALAG6A CCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAGhQAAAAAAAAIB+A8BAAAAEAAAADqld7Lj1dMRmmAAwE8ancwC AfoPAQAAABAAAAA6pXey49XTEZpgAMBPGp3MAgH7DwEAAACQAAAAAAAAADihuxAF5RAaobsIACsq VsIAAFBTVFBSWC5ETEwAAAAAAAAAAE5JVEH5v7gBAKoAN9luAAAAQzpcV0lOTlRcUHJvZmlsZXNc cm1leWVyXExvY2FsIFNldHRpbmdzXEFwcGxpY2F0aW9uIERhdGFcTWljcm9zb2Z0XE91dGxvb2tc b3V0bG9vay5wc3QAAwD+DwUAAAADAA00/TcAAAIBfwABAAAALwAAADxOREJCSktHQURLR0ZESUtJ SE9CSkVFUENDQ0FBLnJtZXllckBtaHNjLmNvbT4AAAMABhBxvxCDAwAHEFMCAAADABAQAAAAAAMA ERAAAAAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAAU0lOQ0VFVkVSWU9ORUhBU0FEREVEVEhFSVJUV08tQ0VOVFMsSU5D TFVESU5HTVlQUklPUk5PTi1TVEFURU1FTlQsSU9GRkVSVEhFRk9MTE9XSU5HUlVCUklDO1RIRVJF SVNOTwAAAABukA== - ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01BF6FDC.7633D5A0-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 16:26:28 -0500 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs Let's try to stay rational and go through this one more time. But this is my last stab at it; I've better things to do with my time. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Crocker" > While such language sounds like nice compromise, I did not define two > end-points, nor did you. Extreme 1: IANA has already defined all necessary procedures to handle the problem. Extreme 2: There are no existing procedures and all must be started from scratch. Both are wrong. The truth is in the middle. > A meaningful range of software products for the net started appearing in > 1987 and commercial services started around 1990. By 1994, there were > estimated to be 2 million users of the net. I am referring specifically to the management of the top level of the name space. Commercial pressure on that process did not begin until 1995, when charging for domain name registrations began, as you well know. In 1994, when RFC 1591 was defined, there was no charging. > So suggesting that somehow IANA had not been "dealing" with the relevant > changes to the net prior to that is simply wrong. IANA did not issue a single controlling RFC regarding new TLDs or TLD delegation since 1994. As soon as charging was implemented and control of the root became a legal political and economic issue of significance it lost control. Wrt ccTLDs, even before 1994 IANA was learning to its dismay that ccTLD delegations were becoming more contentious politically, particularly after episodes in Haiti and China. RFC 1591 was a reaction to that. It was clearly not a definitive one because the whole issue is still up in the air, as far as the GAC is concerned. [snip] > [IANA's loss of authority over adding names to the root] > was the direct result of intervention by Ira Magaziner. He nicely and > fully de-stabilized the previously well-established position of IANA. Had > he not intervened, the gTLDs-Mou would have been fully implemented. This is obviously wrong. Magaziner was not even paying attnetion to this issue in 1995, so he could not have prevented draft-Postel's proposal to add 150 TLDs (an episode you wisely chose to ignore in your response). As you know, the trademark interests and ITU stopped that proposal (another fact you chose to ignore). Also, the new TLD proposers didn't like Postel's proposal either. The implication is clear: IANA had, even BEFORE the gTLD-MoU, completely lost the legitimacy and authority to add new names to the root. The GTLD-MoU was a rather desperate attempt to regain that authority by forming a political alliance with the trademark interests and the ITU. The problem was that the whole thing had no legal authority. IANA and ISOC did not own the root and their attempt to privatize it in their own initiative therefore was doomed to failure. Mueller: > >Commerce Dept specifically delegated the task of adding new TLDs to ICANN's > >DNSO. It is in the White Paper. Crocker: > The White Paper does no such thing. > Since you claim otherwise, I request that you cite the specific supporting > text, and caution that text in the White Paper is quite sensitive to proper > use within context. Wow, Dave. You really know how to lob a softball into the middle of the plate. OK, here we go. "_ As Internet names increasingly have commercial value, the decision to add new top-level domains cannot be made on an ad hoc basis by entities or individuals that are not formally accountable to the Internet community." "Response: The challenge of deciding policy for the addition of new domains will be formidable. We agree with the many commenters who said that the new corporation would be the most appropriate body to make these decisions based on global input." "As set out below, the U.S. Government is prepared to recognize, by entering into agreement with, and to seek international support for, a new, not-for-profit corporation formed by private sector Internet stakeholders to administer policy for the Internet name and address system. Under such agreement(s) or understanding(s), the new corporation would undertake various responsibilities for the administration of the domain name system now performed by or on behalf of the U.S. Government or by third parties under arrangements or agreements with the U.S. Government." The White Paper goes on to enumerate those functions, which it calls "the coordinated functions." One of them is: "In order to promote continuity and reasonable predictability in functions related to the root zone, the development of policies for the addition, allocation, and management of gTLDs and the establishment of domain name registries and domain name registrars to host gTLDs should be coordinated." There's more: "Purpose. The new corporation ultimately should have the authority to manage and perform a specific set of functions related to coordination of the domain name system, including the authority necessary to: .... 3) oversee policy for determining the circumstances under which new TLDs are added to the root system." And of course according to ICANN's articles and bylaws, the DNSO is responsible for initiating all policies related to domain names, > Oh, I suppose that one can use narrow, technical grounds, to debate and > contest the term "country", but one attuned to the intended philosophy > knows full well that it pertains to a class of entities, such as > governments, sovereignties, and the like. The EU definitely is such a thing. This is what happens when computer programmers get it into their heads that they are policy experts and political scientists. The EU is not a "country." It is an association of countries. The EU has no sovereignty. Whatever governmental powers it has are delegated to it by real governments. The distinction is important, but only to people who have some grasp of political institutions. - --MM ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 14:40:19 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05-Feb-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > But since you introduced the question of history: The loss that you refer > to was the direct result of intervention by Ira Magaziner. He nicely and > fully de-stabilized the previously well-established position of IANA. Had > he not intervened, the gTLDs-Mou would have been fully implemented. > > The unpublished U.S government multi-agency task force recommended support > of the gTLD-MoU, but Magaziner knew better. He most certainly did know better. Thank goodness. The gTLD-MoU was FAR from an open and transparent process, and had no business being seriously considered on merit. The gTLD-MoU was an attempt by the ITU to assert some control over the Internet. And USG stepped in and stopped that, the NSF saw it was a bad idea and directed NSI to NOT introduce new gTLDs at IANA's request, and the Dept. of Commerce agreed with them. Your bitterness at them not agreeing with your narrow and limited view of how things should be run is the basis for your comment above. - - -- William X. Walsh DSo Networks http://dso.net/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: DSo Networks iD8DBQE4nKbT8zLmV94Pz+IRApMlAJ9BVD5rBjdSDTU6H2++TA7pRL4EnwCg+UwZ wBzNk/eqR/v2IEuGThscGlg= =9mOm - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 17:45:57 -0500 From: bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich) Subject: Re: [wg-c] Adding EU At 01:25 PM 2/5/00 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: We must be careful that EU doesn't simply get PO'd and set >up it's own root system. It would behoove us to hurry up and get productive. Ahem, why not let them - and join in Bill Semich Bill Semich President and Founder .NU Domain Ltd http://whats.nu bill@mail.nic.nu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 15:15:20 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Adding EU - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05-Feb-2000 J. William Semich wrote: > At 01:25 PM 2/5/00 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > We must be careful that EU doesn't simply get PO'd and set >>up it's own root system. It would behoove us to hurry up and get productive. > > Ahem, why not let them - and join in That would be one way of obsoleting ICANN :) - - -- William X. Walsh DSo Networks http://dso.net/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: DSo Networks iD8DBQE4nK8I8zLmV94Pz+IRAnTvAKCq6vdaiHjpbBhCb6mukt00QUrTHACfd7zC IgjSLKl2otNin19G8GlkWrw= =Njb8 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 15:47:09 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs On Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 12:09:17PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: [...] > > It should be obvious that IANA lost the ability to define procedurs for the > addition of new TLDs between 94 and 97. Draft Postel (1996), which proposed > adding 150 new TLDs to the root, was endorsed by both Postel and the > Internet Society Board, and yet, it did not happen. That is not correct. "Draft Postel" was a *draft*, and Postel and ISOC both knew very well what that meant. ISOC's "endorsement" said "this is a nice first thought, let's go work on it." > The gTLD-MoU was also > endorsed by Postel, ISOC, and even ITU and INTA, yet its proposed new TLDs > were not added. Clearly, there was a need for a new institution and new > processes. The prime reason that the MoU was not implemented was the intervention of Magaziner. In my opinion the definitive intervention of Magaziner was at a meeting at the IETF in Washington DC where the insertion of the 7 new TLDs was proposed as a testbed, and Magaziner said "no". Up to that time the MoU was the game in town. > There are probably 50 other regional and international entities that could > apply on similar terms. This process could succeed in politicizing and > corrupting the ISO list as well. Personally I would be delighted to see 50 new ccTLDs. Shoot -- we could have 400 more -- there are only 676 possible 2 letter combinations. It doesn't matter *at all* if the ISO list is politicized -- that is utterly irrelevant from the point of view of the DNS. It is amazing to me that you have objections. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 17:49:51 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >That is not correct. "Draft Postel" was a *draft*, and Postel and >ISOC both knew very well what that meant. ISOC's "endorsement" >said "this is a nice first thought, let's go work on it." Postel told me, in a face-to-face meeting, that the second draft would be an RFC, it was where he wanted it, and he was having Bill Manning clean it up for submission. Bill confirmed that 2 days later. >The prime reason that the MoU was not implemented was the >intervention of Magaziner. In my opinion the definitive >intervention of Magaziner was at a meeting at the IETF in Washington >DC where the insertion of the 7 new TLDs was proposed as a testbed, >and Magaziner said "no". Up to that time the MoU was the game in >town. You really believe that, even now? No, I don't think you do. Christopher - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord. iQA/AwUBOJzTP8kU7GoO9fgUEQIBmwCeKsM+YiOg/3U0tzU7QHTYWfxNNUoAn0fq DHdBipPRIO5/qmLRnnhhCfja =Y8zs - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 02:04:57 -0000 From: "Robert Waters" Subject: [wg-c] Enouth NSI/IANA/ICANN Control This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0047_01BF7046.9192C580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I have been a very quite reader of this list and belive its time for = my voice to be heard. Why because i am sick of NSI/IANA/ICANN and what ever big = corperation's that control the main root. I have developed my own Root Domain Name system and have implemented = it, and if .eu wants their own root i will gladly help. From Jake Waters IBM Programer! - ------=_NextPart_000_0047_01BF7046.9192C580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,
   I have been a very quite reader of this = list and=20 belive its time for my voice to be heard.
   Why because i am sick of = NSI/IANA/ICANN and=20 what ever big corperation's that control the main root.
   I have developed my own Root Domain = Name system=20 and have implemented it, and if .eu wants their own root i will gladly=20 help.
 
From Jake Waters
IBM Programer!
- ------=_NextPart_000_0047_01BF7046.9192C580-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 02:55:30 -0000 From: "Robert Waters" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Enouth NSI/IANA/ICANN Control - Free This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0072_01BF704D.A13EBFA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Its not limited to the normal TLD's and can use basically anything you = like e.g. London.Europe! Its been designed for Speed and Volume, because if the internet is to = survive we need more resources then we have at hand. and it is more user friendly then the current Root system for which I = have been given a flavour off :\ And one Big benefit Non Profit Controlled - Free Internet philosophy The root server is running on my brothers web hosting server you can = contact him for access. From Jake Waters IBM Programer! From: Will Donaldson=20 To: Robert Waters=20 Sent: 06 February 2000 02:46 Subject: Re: [wg-c] Enouth NSI/IANA/ICANN Control=20 what is your root server? and what makes it different from any other primary/secondary DNS? THANKS! =20 =20 will donaldson -----Original Message----- From: Robert Waters To: wg-c@dnso.org Date: Saturday, February 05, 2000 9:43 PM Subject: [wg-c] Enouth NSI/IANA/ICANN Control=20 Hello, I have been a very quite reader of this list and belive its time = for my voice to be heard. Why because i am sick of NSI/IANA/ICANN and what ever big = corperation's that control the main root. I have developed my own Root Domain Name system and have = implemented it, and if .eu wants their own root i will gladly help. From Jake Waters IBM Programer! - ------=_NextPart_000_0072_01BF704D.A13EBFA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Its not limited to the normal TLD's and can use = basically=20 anything you like e.g. London.Europe!
Its been designed for Speed and Volume, because if = the=20 internet is to survive we need more resources then we have at = hand.
and it is more user friendly then the current Root = system for=20 which I have been given a flavour off :\
And one Big benefit Non Profit Controlled - Free = Internet=20 philosophy
The root server is running on my brothers web = hosting server=20 you can contact him for access.
 
From
Jake Waters
IBM Programer!
From:=20 Will=20 Donaldson
To: Robert Waters
Sent: 06 February 2000 = 02:46
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Enouth = NSI/IANA/ICANN=20 Control

what is your root server?
 
and what makes it different from any other = primary/secondary=20 DNS?
 
THANKS!
 
 
will donaldson
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Robert Waters <robert@rwater.globalnet.co.= uk>
To:=20 wg-c@dnso.org <wg-c@dnso.org>
Date: = Saturday,=20 February 05, 2000 9:43 PM
Subject: [wg-c] Enouth = NSI/IANA/ICANN=20 Control

Hello,
   I have been a very quite reader of = this list=20 and belive its time for my voice to be heard.
   Why because i am sick of = NSI/IANA/ICANN=20 and what ever big corperation's that control the main = root.
   I have developed my own Root Domain = Name=20 system and have implemented it, and if .eu wants their own root i = will=20 gladly help.
 
From Jake Waters
IBM = Programer!
- ------=_NextPart_000_0072_01BF704D.A13EBFA0-- ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #5 ************************