From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #18 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Wednesday, February 23 2000 Volume 01 : Number 018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:54:52 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Our mission The rallying call of 6-10 names of which Milton has reminded us is a little overstated (and from a surprising source considering Milton's greater vision of hundreds of names). The interim reports states "the working group had reached rough (although by no means unanimous) consensus" by which it refers to 19 for and 7 against. The choice of a specific number of gTLDs is laced with a set of assumptions (and implied future exclusions) about the future DNS which the interim report did not satisfactorily explore most notably the consequences of failure of the test - "Sorry guys here's your money back we are withdrawing all these 6 from the DNS". The possibility of having a test is illusory. The proposal for 6-10 was not a test bed but an expression of caution born out of an understandable frustration to do something. It was a lose-lose compromise. It gives first mover advantage to the new 6-10 and invests monopoly power in each of them. It is a poor solution (even if all of them pass the nine principles). How many is the wrong question for this group and it is regrettably that it was in the groups overly-ambitious terms of reference. We should have considered and rejected the question on day 1. We should be bold enough now to decline to answer it - for which there will be considerable sympathy on the NC. Philip ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:21:41 -0000 From: "Keith Gymer" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names "Dave Crocker" wrote > Eventually, having .att for attorneys and .law for > lawyers seems just fine to me, in spite of the resulting ambiguity. That would be duplication rather than ambiguity. Ambiguity (IMO) arises where there is more than one "meaning" being attached and no rules to ensure that only one such "meaning" is properly applicable (contrast .tm .as etc) So provided that .law and .att were subject to rules only allowing qualified attorneys/lawyers to register there would be no ambiguity but duplication. I would not be a advocate for duplication either. Keith ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:49:09 -0000 From: Chris Pelling Subject: RE: [wg-c] Request .eur or .euro Dear Alexander and the wg-c party, This is somehting that we have been looking at for some time, however with the ICANN standing on ISO names it is a bit of a sticky point. We have been in communication with ICANN for actually getting .eu registration, and going on the grounds that it is the same as .com / .net / .org ... and therefore must be exempt. I enclose an email sent to ICANN on the 13th Feb 2000 >Hi ICANN, > >After visiting and reading most of the DNSO website, and then ICANN, I can't find any information about the way >forward/steps to request a TLD outside of ISO3166. The extension that I am pursuing to become a TLD registrar for (.eu) is >much like .com / .net / .org as these are also exempt from ISO3166. >I breifly had a discussion about this when I inquired about becoming a .com / .net / .org registrar which is now looking to >go forward, the gentleman directed me towards DNS0, but alas cannot find any information. I second the motion that we as Europe do need something in hand much like the USA etc, however on speaking with Jonathan Weinberg, it is unlikely to be this year :-(. What we do need to do however is get things rolling, our ISP, NetEarth would like to offer the domain as a cheaper alternative to the .com/net/org and charge for it in Euro's, that way it would been seen as something promoting the European Union. Your thoughts, and everyone elses are definately required. Yours, Chris Pelling - -----Original Message----- From: Edler & Nebel Softwareentwicklung [mailto:en-software@edler.at] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 8:43 AM To: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: [wg-c] Request .eur or .euro Ladies and Gentlemen! We would like to introduce ourselves as a non-governmental work group concerned with the presentation and marketing of the commercial and cultural contents of the internet within the European Union. Being the representatives of this particular group, we would like to write to you with the following request: We came to the conclusion that it would be extremely helpful to have a gTLD '.eur' or '.euro' in order to be able to exploit the possibilities of the internet to it's maximum extent. Let us explain our general ideas and concepts: We would set up a network of the European companies and organisations in dot eur (there's already high demand, as you would expect). Every participant would be encouraged to present all contents in both English and native language, as most companies already do that are aware of a common Europe. Our vision would be a virtual market where on the one hand the European Union is presented as an unity but on the other hand, every state has it's own sites, all available under dot eur with features like search engines and links to the former ccTLD locations. Any responses on the probability as to have such a top level domain created, would be very much appreciated. If you and ICANN would support this request and create the TLD, a new company would be started for the administration and maintenance of the registry. Yours faithfully Alexander Edler Edler & Nebel Softwareentwicklung Puntigamerstraße 4, 8041 Graz-Liebenau AUSTRIA - EUROPE Tel.: +43 316 425661 Fax: +43 316 425751 en-software@edler.at ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:56:11 +0100 From: Mark Measday Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names Philip, Yes, they are tired. But (i) some wouldn't pass your tests (ii) some have prior legal claim (iii) your principles should provide testable hypotheses as to utility and social value above pure ROI to the registrar or registrant to demonstrate any point in having principles (iii) very few people wanted many of them, implying that despite, the graceless presentation, there may be something said for mere demand-based grant à la Mueller, whilst retaining Dave Crocker's valid and systematic points. On the other hand that will conceivably give us lots of tlds like a teen magazine's putative oyr dot.u14 or M. Buisson's dot.iq4bush, which really don't make life better, clearer. or more interesting. Even dot.yit for motivational golf speakers. Unless the principles can determine something, paradise lost. MM Philip Sheppard wrote: > The tired set of domain names .firm .shop .web .arts .rec .info > .nom might indeed make an interesting test-bed for the principles. However, > we envisage a system whereby the applicant registry proposes a gTLD and > explains what they envisage for that gTLD. The registry describes the market > they seek to attract. They describe the value added they are proposing for > the DNS. Such description should be concise and unburdensome for the > registry. > > It would also be practical for the applicant registry to demonstrate how its > putative gTLD complies with the principles. The principles are not designed > to test a name per se. > > Philip ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:09:29 +0100 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names At 09:24 AM 2/23/2000 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote: >The tired set of domain names .firm .shop .web .arts .rec .info tired? interesting choice of words, since they've yet to be exercised. >.nom might indeed make an interesting test-bed for the principles. However, >we envisage a system whereby the applicant registry proposes a gTLD and >explains what they envisage for that gTLD. The registry describes the market "we"? At any rate, no doubt there is appeal, for some, to create a gTLD selection process which creates a strong basis for having a registry assert ownership rights over the name, but that is not the history of the DNS, nor is it an appropriate model. Given the extensive concern that ICANN have broad representation, it will seem quite strange to then hand over name selection to closed, profit-oriented registries. Especially when there is no history of such a model for the DNS. >It would also be practical for the applicant registry to demonstrate how its >putative gTLD complies with the principles. The principles are not designed >to test a name per se. This seems an excellent way to ensure that we never get any new gTLDs. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 07:38:05 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Our mission Philip, An alternative you may wish to consider is taking your views to a venue which is more sympathetic to them. In a strong-chair list-based working group a participation form such as yours (assume for the moment your recent contributions are so imprecise as to be incomprehensible, and in effect about colors or flavors of lip gloss) would have been the subject of administrative correction. In a weak-chair list-based working group the same conduct is subject to correction only through non-administrative mechanisms. For most of the period since the close of the public comment period on the interim report of this working group, this working group has been in the weak- (absent-) chair mode. Please take your work (the incomprehensible lib gloss flavor and color preference monologue) back to WG-B, where it originated, and where it seems to be appreciated on its limited merits. Thank you for reminding all of us that you are not alone in your opposition to any gTLD creation at present, and that a large number of rationals are available to support the claim that WG-C errored in providing an affirmative response to Charter Question #1 (1). It would be less indirect if you would argue that WG-B ought to be preferred by the NC, or that WG-C be subordinated to WG-B, or that WG-C be dissolved as a distinct entity within the NC WG structure. You might as well have offered that Charter Question #1 ought never to have been posed, or at least not posed to non-marks interests who lack the necessary qualifications to exercise judgement and form the correct answer. My point-by-point on the latest draft of Sheppear/Kleiman follows in later mail today. You won't be amused. Cheers, Eric References: 1 The WG-C Charter http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCwgc.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:06:10 +0100 From: Mark Measday Subject: Re: [wg-c] Our mission Eric Viz: 2bis your reference below: 'After the ICANN meeting of the Board in Los Angeles, the WG will either be asked to do further work or will be disbanded if the Names Council and the ICANN Board consider that their work is finished.' Obnviously not disbanded as consensus not reached, as agreed by chair Mr Weinberg who is still trying to reach that elusive consensus by whatever means is available to him. Not everyone wants Apache law. Brussels being one area, presumably. BTW, is it possible to ask the list admin to verify your identity (ies). I believe this is something that should (have) be(en) done for all participants. Textual analysis of participant submissions to this and other groups show you (and myself) to be one of the most divergent individuals, sometimes writing as .org, .net, .att, sometimes .naa, sometimes .zzz, occasionally .con. I would submit this should be the case for all participants, and that the full list of verified participants be substituted for the misleading draft list drawn up in the document below by the lawyers. Eric Brunner wrote: > Philip, > > An alternative you may wish to consider is taking your views > to a venue which is more sympathetic to them. > > In a strong-chair list-based working group a participation > form such as yours (assume for the moment your recent contributions > are so imprecise as to be incomprehensible, and in effect about > colors or flavors of lip gloss) would have been the subject of > administrative correction. > > In a weak-chair list-based working group the same conduct is subject > to correction only through non-administrative mechanisms. > > For most of the period since the close of the public comment period > on the interim report of this working group, this working group has > been in the weak- (absent-) chair mode. > > Please take your work (the incomprehensible lib gloss flavor and > color preference monologue) back to WG-B, where it originated, and > where it seems to be appreciated on its limited merits. > > Thank you for reminding all of us that you are not alone in your > opposition to any gTLD creation at present, and that a large number > of rationals are available to support the claim that WG-C errored > in providing an affirmative response to Charter Question #1 (1). > > It would be less indirect if you would argue that WG-B ought to be > preferred by the NC, or that WG-C be subordinated to WG-B, or that > WG-C be dissolved as a distinct entity within the NC WG structure. > > You might as well have offered that Charter Question #1 ought never > to have been posed, or at least not posed to non-marks interests who > lack the necessary qualifications to exercise judgement and form the > correct answer. > > My point-by-point on the latest draft of Sheppear/Kleiman follows > in later mail today. You won't be amused. > > Cheers, > Eric > > References: > 1 The WG-C Charter > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCwgc.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:07:30 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Specific Implementation Proposal: [Was:Re: nine principlesfor domain names] Karl Auerbach 02/23/00 12:12AM wrote: >> Since there already exists a thoroughly-tested implementation of a >> shared registration system >If you are referring to the thing that is used to "share" the NSI operated >registry for .com/.net/.edu, then may I suggest that it be used as a model >of "how not to do it". >From a technical perspective the current SRS design is underspecified >(i.e. there are parts that are not documented), inadequate (e.g. it >doesn't know time zones or IPv6), and it is arguably subject to >manipulation by less-than scrupulous registrars. > --karl-- Good God. ROFLMAO. It's been three years since I last shilled for NSI :-) (Unpaid, at that :-) No, I'm not talking about the NSI abomination. I'm talking about the CORE SRS which was intended (at the time I stopped being a CORE insider) to be open source. I would not mind inserting a requirement for open source code as a precondition for letting *anyone* run the testbed. Nor, at this point, do I think that any rational participant in the process should object to open source code if it gets the fat lady onstage for the end of the first act. I do know that the CORE SRS code has been beaten to death by engineers seeking to . . . well, I'm not going to go into the rationale of the CORE vetting process, escpecially since my inside info is nearly two years out of date; but I know the engineers who flogged the CORE SRS, and I don't doubt for a moment that the bugs have been found and fixed. And I was involved, rather intimately, in the design of the anti- shenanigans architecture of the system. And so far as international sensitivity as opposed to ugly Americanism, those who are familiar with my work know that (a) I am an EC citizen [dual citizenship, actually] and (b) I pay very close attention to the needs of people from outside North America, even though that has been known to erode my political support. I just happen to believe in doing things right. Like Gabe Battista and Don Heath, I do not intend to participate in fouling up the Internet beyond all hope of redemption. Kevin J. Connolly The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP This note is not legal advice. If it were, it would come with an invoice. As usual, please disregard the trailer which follows. ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:50:21 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] Our mission With respect, I think this is badly wrong on a variety of counts. 1. The compromise proposal that ICANN should begin by deploying 6-10 new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period, not only was the basis of rough consensus *before* the interim report came out; it was also reaffirmed by a formal vote in the working group *after* the interim report. Although the margin was narrow, the proposal secured the necessary supermajority. If the working group is to have any chance of making progress, it doesn't make sense to keep trying to reopen issues we have already resolved. 2. The reference to a "testbed" does not mean that the new gTLDs will be withdrawn if problems emerge. They will not. Rather, the idea is that the rollout of 6-10 will allow ICANN to evaluate the consequences of deploying that initial set of gTLDs, in order to inform its decision whether there should be any further deployment, and if so on what timetable and in what manner. 3. The sense of the NC, in its most recent meeting, was that this WG, *before the Cairo meeting,* should report its conclusions to date, so that the NC could take appropriate action in Cairo. Accordingly, I'll post, in the next couple of days, a draft report summarizing those conclusions, for comment by the list. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com At 09:54 AM 2/23/00 +0100, you wrote: >The rallying call of 6-10 names of which Milton has reminded us is a little >overstated (and from a surprising source considering Milton's greater vision >of hundreds of names). The interim reports states "the working group had >reached rough (although by no means unanimous) consensus" by which it refers >to 19 for and 7 against. > >The choice of a specific number of gTLDs is laced with a set of assumptions >(and implied future exclusions) about the future DNS which the interim >report did not satisfactorily explore most notably the consequences of >failure of the test - "Sorry guys here's your money back we are withdrawing >all these 6 from the DNS". > >The possibility of having a test is illusory. The proposal for 6-10 was not >a test bed but an expression of caution born out of an understandable >frustration to do something. It was a lose-lose compromise. It gives first >mover advantage to the new 6-10 and invests monopoly power in each of them. >It is a poor solution (even if all of them pass the nine principles). >How many is the wrong question for this group and it is regrettably that it >was in the groups overly-ambitious terms of reference. We should have >considered and rejected the question on day 1. We should be bold enough now >to decline to answer it - for which there will be considerable sympathy on >the NC. > >Philip ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:22:32 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Our mission Thank you Eric for your recent posting. Allow me to correct a couple of assumptions you ascribed to me. 1. I am in favour of a rapidly implemented expansion of gTLDs. 2. I have been heartened by the support for these proposed principles both within WG C and elsewhere. 3. The principles derive from work authored jointly with Kathy Kleiman of the non-commercial constituency as a basis for building common ground for all constituencies by defining common objectives. We would welcome hearing your objectives for the DNS in order to see how they could be accommodated also. Philip ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 07:44:10 -0800 From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Specific Implementation Proposal: [Was:Re: nineprinciplesfor domain names] So, you are saying that the NSI abomination has NOTHING to do with the original CORE SRS? How would you know, unless you've signed the NSI NDA and have seen the code.(Something which Kent, to his credit, refused to do). > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Kevin > J. Connolly > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 5:08 AM > To: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Specific Implementation Proposal: [Was:Re: > nineprinciplesfor domain names] > > > Karl Auerbach 02/23/00 12:12AM wrote: > > >> Since there already exists a thoroughly-tested implementation of a > >> shared registration system > > >If you are referring to the thing that is used to "share" the > NSI operated > >registry for .com/.net/.edu, then may I suggest that it be used > as a model > >of "how not to do it". > > >From a technical perspective the current SRS design is underspecified > >(i.e. there are parts that are not documented), inadequate (e.g. it > >doesn't know time zones or IPv6), and it is arguably subject to > >manipulation by less-than scrupulous registrars. > > > --karl-- > > Good God. ROFLMAO. It's been three years since > I last shilled for NSI :-) (Unpaid, at that :-) > > No, I'm not talking about the > NSI abomination. I'm talking about the CORE SRS > which was intended (at the time I stopped > being a CORE insider) to be open source. I would > not mind inserting a requirement for open source > code as a precondition for letting *anyone* run the testbed. > Nor, at this point, do I think that any rational participant in > the process should object to open source code if it gets the > fat lady onstage for the end of the first act. > > I do know that the CORE SRS code has been beaten > to death by engineers seeking to . . . well, I'm not going to > go into the rationale of the CORE vetting process, > escpecially since my inside info is nearly two years > out of date; but I know the engineers who flogged > the CORE SRS, and I don't doubt for a moment that > the bugs have been found and fixed. And I was > involved, rather intimately, in the design of the anti- > shenanigans architecture of the system. > > And so far as international sensitivity as opposed to > ugly Americanism, those who are familiar with my work > know that (a) I am an EC citizen [dual citizenship, > actually] and (b) I pay very close attention to the needs > of people from outside North America, even though that > has been known to erode my political support. I just > happen to believe in doing things right. Like Gabe Battista > and Don Heath, I do not intend to participate in fouling up > the Internet beyond all hope of redemption. > > Kevin J. Connolly > The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of > Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP > This note is not legal advice. If it were, it would come with an invoice. > As usual, please disregard the trailer which follows. > > ********************************************************************** > The information contained in this electronic message is confidential > and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work > product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, > and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of > this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- > munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- > cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk > at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com > ********************************************************************** > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:47:21 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names My point-by-point on the latest draft of Sheppear/Kleiman follows, I don't have a sintella of further interest in Sheppear/Kleiman. > Criteria for assessing a gTLD registry operator application, subject to > current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should > be based on all the following principles : > > Principles affecting the relationship between a gTLD Registry operator and > those who may register No reference is made to intermediaries (registrars). As a three-party model is the prevailing case, this is a defect. > 1. Certainty: a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for > what it purports to stand for. Contrary to the sense of the White and subsequent US DoC papers as it has the consequence of preventing direct competition with NSI's business model of policy-free gTLD branding. Rejected as failing to address the problem posed by the existing gTLD registry operator. > 2. Honesty \226 a gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for > malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. Contrary to the sense of the White and subsequent US DoC papers that law defined external to ICANN (a body capable of creating private law) is territorially scoped, and that gTLDs are not, of necessity, territorially scoped. Rejected but see the side-bar. [side-bar: Sorry Phil, but see "Use of Trademarks on the Internet: Issues Paper", and do the substitution of "marks" for whatever lack of honesty strikes your fancy. Now if you'd made explicit reference to an ICANN statute on the subject of net-crime, it would be different. Yes. It needs to be writ. see: http://www.wipo.int/eng/document/sct/index_3.htm ] > Principles effecting the relationship between Registries No reference is made to operational practices between registry operators. As the stability of the DNS system requires, or at least favors, some form of cooperation between registrars, this is a defect. > 3. Differentiation \226 a gTLD should differentiate from all other gTLDs so as > not to confuse net users. Contrary to the sense of the White and subsequent US DoC papers as it has the consequence of preventing direct competition with NSI's business model of policy-free gTLDs . Rejected as preventing a .COM2 gTLD, created for the purpose of direct undifferentiated competition with the existing gTLD registry operator. > 4. Competition \226 new gTLDs should foster competition in the domain name > space. Rejected as offering no clarification upon prior statements contained in the White and subsequent US DoC papers. [side-bar: Sorry Phil, principles have to mean something, not just steal lines in isolation from old policy papers everyone has. If you must plagerize, do it with style. ] > 5. Diversity - new gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both > commercial and non-commercial. Rejected as offering no clarification upon prior statements contained in the White and subsequent US DoC papers. [side-bar: Sorry Phil, principles have to mean something, not just steal lines in isolation from old policy papers everyone has. If you must plagerize, do it with style. ] > Principles with query resolution and character encoding implications No reference is made to the technical constraint on labels (ASCII), this is a defect. > 6. Semantics \226 a gTLD should be meaningful in a language with a significant > number of net users or have an imputed meaning connected with such a > language. Contrary to the sense of the White and subsequent US DoC papers that the DNS root be managed by ICANN and its constituency process model, not by a subset of its constituencies favoring commercial English, or favoring a preferred "semantics". Rejected as culturally specific, technically unnecessary, and frivolous. > 7. Findability \226 a gTLD should assist a net user to find a particular > domain name. Rejected as culturally specific, technically unnecessary, and frivolous. > Other principles > 8. Multiplicity - new gTLDs should become available as needed to meet the > needs of an expanding Internet community. Contrary to the sense of the White and subsequent US DoC papers that new gTLDs are presently needed. Rejected as moot. [side-bar: Sorry Phil, no test for necessity is specified. ] > 9. Simplicity - adherence of the above principles should not impose an > overly bureaucratic procedure on a registry. Contrary to the sense of the White and subsequent US DoC papers that the root cause for contractor abuse of the gTLD registries was, and remains, insufficient bureaucratic procedure (to use your choice of terminology). Rejected as contrary to the delegation of management oversight to ICANN, as an unnecessary, even criminal constraint upon ICANN's ability to police its delegatees and their adequate performance of their delegation. Postscript: Two charter applications actually exist, the first is Position Paper E, the second is the European Union's. Each involves a distinct process in the ICANN system, with no precedent but merit and necessity to offer. Shepperd/Kleiman haven't applied their criteria to concrete test charters and they've declined to apply their criteria to these charters. The Cairo meeting will conclude in just under three weeks from today (Tue Feb 22 2000), without the benefit of WG-C having completed its charter task, and in all likelyhood without a resolution authorizing the delegation of a gTLD. The Yokohama meeting will conclude in 5 months, also in all likelyhood without the benefit of WG-C having completed its charter task, and in all likelyhood also without a resolution authorizing the delegation of a gTLD. A good delaying tactic will appear inviting upon casual inspection, it wouldn't work and cause the desired delay if it were clearly labled a bad idea. The Shepperd/Kleiman mail is a bad idea. I wrote as much to WG-C on the 14th, today is the 23rd, that's 9 days wasted on lip gloss flavors and colors that passes in WG-B as something other than "a bad idea". Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:47:42 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Specific Implementation Proposal: [Was:Re: nineprinciplesfor domain names] I know because (1) even tho' the CORE SRS is "open source," NSI is not stupid enough to be using that software without a license from CORE, which it surely does not have; and (2) several engineers who work for NSI Registrars (and who therefore have seen the NSI documentation) have told me the NSI software is a rip of someone else's software, not CORE's. (It should be obvious whose software they ripped, but I am not going to say it :-) >>> "Roeland M.J. Meyer" 02/23/00 10:44AM >>> So, you are saying that the NSI abomination has NOTHING to do with the original CORE SRS? How would you know, unless you've signed the NSI NDA and have seen the code.(Something which Kent, to his credit, refused to do). > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Kevin > J. Connolly > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 5:08 AM > To: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Specific Implementation Proposal: [Was:Re: > nineprinciplesfor domain names] > > > Karl Auerbach 02/23/00 12:12AM wrote: > > >> Since there already exists a thoroughly-tested implementation of a > >> shared registration system > > >If you are referring to the thing that is used to "share" the > NSI operated > >registry for .com/.net/.edu, then may I suggest that it be used > as a model > >of "how not to do it". > > >From a technical perspective the current SRS design is underspecified > >(i.e. there are parts that are not documented), inadequate (e.g. it > >doesn't know time zones or IPv6), and it is arguably subject to > >manipulation by less-than scrupulous registrars. > > > --karl-- > > Good God. ROFLMAO. It's been three years since > I last shilled for NSI :-) (Unpaid, at that :-) > > No, I'm not talking about the > NSI abomination. I'm talking about the CORE SRS > which was intended (at the time I stopped > being a CORE insider) to be open source. I would > not mind inserting a requirement for open source > code as a precondition for letting *anyone* run the testbed. > Nor, at this point, do I think that any rational participant in > the process should object to open source code if it gets the > fat lady onstage for the end of the first act. > > I do know that the CORE SRS code has been beaten > to death by engineers seeking to . . . well, I'm not going to > go into the rationale of the CORE vetting process, > escpecially since my inside info is nearly two years > out of date; but I know the engineers who flogged > the CORE SRS, and I don't doubt for a moment that > the bugs have been found and fixed. And I was > involved, rather intimately, in the design of the anti- > shenanigans architecture of the system. > > And so far as international sensitivity as opposed to > ugly Americanism, those who are familiar with my work > know that (a) I am an EC citizen [dual citizenship, > actually] and (b) I pay very close attention to the needs > of people from outside North America, even though that > has been known to erode my political support. I just > happen to believe in doing things right. Like Gabe Battista > and Don Heath, I do not intend to participate in fouling up > the Internet beyond all hope of redemption. > > Kevin J. Connolly > The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of > Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP > This note is not legal advice. If it were, it would come with an invoice. > As usual, please disregard the trailer which follows. > > ********************************************************************** > The information contained in this electronic message is confidential > and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work > product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, > and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of > this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- > munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- > cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk > at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com > ********************************************************************** > ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:04:30 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dave Said... >At any rate, no doubt there is appeal, for some, to create a gTLD >selection process which creates a strong basis for having a >registry assert ownership rights over the name, but that is not the >history of the DNS, nor is it an appropriate model. That is your opinion. I, and many others, do not share it. Please stop presenting it as fact, as that is not constructive to the discussion. Christopher - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord. iQA/AwUBOLQFDskU7GoO9fgUEQLfBACgpSfwjk1WLr4qo1S/UWTsLsTmrqgAoLS+ j/vzsnyAXrpB+thx6jNeiPNO =t0P0 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:24:29 +0100 From: Dave Crocker Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names At 08:04 AM 2/23/2000 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote: >Dave Said... > >registry assert ownership rights over the name, but that is not the > >history of the DNS, nor is it an appropriate model. > >That is your opinion. I, and many others, do not share it. Please stop >presenting it as fact, as that is not constructive to the discussion. If you are claiming that it IS in the history of the DNS, please document it. If you are objecting to the latter clause, please state the basis for declaring it unacceptable to have opinions stated, especially when in response to a specific proposal. Remember that I was responding to a proposal to have registries do the choosing. How is it "not constructive" to respond to that specific? d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:45:45 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >If you are claiming that it IS in the history of the DNS, please >document it. As soon as you can take .com from NSI, we'll talk. Or you can try to take .to - both are cases of ownership, one by contract and one by the very history. You might claim that it's not "ownership," at which time we're arguing semantics (in which case you can go argue with yourself in the corner) >If you are objecting to the latter clause, please state the basis >for declaring it unacceptable to have opinions stated, especially >when in response to a specific proposal. No problems with opinion, and I'm glad you acknowledge that it was, in fact, your opinion. I know what to do with your opinions. Christopher - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord. iQA/AwUBOLQOuckU7GoO9fgUEQJMpgCglCIrec7ZY0ZFY7TLZhNnxMuq/SIAnR7y /p0sj0xXJBMYHFLA1roSI3rI =/K7Z - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #18 *************************