From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #37 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Wednesday, March 15 2000 Volume 01 : Number 037 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:05:55 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 14-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: >> Name.space and any of the operators of alternative TLDs have >> no right to expect >> introduction or prior use rights here. None. > > > Would you care to back that assertion with a bit of logic? As I said, Roeland, those operators knew they were operating outside of the system, and had no reasonable belief that they would gain any standing or be added to the roots. They were aware of their lack of sanction, and proceeded to operate anyway. Their knowledge they were operating outside of the system is sufficient logic, Roeland. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4zqmz8zLmV94Pz+IRAtpSAJ9pOg8VKq5ETmYB6z6bwuV7x85ePQCgoLbW BpPqbGgdokOFl6HN7EA2UlA= =Mxv3 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:08:01 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Reply to co-chair (was: CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting t - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 14-Mar-2000 Josh Elliott wrote: > While I am constantly amused at statements claiming to know stories that > only IANA can tell, I am irritated conversation like this ends up on this > list. Please take it somewhere else. It is more than "conversation", Josh. And my comments were based on more than supposition. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4zqox8zLmV94Pz+IRAt09AKD24JxK/FoyOIhkFr7mWCz45ZRO+wCg/Ob9 sVEclfWGKWdpFtSv2Yq9Wg4= =+Fk1 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:25:20 -0500 From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs I really don't think that is the case. I certainly find that attorneys continuously caution me/and I suspect other clients not to think that all names are "famous". there's a serious effort to try to reach some agreement. Let's see how that progresses. marilyn - -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:patrick@stealthgeeks.net] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 3:48 PM To: Winer, Jonathan Cc: 'Kevin J. Connolly'; wg-c@dnso.org Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Winer, Jonathan wrote: > Intentional misappropriations of famous names (or even less famous ones, > like ours) can cause a wealth of malicious mischief, The problem is of course that when asked, it seems the vast majority of TM attornies believe that every trademarked term/phrase in existence is "famous." /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ /\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ \/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:41:14 -0800 From: "Josh Elliott" Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs Well said, Marilyn. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > Cade,Marilyn S - LGA > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 3:25 PM > To: 'Patrick Greenwell'; Winer, Jonathan > Cc: 'Kevin J. Connolly'; wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs > > > I really don't think that is the case. I certainly find that attorneys > continuously caution me/and I suspect other clients not to think that all > names are "famous". > > there's a serious effort to try to reach some agreement. Let's > see how that > progresses. > > marilyn > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:patrick@stealthgeeks.net] > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 3:48 PM > To: Winer, Jonathan > Cc: 'Kevin J. Connolly'; wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs > > > On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Winer, Jonathan wrote: > > > Intentional misappropriations of famous names (or even less famous ones, > > like ours) can cause a wealth of malicious mischief, > > The problem is of course that when asked, it seems the vast majority of TM > attornies believe that every trademarked term/phrase in existence is > "famous." > > > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > /\/\/\/\/\ > /\ > Patrick Greenwell > Earth is a single point of failure. > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > \/\/\/\/\/ > \/ __________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 21:07:44 -0500 From: Paul Garrin Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p >William Walsh wrote: > Name.space and any of the operators of alternative TLDs have no right to expect > introduction or prior use rights here. None. >[...] Do you care to back this up with some facts? > Any proposal which gives "alternative" tld operators advanced standing in this > process, or any expectation that that they will have any rights to the strings > they have self declared for themselves, would be patently unfair. It would work > against those who, unlike yourself, have invested years of working within the > system to acheive these goals. You should have no more and no less standing > than anyone else at the end of this process. > Any act by ICANN or others to forclose on existing TLD registry operations would be patently unfair and even perhaps ILLEGAL, and any attempts to do so will be challenged if necessary. ICANN and this process is by CONSENT and NOT mandated by law. Any and all cooperation within this process is VOLUNTARY and this process is not necessarily binding. ICANN has not yet been given the authority over the ROOT, and possibly may not if it fails in its mission. I am participating in this forum in good faith, and beilieve that the outcome muyst be fair, and at the same time will uphold my company's rights, and the rights of other EXISTING TLD REGISTRIES to continue operations and to seek global recognition of the TLDs already in operation. Name.Space and others, including Mr. Ambler, preceed ICANN, and have rights in this UNREGULATED industry to be entrepeneurs and to operate independently, and DO have rights to operate the TLDs that they currently operate. ICANN is not a regulatory body by statute, and neither is the DoC. Any regulatory measures that emerge from this process are by agreement and not mandated by law. If this process fails to come up with a workable consensus, Government regulation may follow. > Your arguments opposing this view and based only on emotion, and not on the > facts. The facts do not support your view, and the courts have even recognized > that your arguments were invalid. > The decision in the Name.Space v. NSI case was a POLITICAL decision and NOT a legal one. In fact, if you read the decision, the court make it clear the NSI's refusal to deal and grant access to the essential facility (the ROOT) was in fact ILLEGAL. The court ruled that NSI's conduct IN THIS CASE was immunized because it was persuant to a US Government directive. It goes on to say that such conduct in the past and in the future is subject to antitrust prosecution. That includes ICANN or any other party who may become the recognized operator of the "legacy" root. It looks like your emotional willingness to cheer the "loss" kept you from reading the substance of the decision (did you even read it?) and realizing the greater implications of the decision, and the fact that it was an act of PROTECTIONISM by the US Government on behalf of NSI, and not justice. The First Amendment argument advanced by Name.Space was acknowledged by the Court, in that TLDs are protected by the First Amendment, with reference to the "future" new TLDs which may be "expressive". http://namespace.org/law/appeal/2ndcir-dec.html > Any attempt to grandfather "alternative TLDs" into the system will meet with > staunch opposition, and there is no way that consensus will exist on that point. > By a few paid lobbyists and professional detractors, many of whom occupy this list, and who have plauged this "process" since its inception. Paul Garrin pg@name.space http://name.space - --------------------------------------------------------- Get Free Private Encrypted Email https://mail.lokmail.net Switch to Name.Space: http://namespace.org/switch ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:14:14 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 15-Mar-2000 Paul Garrin wrote: >>William Walsh wrote: >> Name.space and any of the operators of alternative TLDs have no right to >> expect >> introduction or prior use rights here. None. >>[...] > > Do you care to back this up with some facts? Most certainly. When you can show me that the US Govt. gave you an indication that if you went ahead with operations you could expect to get added to the root servers, which were controlled by them even then, then you can refute this. The NSF made it clear that not even IANA at that time could grant that sanction. These are facts, Paul. You have no sanction, and no legitimate reason to believe you would ever have any rights in the namespace. As for your own root namespace, have fun, do whatever you want. It has no basis here. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4zvH28zLmV94Pz+IRAtECAKC7CLumVuICU9x43eQwOXRuA9+CiACg614W yh6T/acyENjJg8HLAiy2FT0= =4XHd - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:19:15 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p At 09:07 PM 3/14/00 -0500, Paul Garrin wrote: >Any act by ICANN or others to forclose on existing TLD registry operations >would be patently unfair and even perhaps ILLEGAL, and any attempts to >do so will be challenged if necessary. ICANN and this process is by CONSENT Paul, Making such threats is pretty much never helpful, never mind that a term like "forclosing" is a bald mis-representation. Any action by ICANN is independent of, and irrelevant to, TLDs in other DNS root systems. Those other TLDs were created independently of ICANN, so ICANN can hardly be criticized for returning the favor. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 01:05:12 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] about the consensus call Kent argues that one of the difficulties with the consensus-call proposal is that it precludes ICANN from considering a proposal for a new gTLD charter/string unless that proposal comes from somebody actually seeking to run that TLD. A good idea for a new TLD, he urges, could indeed come from just about anybody, and it's arbitrary to say that ICANN can't consider such a proposal unless it comes from a would-be "registry." I think the consensus-call approach has two strengths. First, I think the focus on an *application* process, rather than a process in which ICANN simply assembles a list of potential TLDs proposed by the world at large and picks its favorites, will induce ICANN to proceed with greater procedural regularity, and to feel a greater obligation to justify the choices it makes. Second, the consensus call attempts to incorporate the virtures of compromise, by bridging the gap between two positions well-represented in the WG. The first camp urges that ICANN should select new gTLD charters/strings at the outset, as a pure policy matter, before operational concerns come into play. As far as the initial rollout is concerned, thus, ICANN should begin by selecting 6-10 gTLD strings, and only afterwards call for applications by some set of registries (perhaps fewer than the number of new TLDs ) to run them. The second camp, OTOH, views this approach as uncomfortably top-down. They urge that actual registry operators are better equipped than is the ICANN Board to determine what new gTLDs consumers actually want, and that the true competitive spur comes from the presence in the marketplace of different *registries,* not merely different gTLD strings. ICANN, they argue, should limit its role to operational vetting of would- be registries. The consensus call draws from the first camp the basic position that it should be ICANN, rather than private registries, choosing the identity of the new TLDs in the initial rollout, and draws from the second camp the notion that a regime in which the initiative for new gTLDs comes from the registries that actually want to run them will best foster the innovation, branding, & provision of value-added services that competitive registries can offer. I'm coming to wonder, though, whether this vision is limited in a way that I didn't focus on initially. The advantages that I suggest above for a system in which the initiative comes from applicant registries come into play in connection with *commercial* TLDs. They're got less value in connection with noncommercial TLDs such as Jamie's .SUCKS. (I think there's less to the recent discussion of who is a "registry" than meets the eye. If Jamie Love and XYZ Registry agree on a proposal that incorporates operational responsibility for XYZ and policy authority for Jamie, then they can file the proposal jointly, and at least one of those folks is plainly a "registry" for this purpose. But we're still left with Kent's question whether there's any *value* to requiring Jamie to establish such a relationship in advance.) Harold Feld, a while ago on this list, suggested that ICANN might use entirely different selection mechanisms for commercial and noncommercial TLDs. I'm wondering whether that would indeed be a superior approach. Another point: Several people, while casting votes in favor of the proposal, have commented that the proposal is acceptable to them only if the selection process is bounded by meaningful objective criteria, so that ICANN can't exercise wholly unbounded discretion in picking the 6-10. That sounds right to me: It seems to me that that concern is important. At the same time, as Eric has recently pointed out (and Kent has emphasized previously), we haven't in fact made much progress in developing criteria that meaningfully limit ICANN's discretion. I think the Sheppard/Kleiman principles -- even if we were all agreed on their content -- are too general to play that role. And I'm doubtful that we'll get too far in the couple of days before I have to finalize the current report to the NC. Reactions? Am I right in these late-night assessments, or is the consensus call proposal a better one than I'm giving it credit for just now? If I am right, is there a good (and quick) way to address (some of) those concerns? Jon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:12:31 -0800 From: Justin McCarthy Subject: [wg-c] convenience Brunner, Did you leave me off your list because I don't share your selfish and pompous views? I don't know what you look like, but I picture you as a crotchety old man who looks as if he always smells something bad. Now maybe, on your next list, you won't forget my name. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:57:15 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call At 01:05 AM 3/15/00 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > I think the consensus-call approach has two strengths. First, I > think the >focus on an *application* process, rather than a process in which ICANN >simply assembles a list of potential TLDs proposed by the world at large >and picks its favorites, will induce ICANN to proceed with greater >procedural regularity, and to feel a greater obligation to justify the >choices it makes. Second, the consensus call attempts to incorporate the > > I'm coming to wonder, though, whether this vision is limited in a > way that 1. It will require ICANN to be strictly reactive rather than proactive. You are confusing this with procedural regularity. Regularity can be achieved in either mode. 2. The idea that anything at all will make ICANN feel more obligations than it already does, given the intensely politicized tone of its context, is wrong to the level of being silly. 3. Coupling authorization of a TLD with authorization of an organization to administer that TLD greatly increases the tendency to view that organization as "owning" the TLD. The simple act of separating name creation from name administration ensures that such a view of ownership is utterly without merit. 4. In a difficult debate it is inappropriate, and frankly dangerous, for the person responsible for assuring fair process to take on an advocacy role. There is a difference between assessing which view dominates, versus personally advocating one. 5. Existing gTLDs were created by IANA, not by the registry running them. Given the difficulty of making progress in this realm, it makes sense to do as few "new" things as possible. Stick with the established framework, for now, and consider modifying it after the rest of the necessary mechanisms are established and running smoothly. >the selection process is bounded by meaningful objective criteria, so that >ICANN can't exercise wholly unbounded discretion in picking the 6-10. That >sounds right to me: It seems to me that that concern is important. At the >same time, as Eric has recently pointed out (and Kent has emphasized >previously), we haven't in fact made much progress in developing criteria >that meaningfully limit ICANN's discretion. I think the Sheppard/Kleiman That is primarily due to the groups' orientation towards debate, rather than towards putting forward concrete specifications and working to improve them. >principles -- even if we were all agreed on their content -- are too >general to play that role. And I'm doubtful that we'll get too far in the At the least, their proposal has the benefit of being an attempt to be concrete. Like you, I feel that it does not succeed, so it serves to highlight how difficult the task is. Criteria need to be objectively (that is, mechanically) assessed. The Sheppard/Kleinman list, along with the later modifications, is almost purely subjective. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 00:15:52 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 01:05:12AM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > Kent argues that one of the difficulties with the consensus-call proposal > is that it precludes ICANN from considering a proposal for a new gTLD > charter/string unless that proposal comes from somebody actually seeking to > run that TLD. A good idea for a new TLD, he urges, could indeed come from > just about anybody, and it's arbitrary to say that ICANN can't consider > such a proposal unless it comes from a would-be "registry." > > I think the consensus-call approach has two strengths. First, I think the > focus on an *application* process, rather than a process in which ICANN > simply assembles a list of potential TLDs proposed by the world at large > and picks its favorites, will induce ICANN to proceed with greater ******************** > procedural regularity, and to feel a greater obligation to justify the > choices it makes. Nothing in my proposal, or in any proposal of which I am aware, says that ICANN will simply "pick its favorites", and in fact that is *not* what I have in mind. Instead, I have *always* advocated that there should be *public* approval process for TLD names. That approval process by which names might be selected (another thing this WG could have worked on, but didn't) is unknown at this point. An approval process for TLD names can be just as procedurally regular as an approval process for registry selection. In fact, of course, a strong case can be made that leaving the choice of TLD names to registries is simply an abdication of an affirmative duty that ICANN has to get public input in TLD selection. Moreover, there is a registry application process in either case. The only issue is whether *the community* has any input or control over TLD names, as opposed to simply letting registries decide. > Second, the consensus call attempts to incorporate the > virtures of compromise, by bridging the gap between two positions > well-represented in the WG. The first camp urges that ICANN should select > new gTLD charters/strings at the outset, as a pure policy matter, before > operational concerns come into play. As far as the initial rollout is > concerned, thus, ICANN should begin by selecting 6-10 gTLD strings, I would word that rather differently: ICANN should begin by setting in motion a process by which the Internet community selects 6-10 gTLD strings. It could be as simple as calling for proposals and then having the At-Large vote. Though that is far too simplistic to be a general mechanism (there is no provision for the development of meaningful charters, for example) it might be sufficient for the initial rollout. In the long run a better process (IMO) would be to charter working groups to develop proposals for gTLD strings. In the meantime development of registry criteria could proceed in parallel -- entities interested in being registries could apply to ICANN with concrete business plans. and > only afterwards call for applications by some set of registries (perhaps > fewer than the number of new TLDs ) to run them. The second camp, OTOH, > views this approach as uncomfortably top-down. They urge that actual > registry operators are better equipped than is the ICANN Board to determine > what new gTLDs consumers actually want, But this is a completely bogus argument -- the choice isn't between the ICANN board choosing and the registries choosing -- it is between the *community* choosing and the registries choosing. The ICANN board oversees the process, but *nobody* has proposed that they simply throw darts at a list of proposed names... > and that the true competitive spur > comes from the presence in the marketplace of different *registries,* not > merely different gTLD strings. ICANN, they argue, should limit its role to > operational vetting of would- be registries. ICANN should limit its role to operational vetting of would be registries *and* oversight of the community TLD name selection process. > The consensus call draws from > the first camp the basic position that it should be ICANN, rather than > private registries, choosing the identity of the new TLDs in the initial > rollout, and draws from the second camp the notion that a regime in which > the initiative for new gTLDs comes from the registries that actually want > to run them will best foster the innovation, branding, & provision of > value-added services that competitive registries can offer. But it is an illusion. The fact is that the language restricting applications to "registries" is vacuous without a definition of what a registry is. Without that definition, anyone at all can say "I'm a registry" and submit an application, and it falls upon ICANN to evaluate the reality of the claim. But even worse, the definition of registry *can't* be over precise. For example, it can't be limited to already existing registries, because that precludes development of new registries. If IBM decides to apply there is no question that they have the technical ability to field a registry in short order, even though they currently are not running one. Milton, the author of the proposal, said that anyone who ICANN says is a registry is a registry... > I'm coming to wonder, though, whether this vision is limited in a way that > I didn't focus on initially. The advantages that I suggest above for a > system in which the initiative comes from applicant registries come into > play in connection with *commercial* TLDs. They're got less value in > connection with noncommercial TLDs such as Jamie's .SUCKS. (I think > there's less to the recent discussion of who is a "registry" than meets the > eye. If Jamie Love and XYZ Registry agree on a proposal that incorporates > operational responsibility for XYZ and policy authority for Jamie, then > they can file the proposal jointly, and at least one of those folks is > plainly a "registry" for this purpose. Which one? It's all very fuzzy and warm to say that it doesn't matter, but we waste a tremendous amount of time on arguments where the opponents really are talking about different things... > But we're still left with Kent's > question whether there's any *value* to requiring Jamie to establish such a > relationship in advance.) Harold Feld, a while ago on this list, suggested > that ICANN might use entirely different selection mechanisms for commercial > and noncommercial TLDs. I'm wondering whether that would indeed be a > superior approach. There is tremendous overlap between "commercial" and "non-commercial". > Another point: Several people, while casting votes in favor of the > proposal, have commented that the proposal is acceptable to them only if > the selection process is bounded by meaningful objective criteria, so that > ICANN can't exercise wholly unbounded discretion in picking the 6-10. That > sounds right to me: It seems to me that that concern is important. At the > same time, as Eric has recently pointed out (and Kent has emphasized > previously), we haven't in fact made much progress in developing criteria > that meaningfully limit ICANN's discretion. I think the Sheppard/Kleiman > principles -- even if we were all agreed on their content -- are too > general to play that role. And I'm doubtful that we'll get too far in the > couple of days before I have to finalize the current report to the NC. > > Reactions? Am I right in these late-night assessments, or is the > consensus call proposal a better one than I'm giving it credit for just > now? If I am right, is there a good (and quick) way to address (some of) > those concerns? Frankly, I think this consensus call is premature. The only way we can get consensus in this area is through deliberately ambiguous or vague general statements that people don't think about too much. Consensus based on such flimsy ground will certainly fold under the first bit of pressure. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 06:02:50 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] convenience Justin, I think the co-chair can offer you an explination you are more likely to find to your taste, please ask him. What I will find non-forgetable will be substantive contribution. Don't forget to make one, we aren't tasked to just be cute. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 06:23:53 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] WG-C List administrivia (revised) Jon was kind enough to provide the list of digested subscribers, which I'd forgotten, Greg Schuckman pointed out a typo, and Justin McCarthy committed (ah er ... "commended") himself to my memory. I'll delete the former subscribers the next time I feel the urge to send this to the list. I've deleted the initial "6-10" field for two reasons, o it was my intent to capture the list's consensus call hum on the issue, and I never got around to reconstructing that from the archive, and o the December vote revisited the same terrain. I'll delete the CAIRO field on the next substantive ballot. Cheers, Eric During the list-freeze late last year (6-10 vote period) there were 110 subscribers to the WG-C list. Presently (Cairo period) there are 140 subscribers to the WG-C list. Vote period WG-C subscribers who are not currently subscribed to WG-C: "Amadeu Abril i Abril" "Jon Englund" "Cohen, Tod" "Jim Glanz" "Jim Glanz" "Greg Maxon" "Mark A. Sportack" "Gurpreet Singh" "Rita M. Odin" "Matt Hooker" This removes two (2) December "YES" voters, one of which co-signed Position Papers A and D, four (4) December "NO" voters three of which co-signed Position Paper C, and five who did not vote in December, one of which also co-signed Position Paper D. Other changes, e.g., address-only changes: measday@josmarian.ch ADD (measday@ibm.net, markmeasday@hotmail.com) "Ross Wm. Rader" CHANGE (attyross@aol.com, ross@tucows.com) "Roger Cochetti" CHANGE (rogerc@netsol.com) "William X. Walsh" CHANGE (william@userfriendly.com) "Jay Parker" CHANGE (parker@westcomgroup.com) New subscribers to WG-C: Harald Tveit Alvestrand "Richard S. Campbell" Fred Vogelstein "Bret A. Fausett" "Francois-7ways" AndrwWatt@aol.com hiroyasu.murakoshi@toshiba.co.jp Shunichi Otagaki "Troy.Bradley" "stuart ellis" "Yoshioka Tsuneo" Alex Kamantauskas faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe "Winer, Jonathan" jothan@nic.cc "Will Donaldson" Will Donaldson "Tony Linares" Michael Prescott "Timothy Vienneau" "Stephanie Rulfs" "Lisa A.Nelmida" jelliott@tucows.com Patrick Greenwell ajay.joshi@utoronto.ca jwheeler@boardwatch.com "Mariah Garvey" "Daniel Pare" "Kroon, Richard" "Joe Kelsey" "Chris Pelling" "Warwick Rothnie" tinwee@pobox.org.sg KathrynKL@aol.com david@aminal.com "Jerry Yap" "James Seng" "Jeff Trexler" "Ken Cartwright" "James Love" I've updated my "administrivia" list, below. Errors or omissions to me. Cheers, Eric 156 current and former subscribers of list 'wg-c' (revised as of 13 Mar 2000): - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | | | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A.M. Rutkowski | B | | | | | Ajay Joshi | | | NEW | | | Alex Kamantauskas | | | NEW | | | Amadeu Abril i Abril | | | EXIT | | | Amar Andersson | A,D | | | | | Andrew Lutts | |YES | | | | Andrew Watt | | | NEW | | | Ann-Catherine Andersson | |YES | | | | Annie Renard | C |NO | | | | Anthony Lupo | C |NO | | | | Astrid Broich | |YES | | | | Barbara Dooley | |NO | | | | Beth Kennedy | | | | | | Bill Blitch | | | NEW | | | Bob Broxton | |NO | | | | Bret Fausett | | | NEW | | | Caroline Chicoine | | C |NO | | | Chris Burton | | | | | | Chris Conant | |YES | | | | Chris Pelling | | | NEW | | | Christopher Ambler | B |YES | | | | Constanze Schmidt | | | | | | Craig Simon | F |YES | | | | Daiva Tamulioniene | |YES | | | | Daniel Pare | | | NEW | | | Dave Crocker | A,D |YES | | | | David Maher | A,D |YES | | | | David Rosenblatt | | | | | | David Schutt | | | NEW | | | Dongman Lee | |YES | | | | Edler & Nebel Softwaree | | | NEW | | | Elisabeth Porteneuve | |NO | | | | Eric Brunner | A,D,E |YES | | | | Eric Lee | | | | | | Eva Froelich | |ABSTAIN| | | | Francois-7ways | | | NEW | | | Fred Vogelstein | | | NEW | | | Frederick Duca | | | | | | Geoffrey Dalman | | | | | | Glenn Kowack | | | | | | Greg Maxon | |YES | EXIT | | | Greg Schuckman | | | NEW | | | Gurpreet Singh | | | EXIT | | | Hal Lubsen | |YES | | | | Harold Feld | |YES | | | | Harald Tveit Alvestrand | | | NEW | | | Hiroyasu Murakoshi | | | NEW | | | Ian Penman | |YES | | | | Ivan Pope | | | | | | J. William Semich | |NO | | | | James Love | | | NEW | | | James Seng | | | NEW | | | Javier Sola | D | | | | | Jay Parker | |YES | | | | Jean-Michel Becar | A |YES | | | | Jeff Shrewsbury | |YES | | | | Jeff Trexler | | | NEW | | | Jeffrey Neuman | | | | | | Jerry Yap | | | NEW | | | Jim Glanz | D | | EXIT | | | Joe Kelsey | | | NEW | | | John Charles Broomfield | |YES | | | | John Giannandrea | | | | | | John Lewis | |NO | | | | John Zehr | | | | | | Jon Englund | | | EXIT | | | Jonathan Weinberg | A |YES | | | | Jonathan Winer | | | NEW | | | Josh Elliot | | | NEW | | | Joop Teernstra | B |YES | | | | Joseph Friedman | A,D |YES | | | | Justine McCarthy | | | NEW | | | Karl Auerbach | |YES | | | | Kathryn Vestal | B |YES | | | | Kathryn KL | | | NEW | | | Keith Gymer | C |NO | | | | Ken Cartwright | | | NEW | | | Ken Stubbs | |YES | | | | Kent Crispin | D,E | | | | | Kevin J. Connolly | |NO | | | | Kilnam Chon | |YES | | | | Kyle Taylor | | | | | | Lisa Nelmida | | | NEW | | | Loo, Douglas | | | | | | Mariah Garvey | | | NEW | | | Marilyn Cade | C |NO | | | | Mark A. Sportack | | | EXIT | | | Mark Langston | B |YES | | | | Mark Measday | A |YES | | | | Martin Schwimmer | C |NO | | | | Matt Hooker | |NO | EXIT | | | Michael Palage | |NO | | | | Michael Prescott | | | NEW | | | Michael Schneider | | | | | | Mikki Barry | B |YES | | | | Milton Mueller | B |YES | | | | Myron L. Rosmarin | | | | | | Myung Sun Chung | | | | | | Neeran Saraf | | | | | | Olivier Kozlowski | |YES | | | | Oscar Robles | | | | | | Otho Ross | |NO | | | | Patrick Greenwell | | | NEW | | | Paul Garrin | B |YES | | | | Paul Gregson | | | | | | Paul Stahura | A |YES | | | | Petter Rindforth | | C |NO | | | Philip Sheppard | |NO | | | | Raul Echeberria | |ABSTAIN| | | | Rebecca Nesson | |YES | | | | Richard Campbell | | | NEW | | | Richard Kroon | | | NEW | | | Richard Lindsay | |YES | | | | Rick H. Wesson | |YES | | | | Rita M. Odin | C |NO | EXIT | | | Rob Hall | | | | | | Robert F. Connelly | A |YES | | | | Robert Keller | | | NEW | | | Robert Waters | | | | | | Rod Dixon | A,B |YES | | | | Roeland Meyer | G |YES | | | | Roger Cochetti | | | | | | Ross Wm. Rader | |YES | | | | Scott Pollard | |NO | | | | Shunichi Otagaki | | | NEW | | | Siegfried Langenbach | A |YES | | | | Soo Jeong LEE | | | | | | Stephanie Rulfs | | | NEW | | | Stephen Goodman | | | | | | Stuart Ellis | | | NEW | | | Sue Leader | | | | | | Timothy M. Denton | B |YES | | | | Timothy Vienneau | | | NEW | | | Tod Cohen | C |NO | EXIT | | | Tolga Yurderi | | | | | | Tom Newell | | | | | | Tony Bradley | | | NEW | | | Tony Linares | | | NEW | | | Tsuneo Yoshioka | | | NEW | | | Warwick Rothnie | | | NEW | | | Werner Staub | |YES | | | | Wes Monroe | | | | | | Will Donaldson | | | NEW | | | William X. Walsh | B |YES | | | | Younjung Park | |ABSTAIN| | | | hyeyoung kang | | | | | | etienne@telebot.net | | | NEW | | | faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe | | | NEW | | | j.eder@berkom.de | | | NEW | | | jothan@nic.cc | | | NEW | | | jwheeler@boardwatch.com | | | NEW | | | kendall@paradigm.nu | | | NEW | | | tinwee@pobox.org.sg | | | NEW | | | m.janiaud@paris.infonie.| | | | | | zehl@berkom.de | | | NEW | | | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:15:17 -0500 From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: [wg-c] INT domain - --=====================_206116179==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Jon, The purpose and scope of the INT domain properly falls within the purview of this working group, and the DNSO in general. For the many years in which I've been involved in international affairs, one of the most genuinely useful international organizations is in fact the one which maintains the world's global record of international organizations - the Brussels based Union of International Associations - a role it's effected as a private organization pursuant to a League of Nations treaty for a great many years. Early last month, the UIA filed with IANA a request for an INT domain name, and forwarded me a copy in a personal capacity. See below. Hopefully its request will be granted as it's an elegant and clearly effective example of a private international organization providing a treaty function. In my personal capacity, I'd like to now convey this to you, suggesting that it raises several issues that deserve consideration. These include: 1. Whether the INT domain criteria shouldn't now be considered within the DNSO and WG-C; 2. Whether requests that pose policy implications shouldn't be automatically forwarded to the DNSO; 3. Whether the INT domain ontology shouldn't indeed encompass the very global function performed by the UIA for so many years and be performed by the UIA. - --tony ********************************************* From: Anthony Judge To: iana@iana.org Subject: INT domain registry query Send reply to: judge@uia.be Date sent: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 14:35:55 +1 Greetings I have noted the information regarding INT domain registry on your site at http://www.iana.org/int.html and on the ITU site at http://www.itu.int/net/int/int-policy-09.htm, specifically with regard to the restriction to organizations established by intergovernmental treaty and to Internet public architecture. The purpose of this communication is to briefly state the case for switching our domain from www.uia.org to www.uia.int in the light of an interpretation of the provisions of the ITU ruling, resolutions governing our activity by the UN, and the nature of the work we do regarding treaty organizations. Firstly however I would make the point that several years back, we were ourselves asked whether we would not wish to manage the INT domain and I indicated that the ITU was the far more appropriate institution to do this. At that time we did not have the web capacity that we do now (and I do not think that ITU did either at that time). The reason it was suggested that we should do this is that we have a clearinghouse function that manages data on the full range of international organizations, including the treaty organizations and their programs. We have done this since 1910, publishing the profiles of such bodies in hardcopy form. The data now appears annually in hardcopy (covering some 20,000 bodies) in the form of a Yearbook of International Organizations, on CD, and on the Web (http://www.uia.org/data.htm) -- where extensive hyperlinking is provided between organizations and to their websites. It is linked to data on the 30,000+ issues with which such bodies deal, and the strategies they advocate. The data includes intergovernmental treaties, whether in the UN Treaty Series or not -- and the ITU draft does not clarify the case for non-UNTS treaties. As an international nonprofit research institute, the issue data is freely available and we are endeavouring to develop formula to enable free access to the profile data. With regard to the current ITU Draft provisions "for discussion purposes" dated January 15, 1999 provisions, I note the clause specifying that: "The .INT domain is NOT intended for non-governmental (e.g., NGOs), commercial, or private organizations even if they may have an international character." We should like to argue the case that the unique nature of our apolitical, nonprofit work documenting and hyperlinking together the full range of international agencies, their issues and their strategies, merits consideration for the INT domain even though we are not an intergovernmental treaty body. To the extent that such treaty bodies can themselves be considered emerging core features of the public Internet architecture, we would argue that our profiling and hyperlinking of all of them (and of the full range of Internet architecture bodies), and the portal we provide to their own sites, constitutes an activity that falls under an interpretation of the second category "International databases supporting public Internet architecture functions". We have long provided access to the only comprehensive web resource list of international organizations, whether governmental or nongovernmental. Our function in documenting the "international domain" was initially recognized by the League of Nations (A.43 (B) 1421 of 5th September 1921, and was further recognized by Resolution 334B (XI) , 30 July 1950, of UN/ECOSOC -- as work that did not need to be separately initiated and with which the UN could cooperate. It is for this reason that our organization has been placed on a special UN Roster -- which could be interpreted in relation to the "observer status" criterion of the ITU provisions. Without endeavouring to argue our case in more detail, I should like to submit that the rather special nature of our work justifies our inclusion in the INT domain. I accept that a narrow interpretation of the ITU draft provisions would indeed require our exclusion, but would argue that a looser interpretation would allow our inclusion as a body exemplifying the global purpose of the INT domain -- a role which we have carried out since our hardcopy origins in 1910! In further support of our case, we note with some curiosity the existence of some INT bodies that do not appear to fulfil a narrow interpretation of either of the criteria specified in the ITU draft We should appreciate any comment on the case as presented before considering whether to engage in the formal submission process. Thank you for your attention to this query Regards ************************************************** Anthony Judge Director, Communications and Research Union of International Associations Rue Washington 40 B-1050 Brussels, BELGIUM Tel:(32 2) 640.18.08 Fax:(32 2) 643 61 99 WWW: http://www.uia.org/ E-mail: judge@uia.be What we need to understand may only be expressible in a language that we do not know************************************************** - --=====================_206116179==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Jon,

The purpose and scope of the INT domain properly
falls within the purview of this working group, and
the DNSO in general.

For the many years in which I've been involved in
international affairs, one of the most genuinely
useful international organizations is in fact the
one which maintains the world's global record of
international organizations - the Brussels based
Union of International Associations - a role it's
effected as a private organization pursuant to a
League of Nations treaty for a great many years.

Early last month, the UIA filed with IANA a request
for an INT domain name, and forwarded me a copy in
a personal capacity.  See below.  Hopefully its
request will be granted as it's an elegant and clearly
effective example of a private international
organization providing a treaty function.

In my personal capacity, I'd like to now convey this
to you, suggesting that it raises several issues that
deserve consideration.  These include:

1. Whether the INT domain criteria shouldn't now
be considered within the DNSO and WG-C;
2. Whether requests that pose policy implications
shouldn't be automatically forwarded to the DNSO;
3. Whether the INT domain ontology shouldn't
indeed encompass the very global function performed
by the UIA for so many years and be performed by
the UIA.

- --tony

*********************************************
From: Anthony Judge <judge@uia.be>
To: iana@iana.org
Subject: INT domain registry query
Send reply to: judge@uia.be
Date sent: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 14:35:55 +1

Greetings

I have noted the information regarding INT domain registry on your
site at http://www.iana.org/int.html and on the ITU site at
http://www.itu.int/net/int/int-policy-09.htm, specifically with regard to
the restriction to organizations established by intergovernmental
treaty and to Internet public architecture.
The purpose of this communication is to briefly state the case for
switching our domain from www.uia.org to www.uia.int in the light of
an interpretation of the provisions of the ITU ruling, resolutions
governing our activity by the UN, and the nature of the work we do
regarding treaty organizations.

Firstly however I would make the point that several years back, we
were ourselves asked whether we would not wish to manage the INT
domain and I indicated that the ITU was the far more appropriate
institution to do this. At that time we did not have the web capacity
that we do now (and I do not think that ITU did either at that time).
The reason it was suggested that we should do this is that we have a
clearinghouse function that manages data on the full range of
international organizations, including the treaty organizations and
their programs. We have done this since 1910, publishing the profiles
of such bodies in hardcopy form. The data now appears annually in
hardcopy (covering some 20,000 bodies) in the form of a Yearbook of
International Organizations, on CD, and on the Web
(http://www.uia.org/data.htm) -- where extensive hyperlinking is
provided between organizations and to their websites. It is linked to
data on the 30,000+ issues with which such bodies deal, and the
strategies they advocate. The data includes intergovernmental
treaties, whether in the UN Treaty Series or not -- and the ITU draft
does not clarify the case for non-UNTS treaties. As an international
nonprofit research institute, the issue data is freely available and we
are endeavouring to develop formula to enable free access to the
profile data.

With regard to the current ITU Draft provisions "for discussion
purposes" dated January 15, 1999 provisions, I note the clause
specifying that:
"The .INT domain is NOT intended for non-governmental (e.g.,
NGOs), commercial, or private organizations even if they may have an
international character."

We should like to argue the case that the unique nature of our
apolitical, nonprofit work documenting and hyperlinking together the
full range of international agencies, their issues and their strategies,
merits consideration for the INT domain even though we are not an
intergovernmental treaty body.

To the extent that such treaty bodies can themselves be considered
emerging core features of the public Internet architecture, we would
argue that our profiling and hyperlinking of all of them (and of the full
range of Internet architecture bodies), and the portal we provide to
their own sites, constitutes an activity that falls under an
interpretation of the second category "International databases
supporting public Internet architecture functions". We have long
provided access to the only comprehensive web resource list of
international organizations, whether governmental or
nongovernmental.

Our function in documenting the "international domain" was initially
recognized by the League of Nations (A.43 (B) 1421 of 5th September
1921, and was further recognized by Resolution 334B (XI) , 30 July
1950, of UN/ECOSOC -- as work that did not need to be separately
initiated and with which the UN could cooperate. It is for this reason
that our organization has been placed on a special UN Roster -- which
could be interpreted in relation to the "observer status" criterion of
the ITU provisions.

Without endeavouring to argue our case in more detail, I should like
to submit that the rather special nature of our work justifies our
inclusion in the INT domain. I accept that a narrow interpretation of
the ITU draft provisions would indeed require our exclusion, but
would argue that a looser interpretation would allow our inclusion as a
body exemplifying the global purpose of the INT domain -- a role
which we have carried out since our hardcopy origins in 1910!
In further support of our case, we note with some curiosity the
existence of some INT bodies that do not appear to fulfil a narrow
interpretation of either of the criteria specified in the ITU draft
We should appreciate any comment on the case as presented before
considering whether to engage in the formal submission process.
Thank you for your attention to this query
Regards

**************************************************
Anthony Judge
Director, Communications and Research
Union of International Associations
Rue Washington 40
B-1050 Brussels, BELGIUM
Tel:(32 2) 640.18.08 Fax:(32 2) 643 61 99
WWW: http://www.uia.org/ E-mail: judge@uia.be
What we need to understand may only be expressible
in a language that we do not know**************************************************
- --=====================_206116179==_.ALT-- ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #37 *************************