From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #38 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 038 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:05:58 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] INT domain "A.M. Rutkowski" wrote (03/15/00 07:15AM) >Jon, > >The purpose and scope of the INT domain properly >falls within the purview of this working group, The Charter for WG-C states: Working Group C (WG C) is requested to develop a document -showing the consensus of the different groups involved- responding to the following questions: 1.Should there be ***new*** generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)? If yes: How many? Which? At which speed should they be deployed and in which order? What should be the mechanism for developing ***new*** gTLDs after all these are deployed. Should each ***new*** TLD have a specific charter? 2.What should the registration and data maintenance process and regulation be?. 3.How should the ***new*** gTLDs be managed? What should the registry(ies) be like? Is it mandatory to have a ***new*** registry(ies)? . . . [emphasis supplied] .INT is an existing, not a new, TLD. Unless and until this WG's charter is expanded to cover existing TLDs, the post responded-to is completely outside the bailiwick of this WG. Substantive attention to the post is inconsistent with the orderly accomplishment of the charter that was set for this Working Group in June 1999. >and >the DNSO in general. I would not presume to set limits on or discuss the role of the DNSO. I observe only that this WG has a limited charter and was intended to have a limited life. 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, 15 Mar 2000 08:44:55 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] INT domain Tony, [Mr. Anthony Judge and whoever is minding the store at the IANA now that Josh Elliot has left for tucows and this working group, are cc'd, as is the wg-c list.] We covered some of this ground mid-December, when Milton Meuller's then-current tangent was that .INT was an examplar gTLD registry who's sparce population "proved" his point-of-the-moment that policed registries must of necessity fail. Mike St. Johns was kind enough to provide WG-C with a history of .INT up to 1996, and as you then pointed out, the ITU has current and historical information on line. I want to point out that the Union of International Associations comes no closer to being an International Treaty Organization, having only a League of Nations cite, and a liaison relationship with the ESOSOC, and a roster entry, constructively interpreted (in possible error) by the Union of International Associations as "observer status" under an ITU provision, than any number of individual Indian Nations, or sets of Indian Nations, which a) have LoN cites, b) have modern UN NGO cites, and operate a bunch of (small) telcos and can find some colorable cite in the ITU provisions as well. IMO the UIA doesn't meet the criteria for .INT. Now what I really wanted to say is how much I admire your elan, making the threat of getting WG-C's modest minority of nutcases to go along with cutting the ITU's throat and turn .INT into a DNSO super-political playground, and attacking the footprint of the International Treaty System in the DNS. Bravo! We know that it is antithetical to Network Solutions' long-term interests to accept the constraints imposed by the United States, a single national jurisdiction, except as a matter of ongoing expediency. Now I can add, as others may come to different conclusions, that your client has authorized you to go after jurisdictions as also antithetical to Network Solutions' long-term interests. Again Bravo! Let me suggest that we pass on the subject until after the middle of next month however, as a) it will keep, and b) it is a attractive nuisance to the present real agenda of WG-C. No, .INT will never be subject to the pathological process of WG-C, but suggesting it must have made you smile. Cheers, Eric P.S. For those new to WG-C, Tony and I don't even breath the same air, and I think Tony's current employer (NSI) should be bought-out of its contract at nearly any price and promptly forgotten. I think the Tony's former client (ITU) an occasional pain-in-the-(IETF's)-ass, and the International Treaty System what ICANN should aspire to be a very minor part of, as opposed to a aspiring to be a minor country club (a 501(c)(3) California Non-Profit Corporation with no significant social mission) or a flag of convience for a cartel of high-cap for-profits. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:44:59 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call Dear Colleagues (and you not-so-dear colleagues, too :-) I am concerned about a number of things. Their convergence has to do with the continued degradation of the WG and the entire gTLD process. This WG was chartered to develop and report the consensus of the involved groups regarding three narrowly-defined but critically important sets of issues. We have now become bogged-down in a number of non-substantive issues, and it bears noting that we are making little or no real substantive process. My sensei makes fun of me for meditating (in hope of enlightenment). Once, he picked up a piece of slate and licked it. Fool that I am, I asked him what he was doing. He told me that he was making a mirror! Twice fool that I am, I asked him, how can licking a slate make a mirror? His response (I should have seen it coming, I know :-) was: how can meditation give you enlightenment? How can the sort of disputation in which we engage ..... in a working group whose membership appears to be open to all comers, regardless of the lateness of the date at which they come to the table, irrespective of the agenda they bring to the table (or which they left at home or which, as appears to be all too common, they keep beneath a bushel basket) ..... develop and report consensus? Indeed, there are those who believe that the ICANN policy of adding gTLDs to the root only when supported by consensus is a snipe hunt. That is, there is logical equivalence between that policy and a statement that "the only gTLDs that will ever be in the legacy root are already there." This WG is seriously broke. That may reflect that ICANN is seriously broke. Certainly I am painfully aware that the GA and NCC/NCDNHC are seriously broke. Neither is the process aided by a WG chair whose avid support for a particular outcome is patent. As others have observed, the bias is writ large in the current report, which purports to be the report of the Working Group even as it denigrates the dissenters as being in opposition to the consensus. The chair's reference to the report as something which is his work also testifies to his loss of perspective. A zen master was crossing a bridge and was confronted by a gang of toughs. They taunted him, asking, "How deep is the river of zen, old man?" His response, was: "Find out for yourself," whereupon he tossed the toughs into the river. Mr. Weinberg, it's time you went for a nice, refreshing swim. I move that this WG report to the Names Council that it is seriously broke and needs to be reconstituted. 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, 15 Mar 2000 13:50:06 -0000 From: Jean-Michel Becar Subject: RE: [wg-c] INT domain The GA of DNSO will be appropriate place to discuss this issue. The WG-C is dealing only with the introduction of new TLDs and it could valuable to give inputs to the GA. My 0.000002 cts Jean-Michel Becar - -----Original Message----- From: Kevin J. Connolly [mailto:CONNOLLK@rspab.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 2:06 PM To: wg-c@dnso.org; amr@netmagic.com Subject: Re: [wg-c] INT domain "A.M. Rutkowski" wrote (03/15/00 07:15AM) >Jon, > >The purpose and scope of the INT domain properly >falls within the purview of this working group, The Charter for WG-C states: Working Group C (WG C) is requested to develop a document -showing the consensus of the different groups involved- responding to the following questions: 1.Should there be ***new*** generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)? If yes: How many? Which? At which speed should they be deployed and in which order? What should be the mechanism for developing ***new*** gTLDs after all these are deployed. Should each ***new*** TLD have a specific charter? 2.What should the registration and data maintenance process and regulation be?. 3.How should the ***new*** gTLDs be managed? What should the registry(ies) be like? Is it mandatory to have a ***new*** registry(ies)? . . . [emphasis supplied] .INT is an existing, not a new, TLD. Unless and until this WG's charter is expanded to cover existing TLDs, the post responded-to is completely outside the bailiwick of this WG. Substantive attention to the post is inconsistent with the orderly accomplishment of the charter that was set for this Working Group in June 1999. >and >the DNSO in general. I would not presume to set limits on or discuss the role of the DNSO. I observe only that this WG has a limited charter and was intended to have a limited life. 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, 15 Mar 2000 09:05:43 -0500 From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [wg-c] INT domain >jurisdiction, except as a matter of ongoing expediency. Now I can add, as >others may come to different conclusions, that your client has authorized Hi Eric, Thanks for your useful clarifications and suggestions regarding the UIA IANA request, and that further dialogue isn't appropriate here. This was a personal favor to the UIA folks whose services have been appreciated over many years, and your discussion is helpful. Perhaps we can just leave it at that without further interventions, and focus on the new gTLDs. - --tony ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:58:55 -0500 From: bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich) Subject: Re: [wg-c] INT domain Not to redirect the discussion, but it is a fact that future implementations of IPV6 expect to use the .int TLD for purely technical purposes (not related to any treaty that I know of). Or perhaps I misunderstand the following cite from http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-dns-lookups-07.txt : "o A new domain, IP6.INT, is defined to support lookups based on IPv6 address." Bill Semich .NU domain At 08:44 AM 3/15/00 -0500, Eric Brunner wrote: >Tony, > >[Mr. Anthony Judge and whoever is minding the store at the IANA now > that Josh Elliot has left for tucows and this working group, are cc'd, > as is the wg-c list.] > >We covered some of this ground mid-December, when Milton Meuller's >then-current tangent was that .INT was an examplar gTLD registry >who's sparce population "proved" his point-of-the-moment that policed >registries must of necessity fail. Mike St. Johns was kind enough to >provide WG-C with a history of .INT up to 1996, and as you then pointed >out, the ITU has current and historical information on line. > >I want to point out that the Union of International Associations comes >no closer to being an International Treaty Organization, having only >a League of Nations cite, and a liaison relationship with the ESOSOC, >and a roster entry, constructively interpreted (in possible error) by >the Union of International Associations as "observer status" under an >ITU provision, than any number of individual Indian Nations, or sets >of Indian Nations, which a) have LoN cites, b) have modern UN NGO cites, >and operate a bunch of (small) telcos and can find some colorable cite >in the ITU provisions as well. > >IMO the UIA doesn't meet the criteria for .INT. > >Now what I really wanted to say is how much I admire your elan, making >the threat of getting WG-C's modest minority of nutcases to go along >with cutting the ITU's throat and turn .INT into a DNSO super-political >playground, and attacking the footprint of the International Treaty System >in the DNS. Bravo! > >We know that it is antithetical to Network Solutions' long-term interests >to accept the constraints imposed by the United States, a single national >jurisdiction, except as a matter of ongoing expediency. Now I can add, as >others may come to different conclusions, that your client has authorized >you to go after jurisdictions as also antithetical to Network Solutions' >long-term interests. Again Bravo! > >Let me suggest that we pass on the subject until after the middle of next >month however, as a) it will keep, and b) it is a attractive nuisance to >the present real agenda of WG-C. No, .INT will never be subject to the >pathological process of WG-C, but suggesting it must have made you smile. > >Cheers, >Eric > >P.S. For those new to WG-C, Tony and I don't even breath the same air, and >I think Tony's current employer (NSI) should be bought-out of its contract >at nearly any price and promptly forgotten. I think the Tony's former client >(ITU) an occasional pain-in-the-(IETF's)-ass, and the International Treaty >System what ICANN should aspire to be a very minor part of, as opposed to >a aspiring to be a minor country club (a 501(c)(3) California Non-Profit >Corporation with no significant social mission) or a flag of convience for >a cartel of high-cap for-profits. > Bill Semich President and Founder .NU Domain Ltd http://whats.nu bill@mail.nic.nu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:37:39 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] INT domain How can we overlook the fundamental regime rule for internet drafts: "It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as 'work in progress.'" Indeed, when we lose sight of this distinction, we engage in omphalokaleptic exercises such as stating "My ownership of .web was approved by IANA" based on the content of Jon Postel's (long out-dated) internet draft. >>> J. William Semich 03/15/00 09:58AM >>> Not to redirect the discussion, but it is a fact that future implementations of IPV6 expect to use the .int TLD for purely technical purposes (not related to any treaty that I know of). Or perhaps I misunderstand the following cite from http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-dns-lookups-07.txt : "o A new domain, IP6.INT, is defined to support lookups based on IPv6 address." Bill Semich .NU domain At 08:44 AM 3/15/00 -0500, Eric Brunner wrote: >Tony, > >[Mr. Anthony Judge and whoever is minding the store at the IANA now > that Josh Elliot has left for tucows and this working group, are cc'd, > as is the wg-c list.] > >We covered some of this ground mid-December, when Milton Meuller's >then-current tangent was that .INT was an examplar gTLD registry >who's sparce population "proved" his point-of-the-moment that policed >registries must of necessity fail. Mike St. Johns was kind enough to >provide WG-C with a history of .INT up to 1996, and as you then pointed >out, the ITU has current and historical information on line. > >I want to point out that the Union of International Associations comes >no closer to being an International Treaty Organization, having only >a League of Nations cite, and a liaison relationship with the ESOSOC, >and a roster entry, constructively interpreted (in possible error) by >the Union of International Associations as "observer status" under an >ITU provision, than any number of individual Indian Nations, or sets >of Indian Nations, which a) have LoN cites, b) have modern UN NGO cites, >and operate a bunch of (small) telcos and can find some colorable cite >in the ITU provisions as well. > >IMO the UIA doesn't meet the criteria for .INT. > >Now what I really wanted to say is how much I admire your elan, making >the threat of getting WG-C's modest minority of nutcases to go along >with cutting the ITU's throat and turn .INT into a DNSO super-political >playground, and attacking the footprint of the International Treaty System >in the DNS. Bravo! > >We know that it is antithetical to Network Solutions' long-term interests >to accept the constraints imposed by the United States, a single national >jurisdiction, except as a matter of ongoing expediency. Now I can add, as >others may come to different conclusions, that your client has authorized >you to go after jurisdictions as also antithetical to Network Solutions' >long-term interests. Again Bravo! > >Let me suggest that we pass on the subject until after the middle of next >month however, as a) it will keep, and b) it is a attractive nuisance to >the present real agenda of WG-C. No, .INT will never be subject to the >pathological process of WG-C, but suggesting it must have made you smile. > >Cheers, >Eric > >P.S. For those new to WG-C, Tony and I don't even breath the same air, and >I think Tony's current employer (NSI) should be bought-out of its contract >at nearly any price and promptly forgotten. I think the Tony's former client >(ITU) an occasional pain-in-the-(IETF's)-ass, and the International Treaty >System what ICANN should aspire to be a very minor part of, as opposed to >a aspiring to be a minor country club (a 501(c)(3) California Non-Profit >Corporation with no significant social mission) or a flag of convience for >a cartel of high-cap for-profits. > Bill Semich President and Founder .NU Domain Ltd http://whats.nu bill@mail.nic.nu ********************************************************************** 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, 15 Mar 2000 07:57:23 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p No it does not. Becasue it ignores too many things. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > William X. Walsh > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 1:06 PM > To: Roeland M. J. Meyer > Cc: Dave Crocker; wg-c@dnso.org; Paul Garrin > 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: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:14:50 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 10:57:15PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > 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. It's not often Dave and I agree on anything, but I have to say he's 100% on the mark here, particularly as regards the separation of TLD v. registry authorization. This actually raises an interesting point. I was considering advocating a manatory review every X months for each approved registry to ensure compliance/fitness. Once I started thinking along these lines, I realized that there was a technical nightmare looming -- what procedure do we create in the event that a registry becomes unfit? How do we transfer the function of that registry to another? What if there is no registry to which to transfer these functions even on a temporary basis? These are all excellent counters to the argument for review. However, they are equally appropriate when we ask the question about any potential withdrawl of a registry. Is a registry, once approved, the registry for that TLD in perpetuity? What if the registry goes out of business? Changes hands? Goes rogue? Each of these situations is one in which it may be necessary to transfer all functions of a given registry to another registry. And unless there's a quick, tested, and reliable manner in which this can be accomplished, I think there may be a huge risk of potential instability here. And politicking aside, this would be bad. I suppose I see Dave's/Kent's/others' point about the inherent stability of such a system; I was thinking in terms of a shared registry system, and it never crossed my mind that they may have been arguing a case in which a given registry has sole control over a TLD, and that registry is offline for more than the occasional technical glitch. In the instances I described above, they're right. The questions above need to be answered, I believe. And I'm not aware of any existing framework for doing so. This does not change my position on the rollout of new gTLDs, nor does it change my enthusiasm for doing so. It does highlight an area in which we need to work before this can happen, however. If I may, I'd like to propose a potential technical solution: We have in place a working SRS (for various values of 'working'; joke if you must). Currently, that SRS is a blanket system, covering .com, .net, .org, and such. I am not deeply familiar with the SRS code, but I think the following might be possible: * Create 'micro-SRS' systems, in which there is a primary registry, and a secondary, or backup, registry. Each approved registry would have a designated secondary, to which their data would be mirrored. Preferably, this secondary would not be chosen by the primary, to avoid the situations we sometimes see now with primary and secondary nameservers. If and when the funtionality of the registry needs to be migrated for political, technical, or other reasons, there exists a functional, fresh copy of the registry in another system not controlled by the owner of the primary. I'd appreciate it if those who have had a look at the SRS code, or who are at least more familiar with its internals than I am, could comment on the feasibility of this idea. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:21:44 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p Paul, I endorse everything you said here, save one item. The Name.space vs. NSI suit named the wrong party. A fact that both Chris Ambler and I informed you of. Of course the DoC is covering NSI, NSI *is* operating under contract and therefore the root-servers.net system is "work for hire", which indemnifies the contractor from certain contingient liabilities. The responsible party is currently the USG/DoC/NTIA, which was NOT named in the suit. These facts are supported in the judgement and render that case moot. As always, IANAL, see a legal advisor before acting on these words. As to the remainder, the judgement is irrelevent. The relevent points are that ICANN is NOT a regulatory bureau and isn't even a part of the USG. No private company can make law, no private company can enforce law. The reasons for this go way back to pre-revolutionary days.This is a fact that allows new TLD root providers to challenge and compete with ICANN, even to this very day, without the need for grand-fathering provisions or clauses. The ICANN is not, and can not be authoritative at that level. Whereas the NTIA can be. The problem is that DOC/NTIA is ONLY authoritative within US jurisdiction. The USG isn't stupid enough to hamstring US-based companies whilst allowing the rest of the world free reign. At least, I hope not. The threat of government intervention is an empty one. The concept of all of the worlds nations agreeing on such a course of action, while laudable, is amusing, given the current reality of international politics. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On > Behalf Of Paul > Garrin > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 6:08 PM > To: William X. Walsh > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org > 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: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:17:37 -0800 (PST) From: Patrick Greenwell Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, 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 There is no need to follow such a path as I have suggeste previously. Thus you proceed on a false premise. Let the *COMMUNITY* decide which strings are most desireable. ICANN then can follow a completely objective path in TLD selection and placing operation of a given TLD up for bid. > 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, ASK THE CONSUMERS WHAT THEY WANT. > 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. Bull. See above. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:20:04 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] INT domain At 07:15 AM 3/15/00 -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: >The purpose and scope of the INT domain properly >falls within the purview of this working group, and >the DNSO in general. This is clearly out of WG-C's scope: .INT is a highly constrained -- that is, chartered -- TLD. It therefore is not even close to being a gTLD, and gTLDs are the current scope of this working group. So, rather than introduce new and wonderfully contentious and certainly distracting material, how about looking for ways to keep the working group focused, rather than de-focused? 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 12:56:51 -0500 From: bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich) Subject: Re: [wg-c] INT domain Huh? what has the Internet's belly button got to do with this query, Kevin? FYI, ip6.int is an active domain on the Internet, not a "work in progress" : MS Sans SerifQuery: MS Sans Serifip6.int. Query type: Any record Recursive query: Yes Authoritative answer: Yes Query time: 16508 ms. Server name: n/a Answer: ip6.int. 86400 NS munnari.oz.au. ip6.int. 86400 NS imag.imag.fr. ip6.int. 86400 NS ns.isi.edu. ip6.int. 86400 NS dot.ep.net. ip6.int. 129600 SOA dot.ep.net. hostmaster.ep.net. 1925627 ; serial 10800 ; refresh (3 hours) 900 ; retry (15 minutes) 604800 ; expire (7 days) 129600 ; minimum (1 day, 12 hours) Additional: munnari.oz.au. 82941 A 128.250.1.21 munnari.oz.au. 82941 A 128.250.22.2 imag.imag.fr. 218592 A 129.88.30.1 ns.isi.edu. 86400 A 128.9.128.127 MS Sans Serif dot.ep.net. 86400 A 198.32.2.10 Just to keep the record on this straight, and not to digress *anymore* please from the tasks in front of WG-C < Bill Semich .NU Domain At 10:37 AM 3/15/00 -0500, Kevin J. Connolly wrote: >How can we overlook the fundamental regime rule for internet drafts: > >"It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as > reference material or to cite them other than as 'work in progress.'" > >Indeed, when we lose sight of this distinction, we engage in >omphalokaleptic exercises such as stating "My ownership of .web was >approved by IANA" based on the content of Jon Postel's (long out-dated) >internet draft. > > > >>>> J. William Semich < 03/15/00 09:58AM >>> >Not to redirect the discussion, but it is a fact that future >implementations of IPV6 expect to use the .int TLD for purely technical >purposes (not related to any treaty that I know of). > >Or perhaps I misunderstand the following cite from > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-dns-lookups-07.txt : > > > "o A new domain, IP6.INT, is defined to support lookups based on > IPv6 address." > >Bill Semich >.NU domain > >At 08:44 AM 3/15/00 -0500, Eric Brunner wrote: >>Tony, >> >>[Mr. Anthony Judge and whoever is minding the store at the IANA now >> that Josh Elliot has left for tucows and this working group, are cc'd, >> as is the wg-c list.] >> >>We covered some of this ground mid-December, when Milton Meuller's >>then-current tangent was that .INT was an examplar gTLD registry >>who's sparce population "proved" his point-of-the-moment that policed >>registries must of necessity fail. Mike St. Johns was kind enough to >>provide WG-C with a history of .INT up to 1996, and as you then pointed >>out, the ITU has current and historical information on line. >> >>I want to point out that the Union of International Associations comes >>no closer to being an International Treaty Organization, having only >>a League of Nations cite, and a liaison relationship with the ESOSOC, >>and a roster entry, constructively interpreted (in possible error) by >>the Union of International Associations as "observer status" under an >>ITU provision, than any number of individual Indian Nations, or sets >>of Indian Nations, which a) have LoN cites, b) have modern UN NGO cites, >>and operate a bunch of (small) telcos and can find some colorable cite >>in the ITU provisions as well. >> >>IMO the UIA doesn't meet the criteria for .INT. >> >>Now what I really wanted to say is how much I admire your elan, making >>the threat of getting WG-C's modest minority of nutcases to go along >>with cutting the ITU's throat and turn .INT into a DNSO super-political >>playground, and attacking the footprint of the International Treaty System >>in the DNS. Bravo! >> >>We know that it is antithetical to Network Solutions' long-term interests >>to accept the constraints imposed by the United States, a single national >>jurisdiction, except as a matter of ongoing expediency. Now I can add, as >>others may come to different conclusions, that your client has authorized >>you to go after jurisdictions as also antithetical to Network Solutions' >>long-term interests. Again Bravo! >> >>Let me suggest that we pass on the subject until after the middle of next >>month however, as a) it will keep, and b) it is a attractive nuisance to >>the present real agenda of WG-C. No, .INT will never be subject to the >>pathological process of WG-C, but suggesting it must have made you smile. >> >>Cheers, >>Eric >> >>P.S. For those new to WG-C, Tony and I don't even breath the same air, and >>I think Tony's current employer (NSI) should be bought-out of its contract >>at nearly any price and promptly forgotten. I think the Tony's former client >>(ITU) an occasional pain-in-the-(IETF's)-ass, and the International Treaty >>System what ICANN should aspire to be a very minor part of, as opposed to >>a aspiring to be a minor country club (a 501(c)(3) California Non-Profit >>Corporation with no significant social mission) or a flag of convience for >>a cartel of high-cap for-profits. >> >Bill Semich >President and Founder >.NU Domain Ltd >http://whats.nu >bill@mail.nic.nu > >********************************************************************** >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 >********************************************************************** > ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #38 *************************