From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #39 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Thursday, March 16 2000 Volume 01 : Number 039 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:04:19 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] INT domain On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 12:56:51PM -0500, J. William Semich wrote: > 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" : There are many, many, many active domains on the Internet that are by any definition, "works in progress". - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:16:25 -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 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: > No it does not. Becasue it ignores too many things. May I ask you to be more specific as to what it ignores? Am I not correct that they started their operations with that knowledge? - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE4z++Z8zLmV94Pz+IRAqLFAJ42pmZ/oqKz02G9pKeslZAI7xZORACfYkkW vzoAuspw6sg0DSk0VekDbsc= =GCcO - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:34:23 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] INT domain I think we can put this one to bed; Tony has agreed that further dialog on .INT isn't appropriate in wg-c, b/c this working group is intended for discussion of *new* gTLDs. That said, I'm a little surprised that anybody is reviving the argument that chartered TLDs, in general, are somehow out of the scope of WG-C, or that the term "gTLD" in the context of our activities does not include chartered TLDs. Kent suggested this about six weeks ago. Here's my response to him: > This is quite silly. Here's WG-C's first task as defined in its charter, >which is on <: > >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 gTLD have a specific charter?* > > I'll quote it again: this WG was explicitly tasked to decide whether "each >new gTLD [should] have a specific charter." For better or for worse, >that's the job we were given. There's no room for an argument that the >word "gTLD" in *our* 1999 charter somehow does not include a "gTLD [with] a >specific charter." and here's his response to me: >>>> You're right -- in my haste looking over the charter I just didn't see that line, so my argument in that area is garbage. <<<<<<<< Jon Jonathan Weinberg weinberg@msen.com At 09:20 AM 3/15/00 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: >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 12:43:51 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 15-Mar-2000 Kevin J. Connolly wrote: > I move that this WG report to the Names Council that it is seriously broke > and needs to be reconstituted. "My position isn't the one in the majority, so the workgroup process is not working." - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE4z/YH8zLmV94Pz+IRAp8OAKCp2+dMM6ovvmcb+9l4npS5ZX0uwwCeOThP ppZ5FgQe2Xakw1Qi4/0f13E= =iZc7 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:52:59 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: [wg-c] The scope of gTLDs At 03:34 PM 3/15/00 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: >appropriate in wg-c, b/c this working group is intended for discussion of >*new* gTLDs. That said, I'm a little surprised that anybody is reviving >the argument that chartered TLDs, in general, are somehow out of the scope >of WG-C, or that the term "gTLD" in the context of our activities does not >include chartered TLDs. Kent suggested this about six weeks ago. Here's >my response to him: The problem is that chartering a TLD -- that is, defining its use so as to exclude potential registrants -- is exactly contrary to existing gTLD practise. .MIL is not a gTLD. Neither is .INT. They are chartered. They are fundamentally different than com/net/org. It's fine for the working group charter to raise the question, since resolution of the question has not been documented. It is NOT fine for the working group or ICANN to confuse two, entirely different administrative schemas. 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 18:07:19 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call Dave and Kent have already covered a boatload of issues posed by the text and method of the proposed consensus call (the Sheppard/Meuller proposal). There is one additional point I'd like to raise, and one suggestion I wish to offer. Both are long, I've a weakness of writing to that effect. This is my 4th item of mail for the day, I don't think Jon's late-night assessments are the best we can do, and time to get a report is quite limited. I've a tribal political issue (the "squaw controversy" in Maine) so I'll be lucky to even read email for the rest of the week. I couldn't appreciate back in December why Kent chose to abstain from the bitterly contentious super-majority vote on the previous 6-10 consensus, a vote triggered in my view by the co-chair's accommodation to the poorly judged claim made by a non-participant in WG-C that there was no consensus on the 6-10 question [1]. After writing up my several commentaries on who voted and how [2], some of which circulated privately, and were reflected in my mail this week [3] on historical trivia -- the apparently fatal three-way (or four if the camp opposed to the IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root [4] are to be counted), it has come to me -- the limitation of the decision making process WG-C is capable of, the point behind Kent's decision not to vote. Consensus calls can only serve to make some party the ass of the moment, (and voting has the same net effect). If the proposal is to have policy (marks, human rights, non-profit, Position Papers A, C, D and E), then Martin is the ass. He and his are vile obstructionists. If the proposal is to have no policy but market forces (converse of the above, Position Paper B), then Jon, Caroline, Kent and Eric are the asses. They and theirs are the vile obstructionists. If the proposal is to have new gTLDs (6-10), then Caroline (Position Paper C) is the ass. She and hers are the vile obstructionists. If the proposal is to have no more marks abuse (Position Paper C), then Jon, Milton, Kent and Eric are the asses. They and theirs are the vile obstructionists. And not to leave any stones unturned ... If the proposal is to have discretionary capacity to act in the interests of the Unique DNS Root then Tony and Karl are the asses. They and theirs are the vile obstructionists. That about fills out the barnyard watering trough and braying chorus. For those unfamiliar with obstinante equines, think of a circular firing party. We can't get to a consensus position. It is futile for the co-chair, even if not a party to a position, to seek the impossible or the merely absurdly difficult process goal of consensus on an issue more substantive than whether tea is a popular beverage in China. What we can get to is simple majority and super-majority votes, which are as Kent observed, divisive, but at least offer clear process boundaries. We risk of course ballot stuffing -- the point that Kent's response to Jamie Love made, and has been made w.r.t. the number of warm bodies from the marks interests earlier. What we can also get to is a delicate balance point, the principled armistice that our co-chair has tried to steer our process toward -- I simply think he erred in projecting Sheppard/Meuller onto the results of the recent straw poll. My reading of the straw poll and the balance of forces leads me to offer the following: o 6-10 in principle and specifically o a chartered gTLD with a specific operator (.PPE), and o a chartered gTLD with a reserved operator (.tbd), and o a non-chartered gTLD with specific non-profit operators (.PPD), and o a non-chartered gTLD with specific for-profit operators (.PPB), and o a non-chartered gTLD with reserved non-profit operators, and o a non-chartered gTLD with a reserved for-profit operator, and o a chartered gTLD with an ICANN operator (.ICANN) [Notation: PPx == Position Paper x, a placeholder, e.g., PPE == .NAA] o Marks in principle and specifically total surrender of the problem to the IPC during the first year of the roll-out period, extensible to the second and subsequent years of operation upon simple request by the DNSO's IP Constituency, subject to confirmation by super majority of the ICANN Board. [They have to have a working solution eventually, and my weekend reading is the set of IPC documents to the Cairo meeting [5] to attempt to understand their current best thoughts on the subject. I encourage everyone to take the time to understand the IPC position in detail.] o Selection of registry operators by informal means through a new DNSO working group selected by the DNSO, for both chartered and non-chartered gTLDs. While favoring the positions advanced by Dave, Kent and I and about two score of other WG-C participants, this does test the limits of patience of the position articulated in Position Paper B, I can only offer to Martin, Chris, et al the hope that a) we're honest and b) that more gTLDs will be added to the root and that for some part of the DNS market that market principles will prevail. This also tests the limits of caution of the position articulated in Position Paper C, I can only offer to Caroline et al the hope that a) we're honest and b) that they control the abuse issue, and that this is a better solution than Sheppard/Kleiman, as I pointed out in [6], and as others have it is subjective to the point of inutility. To accommodate the desires of the Position Paper B co-signers, who I hope will refrain from knifing each other as well as everyone else, I suggest they (and anyone else with a substantive record of participation) are simply allocated one gTLD to operate as a for-profit monolithic registry (shared equity), with themselves as registrars (or that also combined into the registry, subject only to the Marks principle (above), to be further partitioned into a second and subsequent gTLDs, not necessarily "shared" in operational or equity forms, subject to the Selection principle (above) for so long as that informal process is in place. To accommodate the desires of the Position Paper D co-signers, who I know will play nice with others and not run with scissors, the same as above but in non-profit form. To accommodate the desires of the many who want a specific chartered gTLD, I suggest that we get on with our oldest hypothetical, the museum example, and give Kent free rein to find an NGO to operate that gTLD, as the charter is about as simple as that of .EDU. Do it and go. To accommodate (or channel) the desires of the carrier giants and be on the leading edge of a technical problem (for a change), I suggest that we drop the task of finding an entity to operate a gTLD to support IP telephony on Mark Sportack (AT&T) and let the VoIP players write a reasonable charter and get on with the problem of solving the E.164<->IP address mapping problem. The roadmap I suggest is: NAA in 2000 -> other human rights gTLDs in subsequent years PPB in 2000 -> fraction/copy to other gTLDs in subsequent years PPD in 2000 -> fraction/copy to other gTLDs in subsequent years MUS in 2000 -> other cultural gTLDs in subsequent years VoIP in 2000 -> other technical gTLDs in subsequent years WG-C in 2000 -> more, possibly copies of the above gTLDs, to 6-10 WG-C process -> other gTLDs in subsequent years A predicate is some degree of enlightened self-interest, commercial brand trust. Most everyone makes some of the currency of their preference, and most of us look like rational statespersons to our respective constituencies, and the knives are put away until next time, when all of us may know better than to engage in Mutual Assured Frustration, and ICANN itself proved to be better than the IAHC at the problem, based upon results. Nappi, the Siksika hero-fool, Coyote to the Lakota, Raven to the Salmon Peoples, always says after his foolishness becomes apparent, "that was the one thing I forgot". I'm sure I've forgotten something, I hope it is not critical. Oh. The principle of geographic diversity! Participation in the first round of PPB and PPD forms of non-chartered gTLDs may need to meet that criteria, so we may need to have two or three of each to both meet the principle of geographic diversity and not be complex to the point of being impossible to equtize or operate. Oh2. The possibility that the Marks issue is not solved or at least is not considered tractible by the IPC in the first year. We all take Vixie's suggestion and use random label assignments. The SLD/3LD/... strings will be goofy, but may be tractibly mapped back to non-Marks strings after the IPC has a solution, thus no injury to Marks and no bar to registry roll-out. User asks for "foo", gets mumblefratz and post-IPC-solution has only the registry policy (if any) to negotiate to get back to "foo". Anyone have any alternatives that work out at least getting past the super-majority threshold? Kitakitamatsinopowaw, Eric References: [1] Mike Heltzer, INTA http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnscomments/comments-gtlds/Archives/msg00068.html [2] http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg00264.html http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg00309.html [3] http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg00933.html [4] http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg00226.html [5] http://ipc.songbird.com/ccTLD_paper.html http://ipc.songbird.com/gTLD_paper.html http://ipc.songbird.com/famous_marks_paper.html http://ipc.songbird.com/whois_paper.html [6] http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg00726.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:06:46 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 15-Mar-2000 Eric Brunner wrote: > The roadmap I suggest is: > > NAA in 2000 -> other human rights gTLDs in subsequent years The blatent self interest expressed here discounts the entire post. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE40CWW8zLmV94Pz+IRAh9rAKCHN4QgNhE1Me7kLTl7memtdcYzFACfQbgA GP1k2n3MZUH2MSPRs7AANRo= =sfir - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:20:40 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call At 04:06 PM 3/15/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: > > NAA in 2000 -> other human rights gTLDs in subsequent years > >The blatent self interest expressed here discounts the entire post. William. You are right. We should give far more consideration to the many posts from people who do not make their interests nearly so clear... 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 16:49:55 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 16-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > At 04:06 PM 3/15/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >> > NAA in 2000 -> other human rights gTLDs in subsequent years >> >>The blatent self interest expressed here discounts the entire post. > > William. You are right. We should give far more consideration to the many > posts from people who do not make their interests nearly so clear... The point, Dave, which you seemed to not want to see, is the Eric's "proposal" is only acceptable to him because he gets his proposal. This is commonly referred to as pork barreling. Now, I have no such axe to grind. I do not plan or intend to operate or work for a new registry, nor am I under the employ or pay of anyone who has such plans. I'm here as an ISP and a consumer who has a vested interest in seeing this process moved along in a fair and open fashion. I am in the process of becoming a reseller of domain registration services for com/net/org, however that in way impacts my views here, and is merely an extension of my existing internet services business. Who are you employed by Dave? Who are your employers? Who contracts you for "consulting?" I would love to pour over your financials and see exactly whose interests you are representing directly. I bet you won't entertain any such open disclosure when it comes to you. At least with IOD and PGMedia and Brunner, I know where they stand, I know where they are coming from, and I know their motives, and I know the interests behind their participation. But you are one of those people "who do not make their interests nearly so clear." I have taken exception with the alternative root operators demands that they get some "preexisting rights" and I've taken Eric to task for his onesided effort to accept anything that results in his .NAA proposal being added ASAP. I've taken CORE to task for their insistence on forcing their model on every gTLD registry. But one thing I am entirely in support of, is an open and fair process for adding new gTLDs. Eric's "proposal" is wrought with attempts to make everyone happy, so he can get "his" TLD. Face it people, there will be many unhappy people. Frankly, I don't think we should accomodate everyone's concerns or even try to. I see the IPC as being one group who must be limited in the impact they have on this process. Their positions are overly extreme, not based on existing protections under the law, and wrought with problems relating to due process, fair use, and that not all use of a string that is trademarked is necessarily an infringing use. They seek to criminalize the process of selling or offering for sale a domain name, particularly if that domain happens to contain a trademarked string. This is ludicrous. It deserves to be discounted and ignored. Claims of prior use by renegade/alternative registries/root server networks are in the same group. This is a clean slate people. There is no prior process or any prior work that should gain ANY participant in this process any advanced standing. This workgroup is not tasked with selecting new gTLD strings, or specifically endorsing any proposal for new gTLD strings. It is specifically tasked to come up with a proposal for a process for ICANN to permit the addition of new gTLDs. The process doesn't mean including a rider that advances one groups claim for a new TLD over any other future applications under this process. Eric needs to start focusing on working on a fair and open process, and stop trying to manipulate the results to get .NAA in the roots. So does CORE, and so does PGMedia, and so does every other prospective registry. CORE has members jumping ship everyday and going around them to get ICANN Accredited and distance themselves from CORE as much as possible. They have other problems they should be addressing, rather than trying to stack the deck here. From what I have seen of the CORE operation, they are no where near ready to run a real registry just based on the performance of their SRS system. What we need is a uniform set of policies that will permit a fair and open expansion of the gTLD namespace. That is to the benefit of all of us. Trademark holders have legal rights, and there are forums for them to address their rights. Our process has no impact on their rights, and technical coordination does not include expanding the ability of the trademark holders to exercise rights they may or may not have under the law. We are already seeing EXTREMELY bad decisions under the ICANN UDP, such as the buypc.com case where the original registrant let the domain lapse and expire (the domain was inactive for over >>2 months<< before being deleted and made available for registration, what POSSIBLE rights could they claim????) and the domain was reregistered. This is exactly the type of crappy decisions I and others predicted would result from such a bad and biased policy. The COURTS are the only place these decisions should be made in. It is the only way that domain owners can be protected from these types of extremely bad decisions made by people who have absolutely no understanding of how the system works. Mandatory business models, mandatory rebidding of registries, mandatory SRS style registrar models, etc, are all overly restrictive and stifle innovation that would bring REAL competition into the domain industry. The real issue of lock-in is that to do business today, my clients HAVE to register under .com and have to accept restrictions and business practices that they would never accept if they had choices. I would immediately and gladly shift new registrations to a new registry for .web, .biz, etc, if they were available and they removed all the B.S. surrounding domain registration that we now have to endure under com/net/org, such as the UDP. My clients would even pay MORE for domains from such a registry, because of the clear position of the registry NOT to support a process that violates their rights to due process and forces them to submit to flawed and partial arbitration systems slanted against them. You keep saying you want new gTLDs, Dave. Let your actions speak louder than words, and start endorsing some open standards for that process, and not closed standards that end up duplicating all these problems and giving ICANN way more authority than it should have. I don't discount everything you say simply because it came from you, Dave. I've acknowledged when you have made valid points, and supported positions by you and Kent when they were in line with my own positions or I saw the logic behind them and agreed with them. For example, the position Kent has taken that Proposals could originate from people who are not technically capable of or interested in operating the actual network infrastructure required of a new registry, but are prepared to contract that operation to a party of it's choosing. This makes a lot of sense to me, and I support it. I'd have a much easier time finding something to support in Eric's posts if they weren't all tied directly into insistance that .NAA be added to the roots under his proposal. Get out of your CORE garmets, and stop trying to recreate the gTLD-MoU, and let's get some real work done. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE40C+z8zLmV94Pz+IRAmsWAJ45SkOHQxjWZcsAZExh58O51b/3OACgkJJp sHQ8LR40Lrzz2BAgoE9Tx0I= =NLPq - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:07:06 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call Agreed without reservation. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - ----- Original Message ----- From: "William X. Walsh" To: "Eric Brunner" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 15-Mar-2000 Eric Brunner wrote: > > The roadmap I suggest is: > > > > NAA in 2000 -> other human rights gTLDs in subsequent years > > The blatent self interest expressed here discounts the entire post. > > - -- > 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/ > > iD8DBQE40CWW8zLmV94Pz+IRAh9rAKCHN4QgNhE1Me7kLTl7memtdcYzFACfQbgA > GP1k2n3MZUH2MSPRs7AANRo= > =sfir > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:41:17 -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 16-Mar-2000 rmjmeyer wrote: > To then turn about and slap all the alternate root-server operators in the > face, with disavowel, is rude, unnecessary, and mean-spirited. To give them any accomodation at all is a slap in the face of all the people who have not decided to go renegade and instead work within the processes that have led us all to be here. They can continue their operations, in their own "virtual internet." But they have no bearing 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/ iD8DBQE40Du88zLmV94Pz+IRAiOhAKD83oTH2To0QiC3Q45ygiu4MFdI4gCgy557 ARaerw1p3vshqRmbZxNAfoA= =pRd9 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:03:04 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p There are a very small handful of companies (less than 5) that put together registries back in the days of Postel I and Postel II, after being told (on public mailing lists by Postal and Manning themselves) that the Postel II draft was to be an RFC. This was contemporary with IANA, in the form of Postel and Manning, taking applications for new registries in the form of NIC templates. These are facts, and nobody disputes them. The postings by Postel and Manning are still available as is the IANA list. As I said, there are less than 5 companies that put together running code based on those events. Of those 5, I know of only IOD that is still running today. I suspect that of the other 5, one or two might still be running. I would also make a position for CORE as a registry, as they are a business entity that spent considerable money to create their registry (regardless of the poor choice of TLDs, including two that are in violation of prior use and trademark) and did so based upon the expectations given to them by IANA at the time. That makes 2 pioneers that I know of. Even if all 5 from the Postel II days are still running, that makes 6 pioneers who established registries based upon the urgings of IANA. There is no question as to who the pioneers are - they can show continuous operation, they can show participation in the fora, and they can show NIC templates to IANA based on IANA's request for them. I suspect that if a serious call for pioneers to self-identify themselves were put out, including a simple check of whether or not they meet even the minimum requirements, you'll find that there are no more than 5 pioneers who are up to the task of being put in the testbed. You have consensus for 6-10 new TLDs. Call it 10, then. Take the 5 pioneers and add 5 more to be determined. Make all of them (pioneers included) have to meet clear and objective criteria. Make the criteria tough, as this is a testbed. We've got a start with the registrar criteria. Toughen it and move along. Perform the objective examination and then start the testbed. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - ----- Original Message ----- From: "William X. Walsh" To: "rmjmeyer" Cc: "Dave Crocker" ; ; "Paul Garrin" ; "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:41 PM Subject: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 16-Mar-2000 rmjmeyer wrote: > > To then turn about and slap all the alternate root-server operators in the > > face, with disavowel, is rude, unnecessary, and mean-spirited. > > To give them any accomodation at all is a slap in the face of all the people > who have not decided to go renegade and instead work within the processes that > have led us all to be here. > > They can continue their operations, in their own "virtual internet." But they > have no bearing 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/ > > iD8DBQE40Du88zLmV94Pz+IRAiOhAKD83oTH2To0QiC3Q45ygiu4MFdI4gCgy557 > ARaerw1p3vshqRmbZxNAfoA= > =pRd9 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:06:56 -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 16-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > These are facts, and nobody disputes them. The postings by Postel and > Manning are still available as is the IANA list. This would be fine IF IANA had the authority to do that. They never had such explicit authority, they presumed to be able to do something they couldn't. The NSF made it very clear even before the DoC got involved that NSI was not to add any new gTLDs at IANA's behest, only with the NSF's approval. The fact remains that there is nothing to sanction those activities. I can grant you permission to run a registry, Chris. But that doesn't make your registry any more legitimate unless I actually have the authority to make it happen. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE40EHA8zLmV94Pz+IRAmfXAJ9aa30TjmPzFCF5sXkgEJlsxSPq7gCdGn0I SrcBhqHj14rHm2TjmvQT/Gc= =9bWK - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:53:56 -0500 From: Paul Garrin Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p Chris, Being a friend of Jon Postel is not a prerequisite for being a pioneer and entrepeneur in the domain registry arena, or in America. Name.Space is as legitimate as any other operation that has running code, including Core, IOD, and the others who may have running code and continuous operations. Name.Space has continuously operated its registry since 1996 and has been totally uninterrupted since then, and has invested in software development and infrastructure, and has an active client base in both emerging and legacy domains. Among the achievements of Name.Space are: Realtime registry and secure online DNS management Smart Whois http://swhois.net The first to break the perception barrier of unlimited TLDs Famous names policy Model Privacy Policy Simply because a few professional nay-sayers on this list refuse to recognize the existance and achievements of Name.Space does not remove the standing from Name.Space within this process, or its standing as a functioning registry, with all the same rights as Core and your company, and others. Name.Space is already accredited by ICANN as a registrar for legacy domains. Can IOD claim that? If not, does that mean that IOD can't be a registry here? No, it doesn't. Just in the same way that being a friend of Jon Postel does not automatically include nor exclude any entity from acting as a registry under ICANN or otherwise. Paul > > There are a very small handful of companies (less than 5) that put together > registries back in the days of Postel I and Postel II, after being told (on > public mailing lists by Postal and Manning themselves) that the Postel II > draft was to be an RFC. This was contemporary with IANA, in the form > of Postel and Manning, taking applications for new registries in the form > of NIC templates. > > These are facts, and nobody disputes them. The postings by Postel and > Manning are still available as is the IANA list. > > As I said, there are less than 5 companies that put together running code > based on those events. Of those 5, I know of only IOD that is still > running today. I suspect that of the other 5, one or two might still > be running. > > I would also make a position for CORE as a registry, as they are a > business entity that spent considerable money to create their registry > (regardless of the poor choice of TLDs, including two that are in > violation of prior use and trademark) and did so based upon the > expectations given to them by IANA at the time. > > That makes 2 pioneers that I know of. Even if all 5 from the Postel > II days are still running, that makes 6 pioneers who established > registries based upon the urgings of IANA. There is no question > as to who the pioneers are - they can show continuous operation, > they can show participation in the fora, and they can show NIC > templates to IANA based on IANA's request for them. > > I suspect that if a serious call for pioneers to self-identify themselves > were put out, including a simple check of whether or not they > meet even the minimum requirements, you'll find that there > are no more than 5 pioneers who are up to the task of being > put in the testbed. > > You have consensus for 6-10 new TLDs. Call it 10, then. Take > the 5 pioneers and add 5 more to be determined. Make all of them > (pioneers included) have to meet clear and objective criteria. Make > the criteria tough, as this is a testbed. We've got a start with the > registrar criteria. Toughen it and move along. > > Perform the objective examination and then start the testbed. > > -- > Christopher Ambler > chris@the.web > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William X. Walsh" > To: "rmjmeyer" > Cc: "Dave Crocker" ; ; "Paul > Garrin" ; "Roeland M. J. Meyer" > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:41 PM > Subject: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > On 16-Mar-2000 rmjmeyer wrote: > > > To then turn about and slap all the alternate root-server operators in > the > > > face, with disavowel, is rude, unnecessary, and mean-spirited. > > > > To give them any accomodation at all is a slap in the face of all the > people > > who have not decided to go renegade and instead work within the processes > that > > have led us all to be here. > > > > They can continue their operations, in their own "virtual internet." But > they > > have no bearing 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/ > > > > iD8DBQE40Du88zLmV94Pz+IRAiOhAKD83oTH2To0QiC3Q45ygiu4MFdI4gCgy557 > > ARaerw1p3vshqRmbZxNAfoA= > > =pRd9 > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #39 *************************