From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #40 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 040 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 19:50:17 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p At 09:53 PM 3/15/00 -0500, Paul Garrin wrote: >Among the achievements of Name.Space are: Paul, In this forum, your primary achievement has been constant, commercial aggrandizement. Give it a rest and try to find some way to discuss legitimate content, appropriate to the charter of this working group. 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 19:48:21 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p At 06:03 PM 3/15/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote: >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 For those unfamiliar with the relevant procedures: 1. An RFC is not a "standard" unless it is made one, through processes that are separate from the act of publication; and 2. Stating an intent to publish something is a long way from making it a standard. >These are facts, and nobody disputes them. The postings by Postel and The range of statements that have been made about supposed 'permission' given for the rogue activities includes many statements that are false. >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 More importantly, CORE was created out of a formal IANA activity -- IANA initiated and IANA endorsed -- and provided with oversight by POC. Not quite the same as the rogue efforts by others. >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 Take the 5 rogue "pioneers" and ignore them. Then treat all potential registry administrators equally. The rogue folk should consider themselves lucky not to be automatically excluded from consideration. 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 19:59:03 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p Fine, Paul, stop claiming 500+ TLDs, pick one for the purposes of expressing intent to participate in the testbed (remember 6-10), and I'm more than pleased to endorse your intent. Damn, that was simple, wasn't it? - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 19:57:30 -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 Dave Crocker wrote: >>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 > > More importantly, CORE was created out of a formal IANA activity -- IANA > initiated and IANA endorsed -- and provided with oversight by POC. > > Not quite the same as the rogue efforts by others. Sure it is. IANA had no such authority. It's endorsement was no better than if someone like Howard Stern had endorsed it. If IANA had the authority, then the NSF would not have directed NSI to ignore any new gTLD requests from IANA. There are equal as far as that goes. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE40Fuq8zLmV94Pz+IRAkP+AJ9orz4+KVCTjxjJppqwKU07pXTrRACgtZhS cw7eDchgZsz/e2HrsMzq2lI= =wxts - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:05:29 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p Dave, you can't have it both ways. Either IANA sanctioned activity is canon or it is not. Either what they did with the IAHC has the same position as their requesting NIC templates prior to entry or it doesn't. These facts are not in dispute. THESE FACTS - let's leave other facts that ARE in dispute out of it. So, I reiterate - we have, at most, 5 or so companies that created infrastructure based upon the actions of IANA. In these cases, assurances were made that were subsequently broken. Some would argue that IANA's authority is nil. I would argue that it's not a question of authority, it's a question of process. At the time, IANA had the de-facto stewardship, and all parties acted on good faith. Forget about authority. What this gives us is a small handful of pioneers who are knowledgeable, have infrastructure, and who are presumably ready to be part of the testbed. Fill the rest with some of the proposed social domains (perhaps the .sucks and the .naa proposals) and maybe even add .eu in the testbed as well. The point being, the composition of the testbed, absent any other evidence, seems clear. There is no need to exclude any company/entity that has seriously taken steps to date. Indeed, there's even room for some that haven't. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:09:02 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p >Sure it is. IANA had no such authority. It's endorsement was no better than >if someone like Howard Stern had endorsed it. If IANA had the authority, then >the NSF would not have directed NSI to ignore any new gTLD requests from IANA. > >There are equal as far as that goes. Pretty-much agreed. So I'd argue that we should throw the issue of authority out the door and forget about it. Instead, just look at who has infrastructure in place based upon assurances, no matter how misplaced, by IANA. Not as justification, just as a fact. Ironic how Dave chides Paul for touting his company, and then goes and tries to place CORE's birth on a pedestal over other such prospective companies. Pots, kettles and the like. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:27:52 -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: >>Sure it is. IANA had no such authority. It's endorsement was no better > than >>if someone like Howard Stern had endorsed it. If IANA had the authority, > then >>the NSF would not have directed NSI to ignore any new gTLD requests from > IANA. >> >>There are equal as far as that goes. > > Pretty-much agreed. So I'd argue that we should throw the issue of authority > out the door and forget about it. Instead, just look at who has > infrastructure > in place based upon assurances, no matter how misplaced, by IANA. Not as > justification, just as a fact. Why? How are they anymore justified than assurances from Howard Stern? Look instead at each and every application on equal footing and evaluate them on their merits. No advanced standing of any kind. If IOD can present a qualified proposal, it is welcome to. It would be considered equally with the other proposals. > Ironic how Dave chides Paul for touting his company, and then goes and > tries to place CORE's birth on a pedestal over other such prospective > companies. Pots, kettles and the like. Agreed on this point. - - -- 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/ iD4DBQE40GLI8zLmV94Pz+IRAoPyAJQKm2+IBPbSu2gPUr1F6HbZyKCQAJ4lsx1e /oXZuf5bRi3r8TrHgzzsjw== =Db8g - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:38:36 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p We most certainly disagree. You stating these things also does not make it so. It is only your opinion. I recognise that you are an uncompromising person, but then many here are. > -----Original Message----- > From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:41 PM > To: rmjmeyer > Cc: Dave Crocker; wg-c@dnso.org; Paul Garrin; Roeland M. J. Meyer > 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 20:38:11 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p At 07:57 PM 3/15/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >Sure it is. IANA had no such authority. It's endorsement was no better than 10 years of responsibility for DNS administration -- as in, from the inception of the DNS -- says otherwise. The myth that IANA was just a mechanical arm of the US government does not hold up under serious analysis of its role and actions. The entire basis for the legitimacy of that effort is more extensive, as you know. 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 20:45:41 -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 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: > We most certainly disagree. You stating these things also does not make it > so. It is only your opinion. I recognise that you are an uncompromising > person, but then many here are. Roeland, if anything I have said is factually incorrect, please point it out. This is more than just opinion. IANA did not have the authority to grant for new gTLDs. What do you disagree with specifically? If we can identify our areas of disagreement and the basis for them, it would certainly be more helpful than just accusing people of being "uncompromising." I'm actually quite compromising. My own view is that there is no need for a "test bed" and that indeed the whole concept of the test bed is flawed, without enough of a disincentive for ICANN to stop adding new gTLDs after the testbed gTLDs are added. But in the interest of compromise and moving forward (progress I think it is called by some) I've supported that proposal, in the hopes that what I fear will not occur or that there will be sufficient opposition to ICANN stopping the process that it will help to prevent them from doing so. But facts can't be compromised on. There is simply no reason to give those people advanced standing. There is every reason in the world not to. Let's go over them: 1) It unfairly prejudices proposals originating from people who elected NOT to go outside the processes and to work within the process to acheive the goal of new gTLDs 2) It rewards people for acting outside the process and going off on their own without any regard for the process By giving them no advanced standing they have to qualify on their merits and their merits alone. This ensures that the best choices are made, and not that someone who decided to go off on their own gets a shot above someone with a bettter proposal simply because they refused to wait and get an official sanction for their activity. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE40Gb18zLmV94Pz+IRAgg3AKCOriX1CdRPCez6JP1HSZVlH1yoNACfQj71 KvOijspX0cQBXW16EwY8LYg= =iDx7 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:49:43 -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 Dave Crocker wrote: > At 07:57 PM 3/15/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >>Sure it is. IANA had no such authority. It's endorsement was no better than > > 10 years of responsibility for DNS administration -- as in, from the > inception of the DNS -- says otherwise. The myth that IANA was just a > mechanical arm of the US government does not hold up under serious analysis > of its role and actions. Please, Dave, show me where IANA has this authority, and where the NSF specifically delegated it to them. Let's deal with facts, Dave. When you can present some, this issue can be revisited. There is simply no reason to discuss it otherwise, because the evidence and facts clearly show that IANA had no such authority, it ASSUMED that authority on its own without any authorization. > The entire basis for the legitimacy of that effort is more extensive, as > you know. No, it isn't. The gTLD-MoU effort is no more legitimate than any other attempt to add new gTLDs by groups like IOD, vrx.net, Iperdome, etc. Please, prove me wrong. Show me some facts, Dave, not a strong seeded desire by the gTLD-MoU supporters to see their efforts legitimized after the fact. I don't doubt that the gTLD-MoU supports believed they were acting with authority, and believed IANA had that authority. But the fact remains that IANA didn't. The NSF made that very clear. If you can point to some official document that gave IANA that authority, please do. It sure would have done wonders from some of the many lawsuits over the years. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE40Gfn8zLmV94Pz+IRAlNZAJ9f7GbsFFPVGJpldtkvUdXwc29mIgCgz63I 7ampWjKwg7TlTQQX3ia2huA= =CX/W - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:49:07 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] Reposted for Roeland Meyer >From: rmjmeyer >To: "William X. Walsh" , > "Roeland M. J. Meyer" > >Cc: Paul Garrin , wg-c@dnso.org, > Dave Crocker > >Subject: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p >Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:36:08 -0800 > >That is irrelevant. There was no process at the time , with no process >forthcoming in the forseeable future. The course of action available at that >time was the only one. It is arguable that if it wasn't done then we >wouldn't even have the current process. However, that is a chicken-n-egg >issue. Everything done, during those days, helped get us here. I have every >faith that if those things weren't done, the status quo would have lasted >forever. I am still not completely convinced that the status quo is broken. >But, there is definitely some back-field motion. > >To then turn about and slap all the alternate root-server operators in the >face, with disavowel, is rude, unnecessary, and mean-spirited. I'm not >saying that total acquiesence is called for, but an accomodation >substantially other than a "fuck-off!" wouldn't hurt anyone. Quit thinking >boolean. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 12:16 PM >> To: Roeland M. J. Meyer >> Cc: Paul Garrin; wg-c@dnso.org; Dave Crocker >> 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 20:52:47 -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: > The point being, the composition of the testbed, absent any > other evidence, seems clear. There is no need to exclude any > company/entity that has seriously taken steps to date. Indeed, > there's even room for some that haven't. You define serious steps as running a registry without sanction. I define it as participating in this process and working for the opening of the gTLD arena. There is no talk of exclusion, merely of everyone being on the same level playing field, and their applications being considered on their own merits, without regard for their weak claims at "prior use" or "prior actions." That is what is fair. Many have participated in this process and waited for this reason alone. Not to be branded a renegade and to have an opportunity to be considered on their merits. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE40Gif8zLmV94Pz+IRAsrxAJ9t+auOxKFbZEIlT5FjxuAJhnVV5QCg4GEC uqTJmS4zSFpQm6q2Rsc9aQk= =A4nB - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:52:12 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] The scope of gTLDs It's correct, I think, that a TLD that has its use defined so as to exclude potential registrants has a different "administrative schema" than one that does not. The only question that divides us, rather, is one of terminology. IAHC suggested that a chartered TLD should not be called a "gTLD." The Names Council, OTOH, didn't follow that terminology in setting up this WG: In tasking the WG to decide whether "each new gTLD [should] have a specific charter," it made clear its own understanding that chartered as well as non-chartered (non-country-code) TLDs are appropriately called "gTLDs." Jon At 12:52 PM 3/15/00 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: >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 21:07:46 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p Oh, Dave, you're just making my day! - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 8:38 PM To: William X. Walsh Cc: wg-c@dnso.org; Christopher Ambler Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p At 07:57 PM 3/15/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >Sure it is. IANA had no such authority. It's endorsement was no better than 10 years of responsibility for DNS administration -- as in, from the inception of the DNS -- says otherwise. The myth that IANA was just a mechanical arm of the US government does not hold up under serious analysis of its role and actions. The entire basis for the legitimacy of that effort is more extensive, as you know. 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 21:15:45 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p >2) It rewards people for acting outside the process and going off on their own >without any regard for the process Fact: IANA told prospective registries to go online and show them "running code." Fact: IANA told CORE to go online pending addition to the root (or at least signed their document that intimated that this would happen). Fact (as you say, and I'll give you for the sake of argument): IANA had no authority to do any of that Where, from these facts, do you find that the prospective registries went, as you say, "off on their own?" They went off based on the direction of IANA, authority notwithstanding. Based on this, these companies have been harmed. Fact: ICANN is now, for all intents and purposes, IANA. I think the answer here is clear. >By giving them no advanced standing they have to qualify on their merits and >their merits alone. This ensures that the best choices are made, and not that >someone who decided to go off on their own gets a shot above someone with a >bettter proposal simply because they refused to wait and get an official >sanction for their activity. If the criteria are objective, and the prospective registries meet or exceed the criteria, then there is no question of "better" or "worse," there's just a question of "qualified based on the criteria." By your logic, are the testbed registrars "better" than all those that have followed? Of course not. So the question is, should pioneer registries be given first opportunity to qualify based on objective criteria? I say the answer is yes. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:20:51 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p At 08:49 PM 3/15/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >Please, Dave, show me where IANA has this authority, and where the NSF >specifically delegated it to them. Let's deal with facts, Dave. When you can Facts are good. Please let's DO pay attention to them. 1. 10 years of operational history is quite a bit of "fact" 2. The reference to NSF suggests a pretty thoroughly deficient model of how things happened, back then, and by whom. IANA, its authority, and its funding pre-date major NSF involvement in the Internet. 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 21:23:34 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] The scope of gTLDs At 11:52 PM 3/15/00 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > It's correct, I think, that a TLD that has its use defined so as to >exclude potential registrants has a different "administrative schema" than >one that does not. The only question that divides us, rather, is one of >terminology. IAHC suggested that a chartered TLD should not be called a >"gTLD." The Names Council, OTOH, didn't follow that terminology in setting >up this WG: In tasking the WG to decide whether "each new gTLD [should] >have a specific charter," it made clear its own understanding that >chartered as well as non-chartered (non-country-code) TLDs are >appropriately called "gTLDs." There is a nicely "Through the Looking Glass" quality to the nature of the Names Council tasking. So, I guess this means that we now have to worry about .MIL and the rest of the chartered TLDs. Given this working group's considerable history of making progress, addition of a juggling act between chartered and unchartered TLDs will doubtless add minimal, further delay... 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 21:55:38 -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: > Where, from these facts, do you find that the prospective registries went, > as you say, "off on their own?" They went off based on the direction of > IANA, authority notwithstanding. > > Based on this, these companies have been harmed. Then take action against IANA for misleading you. But the fact that someone made promises they couldn't keep is no reason to give you advanced standing in this legitimate process. > Fact: ICANN is now, for all intents and purposes, IANA. No, this I challenge. ICANN assumed operation of IANA, but it is not the same organization by any stretch. And even if it were, the current process is one sanctioned NOW under the DoC agreements, and anything prior is not, and has no standing here. > I think the answer here is clear. I agree. But probably for different reasons. >>By giving them no advanced standing they have to qualify on their merits > and >>their merits alone. This ensures that the best choices are made, and not > that >>someone who decided to go off on their own gets a shot above someone with a >>bettter proposal simply because they refused to wait and get an official >>sanction for their activity. > > If the criteria are objective, and the prospective registries meet or > exceed the criteria, then there is no question of "better" or "worse," > there's just a question of "qualified based on the criteria." By your > logic, are the testbed registrars "better" than all those that have > followed? Of course not. The best possible candidates should be selected, bottom line. That doesn't mean they will ALWAYS be the best, but they will be the best candidates at the time of the application process. > So the question is, should pioneer registries be given first opportunity > to qualify based on objective criteria? I say the answer is yes. They should be given the same opportunity on an equal basis as anyone else. They have done nothing to attain any special privileges. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE40Hda8zLmV94Pz+IRAiIJAJ9DEYQydIr9d4QKsnsCnJt/OKDwwACdHiMv fTTmtBs0QWB0sCOFEoQ0sNk= =zn4h - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:02:03 -0500 From: Paul Garrin Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:41 PM > > To: rmjmeyer > > Cc: Dave Crocker; wg-c@dnso.org; Paul Garrin; Roeland M. J. Meyer > > 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. Process [...] Process [...] Process [...] Bickering, slander, FUD, spin, obfuscation, pontification, destruction... This is the process as it appears for the most part, from those who professionally sit on mailing lists and spew ascerbic ascii and oppose all who don't march lock step with this "process" of making noise, thwarting all progress...and doing little if nothing else. It has been very healty to work "outside" of this "process" because, at least in our lab, we actually got something done! Running code, innovations, operational business, best practice, good policies happy clients. Now, all this is brought to the table and those who claim a monopoly over the "process" stare and say that none of this exists or matters because it wasn't done as part of the "process". The fact that such things exist says nothing about the "process", and everything about the good of working independently, and bearing the fruits of good old American R&D entrepeneurism. This "process" has been going on for YEARS and it's still more of the same Bovine Scatology, stasis, deadlock, quagmire, impass, regurgitation... Nothing can be accomplished as long as the professional spoilers have their way. My hope of working within the DNSO was to come together with professionals who are serious about accomplishing something, and not just about their own pompous agendas, or the PR agendas of their sponsors and special interests. There are some serious and diligent people on this list, but they must be the silent ones who may be getting incredulous about all the drivel and pettyness spewed by a vocal few. It's time to get over this and get to work on the agenda, which is to find a way to scale the DNS in a way that is operationally stable, fair, inclusive, and in the best interests of all. If that can be achieved here, then it may redeem the term "process" and elevate it back to the position that it deserves, in true legitimacy, and not in the artificial and contrived theater that it has become. Paul - --------------------------------------------------------- Get Free Private Encrypted Email https://mail.lokmail.net Switch to Name.Space: http://namespace.org/switch ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:04:30 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] WG Report: deadlines and draft language Some key upcoming deadlines (as set out in ): Friday, March 17, at 5 pm UTC (noon EST): close of voting period on the consensus call Friday, March 17 at midnight UTC (7 pm EST): report to the NC is "frozen" Monday, March 20 at midnight UTC (7 pm EST): close of voting period on the report to the NC The voting period on the consensus call is not yet completed. I want to start a conversation *now*, though, on what the report to the NC should say on the topic of the consensus call, since the window in which to do *after* the consensus call vote is over is extremely narrow. My thinking at the moment is that if nothing changes on the consensus call between now and Friday at 5 pm UTC, it would make sense for the report to say something like the language set out below. Reactions? Also: If you have comments or suggestions relating to other sections of the report, please post them ASAP. Also: so far as I'm aware, nobody has cast a vote so far on the Report to the NC. That's fine, I assume that people are waiting until the report is frozen before voting. I just want to remind folks that the window for voting *after* the report is frozen is only three days; the short turnaround is driven by the NC's need to get our report quickly so that they, in turn, can solicit public comment and submit recommendations to the Board. So everyone who wants to vote on the report should make a special effort to do so before the March 20 deadline. Jon - -------------------------------------- Ongoing work Remaining questions before the working group include how the new gTLDs deployed in the initial rollout, and their associated registries, should be selected. In initial discussion and straw polls on this issue, working group members fell into several camps. One group urged that ICANN should first select new gTLD strings, and only then call for applications from registries wishing to operate those TLDs. A second group urged that ICANN should select new gTLD registries on the basis of objective criteria, and allow the registries to choose their own gTLDs in response to market considerations. A third group suggested that registries should apply describing their proposed gTLDs, and that an ICANN body or process will then make selections taking into account the characteristics of both the registry and its proposed gTLD. The working group considered the third option, viewed as a possible middle ground, as a consensus call, relating only to the initial rollout of six to ten new gTLDs. Eleven "yes" votes were cast in that consensus call, and three "no" votes. It's the view of the co-chair that the response to the consensus call does not demonstrate a rough consensus of the working group. The most important reason for that judgment is the small number of people who voted. In contrast to the 64 votes cast on the consensus call relating to the size of the initial deployment (more than half of the membership of the WG at the time), only 14 people -- 10% of the working group -- chose to cast a vote on this matter. Indeed, even some active participants in the discussion of the consensus call did not cast formal votes. This makes the vote less reliable as a gauge of the views of the working group as a whole, and suggests that the consensus call was premature. Other factors making it difficult to draw an unambiguous consensus from the vote include the facts that some of those who voted "yes" added additional caveats conditioning their support, and that voters may have had varying understandings as to how the term "registry" in the consensus call should be understood, and what an application would entail. It appears to be the sense of the working group, among both supporters and opponents of the consensus call, that ICANN's selection process should be procedurally regular and guided by objective selection criteria. Further, it appears to be the sense of the working group that the namespace should have room for both limited-purpose gTLDs (which have a charter that substantially limits who can register there) and general-purpose gTLDs. The working group extensively discussed a set of eight "principles," drafted by Philip Sheppard (NC member, Business) and Kathryn Kleiman (NC member, NCDNHC), against which applications for new TLDs might be judged. The proposed principles, in their current iteration, incorporate the keywords Certainty, Honesty, Differentiation, Competition, Diversity, Semantics, Multiplicity and Simplicity. However, the working group has not so far achieved a consensus on the content or usefulness of the principles. ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #40 *************************