From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #42 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Friday, March 17 2000 Volume 01 : Number 042 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:56:27 -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 Kent Crispin wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 12:24:52PM -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote: >> > 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. >> >> To not give them any recognition is a slap in the face of the handful of >> companies who have worked within the process since its inception and >> shown the technical merits of new registries and proven their viability. > > The only such company is CORE. Companies that file lawsuits to force > their way into the IANA root, and in the meantime use rogue root zones, > can not by any stretch be said to be working "within the process". CORE is no better, Kent. IANA had no authority to grant to them. CORE was operating just as outside the process as IOD. I know you think by ignoring that point you can pretend it doesn't exist, but the reality is still there. If IANA did have the authority, then NSF wouldn't have directed NSI to not add any new gTLDs submitted by IANA. Your justification for giving CORE some higher position is as weak as Chris's for IOD. All applications, regardless of the prior work of the applicant, should be considered on their merits alone, and nothing more. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE40ViL8zLmV94Pz+IRAom6AJ9ZvqR3mfWek0Sz0QuVzz07Va5IUACeKgVg 4GkP9gla9Q1kBj87Wn0gWFE= =McwA - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:54:11 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: [wg-c] Exclusions I think that it's only fair that any company/entity that is a registrar should not be eligible for inclusion in the testbed phase for new registries. After the testbed, they should be allowed to apply, but to give a company testbed status in BOTH the registrar and registry phases is unfair to other companies. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:05:46 -0500 From: Mikki Barry Subject: RE: [wg-c] Restatement of wg-c discussion >Mallesons Stephen Jaques >Confidential communication How can something posted to a working group mailing list be confidential? > >Discussion of many of the items said to be "under discussion" in Mark >Measday's summary appears to be very thin. > > >What information should be made public by the registry(ies) and how? A: >under discussion > >The April 1999 WIPO Report, The Management of Internet Names and Addresses, >(which involved a far more extensive consultation process than this working >group can claim) made important recommendations on this point at paragraphs >66, 73, 81, 86 and 90. It can be found at < >http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/process/eng/processhome.html > > We've been over this before. The WIPO process ignored dissenting opinions, including those opinions of their own "panel of experts." The relevant Internet community was NOT consulted, was NOT informed, and was NOT allowed to comment. > >At the risk of incurring massive personal abuse from those who believe they >should be given licences to print money without any corresponding >obligations, these recommendations would seem to be the minimum >requirements. One more time, privacy interests need to be protected from oppressive governments, from would-be stalkers, from those who wish to persecute others because of their beliefs, and from reverse hijackers who want licenses to steal domain names from others. > >Warwick A Rothnie >Partner >Mallesons Stephen Jaques Melbourne >Direct line (61 3) 9643 4254 >Fax (61 3) 9643 5999 > > > > >-----Original Message----- >Obligations of the registry(ies). A: under discussion > >(please note this does not represent my personal opinions) > > >MM ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 15:10:15 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Exclusions - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 16-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > I think that it's only fair that any company/entity that is a registrar > should not be eligible for inclusion in the testbed phase for new > registries. After the testbed, they should be allowed to apply, but > to give a company testbed status in BOTH the registrar and > registry phases is unfair to other companies. Why? What does one have to do with the other? - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE40WnX8zLmV94Pz+IRAsulAKDWAxkoQcn8Qmaydd2WgOzkkxTEIgCdFWKC jJz/LwgrwRPfGw4VOUpZ2PM= =Ziwi - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:51:03 +1100 From: "Rothnie, Warwick" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Restatement of wg-c discussion Mallesons Stephen Jaques Confidential communication   Please disregard the confidentiality notice which is, as rightly pointed out, meaningless in this context. Mikki Barry said: >We've been over this before. The WIPO process ignored dissenting >opinions, including those opinions of their own "panel of experts." >The relevant Internet community was NOT consulted, was NOT informed, >and was NOT allowed to comment. Three published RFCs? 1358 registered participants? Representation from 74 countries? 420 subscribers to the Listserver? Relevant WIPO website activity exceeding 100,000 hits per month in 5 of the 9 months, 60,ooo in two other and 20,000 in the last two? Just for starters. The published lists of organisations and individuals who made submissions seems to cover quite a diverse range of interests, including some of the regular protagonists on this list. >One more time, privacy interests need to be protected from oppressive >governments, from would-be stalkers, from those who wish to persecute >others because of their beliefs, and from reverse hijackers who want >licenses to steal domain names from others. Even though "the relevant Internet community [or should that be the RELEVANT internet community?] was not consulted, not informed and by some devious KGB/CIA not allowed to comment, the WIPO report does somehow manage to weigh these factors in the balance and come to the unsurprising conclusion that the real world needs some means of protection against the blackmailers, would-be hijackers and would-be conspirators. Warwick A Rothnie Partner Mallesons Stephen Jaques Melbourne Direct line (61 3) 9643 4254 Fax (61 3) 9643 5999 - -----Original Message----- From: Mikki Barry [mailto:ooblick@netpolicy.com] Sent: Friday, 17 March 2000 10:06:AM To: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: RE: [wg-c] Restatement of wg-c discussion >Mallesons Stephen Jaques >Confidential communication How can something posted to a working group mailing list be confidential? > >Discussion of many of the items said to be "under discussion" in Mark >Measday's summary appears to be very thin. > > >What information should be made public by the registry(ies) and how? A: >under discussion > >The April 1999 WIPO Report, The Management of Internet Names and Addresses, >(which involved a far more extensive consultation process than this working >group can claim) made important recommendations on this point at paragraphs >66, 73, 81, 86 and 90. It can be found at < >http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/process/eng/processhome.html > > > >At the risk of incurring massive personal abuse from those who believe they >should be given licences to print money without any corresponding >obligations, these recommendations would seem to be the minimum >requirements. > >Warwick A Rothnie >Partner >Mallesons Stephen Jaques Melbourne >Direct line (61 3) 9643 4254 >Fax (61 3) 9643 5999 > > > > >-----Original Message----- >Obligations of the registry(ies). A: under discussion > >(please note this does not represent my personal opinions) > > >MM ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:55:24 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] Exclusions > I think that it's only fair that any company/entity that is a registrar > should not be eligible for inclusion in the testbed phase for new > registries. After the testbed, they should be allowed to apply, but > to give a company testbed status in BOTH the registrar and > registry phases is unfair to other companies. Makes sense to me - Indeed I would go further and suggest that any person or company that has a significant interest in an already existing TLD (to my mind, *any* TLD, whether gTLD, ccTLD, or otherwise) ought to be encouraged to fully focus on developing the asset it already has and not be permitted to obtain a second bite from the TLD apple. By "significant" interest, I would mean anyone/company that is a registry or registrar for a TLD or any person who has a meaningful control power over such a registry or registrar. Thus, for example, I would not want NSI or any of the current registries to have a bid for new TLDs. Nor would, for instance, Verisign or SAIC, given their interest in NSI. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:45:59 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] The scope of gTLDs At 10:19 AM 3/16/00 -0500, Kevin J. Connolly wrote: >(3) Synthesis: Neither the registry nor the registrar will act as name >cop to prevent anyone from registering a SLD name under a gTLD which has a >charter. Neither will the registry or registrar do Kevin, I applaud your effort but, alas, the result is lacking. Discussions about chartered TLDs have been for the purpose of specifying restrictive SLD procedures. That is chartered TLDs are specifically about policing. Existing gTLDs have a stated purpose, but no policing. Hence, com/net/org are examples of exactly what you propose. mil/int/... are not. The administrative bases for the two approaches are fundamentally different. open schemes lend themselves well to economies of scale. chartered/policed mechanisms do not. Open schemes are... well, open. Chartered schemes are, by definition, closed. And, for reference, an attempt to use only post-registration enforcement is a sure way to force dilution of the charter. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:52:57 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Restatement of wg-c discussion On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 10:51:03AM +1100, Rothnie, Warwick wrote: > Even though "the relevant Internet community [or should that be the RELEVANT > internet community?] was not consulted, not informed and by some devious > KGB/CIA not allowed to comment, the WIPO report does somehow manage to weigh > these factors in the balance and come to the unsurprising conclusion that > the real world needs some means of protection against the blackmailers, > would-be hijackers and would-be conspirators. Yes, the real world does need exactly that. Perhaps when those blackmailers, would-be hijackers and would-be conspirators stop demanding they get their way and start cooperating with the real world, things will seem much more reasonable. You see, those terms--"Blackmailers", "hijackers", and "conspirators", are all really a matter of perspective. And for the longest time, many of us have been fighting the good fight against them. It just seems that our "them" is the opposite of your "them". We can readily see that your "them" has capitulated and recapituated, giving ground at every turn, in the feeble hope that one day we might be able to get on with this process. In turn, our "them" has steadfastly denied any such concessions to civility or cooperation, demanding instead that their interests above all others be served. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:56:32 -0500 From: Mikki Barry Subject: RE: [wg-c] Restatement of wg-c discussion >Three published RFCs? 1358 registered participants? Representation from 74 >countries? 420 subscribers to the Listserver? Relevant WIPO website >activity exceeding 100,000 hits per month in 5 of the 9 months, 60,ooo in >two other and 20,000 in the last two? Just for starters. The published >lists of organisations and individuals who made submissions seems to cover >quite a diverse range of interests, including some of the regular >protagonists on this list. Excuse me, but the number of RFCs, participants, representatives, etc. is meaningless if they didn't even listen to their own panel of experts. Several large segments of the world's population said that none of the recommendations should even be applied to their sovereign countries. Hits per month are also meaningless. Amazon.com gets more hits than that. Should we follow their lead on intellectual property protection? > > >One more time, privacy interests need to be protected from oppressive > >governments, from would-be stalkers, from those who wish to persecute > >others because of their beliefs, and from reverse hijackers who want > >licenses to steal domain names from others. > >Even though "the relevant Internet community [or should that be the RELEVANT >internet community?] was not consulted, not informed and by some devious >KGB/CIA not allowed to comment, the WIPO report does somehow manage to weigh >these factors in the balance and come to the unsurprising conclusion that >the real world needs some means of protection against the blackmailers, >would-be hijackers and would-be conspirators. > As has been clearly proven before, the number of domain name disputes in proportion with the number of registrations has actually gone DOWN over the past years, not up. Further, who is going to protect us against the blackmailers, would-be reverse hijackers, and the conspiracy theorists? Certainly not a biased group like WIPO. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:07:26 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: [wg-c] "within the process" On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 01:56:27PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >> The only such company is CORE. Companies that file lawsuits to force >> their way into the IANA root, and in the meantime use rogue root zones, >> can not by any stretch be said to be working "within the process". > >CORE is no better, Kent. IANA had no authority to grant to them. That is neither true nor relevant. 1) It's not true, because IANA in fact did authorize TLDs -- many TLDs -- over its tenure. 2) More important, it's not relevant, because whether IANA had authority or not, that was the only process available, and CORE diligently played by the best set of rules it knew. IODesign, on the other hand, filed a lawsuit when the process didn't go the way it wanted. The fact that the USG came along and usurped the process is not CORE's fault, and when that happened, CORE played that game as well, though they most certainly weren't happy about it. In addition, there is a fundamental logical fallacy in what you say -- withdrawal of a delegation of authority does not mean that the entity from which that authority was withdrawn never had the authority. Indeed the rules have changed; CORE has done its best to play constructively within the rules despite the moving target. IODesign, on the other hand, sits like a hungry tick looking at what it thinks is a throbbing artery, interested only in its private gain. CORE is certainly not a perfect organization. By any measure I know, there are some CORE registrars that have, shall we say, less than perfect ethics, and, since CORE is a member organization, its behavior will be influenced to some extent by those bad apples. But when push came to shove, CORE has made the right choices -- there was, for example, a period of time when there was serious discussion of forming an alternate root zone. But that alternative was rejected, because of the potential for destabilizing the Internet. IODesign, on the other hand, has no concern about the stability of the Internet, and actively supports alternate root zones. >>CORE was >operating just as outside the process as IOD. You are talking about some process that never existed, then. CORE was dealing with the only real game in town, and followed the admittedly vague rules as best it could. >I know you think by ignoring >that point you can pretend it doesn't exist, but the reality is still there. >If IANA did have the authority, then NSF wouldn't have directed NSI to not add >any new gTLDs submitted by IANA. You have this exactly backward. In fact, this example demonstrates conclusively that IANA *did* have the authority -- otherwise NSF would not have acted. Prior to that action on the part of NSF NSI did add TLDs on IANA's authority. NSF changed the rules. >Your justification for giving CORE some higher position is as weak as Chris's >for IOD. > >All applications, regardless of the prior work of the applicant, should be >considered on their merits alone, and nothing more. Yay! We agree on something. As far as selection of registries is concerned, I agree. I am not arguing that CORE should be given special treatment as a registry -- registries should be selected according to technical merit, business case, and perhaps other factors such as geographic diversity. As far as special treatment for TLD names, that is a totally orthogonal issue -- since I believe that names should be selected completely independent of any registry selection, the IAHC names should be evaluated independently of their connection with CORE -- and on that basis I think there are very good arguments that they should be used, since there is a very large user awareness of these names. It is obvious that the pre-registrations that some CORE registrars have could have no special standing -- that is, if I had pre-registered "kent.nom" with some CORE registrar there can be absolutely no guarantee that I would actually get kent.nom -- some other person, using some other registrar (perhaps not a CORE registrar) could register kent.nom before me. If I had prepaid that registration, the registrar could try to get it for me as soon as registrations opened, but kent is a common name, and there could be 5 other registrars doing the same thing. However, if the TLD names are selected independently of the registries, and announced some number of months in advance of registry operation, then *every* ICANN accredited registrar would have the opportunity to pre-register domains in the selected TLDs. No registrar could guarantee the name, of course, because the registrars are all independent. (This was true in CORE, it would be even more true in this case.) So, indeed, the pre-registrations by CORE registries would give them a *small* advantage -- though I don't know, I believe that the number of pre-registrations is in the low 10s of thousands. But given a period of time between the selection of names and selection of registries, the independent ICANN accredited registrars could well have a better chance of getting a name registered. (This is because CORE as a whole is a single registrar, and, presuming some round robin algorithm is adopted to ensure equal access by registrars, CORE will get its one chance in N to register a name, as its slot goes by. Of course, those CORE registrars who are also ICANN accredited registrars will have a better chance.) So, given that registry selection is independent of name selection, I don't see that use of the IAHC names would give CORE registrars a significant advantage. There would be some, I grant, but it would be pretty small. Note: The IAHC names were all intended to be essentially open TLDs -- it has never been contemplated that they ever have more than advisory charters. I think it is a fairly safe bet that any open TLDs will have to be run as shared registries, and that any ICANN accredited registrar will be able to register in those TLDs; that they will be under the UDRP rules, and that basically they will be run in a manner very similar to .com, .net, and .org. Any significant deviation from this would, in my opinion, run into significant opposition from NSI, from the IP community, from the current registrars, and a great many other sources. If CORE were by chance selected as a registry for .web they would be required to give equal access to *all* ICANN accredited registrars, including NSI (as registrar), CORE (as a single registrar), AOL (as registrar), IODesign (as registrar) and every other registrar. Precisely the same would be the case for IODesign, or any other approved registry. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:51:28 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p At 02:38 AM 3/16/00 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >For the record, I consider Garrin's Name.space, Crocker's IAHC proposal, >Ambler's .web, and Brunner's .naa all to be legitimate applicants for new >TLDs, and of the same moral status. > >The fact that some of these applicants, notably Crocker and Brunner, attempt >to elevant themselves above the others may detract from one's personal >evaluation of them, but is basically irrelevant to the work of this group. > >I suggest that this type of squabbling cease. For the record it is fascinating to see post-hoc analysis of history by those who were not involved, particularly when their interpretations so readily dismiss the first-hand data of those who were. Still, they are legitimate participants in the current process. The fact that the ignorance is underscored by a pointed effort at thoroughly personalizing perspectives may detract from one's personal evaluation of them. Unfortunately, it is extremely relevant to the quality of their input. For the record the IAHC proposal was authorized by a number of different agencies and was developed by a 12-person committee and ratified by more than 225 organizations. I have a large ego, but attributing the IAHC proposal to me -- even though I was its editor -- is rank distortion. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:32:03 -0800 (PST) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: Re: [wg-c] Exclusions Karl, it would appear that a document specifiing the requirements for applicatants to run a registry would would be within the scope of this working group. anyone interested in helping to develop a draft document? - -rick On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > I think that it's only fair that any company/entity that is a registrar > > should not be eligible for inclusion in the testbed phase for new > > registries. After the testbed, they should be allowed to apply, but > > to give a company testbed status in BOTH the registrar and > > registry phases is unfair to other companies. > > Makes sense to me - Indeed I would go further and suggest that any person > or company that has a significant interest in an already existing TLD (to > my mind, *any* TLD, whether gTLD, ccTLD, or otherwise) ought to be > encouraged to fully focus on developing the asset it already has and not > be permitted to obtain a second bite from the TLD apple. > > By "significant" interest, I would mean anyone/company that is a registry > or registrar for a TLD or any person who has a meaningful control power > over such a registry or registrar. > > Thus, for example, I would not want NSI or any of the current registries > to have a bid for new TLDs. Nor would, for instance, Verisign or SAIC, > given their interest in NSI. > > --karl-- > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:33:55 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > For the record the IAHC proposal was authorized by a number of different > agencies and was developed by a 12-person committee and ratified by more > than 225 organizations. I have a large ego, but attributing the IAHC > proposal to me -- even though I was its editor -- is rank distortion. But none of those agencies or organizations had any authority whatsoever. I can go get 225 signatures to a proposal to add .wxw to the roots and to let me manage it as a free domain registry. But unless one of those authorizing it is someone who actually has the authority to make it happen, it is just a worthless document. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE40ZmR8zLmV94Pz+IRAgkwAKDUuGKHqEroVZcLPs8DjhmyoEKDdACcC7NQ ak8wXvV0Ky9a9EpFR8SADuw= =hniQ - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:50:11 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call At 02:15 AM 3/16/00 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >We are having an indirect debate. It's time we made it more explicit. >Crispin and Crocker want "policy authority" to be separated from registry >operation because they want all authority over DNS to be centralized in >ICANN's hands. There are two fundamentally different notions of ICANN at 1. ICANN already has that authority (except for a portion which the US government is holding, but which is plans to hand over to ICANN.) Folks seem to forget that the hierarchical nature of the DNS requires that there be a single authority over the root and, therefore, over the entire system. Anyone else that gets authority gets it derivatively, from ICANN. 2. Yes, policy authority should be separated from administrative authority and it's perfectly fine to have administrative management separated from operations. >stake here. Those of us who want a registry-driven process see ICANN as a >mere coordinator of private initiatives, "private" meaning both commercial >and non-commercial activity -- activity driven by civil society, not by the If the DNS were not an infrastructure service and if some significant other factors were different, then taking this wonderfully, uniformly, simplistically free-market approach to DNS administration would make sense. Absent those operational realities, the purely free-market model with only a modicum of "coordination" is not realistic... for the DNS. >state. The other pole in this debate wants registries to be disposable >contractors and for everyone involved to be entirely dependent upon ICANN. They already ARE entirely dependent upon ICANN. You cannot wish away the technical nature and administrative imperative of the hierarchical DNS. >The "policy authority" would be beholden to ICANN, because it would have no >operational capability without ICANN's approval and intervention. The Exactly correct. >operational entity(s) would be headless horsemen, no business plan, no >strategy, just people willing to accept a ho-hum outsourcing contract. All Interesting leap into fantasy. All derivative analysis is equally separated from reality. People's conduct of businesses represents a rather broader range of motivations, styles, and achievements than the fantasy suggests. >Some of us view the Internet as a mechanism for coordinating autonomous >actors of civil society. Others view "Internet" as something that is "owned" >by a central entity (ICANN) that decides what is "good" for the rest of us. I'd venture to guess that not one participant in these discussions views the Internet as being owned by ICANN, or even seeks to have ICANN own the Internet. Certainly none has stated such a belief or goal. Hence, we have now moved from fantasy into mis-representation. Not a good direction. ICANN concerns administration of specific resources. They are essential to the Internet but are only a limited part of the Internet's mechanisms. Constant efforts to pretend that ICANN's scope is, or might be, far broader than it actually is serves nicely to distract productive discussion. It would help if folks refrained from attempting these distractions. >This is what the debate is about now. The debate is about administration of TLDs, not administration of the Internet. TLDs are part of a hierarchical structure for a service that is integral to the Internet. It is quite common for "free market" situations to have areas which are constrained, regulated or otherwise appear not to be part of a free market. For example, airline businesses are unregulated and (supposedly) operate as a free market. However air traffic controllers do not. So it would help if abstract exercises in mechanically procrustean over-simplification were avoided. Like most of life, the Internet involves complexities. Try to work with them. > > Another point: Several people, while casting votes in favor of the > > proposal, have commented that the proposal is acceptable to them only if > > the selection process is bounded by meaningful objective criteria, so that > > ICANN can't exercise wholly unbounded discretion in picking the 6-10. >That > > sounds right to me: It seems to me that that concern is important. At the > > same time, as Eric has recently pointed out (and Kent has emphasized > > previously), we haven't in fact made much progress in developing criteria > > that meaningfully limit ICANN's discretion. > >Jon, if we are talking about picking a miniscule number such as 6-10, there >is no way to limit ICANN's discretion meaningfully, except in a highly >general way such as the Sheppard/Kleiman principles. ICANN is going to >receive hundreds of potentially valid, desirable applications. As long as >you have highly constraining and entirely artificial scarcity, its choice >among them will be highly discretionary. That is built in to 6-10. It is >something we have been warned about from day one, but it is something we >will have to live with until the next round of additions. > >The S/K principles set some very broad guidelines. The first new TLDs should >differentiate, for example. They should not authorize some potentially >deceptive string. And so on. The principles are good enough for the >situation. Let's move on! hmm. i must be missing something. i agree with you... d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:58:22 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] "within the process" >Indeed the rules have changed; CORE has done its best to play >constructively within the rules despite the moving target. IODesign, on >the other hand, sits like a hungry tick looking at what it thinks is a >throbbing artery, interested only in its private gain. These words are dangerously close to libel, if they are not, in fact, libel. I demand an apology and retraction. This letter has been copied to IOD's council. Christopher Ambler ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:59:27 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p >For the record it is fascinating to see post-hoc analysis of history by >those who were not involved, particularly when their interpretations so >readily dismiss the first-hand data of those who were. Still, they are >legitimate participants in the current process. > >The fact that the ignorance is underscored by a pointed effort at >thoroughly personalizing perspectives may detract from one's personal >evaluation of them. Unfortunately, it is extremely relevant to the quality >of their input. My god, Dave. I could say the same thing - indeed I will - about IANA's involvement with IOD and the meeting of 31 July, 1996. You were not there. I was. Shut up and sit down, you're annoying. Christopher ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:18:45 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] Exclusions Sounds like a good idea to me. (No, I'm not volunteering to help develop the document. But I encourage other people to do so.) Jon At 06:32 PM 3/16/00 -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote: > >Karl, > >it would appear that a document specifiing the requirements for >applicatants to run a registry would would be within the scope of this >working group. > >anyone interested in helping to develop a draft document? > >-rick > >On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >> >> > I think that it's only fair that any company/entity that is a registrar >> > should not be eligible for inclusion in the testbed phase for new >> > registries. After the testbed, they should be allowed to apply, but >> > to give a company testbed status in BOTH the registrar and >> > registry phases is unfair to other companies. >> >> Makes sense to me - Indeed I would go further and suggest that any person >> or company that has a significant interest in an already existing TLD (to >> my mind, *any* TLD, whether gTLD, ccTLD, or otherwise) ought to be >> encouraged to fully focus on developing the asset it already has and not >> be permitted to obtain a second bite from the TLD apple. >> >> By "significant" interest, I would mean anyone/company that is a registry >> or registrar for a TLD or any person who has a meaningful control power >> over such a registry or registrar. >> >> Thus, for example, I would not want NSI or any of the current registries >> to have a bid for new TLDs. Nor would, for instance, Verisign or SAIC, >> given their interest in NSI. >> >> --karl-- >> >> >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:23:13 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] "within the process" - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Mar-2000 Kent Crispin wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 01:56:27PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >>> The only such company is CORE. Companies that file lawsuits to force >>> their way into the IANA root, and in the meantime use rogue root zones, >>> can not by any stretch be said to be working "within the process". >> >>CORE is no better, Kent. IANA had no authority to grant to them. > > That is neither true nor relevant. 1) It's not true, because IANA in > fact did authorize TLDs -- many TLDs -- over its tenure. No, it is not true. IANA was delegated authority to delegate ccTLDs, but NOT gTLDs without the approval of the NSF. This is a clear fact, Kent, and is not in dispute, or open to any interpretation. The NSF's statement to NSI is on the record, and is clear and concise to this point. > 2) More > important, it's not relevant, because whether IANA had authority or not, > that was the only process available, and CORE diligently played by the > best set of rules it knew. IODesign, on the other hand, filed a lawsuit CORE CREATED ITS OWN PROCESS with IANA'S help. I can go do the same, and with the same legitimacy. Just because no process existed doesn't mean you can go and create one with the authority of the only party who is able to actually GRANT that authority. With your argument, the efforts of PGMedia are legit, since no process existed, and their's was the only one available at the time they started it, and they did the best they could under those conditions, then their entire effort should be legitimized. Do you see the problem with your justifications, Kent? > In addition, there is a fundamental logical fallacy in what you say -- > withdrawal of a delegation of authority does not mean that the entity > from which that authority was withdrawn never had the authority. They never had the authority. It wasn't withdrawn. Please, prove me wrong. Point to a document from the NSF that gives IANA authority to create and add new gTLDs without it's consent. Please. I'd sure love to see one. I bet IOD would also. It would make a great exhibit in their court case. > You are talking about some process that never existed, then. CORE was > dealing with the only real game in town, and followed the admittedly > vague rules as best it could. Vague rules??? You mean no rules. So CORE tried to create some when it had no authority to do so. >>I know you think by ignoring >>that point you can pretend it doesn't exist, but the reality is still there. >>If IANA did have the authority, then NSF wouldn't have directed NSI to not >>add >>any new gTLDs submitted by IANA. > > You have this exactly backward. In fact, this example demonstrates > conclusively that IANA *did* have the authority -- otherwise NSF would > not have acted. NSF was merely clarifying, at the request of NSI. NSI asked what to do, because they expected the request to come in. NSF clarified that they were NOT to insert them, and that only the NSF could authorize such a process. This is all documented, Kent. > Prior to that action on the part of NSF NSI did add TLDs on IANA's > authority. NSF changed the rules. No, they added ccTLDs only, which NSF >>DID<< authorize IANA to do. This authorization didn't extend to gTLDs. NSF made that clear. >>Your justification for giving CORE some higher position is as weak as Chris's >>for IOD. >> >>All applications, regardless of the prior work of the applicant, should be >>considered on their merits alone, and nothing more. > > Yay! We agree on something. Good. The the point over CORE's lack of authority to advance their proposal is moot. > As far as selection of registries is concerned, I agree. I am not > arguing that CORE should be given special treatment as a registry -- > registries should be selected according to technical merit, business > case, and perhaps other factors such as geographic diversity. > However, if the TLD names are selected independently of the registries, > and announced some number of months in advance of registry operation, > then *every* ICANN accredited registrar would have the opportunity to > pre-register domains in the selected TLDs. No registrar could guarantee > the name, of course, because the registrars are all independent. (This > was true in CORE, it would be even more true in this case.) There you go again, forcing your shared registry model onto every new top level domain and every registry. This is not acceptable, and would never acheive consensus. > So, given that registry selection is independent of name selection, I > don't see that use of the IAHC names would give CORE registrars a > significant advantage. There would be some, I grant, but it would be > pretty small. This point is not valid. No such assurance exists. And nor should it. It is based on a faulty premise, that all top level domains should be shared registrar model. This is an unnecessary restriction, anticompetitive, etc. > I think it is a fairly safe bet that any open TLDs will have > to be run as shared registries, and that any ICANN accredited registrar > will be able to register in those TLDs; that they will be under the UDRP > rules, and that basically they will be run in a manner very similar to > .com, .net, and .org. Any significant deviation from this would, in my > opinion, run into significant opposition from NSI, from the IP > community, from the current registrars, and a great many other sources. This is not a safe bet, Kent. It is what CORE would want, to force their view of how things should be run on the entire domain namespace. But this will NEVER reach consensus. As for the so called opposition you claim would be significant, of course the registrars would want it that way, they make more money this way, but at the same time you are eliminating registry level competition and eliminating the many benefits from consumers that a real registry level competition and multiple business model industry could bring to the Internet. This would greatly benefit domain registrants. The IP community would oppose this only because it makes it harder for them to get more rights than they have under the law by simply manipulating ICANN's board to change a single document that gives them rights to hijack domains that a court would never give them the right to do. > Precisely the same would be the case for IODesign, or any other approved > registry. Only if CORE and you can force your view onto the entire domain namespace. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE40aUh8zLmV94Pz+IRAo+QAKDuwwdvlu4fELcb5m0L2MR/r2rE4gCfWrsm 8D1lNozPrWU840b88pGUC/I= =oEtJ - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #42 *************************