From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #69 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Monday, April 3 2000 Volume 01 : Number 069 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 01:48:07 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: [wg-c] RE: History & current events (RE: [ga] About GA membership again......) Hello Simon, I hope that you don't mind my including WG-C in this. You see D'Crock has been stating that the alternate root-servers have no bearing on the WG-C discussions. It took you a while, but this message contains sound argument that the alternative roots and TLD registries are very relevant. Contrary to what D'Crock states, those efforts were NOT rogue or renegade, although some participants may have acted improperly, due to the frustration. It's all about mis-managed expectations. The new TLD registries were lead to believe that they would be able to do business, from the root, long ago. Before anyone jumps on this, (I say this without casting any value-judgements) Simon has presented sufficient argument, including evidence well beyond the pale, that these are the true facts. Where it impacts WG-C is the context under which we have to work. Promises were made and expectations were set. Rightly or wrongly, they can not be ignored, as D'Crock suggests. How we handle it is an altogether different issue. BTW, this story paints the IAHC in a most vile color. Since, D'Crock headed that effort, he gets painted with that same color. The two-year, continuous, pogrom that, D'Crock has launched, and continues to maintain, to marginalize those folks as rogue and renegade, is most vile indeed. Chris Ambler is correct, these were pioneers. D'Crock is wrong, they are not rogues. They were following a process that the IANA itself set in motion, under color of the USG/NFS, just as the IAHC was also a part of that process. It is too bad that the leader of the IAHC effort decided to try and re-write history, by attempting to blot out the pioneer effort. A lot of this bickering wouldn't exist. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Simon > Higgs > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 8:33 PM > To: ga@dnso.org; roberto.gaetano@voila.fr > Subject: History & current events (RE: [ga] About GA membership > again......) > > > At 01:05 AM 4/2/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > >Simon Higgs wrote: > > > > > >I'd also like to propose that the pre-IAHC work with IANA be > > >recognized, and that an iTLD constituency be created. Constituents > > >can from known contributors to the Jon Postel new TLD/registry > > >drafts, or other new TLD/registry Internet Drafts published > > >during 1996, or are named on the iTLD applicant list that Jon > > >Postel published on behalf of IANA to iahc-discuss. > > > > > >The purpose of the iTLD Constituency is to create new > > >registries that will compete at the registry-level with NSI > > >(currently no competition exists for gTLDs or rTLDs at the > > >registry-level). > > > >What I do not understand is it is possible to dig into > pre-history of DN > > policy and, at the same time, forget about the most recent events. > >I know I will sound like Amadeu, quoting his grand-mother, but this > >seems to me like my uncle, remembering everything (so he > claims) about > >the war, but not remembering what he did yesterday. > > I like the analogy, but what "happened yesterday" does not > overlap with > pre-history. ICANN has recently started the accreditation of > registrars, > and opened competition to NSI at that level. Pre-history, as > you call it, > is the prior TLD application(s) to IANA, via the sanctioned RFC1591 > process, to create new TLDs in the root, and authorize and > delegate these > new TLDs to new registries (i.e. back-end registries to > registrars, further > opening competition, etc.). This has not been done. > > You'll notice a very small number of people who should know > better call > this "unsanctioned", "rogue effort", etc. But, and I feel > this has to be > repeated until people get it, the RFC1591 process is a > legally binding > application process (for the sake of preventing arguing here, I'm not > saying "must delegate", but just an application process). > After all, IANA, > NSF, and Network Solutions have based the entire domain name creation > process upon it. > > The outline of the process is that domain name template > applications were > sent to "hostmaster@internic.net". Those for the root level > (TLDs) were > then assigned an ID number and forwarded to IANA. These > applications were > then put in a file, awaiting the outcome of the process to > introduce new > TLDs, which hasn't happened yet. This (or the authority for it) is > documented in a number of places: > > Co-op agreement solicitation: > ftp://ftp.internic.net/nsf/nren-solicitation.txt > "This project solicitation is issued pursuant to the National Science > Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq) > and the Federal > Cooperative Agreement Act (31 U.S.C. 6305) and is not subject to the > Federal Acquisition Regulations." > "The provider of registration services will function in > accordance with the > provisions of RFC 1174." > > Co-op agreement: > http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/internic/cooperative-agr > eement/agreement.html > "This agreement is awarded under the authority of the > National Science > Foundation Act (R@ U.S.C. 186 et seq.) and the Federal Grant and > Cooperative Agreement Act (31 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.)" > "The Awardee shall provide registration services in > accordance with the > provisions of RFC 1174" > > RFC1174: > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1174.html > "The IANA has the discretionary authority to delegate > portions of this > responsibility and, with respect to numeric network and > autonomous system > identifiers, has lodged this responsibility with an Internet > Registry (IR)." > > Internet Society: > http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/iana.shtml > "The IANA has managed the root of the DNS to promote stability and > robustness. This role is primarily one of making minor > technical decisions > about [..] evaluating any additions to the established > generic top level > domains which are proposed by the community." > > PGP Media vs. Network Solutions: > http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI08111997.jpg > "The Foundation [NSF] and NSI agreed that new TLDs would be > added only in > accordance with Request For Comments 1591. (RFC1591, of > course, is the > successor to RFC1174, which was invoked by paragraph C in the > cooperative > agreement's statement of work." > [Note my recent request for information about the current status] > > So, the problem that exists today is that there are > historical precedents > set, and a number of TLD applications which were submitted in > accordance > with the above documented practices, in areas that ICANN has > not yet made > decisions about. Thus the request to have these applicants > recognized, and > represented within ICANN. > > > > > Best Regards, > > Simon > > -- > The future is still out there... > > -- > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list. > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message). > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 13:05:11 +1000 From: Andrew Dalgleish Subject: RE: [wg-c] Excellent suggestion from slashdot -- apparently not i n 10-23 report > -----Original Message----- > From: James Love [SMTP:love@cptech.org] > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 02:13 > To: megacz@cmu.edu > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Excellent suggestion from slashdot -- > apparently not in 10-23 report > > I would support the general thrust of Adam Megacz's comment. However, > there should be space for exceptions. .gov, .int, .edu and other > restricted domains are among the types of exceptions I am talking > about, > as well as the .usbanks (the US FDIC proposed), or the .union proposal > (is .naa one of these?), and some others I have heard about but which > have not yet surfaced, in both the commerical and non-commerical (and > mixed) areas. [Andrew Dalgleish] What I don't understand is why we need TLDs in the form ".xxbanks" (where xx is the country code). Surely this should be handled under the relevant ccTLD? (such that ".usbanks" becomes ".banks.us"). This would allow each country to regulate their own segment of the domain name space, according to local needs and regulations. Keep all country-specific domains out of the global name-space. (This applies to *all* countries, not just the USA.) Regards, Andrew Dalgleish ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 00 00:43:05 EDT From: Richard Subject: Re: [RE: [wg-c] Excellent suggestion from slashdot -- apparently not i n 10-23 report] DoC's Becky Burr actually proposed that country code idea (banks.us) to me as an option, though it still seems ergonomicaly a bit cumbersome. The idea for the FDIC would be to have a controlled domain, the membership being literally restricted to those with a charter, which would be easy to remember and verify. Certainly, a chartered TLD would fit that bill, though I wonder if unlimited TLDs could be another tower of babel. If we did have a TLD, unlike other TLDs I see theorized on this list, it would carry more meaning as it would be a guarantee of insurance coverage due to the control we'd exercise. In effect, unless the TLD is chartered, they would all become as meaningless (maybe arbitrary is a better word) as .NET, for example. Global banks, and there are getting to be more of them, might welcome a global TLD that would reassure global customers, but would probably be the province of the Bank of International Settlement, or some other global group. Richard Campbell, US FDIC aka RCampbell@FDIC.GOV Andrew Dalgleish wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Love [SMTP:love@cptech.org] > > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 02:13 > > To: megacz@cmu.edu > > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org > > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Excellent suggestion from slashdot -- > > apparently not in 10-23 report > > > > I would support the general thrust of Adam Megacz's comment. However, > > there should be space for exceptions. .gov, .int, .edu and other > > restricted domains are among the types of exceptions I am talking > > about, > > as well as the .usbanks (the US FDIC proposed), or the .union proposal > > (is .naa one of these?), and some others I have heard about but which > > have not yet surfaced, in both the commerical and non-commerical (and > > mixed) areas. > [Andrew Dalgleish] > > What I don't understand is why we need TLDs in the form ".xxbanks" > (where xx is the country code). > > Surely this should be handled under the relevant ccTLD? > (such that ".usbanks" becomes ".banks.us"). > > This would allow each country to regulate their own segment of the > domain name space, according to local needs and regulations. > > Keep all country-specific domains out of the global name-space. > (This applies to *all* countries, not just the USA.) > > Regards, > Andrew Dalgleish ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 00:45:46 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Excellent suggestion from slashdot -- apparently not i n 10-23 report [The infixed jurisdiction sectorial proposal, xxFOO, where xx == some ccTLD and FOO == some sectorially suggestive string, is one of the dumber things I've seen, but it does provide the opportunity to remark that the capacity to regulate based upon territorial geography isn't a requirement for gTLDs. A capacity to regulate, however, without reference to territorial geography, is a) an operational requirement (IAB unique DNS root, etc.), b) a marks requirement (WIPO final report, etc.), and c) for some partially articulated reasons, a requirement for ICANN (or its sucessors in interest should ICANN fail, an outcome more possible now than a year ago, IMO), and other institutions, the US included. This WG appears to be in terminal thrash, erratically bumping from old noise to newcommer nonsense, in a race to discredit its best work before it can be discarded by its intended recipients. ] Andrew Dalgleish commenting on James Love's comment on some unfortuante wooly-mindedness from two or more sources: > What I don't understand is why we need TLDs in the form ".xxbanks" > (where xx is the country code). > > Surely this should be handled under the relevant ccTLD? > (such that ".usbanks" becomes ".banks.us"). > > This would allow each country to regulate their own segment of the > domain name space, according to local needs and regulations. > > Keep all country-specific domains out of the global name-space. > (This applies to *all* countries, not just the USA.) We, or our sucessors in interest, must eventually take an honest swing at sectorial regulatory interests which are multi-jurisdictional, sweeping the dust under quilts of nationalist rugs isn't a proper job. I'm not cheered, so I won't bother to conclude with my habitual "cheers". Eric ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 22:20:16 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Excellent suggestion from slashdot -- apparently not - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03-Apr-2000 Eric Brunner wrote: > This WG appears to be in terminal thrash, erratically bumping from old noise > to newcommer nonsense, in a race to discredit its best work before it can be > discarded by its intended recipients. For once, myself and Mr Brunner agree. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ 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/ iD8DBQE46CoQ8zLmV94Pz+IRAiZtAKCCLZrVZR5STZ/r5rou1yEWYZK6KgCgmK7+ ukjXyebOJBHfNzy+hddhq4o= =Ctg0 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 22:25:44 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [RE: [wg-c] Excellent suggestion from slashdot -- apparently - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 31-Dec-1969 Richard wrote: > DoC's Becky Burr actually proposed that country code idea (banks.us) to me as > an option, though it still seems ergonomicaly a bit cumbersome. The idea for > the FDIC would be to have a controlled domain, the membership being literally > restricted to those with a charter, which would be easy to remember and > verify. Certainly, a chartered TLD would fit that bill, though I wonder if > unlimited TLDs could be another tower of babel. The DNS is the absolute worse way to promote this concept. The much better way of doing it is to have a licensed "FDIC Insured" graphic image, which is linked to a database link on the FDIC website which can be used to verify the status of the bank referenced on the website. Much like what Verisign and Thawte use for people with SSL Certs to link to on their sites, so that their clients can verify that the SSL Cert was issued to the party they are doing business with. This is much more efficient, and much easier to setup, and even more secure. The DNS is not the end all answer for all things internet. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ 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/ iD8DBQE46CtY8zLmV94Pz+IRAvI4AJ9XDvVtl/ZBv/k7ICeC9TuiXcm8rACgpqoL 4LRjRc0eBp8XVCGwc6bqnik= =5aD9 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 00 09:03:03 EDT From: Richard Subject: Re: [Re: [RE: [wg-c] Excellent suggestion from slashdot -- apparently] Actually the idea of a registered logo/certificate is a wonderful concept, but almost useless in reality. Anyone can copy a logo, and anyone can dummy up its behavior. We've been down this road; even the ABA's own logo on its own website differs from page to page. They tried hard on a logo, but the effort has not caught on. Why? Liability and recognition. How's a consumer to know? Look for the union label? So, while I certainly agree that a logo is a great idea, the reality is that the DNS name is by far more recognized. It may not be how it was intended to be used, but there it is. For the FDIC, and I think all banks globally, this isn't a problem right now. The scams the SEC is fighting are not feasible with banks since there really isn't any electronic money yet, and ACH transfers take time. However, when electronic money does happen, or ACH transfers become instantaneous, then the problem will become acute. And while I know I'm a newcomer, neophyte AND rehash a bit, I also hope that the veterans in this working group aren't fighting yesterday's battles. "William X. Walsh" wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 31-Dec-1969 Richard wrote: > > DoC's Becky Burr actually proposed that country code idea (banks.us) to me as > > an option, though it still seems ergonomicaly a bit cumbersome. The idea for > > the FDIC would be to have a controlled domain, the membership being literally > > restricted to those with a charter, which would be easy to remember and > > verify. Certainly, a chartered TLD would fit that bill, though I wonder if > > unlimited TLDs could be another tower of babel. > > The DNS is the absolute worse way to promote this concept. The much better way > of doing it is to have a licensed "FDIC Insured" graphic image, which is linked > to a database link on the FDIC website which can be used to verify the status > of the bank referenced on the website. Much like what Verisign and Thawte use > for people with SSL Certs to link to on their sites, so that their clients can > verify that the SSL Cert was issued to the party they are doing business with. > > This is much more efficient, and much easier to setup, and even more secure. > > The DNS is not the end all answer for all things internet. > > - -- > William X. Walsh > http://userfriendly.com/ > 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/ > > iD8DBQE46CtY8zLmV94Pz+IRAvI4AJ9XDvVtl/ZBv/k7ICeC9TuiXcm8rACgpqoL > 4LRjRc0eBp8XVCGwc6bqnik= > =5aD9 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1 ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #69 *************************